Wednesday, July 9, 2025
Home Blog Page 19

Movie Review (Sundance 2025): ‘Sly Lives!’: Another Exciting and Reverential Doc From Questlove


Director: Questlove
Stars: André 3000, Chaka Khan, George Clinton

Synopsis: It focuses on the life and legacy of Sly and the Family Stone, telling the story behind the rise, reign and fadeout of one of pop music’s most influential artists.


Questlove returns to Sundance after his Oscar-winning Summer of Soul with another documentary examining the scope of Black artistry. Only this time, he channels his focus into a singular group: Sly and the Family Stone. And again keeping in line with his previous film, Questlove has provided his latest with an alternate title captured in parentheticals: Sly Lives! (aka The Burden of Black Genius). And everything one could hope to gather about this documentary is right there in either title. This documentary is very much about Sly and the Family Stone, and the borderline unquantifiable impact they have made on music. But in so many ways, this film extends far beyond the group and the man at its center. Their story is just the vessel through which Questlove begins his examination. This film attempts to question the duality of what it means to be a Black artist, and a Black genius, in any capacity. And while much of this film is reverential, and celebratory of the legacy of such an iconic group, it refuses to shy away from the devastating effects such a storied history had on the individuals at the center of it all.

Sly Lives!' Review: Questlove's Doc Gives Sly Stone His Flowers

Early on in the film, after a ridiculously cool and fast-paced introduction, Questlove pumps the brakes completely. We see Sly Stone preparing for an interview a bit later into the prime of his career. The reporter attempts to question the seemingly downward trajectory he’s been facing. Stone replies with the simple statement that “He didn’t blow anything”, and that he feels he never changed. It’s a sobering statement whether you know anything about the man or not. The reason being is that Questlove surrounds this section of the film with fellow bandmates, historians, and contemporary artists and icons who all allude to Stone’s issues after fame. From there, it grows into a larger statement on Black artistry, and how Black artists are viewed differently not just by the public, but by the industry at large. While legendary artists like D’Angelo or André 3000 have different thought processes in regards to the pressures of Black genius, they both appear in agreement that the toll it takes is a rather large one on an individual. It’s clear that, upon being asked, they understand the weight of the question. It’s a loaded question in the sense that there’s so much to cover contextually, subjectively, and theoretically. Questlove understands this too, and opts for a fragmented approach in this documentary that speaks to his innate artistic sensibilities.

There’s an undeniable rush to hearing music presented in the context of a documentary. And if it can be seen in a loud, dark theater? One of the most enriching experiences a viewer could have. As the film makes its way through an iconic catalog full of lush music that pioneered the artform, we arguably arrive at the peak of the mountain. There are many songs by Sly and the Family Stone that could surely be counted as their best. But there’s perhaps no song more iconic in their catalog than “Dance to the Music.” It’s one of the songs that practically transcends the artists who created it. To detail why a piece of art is so pivotal, so brilliant, so legendary in its status is a very difficult task. But aside from letting the music merely speak for itself (and come on, how can hearing this song not get you dancing in your seat?), Questlove takes an approach to detailing this song that replicates his approach to this entire documentary. Visualized in a very clever way, and detailed through music theory by a fellow artist, “Dance to the Music” is broken down into individual pieces. Each instrument is given its own moment to shine and is allowed a moment to be placed into the greater whole of the song. Each individual layer is then added together to create something magical. With his fragmented approach to telling Stone’s story and examining the burden of Black genius, Questlove provides details about the variety of experiences within Stone’s life to showcase the greatness, the tragedy, and the lasting effect on music history that he had. These parts all make way to a culmination, and exist beyond the mere moments in which they occurred much like the different instruments coming together to create a sensation. It’s a thrilling approach to documentary filmmaking.

Another wonderful element of Questlove’s direction is how stylish it is. Despite always remaining respectful to the reckoning occurring in the film, there is a playful tone to the style of Sly Lives!. This documentary is both reverential and celebratory of all that Stone has accomplished as an artist. It rarely enters a dry spell. Questlove is consistently employing exciting imagery and media formats to make for a cinematic experience that’s as exciting as listening to Sly and the Family Stone. He’s also not afraid to make choices that speak to how genuinely interesting of an artist he is. If the music of Sly and the Family Stone can be described as anything, it’s lush and constantly surprising to listeners. And for as stylish as this documentary is, there’s a fair amount that is particularly muted in response. It makes for an interesting clash of visual language, but it fits together nicely within the larger conversation being had throughout the film. Many of the talking heads for example, are mainly static shots in front of a starkly deep red or blue background. There will occasionally be close-ups, or quick action shots within the same space. It makes for a nice, simple contrast with the lush images and audio found throughout the rest of the film. While it can occasionally feel a bit fragmented, it’s great to see a musician so known for experimenting with style doing the same in his filmmaking career. They’re risks and slight missteps that can be looked past in the name of genuine creativity and artistry. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily give a pass to the third act being a bit rocky. Segments of it take on the form of a traditional description of a fall from fame and become a bit directionless. Luckily, Questlove manages to land the plane by ultimately looping Stone’s later years back into examining how the public and the industry can so easily turn on Black artists.

There’s a palpable sadness to how Questlove captures Stone’s later years. It should be pointed out that throughout Sly Lives!, we witness a meteoric and awe-inspiring rise for Stone. What he did for music will be heard and cherished for generations to come. And one of the personal bombshells of this film arrives in the final third. In 1971, nearing the dissolution of the group and the rising legal troubles of Stone, it’s briefly mentioned in a newscast that Stone was only 30 at the time. It’s a baffling realization when looking back on all that Stone’s music had soundtracked throughout history up until that point. So while referring to his later years isn’t really all that late, it’s another painful reminder of the added pressures Black artists faced and continue to face. During a talk show appearance, Stone referred to there being “a pressure on all of us.” Through his musical output, he provided artists the freedom to experiment and create boldly without shame. This gift, coupled with the toll success takes, forced Stone into a zone where he seemed to do all he can to remain relevant. This is an artist that has given the world so much, and in his times of struggle due to substance abuse, the public, the industry, and the government all used his struggles to be made an example of. It’s deeply upsetting, as family members and former bandmates reckon with the alternate paths life could have taken them on had the world been more kind to a man who needed help rather than damnation. But in the end, despite a tear-inducing final moment, Questlove leaves us with a film that hopefully causes celebration and the cultural reignition of an electrifying artist. He depicts a fraction of the iconic samplings of Sly and the Family Stone across hip-hop history. He highlights the various contemporary artists who pay direct homage to the cover of the 1971 album, “There’s a Riot Goin’ On.” With this documentary, Questlove and the various people who are asked about it throughout the film admit there is a burden on Black genius. But despite that burden, there are artists who rise to the occasion and aim to shatter it over time. Sly Stone can clearly be described in many different ways. Many people in the film highlight this through a rapid-fire montage. But at the end of the day, it seems that the way Questlove wants people to remember Sly Stone most is to remember that he lives. He lives through all that he has given us.


Sly Lives! (aka The Burden of Black Genius) is celebrating its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival in the Premieres category. It is scheduled to be released on February 13, 2025.

Grade: B

Episode 621: Reacting to 2025 Oscar Nominations

This week’s episode is brought to you by Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Follow us on social media for your chance to win a FREE digital code!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, the great Ryan McQuade comes back on the show as we discuss the 2025 Oscar nominations! It’s been a chaotic awards season with a lot of uncertainty, so there was plenty to talk about when comes to this year’s crop of nominees. And, of course, it’s always great to have Ryan back to help us break it all down.

– 2025 Oscar Nominations (7:38)
We begin and end the show this week by discussing the this year’s Oscar nominations. With Emilia Pérez leading the way with 13 nominations, there’s plenty to discuss as to how things got to this point, especially given the discourse and the film’s polarization. The Best Picture lineup isn’t bad, however we do talk about how the rest of the categories leave something to be desired.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 610 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2024!


– 2025 Oscar Nominations Cont’d (52:04)
After the break, we continue talking about this year’s Oscar nominations and our favorites of the morning. Much of the morning felt uninspired, but there were some really fun surprises along the way. The Wild Robot in sound. A Different Man in make-up. The Substance in general being so heavily recognized despite it being a true horror film, something The Academy has mostly stayed away from historically. We also talk about how The Brutalist might have the best path to the big prize once we get to the Oscars ceremony.

– Music
I Could Use A Boost – Kris Bowers
Overture (Bus) – Daniel Blumberg

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 620

Next week on the show:

David Lynch Retrospective

David Lynch arrives at the Governors Awards on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019, at the Dolby Ballroom in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Op-Ed: Watching The Before Trilogy in Reverse (and Other Musings On Its 30th Anniversary) 

There’s no movie trilogy out there quite like Richard Linklater’s Before Trilogy. From 1995 to 2013, Linklater and his collaborators Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy traced the relationship between Jesse and Celine from puppy love to a weathered marriage. The three films are amazing to rewatch for two reasons: its magnificent craftsmanship reveals itself further through repeat viewings and it evolves and changes shape as you get older. Indeed, I watched the Before Trilogy as a whole for the first time since entering a multi-year committed relationship and found it a rewarding and somewhat unsettling experience. 

That’s especially true because I watched the Before Trilogy in reverse. I started with Before Midnight (2013), then traveled back in time for Before Sunrise (2004), and ended at the beginning with Before Sunrise (1995). I  did that as an experiment. And now I firmly believe that these movies could and should be watched in any order to appreciate just how much they call back and call forward to each other. The next time I queue these movies up, I will for sure mix up the viewing order. 

The Before Trilogy in reverse led to a few revelations and insights about the movies themselves and about what it means to be in love. 

Perhaps my most shocking realization was how the trilogy becomes less “city as a character” movies as they go along. Before Midnight (the Peloponnese peninsula) starts in a car, then moves to a pretty but rather nondescript villa, then to a walk with little attention paid to the surrounding village, and ultimately settles in at a cookie cutter resort. Even in Before Sunset (Paris), there are bookshops, cafes, and gardens, but the Sales Day festival is skipped and the main interactions are with waiters, drivers, and other service workers. The movie ends at an apartment, hidden away from the central sights. Contrast that with Before Sunrise (Vienna), with its aimless walking, sightseeing, and kooky scenes with fortune tellers, drunk poets, amateur actors. Attention is paid to the smaller, surreal experiences of being in a city in the middle of the night. For instance, sleeping on the grass instead of having a home or hotel room to return to. Or bartering with bartenders for free wine, instead of having a driver wait for you outside or a couples massage gifted to you. 

Some of that is Jesse and Celine’s age and elevated financial status. Perhaps in their 40s, they would not want to have nowhere and everywhere to go. It’s something else, though. The sense of discovery is missing between Celine and Jesse, not just between themselves, but in their surroundings. In Before Midnight, that makes sense. They are tired parents on a rare vacation, with almost a decade of life behind them. In Before Sunset, they are elated to be reunited. So much of their conversation is catching up, and there’s so much left unspoken between them. Throughout Before Sunrise, they are strangers to one another and to Vienna, with so much possibility about what the city can offer them in this magical night and what they can mean to each other. 

This stark change in how the cities are depicted jumped out at me during this reversal experiment. When you watch in release order, you are so present with the characters that the past feels like the past. It made me sad, not because I ever had any experience like Celine and Jesse’s in Vienna. I wondered if my own sense of discovery was slipping away from me and if I’d even be open enough to hop off a train on a moment’s notice. Knowing me, I’d be like “well, I was looking forward to getting home and going grocery shopping for this new recipe so maybe next time?”

I once heard advice columnist Dan Savage talk on his podcast how there’s no perfect person for you. We’re all human beings with our imperfections and no one is ever going to be 100% compatible with you, but it’s up to you how much you can live with. Sometimes a person’s flaws are just what Savage calls the “price of admission.” If you want to be with someone, then you have to be with all of them without expecting them to change or resenting them for not being what you want them to be at all times.

This idea came to mind for me when watching the Before Trilogy in reverse. As Jesse and Celine rehash their relationship in Before Midnight, much of their struggle comes from reality living up to the fantasy created by both Before Sunrise and the in-universe novel it inspired. And the fantasy was extended in Before Sunset. Jesse says, “I f***ed up my whole life because of the way you sing” in Before Midnight. But even that is a reductive romanticization of their day in Paris. Jesse feels ready to run away with Celine almost immediately upon seeing her again, and, I think, spends the day with her justifying doing so to himself. Their chemistry is palpable, and their conversations flow naturally but not always smoothly. Through Before Sunset, you can see the negotiations both spoken and unspoken in prolonging their time together. Barriers are crossed between sentences, until they cross the ultimate barrier. 

You watch Before Sunrise, and the movie lives up to how Celine and Jesse remember it. Before Sunrise is so romantic, it practically glows. Whether they’re coming across a musician practicing in the wee hours of the morning or stealing glances at each other in a music shop, Before Sunrise is perhaps the most conventionally romantic of the three films. Jesse and Celine fall in love by discovering each other through shy lies that morph into bold truths. They posture perhaps, but the night is long and their shields fade away. Even in the moments where they might start to notice each other’s price of admission, Vienna distracts them just enough to uphold their Cinderella romance.

While in Greece, Jesse and Celine wrestle with the stark reality that there are some tough prices of admission for their relationship. And when you watch the Before Trilogy in its order, as you get further from Before Sunrise, the more you wonder if they did just ruin their lives. But watching in reverse, you can see how this globe-trotting, years-spanning whirlwind romance could sustain such an imperfect reality. And yet Before Midnight doesn’t end with some dramatic declaration or even any concrete resolution for their issues. Rather, the final film ends with ambiguity with two people uncertain of their future, both convinced and unconvinced. The previous two films ended on an ellipsis too, and it feels right that there’s no finite conclusion. 


Like many of Richard Linklater’s movies, the Before Trilogy is a time travel movie. Watching Before Midnight first and then going backwards through Before Sunset and then ending with Before Sunrise felt like being able to see yourself in the past with the insights from the future. Time traveling is built into the movie, with Jesse pretending to be a time traveler at various points. It makes you wonder, what you could tell your past self or what you would see in your future self. Would Celine still get off the train in Vienna if she saw herself in Paris or in Greece? Would Jesse still miss his plane if he knew what the future held? Would their resentments and frustrations go down smoother if they could go back to Vienna? The Before Trilogy might not have a definitive answer, But maybe watching these movies in reverse or any mixed order provides new meaning to these uncertainties..

Movie Review (Sundance 2025): ‘Omaha’ Balances Devastation and Beauty


Director: Cole Webley
Writer: Robert Machoian
Stars: John Magaro, Molly Belle Wright, Wyatt Solis

Synopsis: After a family tragedy, siblings Ella and Charlie are woken up by their dad and taken on a cross-country journey, experiencing a new world. As their adventure unfolds, Ella begins to understand that things might not be what they seem.


When Cole Webley’s Omaha begins, we see nothing but a shell of a home. Based strictly on visual context cues, all we can fathom is that something in this house has gone terribly wrong. But when we first meet the primarily nameless Dad (John Magaro, in a gut-wrenching, astonishing performance), Ella (Molly Belle Wright), and Charlie (Wyatt Solis), it’s clear that things weren’t always this way. With a tender lens, Webley eases us into the midst of such turmoil. Dad wakes up his two children and gets them into a beaten-down car, begging them to cooperate and to gather the items they most cherish. Shot beautifully by cinematographer Paul Meyers in his first feature, so much of this film is lensed with obstacles in the way. This is especially telling in the introduction. We peer around the edge of doorways alongside Ella to see Dad as he seems to be holding back tears. We look beyond staircases we can barely see over and through dusty car windows seeing Dad speak to a sheriff. So much of Omaha feels, both visually and thematically, like a story we shouldn’t have access to. But the fact that we do makes it all the more special. It also makes it all the more heartbreaking.

Omaha' Rides An Emotional Highway Paved With Hard Choices

Ohama is a film pretty much exclusively made up of deeply intimate moments. The approach to these events is more often than not captured through the eyes of the children, Ella and Charlie. Constantly utilizing a handheld camera whenever outside of the car, the locations and events of the film take on a larger-than-life-quality. We’re always pulled through life by the whims of fate and circumstance. But as children, this feeling is compounded through the lives of our parents. Whatever path they’re on, for better and for worse, is the path the children are often relegated to. So Ella and Charlie merely follow along on this journey with an unknown destination. Through the children, Webley often exudes a sense of wonder. The world just looks so vast and magical before their eyes as they run across salt flats flying a kite. They could seemingly remain there forever, frozen in pure bliss unbeknownst of what tomorrow will bring. All the while, Magaro remains off in the distance, carrying the weight of the world in his face.

To state it plainly, Omaha doesn’t work without the three outstanding performances it revolves around. Starting with Magaro, so much is captured in his face. The pain, despite the film only revealing momentary glimpses into it, radiates off his features. Robert Machoian’s excellently sparse script utilizes the lack of concrete information as a feature rather than a bug. Whatever Dad is going through, he is trying to keep his children free from that emotional weight. But he’s not hiding it nearly as well as he would like to. And thus, the brilliance of Omaha reveals itself in this veiled blatancy. The film subtly shows its hand early on. But from there, Webley forces his audience to hope against hope that we’re wrong. Magaro plays a man who is profoundly lost, and his children are unfortunately being caught up in this storm. To them, this is a confusing experience, peppered with moments of joy. The balancing act of such beauty and pain lies in the hands of these unbelievable child performances from Belle Wright and Solis.

Omaha' Review: Intimate Sundance Road Trip Drama

Despite the unknown circumstances around which this film revolves, Dad and his children are a clear unit. So much of the film is full of inside jokes and adorably childish improvised questions. The common routines they share with one another have become muscle memory. Belle Wright is exceptional as Ella. As she tries to slowly piece together context clues from the behavior of her father, you can almost see her internally reckoning with what learning the results will mean for her childhood. Yet there’s still an expression of youthful hope across her face as she tries to entertain herself and her brother amidst the packed car. Next to Solis as Charlie, the two provide a genuine and necessary chemistry as brother and sister. Of course they bicker. And of course, they hide a depth of thoughts within their silent stares out the window. When they are creating imaginative stories in a play place or dancing along the side of the road, you’d never believe these two weren’t genuinely related. Solis, playing the younger of the two, provides such a humorous tone to the impending worry and curiosity of what might be in store for this family. The two have different approaches to brushing against the actions of their father, yet they both share the commonality of wanting to remain joyous and hopeful amidst uncertainty. 

All the while through watching Omaha, the devastating reality is this: many of these moments we’re made privy to are beautiful. If this was a standard road-trip film, it would primarily be an occasion beyond joyousness. These are memories that harken us back to moments in childhood that capture the beautiful simplicities of life. And yet, where Webley and Machoian take this film is tainted with uncertain worry. In the end, Omaha is a great film because of its ability to capture both aspects of this journey. There is a lot of beauty to be found throughout its short runtime. But there’s also such pain coursing through the very foundation of its genesis as a film. By the time Omaha ends, we’re forced to reckon with whether or not certain actions can ever be forgiven. Perhaps there’s a shred of understanding or sympathy to be found in the context of which this film is set, but it’s equally damning towards a society that has fundamentally failed the people within it.


Omaha is celebrating its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival in the U.S. Dramatic Competition category.

Grade: B+

Women InSession: It Ends With Us Lawsuits

This week on Women InSession, we dive into the It Ends With Us lawsuits and the disturbing behavior that led to Blake Lively having to take action during the production of that film. It’s obviously a sensitive topic, but it led to some honest conversation that was quite cathartic.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Jaylan Salah, Amy Thomasson, Megan Kearns

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 120

Chasing the Gold: 2025 Oscar Nominations

On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan, Erica and Will break down the 2025 Oscar nominations! There were some fun surprises, some predictable snubs and a lot of expected nominees. But either way, there’s a lot to talk about with this year’s crop of Oscar nominations. The conversation over the next six weeks will be…fascinating.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Chasing the Gold – 2025 Oscar Nominations

List: Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2025

This week on Episode 620 of the InSession Film Podcast, we discussed our Top 5 most anticipated films of 2025. It’s a new year and that means new movies to look forward to as we turn the page. 2025 could be quite the departure from last year as we’ll see more spectacle this year with the likes of Avatar: Fire and Ash, Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Thunderbolts, Captain America: Brave New World, Jurassic World Rebirth, and Superman among others. However; we’ll have plenty on the auteur side of things as well as we are getting movies from Paul Thomas Anderson, Bong Joon-ho, Wes Anderson, Lynn Ramsay, Kelly Reichardt, Steven Soderbergh, Richard Linklater, Chloe Zhao, Ethan Coen, Guillermo del Toro and many more. There is a lot to be excited about for 2025. Should be really fun!

For the sake of this post, we are going to list our true Top 10 most anticipated films of 2025, even thought we mostly just discussed our top five on the show.

JD
1) Avatar: Fire and Ash
2) A Big Bold Beautiful Journey
3) The Phoenician Scheme
4) No Other Choice
5) Die, My Love
6) The Battle of Baktan Cross
7) The Mastermind
8) Materialists
9) Nouvell Vague / Blue Moon
10) Mission: Impossible – Final reckoning

Brendan
1) The Battle of Baktan Cross
2) The Bride
3) Sinners
4) Mother Mary
5) Sly Lives!
6) The Legend of Ochi
7) Materialists
8) The Monkey
9) No Other Choice
10) The Accountant 2

Honorable Mentions (Combined)
The Way of the Wind, Sontag, Mickey 17, At the sea, Sentimental Value, Paper Tiger, Miroirs No. 3, Black Bag, Good Fortune, Honey Don’t, Hamnet, Flowervale Street, Roofman, New Baumbach, After the Hunt, Father Mother Sister Brother, Frankenstein, Anemone, The Actor, Tornado, Hope, Highest 2 Lowest, The Smashing Machine, Marty Supreme, 28 Years Later, Eddington, Wildwood, Wake Up Dead Man, I Want Your Sex, Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die, Fantastic Four, Jurassic World Rebirth, Superman, Tron: Ares, Freakier Friday, Wicked: For Good

Hopefully you guys enjoyed our lists and if you agree or disagree with us, let us know in the comment section below. There are obviously many more films coming out this year that we didn’t have time to mention. Which is to say, your list could look very different than ours given the amount of great potential that we could see in 2025. That being said, what would be your Top 5? Leave a comment in the comment section or email us at [email protected].

For the entire podcast, click here or listen below.

For more lists done by the InSession Film crew and other guests, be sure see our Top 3 Movie Lists page.

Chasing the Gold: Final Oscar Predictions (Best International Feature)

If there is any doubt remaining as to which films will be announced as the Oscar nominees for Best International Feature on Thursday, Jan. 23 (the big reveal will begin at 5:30 a.m. PT/8:30 a.m. ET across the Academy’s website and social channels), wavering parties can safely fill one of the slots with Emilia Pérez. Jacques Audiard’s divisive Netflix opera has been lauded just about as much as it has been derided over the course of the last eight months since the film held its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. Yet as the 2025 awards season has worn on, this tale of a Mexican cartel boss (Karla Sofía Gascón) who seeks the help of a lawyer (Zoe Saldaña) to undergo gender affirmation surgery so she can live as a woman has proved to be a juggernaut of proportions few other films can match. The French production received 10 nominations at the Golden Globes— making it the most-nominated musical or comedy in the ceremony’s history— and won four awards; it was nominated 11 times at the  British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTAs), including two nods for its “supporting” actresses (Saldaña and Selena Gomez). 

Despite this, it seems that, in many ways, an International Feature win for Audiard and co. would feel like a backslide for the Academy, as its last few winners have (mostly) proven the presence of the body’s evolving membership and its broader grasp of world cinema. From 2017 on, we’ve seen Oscars go to A Fantastic Woman, Roma, Parasite, Another Round, All Quiet on the Western Front (hence the earlier emphasis on mostly), and The Zone of Interest. In a slew of ambitious high-brow honorees, Emilia Pérez would stick out like a sore thumb.

Of note, though: The loudest criticisms can easily drown out the boldest raves, and many of those exist on behalf of Emilia Pérez. Plenty of directors love it; actors like Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep, Eva Longoria, and America Ferrera agree; heck, Madonna loved it. Not every mouthpiece-holder has the clout that these select few maintain, but as it is often said, any press is good press, and Emilia Pérez has perhaps held a more permanent position in the headlines than any other 2024 film on the circuit. Conclave has given the movie the most hell, to the point where online prayers for the papal drama to save us from Pérez-ian dominance have become fodder for virality. Before its Criterion Collection cover art came under fire, Anora inexplicably fell off the map just months after it was considered a Best Picture frontrunner; The Brutalist has been unable to erect an awards campaign as lofty as its ambitions and has recently come under fire for its own overblown controversy, one that it ironically shares with Emilia Pérez.

But none of those films are up for Best International Feature, a category where Emilia Pérez will see competition at the Oscars. While it remains the odds on favorite to win in the end, 14 other films have hope for a nomination, and with plenty of time between Jan. 23 and the current show date (Sunday, March 2), any number of the shortlisted titles could make a last-ditch run at the statuette. In alphabetical order, those titles are:

Armand (Norway)

Dahomey (Senegal)

Flow (Latvia

From Ground Zero (Palestine)

The Girl with the Needle (Denmark)

How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (Thailand)

I’m Still Here (Brazil)

Kneecap (Ireland)

Santosh (United Kingdom)

The Seed of the Sacred Fig (Germany)

Touch (Iceland)

Universal Language (Canada)

Vermiglio (Italy)

Waves (Czech Republic)

Emilia Pérez is going to win its fair share of Oscars; this particular award is expected to be one of them. Yet, it stands to reason that not every single voter will rank it atop their individual preferential ballots, instead placing another film in that top spot. I suspect that the following five films will be there to choose from. 

THE PREDICTED NOMINEES:

  • Emilia Pérez – Jacques Audiard (France)
  • Flow – Gints Zilbalodis (Latvia)
  • I’m Still Here – Walter Salles (Brazil)
  • The Seed of the Sacred Fig – Mohammed Rasoulof (Germany)
  • Vermiglio – Maura Delpero (Italy)

Podcast Review: Den of Thieves 2: Pantera

On this episode, JD and Brendan review Christian Gudegast’s new film Den of Thieves 2: Pantera, starring the great Gerard Butler! Talk about fun January surprises. At the time, we skipped Den of Thieves and chalked it up to the typical “January trash” that we normally don’t cover on the show. Boy, were we wrong on that overlook that film. It’s really great and Butler is terrific. So we were looking forward to Den of Thieves 2: Pantera, and it did not disappoint either.

Review: Den of Thieves 2: Pantera (4:00)
Director: Christian Gudegast
Writers: Christian Gudegast
Stars: Gerard Butler, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Evin Ahmad

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Den of Thieves 2: Pantera

Podcast Review: Better Man

On this episode, JD and Brendan review Michael Gracey’s new film Better Man, starring the entertaining Robbie Williams! While we are a couple of those (mostly) ignorant Americans when it comes to Williams’ story and career, we walked into Better Man open-minded and very curious about the film. While it’s not perfect, there is a lot to love about the film and we did our best to parse through it all.

Review: Better Man (4:00)
Director: Michael Gracey
Writers: Simon Gleeson, Oliver Cole, Michael Gracey
Stars: Robbie Williams, Jonno Davies, Steve Pemberton

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Better Man

Movie Review: ‘Armand’ Undermines Its Own Premise Despite Reinsve’s Forceful Turn


Director: Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel
Writer: Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel
Stars: Renate Reinsve, Ellen Dorrit Petersen, Thea Lambrechts Vaulen

Synopsis: After her six-year-old son is accused of sexually harassing another student, Elizabeth (Renate Reinsve) is left reeling as her status as a public figure gets used against her.


It’s no wonder that the cryptic trailer for Armand, Norway’s official entry for Best International Film that made the Oscars shortlist, has made a meal out of one of Renate Reinsve’s best scenes in the film. It’s the moment where, after not being able to bear any more troubling revelations about her son, she breaks into uncontrollable and uncomfortable fits of laughter.

The tears come shortly after.

Armand' Review: Ingmar Bergman's Grandson Directs Renate Reinsve

Following her breakout role in The Worst Person in the World, Reinsve turns in another incredible performance — this time, as Elizabeth, a mother and public figure who finds her life torn apart from within after she is called to her son’s elementary school. She finds out the news that another student has accused her six-year-old son of sexual misconduct.

As Elizabeth tries to process the news the best she can, she finds the people around her closing in on her (mainly fellow concerned parent Sarah, played by the cold Ellen Dorrit Petersen) and drawing assumptions based on her past and the recent death of her husband. While Armand starts off with an interesting enough premise and a claustrophobic setting to draw us in, focusing exclusively on the adults in the situation and how they handle the news, the film loses its grip along the way.

If the premise sounds similar, just last year, Germany’s Oscar-nominated The Teachers’ Lounge also followed the implications of a major accusation at a public school, disrupting the teachers’ notions of social stability. Like that film, the moments of satire and dark comedy that director Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel brings to his directorial debut, particularly towards the beginning, are what give Armand its unique edge. The constant starting and repeating of the parents’ conversation with Sunna (Thea Lambrechts Vaulen), a junior teacher who thinks she has it all together but doesn’t know the first thing about handling such situations, speaks to the way the school as a whole — and society — has no real protocols in place to productively move forward in such situations.

Armand (2024) – Movie Reviews Simbasible

But as Armand stretches along its unnecessary two-hour runtime, Tøndel’s script loses its edge, instead focusing on Elizabeth’s secretive relationship with Anders (Endre Hellestveit), who is married to Sarah. As the film continues, the circular conversations become less of a necessary conceit of its commentary and an extension of the story’s inability to really dig into the controversial subject it’s tackling.

Tøndel increasingly relies on the efforts of Reinsve, the film’s most exciting performer, to bring real complexity and intrigue to Elizabeth. At first, her character’s true intentions and motives are unclear, allowing Reinsve to play so much more with ambiguity. The cast around her is also incredibly solid, mainly Hellestveit’s turn as the father of the child who is doing the accusing. But as the script begins to steadily unravel, it almost becomes tabloid-y, with each revelation losing sight of the foreground question that made the film interesting enough to sit down and watch in the first place.

Cinematographer Pål Ulvik Rokseth breathes style into the film with his unique and innovative camera choices, including moments in which the faces surrounding Elizabeth at the school fade to the background, leaving her completely alone. Even in some of the film’s bigger swings that don’t quite land, like an unexpected dance in the school hallways, Rokseth’s creative choices always place the viewer in Elizabeth’s subjective experience.

Armand doesn’t have an entirely unsatisfactory ending, with a silent moment in the rain providing an unexpectedly stirring turning point, yet it’s hard to shake the feeling that the script simply tries to wrap too many loose ends with too tight a bow. What remains is another excellent turn from one of Norway’s most exciting actors, but only the slight payoff of what could’ve been a true examination of a vulnerable school system in freefall.

Grade: C+

Chasing the Gold: ‘The Substance’ and the Use of Color in Costume Design

Editor’s Note: This article contains spoilers for The Substance. Proceed with caution.

The Substance is the kind of film that commands attention, not just for the brilliant performances by Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley, who play both sides of the same feminine mystique. Director Coralie Fargeat and her crew should be commended for their meticulous craftsmanship and attention to detail. From Margaret Qualley’s metallic pink leotard to Demi Moore’s yolk yellow coat, The Substance uses strong, primary colors to not only tell a story of bodies ruptured and screaming faces grotesquely protruding out of decaying bodies, but also of how women present themselves into the world, through their careful choice of clothing items.

Elizabeth Sparkle (Moore)’s yolk yellows, matte blues, and crimson reds command grounded acceptance. Costume designer Emmanuelle Youchnovski brilliantly picks the colors, shiny and metallic or muted and matte, to prove a point. Alongside Fargeat, she brilliantly isolates every woman in her shell of a patriarchal world governed by aesthetics, slipping through Elizabeth’s fingers only to land in Sue (Qualley)’s lap. This body horror masterpiece touches on ageism not only through the women’s costume choices but also how they choose to wear them and why. 

Elizabeth’s colors are always on mute. Her matte blue body suit is her daily routine, her celebrity image. A woman is stunning even as she ages, commanding the lonely women watching and trying to imitate her from behind their screens, dreaming of being like her while she dreams of her younger self. The form-fitting suit encapsulates Elizabeth, using Moore’s stunning body as a frame for her empowerment to the average viewer, but her desperation as a woman governed by a merciless industry, unattainable beauty and body standards, and low self-esteem precipitated by constant judgment and appraisal from scowling network heads and predatory producers. Her matte blue is stunning but sad, like a swan song to a once thriving career.

On the other hand, Sue’s pink neon leotard is a modern pop star’s dream. She’s made for internet aesthetics and Pinterest color boards. She commands copying and extracting, adding hues and filters to her bubblegum dreamlike presence. Fargeat makes great use of Qualley’s playful, voluptuous lips, and sensual nervous tic, her lower lip bite. Sue plays on older men’s dumbfounded infatuation with what she sells them, a cute pixie hot babygirl with a smile plastered on her face, hiding an underlying sense of cold and calculated ladder climber. A woman in power slowly in the making, and a ruthless young vidette coyly masking her tremendous ambition behind her swaying hips.

Elizabeth’s oversized yolk yellow coat works as her armor against the outside world. It brings to mind how celebrities usually hide in plain sight when taking a stroll or going out of their cold, isolated mansions to buy coffee or walk their dogs. I’ve always been fascinated by why they sometimes cover too much even in the heart of summer, with caps pulled low to hide their eyes, giant hoodies, face masks, oversized clothes, and baggy pants. And yet, people recognize them. Even paparazzi catch them in their desperate, not-so-desperate attempts to blend so they overdo it with the disguise. Elizabeth doesn’t come as a surprise, her huge coat along with her sunglasses, and orange gloves are her celebrity camouflage. She wears it on every trip outside her luxury apartment. Every time she looks fragile, scared, and cornered. It is a brilliant allegory of how celebrities are vulnerable creatures in the real world without the entourage and the cameras to accentuate their acquired powerful statuses, yet they crave that sneaky recognition, their grasp on their raw power, even when invisible and masked. It perfectly encapsulates Elizabeth in this yolk-verse, this wild adventure she’s about to embark on to extract another younger self from her body. 

Sue’s sequined velvet robe, with the dragon embroidered on the back right where the spine exists, is a powerful testament to her looming presence. Her identity slowly and reptilian-like devours Elizabeth’s prior existence. She stands over her original body host, and it’s a better interpretation of the Monster going against Dr. Victor Frankenstein than ever before. Sue never wears primary colors but more of a mix and mash of all shades of a particular color. She breaks a midnight blue fabric with a gold sequin embroidered dragon. Not only is she bold, but dangerous. Her t-shirts and tennis skirts are a testament to her playful, Gen Z youthfulness, a carelessness that we associate with a young generation of rebels, not just on older rules and traditions but on grander facts of life like the validity of hard work and financial stability. Sue’s snakeskin black leather body-hugging suit is another attempt at control. Sue desperately tries to shed her older identity and that she’s not tied to her “older” former self. She no longer wants to be an extension of that crone but she’s also worried. She fears what that self would do to the path of glory she is slowly carving for herself. 

Elizabeth’s last shot at having a grip on her world is bittersweet. As she prepares for a date with an older classmate who still finds her hot, she puts on a stunning crimson dress and wears red lipstick that makes her lips look stunning. But as the preparation for the date lingers, Elizabeth becomes less and less excited about the date, and more depressed about…Elizabeth. In the mirror, despite all the reds, and the attempts to chase the vitality of youth, Elizabeth doesn’t see Sue, but her original self. Although that “self” is stunning, a dream girl ever since they were young to her date, a former high school colleague, to her, it’s a monstrosity, suddenly her crimson dress becomes her bloodbath as she smears her lipstick all over her face, nearly tearing the skin apart. 

Elizabeth’s crimson mess foreshadows the collapse of Sue’s Cinderella dress. A light blue, layered dress that sees her decay rather than her slay. Despite Sue’s attempts to keep it together, everything is torn apart, from her to the dress itself. Her attempts as Sue to become a modern-day television princess are crushed as the Elizabeth in her drags her down in the mud, breaking her, as their selfish wish for separation, becomes their tool of self-destruction, and their mitotic division at the beginning of the film turns into a full body dismemberment, not on her part, but on the part of the magic drug she betrayed by rebelling against her older self.The Substance‘s costumes and colors tell stories of women trapped in tutus, leather, cashmere, and skin. It comments on women’s sadomasochistic pleasure in tearing each other apart, fabric by fabric, and in the process, destroying themselves.

Chasing the Gold: Final Oscar Nomination Predictions

On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Cameron discuss their *final* predictions for this year’s Oscar nominations! This is it. It’s all led to this moment. We’ve talked for months about who could end up nominated. What are the storylines? Who has the best narrative? What do we make of the chaos this season? There are so many questions, but now is the time to put it all down on paper. Or in this case into a microphone.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Chasing the Gold – Final Oscar Nomination Predictions

Remembering David Lynch

I took a bit of time after David Lynch’s death to think about my unexpected (to me) reaction. it should be noted that numerous family members and friends immediately thought of me when the news broke. So why was I surprised? I do not consider myself any kind of expert on David Lynch. And, if I am behind honest, I don’t even know if I would immediately think of him as one of my very favorites. By the way, who could be an expert in Lynch? I am not sure my brain was meant to handle that. But, as I alluded to, I was surprised to note my reaction to his passing. If you had asked me a few weeks ago for my future reaction, I would have given a stereotypical answer. “It’s very sad. It’s a loss for cinema. My heart goes out to people that are deeply connected to his work.”  These are words that are true, but ultimately hollow. You could say them about any great film artist and they would be just as true. But that was a few weeks ago. After the actual event, things are starkly different. And so, as I write about the man, or rather my version of the man, please keep in mind that this is not an official obituary. Rather, it is meant to be a journey inside my own process. Luckily, we won’t have to lose an ear to go straight into the mind (if you know, you know).

So, on the day of his death, I found myself not only at a loss for words, but truly emotional as well. As I cried during my workday, this was a confusing experience, to say the least. And why why would I be this affected? I had the realization, through a text conversation with a friend, that Mr. Lynch is in a very select category for me. He is one of only a handful of directors that showed me what cinema was capable of. It does not have to be solely for entertainment. There is art. There is more. Despite its frustrations, it does not elude me that he refused to explain his work. It is for us. There is no use (for him) to put words to what he has already explained, in the language of cinema 

My introduction to David Lynch was The Elephant Man. In many ways, it is not indicative of his work; it is certainly not “Lynchian,” whatever that  means at this point. But it is, at its core, an empathetic story, which is, I believe, what calls me back to Lynch time after time. Sure, there is the makeup and the look at the titular Elephant Man. More importantly, it urges us to treat all humans as just that. As we are faced with a physical deformity, we are also faced with our own reactions. As John Merrick (John Hurt) yells “I AM NOT AN ELEPHANT! I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! I AM… A HUMAN BEING! I… AM… A… MAN!” we are forced to ignore the external and look at ourselves.

But how odd to say that my first Lynch was a movie I watched in school on a rainy day. It doesn’t seem to fit, but there it also feels appropriate. What student did not love to see that television turn on instead of being forced to do busy work? There is a comfort. Comfort like a damn fine cup of coffee and a slice of cherry pie.

Part of me wishes I could say that I was one of those that watched Twin Peaks from the beginning. But no, that was not my next Lynch. nor even the most important. I would come to Twin Peaks much later, and so will we. No, my next experience was perhaps the most powerful of them all. As a teenager, I watched Blue Velvet after renting it from my local video store. Why did I even pick this up? Maybe I had heard that it was great. Maybe I liked the cover. It certainly wasn’t because of Lynch himself, as the name was not known to me at that point. Throughout the runtime, I remember being deeply confused, but excited. There was something here, and it wasn’t just the shock value of it all. I won’t waste your time with the well trod discussion of the underbelly of the American small town. But I will say that after this watch, I found myself fundamentally different as a viewer. This film, as many of Lynch’s are, is strange. There is no specific time, there are no specific rules. I still find these choices to be brave and audacious, giving us nothing to lean on other than the visuals in front of us. I am sure that this is exactly how he would want it, and every time I rewatch it, I give in to that more and more. The other piece that I keep realizing I enjoy is the lack of irony in Lynch. Choosing light, love triumphing over evil, these seem to be very real to him. As the bird devours the beetle in the final frame of Blue Velvet, there can be no doubt that Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) made the right choice.

As I moved forward in watching his movies, there seems to be little rhyme or reason to the order, which simply feels right. Minus Twin Peaks, there is nothing episodic about his filmography. I am sure that somewhere in there I watched his version of Dune and was super annoyed (and annoying) about how poor it was compared to the book. It’s still not a movie I like, but it always seemed like the poorest fit possible for Lynch. Eraserhead deeply unnerved me on first (and subsequent) watch. It was like watching my own anxiety being birthed on screen. It is not a movie I will ever “like” despite being continually impressed.

Is there an odder pairing than Nicolas Cage and Lynch? Maybe not. But if there is a movie that shouldn’t work, but does, it is most definitely Wild At Heart. In speaking with other friends who despise it, I kind of get it. But I also couldn’t care less. Cage and Dern together are sparkling magic, Dafoe is disgusting and depraved. It is a film that feels dangerous, but also a film that Lynch is in complete control of. I have to think that these performances are at least partly due to the trust that Lynch engenders in his casts. Every word I have ever heard from folks who worked with him is glowing and positive. This was always a rarity and has become more so over the years. David Lynch just seems like a good human, which is probably why he is able to capture trauma (medical, sexual, emotional) through such a empathetic lens.

And what better way to examine trauma than through Twin Peaks? I am going to be honest with you here. It took me a few tries. Maybe it was because I didn’t watch it as it aired. Maybe it was because I saw clips of Fire Walk With Me on the internet. Whatever the reason, I left it behind. Until Season Three. Fine, I thought. I will give it one more chance. And what a revelation that ended up being. I took my time (seemed like a brutal show to binge) and found myself entranced. It is a beautiful exploration of trauma as well as an interesting look at producer interference. It became quite clear to me that the reason it first became part of the zeitgeist must have irked Lynch. We, as a culture, latch on to mystery. We need to know. But it always felt like that wasn’t what interested him. The life we lead, the effects we have, that is where the real exploration should begin. A death can be an end, but the ripples in the water keep traveling. This is one of the few times I could see Lynch going deeply internal and external regarding the nature of trauma. It is difficult to focus on pain and not be macabre, and Lynch mastered it with Twin Peaks

One could go on and on about his greatness (and many should). Mulholland Drive is a masterpiece. Lost Highway and Inland Empire, confusing and galling as they are, have been written about endlessly, and for good reason. And if you want a, please excuse the pun, straight down the middle lovely little film, The Straight Story is right there waiting for you. And that does not begin to detail the many short films that are accessible.

There is no objective truth in what David Lynch movies are, or what they mean. I began this piece stating that I was not an expert on his films. It does not escape me that he would disagree. He would say that you have everything you need to understand, to process, to feel his work. And now I find myself nodding my head to that exact idea. We can sit around and read criticism about art all day. And frankly, sometimes I do. But this all pales in comparison to the feeling we get when a film breaks boundaries, even logical ones. I find myself feeling lucky that I found his movies when I did. Every time is the right time.

David Lynch, wherever he is now, changed me. I feel broader, larger, and more experienced just from playing the part of a viewer into his mind. Mr. Lynch’s films defy simple thoroughlines and descriptions. It is never neat and tidy. And it may be that this is a perfect reflection of the man himself. In interviews, he was always honest, but spoke about what he wanted to, regardless of what was actually asked. Even if this could be frustrating for the interviewer, I find myself glad that he expressed what he wanted and never bowed to what was expected. 

I will mourn the fact that we will never get another David Lynch film. I will celebrate that every viewing of an older Lynch film is a different experience. I will be grateful to him for making me better through his art. 

Rest in peace, Mr. Lynch. I hope you enjoy simple pleasures in the afterlife.

Movie Review: ‘Wolf Man’ is a Macabre Misfire


Director: Leigh Whannell
Writer: Leigh Whannell, Corbett Tuck
Stars: Julia Garner, Leigh Whannell, Christopher Abbott

Synopsis: A family at a remote farmhouse is attacked by an unseen animal, but as the night stretches on, the father begins to transform into something unrecognizable.


When Leigh Whannell submitted his first Universal Monsters reboot with The Invisible Man in 2020, many, including myself, were surprised with that film’s tenacity and singularity. Whannell really swung for the fences with what ended up being one of the better genre reimaginings of the last decade. That one is a gem, truly, and it gave audiences a million-and-one reasons to look out for what Whannell would do next.

Blumhouse's Wolf Man Reboot Photo Reveals Sneak Peek at Werewolf  Transformation

But while he may have stayed on the remake track with Wolf Man, little else remains the same. Not to mention the absence of “the” from the title… we should’ve known this wasn’t going to work. Wolf Man, just Wolf Man, indeed feels like it was made by the director of The Invisible Man, though a version of him that made this film first. It uses the same formula and many of the same elements, only in more primal, less refined form. 

Where The Invisible Man utilized tact and meticulous tension, Wolf Man substitutes dim lights and clockwork clichés. It’s a simple story about a man who, in an effort to work on his marriage and heal his family, leaves New York and hauls his wife and daughter to his deceased father’s wilderness estate in Oregon.

In Whannell’s patterned effort to relay what has been historically conceptualized as fantasy through a realistic lens, the wolf man in this story is the product of an animalistic disease. Blake (Christopher Abbott), the film’s dad, quickly comes face-to-face with one of these monsters before he can even set foot in his father’s home. What expectedly ensues is madness, although uneven and uncalculated in execution.

Wolf Man Director Issues Warning That Not Everyone Will Like the Creature  Design (But for Good Reason) - ComicBook.com

Whannell clearly wishes to ground the wolf man’s (as he’ll be referred to in order to avoid spoilers) transformation in emotion and slow-burn tragedy, and he primarily does so by spending much of the first act fully focused on the film’s on-sleeve heart. Yet these efforts are mostly in vain, due greatly to a series of awkward dialogue exchanges and predictable progressions that don’t allow any of the characters at hand to break through and make any emotional impact.

When you’re supposed to tether to one of these personalities and connect, you’ll be more likely to dwell on a stunted line-read, or be trying to figure out where you’ve heard those words before. There are a few moments of recognizable impact, if not only for the moving performances within them, but you can only do so much with words that have been uttered a million times before. 

You’ve already met these characters in different movies, and you’ve gone on this journey, too. Wolf Man fails to find footing in this regard. Where it will get you though, is the violence. Visually, not only is this a (mostly) interesting outing, but it gets downright gnarly, too. Whannell’s past with the Saw series has perhaps never been more apparent in his subsequent work than it is here.

Film Preview: Wolf Man (2025) – Cinema Sight by Wesley Lovell

The camera never looks away from any gash or gristle, and in the absence of any real memorable set-piece, this is an aspect you can hang onto. But a question that is often asked about the Saw movies arises here: how far can that take a film? The answer is, most often in this film, not very far. While Wolf Man may succeed in forcing you to look away and grit your teeth the first time around, once you leave, you aren’t given any reason to come back.

None of the action sets itself apart and, again, the narrative and character work chart familiar territory, and familiar territory only. The film is structured to emphasize events that don’t earn that emphasis; which may be due to a combination of many errors of varying severity, but either way, the final product is marred as a result.

Unfortunately, Wolf Man is quintessential January horror, despite the promise of the names and pasts attached to it. Leigh Whannell is an excruciatingly talented and imaginative individual whose name looks unfit attached to this film.

It isn’t a complete loss – with a group of friends, you may even have some fun – but there’s nothing about Wolf Man that begs to be revisited, nor anything that suggests a strong immediate impact. A disappointing, forgettable anomaly.

Grade: C

2025 Sundance Film Festival: What To Watch For

We are once again at the first major film festival of the year, Sundance. Last year’s festival brought out Didi, A Real Pain, Daughters, The Remarkable Life of Ibelin, and A Different Man among other critically acclaimed films that are on many Top 10 lists of the past year. Some are even being named in Oscar contention. After a very strong 2024, the festival is back and hopefully will provide more future award contenders to be talked about one year from now. There’s the Barry Jenkins-produced Sorry, Baby, the Luca Guadagnino-produced Atropia, and a documentary on the life and career of Oscar-winning actress Marlee Matlin. Here are other films to keep track of.   

Kiss Of The Spider Woman

The long awaited film based on the Broadway musical, itself based on the 1985 film starring William Hurt (in turn, adapted from the novel by Manuel Puig), is directed by Bill Condon who has a strong record with musical adaptations. Jennifer Lopez and Diego Luna star in this new version about two prisoners, a gay hairdresser and a Marxist, in Latin America imprisoned for different reasons who form a relationship while dreaming about the spider woman to keep out the horrors of prison brutality. Right after Wicked, we have another musical to geek over this year. 

Last Days 

Moving opposite of his action films including the Fast & Furious franchise, director Justin Lin goes to the dark side with the true story of an Asian-American missionary who attempted to make contact with an isolated tribe. Off the coast of India, the missionary tries to convert the tribe into Christians, but discovers that the warnings about conversing with them are not just true, but threaten his life. The film comes two years after The Mission, a documentary about the same story, but the danger of religious obsession is certainly going to be on showcase. 

Sly Lives! (aka The Burden of Black Genius)

Following his Oscar-winning documentary Summer of Soul, Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson goes back to soul well and profiles the funk band Sly And The Family Stone. From the late ‘60s through the 1970s, the band became famous for its unorthodox mix of R&B, rock, soul, and psychedelic music that captured the attention of many music lovers. George Clinton, Nile Rodgers, Clive Davis, Andre 3000, and Chaka Khan also star in this documentary giving tribute to a groundbreaking band. Luckily, we won’t need to wait that long to see it as it will be on Hulu this February. 

The Wedding Banquet 

Ang Lee’s romantic comedy from 1993 has received a remake from director Andrew Ahn (Fire Island) with original co-writer James Schamus also on board. The story, which will have its own version, follows a gay man who marries their best friend, a woman, to help with her IVF treatment. However, the family’s involvement causes more trouble than they wanted. Lily Gladstone, Kelly Marie Tran, Bowen Yang, and Joan Chen star in this new twist to arrange love and the conflicts of being LGBTQ in a conservative family. 

Follow me on BluSky: @briansusbielles.bsky.social

Episode 620: Most Anticipated Movies of 2025

This week’s episode is brought to you by Koffee Kult. Get 15% OFF with the code: ISF24

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we begin by remembering the late-great David Lynch and then end the show by discussing our most anticipated movies of 2025! Plus, a small conversation on the current awards season and recent claims of AI being used in the films up for contention.

– David Lynch (6:40)
After some opening banter, we open the show this week by remembering the late-great David Lynch. There was no one else like him. His legacy is marked with his patented weird and surreal aesthetics, but underneath all of that obscurity was a sentimentalist who believed in the human spirit. He’s an artist that we loved and will deeply miss.

– Awards Season / AI (40:42)
With awards season is full bloom comes the snipers of competition, and boy did we see some hit pieces over the weekend. While other films were noted, such as Emilia Pérez and Better Man, no one took the hit harder than The Brutalist. Part of it is because of the marketing around The Brutalist, and part of it is the general discussion around AI, but either way it sparked heavy debate. Since we recorded this conversation, Brady Corbet did clarity some things that make sense of our speculation on the matter.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 610 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2024!


– Most Anticipated Movies of 2024 (1:09:49)
The InSession Film Awards is one of our favorite shows each year, but it’s a new year and that means new movies to look forward to as we turn the page. 2025 could be quite the departure from last year as we’ll see more spectacle this year with the likes of Avatar: Fire and Ash, Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Thunderbolts, Captain America: Brave New World, Jurassic World Rebirth, and Superman among others. However; we’ll have plenty on the auteur side of things as well as we are getting movies from Paul Thomas Anderson, Bong Joon-ho, Wes Anderson, Lynn Ramsay, Kelly Reichardt, Steven Soderbergh, Richard Linklater, Chloe Zhao, Ethan Coen, Guillermo del Toro and many more. There is a lot to be excited about for 2025. That said, what would be your top 5 most anticipated movies of the year?

– Music
End Credits (Dead Reckoning) – Lorne Balfe
My Tamako, my Sookee – Jo Yeong-wook

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 618

Next week on the show:

Oscar Nominations Reaction

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Movie Review: ‘Back In Action’ is An Agonizing Excuse of a Film


Director: Seth Gordon
Writer: Seth Gordon, Brendan O’Brien
Stars: Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Glenn Close

Synopsis: Former CIA spies Emily and Matt are pulled back into espionage after their secret identities are exposed.


Eleven years after the release of Annie, Cameron Diaz has come out of retirement to star in the action/comedy Back in Action, which reunites her with Jamie Foxx, who also starred in the 2014 reimagining of the hit Broadway musical. In using Back in Action as a vehicle for her return to acting, Diaz wants to recreate the comedic magic that made her a household name in the 1990s and early 2000s with She’s the One, There’s Something About Mary, and The Holiday. Of course, the title not only refers to the film’s CIA agents getting back in action after their identity is exposed but also cheekily winks at Diaz returning to the medium that made her the star she (still) is today. Sadly, Back in Action contains zero magic since it’s less interested in developing  dynamic chemistry between the two leads and more pressed on filling the ever-expansive Netflix algorithm with more mind-numbing “content” than something of true value that will stand the test of time instead of being forgotten in a week when their variation on the same film comes out. 

Back in Action' Review: Jamie Foxx & Cameron Diaz's Netflix Throwback

It does feel redundant to discuss the problems that plague most Netflix productions because most of these “films” (if we can call them that, but that would be an insult to, you know, actual movies) serve as nothing but background noise for someone who can’t concentrate in front of something for more than two hours and needs to look at their phone every five seconds. But that’s what most of these movies are. Even the masses will largely forget the prestige stuff (Emilia Pérez? Anyone?) when the next awards cycle begins. In that regard, however, Back in Action is the perfect movie for viewers who don’t want to watch movies because it has the attention span of a TikToker who continuously scrolls on their phone all day and looks at nothing but fruitless videos that give them little to no dopamine rush. It’s genuinely incredible how virtually nothing works in this 114-minute-long actioner; you’d think a robot generated lifeless doubles of both Diaz and Foxx in an entirely synthetic background to pass it off as a real return to the screen for an actress we’ve all missed because of how bored they look on-screen together, even though it was Foxx’s idea in the first place to bring her back into the spotlight. 

As CIA spies turned (too) controlling parents, Diaz and Foxx have zero chemistry in this listless moving picture that showcases us twenty-four images every second (rather than running at 24 frames per second), as if we always need to be stimulated instead of developing a tangible aesthetic, writing fully-developed characters who we latch onto beyond the off-screen personas of its leads, crafting nifty action setpieces, and give a carefree, entertaining time to the audience. Each flatly shot action scene is hacked to bits as if editor Peter S. Elliot forgot that the entire notion of “attention span” exists. Worse yet, none of the dialogue that over TWENTY (not a joke) screenwriters contributed to, in one shape or another, feel in any way natural. It doesn’t look like Diaz and Foxx were on the same set for most of the movie, possessing none of the fun they had just eleven years ago (even if Annie was not very good). However, this was true in some cases, as Foxx was hospitalized for a medical emergency during filming, and a body double was required to complete several scenes with his face digitally inserted in post-production.

The results, while understandable given the gravity of Foxx’s emergency, aren’t very convincing and make this chemistry-less picture even more devoid of any real emotion. One even wonders how director Seth Gordon managed to get legitimate talents like Kyle Chandler, Glenn Close (who needs to stop working with Netflix, collecting so many terrible movies to her resumé like they’re infinity stones), and Andrew Scott to deliver three of the most embarrassing performances of their respective careers. Chandler seems so far above the material he’s given but looks, for some time, to be the most unscathed of them all because of his limited screen presence. 

Back in Action' Review: Should You Watch The Cameron Diaz and Jamie Fox  Netflix Movie? - What's on Netflix

He phones it in, yet it doesn’t look like he’s in the movie for much. Whatever, we all need money, and no one can blame such an incredible actor for accepting the easiest-ever paycheck (if you were in the same situation, would you? Of course you would – don’t lie!). After all, acting is an art, but it’s also, first and foremost, a profession. However, Gordon makes the bafflingly predictable decision to bring him back near the movie’s conclusion for what would be considered a “shocking” twist if it was built correctly up but is so telegraphed from the start that audiences will figure it out long before Christopher Lennertz’s bludgeoning music reveals it with little to no nuance, or depth.

Back in Action is such a dishonest movie that no audience member who values their time could ever find enjoyment inside a “piece of content” that never rewards us. The plot is as basic as it comes, but Gordon does have the opportunity to infuse some fun into the proceedings through its lead stars’ natural chemistry. And yet, there isn’t a scene with both of them that actively works, either comedically or emotionally. It also is a spectacular feat to make Glenn Close’s turn as Emily’s estranged mother, Ginny, so far worse than the last movie she starred in, The Deliverance. If you thought her saying “I can smell your nappy pussy” was terrible in Lee Daniels’ horror picture (which did have some things going for it, most notably rock-solid work from Andra Day, Mo’Nique, and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor), just wait when seeing her share the screen with Jamie Demetriou, already the top spot as the year’s most grating character, with nothing else to offer beyond dull physical comedy with zero sense of timing. 

Back in Action Review: Cameron Diaz Came Out of Retirement for This?
All of this is bad enough, but it’s genuinely such an absolute shame that Diaz would want to make her return to acting with…whatever this is. Perhaps she felt compelled to at least give another memorable role to the screen after her last four motion pictures, The Counselor, The Other Woman, Sex Tape, and Annie, were massive critical failures. You were on top for some time, but your career took a nosedive by choosing one flimsy project after another. No one can blame Diaz for coming back and hopefully rectifying the last movies she starred in while perhaps hoping that her acting career will also be reinvigorated by newfound interest in her screen presence. 

Yet, Back in Action is somehow worse than all four movies combined. At least these ones had some form of life or directorial juice (one of them is directed by Ridley Scott, after all) behind them that, in comparison to her latest endeavor, made them semi-watchable. If anything, Diaz came out of these projects unscathed because her versatility as an actress has always made her a real talent on-screen, having fun with different genres and working with the best-ever filmmakers to make her an even better performer than she already was (i.e. Oliver Stone’s Any Given Sunday and Cameron Crowe’s vastly underappreciated Vanilla Sky). 

There isn’t a single scene, or even a fleeting moment, from Back in Action that feels worthy of Diaz’s on-screen talents, and her performance is nowhere near the level of commitment and standards she has always set on screen, whether good or bad the finished project ultimately became. Foxx, who has always possessed a natural sense of charm, doesn’t fare any better either. In a way, it does feel like a Herculean feat to make two of the most charismatic people whose effervescent qualities always pop off the screen look like they have never acted on a movie set a day in their life. Watching the film, I kept asking myself where the “fun” that Diaz kept talking about made her want to come out of retirement and co-star with Foxx. After all, what convinced her to star in another picture again was Foxx saying to her, “Do you wanna have some fun? Just have some fun!” (or maybe it was money. Who knows, but we’ll stick to the official version). 

Perhaps they had fun off-set. But on the screen, Back in Action feels like the antithesis to what is objectively described as “fun,” which is, according to Merriam-Webster, “providing entertainment, amusement or enjoyment.” Based on this definition, you’d likely have more fun watching even Garth Thomas’ eight-hour Baa Baa Land, which captures sheep standing in a field in the hopes that their audience members will fall asleep, than sit through this agonizing excuse of a “film” that insults both our intelligence and the precious time we have on this decaying planet.

Grade: F

Chasing the Gold: Final Oscar Predictions (Best Adapted Screenplay)

The 97th Academy Awards, set for Sunday, March 2, have not (yet) been postponed due to the tragic wildfires that have engulfed much of Los Angeles and its surrounding areas since the first few days of 2025. Voting for nominations and the announcement of this year’s nominees, however, have been extended and delayed once again, respectively, out of sensitivity for the city and some of the Academy’s members who have been directly impacted by the fires. (Four governors and a former CEO lost their homes, The Hollywood Reporter reported on Monday, January 13.) The new dates and times for the folks keeping track at home are as follows:

  • Nomination window: Began at noon ET on Wednesday, January 8, now runs through 8 p.m. ET on Friday, January 17 (Previously slated to end at 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday, January 14, and at 8 p.m. ET on Sunday, January 12 before that first extension.)
  • Nomination announcement: This will now take place at 8:30 a.m. ET on Thursday, January 23 (Originally scheduled for 8:30 a.m. ET on Friday, January 17.)

Elsewhere, though, awards season surges forward, as does its coverage. The Directors Guild of America announced its nominations on Wednesday, January 8, and has yet to push back their awards ceremony (Sunday, February 8); the Screen Actors Guild announced their nominations that same day, and while the body canceled its live presentation of said nominations, the SAG Awards remain scheduled for Sunday, February 23; on the morning of Wednesday, January 15, the annually-awful BAFTA nominations were announced. The less said about those, the better. 

Most recently – and for the purposes of this article, most importantly – came the nominations for Best Original and Adapted Screenplay from the Writers Guild of America. Given that my focus for Chasing the Gold is on Adapted Screenplay, I’ll only note those nominees, though eligibility-related omissions are of note across the board: A Complete UnknownDune: Part TwoHit ManNickel Boys, and Wicked made up the crop here. Notably absent titles include the Golden Globe-winning ConclaveSing SingI’m Still Here, and Emilia Pérez, all because they were either produced outside of the guild’s collective bargaining agreement or written by a non-union member.

Despite how focusing on these precursors as we look forward to the Oscars is how many of those working in the film journalism make a living, all of this talk – he types while gesturing wildly into open space – leaves awards prognosticators feeling queasy. Phrases like “the show must go on” should not (and do not) apply to live-streamed events unfolding amidst horrifying disasters that have taken homes and lives, as if those things aren’t slightly synonymous on their own. Then again, curiosity persists, and if it’s enough to distract those in need of one the most, I suppose predicting the nominees in this year’s Best Adapted Screenplay field is worthwhile. 

ON THE OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN:

Dune: Part Two (Denis Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts; based on the 1965 novel “Dune” by Frank Herbert)

The second half of Denis Villeneuve’s sprawling science fiction epic has been all but blanked this awards season, a frustrating fate for one of 2024’s great cinematic achievements despite how franchise flicks tend to fare at the Oscars. If there’s any point of comparison for Dune: Part Two eking out a nomination here, it might be worth pointing to Top Gun: Maverick and Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, both of which received nods in this category at the Academy’s 95th ceremony in 2023, or even to 2021’s Dune, which received a nomination here. Then again, both of those former films were legacy sequels of a kind, not precise second chapters of a continuing story like this one; plus, the first film came in a pandemic-impacted year. The best chance for a Dune film triumphing in above-the-line realms will come in a few years when Dune: Messiah – the presumed final film in Villeneuve’s Timothée Chalamet-led trilogy – could have its own Return of the King moment.

Hit Man (Richard Linklater and Glen Powell; based on the 2001 Texas Monthly article “Hit Man” by Skip Hollandsworth)

Could 2024’s best rom-com be improbably surging in this category? Let’s look at the facts: For starters, Richard Linklater is a two-time previous nominee (although both nominations came for his Before trilogy sequels, co-written with stars Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy). Glen Powell, being a co-author of Hit Man’s script with Linklater, could do it a favor, given the former’s rising stardom and boundless likeability – insofar as those are worthwhile qualities for Academy voters to consider. Perhaps the most crucial piece of information is that their script was nominated by the Writers Guild, but it’s once again imperative to mention that a number of films that have been considered frontrunners (or at least eventual nominees) were ruled ineligible, leaving a spot for Linklater and Powell to work their way into the fold. If the same happens at the Academy Awards, it will be a pleasant, unexpected surprise, with an emphasis on “unexpected.”

Nosferatu (Robert Eggers; based on the 1922 film Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, written by Henrik Galeen) 

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was founded in 1927, making it five years too late to honor F.W. Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece upon its release. The same fate appears to be inbound for Robert Eggers’ rendition, as it has missed out on any Adapted Screenplay honors from groups not made up entirely of critics. (It was nominated in the category by the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Alliance of Women Film Journalists). Alas, one of the foremost horror auteurs of his generation will have to settle for having made a critically lauded work that is one of the year’s best films

Wicked (Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox; based on the musical “Wicked” by Holzman and Stephen Schwartz, and the 1995 novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” by Gregory Maguire)

Of the four films on my “outside looking in” list, Wicked inexplicably stands the best chance at nabbing a nomination for its screenplay. Alright, fine, so it isn’t all that inexplicable, my personal bias be damned: The musical has been an undeniable awards-season juggernaut thus far. And while most of its nominations and/or wins have not been for its script, Holzman and Fox did receive an Adapted Screenplay nomination from the Writers Guild of America (alongside Dune: Part Two and Hit Man, as aforementioned). But the reasons I’ve left it out of my predictive top five have more to do with where it has missed. It failed to garner a nomination at the Golden Globes – never mind the fact that the category there groups all screenplays together – and the BAFTAs, two major precursors for the Academy Awards. It could sneak in here; I’m betting it won’t.

THE PREDICTED NOMINEES:

A Complete Unknown (James Mangold and Jay Cocks; based on the 2015 book “Dylan Goes Electric!” by Elijah Wald)

Nominations from the WGA and the BAFTAs serve as huge boosts for Mangold and Cocks’ Bob Dylan biopic, a project that had “Best Adapted Screenplay” nominee written all over it long before it was released… maybe even before it was greenlit. Who are we kidding: The true (albeit far-too familiar) story of the greatest songwriter of all time’s rise to fame, complete with Timothée Chalamet wearing a prosthetic nose and learning guitar to bring Dylan’s lyrics to life? It may not be a shoo-in, but it’s most definitely a shoo-nom.

Conclave (Peter Straughan; based on the 2016 novel “Conclave” by Robert Harris)

This year, the Golden Globes’ “Best Screenplay” category was populated by five original works and one work of adaptation – the latter is the script that won. Not only is Conclave a certain nominee at the Oscars, but Peter Straughan should be favored to take home the statuette on March 2.

Emilia Pérez (Jacques Audiard; based on the opera libretto “Emilia Pérez” by Jacques Audiard, which was loosely adapted from the 2018 novel “Écoute” by Boris Razon)

I still can’t figure out Emilia Pérez. Why people love it confounds me; why people defend it is even more baffling; why anyone voluntarily watched it outside of a festival setting is perhaps the most mystifying of all. Nonetheless, it has been the most dominant title this season, periodically sweeping up tens of nominations from awards bodies and critics groups alike, and Audiard’s screenplay is practically certain to go noticed by the Academy, too. If it wins, I wonder if this category’s presenters will announce it by saying, “From penis to vaginaaaaa, it’s Emilia Pérez!” (Related: God help us if it wins.)

Nickel Boys (RaMell Ross and Joslyn Barnes; based on the 2019 novel “The Nickel Boys” by Colson Whitehead)

The best work of adaptation to be released this year – not to mention the film of the year – should be winning here, yet there’s a chance it misses out on a nomination entirely. Should that happen, voting bodies will have done RaMell Ross’ masterpiece a disservice far beyond the lengths of how Nickel Boys has already been treated by bodies including (but not limited to) the BAFTAs, the Producers Guild, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Golden Globes. At least it was nominated for something by the latter group. That the Writers Guild included it in its five nominees for Best Adapted Screenplay gives me hope that the Academy will have a similar amount of sense and enough decency to recognize its brilliance with the top honor. 

Sing Sing (Greg Kwedar and Clint Bentley; based on the 2005 Esquire article “The Sing Sing Follies” by John H. Richardson, and the musical “Breakin’ the Mummy’s Code” by Brent Buell)

Speaking of decency: Among 2024’s most urgent and heartful films also had one of its strongest screenplays, a true story about the Rehabilitation Through the Arts program at Upstate New York’s Sing Sing Maximum Security Prison brought to life by many formerly-incarcerated alumni of the program. The most heralded among them has been Clarence “Divine Eye” Maclin, who – along with John “Divine G” Whitfield – receives a “story by” co-credit with director Greg Kwedar and his co-writer, Clint Bentley. It’s an emotional meal of a film, its dialogue delivering regularly scheduled wallops to the soul. Like Nickel Boys, it’s a work that deserves plaudits beyond Oscar nominations, but receiving notice from the Academy wouldn’t be a half-bad start.

Chasing the Gold: Final Oscar Predictions (Best Supporting Actor)

The time has come, and Oscar nomination morning is right around the corner (as of now, the nominations will be announced on January 23 at 5:30 a.m. PT). Still, even though we’re only a few days from figuring out who is in and who is out, many categories feel chaotic, including the Supporting Actor category. The supporting actor category has undergone many changes over the past few months; what once felt like a safe category quickly flipped to pandemonium.

This category currently stands with Kieran Culkin, Yura Borisov, and Edward Norton out front. These three are the only Supporting Actor contenders that picked up nominations with all four major precursors:  the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Critics Choice Association (CCA), Golden Globes (GG), and The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Culkin won the Golden Globe. These are our top three, and there is a reasonable belief that any of them can win. For Norton, A Complete Unknown is overperforming in above and below-the-line categories and could lead, or be close to the leader, in terms of overall nominations. Norton has never won an Oscar, even though he has been nominated three times, and this could be the time when the Academy throws him a bone in a movie they greatly enjoy. He also has the privilege of playing opposite a strong Best Actor contender in Timothee Chalamet, not as an enemy, but as a friend. While A Complete Unknown is about Bob Dylan, it is more about folk music as a whole, and Norton’s first appearance in the film shows the command he will eventually have throughout. I don’t think this will ultimately happen, but I’m confident a nomination will come, so there’s always a chance.

If there is a race, it will be between Kieran Culkin and Yura Borisov, two actors with vastly different narratives, but both can still win. For Culkin, we have a child star who gained recognition throughout the years before genuinely breaking out with HBO’s Succession, where he not only stood toe to toe with the likes of Brian Cox but eventually outshined the entire cast, winning a majority of the awards (SAG and Emmy among to name a few) for his performance in the show’s final season. Culkin has been a wrecking ball this season and has the most critics and industry wins of any actor in any category thus far (29 by the time of writing this article). He hasn’t missed a nomination anywhere and will likely ride this train to the Oscar stage.

However, we can’t entirely count out Yura Borisov just yet. His nuanced performance in Anora vastly differs from Culkin’s bombastic one in A Real Pain, which also plays to his Oscar journey. Borisov is a well-known actor internationally but has never acted in an English-language film until this one. The title for Best Picture is up in the air as multiple films still have a good shot at winning, with Anora being one of them; however, Culkin’s A Real Pain doesn’t quite share that sentiment, and even a nomination for the film is still questionable. If A Real Pain finds a spot among the Best Picture lineup, I don’t think there’s much that Borisov can do to win. Still, a missed nomination creates an exciting scenario as there have only been five occasions since 2000 when a Supporting Actor winner came from a film not nominated for Best Picture, and there have been seven times since 2000 when the winner of this category was also in the Best Picture winner. Realistically, Culkin will take the prize at the end of the day like he has so many times before; however, it would be ignorant to say that Borisov doesn’t have a chance, especially when the Supporting Actor winner and Picture winner have lined up for the past three years.

With the easy predictions out of the way, let’s move on to the final two slots, one of which firmly belongs to Guy Pearce. Did he miss the SAG nomination? Yes, but so did many others who don’t have the same resume that he does in terms of nominations and The Brutalist’s overall power this season. Like Borisov, The Brutalist is still one of the frontrunners that could win Best Picture, and Pearce plays a prominent role in the film, being what could be considered the main antagonist. Pearce has had a long career and has never been recognized by the Academy, which plays a factor. A snub is possible but unlikely. 

This takes us to the final spot, which is between three people. First, you have Clarence Maclin, who was thrown a massive British lifeline by picking up a BAFTA nomination after missing both the SAG and the Globe. Sing Sing is a film that has been all over the place for the entire awards season; at one point, it was heralded as a guaranteed Best Picture win and is now fighting for a nomination. Colman Domingo is safely in the Lead Actor category, and the screenplay might also be secure. Still, the film not showing up at the Globes, SAG, BAFTA, or PGA is a telling factor regarding how people in the industry feel about it. While he did get a BAFTA nomination, they also nominated six actors in the category, and arguably, he might have been the sixth. I won’t count out a nomination for him, as maybe the film has more passion than it seems, but I don’t think it’s likely.

Next, there’s Denzel Washington for his role in Gladiator II. While Gladiator II wasn’t the most beloved film of the year, it was almost unanimous that people left loving Denzel’s performance. However, he has even been all over the place regarding precursor nominations. After picking up  Critics Choice and Golden Globe nominations, he missed a nomination for the BAFTA (which isn’t too shocking considering he has never been nominated for a BAFTA) and SAG. Gladiator II, as a whole, isn’t performing well either, as there is a real possibility that the Oscar nomination morning will come and go without mentioning the film once. With all that being said, he is still Denzel Washington, the same actor nominated for nine acting Oscars, winning two of them. He has picked up nominations for far less performing films and is an easy name to write down for a voter. A nomination isn’t as strong as once felt, but you can’t ever count out Denzel.

Ultimately, though, I believe Jeremy Strong will hear his name called among the nominees—an early heavyweight out of Cannes whose campaign has been everywhere since. The entirety of The Apprentice seemed to be Sebastian Stan or bust, but then, as campaigning began to kick up, it felt more likely that this film was being pushed away due to the subject matter. Then, both Stan and Strong earned nominations at the Golden Globes and BAFTA, with Strong also finding a way in at SAG. For Jeremy Strong, this means he earned a nomination at three major precursors and could even pick up a nomination without his co-star getting one. To me, this shows that there is support for not only him but his performance as well, and maybe Strong and Stan aren’t as much of a package deal as they once seemed to be. Getting the BAFTA and the SAG nominations makes me believe he will get his first Oscar nomination and round out the list of five.

Predicted Nominees:

  1. Kieran Culkin, A Real Pain
  2. Yura Borisov, Anora
  3. Edward Norton, A Complete Unknown
  4. Guy Pearce, The Brutalist
  5. Jeremy Strong, The Apprentice

Next Up:

  1. Clarence Maclin, Sing Sing
  2. Denzel Washington, Gladiator II