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!
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].
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. Plentyofdirectorsloveit; 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:
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
– Most Anticipated Movies of 2025 (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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 Unknown, Dune: Part Two, Hit Man, Nickel Boys, and Wicked made up the crop here. Notably absent titles include the Golden Globe-winning Conclave, Sing Sing, I’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 thefilm 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.
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.
This week on Women InSession, we discuss the trajectory of James Bond in the 1960s and why it was so special with Sean Connery! And a one-timer in the role with the interesting George Lazenby. Not all of the films are great, but there’s a reason the legacy of James Bond continues to this day.
Panel: Kristin Battestella, Jaylan Salah
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!
2024 was a weird year, especially in the world of cinema. Gone are the big event movies that dominate the box office and the awards circuit. The only real chance of that was Dune Part Two and Wicked. While Wicked still has that opportunity, Denis Villenueve’s space epic seems dead in the water, in that regard. It just goes to show that release dates and schedules have much too large of an impact on the way we think of movies and awards. And, of course, it’s all subjective and ridiculous. Is this a top 10 List? Of course. Could you convince me that ten other films are even more deserving? Probably!
And this is where the strength of 2024 lies. Were the highs as high as the Barbenheimer year? Certainly not. No matter how hard they tried to make Glicked a thing (it’s not, please stop this But I would argue that if you search, there is greatness to be found. Step outside of the major releases and do a deep dive. There is tremendous talent and art to be found. Now, some of this is deeply out of your control, of course. This is an unprecedented year, in terms of poor access.
I am both lucky and deeply grateful. As a person who was granted acceptance into a few critics groups this year, I was able to have access to the holy grail known as screeners. Without that, I would not have been able to see many of my top films this year. I say this not to brag, but to show understanding of the frustration of not being able to see the best that 2024 has to offer. In that mindset, when I talk about a few of those movies, I will aim to not spoil anything important, but to focus on the emotions evoked in my experience.
Before we get to the official Top 10, here are some films that just missed out this year. And honestly, ask me tomorrow, and they might make it in!
Sing Sing Babygirl All We Imagine As Light Challengers Love Lies Bleeding Hard Truths The Bikeriders I’m Still Here Red Rooms Immaculate
All of these movies (and the ones below, of course) are well worth your time and effort. As always, watch more movies! Now, on to the actual Top 10!
10. The Substance
The Substance was one of the most visceral, enjoyable, disgusting experiences that cinema had to offer in 2024. Obviously, it was a pleasure to see Demi Moore be on top of the film world again, and Margaret Qualley continues her absolute assault on Hollywood. The Substance really fits the mold of some of my favorites. A genre movie that is not afraid to both go for broke in the visuals and also has a point, or two, to make. It is deeply unsubtle (a trait it shares with a few other movies to come) but it handles that blunt force well. A movie about the hideousness of being a woman who ages, both in Hollywood and the real world, but deals with that problem through both a horror and a science-fiction lens. Does the science of taking The Substance make a lot of sense? Did Margaret Qualley make that room up to code? If you are asking these questions, you have lost the plot, both literally and figuratively. Director Coralie Fargeat deserves many awards, not only for the creation of the core, but for some of the funniest (and oddly touching) moments with MonstroElisaSue. If you can’t laugh at her straightening her remaining hair and jangling that one earring, I honestly feel sorry for you.
9. My Old Ass
This was maybe my biggest surprise of the year. And what a happy, moving, emotional surprise it was. I had no connection with the writer/director, Megan Park, or its lead, Maisy Stella. The only reason I even had interest was due to the presence of Aubrey Plaza, who has a smallish role as the older self of the lead, Elliott. We have heard a thousand times that the journey is more important than the destination, and here is the perfect example. If you could meet your future self, what would you ask? My Old Ass posits instead, should you even ask? Yes, our lives are filled with pain and strife. But what if those moments are what build us into the best possible versions of ourselves? This might be the sweetest, most lovely romance of the year. A nearly perfect coming-of-age story that you absolutely will not see coming. This is a film that will transport you back to that all important first love. The rush. The fear. The exploration. Don’t be scared off by the title. My Old Ass is truly great (pause for laugh track).
8. A Different Man
Sebastian Stan has had one hell of a year. He has now cemented himself as the one to watch when it comes to stars built through the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He continually makes interesting choices instead of going for the pure romantic lead. This one is no different. Stan plays a struggling actor with a facial deformity (kudos to the makeup team, by the way). He is given an opportunity to undergo an experimental treatment to make him “normal” and he takes it with little hesitation. He, like many of us, assumes that if we can just change that one thing about ourselves, all of our personal anxieties and foibles will go away. Stan, paired with a stunner of a supporting performance from Adam Pearson, shows us that yes, what is inside is what really matters. If we don’t actually take a look at what we are doing internally, no amount of surgery, pills, and outside acceptance will heal us on their own. A Different Man offers a challenge. Become a different man through work, or the world will chew you up and spit you out.
7. The Beast
This is probably the most difficult movie on my list to try to speak about. Set in a future where emotions are seen as a net negative, it focuses on one relationship, between Gabrielle Monnier (Léa Seydoux) and Louis Lewanski (George MacKay). The world is actively trying to heal these two of their emotions and, by extension, their innate connection. Now, in a world where they tell you that it is bad to feel, one must find how willing they are to fight. Or will they give in to the beast, will they give in to fear. Both Seydoux and MacKay are excellent here, to no one’s surprise. The film takes big swings and they may not all work for all audiences, but you really have to admire the attempt regardless. Whether these people are in the future, the distant past, or a disturbing present (to us), we find ourselves actively rooting for them to finally find each other. Given the distance that the film purposefully creates, that makes The Beast a success already. But if you fully get on its wavelength, this is a film that will stick with you well past the credits.
6. No Other Land
This is the only documentary on my list this year (but what a year for non-narrative films!). I would term this as the most important movie to watch in 2024. In Hollywood’s ultimate symbol of cowardice, not a single studio has picked this up for distribution, so I would not be surprised if most readers had not seen this. Once that happens (please!), I urge you to watch this beyond any film on my list or any other list. It tells the story of two passionate friends, one Israeli and one Palestinian, fighting through artistic means to put a halt to the disgusting behavior of Israel’s government as they literally bulldoze homes, leaving people with no place to go. This story of friendship, brotherhood, and a willingness to stand for what is moral and right is desperately important. There are moments of bloodshed that are difficult to watch, but these are acts that from our American privileged position, we have avoided for far too long.
5. I Saw The TV Glow
I want to make this clear. Anyone. I mean, anyone can benefit from this movie and find something to engage with. I say this because one of the main criticisms is that it was solely a Trans story. Now of course, there is a very clear Trans allegory happening here, but we are lost, we are all scared. Jane Schoenbrun calls us to find a way, any way, to be ourselves. Our very best selves. Both Justice Smith and Bridgette Lundy-Paine absolutely own the screen here and dare us to not feel. The monologue under the parachute is a top tier moment of the year for me. It was the moment I knew I was watching something powerful, something different. But it is not just a moment. I Saw The TV Glow resonated so strongly with me that I could not shake it for days. It is not too late. It is never too late. As long as you are breathing, you have at least one more chance to be your self. Take that chance. It won’t be easy, but it will be genuine.
4. Ghostlight
Ghostlight is one of two movies this year that harness the power of theatre to inspire growth and change (I see you, Sing Sing). Keith Kupferer gives the best male performance of the year as a man struggling to hold himself and his family together after an indescribable loss. The film somehow enables us to miss a character we have never met purely through the broken connections on screen. Yes, the metaphor on stage is on the nose to what our characters are suffering through in the real world. But life is like that sometimes. No matter our beliefs, life will inexplicably line up to connect us, to teach us. The film shows us that no, we cannot go backwards. But that cannot stop us from growing, changing, expanding. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are more than our pain. We are more than our loss. We can still find our loved ones, even beyond the grave. They live on in us, and what a powerful and beautiful message to be left with this year.
3. Nickel Boys
Everything from here on could be my best movie of the year, if I am being completely honest. If you have heard anything about Nickel Boys (since most haven’t seen the actual movie) it is encapsulated by the word “gimmick.” Do not be fooled. Yes, the movie is mostly filmed from a first-person perspective, but this is done not simply to perform a trick. Nickel Boys is an exercise in forced empathy. One cannot help but be pulled along on the journey of the main characters and experience it as close to firsthand as possible. RaMell Ross is easily the director of the year; and hand-in-hand with cinematographer Jomo Fray, he creates something brand new. And how exciting is that? To see hundreds of movies over your lifetime, to be introduced to something radical and awe-inspiring. I hope we all get to see this film on the biggest screen possible, as it deserves to be seen.
2. The Brutalist
Some of us have been in on Brady Corbet for longer than others. Some of us love Vox Lux. It’s me, I am some of us. It pleases me greatly that he not only created a great film, but managed to build a nearly perfect metaphor on the creative process. Remember how I talked about movies being unsubtle this year? Yeah, The Brutalist is not subtle at all. And yes, that shot of Lady Liberty is incredible, but what I love about this movie is that this shot, while striking, is a signal for what you, and the lead character, is going to experience. So close to accessing the dream, we are constantly met with problems with the power elite. But how can we get our message across without them? Brody, Pearce, Jones. All absolutely at the top of their prospective games and we are all the better for experiencing The Brutalist. Yes, it’s long. Yes, it’s worth it.
1. Nosferatu
It is not a coincidence that this is the movie I have seen the most this year (Don’t ask how many times, it’s embarrassing). Robert Eggers, one of our best working directors, decided to finally take on vampires. Unsurprisingly, he made decisions that made things harder on himself. Not a Nosferatu remake, not a Dracula adaptation, not an original story. Somehow, he threaded a needle between all three of these options. It should not work at all. It should fail spectacularly. Instead, he manages this particular trick thanks to his script and direction, impeccable casting, and the work of numerous craftspeople working at their absolute best. You can sit around and argue all day about what it is actually about (there is plenty of this on Twitter), but this is the real joy of Nosferatu. It is about all of these things. Consent, desire, repression, darkness. One could writer thousands of words on all of these topics and never scratch the surface at everything bubbling underneath the surface. Nosferatu is Eggers’ best work and, for my money, the best 2024 has to offer. Succumb to his darkness.
Special Mention: Close Your Eyes
I watched this movie very late in the game (after our recording, hence its separate inclusion), but what an incredible experience. Close Your Eyes is an achingly emotional and beautiful meditation on art, life, connection, and most of all, aging. If I watched this when I was 20, well, I don’t want to think about what I would say about it at that age. As someone who has seen a bit of life, the film, as it opens up, reveals something about all of us. On its face, it is about a missing actor featured on an “Unsolved Mysteries” like television program. But plot feels irrelevant here. Director Victor Erice seems basically unconcerned with your reading of the film, but instead focuses on the emotion of loss, regaining ourselves, and our connection to art. This is a film that feels like it deserves thousands of words, and yet, none of them are enough.
You can also hear me talk about these movies and why they resonated with me on this year’s InSession Film Awards.
Tim Fehlbaum’s September 5 follows the ABC Sports team as they grapple with how to cover a hostage crisis during the 1972 Munich Olympics.
The tense journalism drama primarily takes place in the ABC studio, meaning that Julian R. Wagner’s production design is front and center in the storytelling, an opportunity Wagner relished, creating a layered, richly detailed, period-accurate playground for the actors.
Watch our full interview with Julian R. Wagner below:
Most cinephiles will be familiar with Stacy Peralta’s skating career because of Catherine Hardwicke’s Lords of Dogtown, a biopic that depicts the development of a skateboarding scene in 1970s Santa Monica. That film, which was based on a screenplay written by Peralta, offered a fictionalized depiction of a specific period in his personal history. In the decades that followed, Peralta continued to branch out into other areas while infusing his increasingly diverse pursuits with his passion for skateboarding.
The new documentary Against the Current aims to expand the general public’s understanding of Peralta by providing an intimate portrait of Peralta’s transition into making art. Naturally, skateboarding continues to play a significant part in this endeavor, but his artistic process ends up taking center stage here. This is a side of Peralta that even longtime fans won’t have been exposed to, and there is enormous value in viewing his creative development through such a specific lens.
Zita Short had the opportunity to interview producer Charlie Smith about their new documentary, Against the Current.
Photo: Cruise Control Gallery
Zita Short: Why do you think that athletic accomplishments have traditionally served as a rich source of inspiration for artists?
Charlie Smith: The aspirational nature of the undertaking. There’s a belief that the world is not done rendering itself into existence, that progress is possible, and that there are unknown barriers to be broken. Even within a team sport, the responsibility of the individual to be undeniably great is always there. But, add in personal style, and it becomes a dance of sorts with almost no clear “winner,” just new expressions.
Zita Short: How does Stacy Peralta’s art, which places a heavy emphasis on the history and development of skateboarding, fit into the lineage of athletically influenced art?
Charlie Smith: I’m tempted to say it almost does not. They are pretty straightforward studies of his old and used equipment. It’s a hyper fixation on this old equipment that was both his tool for freedom and his only limitation, and that changes through time. But I think he paints as they are found now, so there’s a lack of nostalgia there that I found compelling. I guess the most interesting facet is that there was no skateboarding before him and his generation; it simply did not exist.
Zita Short: Stacy Peralta makes note of the fact that he finds a kind of ugly beauty in images of rusty, corroded bolts. Why do you think that human beings are drawn to works of art that have the power to simultaneously attract and repel?
Charlie Smith: I’ve referred to it as a sort of The Picture of Dorian Gray show, only we don’t recoil anymore from a desire to share truth, in whatever form it may present itself. Nobody (yet) seems to be in love with all the AI-generated polished content out there. I think blurring and distorting are closer to how we perceive and store memories and emotions. Non-duality experiences are becoming more sought after in a post-advertising world.
Photo: Cruise Control Gallery
Zita Short: In addition to serving as a producer, you work as an art curator at the Cruise Control Gallery. What are the challenges of working in this field, and what drew you to such a specific Californian cultural milieu?
Charlie Smith: Well, no one really seems to want to buy art. So I won’t sell the art per se. I sell the experience or the world of the artist. To get a master storyteller like Stacy to allow little old me to turn the camera on him was unexpected, to say the least. I’m trying to manage a non-retail art and community gathering zone in a place where this kind of stuff does not exist. I’m a fifth-generation Californian, and we have so much talent right here in our backyard; I think “global destination” type talk for art possibly discounts the setting where these works are produced and why.
Zita Short: Do you think that cinema is well-suited to capturing the power and intensity of the medium of visual art, or is film limited, to some degree, in its ability to capture its complexities?
Charlie Smith: I think it’s the closest to a dream. I think you can sugar pill and backdoor people’s defenses and hesitations by wrapping information in easy-to-digest sound and image combinations. I was raised on the Cinema of Transgression and Lydia Lunch, so this is pretty tame in comparison. But beyond shock, to fold time with the film, if anything, it tells too much. No one wants to really know how the sausage gets made. That’s why it is still palatable. But yeah, it’s an enhancement tool, I think, if you can get anyone to sit still and watch it.
Zita Short: Do you think there are any major artists or works of art that could serve as effective comparison points for Stacy Peralta’s works?
Charlie Smith: We didn’t show them in this program, but his abstracts are very Kandinsky. Stacy is an artist through and through, a lifestyle artist as well. His penchant for film and love of surfing and painting makes him sort of adjacent to a character like Julian Schnabel… Going against type has always been his thing; when the world zigs, he zags. The best compliment we’ve got is other artists asking how these were painted.
Photo: Cruise Control Gallery
Zita Short: Why does Stacy Peralta’s story resonate so strongly with people who are deeply enmeshed in the California art scene today?
Charlie Smith: I think it’s the pioneer aspect primarily. The fact that he did it first. Grabbing his camera and making the skate video, The Search for Animal Chin employs storytelling in a sports/lifestyle film. It had never been done before. Ask anyone who’s seen a skateboard between the ages of 10 and 50, and they will know his name and what he did for the sport by following through on his beliefs and values. It’s a democratized merit-based system in the world of skateboarding; you just have to commit over and over. And he did. Most skaters grew up to make art in one way or another; they just couldn’t help themselves.
Zita Short: What part can cinema play in bringing visual art to a wider audience?
Charlie Smith: Now, with the phone, I mean you can reach anyone… I’m all for film as art and the romantic notion of this huge audience for well-made cinematic masterpieces. I still take myself to the movies. But there are fewer people there than ever. If you can express and document the “whys” and “hows” from the artists themselves, hopefully at its best, it is an invitation for someone else to come out and play in the sandbox of creation. Whatever form it takes.
Director: Scott Chambers Writer: Scott Chambers Stars: Kierston Wareing, Kit Green, Chrissie Wunna
Synopsis: Wendy Darling strikes out in an attempt to rescue her brother Michael from ‘the clutches of the evil Peter Pan.’ Along the way she meets Tinkerbell, who will be seen taking heroin, believing that it’s pixie dust.
The Poohniverse has proved to be a dark theme park for adults wishing to relive their favorite childhood stories with a twist. In the third installment of the franchise, Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare, screenwriter/director Scott Jeffrey creates a monster using the pinnacle childhood escapist hero, Peter Pan, turning him into a dark ranger of sorts, kidnapping children and banishing them to Neverland.
As fans of the franchise are used to its depravity, everything is upside down in this fantastical childhood tale turned rogue. Peter Pan (Martin Portloc) is a scalping killer and a child abductor, Tinker Bell (Kit Green) is overweight and addicted to fairy dust, and Wendy is a brave female protagonist determined to save her little brother from the grasp of an evil masked monster.
Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare is darker and gloomier than other installments in Poohniverse. How depraved and unflinching its handling of disturbing subject matter has been is a shock. There must be multiple trigger warnings because this can be a tough watch for many, even if casual The Twisted Childhood Universe elements and tropes are present, it is still grim and hopeless. While the dark themes including children can be off-putting to some, Jeffrey still handles a tough subject matter with as much grace as could be possibly achieved in a film about a murderous, deformed Peter Pan and a junkie Tinker Bell.
Jeffrey creates a bloodbath; this film is gorier than any previous franchise installment. It’s fun, gross, and very entertaining for bloody R-rated horror aficionados. It’s filled with gruesome kills and nightmarish creatures, a feast for the horror fan’s senses. The script has also impressively improved from earlier installments, all thanks to the new blood pushed into the franchise, the acting choices, and the character dynamics. The bond between brother and sister heightens the film as the plot progresses into unimaginable realms.
What makes this movie stand out though is the brilliant casting of the child actor (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney) as Michael. He adds layers and depth to his character, and the audience can’t help but root for him as he is thrust from nightmare to nightmare. It’s not a performance one expects in a movie like this; a cheesy, bloody, low-budget horror, but DeSouza-Feighoney has a bright future ahead as an adult actor if he elevates his game and takes on more roles as he grows up. His portrayal of Michael is haunting, vulnerable, and disturbed. Scenes where he tries to put up a brave front as he faces his scary kidnappers or tries to reason with them, immediately remind me of another talented child actor, Milo Machado-Graner from Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall. It’s the ability to shrink into their childhood to bring out the horrors they face at the hands of adults. Megan Placito is also decent as Wendy, she plays it well with her performance and viewers connect with her as she goes on a quest to save her brother. Her journey surpasses her acting prowess but it’s fine enough to make us invested in her storyline.
The question remains: Has the Poohniverse succeeded in destroying the legacy of beloved children’s classics, replacing them with Brothers Grimm-like tales of horror for children? What adult would let a child out of their sight after watching the decaying, living corpses of Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, and Captain Hook rotting while holding children hostages in their House of Horrors?
Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare is a raw, vicious, unhinged bedtime story from Hell. Audiences will go on a 90-minute rollercoaster ride of pure gore and flying body parts. It’s TheBlack Phone coated in cotton candy or Stephen King’s It if caught in a web of stardust.
