The Academy Awards have remained the world’s most prestigious film honor for nearly a century. A win significantly boosts filmmakers’ opportunities and dramatically increases their chances of securing funding for future projects. The awards also shape the direction of cinema and influence studio decisions for the year ahead.
Oscars 2026: A Glance at the Nominees
If given the opportunity to award the prize for Best Picture of 2025, I would wholeheartedly give it to the creators of “Frankenstein,” as it’s not only my favorite among the nominees but also the most compelling film I’ve seen all year. This adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel is something I’ve waited years for. While not objectively perfect, it resonated with me deeply, offering a fresh perspective on a story told countless times before. Guillermo del Toro has breathed new life into “Frankenstein,” delivering what is, in my opinion, the best adaptation of Mary Shelley’s timeless work yet – one that respects the source material while simultaneously modernizing its message and introducing innovative changes. It’s also a stunning visual achievement, realized in a gothic style with a touch of steampunk, creating a dark and enchanting fairytale. Add to that exceptional performances and a sensitive approach to the creation of the Creature, and you have my top pick.
However, I recognize that “Frankenstein” doesn’t have much of a chance in the Best Picture category. The final battle will likely be between “One Battle After Another” by Paul Thomas Anderson and “Sinners” by Ryan Coogler. Anderson’s film didn’t captivate me as much as it did many critics, but that doesn’t imply I don’t appreciate its revolutionary spirit, Leonardo DiCaprio’s excellent performance – delivered without pretension – and the thrilling chase sequences. However, the gags surrounding the hapless Bob Ferguson quickly grew tiresome, and abandoning the Perfidy storyline – which drove the plot and was a far more compelling character than the cartoonish Colonel Lockjaw (though brilliantly played) – was frustrating.
This is one of those films where the abundance of storylines and genre mixing (“One Battle After Another” attempts to be a satire, a family drama, and an action film simultaneously) impacts the emotional connection. Instead of watching an exaggerated scene of a local racist club, I would have preferred to see more of the relationship between Bob and his daughter, as that is undoubtedly the strongest element of the film.
Of the realistic contenders for the statuette, I’m rooting for “Sinners.” Primarily because it’s a socially conscious horror film. Any recognition for the genre is valuable to me, as the recent development of horror cinema is astounding and deserves attention, appreciation, and funding. Filmmakers consistently prove that horror can convey a wide range of emotions, stories, and ideas, and the stereotypical perception of the genre can now be discarded. While I believe better horror productions emerged in 2025 (“Give It Back to Me,” “Disappearances,” “28 Years Later”), and “Sinners” is simply a fine film, I hope the Academy will recognize it. The film draws from the best, occasionally employs overly obvious metaphors, but is a very self-aware and necessary piece of cinema. It cleverly utilizes a less-explored approach to vampires and perfectly employs music. It builds tension effectively, prompts reflection, but is sometimes naive and chaotic.
The biggest surprise among this year’s Oscar nominations is “Marty Supreme,” to which I would award the golden statuette as my second choice. It’s a major cinematic achievement with the potential to grow an instant classic, and Timothée Chalamet’s first role that I’ve been able to fully appreciate. The actor employed different techniques than usual to once again portray an arrogant child who is gifted and aware of his uniqueness. I was amazed by how he controlled his facial expressions, transformed throughout the film, and paid attention to every detail he brought to the screen.
Josh Safdie has once again delivered a wildly nerve-wracking, jittery film where content goes hand in hand with formal solutions. The director skillfully builds tension by immersing the viewer in a series of incredible events. And it doesn’t finish. Most importantly, even though there aren’t many reasons to sympathize with the main character, you still can’t help but root for him.
I found myself much less emotionally connected to “Bugonia,” however. While I’m a huge fan of Yorgos Lanthimos, the nominated film is one of the worst-rated in his filmography. The cinematography is beautiful, Stellan Skarsgård is excellent, and the music is even better. Every element of this film is great individually. However, when combined, we get a meticulously crafted work that speaks about difficult emotions but doesn’t quite know how to convey them on screen – or, in my case, evoke them. Especially in the context of intergenerational trauma. The house is the most impressive element of the film, functioning as a full-fledged character. It serves as a metaphor, an observer of events, and a carrier of history. But that’s not enough for me to join the ranks of fans of the production.
Nevertheless, I understand the nomination. Despite its flaws, “Bugonia” is a pleasure to watch, largely thanks to Jesse Plemons and the phenomenal Emma Stone, who shines under no other director. It’s also a very relevant production that, using a wild form of satire, accurately points out humanity (even if it gets stuck in obviousness). If a film could open anyone’s eyes, it was this one.
Oscars 2026: Which Films Didn’t Deserve a Nomination?
The list of nominees also includes a film that was supposed to move me to tears but instead left me thoroughly annoyed. “Hamnet” boasts stunning cinematography by Łukasz Żal, and the production looks visually perfect. The acting is flawless, although I believe Rose Byrne should receive the Oscar for Best Leading Actress for “I’d Kick You If I Could,” rather than Jessie Buckley, who already has a statuette practically guaranteed after her role in Chloe Zhao’s film. However, the film lacks pacing, and its profound form doesn’t match the content, or rather, the means by which that content attempts to be conveyed. They are simply too blatant and hysterical. The fundamental problem with “Hamnet” is its terribly sentimental sentimentality. The film torpedoes the viewer with cloying scenes that force sadness and emotion rather than genuinely evoking them.
The finale is the best part of the entire film. The catharsis of experiencing art is a particularly poignant conclusion when the Elizabethan theater appears on screen. The way the audience (with emphasis on Agnes) receives Shakespeare’s first-ever staged “Hamlet” is a truly beautiful summation of the playwright’s efforts. But even that scene had to be “saddened” with inserts of the deceased child. Terrible.
The most interesting proposal in the Oscar pool this year is “Secret Agent.” It’s a skillfully woven story that surprisingly combines seemingly unconnected genres. We have a great political thriller, a spy film, a historical drama, a suspenseful action film, and even elements reminiscent of B-movie horror. Kleber Mendonca Filho cleverly tells the story of an entire country and different social groups, focusing on the life of one man. He also serves us a narrative reminiscent of political cinema from the 1970s, where the viewer sees and knows significantly less than the characters, which perfectly suits the plot. Discovering the next elements of the mosaic composition is a very engaging element of the session, but it cannot fully compensate for the length. Unfortunately, emotions suffer from this density, which “Secret Agent” cannot evoke. The very poor finale also lets it down.
I was emotionally disconnected from Trier’s directorial masterpiece, “Sentimental Value.” Trier bypasses my sensibilities wide. He could write a textbook on how to make a masterpiece, but will never have one in his filmography. The cinematography is beautiful, Stellan Skarsgård is excellent, and the music is even better. Every element of this film is great individually. However, when combined, we get a meticulous work that speaks about difficult emotions but doesn’t quite know how to convey them on screen – or, in my case, evoke them. Especially in the context of intergenerational trauma. The most impressive element of the film is the house, which functions as a full-fledged character. It serves as a metaphor, an observer of events, and a carrier of history. But that’s not enough for me to join the ranks of fans of the production.
Finally, I leave two films whose nominations I can’t quite justify. “F1: Film” is a well-made popcorn flick that deserves a handful of technical awards. However, beyond entertainment, it’s simply a beautiful and long advertisement for Formula 1 with a script that has been plowed through in the cinema in every possible way. It’s a good film in its category, but that’s all.
I also don’t fully understand the presence of Clint Bentley’s film among the distinguished ten. “Dreams of Trains” is a production that was supposed to touch me to tears, but instead left me feeling perplexed. The loose structure combined with the very slow pace and external narration distances us from the main character, and the beautiful shots don’t redeem the neglected storylines, and above all, the secondary characters. “Dreams of Trains” deserves a nomination only for its cinematography.
The 98th Academy Awards ceremony will be broadcast live on CANAL+ on the night of March 15th. Red carpet coverage begins at 11:30 PM, with the ceremony itself starting at midnight. Live updates will also be available on kultura.gazeta.pl – we invite you to join us.
