On March 2, 2025, the 97th annual Academy Awards ceremony will take place. In anticipation of that great day, we make our triumphant critical return, venturing once more into the breach, dear friends, donning our 10-film mantle and sacrificing the sleep, energy and time we could have been using to watch the latest season of “The White Lotus” to bring you a comprehensive review of each nominee for Best Picture, as well as our predictions for who will take home the coveted, little, golden man.
“Anora”
CORINNA: “Anora” is a well-written and well-acted film that challenges society’s understanding of sex workers. However, despite this, the film fails to make a meaningful exploration of the societal structures that normalize the commodification of female bodies. In addition, the film takes little care to avoid objectifying its star, Mikey Madison, and contains excessive nudity and graphic sexual content that takes part in further commodifying female nudity in film; doing so without the guidance of an intimacy coordinator. At times, the film also seemed to make light of violence against women, depicting the scenes where Anora undergoes physical violence and fear as comedic. Despite these more negative aspects, Mikey Madison truly gave a wonderful performance as Ani and it is a shame that the film was not more thoughtful in its exploration of her character.
NATE: The best part of “Anora” is how brazenly director Sean Baker rejects the tried-and-true trope that frames the film’s first half. The entire cast (especially Mikey Madison) is great, Baker’s vision fascinating and rather deep. However, the film has rather mixed messages about sex workers and gendered power dynamics—while it’s ostensibly well intentioned, there are multiple times it is actively undermining itself. The intention of the film does, more often than not, shine through, though, and the film is, in my opinion, rather compelling.
“The Brutalist”
CORINNA: Although undeniably well crafted and artistic, “The Brutalist” lacks the nuance and substance to be truly great. The film itself was visually beautiful, dynamically crafted and truly intriguing, however, its handling of complicated topics like immigration, antisemitism, Zionism and sexual violence was at times clumsy, and its beauty and artistry did not make up for its lack of compelling characters and seemingly disjointed message. Additionally, putting aside its use of AI, it seems strange that a film that focuses so heavily on Jewish and Hungarian culture would only cast one actor (Adrien Brody) that has Jewish and Hungarian ancestry. Furthermore, its construction of female characters was shallow and seemed reliant upon filmic tropes and stereotypes.
NATE: “The Brutalist” is stunning visually, has a great score and its leads deliver top-tier performances, but the film cannot figure out what it wants to be. It’s a 3.5-hour ramble. Many of the film’s plot elements feel rather disparate and disconnected, meaningless points to add faux depth and melodrama to a meandering storyline. Additionally, many architects feel the film poorly represents the life of Marcel Breuer, on whom the movie is clearly based, and the timeline of brutalist architecture and the public’s response to it. While the film is very nice to look at, much about it feels phony and it ultimately falls rather flat.
“A Complete Unknown”
CORINNA: Like most biopics about male musicians (think Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” and Bradley Cooper’s “Maestro”) this film just made me mostly dislike the man that the film was about. In reality, however, this is less of a film and instead is mostly just songs. Timothée Chalamet is one of the film’s strong points; his acting performance, as always, is great. However, the film doesn’t actually say that much about Bob Dylan, or extend beyond a surface-level exploration of him as a person, but instead mythologizes him to the point where it becomes hard for an audience to identify with the character they have created. In addition, as someone who is more of a Joan Baez fan than I am a Bob Dylan fan, it was disappointing that Monica Barbaro’s depiction of her was reduced to a love interest in Bob Dylan’s story and a participant in a love triangle that completely ignored most of her own career and the political activism that defined it. I enjoyed hearing the songs and seeing famous moments in music history (Newport ‘65) depicted on the silver screen, however, this film left much to be desired. (Also, everyone is so focused on Timothée’s Bob Dylan speaking voice that they are completely ignoring Monica Barbaro’s Joan Baez speaking voice, which is actually quite accurate.)
NATE: Call me a hater but I have a vendetta against biopics. Especially bad ones. Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan was great. Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez, Edward Norton as Pete Seeger were also great. Great! But there just wasn’t much to the rest of the film. The film’s characters are either far too easy to understand or convoluted and inaccessible—there isn’t much gray area. The film itself jumps from recording sessions to apartments to concerts with somewhat reckless abandon, and, at some point, stops being a biopic and starts being an incoherent amalgam of shots where Chalamet strums a guitar and whispers in his best Bob Dylan voice.
“Conclave”
CORINNA: “Conclave” is a mesmerizingly suspenseful exploration of gender dynamics and race relations in the Catholic church and a study of human connection and relationship to God and faith. The film doesn’t dive too deep into any of its characters, but despite this creates a compelling and enthralling film that grapples with human purpose, the push for progress against tradition, and human desire for power. The film was imaginatively shot, creating a visually stifling and claustrophobic environment that reflected the film’s themes, and was well acted on all sides, the performances of Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci particularly standing out. However, as a film that centered itself around issues of gender and race in Catholicism, it could have benefited from centering more female characters and people of color, beyond use as plot devices to push the story forward.
NATE: “Conclave” is a pleasure to watch. Director Edward Berger makes good use of his expert cinematic vocabulary to capture the tension of the titular conclave. And Stanley Tucci and Ralph Fiennes are fantastic as two cardinals navigating a slew of ulterior motives and questionable men. A couple of the film’s major plot points treat important issues that tend to be on the fringes of pop culture as rather gimmicky devices to preach its central message, but “Conclave” as a whole is a classically well acted, directed and written film.
“Dune: Part Two”
CORINNA: I cannot overemphasize how much I love this movie. Ever since I saw it in the theater when it first came out I have been the biggest advocate and defender of “Dune: Part Two.” The film is visually stunning, incredibly cast and acted, and has gorgeous costumes. In addition, the score composed by Hans Zimmer is soaring, and really brings the emotional elements of the film together. Another aspect that I appreciate about the “Dune” franchise is the way that it is able to improve upon the source material, the “Dune” book series written by Frank Herbert. In particular, the character of Chani, played by Zendaya, was expounded upon and given more depth, allowing her character to have more impact on the story. No notes.
NATE: I was falling asleep through most of this film. I don’t think I would’ve understood it more if I’d seen part one. It’s exactly how I always imagined it would be. Beautifully shot, great cast, reminiscent of how I think about Star Wars (which I also haven’t watched). I think the many parts of the film work nicely together. I enjoy its social commentary. It’s a good movie and, if you can stomach all the sand, a pleasant watch. I don’t think there’s much more to say about it. (I still don’t plan on watching part one.)
“Emilia Perez”
CORINNA: The concept of Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Perez” is interesting and I think that in the hands of a more nuanced and educated director it could have had some potential. However, “Emilia Perez” is undeniably bad. Although celebrated as being a film of trans and Mexican representation, the film didn’t say anything meaningful about the trans experience or Mexican culture. Not only was the film entirely filmed in France (which isn’t Mexico), but most of the actors in the film were not Mexican and the Mexico depicted in the film is under researched and inaccurate. Additionally, the film creates an insulting representation of trans identity. In addition, the film’s music is offensively unlistenable and incomprehensible. Every song in the film sounds more or less the same, repetitive, monotone and unmusical. Not only that, but the film is boring.
NATE: “Emilia Pérez,” a musical melodrama, pushes many envelopes and has a lot of fascinating, experimental turns—so it’s unfortunate that much about the film, which is centered on Mexican culture but had few Mexican influences and thus is strikingly inaccurate in its conception of much about the culture, is racist and represents trans people poorly. (Lead actress Karla Sofia Gascón even defended a number of racist Tweets from when they were unearthed, spectacularly tanking her Oscar run.) Director Jacques Audiard almost tells a spectacular story about transformation but fatally overlooks the weight of the metaphors he relies on to depict that transformation. I’m all for challenging artistic boundaries but the cultural ignorance of “Emilia Pérez” is inexcusable.
“I’m Still Here”
CORINNA: This film, well-crafted, acted, and written is an emotional exploration of loss, grief and justice that is both heartbreaking and suspenseful. Based on the true story of the murder of Rubens Paiva, the film brings you close to the Paiva family and takes you through their life as they struggle with the loss of a husband and father. Fernanda Torres’ performance was wonderful, and I was surprised at the talent of the supporting cast of child actors who delivered great performances as well. The film could have been more concise at times to focus on specific aspects of the story, however overall it is a wonderful film that is not only a brilliant story but a wonderful tribute to Rubens Paiva, Eunice Paiva and a bridging of the artistry of filmmaking with the importance of political statement.
NATE: “I’m Still Here” is a genuinely thoughtful movie that, while it could have a clearer focus, is very moving. Fernanda Torres anchors the film with her devastating performance—she propels the film forward and defines it. I also really enjoyed the way the film thinks about photographs and hard “proof,” and how the vibrant color grading brings out additional depth. This film succeeds on many levels, but its greatest accomplishment is its vivid reimagination of its subjects’ lived experiences.
“Nickel Boys”
CORINNA: “Nickel Boys” is equally as important as it is artistic. The film is innovatively filmed and edited, and although the first person perspective was initially disarming, it was an inventive and engrossing way to tell the story of Elwood and Turner. Additionally, the editing of the film, including historical footage and clips from other films, helps to flesh out the story, adds historical context and demonstrates the broad capabilities of modern day film and visual storytelling. The story itself was both moving and harrowing, and explored complicated themes of political and social resistance and the history of racial injustice in the United States. Besides being an incredible story, the film also brings to light the stories of those who were physically and sexually abused at the Dozier school in Florida, which the Nickel Academy of the film is based on.
NATE: I read Colson Whitehead’s book, on which this film is based, over winter break, and I think the film adaptation of “Nickel Boys” soars as both an adaptation and a stand-alone film. Its ingenious cinematography—director RaMell Ross shot it in the first person—is a fantastic translation of novel to film, and the film artfully preserves the central point of the novel while gently altering material to create a realized cinematic world. It’s a horrifying watch, yes, but an absolutely necessary one—a film that, even through its great horrors finds moments of beauty.
“The Substance”
CORINNA: It is clear that “The Substance” is supposed to be a critique of beauty standards in Hollywood, however, any message that the film may have been attempting to make was completely lost on me due to the grotesqueness of this film. The film is an over-the-top body horror that depicted things I couldn’t possibly repeat in this newspaper. The concept of the film was interesting, but its execution is unreasonably disgusting, and seems to rely upon shock value instead of meaningful content. In addition, although claiming to be a critique of the way society and Hollywood view aging women, at times, it seems to support society’s view and undermine itself. However, despite the more meaningful critiques one could make of this film, it was just plain gross. Body horror is not for me.
NATE: I was scared to watch this movie. I worked up the courage to hit play, though, and boy, am I glad I did. Director Coralie Fargeat creates a fantastic alternate universe in which she artfully hammers together a cohesive narrative with an ever-relevant message about society’s unrealistic, cruel body standards. It’s on-the-nose in the best way. And yeah, there’s a whole lot of gore (so much gore! I have never in my life squirmed so much!) but it all fits within Fargeat’s commanding vision—everything, no matter how gratuitous, has a strong point. It could easily have been 30 minutes shorter, but the film triumphs even in its weak moments.
“Wicked”
CORINNA: The strength of “Wicked” is understandably in its music, but despite this, I’m not entirely convinced that it works as a film. I’ve never seen the stage production so I can’t speak to the specifics of what was added for the film, but what I do know is that the first part of the film series is the same length as the entire stage production which can only mean that they added an exorbitant amount of non-music elements to the film in order to monetarily capitalize on the film as much as possible. However, while most of the musical numbers are at least fun, a lot of the dialogue is awkward and stilted, and delivered by one dimensional characters. You would be better off just watching “The Wizard of Oz” (1939), or taking a trip to see the nearest stage production of it.
NATE: A lot about “Wicked” works. It’s whimsical, its music is compelling, and its leads inhabit their characters remarkably well. Still, though, it’s a movie that can’t figure out what it wants to be. It’s absolutely over-long, and not much of value was added in the great amount of extra time tacked onto it. Even though the film has a great cast (two of whom garnered acting Oscar nominations) and the creative direction is rather strong, the film doesn’t hit home. There are some nice shots, some nice performances, some nice costumes, but each exists in its own, fragmented realm.
The Point: What Will Win? What Should?
CORINNA: I think it is most likely that “Anora” will win. Even though I’ve been off TikTok since before the ban, the social media discourse I have seen points in that direction, and it seems to be winning at the other awards shows. However, picking the film that I think should win isn’t quite so simple. There were a couple films that are tied for my favorite of the season, but if I absolutely had to pick one for the sake of a newspaper article I would have to say Conclave, although that is subject to change after further consideration later down the line.
NATE: Call me boring but I’m playing it safe and betting on “Anora” winning, because it’s a classic Oscars film (and it’s been one of the clearest frontrunners this awards season). I think “Nickel Boys” should win, though, because of how smart RaMell Ross’ adaptation and accompanying political statement are.
We spent a lot of time watching films and writing this article, so please forgive us if our opinions are wrong. It isn’t our fault. Blame—I don’t know—Jacques Audiard (we certainly do)! OK, bye!
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.