Plenty has happened since my previous predictions back in September, as we have had a few of the televised precursors take place, not to mention numerous critics groups during the season. The Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice Awards have been and gone, with guild nominations at PGA, SGA and the Actor’s Awards (formerly SAG), all being announced last week. Whilst the BAFTA nominations come one week after the Oscar nominations this year, they released their longlists recently, giving us additional indication as to what films to expect come Oscar nomination morning on 22nd January.
Having established itself as the first real contender of the year back in April, Ryan Coogler‘s “Sinners”, still is looking likely to receive a healthy number of nominations as it appears to be the second or third favourite for for the top prize having been usurped by both “Hamnet” and “One Battle After Another”.
Paul Thomas Anderson‘s action-thriller was oddly absent from the festival circuit in 2025, but released to universal acclaim and has gone onto become a favourite amongst the various critics groups. It also took home top prizes at both Critics’ Choice and Golden Globes in recent weeks. Similarly, “Hamnet” has faired well having won the People’s Choice Award at TIFF back in September, as well as the Golden Globe for Drama, beating out “Sinners” in the process.
Other films almost certain to join these three in the best picture line-up include “Marty Supreme”, “Frankenstein”, “Sentimental Value”, and “Bugonia”, as all four were among the ten PGA nominees, as well as heavily featuring throughout the season. The former two also recieved nominations at DGA and at the Actor Award’s for Ensemble.
The final three slots are seemingly between seven or eight films at this late stage in the season, with International films “The Secret Agent”, “It Was Just an Accident” and “No Other Choice” looking to join “Sentimental Value” in Best Picture. While the latter two have dropped off in recent weeks, “The Secret Agent” is surging following its two Golden Globe wins at the weekend, and is looking likely to repeat the success of fellow Brazil production “I’m Still Here” last year. Other potential nominees could include Netflix drama “Train Dreams”, which will likely get a cinematography nomination, and possible Adapted Screenplay, Lead Actor for Joel Edgerton, Score and Song, plus it also secured a PGA nomination last week.
Four genre picks are also looking to get a Best Picture nomination; racing movie “F1” which is likely to pick up a few technical nominations and perhaps a win in Sound, fantasy films “Avatar: Fire and Ash” and “Wicked: For Good” which will be looking to repeat the success of their respective predecessors, and horror movie “Weapons”, which got into PGA, and is sure to get a Supporting Actress nomination for Amy Madigan as well as a potential Screenplay nomination.
Final Best Picture predictions:
Strong Contenders
- “One Battle After Another” | Warner Bros. | dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
- “Hamnet” | Focus Features | dir. Chloe Zhao
- “Sinners” | Warner Bros. | dir. Ryan Coogler
- “Marty Supreme” | A24 | dir. Josh Safdie
- “Frankenstein” | Netflix | dir. Guillermo del Toro
- “Sentimental Value” | Neon | dir. Joachim Trier
- “Bugonia” | Focus Features | dir. Yorgos Lanthimos
- “The Secret Agent” | Neon | dir. Kleber Mendonca Filho
- “It Was Just an Accident” | Neon | dir. Jafar Panahi
- “Train Dreams” | Netflix | dir. Clint Bentley
Possible Contenders
- “F1” | Warner Bros. | dir. Joseph Kosinski
- “No Other Choice” | Neon | dir. Park Chan-wook
- “Wicked: For Good” | Universal | dir. Jon M. Chu
- “Weapons” | Warner Bros. | dir. Zach Cregger
- “Avatar: Fire and Ash” | 20th Century | dir. James Cameron
Nominations for the 98th Academy Awards are announced Thursday 22nd January
Dan Loves Film 
Very insightful and on the money…perhaps one less foreign film for Best Picture nomination: and what about no wicked sequel or avatar sequel? People really soured on both a bit…both big hits but there was an expectation they would both do much better and the interest level is clearly more muted for both – and that really kills Ariana’s Supporting chance to win
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think two or three of the international films will get in, but not all 4 from Neon. I think both sequels disappointed, and have been way this award season compared to the sequels. Grande will get nominated but is highly unlikely to win which is crazy as she was essentially the likely runner up last year
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes things have really changed…you get the vibe that is out there by the way the guilds nominate, the critic groups – NOT including the Golden Globes which is NOT a critics group, it’s a money making venture – so I discount those except it does help influence those who dont both to see the films
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the Globes offer the opportunity for people to give speeches, which can make a difference going forward, not necessarily due to voting crossover
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you are absolutely right about that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When an Oscar (or other acting-award) nominee wins and accepts the prize at the podium, he/she typically thanks the various other participants in the relevant film’s creation. For me what’s always conspicuously lacking in the brief speech is any mention of the infants or toddlers used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even PTSD trauma.
Yes, I have a bit of a problem with the entertainment industry using infants or toddlers.
Long before reading Dr. Sigmund Freud’s or other academics’ theories/thoughts on early-life trauma, I, while cringing, was (still am) astonished at how the producers and directors of negatively hyper-emotional big-/small-screen ‘entertainment’ could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler ‘actors’ as they screamed in bewilderment.
Admittedly, I’d initially presumed there had to be a reliable educated consensus within the entertainment industry and psychology academia that there’s little or no such risk, otherwise the practice would logically and compassionately have ceased. But then I became increasingly doubtful of the factual accuracy of any such potential consensus.
Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence? More so, how could the parents of those undoubtedly extremely upset infants/toddlers allow it?!
Contemporary research reveals that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted, pg.123).
Additionally known is that the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, does the most harm. When the stressor “is completely predictable, even if it is more traumatic — such as giving a [laboratory] rat a regularly scheduled foot shock accompanied by a sharp, loud sound — the stress does not create these exact same [negative] brain changes” (pg. 42).
The entertainment industry’s misuse of animals during filming rightfully isn’t tolerated as a general rule; and, likewise, it should not use infants and toddlers in adversely hyper-emotional drama — especially if substitutes, such as mannequin infants and/or computer-generated imagery (CGI), can be used more often.
LikeLike