A Guide to the 2026 Best Picture Oscar Nominees

Ever wonder what a random geeky girl who went to film school thinks about the 2026 Best Picture Oscar nominees? Well, you’re in luck because I have LOTS of thoughts.

These will be in no particular order. If you’re offended by my thoughts on any specific movie, feel free to tell me so in the comments!

* potential spoilers ahead

Train Dreams

In a time where Hollywood continues to value spectacles and high-intensity emotions that grip you at every stage, finding a movie like Train Dreams feels odd, like it’s both too intimate and not enough at the same time. Occasionally, it seems to reflect the idea that the world is indifferent to you. A lifetime comes and goes in the blink of an eye, and the people who remember you become fewer and fewer. It can make you feel small and lost, like how our protagonist feels amongst the redwoods and in the remains of his burnt home. So, a bit like a piece from Albert Camus, but with less rebellion. But then, there are the moments that remind you of how interconnected everything is and it makes the piece seem even more curious because you can’t help wondering – where is this going?

Robert is a logger and a builder involved in the expansion of railroads. He meets people who have an impact on him, but doesn’t believe he had an impact on them. He doesn’t understand things, living in a perpetual state of longing for answers but not actually knowing that’s what he craves. He builds, he grieves, he waits. Little actions change everything, and his hands in the railroad industry helped change the Pacific Northwest. The movie doesn’t ask you or him to answer if it’s for better or for worse; it just is. 

In truth, intimate is a good word to describe the movie overall. The way it’s shot feels innately real and grounded, the light natural and the grime ever-present. But then there are moments that are so picturesque they make the movie take on a dreamlike quality, with whispers of past loves echoing in his ear and the ghost of a former coworker chasing the edge of his vision. Many moments could be a postcard in and of themselves, with each of the actors portraying a natural ease in reaching the needed emotions at every point. In my opinion, although the acting was very well done and the story feels more important to watch than many of the other contenders, the cinematography is what made this movie a Best Picture nominee. I hope it wins Best Cinematography, but I do not think it will win Best Picture due to the more unconventional way of approaching the story and the slower pacing that came with it (although I did enjoy it). 

Frankenstein

The costumes, the sets, everything down to prosthetics and hair, this movie can only be described as wonderfully lavish. I use ‘wonderful’ to describe this sumptuous feeling because when remaking a horror classic like Frankenstein, it would be all too easy to lean into an aesthetic that has more stereotypically fit the genre. It’s not to say that a more classic approach to the story would not work, but when remaking a piece as famous as this one, it’s smart to lean into visual aspects of the story that aren’t as explored. Victor is a member of the upper class, and as such, the grandeur we see is something afforded to him in a way that others cannot access. We, the viewers, are able to enter this world, and it can help give us a better understanding of the character as a whole. 

Yes, the acting is great, especially in Elordi’s case, and the movie is visually stunning (although some of the CGI was a bit glaring and frankly, I would have loved a bit more effort from the cinematography). It’s easy to see why people enjoyed it so much. I, however, am not one of those people. 

The movie overindulges in optics, but leaves the story and pacing lacking. I, again, admit that remaking a classic like Frankenstein is hard work, and there’s a point to del Toro wanting to make it his own, but it does feel like a lot of the deeper themes of the story aren’t touched on in the way they should be. They’re either glossed over or inserted with too heavy a hand. It’s also easy to see how much del Toro wanted to make the creature as sympathetic as possible, changing parts of the book to attempt to achieve this. But there are many ways to make a character sympathetic, while also acknowledging how reality would work in the situation the creature finds himself in. His anger and desperation from the book feel more real than in the movie because his actions aren’t watered down. These things, plus the exaggerated pacing issue, make the piece feel bloated.

Overall, the theme of this review is that if you want to watch the movie just for the fantasy and fun and for Elordi’s excellent acting, do so, but just don’t look too closely at certain aspects of it. That rings especially true for those who have read the book. I do not think it will win Best Picture at the Oscars (nor does it deserve to). However, it is probably the strongest contender for Best Production Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and Best Costume Design. 

Sinners

All hail the best movie of the year. 

When trying to describe this movie to people (without spoiling anything, of course), you’ll find that it’s rather hard to encapsulate. It’s a movie that is a true genre-mash and has perfected the craft. There’s thrills, action, romance, horror, fantasy/the supernatural, crime, drama, music, and it’s also a period piece. Genre-defying is perhaps the best word for it. Music is the soul of the movie, and yet it won’t turn away people who classically dislike musicals. It’s bloody and has horror elements, but those who shy away from the genre can still stomach it. It’s a tale of twins who are both running away from their past and also towards a different part of their past. It’s also the story of a boy whose talent threatens him. It’s deeply introspective and political without trying to be, evoking a perfect ‘show, don’t tell’ persona that Hollywood often struggles with these days. 

Although music is the soul of the movie, the writing is the brain and the acting is the heart. The writing provides an impeccable structure to work through. Questions rise up and they are answered – but it’s important to note how they were answered. The director and writers trust the audience enough to wait for their answers or to pick up on details that answer some of the smaller questions, rather than outright spoonfeeding them. For example, Remmick’s age comes only at the very end of the movie through him talking about how he remembered when Christianity made it to his homeland. Additionally, through this speech and through other details said earlier, you understand why they chose to make Remmick of Irish heritage. Even then, some of the questions are left slightly up to audience interpretation rather than a concrete answer. For instance, why are Remmick’s eyes red sometimes when none of the other vampires have this? It could be age, status, power, allusions to other famous vampires – in any case, it gets the audience involved without leaving questions that are more important open. 

The acting, as said, is the heart of the movie. I can’t think of one performance that I wish were better. Michael B. Jordan played the twins in a way that at first I wasn’t as taken with, but then later I realized just how smart he was. Trying to play up differences between twins just for the sake of the audience isn’t trusting the audience. So, you look for the little details – the color palette, the facial expressions (dimples and not), the way they hold themselves, etc. I was also extremely impressed by the newcomer who played Sammie, as well as the women in the movie, but I was most impressed by Delroy Lindo. He does, however, have stiff competition from Stellan Skarsgård in this category.

Sinners deserves every Oscar nomination it received and, to me, should win Best Picture. It should also win at least one of the acting categories, possibly Best Director, Best Casting, and perhaps Best Original Screenplay. The other nominations are a bit more in the air, with Frankenstein likely taking some of the design awards, ‘Golden’ probably taking Best Song, and (I hope) Train Dreams winning Best Cinematography. 

Bugonia

This movie is wild. First of all, I am convinced at this point that Emma Stone can do no wrong. She is just THAT good. Everything about her acting makes us never question her, not even once. Sure, by the end of the movie there are a few questions raised in terms of her humanity, but even then the audience is able to assuage those by reasoning that her mental state could very easily just be messed up due to her captivity. The juxtaposition of how much we believe her and don’t believe Jesse Plemons’ character is excellently done, and it makes the final twist even more shocking. 

I’m actually not sure how I feel about the final twist. It seems too unbelievable and fantastical to be an actual ending for a movie that felt grounded in an uncomfortable realism. But I do think that’s what makes this movie fascinating. The ending is so unsettling for what the audience has gone through that it just seems not real – which means, is it? Who was lying and who was telling the truth? Does any of this make sense? Is it not supposed to? There are so many questions we’re left with, and I can’t help but think that rewatching this movie would provide a vastly different (but just as interesting) experience. 

Something that should be mentioned is how well-done the movie was, even beyond the aforementioned acting prowess. The score and filming style, in particular, elevated this movie exponentially. With shots that focus almost uncomfortably close to the actors’ faces and music that felt nearly violent with its aggressive percussion, the audience is left feeling extremely unsettled at all times. We feel trapped, like Emma Stone’s character Michelle. Then we feel paranoid, like Jesse Plemons’ character Teddy. But do we? Is the music actually reflecting the exact opposite of that, and that’s why it feels so jarring? Additionally, with the camerawork, is this why so many of the shots of Jesse Plemons make us feel as if he is the prey? It’s all extremely engrossing and I think, at least for now, that it works. I don’t think it’ll win any Oscars, but it certainly deserved its nominations (and perhaps one or two more). 

F1

This should not be an Oscar nominee for Best Picture. Is it a bad movie? No. It’s a fairly average sports movie with great sound mixing (I can actually see it winning Best Sound), decent visual effects, and camerawork. Seeing some of how the F1 world works was relatively interesting and the races were always exciting, but even with the stellar cast, nobody really stood out in this movie (that being said, I did enjoy the chemistry between Pitt and Bardem). 

It’s very evident that this movie thought it was going to be the new Top Gun: Maverick, where intense action scenes and teambuilding moments gained the audience’s favor. Sure, it had those moments, but the problem was that this film was just too formulaic. It wasn’t hard to guess what would happen or even what lines the actors would spout out because things were just so cliché and stereotypical. It was very, for lack of a better term, American-feeling. To be clear, that type of vibe can work well (just look at Top Gun: Maverick), but you have to have something more dynamic and real than what F1 granted. They gave us the typical freewheeling hardcore ‘I’m independent and I don’t care until I do care because otherwise I would be a bad person, so they need to show I have a heart despite my tough, rugged (often handsome) exterior’ protagonist. He’s an underdog, he’s a cowboy, he’s everything the American audience has been told they want. News flash Hollywood – we’d like something different, please! In the words of multiple characters from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, “Ya boring.”

Sentimental Value

Sometimes films aren’t meant for everyone to understand, speaking to the experiences of a few more than the majority. But Sentimental Value is interesting because although I would categorize it as such a film, the way it’s interpreted by viewers seems to me like it would vastly differ based on which daughter (Elle Fanning included as a pseudo-daughter) you’d most relate to/understand. It is entirely possible that this can extend to Stellan Skarsgård as well, but I found his character to be so deeply unlikeable (although very well acted – perhaps the best performance of the film, and that’s saying something because everyone was excellent) that it’s hard for me to fathom empathizing with the man. That being said, I do think he has a high chance of winning the Oscar for Best Actor, and that his chances are the film’s best chances for an Oscar win overall besides Best International Feature Film, although I do think it deserved all of the nominations it received. 

When I first watched the film, I couldn’t help but think that it was going to fall into the category of one of those movies I think is good and overall well done, but it’s just not my cup of tea. The film feels both deeply personal and yet also feels as if it’s holding the audience at arm’s length. Everything relies on the performances of the characters and the way they’re able to express their emotions. Without it, the film would fall prey to its subdued nature and be entirely forgettable after first watch. This was clear to me throughout the whole film and I could admire the delicate balance the story held.

However, when the ending came around, I couldn’t help but think that it just seemed a bit too neat for what the story was. The little bow put on the top of something that had already shown us its flaws and asked us to understand them felt like a letdown. And yet, I do feel that it’s important to note that out of all the movies in this category, this movie is the one I kept thinking about later, pondering things like – was this meant to be symbolic? Did this actually mean that? Was the house a reference to this? Did choosing that sister mean something? It has offered up some of the most thought-provoking questions post-watch, and although I don’t think I will be rewatching this film, I think a story that is able to make the audience think about such questions even days after watching is a triumph in and of itself. 

Marty Supreme

Chaotic, unlikeable, and yet still filled with talent? Marty Supreme is a movie that follows a truly awful man who lies, schemes, and cheats his way into what he wants. His ego is bigger than all of the residents of New York City combined and we’re meant to admire his journey because he works so hard and is incredibly talented at ping pong. But damn, he’s hard to admire when he keeps acting like such a narcissistic asshole. The people around him are no better, feeding into his delusions and harboring their own. 

What the movie does do well is it has an interesting view on the ‘American Dream,’ and the dialogue is extremely well laid out, with characters talking over each other nonstop like something out of an Amy Sherman-Palladino script. The acting is undeniably good, but the characters are so cringey to watch that it almost becomes hard to care about the acting at all. It’s shot well and paced well, so kudos to the directing. But again, it’s hard to care about any of this because the movie ITSELF feels tainted and unlikeable due to who we are watching. I’m not saying this because I think movies should only show likeable people and be about positivity and rainbows and butterflies (insert your favorite cliche here). I’m saying it because it made the movie hard to get through and hard to care about. Even by the end, I know we’re supposed to be like, ‘Wow, Marty turned over a new leaf! Look, he’s crying as he looks at his baby!’ But, come on, he’ll move on to something else in two seconds flat if it suits his interest more. I don’t buy that he’s learned anything or that he’s a changed man; he’s the same. To be fair, maybe that’s the point. And I’m not saying the story didn’t deserve to be told or that it wasn’t well done, but damn, I didn’t like it much and don’t plan on ever watching it again.

I understand why it got the Oscar nominations it did, but aside from Chalamet being a decent contender for Best Actor (although I don’t think he should win), I doubt the movie will win anything.  

Hamnet

There are some movies that really need to have first been seen in a theater, and I think Hamnet is a perfect example of such a film. You will be able to enjoy and appreciate the film under any viewing capacity, but when a movie deals with a deeply emotional and all-encompassing subject in such a nuanced way, not being able to experience it without distractions (at least the first time you see it) can make it hard to feel completely connected to the film. Grief affects all of us at some point in time, and how people deal with grief varies greatly. In Hamnet, every little detail is important to how grief is represented. The color choices, the camera framework, the score, and especially the acting. Missing one, or not being able to fully appreciate it, hampers the experience and you can feel somewhat removed from their grief, rather than tapping into your own experience of the feeling and empathizing with them on a deeper level.

That being said, we need to talk about the acting. Wow… just wow. Mescal not getting an Oscar nomination is WILD to me, and Buckley is almost certainly a shoo-in for her Best Actress win. The way she can use her face is already impressive; one smirk had us understanding her completely and then later, when the color leeches from her face and her eyes empty out, we cannot help but have our hearts break for her again and again. But the way she uses her whole body when she acts is what really got her the nomination. From the first shot of her curled up in the forest, to her famous shot when she reaches out to Hamlet and then sees Hamnet just beyond him, we are totally engrossed in her storytelling. Also, a BIG shout-out to those child actors, but especially to the boy who played Hamnet. Damn, how can a kid be so cute and so devastating all at the same time?

In terms of the Oscars, it is in the running for many awards, but, as mentioned, Buckley seems to be the surefire winner. However, it is entirely likely it may win multiple awards as overall I do think it is my second favorite film of the bunch behind Sinners. I could see it walking away with a Best Picture or Best Director win, although I would put Sinners before it in both of those categories. I do think one of its most underrated nominations is Best Score, so I would be entirely happy to see that win as well. 

One Battle After Another

I have trouble reconciling what I feel about this movie. It feels relevant to this day and age, but also oddly out of place due to a lack of depth and actually exploring the characters and plotlines. The characters are well acted, but also somewhat one-note due to the lack of information given and the fact that the few details we have about them never really get addressed or explored again. Then, when we do feel like we have an understanding of who these characters are, an action that would seem exceedingly out of character throws us for a loop again? The directing feels well done due to the sheer amount of content they have to get through, but then also the pacing feels off? How is it possible for the audience to be both surprised by the events on the screen, but then also get bored because it feels predictable? 

This is a film about revolutionaries and the role people play in such movements, and how the government (or, men with power, to be more precise) reacts to them. We see multiple levels of these opposing worlds, and it is undeniably interesting and horrifying to watch due to the obvious parallels within the United States at the time of release. But when a film presents such themes in such a manic and messy way, it cannot help but feel held back by its own shortcomings. Due to this, the character of Sensei became the grounding force of the movie, and I do not understand why his role isn’t given more flowers. Del Toro did get the Oscar nomination, but more people seem to be favoring Sean Penn’s nomination (I cannot for the life of me understand why… a funny walk and a dumb haircut doesn’t mean he’s the best). Overall in terms of the Oscars, I do recognize why the film was awarded a majority of its nominations, but personally, I do not believe it should win any of them. 

The Secret Agent

Its languid pace and complicated plot can make the movie feel somewhat messy at times and boring at others, but even so, there’s an undeniable charm to this film. The Secret Agent manages to toe a line of being both incredibly interesting and completely confusing. I can’t help but wonder how my perception of the movie might change if I knew a little bit more about the Brazilian history being portrayed. Would I be able to connect with it more? Would the things I found confusing suddenly make much more sense? This is not to say that there isn’t a time and place for a bit of mystery in a movie, but when the length of the movie is as laborious as this one, it can make enjoying the film just a bit harder. 

There were many powerful moments in this film, yes, even despite my confusion. For instance, the opening scene is exceptional. We know nothing about our protagonist or about the crazy journey we’re about to take with multiple time jumps, gore out of nowhere, and a host of engrossing characters that seem to flit in and out of the movie at random, but the opening scene shows us two key things that you need to know while going into this wild ride (but also slow ride) of a movie: corruption is rife, and our protagonist keeps calm under pressure, looking like he’s already dealt with the weight of the world for years.

These two things are important for different reasons, because knowing how bad the corruption is, especially within law enforcement, will be shown at different levels all throughout the film. Then, in regard to our protagonist, it makes him not only a deeply intriguing character (which is desperately needed when the story continues to lag), but it also makes the end of the film extremely impactful and, as mentioned above, powerful. The end of his story is jarring in how he seemed to mean everything to us, and then he was just suddenly gone. We don’t get to see how it happened, or the moments afterwards, but we know why it happened and we feel a deep aching sadness for him, especially as we see his grown son talk about his past family with such a cool detachment. We can’t possibly blame the son, but it is undeniably heartbreaking. 

The film has 4 Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Casting, and Best International Feature Film. Ultimately, I do not think it will win any of these, although it certainly deserved to be nominated. The closest it might come would be for Best International Feature Film, which I think Sentimental Value is more likely to take, and Best Casting, which Sinners is the favorite for. 

_ _ _ _

Any questions? Want to angrily debate about the films with me? Comment below or contact me!