It’s that time of year again – time for my predictions of the winners at the upcoming annual Academy Awards. For me, this is generally a labor of love, but this year’s awards season has been strange – wild, unpredictable and, ultimately, often frustrating, which has made looking into my cinematic crystal ball far more difficult than in most years.

Perhaps the biggest reason behind this is the fact that 2024 was a terrible year for movies. To be sure, there were a number of releases that were “adequate,” but, as far as pictures that were truly outstanding and deserving of accolades, the pickings were rather slim. And this has been clearly reflected not only in this year’s crop of nominations, but also in many of the nominations and winners named in the competitions leading up to the Oscars. To make things worse, a number of movies that were worthy of recognition have been ignored, undervalued, snubbed or marginalized, making matters all the more frustrating.

The bottom line for me in this is, as a seasoned observer of filmdom and its annual awards programs, I’ve lost a lot of the respect that I held for them in previous years. There have been many times when I’ve found myself shaking my head (or fist) at the results, and I would not be surprised to find myself doing the same on Oscar night.

Because of the widespread variability in the results leading up to this year’s big night, handicapping the races has been more challenging than usual. I’ll admit up front that my confidence in picking winners is not as solid as it usually is. What’s more, I believe that Oscar night will have some surprises that will stun everybody. But, in its own way, that’s not unexpected, either, given that many of us are likely in the same boat.

What accounts for this? As I have seen in many published pieces thus far, it comes down to many award voters not knowing who to cast their ballots for, and that’s understandable in light of the options open to them. This has probably been exacerbated somewhat by the rescheduling of some of the award ceremonies that occurred in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires, an event that prompted extended voting periods that undoubtedly led to shifts in unsettled voters’ opinions. Some of these are likely attributable to the results of completed competitions as they unfolded, savvy movie industry campaigning and unforeseen “outside” developments affecting certain productions (most notably the decline in the fortunes of onetime industry darling “Emilia Pérez”). And, in large part, it’s because of these factors that this year’s edition of this blog is being posted later than usual (my apologies to my readers).

Only a few of the prospective victors in the top six categories – actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress, director and picture – have come into view, with many still up for grabs. So, with that said and for what it’s worth, here are my picks for who will take home statues on Oscar night. Fingers crossed, of course.

Best Actor

The Field:  Adrien Brody, “The Brutalist”; Timothée Chalamet, “A Complete Unknown”; Colman Domingo, “Sing Sing”; Ralph Fiennes, “Conclave”; Sebastian Stan, “The Apprentice”

Who Will Likely Win:  Adrien Brody. The actor holds a solid position for this honor, but I won’t go so far as to say he has a lock on the award. I believe he probably has enough momentum to hold on, having captured many of this awards season’s previous honors and the fact that it’s the kind of performance Hollywood typically likes to think is the standard for the film industry (even though it’s become increasingly more the exception than it may have once been). There could be a surprise here, but I think it’s unlikely.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Adrien Brody. Admittedly, Brody has been up against some solid competition from the performances of nearly all of his fellow nominees, but he has brought a demanding role to life quite expertly in this portrayal. He deserves to take home the statue.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Adrien Brody. Given that this category was the weakest of the big six in terms of its available pool of nominee candidates (there really weren’t that many strong lead male performances in 2024), there weren’t many worthy performance possibilities to choose from. And, of those available, Brody again is the class of the field.

Possible Dark Horses:  Timothée Chalamet. I gasped when Chalamet’s name was called as the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award in this category. It also threw a wrench into how I viewed the prospects in this category, especially since the SAG Award is often a strong indicator of who will go on to win the Oscar (typically true in all of the acting categories). At the same time, though, the awarding of this prize (again, in any SAG category) can represent a “glitch,” a one-off that recognizes an otherwise-previously overlooked performance that flies in the face of the track record of an apparent favorite (think the surprise win by Denzel Washington for “Fences” (2016) over prevailing favorite Casey Affleck for “Manchester by the Sea” (2016)). To his credit, Chalamet gives what is arguably the best performance of his career in “A Complete Unknown”, but, in my view, it lacks the strength needed to be a truly award-worthy Oscar performance, which is why I believe he doesn’t have enough gas in the tank to claim this honor.

Also-Rans:  Colman Domingo, Ralph Fiennes and Sebastian Stan. All three of these actors turned in solid performances in their films, but I don’t believe they have the clout behind them to earn them a trip to the stage on Oscar night. They should consider their nominations as their awards.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  To be honest, no one. This is a fine assemblage of the available performances (again given the dearth of potential candidates in this category). To my knowledge, this is the first time I have ever said this about a roster of nominees.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Even though I was generally satisfied with the field of nominees in this category, that’s not to say that there weren’t other performances of merit that were worthy of a slot on the nominations list, including André Holland for “Exhibiting Forgiveness” and Derrick B. Harden for the little-known indie gem “The Black Sea”. I would also include Hugh Grant for “Heretic” on this list, despite the fact that I hated the movie (but loved his performance).

Snubs:  Daniel Craig for “Queer”. Craig’s exclusion could easily be viewed as a notable snub, given the many nominations he received in various other competitions this year. As with Hugh Grant, this was a good performance in a dreadful film, and it was gratifying to see Craig receive deserved recognition for it in those other contests, something that many might contend should have translated into an Oscar nod, too.

Best Actress

The Field:  Cynthia Erivo, “Wicked”; Karla Sofía Gascón, “Emilia Pérez”; Mikey Madison, “Anora”; Demi Moore, “The Substance”; Fernanda Torres, “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”)

Who Will Likely Win:  A three-way race between Demi Moore, Mikey Madison and Fernanda Torres. This is the most difficult category to predict, as there is no clear-cut favorite here, and no one certainly has a lock on the award. If I had to give an edge to anyone, it would be Moore, as she’s collected the most hardware thus far. What’s more, her success represents a comeback story (something Hollywood loves), one somewhat reflective of the character that Moore portrays in the film. However, Madison has been coming on strong of late, picking up the BAFTA and Independent Spirit Awards for her work, honors that could possibly enable her to clip Moore at the wire. As for Torres, her film is the most recent release in this field, and that can work to her advantage by being potentially the freshest performance in the minds of Academy voters. She also has the equity afforded by winning a Golden Globe Award. Still, I think Moore is probably the one to beat at this point, but she has her work cut out for her. Can a former Brat Packer rise to the top? I’ll admit I have trouble envisioning that, but, then, stranger things have been known to happen on Oscar night.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Fernanda Torres. She’s the class of the field and really deserves to win. I would be thrilled to see the truly best performance in this category recognized as such.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  There are so many choices here that it’s difficult to pick one. Torres would certainly make a good selection, but there are so many others who didn’t make the cut here (see below) who could justifiably claim the prize, even if we’ll never know for sure.

Possible Dark Horse:  Fernanda Torres. Despite being in the running, she’s arguably the “weakest” of the contenders, which some would contend relegates her to the position of dark horse. I’d like to hope that her chances are better than that, but that remains to be seen.

Also-Rans:  Cynthia Erivo and Karla Sofía Gascón. Despite a strong performance, Erivo has basically been ignored throughout awards season, which is truly regrettable; she deserves better. Gascón, by contrast, is virtually in a position of being beyond also ran. The social media scandal that surfaced after her nomination was announced effectively took her (and many of her picture’s other prospects) out of the running (not that she should have even been nominated in the first place (see below)). In fact, if there’s one absolute certainty to unfold on Oscar night, it’s that Gascón will not be taking home a statue with her.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Mikey Madison, Demi Moore and Karla Sofía Gascón. While Madison and Moore gave capable performances, they’re not of award-worthy caliber in my view. And, as noted above, Gascón never should have been considered (I have to wonder what those coming up with the nominations were thinking). Indeed, Erivo and Torres are the only ones who realistically should have made it into this field.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  As I noted in the introduction to this blog, I indicated that the overall field of nominees for this year’s Oscars is the worst I’ve seen in ages. And the field for this particular category, in my view, is the worst of the worst. While 2024’s movie releases may have left a lot to be desired, the one strength they had going for them was the wealth of excellent lead actress performances – so many, in fact, that there were far more potential candidates than the number of available nominee slots. With that in mind, then, the Academy should have come up with the best lineup possible given the number of excellent choices at its disposal. The fact that it chose a field where only two out of the five nominees really deserved to be there is truly disheartening and eminently disappointing. Among the many other candidates for the three open slots, opportunities should have been given to Marianne Jean-Baptiste for “Hard Truths”, Saoirse Ronan for “The Outrun”, Angelina Jolie for “Maria”, Amy Adams for “Nightbitch”, Kate Winslet for “Lee”, Mary-Louise Parker for “Omni Loop”, Natasha Lyonne for “His Three Daughters”, Lupita Nyong’o for “A Quiet Place: Day One”, June Squibb for “Thelma”, Julia Louis-Dreyfus for “Tuesday”, Kirsten Dunst for “Civil War”, Jessie Buckley for “Wicked Little Letters”, and Tilda Swinton and Julianne Moore, both for “The Room Next Door”.

Snubs:  Many were upset that Nicole Kidman was snubbed for her performance in “Babygirl” (though, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m unable to comment on this, having not yet screened this film).

Best Supporting Actor

The Field:  Yura Borisov, “Anora”; Kieran Culkin, “A Real Pain”; Edward Norton, “A Complete Unknown”; Guy Pearce, “The Brutalist”; Jeremy Strong, “The Apprentice”

Who Will Likely Win:  Kieran Culkin. If any other name is called on Oscar night, I’ll be shocked. Culkin has won everything leading up to the big night and deservedly so. I don’t expect this to change at this point.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Kieran Culkin, although good cases can be made for Guy Pearce and Jeremy Strong, and I honestly would not be disappointed if either of them won (though I don’t expect that to happen).

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Kieran Culkin, although, again, good cases can be made for Guy Pearce and Jeremy Strong, as well as Stanley Tucci for “Conclave” and Clarence Macklin for “Sing Sing” (see below).

Possible Dark Horses:  Guy Pearce and Jeremy Strong, although these possibilities are very remote in light of Culkin’s awards season juggernaut.

Also-Rans:  Anyone who isn’t Kieran Culkin.

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Yura Borisov and Edward Norton. While both gave capable performances, I believe there were other candidates who would have made better choices. Borisov’s performance, I believe, will ultimately prove to be forgettable over time. And, as for Norton, this role represents a noble attempt at playing against type, but he seemed miscast in the part. Norton has made a career out of portraying creeps and wise-asses, and his stab at playing a genuinely nice guy just didn’t sit right with me. He deserves praise for his gumption but not an Oscar nomination; he should go back to doing what he does best.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  If Borisov and Norton were to have been taken out of the mix, there are plenty of actors who could have stepped up to take their place, including John Earl Jelks for “Exhibiting Forgiveness”; Adam Pearson for “A Different Man”; Jeff Goldblum for “Wicked”; Clarence Maclin for “Sing Sing”; Jesse Plemons for his uncredited performance in “Civil War”; and a host of cast members from “Conclave”, including Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Lucian Msamati and Sergio Castellitto.

Snubs:  Clarence Maclin, who deservedly pulled down supporting actor nominations in the BAFTA, Critics Choice and Independent Spirit Award competitions (but who can at least taken comfort for his Oscar nomination as a co-author of the adapted screenplay for “Sing Sing”), along with Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow for “Conclave”. Some have also made a strong case for Denzel Washington in “Gladiator II” (though, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m unable to comment on this, having not yet screened this film).

Best Supporting Actress

The Field:  Monica Barbaro, “A Complete Unknown”; Ariana Grande, “Wicked”; Felicity Jones, “The Brutalist”; Isabella Rossellini, “Conclave”; Zoe Saldaña, “Emilia Pérez”

Who Will Likely Win:  Zoe Saldaña. As with Kieran Culkin in the supporting actor category, I’ll be shocked if any other name is called on Oscar night. Like Culkin, she has won everything of significance during awards season except for National Board of Review honors, and this gives her a virtual lock on the prize. (A win here could be important to the producers of this film, given that it might well be the only Oscar this picture earns, despite high expectations going into the voting period, hopes that were seriously derailed by the social media scandal involving lead actress Karla Sofía Gascón, a development that effectively torpedoed the film’s chances of claiming all of the accolades it had been anticipated to win.)

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Ariana Grande, Felicity Jones or Isabella Rossellini. In my opinion, all three of these performances were superior to Saldaña (although Rossellini’s role was comparatively smaller than those of Grande, Jones and Saldaña, which some have said probably should have taken her out of the running and that she should consider her nomination as her award). It’s unfortunate that these performers will likely be overlooked on Oscar night.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Elle Fanning. As the National Board of Review recognized, Fanning’s portrayal in “A Complete Unknown” truly was the best supporting actress performance of the year, and I find it stunning that she wasn’t even nominated for an Oscar or any other major awards season contest (this was made even worse here by the granting of a nomination to co-star Monica Barbaro for the same film in a much less deserving portrayal). These awards season oversights are, frankly, unforgiveable.

Possible Dark Horses:  Anyone who isn’t Zoe Saldaña

Also-Rans:  Anyone who isn’t Zoe Saldaña

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Monica Barbaro certainly doesn’t belong in this field, given that her part involved little more than singing (nicely done, but not exactly a role that calls for a range, especially when compared to the demands placed on co-star Elle Fanning). I might add that the same could be said of Saldaña and, sadly, Rossellini. In all truthfulness, like Barbaro, I just didn’t find Saldaña’s portrayal to be compelling enough to merit the kind of recognition it has been accorded. And, as much as I enjoyed Rossellini’s work, as noted above, her role was comparatively small, with so little screen time that some might say it’s difficult to justify a nomination for so scant a role (for those who need a benchmark for comparison, think Beatrice Straight in “Network” (1976) and Judi Dench in “Shakespeare in Love” (1998)).

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  Eliminating the foregoing nominees would open up several slots for other contenders, most notably Elle Fanning for “A Complete Unknown”, Michelle Yeoh for “Wicked”, Andrea Riseborough for “Lee”, Olivia Colman for “Wicked Little Letters”, Trine Dyrholm for “The Girl with the Needle” (“Pigen med nålon”), Barbara Sukowa for “Turning Tables” (“Klandestin”), and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor for both “Nickel Boys” and “Exhibiting Forgiveness”. And, even though I didn’t particularly care for their films, I would have also made provisions for Selena Gomez for “Emilia Pérez”, Danielle Deadwyler for “The Piano Lesson” and Margaret Qualley for “The Substance”.

Snubs:  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Elle Fanning, as well as Selena Gomez, both of whom should have been nominated in favor of their co-stars. Some might say that Danielle Deadwyler belongs here, too, given that this is the second time she has been passed over for a strong performance, as happened previously with her outstanding portrayal in “Till” (2022).

Best Director

The Field:  Sean Baker, “Anora”; Brady Corbet, “The Brutalist”; James Mangold, “A Complete Unknown”; Jacques Audiard, “Emilia Pérez”; Coralie Fargeat, “The Substance”

Who Will Likely Win:  Brady Corbet. As with the best actor category, Corbet’s directorial work embodies many of the same screen epic qualities that Hollywood likes to honor. However, even though he won the Golden Globe and BAFTA Awards in this category, he has been bested by other filmmakers in the Critics Choice, Directors Guild and Independent Spirit Award contests, all of which would indicate that support for his work could be soft, opening up the door for other nominees. This is one of my most tentative calls, so we’ll have to see what happens.

Who Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  Brady Corbet. In my view, Corbet is the class of the field and deserves the statue. Let’s see if that comes true.

Who Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  Walter Salles or Agnieszka Holland. As much as I admired Corbet’s efforts, however, I truly believe that Walter Salles and Agnieszka Holland are more deserving for their work in “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”) and “Green Border” (“Zielona granica”), respectively. Both of these productions represent superior offerings in my view, though their recognition has likely been hampered by a lack of awareness, given that both are foreign films (from Brazil and Poland, respectively). It’s unfortunate that releases from outside the US generally don’t get the attention they deserve, though, thankfully, “I’m Still Here” nevertheless managed to claim three nominations, including best picture (see below), best actress (see above) and best international film (which it has a good chance of winning in light of its best picture nomination).

Possible Dark Horse:  Sean Baker. As the winner of top honors at the Independent Spirit Awards and the Directors Guild Awards (often a strong pre-Oscar marker), Baker’s chances could even be better than those of a dark horse. However, I have to wonder whether Hollywood is willing to reward the director of a picture whose content and subject matter don’t exactly align with the qualities the Academy typically likes to honor. Nevertheless, the filmmaker can’t be ruled out here, and that’s significant, because a win in this category could significantly change the math where the prospects in the best picture category (see below) are concerned.

Also-Rans:  James Mangold, Jacques Audiard and Coralie Fargeat. Despite its eight Academy Award nominations, Mangold’s film, “A Complete Unknown”, has been an also-ran across the board in all of this year’s awards competitions except for Timothée Chalamet’s win at the Screen Actors Guild Awards and two nods from the National Board of Review, and that’s not nearly enough clout to bestow the Oscar on him. As for Audiard, he was a strong contender earlier in awards season, but soaring negative criticism of “Emilia Pérez” in the wake of its four undeserved Golden Globe Award wins, coupled with the fallout from the Gascón social media scandal, have probably sunk his chances. In all honesty, neither of these developments comes as a surprise where these candidates are concerned, all of which goes to show that neither of them should have been nominated in the first place. In the case of Coralie Fargeat’s “The Substance”, the director had my interest for the first two-thirds of the film, but she squandered whatever goodwill she had built up with me in an off-the-rails final act. Had the picture turned out differently, she might very well have not lost my support and bettered her chances for the award (there’s a lot to be said for restraint, but she must have missed that class at film school).

Who Should Have Been Left Out:  Everybody who isn’t Brady Corbet. The rationale for excluding James Mangold, Jacques Audiard and Coralie Fargeat should be apparent from the immediately preceding paragraph. As for Sean Baker, as much as I enjoyed his previous films “Tangerine” (2015), “The Florida Project” (2017) and “Red Rocket” (2021), his latest project strikes me as an unoriginal, underwhelming effort whose vast popularity positively escapes me, and that’s enough for me to exclude him.

Who Else Should Have Been Considered:  With so much room being opened up by the elimination of four of the five nominees, this would have thus opened the door for other, more deserving filmmakers. In addition to Walter Salles for “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”) and Agnieszka Holland for “Green Border” (“Zielona granica”), this would have included Titus Kaphar for “Exhibiting Forgiveness”, Mike Leigh for “Hard Truths”, Pablo Larraín for “Maria”, Ali Abbasi for “The Apprentice” and Alex Garland for “Civil War”. I would also add Jon M. Chu for “Wicked”, especially in light of the honors bestowed upon him at the Critics Choice Awards and by the National Board of Review.

Snubs:  Jon M. Chu’s oversight is definitely a mind-boggling exclusion in my view. Some would say the same about Edward Berger for “Conclave”, Denis Villeneuve for “Dune: Part Two” and RaMell Ross for “Nickel Boys” (though, truthfully, I wouldn’t have included any of them).

Best Picture

The Field:  “Anora”, “The Brutalist”, “A Complete Unknown”, “Conclave”, “Dune: Part Two”, “Emilia Pérez”, “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”), “Nickel Boys”, “The Substance”, “Wicked”

What Will Likely Win:  It’s a three way race among “The Brutalist”, “Conclave” and “Anora”. But who will win? Typically, the best picture and best director categories are innately linked, and, for years, the two have lined up perfectly with one another. In recent years, however, split decisions have become more common – and that could, or might not, happen this year, making a definitive winner here difficult to call. In fact, given that one of the candidates does not have a directorial nominee in place (“Conclave”), the possibilities are potentially even more complex than usual. Given my provisional prediction that Brady Corbet will win the award for best director, I give the edge to “The Brutalist”. However. If Sean Baker claims the director’s statue, that significantly bolsters the chances of “Anora” taking home the top prize. And then there’s “Conclave”, whose director, Edward Berger, is not nominated, but has another asset in its pocket: This film recently (and deservingly) captured the Screen Actors Guild Award for best ensemble cast, another key indicator of which film will win the best picture Oscar. A win here would thus represent another of those aforementioned split decisions. Which film will emerge victorious? We’ll have to wait and see.

What Should Win (Based on the Nominees):  “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”). This is by far the class of this field and truly deserves to win. However, as a foreign release, that attribute may work against it, and the film may have to settle for the consolation prize of best international film.

What Should Win (Based on All Eligible Candidates):  “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”). This release was handily my top film of 2024 as indicated in my annual best movie list. I would be thrilled to see it win. However, a good case could also be made in favor of “Wicked”, which has surprisingly underperformed during awards season, primarily taking only awards in technical categories. I would be pleased if it came out on top, too, although I certainly don’t expect its fortunes to change.

Possible Dark Horses:  “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”). As the most recently released nominee, it has the benefit of being the film that’s freshest in the minds of Academy voters, and sometimes that timing can work wonders in a film’s favor. It’s hard to say whether that will happen here, though that could be a key factor if its name gets called on Oscar night.

Also-Rans:  Essentially anything that isn’t “The Brutalist”, “Conclave” or “Anora”. As hopeful as I might be for the chances of “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”) and “Wicked”, realistically I don’t think either of them has a chance. And, as for the other five nominees, I don’t see any of them being in the running. They should consider their nominations as their awards.

What Should Have Been Left Out:  Everything except “The Brutalist”, “Wicked” and “I’m Still Here” (“Ainda Estou Aquí”). To be perfectly candid, I view this field as being one of the worst that the Academy has put forth in many years. Of the remaining seven pictures, “A Complete Unknown” and “Conclave” are marginal at best, and the other five have no business being here, as they just don’t measure up to what I consider best picture standards.

What Else Should Have Been Considered:  With so many slots opened after making those cuts, there’s plenty of room for other more worthy choices, including “Exhibiting Forgiveness”, “Hard Truths”, “Maria”, “A Real Pain”, “Sing Sing”, “The Apprentice”, “His Three Daughters”, “Green Border” (“Zielona granica”) and “Civil War”. They would have made fine additions to the field. It’s unfortunate that they weren’t included.

Snubs:  “A Real Pain” and “Sing Sing”. Many were especially surprised to see that these films didn’t make the cut – and deservedly so. They both belong there.

The Oscars will be handed out in televised ceremonies on Sunday March 2. I’ll post my report card on these predictions thereafter. Enjoy the show!

(Oscar® and Academy Award® are registered trademarks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.)

Copyright © 2025, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.