The Iron Mask (1929)

Film: The Iron Mask (1929)

Stars: Douglas Fairbanks, Belle Bennett, Marguerite de la Motte, Dorothy Revier, Vera Lewis

Director: Allan Dwan

Oscar History: Most of the categories that would've been an option (Costume, Makeup, Visual Effects) were decades away, though one wonders why it wasn't an option for Art Direction given the rather impressive sets.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.: click here to learn more about Mr. Fairbanks (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

A lot of the conversations about Douglas Fairbanks to modern audiences focus on one of two things.  First, there is his "storybook" marriage to Mary Pickford, one that started with a scandalous affair (while Fairbanks was still married) and would end with a shocking divorce (at least to the public) that we'll get into next week during our final Fairbanks movie.  But the second we'll talk about today, and that is Fairbanks' uncomfortable position as one of the quintessential actors whose career was destroyed by the coming Sound Era.  There are other actors (including Pickford) who didn't have as much success in the Sound Era, but they aren't shown as an example of the stars who couldn't make it at all in the new era of Sound.  And while actors like John Gilbert & Norma Talmadge certainly saw their careers disappear with the Sound Era due to their voices, it's Fairbanks that has lasted the longest in the public's memory as not being "suitable" for the Sound Era, perhaps in recent years due to The Artist, the 2011 Best Picture winner that is based in part on Fairbanks' life, enough so that star Jean Dujardin referenced Fairbanks in his Golden Globes speech that year.

(Spoilers Ahead) So in many ways The Iron Mask, a sequel to a previous film of Fairbanks (1921's The Three Musketeers), is a swan song for our January star.  The film is much in-line with what we've come to expect from the actor.  Despite being in his mid-forties at the time, The Iron Mask has a number of impressive stunts and fighting sequences, and is honestly a really lavish and gorgeous production (I'm not doing my typical plot recap because this story has been told countless times on big-screens and in TV parodies like The Simpsons, and it doesn't break a lot of new ground, though it is notable as the only major film of Fairbanks' Silent Era career where he dies in the end).  I referenced above that this movie didn't get an Art Direction nomination, but one thinks it should have-it looks really good, and very rarely appears to be a sound stage in the way that a lot of films of this era (even some which Fairbanks did).

But this is where I will own that I did not see the film that Academy voters in 1929 would've seen, so I want to caveat that a bit (and why I'm giving this 3/5 stars here instead of rounding down like I normally would given I gave it 2.5 stars on Letterboxd).  The first fully sound film featuring Fairbanks was The Taming of the Shrew, a movie we profiled when we talked about Mary Pickford in Season 6, which is bad (and Fairbanks is bad in it), but this is not the first sound film he did-The Iron Mask included an opening narration from Fairbanks at the time of release.  What it did not include, but was added in the 1950's, was a narration of the plot by his son Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., which was used in replacement of title cards, likely to help it for television audiences (at the time, it was quite common to have movies running at off-times during the day, or eventually late in the evening).  It is possible to see both versions of the movie...but the one I saw on Amazon was the one reedited with Fairbanks Jr.  This gives off the effect of a Disney nature film (where you are being spoon-fed the plot even if you're seeing it with your own eyes), and takes away a lot of the beautiful work that the late-Silent Era acting is doing here.

Fairbanks is fun in The Iron Mask, and over 85 years after the fact, I don't get the same sense of how passé this was likely becoming after a decade of box office dominance with similarly-themed movies.  But this is considered by many to be his last big hurrah, and it's worth noting that it wasn't Fairbanks' voice that really cost him in the new era.  Fairbanks voice wasn't bad (this isn't like, say, Clara Bow or Emil Jannings where their strong accents made them impossible to see in the same types of moves in the United States), and probably would've worked...but like many action stars we'll profile this year, he was physically at an age where he couldn't continue to outdo his stunts, and this type of movie (which wouldn't be particularly popular in the early 1930's from even younger stars like Tyrone Power or John Wayne) wouldn't be in fashion again until the 1940's, by which time Fairbanks would be dead (again, which we'll get to next week).  Therefore, the idea of Fairbanks as a victim of the Silent Era isn't really a fair assessment-it wasn't his voice, but his age (and changing tastes), that was more the culprit in why he couldn't stay a movie star in the 1930's while others of his era (like Greta Garbo & Joan Crawford) would become even bigger names with the introduction of Sound (and in part, would become lasting legends in a way that Fairbanks never could).  We'll talk about the final chapter of Fairbanks life, and what he did when movies dried up, next week.

Bill Cassidy's Inevitable Fall

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Donald Trump is not a politician who is easily predictable.  The man is currently complaining why he never won the Nobel Peace Prize while literally having an armed militia going through and illegally arresting his own citizens (and threatening to go to war over Greenland with some of his country's most historically loyal allies).  In fact, if you wanted to use the word "insane" to describe him, I'd allow you to use that word without having an MD.  But there is one thing that virtually every person who has ever crossed his path can say without fail: he will find a way to screw you over if you try to placate him.

We have seen this countless times, with everyone from Elon Musk to Mitt Romney to Chris Christie who have attempted to placate Trump and have ended up the lesser for it.  It's almost inevitable in every relationship he's had (it's why perhaps the only friendship he seems to have maintained for an extended period of time was with Jeffrey Epstein, a man who probably was blackmailing him given how much the Trump administration is slow-walking his criminal files).  The list of people who have gotten away with mixing with Trump and gotten exactly what they wanted are few-and-far-between.  There's Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who ended up Governor of Arkansas for her troubles.  There's Jared Kushner & Ivanka Trump, who spent the first administration of Ivanka's father setting up business connections that will ensure she doesn't have to fight for a spot in his will like her four siblings.  And then there's Stephen Miller, who has gotten everything he could ever dream of in the second administration...but given he's still in office, so I doubt he's out of the woods yet.

And that's about it.  Everyone else ended up, at best, barely scraping by, and at worst, became national punchlines like Sean Spicer or having a literal angry mob headed toward them like Mike Pence.  Which brings us to Sen. Bill Cassidy, who this weekend found out that nothing will get you into Trump's good graces forever, as Trump endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow before she even announced she was running for the Senate as Cassidy attempts to win a third term this November in Louisiana.

For those with short memories wondering why Trump might do this, you have to recall what Bill Cassidy did in between the Trump administrations.  Cassidy was an ardent Trump supporter in 2016 & 2020, but after the terrorist attacks on the US Capitol on January 6th, when Trump supporters attempted to stop the counting of the electoral college, Cassidy was publicly horrified.  He said that those who did this should be tried for sedition, and was one of only seven Republicans to vote to impeach Trump for his involvement with the attacks.  Cassidy would later refuse to endorse Trump in 2024.

But Trump won in 2024 without Cassidy's help, and the senator realized pretty quickly that he needed to make amends with Donald Trump if he ever wanted a chance at another term.  And so he did what so many before him had done-tried to get on Trump's good side by doing something he clearly didn't want to do.  In this case, Cassidy, a medical doctor and a lifelong advocate for immunizations, decided to vote for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be HHS Secretary.  Cassidy had the ability to slow-walk, and potentially even tank the nomination if he were to vote with the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee to not recommend the nomination.  Cassidy also had the ability to push for Kennedy to be rejected on the floor of the Senate.  It's easy to see a world where Cassidy (joining with the Democrats and Mitch McConnell, the only Republican to ultimately vote against Cassidy), might've woken up Susan Collins & Lisa Murkowski, and the three of them banding together would say they wouldn't back an anti-vaxxer to run the nation's health system.  But Cassidy instead sought worthless assurances from Kennedy that he would not change immunization schedules (which he would do within a week of confirmation), and has since thrown the entire country's immunization system at risk.  The greatest medical advancement in the history of the world, Bill Cassidy was willing to throw it away in hopes of it getting him on Donald Trump's good side.

But of course, that was never going to work, because there's only one MAGA absolute: Trump is the only person who gets to win.  Trump's active endorsement against Cassidy is coupled with the very real possibility that he'll push for a MAGA challenger to Susan Collins should she run (Collins, like Cassidy, voted to impeach Trump), and even John Cornyn (Trump has refused to endorse Cornyn...who has almost completely backed him but Trump doesn't view as loyalist enough when he has an option like Ken Paxton...if this goes to a primary runoff I wouldn't be surprised if Trump decided to endorse Paxton outright).  Cassidy could've gone down a hero (albeit a tarnished one), admitting at the age of 68 that he was never going to win another term, and fought to preserve the medical oath he took on a Baton Rouge campus many moons ago.  Instead, he's just another one of Trump's victims...and like all of his victims, the rest of us suffer because he couldn't see the devil in plain sight.

An Independent Fight in Montana's Senate Race

University of Montana President Seth Bodnar with
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)

During a wave, one of your jobs is to have warm, qualified bodies lying around in potentially competitive races on the off-chance the wave truly takes off, and you need to take advantage of as many contests as possible.  One of the Senate races I've been looking at that until a week or so ago, didn't really have one yet was Montana.  Montana's history as a red state is complicated by the fact that, for most of the 21st Century, it had one or in some cases two US Senators from the Democratic party, specifically Jon Tester & Max Baucus.  Baucus retired in 2014, but Tester was able to win not just election in 2006, but also reelection in 2012 & 2018, before losing in 2024 amidst the third Trump POTUS election.  This past week, while the Democrats do have several candidates, including Lt. Col. Alani Bankhead and State Rep. Reilly Neill, the attention was put on University of Montana President Seth Bodnar.  Bodnar's campaign looks to have the endorsement of Tester himself, according to the newspaper the Missoulian, and his announcement is forthcoming.

It has not been uncommon in recent years for Democrats to forego a nominee in a congressional race in favor of an independent, frequently with varying results.  People like Al Gross, Greg Orman, Dan Osborn, Evan McMullin, & Cara Mund have all attempted this in recent years, and in the case of the first four, did so with a better performance than would normally be expected of a Democrat in those seats.  But what I found surprising was the backlash to this decision online.  Former Biden White House advisor Neera Tanden appeared deeply critical of the announcement, stating "I have an idea-let's try to fix the party's brand so Dems can win in Montana again" in response to an article that contained some tough quotes from Tester, the biggest being "Every race I ran as Montana Senator and US Senator it was about distancing myself from the Democratic Party...during my last two races the Democratic Party was poison in my attempts to get reelected."

Tester is not alone in this criticism.  Indeed, one of his former colleagues, Joe Manchin (who chose not to run for reelection alongside Tester in 2024, but based on his public statements clearly wanted to run but didn't see a path to a win) called the Democratic brand "toxic" as he was leaving office.  Usually when these comments come up from men like Tester & Manchin, I dismiss them out-of-hand: their states just became too red, and that happens to both parties.  In the late 2000's and into the 2010's, we saw Colorado & Virginia transform from being reliably redstates to being pretty consistently blue ones.  Incumbent senators like George Allen & Cory Gardner both lost reelection in a similar way to Tester-running against the party, but realizing that wasn't enough.

But I think the question here is an intriguing one, mostly because Republicans don't do this, and because (so far) this hasn't really worked in terms of an actual, high-profile win.  Tester would be right in assuming the Democratic label is toxic in Montana-I would trust him more than I would someone like Tanden on what Big Sky Country wants from a successful leader.  But I also don't see a path for Bodnar, and don't entirely understand how much better he'll do running as an Independent, particularly given that there's a lot of Democrats already running (i.e. we'll have a nominee, which was not the case in most of the other races I've name-checked).  The only real example of a left-leaning Independent winning a race against a Democrat for Congress in recent years is Maine in 2012, but here's the deal-that was specific to Angus King being the nominee.  Had we just had a normal Democrat vs. Republican race there, the Democrat still would've won-the big question was whether or not Olympia Snowe would retire; when she did, it became inevitable that we'd flip the seat.  King was just so famous that it was more about choosing not to split the vote than worrying about him being the only person who could win the race head-to-head.  There is no evidence (to date) that someone like Bodnar could win, and one wonders if we are screwing ourselves over by having a plausible third-party candidate in a race that we're only going to take if there's a wave (in which case vote-splitting might still cost us).

I also think, to a degree, that Tanden has a point-we have to stop just abandoning the Democratic label in states like Montana.  Tanden is not a gadfly who is insisting a "true progressive" could win here-she knows that Tester is right that you need a different kind of Democrat to win this race, and she stated when asked for more on her tweet that you might have to pick someone whose social issues don't match the national party's (i.e. you'd have to pick a moderate or moderate-to-conservative to run).  Tester's feedback is also worthy though-Tester was that kind of a candidate, and he still lost in 2024.  One could argue (and I will) that Tester would be in a much different race had he had to run in 2026 rather than 2024, and it's worth asking if he might be headed to another term if he'd lucked into a different cycle.  But he's not wrong-the Democratic Party label nearly cost him his reelection in 2018, and did cost him in 2024.

So what's the answer?  The answer is-we don't have it yet.  But I tend to lean toward Tanden on this.  Until some candidate (maybe Osborn, maybe Bodnar) proves to me that they can actually pull off this trick of getting voters convinced they aren't a Democrat in disguise (which they are, even if they're a moderate one) and actually win rather than just out-performing, I'd prefer to have these candidates run as Democrats to prove that the party can have as wide of an expanse as possible.  I'm okay with them running as moderates (perhaps even moderates I don't agree with on all major issues), but I think they should be Democrats.  The reality is that the next leader of the Democratic Party is going to be who shapes the party, and we don't have that nominee right now (people like Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are all filling the gap, but none of them have the party-shaping apparatus that a presidential candidate can have yet), and in the meantime we're kind of just the "not Trump" party.  We're not going to fix this problem before 2028.  However, given the near certainty that Bodnar won't clear the field here, I wish he was running as a moderate, "different kind" of Democrat under the party label, so that we can start rebuilding local parties, which ultimately is the only way we're going to have senators like Jon Tester & Joe Manchin again (and yes, we definitely want to have senators like them again if we have any hope of having a Senate majority in the next decade).

The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Film: The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Stars: Douglas Fairbanks, Snitz Edwards, Charles Belcher, Julianne Johnston, Anna May Wong

Director: Raoul Walsh

Oscar History: Predates the Academy Awards

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.: click here to learn more about Mr. Fairbanks (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We are back-sorry I missed last week.  Between throwing my back out (getting old sucks, y'all), and not really having any gumption last weekend, and the truly depressing monstrosities that the Trump administration is unleashing on my fellow Twin Cities residents, I was not in a writing mood last weekend (and while my back is getting better, Trump is worse than ever), and missed this.  My hope is still to get back into the swing of things and make up the missing film of Douglas Fairbanks in the next two weeks.  In the meantime, though, we are at least in a similar spot to where we were two weeks ago when we talked through The Mark of Zorro.  In 1924, Fairbanks was continuing to establish himself as the first true action star after a decade in comedy.  His marriage to Mary Pickford, which had started with a quite tawdry affair (Fairbanks was very much still married at the time to his first wife Anna Beth Sully), was now a storybook marriage for the country to gush over, the first true Hollywood super-couple emerging.  And with today's film, we get to the movie that is probably the most critically-remembered of Fairbanks' pictures, a gargantuan movie that is one of the most revered of the 1920's, and was during a small period where Fairbanks star could rival his wife's...though she was always #1 to his #2, something that would become increasingly a problem in the years ahead.

(Spoilers Ahead) Today's film is The Thief of Bagdad, the 1924 version (not to be confused with the Oscar-winning 1940 version starring Conrad Veidt of Casablanca fame).  It features Fairbanks as Ahmed, the thief of Bagdad, who is a rapscallion who has dreams of using a magic rope that he has stolen to pursue even greater fortune when he falls in love with a young princess (Johnston).  She is about to be wed, and he pursues her in disguise as a prince, but when she chooses to marry him, he reveals he is nothing but a commoner.  He is said to be tortured for his treachery, but he escapes, and intends to win the second contest for the princess's (who is now in love with him) hand, to bring back the greatest treasure.  This sets off a long battle with a Mongolian prince, but one that Ahmed will surely win when he gets both a magical carpet and a magical powder that can conjure anything he wishes.  The film ends with him having defeated the evil prince, and getting to marry the princess.

The Thief of Bagdad is renowned today for its incredible production design and groundbreaking trick photography, making items appear "as if from nowhere" and both of these things are, indeed, impressive.  The sets, without the advantage of CGI, recreate through both gigantic scale and in some cases convincing miniatures an Arabia worthy of 1001 nights, and if you just look at this movie for its visual splendor, you get why it's so well-loved.  It looks beautiful, and for audiences of the 1920's, even compared to some of the grand-scale epics that DW Griffith had wrought by then, this is really in a class by itself.

The story itself, though, is way too long, and insanely repetitive.  Fairbanks is fun (I don't know why I had this impression of him as being super stodgy onscreen, as just like Zorro he's very charismatic & sexy in this part as well), and a young Anna May Wong steals every scene she's in as a duplicitous maid, but the rest of the cast is a snore, and the action set-pieces lose some of their sparkle when you have to follow so much plot with surprisingly few title cards to keep you along the way.  The movie's inspiration on future film design (you can literally see how Disney borrowed from this with Aladdin in the castle design), has to count for something, but I'll own that I was bored and wished it had about 30 minutes less of its nearly 150-minute runtime...more adventure, less random asides with the princess and evil prince (that go nowhere).

What Matt Rogers Got Right About the Texas Senate Race

Bowen Yang & Matt Rogers

I am insanely picky about my podcast choices.  I like what I like, and will own that it's a short list.  This means that most discussion-based podcasts (again, unless I really like them) don't get into my phone while I'm working out or driving, and that includes Las Culturistas, a podcast a lot of my friends set their watch by, hosted by Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers.  I have watched many clips of the two on social media, but I don't know enough about the two of their podcast format to know whether or not it was a surprise when they started to discuss politics.  Rogers, though, brought up the Texas Senate race, where Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett is in a competitive primary against State Rep. James Talarico.  Rogers is famously loquacious, so I'm going to trim his quote a bit for the sake of brevity, but what he said was "She's not going to win a Senate race in Texas y'all.  If Beto O'Rourke couldn't do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it.  And it's nothing against her...she is a politician that is very well-defined already and I think that we're going to need someone who is less defined at this time...I'm interested in this Talarico guy from Texas...it would be hard to define him.  He's a guy we can't define already."  He also said "don't waste your money sending your money to Jasmine Crockett-do not do it" which Yang replied "I have to agree" and then Rogers concluded by comparing Crockett to Sara Gideon, the failed Senate candidate in 2020 in Maine.

Rogers has since walked these comments back, as has Yang, and they've done so because of an almost instantaneous backlash from the Crockett camp online, as well as left-leaning figures on TikTok and Twitter.  Both men were accused of being racially-motivated in attacking Crockett, who is a Black woman, over Talarico, who is a white man, and accused him of saying that a Black woman cannot win in the state of Texas.  This backlash, and the uproar that it caused for Rogers & Yang belied a particularly important point in this conversation, one that you'd think would be worth mentioning before it closes, and so I wanted to before this left the news cycle entirely: Matt Rogers was right.

I have talked about Crockett a few times on this blog in not complimentary terms when it came to her decision to run in this race, and so I do want to point out, like Rogers did, before I start that I think she's an asset to the party.  Crockett is more left-leaning than I am, but I also think that's okay-I think having Democrats to both my left and right is good as it pulls the party toward good ideas, and she's very talented-you don't stand out in a body of 435 people in the way she has without that talent.  I also think it's important for the party to have people who know how to capture social media's attention, and is willing to fight fire with fire (like her run-in's with Marjorie Taylor Greene).  Crockett does that-I truly wish she was running for reelection so that she would continue on as a member of Congress.

Because Rogers point was not about her being a Black woman, but instead about her being too defined as a liberal, and an outspoken one at that, to win in Texas.  Were, say, Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders running in Texas (both white men), I'd make a point of sharing that neither of them can win as they're also too liberal.  The closest anyone has come in that time was Beto O'Rourke, and he did so because of three key assets: he was relatively unknown (so people could project on him rather than know about him), he was running in a very strong cycle for the party, and he was running against a uniquely unpopular incumbent.  And for the record-he still lost.  So it stands to reason that, as Rogers said in so many words, you try to replay that playbook-pick a virtual unknown, one who has talent but the public doesn't know well, run him against an unpopular candidate (which the Republicans are helping with), in a blue wave year, and hope this time close becomes a win.  James Talarico fits that description as if he was made in a factory.

Saying this is about race seems disingenuous, for two reasons.  One, Rogers isn't the only person who has said this (it's been said by dozens of pundits and even some politicians), and two, the criticisms here are not really connected to Crockett being a Black woman.  No one said this about Lisa Blunt Rochester when she ran in Delaware in 2024.  No one (other than her opponent) said it about Angela Alsobrooks that same cycle, nor about Robin Kelly or Julianna Stratton this year in Illinois.  People practically begged Lucy McBath to run for the governor's mansion in Georgia.  Were Crockett running in, say, Washington or Maryland, we wouldn't be having this conversation...but she's running in Texas, and a candidate who famously has gotten into fights with Republicans is not going to be the sort of person who can attract hundreds of thousands of Trump voters to vote for her.  It's just not-pretending that this is about race is really unproductive and dangerous because it means that we have to pretend that what Rogers said is wrong when it's not.

It also makes Crockett's general election campaign even more challenging.  This sort of campaign tactic won't work in a general election.  Crockett isn't trying to win over people like Matt Rogers & Bowen Yang, people far more petrified of liberals not liking them than whether or not they are right; if she wants to win, she needs to win over voters who voted for Donald Trump but want to give her a chance.  Crockett has alluded to running to the left being a path to win apathetic or non-voting members of the Texas population (a strategy that has never worked, and has been tried countless times with everyone pretending they're the one who can strike the right tone).  A campaign based on calling out people making a valid point about your campaign (that your past history as a liberal poster child is damning for your chances) by calling you racist & sexist might win you a Democratic primary...but in a general election on a secret ballot, you're going to lose, and you're going to lose in a major way.  And that leftists would rather call out someone like Rogers who is just trying to help a Democrat (any Democrat) win and punish him publicly, rather than admit that what he said has credence (just because your favorite candidate is hurt by this truth), is a scary sign of what we're up against on our left flank in the midterms and 2028.

Final 2025 Oscar Predictions

On Thursday, the Oscars will announce the nominees for the 98th Academy Awards, just two years shy of the 100th edition of the ceremony.  If you follow me on Letterboxd (and you should!), you'll know that I've been working heartily on getting a bunch of 2025 screenings done in advance of our Oscar Viewing Project.  I'm confident I won't have seen them all by then (too many things to do this week, and honestly if I'm even close to right at least a few of these I won't have access to before then), but as long as I can catch Marty Supreme this weekend, I'll likely have seen all of the major nominees, and will be able to quickly dive into both the Oscar Viewing Project and the My Ballot awards shortly for the year so we can be back to claiming I've profiled every year of the 21st Century.

One thing I will note before we get to this article-the Sinners tally.  It has become something of a parlor game in recent days to talk about whether or not Sinners will break the record for most-nominated movie of all-time.  The current record is a three-way tie between All About Eve, Titanic, & La La Land.  It's definitely possible for Sinners to do so, and honestly it has a better-than-even shot at least tying the record.  It's eligible in all ten of the tech categories (some of which it's a lock for, a couple of which are a stretch), can get the trio of Picture/Director/Writing unless there's an upset, and therefore would just need two acting nominations (not guaranteed...it's honestly not a lock for any acting nods), but certainly plausible.  I don't count nominations as I do predictions, but I'll circle back with a Sinners count at the end of the article.

Notes: I have ranked these from most-to-least likely nominees, though I will own that you should focus most on what I predict vs. what I don't.  I try to predict at least a few nominees that I think might make it for bragging rights (Supporting Actor, Score, and Makeup have those), but ultimately go with how many I get right.  I only list alternates to give you a portrait of what the category looks like and what else was on my mind.  It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim credit for longshots by putting them as alternates, but not actually voting for them...don't give me that credit either. 😊

Picture

1. One Battle After Another

2. Hamnet

3. Sinners

4. Marty Supreme

5. Frankenstein

6. Sentimental Value

7. The Secret Agent

8. Bugonia

9. It Was Just An Accident

10. Train Dreams

Alt: Wicked: For Good, Avatar 3

The Lowdown: As ever, the first 6-7 are locked in, and Bugonia has done so well all season it's hard to see it missing.  I think the biggest question I have for the final two is whether Oscar (which has increasingly become less populist than it once was, actually living up to the "movies no one sees" label that once really was an unfair criticism), will go with two critically-acclaimed (but very under-seen) dramas versus two big, splashy sequels.  Neither Wicked nor Avatar had particularly strong reviews, but both should do decently enough in the tech categories to split the difference.  Honestly, F1 is going to do well enough in the tech categories (and would be a nice composite of box office & critical acclaim) maybe I'm skipping an obvious contender, but I just don't buy a Brad Pitt race-car flick is getting into Best Picture.

Director

1. Paul Thomas Anderson (One Battle After Another)

2. Chloe Zhao (Hamnet)

3. Guillermo del Toro (Frankenstein)

4. Ryan Coogler (Sinners)

5. Jafar Panahi (It Was Just An Accident)

Alts: Josh Safdie (Marty Supreme), Joachim Trier (Sentimental Value)

The Lowdown: A lot of pundits seem hung up on this one, and I kind of get it.  With this branch's tendency to pick at least one international feature director (and three films-Sentimental Value, It Was Just an Accident, & The Secret Agent-all looking like Best Picture nominees), it's hard to guess who gets in and who gets the cut.  I'm going with Panahi because his film is so in their wheelhouse (the other two are more actorly triumphs), and I'm cutting Josh Safdie to get there because the Academy has never really shown a penchant for the Safdies before, and even though they will now...by how much?

Actor

1. Timothee Chalamet (Marty Supreme)

2. Leonardo DiCaprio (One Battle After Another)

3. Ethan Hawke (Blue Moon)

4. Wagner Moura (The Secret Agent)

5. Michael B. Jordan (Sinners)

Alts: Joel Edgerton (Train Dreams), Jesse Plemons (Bugonia)

The Lowdown: I think the battle for the winner here is still in-the-air (I'm not buying a Chalamet sweep yet, even if that's the likeliest end-game here), but the battle for the nominees feels...done?  Jordan's the  most vulnerable mostly because he's been worthy before, and Oscar didn't bite.  He's never had this strong of a movie to go with, but playing two characters in a major Best Picture nominee (one that made a fortune and proved him a continued movie star?...that's what gets you your first Best Actor nomination).  Edgerton has been on the edges of this category for a long time (and Plemons is in a movie that the industry clearly likes more than most pundits initially expected), but Jordan not getting in would be such a big deal I doubt it comes to pass.

Actress

1. Jessie Buckley (Hamnet)

2. Rose Byrne (If I Had Legs I'd Kick You)

3. Kate Hudson (Song Sung Blue)

4. Emma Stone (Bugonia)

5. Chase Infiniti (One Battle After Another)

Alts: Renate Reinsve (Sentimental Value)

The Lowdown: My working theory, to the point I've written about it on this blog (you can see it here) is that Kate Hudson has been a strong bet for months to get in and pundits aren't taking her seriously because she's not a critical darling, and we've lost the ancient texts of what Oscar voters look for (i.e. box office populism) and while others are surely coming around to her after SAG, I want to claim confidence first.  If she's included, you have to disrupt one of the five women who have totally dominated this year, and I think Reinsve (who is the lead in a movie SAG didn't care about) makes more sense than the lead in a Best Picture frontrunner or two-time winner Emma Stone.  I had Infiniti up until today, and I think she could be the shock omission...but I'm not willing to predict it.

Supporting Actor (Sentimental Value)

1. Stellan Skarsgard (Sentimental Value)

2. Jacob Elordi (Frankenstein)

3. Benicio del Toro (One Battle After Another)

4. Sean Penn (One Battle After Another)

5. Delroy Lindo (Sinners)

Alts: Paul Mescal (Hamnet), Adam Sandler (Jay Kelly)

The Lowdown: Speaking of 2000's movie stars who have not yet secured a lead acting nomination, we have Adam Sandler as one of the most inexplicable omissions of the season.  Sandler has done decently at precursor awards, and his film is SO up Oscar's alley (if there's a surprise film that over-performs on Thursday, Jay Kelly surely fits that bill), but no one seems to care about it, and he's not "esteemed" enough to make it into an Oscar race on his own so I'm doing one of my biggest surprises (and my one acting prediction without a Globe or a SAG nomination) with Delroy Lindo getting in, here over both Sandler and Mescal (who I am precluding because I think enough people will put him in lead that he'll miss).  Lindo is one of those character actors who feels inevitable with Oscar...in a Best Picture nominee this would be a good opportunity to invite him to the club.

Supporting Actress

1. Teyana Taylor (One Battle After Another)

2. Amy Madigan (Weapons)

3. Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Sentimental Value)

4. Odessa A'zion (Marty Supreme)

5. Ariana Grande (Wicked: For Good)

Alts: Elle Fanning (Sentimental Value), Wunmi Mosaku (Sinners)

The Lowdown: I honestly think only Taylor is totally safe (and her recent Globes win indicates this feels like she's the frontrunner).  Madigan's in a genre film, Lilleaas has internal competition (and is a pretty subtle performance for Oscar)...A'zion also has internal competition, and no one other than Grande seems to care about her film's Oscar chances anymore (Erivo didn't even bother showing up for the Globes).  This seems like the sort of category ripe for an upset (not just an alternate like the ones I listed, but something crazy like Chase Infiniti pulling a reverse Keisha Castle-Hughes and getting in here or Emily Watson randomly scoring for Hamnet).  I truly hope this is something crazy, given so much of the Top 6 seems to be pretty staid.

Adapted Screenplay

1. One Battle After Another

2. Hamnet

3. Frankenstein

4. Bugonia

5. Train Dreams

Alts: No Other Choice

The Lowdown: The ten-wide races have honestly made the writing categories SUCH a snore (this is true of a lot of the fields, but especially writing), as there was once a time movies would only get writing nominations, and that honestly could've made something like No Other Choice, the only movie I think is a real threat to take on an otherwise pretty predictable Top 5, a sole nominee (as I think its International Feature citation is on shaky ground).  Also, with Yorgos Lanthimos getting yet another nomination here, he has to be on the shortlist of the next Director that will pull a Nolan/del Toro (and soon a PTA) and get his "year" of finally getting a gold statue.

Original Screenplay

1. Sinners

2. It Was Just an Accident

3. Marty Supreme

4. Sentimental Value

5. The Secret Agent

Alts: Sorry Baby, Jay Kelly

The Lowdown: You see what I mean about the writing categories being carbon copies of the Best Picture race, right?  There is a VERY real possibility that the only writing nominees will be the ten films nominated for Best Picture.  The Secret Agent getting beaten by Sorry Baby or Jay Kelly, quite frankly, also feels like an odd situation-it's very writerly (it's literally about chronicling one man's life), and despite Julia Roberts pleas, I'm not sure enough people have seen these movies for them to care.  If there's not a mirror matchup, it'll be because some movies like Wicked or Avatar made the Best Picture lineup...I feel like I will be 10/10 with writing.

Animated Feature Film

1. KPop Demon Hunters

2. Zootopia 2

3. Arco

5. Little Amelie or the Character of Rain

5. Elio

Alts: In Your Dreams, The Bad Guys 2

Note: For reasons I can't entirely explain (it seems it wasn't submitted), global phenomenon Ne Zha 2 wasn't eligible, otherwise I'd probably have listed it given it was the year's biggest film.

The Lowdown: I cannot remember the last time I had less of a read on the Animated Feature race.  I've only seen three of these films (I should probably get to at least one more this weekend), and it's weird how there's not a lot of critical buzz around the smaller films (it's mostly just Disney, K-Pop, and a bunch of movies few people have seen) where it feels like they're standing out.  Honestly, an underwhelming year for animation, and why I think that Pixar squeezes in mostly because it's at least another movie that was released wide in theaters.  Similar to Despicable Me 2 a few years ago, I'm not predicting it but wouldn't be totally surprised if the sleeper hit The Bad Guys 2 gets in with such a slow year even if its predecessor missed.

International Feature Film

1. It Was Just an Accident (France)

2. Sentimental Value (Norway)

3. The Secret Agent (Brazil)

4. Sirat (Spain)

5. No Other Choice (South Korea)

Alts: Sound of Falling (Germany), The Voice of Hind Rajab (Tunisia)

The Lowdown: As I said above, I think No Other Choice is on shaky ground here, mostly because this would be SUCH a specifically populist lineup (all of these movies have played in theaters in the US in a decent number of theaters, and all of them are threats for nominations in other categories).  This isn't usually how Oscar goes.  With the exception of last year, there's always at least one film that's waiting in the wings.  Sound of Falling is a country Oscar likes, while The Voice of Hind Rajab is the kind of out-of-left-field drama (excuse me, docudrama) that is this category's raison d'être: shining a light on a movie you've never even heard of before.

Score

1. Sinners

2. One Battle After Another

3. Hamnet

4. F1

5. Jay Kelly

Alts: Frankenstein, Marty Supreme

The Lowdown: Okay, here's my logic.  My working theory is that former Academy favorite Alexandre Desplat, who works CONSTANTLY but hasn't had an Oscar nomination in several years (despite working on showy Oscar-nominated films like The Midnight Sky, Pinocchio, & Nyad) will be the surprise miss of the morning under the working theory the branch is mad at him, and he doesn't get in for Frankenstein...which breaks into my other working theory, that Jay Kelly (otherwise forgotten) will randomly get one tech nomination because it's too good of a movie (and too up Oscar's alley) not to score somewhere.

Original Song

1. "Golden" (KPop Demon Hunters)

2. "I Lied to You" (Sinners)

3. "Dear Me" (Diane Warren: Relentless)

4. "Salt Then Sour Then Sweet" (Come See Me in the Good Light)

5. "The Girl in the Bubble" (Wicked: For Good)

Alts: "Train Dreams" (Train Dreams), "Drive" (F1)

The Lowdown: My next working theory is that Nick Cave, who has bizarrely never gotten an Oscar nomination despite regular work in films that I know Academy voters are watching, is also something of a music branch pariah (this was, weirdly, a working theory on Desplat until he finally made it into the conversation in 2006 after years of exceptional work), and will miss for Train Dreams here.  That leaves room for Ariana Grande to get double-nominations, as her film seems to be the stronger of the two contenders.  Diane Warren will get predicted until that pattern finally breaks, and her film randomly getting listed for Best Score is a sign it won't.

Sound

1. One Battle After Another

2. Sinners

3. F1

4. Avatar: Fire & Ash

5. Frankenstein

Alts: Wicked: For Good, Sirat

The Lowdown: I don't have a great gage on Avatar: Fire & Ash's strength in this field, and that's why I'm putting it in here but not many other places.  The first film won 9 Oscar nominations (and three wins) while the second just got four (with one win)...both got into Best Picture, though, which I don't think Fire & Ash will do.  I don't, however, think it goes home with just its gimme Visual Effects nomination, so I'm putting it here alongside Frankenstein even though Sirat did pretty well in the shortlists, and Wicked 2 is a musical (something they love here).

Casting

1. One Battle After Another

2. Sinners

3. Marty Supreme

4. Sentimental Value

5. Hamnet

Alts: Frankenstein, Wake Up Dead Man, The Secret Agent

The Lowdown: I'm allowing myself three alternates here (usually I max out at two) because this is a brand-new category, and it's hard to tell what they should do.  My working theory is that this is just a dumping ground to run up the score for Best Picture nominees (this has, admittedly, been what most of these categories have turned into), in which case these five plus Frankenstein makes what we'll probably end up with in this field.  However, I will allow this could be a case where a super buzzy cast might make it into the field (something like Wake Up Dead Man would fit this bill), as well as something where there's a genuinely impressive feat being mounted by the casting director with getting a mix of stars and unknowns (The Secret Agent).  We shall see.

Cinematography

1. Sinners

2. One Battle After Another

3. Frankenstein

4. Train Dreams

5. Nouvelle Vague

Alts: F1, Hamnet

The Lowdown: Can I be honest?  Cinematography (along with Visual Effects) are my two favorite tech categories, and I left this year's lineup a little...underwhelmed?  This isn't just about Oscar's lineup, but I think in general there was less of interest than you'd expect (in a surprisingly strong year for movies), and I think that will partially end up with Oscar picking showy stuff like Frankenstein against something a bit subtler like Hamnet because they're already curious about the quality and will want to cover their butt (despite it having the opposite effect) by nominating "most cinematography."  And when they pick a "most" cinematography, they usually pick a black-and-white movie which is where Nouvelle Vague is coming from.

Costume Design

1. Frankenstein

2. Sinners

3. Wicked: For Good

4. Hamnet

5. Kiss of the Spider Woman

Alts: One Battle After Another, Marty Supreme

The Lowdown: The big questions I have here are around Wicked: For Good (if it totally falters, this could fall, but even if it scores nowhere else I think it makes it here), and then Kiss of the Spider Woman.  This category is one of the few that cares considerably more about the film itself than the box office (it nominates flops relatively regularly), and I think that Spider Woman has an old-Holllywood glamour that could be catnip here, especially compared to the more modern takes in One Battle or Marty Supreme.  Hamnet is in-between them because it's a period film without a lot of particularly showy period costumes (we spend so much time with the middle-class, there's no grand ball gowns that would normally make this irresistible to AMPAS).

Film Editing

1. One Battle After Another

2. Sinners

3. Marty Supreme

4. F1

5. Hamnet

Alts: It Was Just An Accident, Sentimental Value

The Lowdown: I mentioned F1 in the Best Picture lineup, but I will note it has a lot of heat in a lot of categories, and maybe it's not crazy to think it could get in there?  One of the key testing grounds will be here, where virtually every contender is a Best Picture threat, and that's true of all of the other six films I listed.  Hamnet is vulnerable because it's a small film (unlike F1 where it's all about whether Oscar will choose a movie that isn't a gimme for Best Picture), but so is Sentimental Value, so if it leaves I kind of think it'll be for the ticking clock effect of It Was Just an Accident.

Makeup & Hairstyling

1. Frankenstein

2. The Smashing Machine

3. Sinners

4. Kokuho

5. Nuremberg

Alts: One Battle After Another, Wicked: For Good

The Lowdown: All logic goes out the window when it comes to Makeup, as they play by a different set of rules.  Here, if a subtitled film you've never heard of makes it into the shortlist, you nominate it...even if you've never heard of it, and so Kokuho is now headed to "Oscar-nominated" status in my book.  The same can be said for a famous movie star recreating a famous person, and I think Russell Crowe as Hermann Goring makes more sense to guess than Robert de Niro as Frank Costello.  One Battle After Another and Wicked: For Good would be more logical choices for a different branch...but that wouldn't be respecting the bonkers nature of the Makeup department.

Production Design

1. Frankenstein

2. Marty Supreme

3. Wicked: For Good

4. Sinners

5. Hamnet

Alts: Avatar: Fire & Ash, Bugonia

The Lowdown: This is one of two tech categories (along with the next one) where I actually think Sinners is in trouble.  The top three are so completely in Oscar's wheelhouse, and with tech categories saying there's more than three locks is stuff amateurs do (there's never that many locks unless you have a ten-wide shortlist).  It's particularly interesting because Sinners largely takes place in one building for the back half of the movie, while Bugonia, Avatar, and Hamnet have increasingly expanded worlds.  Of those three I'm going with Hamnet because production design is a crucial component of the movie's final scenes, but any of those three would make sense.

Visual Effects

1. Avatar: Fire and Ash

2. F1

3. Frankenstein

4. The Lost Bus

5. Superman

Alts: Sinners, Wicked: For Good

The Lowdown: We finish this with my favorite tech category (some days my favorite category period), and one that a few months ago I wrote about how we had just two films that were guaranteed to make the shortlist: Avatar and Wicked.  I was right about both, but they went in with very different momentum-Avatar looks certain to take the prize, while Wicked is so on the outs, I can't in good faith predict it for an actual nomination.  Alongside Production Design, this feels like Sinners biggest problem, and since I guessed it there, I'm leaving it out here.  So I'm keeping both of those two pictures (one of which I haven't seen yet as of this writing, but will this week), and taking out a major Best Picture contender and a film that once looked like a juggernaut.

Final Sinners Count: I have it getting 14.  It's clearly in a position where it could pick up 1-2 more (Supporting Actress & Visual Effects stand out as places I had it as an also-ran), but it's also vulnerable in enough (Actor, Supporting Actor, in my opinion Production Design) that I'd probably bet on it tying rather than beating the record...but it'll be close.

What Will be the Next Billion Dollar Movie?

Earlier today, we did one of our annual start-of-the-year traditions, so now it's time to do a second: predicting the upcoming year's $1 billion movies.  With the quarantine exception year of 2020, every year since 2008 has had at least one movie that, at the global box office, made over $1 billion, an astronomical marker that guarantees a profit, and a stamp of approval from audiences.  In 2025, we had four movies that hit this marker: Zootopia 2, Avatar: Fire and Ash, Lilo & Stitch, and Ne Zha 2, the latter becoming the first film to make $1 billion that is not primarily in English, and it also was the highest-grossing film overall this year (technically Avatar 3 and Zootopia 2 are still shooting up the charts, but I can't see them beating Ne Zha 2).  No other film at the current box office will get close to hitting $1 billion (only one more movie, A Minecraft Movie, cracked $900 million), so I think we officially have four in 2025.

Each year I predict the five films most likely to cross this threshold (more on that in a second), and I did okay.  Zootopia and Avatar were both movies that I predicted, and I did mention Lilo, though I didn't quite catch Millennial nostalgia for the movie after Mufasa struggled at the box office (and the Disney live-action trend continues to wane).  Ne Zha 2 I will totally own I hadn't even heard of when it came out of nowhere, and so I don't really fault myself on that (you'll note I don't predict a Chinese film to be in contention below, but I suspect one will...it's just really hard to find a lot of hints at which franchises even have new movies, much less which might be in the realm, so just know that I'm confident another film will come close or exceed in 2025...I just can't tell which).  Of the three that I predicted, one was Jurassic World: Rebirth, which crossed the $800 million line so a solid bet, though nowhere near as strong as the films starring Chris Pratt in this franchise.  The other two were missteps.  I thought Tom Cruise nostalgia and the proper close to a series with Mission Impossible 8 was enough to get it going (perhaps if the movie had been good it would have helped?), but it didn't even turn a profit, and making even less was The Fantastic Four: The First Steps, which was one of several misfires from the MCU this year.  These were respectable guesses, but it also shows that audiences have become exhausted by these franchises.

Which brings us to our list, and some good news.  I think, for the first time since 2019, the box office has the potential for more than five $1 billion-dollar movies.  In fact, if it doesn't, we're looking at at least one major franchise headed to catastrophe.  Similar to previous years, I'm only going to predict five, but I will say that a year from now I deserve some shame if there's more than 5 billion-dollar movies, and I left one on the chair.  I think that we'll have a lot of headline winners (though I continue to worry about mid-tier movies that aren't horror breaking out...really excited to see stuff like The Housemaid & Anaconda get love, and am sending into the world that I want more of films that can have box office legs hitting the $100M mark again that don't have $100M budgets...films like The Devil Wears Prada 2, Verity, & Focker-in-Law, I know you're there, and would love for you to show up well too).

With that-here's my guesses (listed chronologically):

Honorable Mentions: As ever, I'll name check a few films below that might be options or dark horses, especially if the big $1 billion prediction clicks, but there are three movies that I feel deserve special treatment here because not only are they $1 billion contenders, they are ones I think probably are hitting $1 billion (or darn close).  The first is the most obvious: The Mandalorian and Grogu, the first Star Wars film in seven years, and part of a major TV franchise.  I'm not picking it because it feels like Star Wars light without being connected to the main Skywalker series, but nostalgia for it could be real, and I think waiting so long might have people turning out if it's good (for the record-I'll be there opening weekend, I'm pumped, and making me wait 7 years has actually primed me to see this).  Second, we have Minions 3, which is the seventh film from this franchise, and 5/6 of these movies have made over $900 million.  The reason I'm not listing it is because the last two were JUST shy, and I do wonder how much longer this franchise can milk this for what it's worth (but I could be wrong...I also predicted the last two & got screwed over so I'm trying a different tact).  And third, we have Moana, a movie I'm an idiot for not listing (and initially I did, but changed it last second), as the franchise is beloved, but am I the only person thinking this is "too soon" after a forgettable sequel?  I'm judging this in part by sitting next to a 9-year-old the first time I saw the trailer and she said "that's not Moana" when she came onscreen, and I think it's a bad sign they're hiding Dwayne Johnson from us...is this Lilo where it'll be crap and still make $1 billion, or was Lilo an aberration in a tired format?

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie

Release Date: April 3, 2026

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: I mean, the biggest one?  The last movie did.  Not only did it hit it, it made $1.3 billion and was a gigantic hit that honestly I don't think a lot of people saw coming.  The recent trend toward established video game & toy IP (not just this, but also Barbie and Minecraft) being more reliable at the box office than superheroes has opened up a lot of gates, and this will be the biggest test if it's just a novelty or if it also is creating franchises.  The marketing so far has been smart, hinting at new characters like Rosalina and Bowser Jr, and this is based off of an equally popular game.  I suspect this will be a sugar rush opening weekend, and then it'll be a question of how well it can do internationally (and if it it's any good).

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Some of the problems with surprise $1 billion movies is that they tend to struggle to duplicate with sequels because people only wanted them once.  Some good recent examples include Joker, Alice in Wonderland, and Captain Marvel, all of which had insane first numbers and then turned into nothing when people were like "I'm good-that was all I needed" on a second shot.  I do worry that's the case for Mario, who started a trend but hasn't had the same staying power that, say, a Barbie sequel might invite.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: There's not a lot of established video game or toy IP this year that you might borrow from (2027's Zelda is a much better test), but you should be looking out for Masters of the Universe, which is reviving the He-Man franchise and is a big bet for the summer, and Resident Evil is getting a showy punch-up after the failure of 2021's Welcome to Raccoon City.  The biggest contender for it might be Jumanji 3, which might get bumped (details on it so far are slim, which makes me wonder how far along they are in production), but the last two films were gigantic, $800+ million movies (the first one was just shy of $1 billion), and is opening at Christmas which could be a good way to cash in (similar to 2025, studios are betting big on the holiday box office in 2026).

Toy Story 5

Release Date: 6/19/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: Well, depending on how you count it, the last two both got $1 billion.  Past performance is one thing, but these movies are beloved.  Go to DisneyWorld and you'll see entire sections of the park dedicated to Woody & Buzz (Donald Duck can't even boast that, and he's been a staple for decades).  Pixar also seems intent on this being a big deal-sequels are a huge part of their game plan (Incredibles 3 and Coco 2 are both greenlit, and you gotta assume Inside Out 3 is just a matter of time away), so they are going to want their crown jewel to look shiny...

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: ...particularly since the last time Buzz was on the big-screen, it was an embarrassing catastrophe.  2022's Lightyear was critically-hazed, a financial flop, and became the first film in the franchise not to get an Oscar nomination of some sort.  Part of why I think they're bringing this movie back (other than greed) is to make up for tarnishing the legacy so much, though I am worried that this is another risk for Disney-Toy Story 4 was able to get past some of the "we don't need this" by holding up and feeling like a really beautiful sendoff to Woody...but how will they retcon that ending AND get the sort of sentimentality that has become a hallmark of this franchise without increasingly jaded audiences turning away from them?  Buzz's Tim Allen is back, but it's worth noting that Slinky Dog, Sarge the Army Man, and both the Potato Heads are all dead in real life...will audiences forgive that Pixar keeps reminding them that this isn't the movie they fell in love with?

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: You're going to note a shocking amount of Disney on this list (seriously-the Mouse House is owning the 2026 box office), but if you can believe it there's two other original films (Hexed and Hoppers) coming out next year from them as well.  It's hard not to wonder if the continued trend of Disney originals getting hung-out-to-dry (save for Elemental) will continue, or if we'll finally have the relief of discovering the next Disney franchise.  I would also mention that The Cat in the Hat is (other than Minions 3 of course) one of the few non-Disney animated films in 2026 to keep an eye on, particularly as 2018's The Grinch outperformed virtually all expectations (it made way more than you remember it did for a film that no one remembers).

The Odyssey

Release Date: 7/17/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: My riskiest bet, particularly given I had the respectable net of Star Wars or Moana to rely upon, but this is for fun so why not get a little gutsy?  Christopher Nolan's last film, a biopic about the man who created the nuclear bomb, nearly made $1 billion, and this is WAY more in-line with what we've come to expect for a $1 billion movie (a starry action-adventure).  Nolan's film is huge-people are literally already buying tickets, and given the stature he has, if it's good it'll have the kind of word-of-mouth you can usually only get if you're James Cameron, enough to make $1 billion.  I'm pumped-I think this is going to be a big deal.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: I mean, for starters, it's not based on established cinematic or video game IP...it's a thousands year old story about Greece.  But I think the bigger question is more if it will have international appeal.  Oppenheimer had a 66% share of its gross internationally (a respectable anomaly given the subject matter).  Given the potential for this domestically, if The Odyssey can pull that off, I think it will make it to $1 billion...but I could also see this being more of a domestic box office thing given it doesn't come with recognizable characters like most $1 billion movies do.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: There's a lot of movies that are going for less conventional routes (i.e. not comic books & animation) this year.  You've got original SciFi epics like Project Hail Mary and Disclosure Day (both of which looks terrific), as well as the long-awaited Michael Jackson biopic Michael and the close to the Dune franchise (Dune: Part Three), as the last one made almost double its predecessor, and interest in the series continues to grow.  Also, we can't mention Oppenheimer without also mentioning Barbie, and like Christopher Nolan, Barbie director Greta Gerwig also has a follow-up this year in Narnia: The Magician's Nephew, which I'd have a lot more hope for it being a box office juggernaut (and $1 billion contender) IF the film was getting a proper theatrical release rather than just a 28-day trial before it's slapped onto Netflix.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Release Date: 7/31/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: July promises to be a BIG month for Tom Holland given he's leading both of these films (will this be the closest together ever that someone made two $1 billion movies?), and we also have here (in my opinion) the surest $1 billion movie of the list.  Holland's last two endeavors as Spider-Man both made over $1 billion, and even as an insanely saturated character (he has his own accompanying animated franchise as well), there seems to be no stopping him.  Spider-Man is, over even Batman or Superman, the most consistently bankable superhero in movies today, and given that Holland is almost certainly closing out his time behind the mask after this (he'll be in his thirties by the time this is released), people will want to see how this ends.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: I say this with all love and sincerity, if this movie doesn't hit $1 billion, the entire comic book genre has been torn to shreds in a way that it's basically impossible to imagine.  Even people who don't see comic book movies see the Spider-Man movies.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: Probably nothing.  I will note that (in addition to the next film on this list) there are two superhero movies (here from DC) coming out this year (Supergirl and Clayface), and while neither should come close to $1 billion (if Superman couldn't, why would these?), both are worth keeping an eye on just to understand the health of the superhero genre after 2025 yielded no billion-dollar movies for either DC or Marvel despite quite a bit of trying.

Avengers: Doomsday

Release Date: 12/18/26

Reasons Why It Will Hit $1 Billion: Because Avengers is the only franchise in the history of the movies to go 4/4 in terms of hitting $1 billion at the global box office.  Harry Potter, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Toy Story...none of them have the perfect 4/4 batting average that the Avengers movies do.  And Disney knows it-they are trotting out not just the return of Robert Downey, Jr., but also "plucked from the dead" Chris Evans and a potential sendoff for Chris Hemsworth (wouldn't be super stunned if ScarJo has a cameo they're keeping secret too).  Everyone in America will be curious about this.

Reasons Why It Won't Hit $1 Billion: Because, with the very big exception of Spider-Man (which, honestly, is its own thing at this point), the entire post-Endgame plan for the MCU has been a critical and commercial failure of epic proportions.  Look at last year-there were three MCU films, and not only did none of them make more than $600 million, there's a decent argument to be made that none of them so much as made a profit.  Between lazy movies and toss-away TV shows, the 21st Century jewel in Disney's crown is increasingly at risk of being permanently tarnished.

What It Means for the Rest of the Year: No other movie makes sense to put next to Avengers: Doomsday.  No other movie has the stakes to perform the way it will need to perform, no other movie has more riding on its success.  It could easily be a $2 billion movie and a close to a gigantic year for Disney...or totally upend a two-decades long money-printing formula that will unceremoniously come to an end.