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.

OVP: Picture (2023)

 OVP: Best Picture (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Ben Le Clair, Nikos Karamigios, Cord Jefferson, & Jermaine Johnson, American Fiction

Marie-Ange Luciani & David Thion, Anatomy of Fall

David Heyman, Margot Robbie, Tom Ackerley, & Robbie Brenner, Barbie

Mark Johnson, The Holdovers

Dan Friedkin, Bradley Thomas, Martin Scorsese, & Daniel Lupi, Killers of the Flower Moon

Bradley Cooper, Steven Spielberg, Fred Berner, Amy Durning, & Kristie Macosko Krieger, Maestro

Emma Thomas, Charles Roven, & Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

David Hinojosa, Christine Vachon, & Pamela Koffler, Past Lives

Ed Guiney, Andrew Lowe, Yorgos Lanthimos, & Emma Stone, Poor Things

James Wilson, The Zone of Interest

My Thoughts: Whenever I finish another one of these seasons, I always seem to start humming "The Blower's Daughter" by Damien Rice, a song that I associate specifically with the film Closer, which I saw in college and was one of the first (then) contemporary films that I saw specifically as "mine."  It was a movie that very few of my friends or people I knew had seen (or liked), and that I loved when it came out (and still do, as is evidenced by the 2004 My Ballot where it made the Best Picture lineup).  The movie is about the passage of time & missed opportunities, but it's also a distinctly college movie for me, one of those formative flicks that you didn't realize going into the year would become part of your personality.  I think about that particularly with Best Picture lineups, because my hope is that some of these movies mean that for young cinephiles who are carving their path in the world, and loving movies in that way that it becomes harder to do the older you get.

One of the movies, though, that shocked me in that specific way in 2023 was The Zone of Interest. Jonathan Glazer takes way too long to make his movies, but he does at least make your patience worthy of the wait.  The Zone of Interest is a fascinating treatise on evil, how it seeps into our day-to-day life so much we can no longer see a world without it feeling commonplace.  The sound design is rich here, adding personality to the picture, and the writing & performances (particularly Sandra Huller) only accentuate this distinct look at the Holocaust and World War II (and, let's face it, modern fascist movements in the United States & Europe).

Another film that reminds me of Closer (I promise, I won't reference Mike Nichols' picture for all of these, but if you haven't seen it, do yourself a treat & seek it out) is Past Lives, though the 2023 movie has a far warmer heart.  I talk about my love of ticking clock romances on this blog a lot, but this one turns that a bit on its head, giving the main love triangle too much time to process their romance, leaving regret in place of urgency.  The way that the film examines how we become ghosts of our former selves (something you only begin to understand as you enter middle age), not in a melancholy way but in an inevitable one is really prescient stuff.  More than any other film in this lineup, I'm happiest this made it because it's the film that could've most easily gotten lost from public consciousness of the Oscar contenders.

The Holdovers is one of those movies that becomes better because of the parts, even if the sum doesn't always add up.  The warm performances from the three leads give it a lot of its flavor, as does some of the poignancy that invades Alexander Payne's script.  The movie is too neat, with every turn feeling telegraphed from the opening moments, and in the process Payne manages to screw up the ending, as he hasn't invested in our main character to make some of his choices in the final scenes feel unsaid.  Simple movies can be total masterpieces, but you have to get every part right if you're going to approach from that vantage-Payne only gets some things right.

Screwing up the ending, though, is not a sin exclusive to The Holdovers.  Maestro has the overconfidence to end with "any questions?" as if Bradley Cooper's film has answered fully the life of a complicated man.  But he doesn't-the movie invites far more questions than it answers, and what it does it gives a lot of really staid conversations about the life of Leonard Bernstein.  I think some of the conversations here are overplayed (I'm tired of talking about straight actors playing gay-in an era where openly gay Jonathan Bailey can get cast as the straight romantic lead in Wicked and get to front a major franchise like Jurassic Park, I think we can concede that we've made some progress), but the film's handling of Bernstein's sexuality seems hampered by real-life considerations (like his family's access to the life rights), and in the process Bernstein remains unknowable throughout the picture, a clear drop given the ending of the film.

But Maestro doesn't fumble at the beginning of the movie.  This is the last time I'll complain about it this season, but Anatomy of a Fall screws up much of its film's momentum at the top of the picture when it shares that it will end without resolution.  The movie never really recovers from that.  Though there are scenes of value (I think the title sequence is impressive, and Sandra Huller is better than the script), the movie's need to stay ambiguous becomes a problem as it feels too open-ended, and especially given how long it is, it lacks perspective on the crime itself.

A movie that better balances the need to be two things at once is American Fiction, though it isn't totally successful either.  American Fiction is really smart as social satire, giving us a cutting diatribe about the commodification of diversity and the ways that racism can take on different forms, even in seemingly progressive politics.  But in a weird twist, the film itself doesn't have enough strength in its family drama (the types of books that the main character wants to write) to sell that story-within-a-story angle.  The film's call sheet is smart (save for a woefully miscast Sterling K. Brown), with Jeffrey Wright a strong lead and I loved the meta-casting of Erika Alexander in a movie about a writer who struggles to convey to his publishers that the Black experience can take on any lens (Alexander is best-known for playing Cousin Pam on The Cosby Show, one of the first mainstream Hollywood productions to truly emphasize this message).  It's just short, though, of being something truly special.

Poor Things in a lot of ways has that "just short" of something truly great scenario going for it as well.  Like American Fiction, it has a strong lead performance, and it has a lot to say, in this case about feminism.  But also like American Fiction, it can't quite find a balance, though here it's trying to keep up with Lanthimos' need for shocking the audience through sex, body humor, and tantalizing moral conversations.  All of these can make up great art (see Lanthimos' The Favourite, in fact), but in Poor Things it gets in Lanthimos' way.  I'll also own that some of the aesthetic choices in the picture feel arbitrary (and a bit ugly for me), which made the film suffer whenever I wasn't getting to revel in Emma Stone's brilliant work.

Killers of the Flower Moon continues Martin Scorsese's recent trend of making his best pictures at the close of his career.  Running well over three hours, the movie gives us a totally epic tale, one that feels more complete for being pieced together (news flash: not every big story works better as a miniseries...this is proof of that).  The acting is somewhat strong.  We have Robert de Niro giving his best performance in decades, and Lily Gladstone's understated approach giving us a woman who is always hiding in Mollie Kyle, a strategy that makes her final scenes just sing on the screen.  I think DiCaprio is miscast (and Brendan Fraser is laughably bad), but those are minor quibbles when you're getting to see a master like Scorsese at work.

We of course have to end with the two movies that will forever be intwined, both in moviegoers' minds and at the Oscars: Barbie and Oppenheimer.  We'll start our Barbenheimer conversation with Oppenheimer, a movie that underlines how Christopher Nolan is one of our most visually arresting film directors.  The movie's aesthetic choices are divine (the art direction & cinematography are both laudable, I also think the editing approach works when it easily could've been too much), and most of the ensemble cast delivers, including some of the bit players like Benny Safdie or Casey Affleck.  I do think Nolan continues to struggle at writing women (and Emily Blunt's not giving us enough to make up for that), but Oppenheimer is going to age beautifully as a Best Picture winner, a striking meld of populist intellectualism.

Barbie is a movie, unlike Oppenheimer, that wasn't guaranteed Best Picture consideration.  It's due to Greta Gerwig's shiny pink optimism that this became the biggest hit of 2023.  Barbie is going to be hard to grade for future generations primarily because it was a phenomenon (the marketing on this film was both costly and insanely effective, with a press junket that should be studied), but the film itself is also strong.  It looks sensational (love the costumes, art direction, & makeup), and the lead actors are both fizzing with chemistry, though the standout remains Ryan Gosling's Ken, inevitably the definitive role of one of our best working actors.  I do think some of the commentary about feminism feels a bit prosaic, but I am hardly going to Kensplain girl power-Barbie is delicious & frothy fun.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes have their categories separated into Musical/Comedy and Drama, with six nominations each so we do get some new names, though not in Drama, where Oppenheimer beats Anatomy of a Fall, Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, Past Lives, & The Zone of Interest.  Instead it's in Musical/Comedy where Oscar nominee Poor Things took it over some films from the AMPAS lineup (Barbie, American Fiction, The Holdovers) and some not (May December, Air).  The PGA copied Oscar verbatim for both nominations and wins, and BAFTA (the only game in town still doing five nominations) went with Oppenheimer atop Anatomy of a Fall, The Holdovers, Killers of the Flower Moon, & Poor Things.  I wrote an entire article about who might've been in 11th place, and while future pundits (who rely too much on stats for my taste) will assume The Color Purple or Nyad were in 11th place, I honestly think it was All of Us Strangers, Origin, or Air that was in 11th, and would've been the first film since 1943 to get in for Best Picture without a nomination anywhere else.  This is a fascinating conversation (more so than any recent "who was the runner-up" dialogue), so here's the article if you want more or want to know why I picked those specific titles.

Films I Would Have Nominated: You'll find out tomorrow!

Oscar’s Choice: Oppenheimer won by so much, it's a genuine question between The Holdovers, Barbie, Poor Things, Killers of the Flower Moon, and The Zone of Interest what was in second place (whomever it was, they were distant, but I'd probably bet on The Holdovers if forced to choose because of how the ranked ballots work).

My Choice: Not a hard one for me-The Zone of Interest is the best in a really solid list of movies (Oscar did better here than he has in a lot of recent years even if there won't be much overlap with my personal ballot).  Behind it (in order) are Killers of the Flower Moon, Past Lives, Oppenheimer, Barbie, American Fiction, The Holdovers, Poor Things, Anatomy of a Fall, and Maestro.  So that means in our six Barbenheimer matchups, Barbie went 5-1...but still missed for Best Picture.

And there you have it-another OVP in the books.  Are you all still enchanted by Oppenheimer, or do you favor a darker picture like The Zone of Interest?  Who do you think was in the second and eleventh places in a year where that was quite murky?  And overall-what is your favorite movie of 2023?  Share your comments below!

Also in 2023: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Picture Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Director (2023)

OVP: Best Director (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things

Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

My Thoughts: We are moving toward the tail end of our 2023 conversation today, with the Best Director field.  One of the more pronounced side effects of the ten-wide field, and one of the weirder ones for sure, is that people have forgotten how to count.  With ten nominees for Best Picture and only five for Best Director, that means that (at least) five films from the Best Picture field will not get into the Best Director field.  This is okay (not every good film needs an Oscar nomination), but for some people, this is an invitation to scream about, say, Greta Gerwig missing here for Barbie even if she was nominated for Best Screenplay, as if this is an enormous crime.  So, before we begin, I do not think that Gerwig's lack of a nomination was a huge surprise (I didn't guess her), nor do I think her missing was particularly anti-feminist (especially since the one woman in this lineup was likely the one who bumped her).

That woman is Justine Triet, who directed Anatomy of a Fall.  Triet's nomination is kind of cool on a solely political front, given that many feel that her film was not chosen for the International Feature race because of her public criticisms of French President Emmanuel Macron during her Cannes acceptance speech.  We don't judge based on personal feelings about the nominees, but I will note-she seems like a badass.  Her nomination, though, I wasn't a huge fan of-I think that the film feels too overlong, and it runs into too much repetition with its plot.  It also doesn't handle the "did she do it?" question well, a problem I put pretty squarely at the feet of the director.  The actual title scene is done well, and there are some Hitchcockian flares that I was into, but overall I was disappointed with this and feel like it got a nomination in part because it was so serious.

Yorgos Lanthimos is also a nomination from someone I like, but who didn't need his name listed here.  We talked yesterday about how much I loved Emma Stone's performance in Poor Things, but it sometimes feels like I'm liking it in-spite of her director's work.  Lanthimos' approach here is too much.  He uses too much garishness, and the way that the film's use of a sort of futuristic Victorian style feels, well, it feels undefined; why are we doing this other than it feels odd?  I also don't like the way that he can't handle the evolution of Bella in the final thirty minutes without it just being about her fighting yet another man.

Jonathan Glazer, on the opposite end, puts so much into the pacing of The Zone of Interest it reads very much like a director's picture.  The way that he moves the camera, using tracking shots and far-away dialogue to give us both the foreground and background of the story in multiple scenes is superb, and I loved the interruptions of color across the movie screen, letting the audience absorb what is happening in the picture.  Glazer's mastery of the ending, too, cannot be ignored-I admired the way that it connects to modern day, and the wretching sound that happens when your soul feels like it's vomiting out of your body, you've condoned so much evil.

Quentin Tarantino has spent much of the past five years complaining about how he's only going to make ten pictures, because "directors make their worst stuff toward the end of their lives."  Meanwhile, Martin Scorsese, now in his eighties, has made two of his finest films during that time frame.  The approach with Killers of the Flower Moon is so awe-inducing, giving us the sort of large, expansive epic that (if your name isn't Martin, Steven, or Ridley) they don't really let you make anymore.  I enjoyed the way that he honors not just the Osage people, but also the illumination that can happen from making a movie at all, bringing a story to light that has been kept in darkness.  The film's final, solemn moments (where Scorsese takes centerstage) are some of his best.

Christopher Nolan was always going to win an Oscar.  All of the fanboys who worried about it for years, the second he made a movie like Dunkirk, should've known it was inevitable.  That he won for a movie that combines his blockbuster flare with an Academy-friendly plot (and that made almost $1 billion) is a really incredible testament to his endurance as one of the most exciting mainstream filmmakers of the past couple of decades.  I think his approach with Oppenheimer is great, particularly the tricky balance that he strikes between jumping through decades & finding some sort of insight into an enigmatic man.  There are problems that I have with Oppenheimer, but those are not an issue of the director (more of the writer and to some degree the actors & composer)...I have nothing bad to say about this nod.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes have six nominations now (ruining the only category where we used to have five-wide for all precursors) and they picked Nolan to win against Gerwig, Lanthimos, Scorsese, Bradley Cooper (Maestro), & Celine Song (Past Lives).  The BAFTA's also had six nominations (I hate this trend), with Nolan beating Cooper, Glazer, Payne, Triet, and Andrew Haigh (All of Us Strangers) while the DGA chose Nolan over Gerwig, Lanthimos, Payne, & Scorsese.  I'll be real to all of those who led the charge-I don't think Gerwig was in sixth place here...my money is that she was in seventh.  Payne is a more traditional choice for the Academy, and they have liked him more in the past.  I actually predicted him in favor of Triet, and so he's the one that stands out as the likely just-miss.

Directors I Would Have Nominated: Sofia Coppola got nominated so early in her career, and then the Oscars totally forgot she was still making truly great pictures.  This trend continued with Priscilla, which shows the unrest of a young woman finding herself while also falling in love with a domineering man, with a distinct directorial flare that I suspect the Academy would admire from Tarantino or Scorsese.
Oscar's Choice: Christopher Nolan had this Oscar roughly by last August.  It was the kind of train you can't stop from coming.

My Choice: Glazer, who is in a different league (in general-this is his best movie, and the made Birth and Under the Skin).  Scorsese is next, followed by Nolan, but I would've been proud to put either of them in the top spot if Glazer hadn't hit such a home run.  Triet, and then Lanthimos close out the category.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you staying with Oscar and his Nolan coronation, or do you want to sit with me and Jonathan Glazer?  At some point Greta Gerwig is winning this-but for what kind of movie?  And do we think Scorsese (or his buddy Steven Spielberg) just get nominations for the rest of their careers, or will they get one more statue?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2023: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Director Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2023)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2023)

The Nominees Were...

 

Cord Jefferson, American Fiction

Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach, Barbie

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Tony McNamara, Poor Things

Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

My Thoughts: As I said yesterday, the Best Picture field was dominating in this category, with all five of the films cited being from that field, and the certain sixth place also being a Best Picture nominee.  When you're that staid, it's hard to have a lot of interesting things to say.  This is the first time we've gotten to one of these movies (the rest had tech citations), and obviously it's not the last time we'll get to them, as all of these will not only show up in Best Picture, but 45% of our acting nominees & 60% of our directing nominees are from these five films...so let's just do this, as if Oscar didn't have an interesting take on this field, I shouldn't be expected to find one to start our discussion.

American Fiction is the only new name we haven't hit yet, so I'll begin there.  I really enjoyed this movie, let's start straight-out, I think more than most people did even with its Oscar haul.  I believe it's sharp in the way it handles satire, while also giving us scenes that feel so real that you can't help but wonder if this is exactly how they'd play out in real-life.  I do think the film fails in trying to talk about the Black experience alongside the queer experience (we'll get into this more tomorrow with Sterling K. Brown's character, but it's grappled with really poorly in a film that otherwise feels quite on-the-nerve), but it also shares so much rich discourse about how the commodification of diversity has led to a flattening effect, it's hard to argue with this film being celebrated.

Barbie was inexplicably placed here despite it being adapted from a box in a toy store (I think this is one of the stupider choices the branch has made in a while), but it's a fun & game look at Mattel's pink creation.  Gerwig & Baumbach's script is funny, filled with wit and delicious commentary on feminism.  I honestly think the best parts of the film in that regard are some of the asides ("I don't control the railways or the flow of commerce" being a really astute look at the literal meanings of words), more than something like America Ferrara's quite generic "girl power" speech toward the end of the film.  I was more struck by the movie's humor than its abundant looks at the experiences of women, to be real...but as a man I'm going to kind of let that one go as I don't feel the need to Kensplain a fun script's weak points.

This is another Barbenheimer mash-up (currently Barbie is up 2-0 in the OVP with three more categories to go after today), and Oppenheimer in a lot of ways stays in the same lane as Barbie: a lot of good, just a smattering of needs-to-be-fixed.  I loved the way Nolan handles the film's structure, giving us snippets of Oppenheimer's life that still feels like it's building to something, and we have a lot of wonderful writing.  The film's politics, similar to Barbie, are a mixed bag (should Oppenheimer get the benefit-of-the-doubt in the way that he does?), it has one terrible line about JFK that needs to be cut as it's far too Sorkin-esque, and Nolan continues not to be able to write women (Emily Blunt's Oscar nomination being this one-note is very much a writer's issue).  But this is a gigantic, engaging biopic, one that earns its stripes.

The Zone of Interest is so much a film of other elements (directing, production design, sound) that you might forget that it also has an absolute banger of a screenplay.  The movie uses the Holocaust as an omnipresent Sword of Damocles, ready to strike at any moment the audience might forget what is going on with these characters.  The way that it makes organic dialogue feel so chilling, as we hear people discuss mundane topics that also include genocide (one that they're helping to perpetrate) is horrifying, and a good reminder that the way we treat modern politics as a game is really dismissing the real world ramifications of those conversations (and us dismissing our own role in them).  Glazer is a genius.

Which brings us to Poor Things.  Between the two, I honestly think that Poor Things is the more intriguing piece of feminist writing than Barbie, mostly because it's having a conversation that is rarely brought up in the movies around a woman taking power over her sexuality (and the way that that threatens men).  But when it comes to gender dynamics between the two, especially in the film's second half, it becomes a bit less riveting, and again moves into cliched conversations.  The writing is also sharper in the first half, much wittier and the plotting is more strongly-structured.  Poor Things, the more I write about it, feels like a movie that aged worse after I watched it & considered it after-the-fact, which is a pity as Emma Stone is so good in the picture.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted & original, so we have four adapted screenplays losing to the original Anatomy of a Fall: Barbie, Poor Things, Oppenheimer, and Killers of the Flower Moon.  The BAFTA's put Barbie in original, so it's not here, though American Fiction won against All of Us Strangers, Oppenheimer, Poor Things, & The Zone of Interest, while the WGA's (which, let's remember, were presented after the Oscars so this isn't really a "precursor" at all) also went to American Fiction atop Are You There God, It's Me Margaret?, Killers of the Flower Moon, Nyad, & Oppenheimer.  In sixth place, it's obviously Killers of the Flower Moon-the only Best Picture nominee not to get nominated anywhere else, there's no way it wasn't Scorsese's film.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I have held off long enough in discussing All of Us Strangers and its criminal lack of nominations at the Oscars (I purposefully haven't listed it before this even though it will definitely get nominations at the My Ballot before this.  Just an absolutely perfect film, one that gives so much in its script, generously looking at the way we can never really grow up (and never truly understand our parents).

Oscar's Choice: Making films about writers is generally a good way to win this award, and that was the case with American Fiction, getting a trophy against the "Barbenheimer" team that otherwise would've gone to one of the duo (I'm honestly not sure which).

My Choice: For sure The Zone of Interest, totally acing with not even a top three aspect of the film (it's just that good).  For the silver, I'm going to give it to Barbie against Oppenheimer, giving Gerwig's film a 3-0 lead with the OVP.  Both films have faults, but Barbie's are less to do with the script (and again, both faults are minor-both would've made a decent victor).  Behind these are American Fiction and then Poor Things.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Do you want to critique the literary scene with Oscar or would you prefer to...actually The Zone of Interest is so dark I can't make this cutesy-is your choice American Fiction or The Zone of Interest?  Was Barbie or Oppenheimer closer here (I think of their six matchups, this is the one that they got the closest both in my ballot and with Oscar's)?  And who was Killers of the Flower Moon closest to ousting?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Original Screenplay (2001)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Guillaume Laurant & Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Amelie

Julian Fellowes, Gosford Park

Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan, Memento

Milo Addica & Will Rokos, Monster's Ball

Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson, The Royal Tenenbaums

My Thoughts: I oftentimes feel like the original vs. adapted screenplay race in terms of what Oscar prefers wanders through the years.  In the 1930's, virtually every screenplay was adapted from a book or stage production, but when New Hollywood emerged in the 1960's & 70's, we saw more of a turn to the original writers of the era with the Best Picture lineups.  In 2001, we were going through a phase where adapted was en vogue, and so we only have one Best Picture nominee in this group.  Usually, though, the original screenplay races of this era were more interesting because it required Oscar to think outside of the box, and while there is one classic script in this bunch...I kind of think AMPAS was whiffing more than connecting in this lineup.

That Best Picture nominee was Gosford Park, a classic whodunit mystery from Julian Fellowes (who, as we've discussed quite a bit this season, would go on to take parts of this and turn it into Downton Abbey).  The movie is rich in overlapping dialogue, as is true of most of Robert Altman's films, and it unfolds really well.  We get a lot of competing storylines, which make it honestly a mystery as to where to look, which helps as we get to the end and have a series of "ah ha!" moments.  I also love that the dialogue reveals a lot about the guests without it feeling too expositional, which would run counter to the approach Altman takes to his films.

Memento also runs the risk of being too expositional, but doesn't (which is kind of a miracle given how confusing it's intended to be for the audience in the first 30 minutes).  Nolan is not my favorite screenwriter, primarily because he doesn't know how to end his movies (this extends to pretty much every one of his pictures after this), but here...I have no problems.  The film is succinct, he's still early in his career (and thus getting studio notes that he actually has to listen to), so it's all quickly-paced & flowing, and I think the gimmick works every scene the further you go back (or forward).

Amelie will leave us with this article (it didn't make any other categories in the Big 8, despite being a threat for them).  The film plays, visually, like a charming fairy tale.  I think the picture itself, and this extends to the script, is a bit busy.  It feels too focused on shocking the audience while not zeroing into the charms of our Audrey Hepburn-like protagonist, and the romance that springs from Amelie's story itself.  It's good, don't get me wrong, but as we close our conversation with her...it should have been better.

The same can be said for The Royal Tenenbaums.  This is one of the better movies from Wes Anderson, an inventive filmmaker who almost always leaves me in the middle.  The conversational dialogue with a cast that features some regulars but enough newcomers (Gene Hackman, Gwyneth Paltrow) that it reads fresh & not like it's in the same spot as most of his other films is a joy.  It's too precious, frequently distracted by little tangents that don't go anywhere, which isn't always a problem (movies can just be visual beings), but when you're assessing the script, you need to dock a few points.

That said, there is one stinker in this lineup, and it's Monster's Ball.  The film is badly written, with twists that go nowhere serving as a replacement for a cohesive, well-thought-out plot.  The movie garnered headlines at the time for the intense sex scene between Billy Bob Thornton & Halle Berry, but that doesn't really come out of anywhere because the writing hasn't done the legwork-a scene that should be really jarring for the audience given what these two characters have been through instead reads as just lying there.  Add in that there's no explanation for Billy Bob Thornton's complete-180 as a character, and you've got one of the more embarrassing Oscar nominations of 2001.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted and original into one category, and despite Oscar only citing one Best Picture nominee in their original screenplay race, the Globes nominated four original screenplays even though the winner was adapted (A Beautiful Mind): Gosford Park, The Man Who Wasn't There, Memento, and Mulholland Drive.  The WGA went with Gosford Park over The Man Who Wasn't There, Monster's Ball, Moulin Rouge!, and The Royal Tenenbaums, while BAFTA surprisingly picked Amelie against Gosford Park, Moulin Rouge!, The Others, and The Royal Tenenbaums.  I'm going to guess that The Man Who Wasn't There, rather than Moulin Rouge! was the Original Screenplay sixth place in 2001, mostly because Oscar is far kinder in this category to the Coen Brothers than to musicals, even if Moulin Rouge! got the Best Picture citation.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices, though, and I think Moulin Rouge! is a musical that totally impresses when it's in and out of song, especially the "Spectacular Spectacular" pitch scene, where both attributes combine.

Oscar’s Choice: Some of the precursors got creative, but Oscar was a bit more traditional-that Best Picture nomination won Gosford Park its sole Academy Award.

My Choice: In a tight race, I'm going to pick Memento, getting Christopher Nolan an Oscar very early in his career, over Gosford Park, just because I think what it's doing is more impressive (both are very worthy).  Behind them it's Amelie, The Royal Tenenbaums, and then Monster's Ball.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you getting amnesia with me, or do you want to solve murders in the parlor room with Oscar?  Why do you think there was such a long break for Wes Anderson in this category before 2014?  And was it Moulin Rouge! or The Man Who Wasn't There in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2001: Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Original Screenplay Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022