This year's Oscars have it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The Academy has once again managed to confound and frustrate film enthusiasts alike with its nominations, which are as bewildering as they are fascinating.
On one hand, there are snubs that make you want to scream from the rooftops. Park Chan-wook's masterful "No Other Choice" was overlooked in no fewer than five categories, including Best Picture, Director, and International Feature Film. One can only assume that the Academy is either tone-deaf or has simply lost its way.
On the other hand, there are moments of triumph that make it all worthwhile. Ethan Hawke's heart-wrenching performance in "Blue Moon" deserves every ounce of recognition it will receive. His nuanced portrayal of a man grappling with grief and regret is a tour de force that had this critic reaching for tissues.
But what about the rest? Where do we begin to unpack the enigmatic snubs and bewildering nominations? Take, for example, the visually stunning but narratively inert "Frankenstein", which somehow managed to squeeze itself into the Best Picture race despite being eclipsed by far superior films. Or how about the forgettably entertaining "F1", which seemed to coast on autopilot while more deserving titles like "No Other Choice" and "Eddington" slunk away unnoticed?
And then there are the snubs that leave you scratching your head in confusion. Why did the Academy choose not to nominate Yngvill Kolset Haga and Avy Kaufman, the masterful casting directors behind one of the year's best films ("Sentimental Value")? Did they somehow manage to single-handedly elevate their leads (Renate Reinsve, Stellan Skarsgård, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, and Elle Fanning) to a level of excellence that defies explanation?
All is not lost, however. For every snub or misstep, there are films like "Sinners", which has somehow managed to secure 16 nominations despite being a genre film that shouldn't normally receive this kind of recognition. While it's unlikely that the Oscars will see any major upsets in the major categories, one can only hope that the Academy will surprise us all with some last-minute redemption.
Ultimately, the 2026 Oscars are a reminder that art is subjective and often inexplicable. As film enthusiasts, we must learn to love - and sometimes hate - these awards ceremonies for what they are: imperfect attempts to capture the zeitgeist of our times. So here's to the films, the artists, and the Academy itself - may their quirks and contradictions inspire us all to appreciate the beauty in the messy, magnificent world of cinema.
On one hand, there are snubs that make you want to scream from the rooftops. Park Chan-wook's masterful "No Other Choice" was overlooked in no fewer than five categories, including Best Picture, Director, and International Feature Film. One can only assume that the Academy is either tone-deaf or has simply lost its way.
On the other hand, there are moments of triumph that make it all worthwhile. Ethan Hawke's heart-wrenching performance in "Blue Moon" deserves every ounce of recognition it will receive. His nuanced portrayal of a man grappling with grief and regret is a tour de force that had this critic reaching for tissues.
But what about the rest? Where do we begin to unpack the enigmatic snubs and bewildering nominations? Take, for example, the visually stunning but narratively inert "Frankenstein", which somehow managed to squeeze itself into the Best Picture race despite being eclipsed by far superior films. Or how about the forgettably entertaining "F1", which seemed to coast on autopilot while more deserving titles like "No Other Choice" and "Eddington" slunk away unnoticed?
And then there are the snubs that leave you scratching your head in confusion. Why did the Academy choose not to nominate Yngvill Kolset Haga and Avy Kaufman, the masterful casting directors behind one of the year's best films ("Sentimental Value")? Did they somehow manage to single-handedly elevate their leads (Renate Reinsve, Stellan Skarsgård, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, and Elle Fanning) to a level of excellence that defies explanation?
All is not lost, however. For every snub or misstep, there are films like "Sinners", which has somehow managed to secure 16 nominations despite being a genre film that shouldn't normally receive this kind of recognition. While it's unlikely that the Oscars will see any major upsets in the major categories, one can only hope that the Academy will surprise us all with some last-minute redemption.
Ultimately, the 2026 Oscars are a reminder that art is subjective and often inexplicable. As film enthusiasts, we must learn to love - and sometimes hate - these awards ceremonies for what they are: imperfect attempts to capture the zeitgeist of our times. So here's to the films, the artists, and the Academy itself - may their quirks and contradictions inspire us all to appreciate the beauty in the messy, magnificent world of cinema.
park chan-wook is a genius and ethan hawke's perf in "blue moon" gave me CHILLS 
it just doesn't make sense to me why "frankenstein" got in over those other films, it was so basic 
and i'm dying for more of sentimantal value, yngvill kolset haya and avy kaufman are absolute masters of casting 
can we get a spinoff on the oscars please? 
but seriously, who chose frankenstein for best picture? that film was straight up boring 
and what about yngvill kolset haga and avy kaufman not getting a nom? like what even happened there 
anyway, at least sinners got 16 nominations lol maybe the oscars will surprise us with some last-minute redemption 
. 
. And what about the snub of those incredible casting directors behind "Sentimental Value"? I mean, come on, Yngvill Kolset Haga and Avy Kaufman are cinematic geniuses 
.
.
. And those casting directors behind "Sentimental Value"? Game changers 
! How did they do it?
The Oscars will always be a wild card. Can't wait to see who wins (or loses) at the after-parties 
, always so much drama! Park Chan-wook's "No Other Choice" snubbed 
is a total bummer. I mean, how can they overlook something that good? And what's with the "Frankenstein" nomination 
? It's like they want to confuse us on purpose.
... who cast that movie anyway? I think they must have been on autopilot mode or something. On a positive note, Ethan Hawke's performance in "Blue Moon" was incredible 
. It's like they're trying to give us a headache with all the snubs and surprises! But hey, at least it keeps things interesting, right?
. And what about those casting directors behind "Sentimental Value"? Why didn't they get any recognition at all?! 
gotta respect the academy for trying to capture the zeitgeist of our times, even if it doesn't always succeed 
. I mean, how did it sneak into Best Picture? Did they just give up and decided to give everyone a participation trophy? It's like they're trying to send a message about the value of artistic vision vs. commercial appeal - but which one is more important, exactly?
. Why did they choose not to nominate those amazing casting directors? Are we supposed to assume that their work isn't valuable just because it didn't fit into a specific genre or category? I think it's time for us to rethink our expectations around what makes a film "great" and start recognizing the unsung heroes behind some of the best movies out there