Best Pictures #125: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Train Dreams

 by A.J.

Best Pictures #125: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Train Dreams

“The world needs a hermit in the woods as much as a preacher in the pulpit.”

I suppose you could describe Train Dreams as an arthouse film, though that is a loaded term; even my guard goes up when I hear about an arthouse movie. Train Dreams is not conventional; it is not mainstream. There are none of the typical beats that fill an average American movie. Such moments and tropes would ruin a gentle and sensitive movie like this. Sometimes a critic will call a movie they love a gem. Well, this movie is a gem; something to be treasured and appreciated and shared. Each time you look at it from just a slightly different perspective, it reveals something new and wonderful and enchanting. 

The plot, to the extent that there is a plot, is extremely simple. Joel Edgerton plays Robert Grainier, a logger living in the Pacific Northwest during the early decades of the 20th century. That's it. He is a quiet and shy person but on a rare trip to church he meets Gladys (Felicity Jones). Actually she introduces herself to him. Robert does not seem like the type to do such a thing himself. They are a wonderful match and have a daughter, but Robert spends much of his time away on logging jobs. He and Gladys plan to save money to turn their land into a farm, but things do not go as planned.

Joel Edgerton is great as the lowkey Robert. His face shows us that he is a simple man who still has deep thoughts and emotions going on beneath the surface. Robert knows that there is more meaning to life and existence and nature. He also knows that he doesn't know how to make sense of the larger meaning behind everything or how to even start contemplating it. 

Robert is haunted by his inadvertent participation in the murder of a Chinese railroad worker; he asks what the man did and is never given an answer. He asks a fellow logger, the aged Arn Peoples (William H. Macy), whose folksy wisdom likely comes from a lifetime of experiences he probably would rather not have had, if a person can be followed by the bad things he does in his life. Arn says that he's seen bad people be lifted up and good people be brought down but if he had the answer he would be sleeping next to someone better looking than Robert.

William H. Macy is a nice, lively addition as the folksy would-be philosopher Arn. His thoughts, which he is very ready to share, are not esoteric or cryptic. Only when asked about his family does he obfuscate and become cagey; that tells us all we need to know. Gladys risks becoming more of a symbol than a character but Felicity Jones gives her warmth and substance, even with relatively little screen time.

Any screenwriting or film professor will tell you not to use narration, that it is a crutch and you must show, not tell. Of course, there are many examples of good narration that adds to a movie without condescending to the audience or taking away from the performances. This is one such example. The narration here is wonderfully spoken by Will Patton, a character actor so prolific that, yes, you have absolutely seen him before. He also read the audiobook of the novella by Denis Johnson so perhaps him being the narrator is no big surprise, yet it in no way diminishes the great effect of his superb skill at bringing words to life (Patton has also read several other audiobooks and his narration makes them worth listening to). The narration along with the masterful Oscar nominated cinematography by Adolpho Veloso and the ethereal but not out of place score by Bryce Dessner give Train Dreams its poetic qualities. 

The influence of the films of Terrence Malick (Badlands and especially Days of Heaven) can be seen and felt in Train Dreams. However, and this may be heresy to some, I feel that director and co-writer Clint Bentley surpasses Malick (at least the recent films) in that Train Dreams is more than a philosophical exploration of existence and meaning. This film ponders these things too of course, but it hits on a subtle but no less affecting emotional and almost spiritual level. Train Dreams might seem like a slight movie since it is about the life of a rather ordinary, obscure man but that does not mean that his life or the film are not something special. Train Dreams is one of the best movies I have seen in quite some time. I can’t wait to see it again. 

Train Dreams is available to stream on Netflix.

Nominees: Marissa McMahon, Teddy Schwarzman, Will Janowitz, Ashley Schlaifer, Michael Heimler, producers

Director: Clint Bentley

Screenplay: Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar; based on the novel by Denis Johnson

Cast: Joel Edgerton, Felicity Jones, Kerry Condon, William H. Macy

Production Companies: Black Bear, Kamala Films

Distributor: Netflix

Release Date: November 7th, 2025

Total Nominations: 4, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Adapted Screenplay-Clint Bentley, Greg Kwedar; Cinematography-Adolpho Veloso; Original Song-"Train Dreams", Music by Nick Cave and Bryce Dessner, Lyric by Nick Cave

Best Pictures #123: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Hamnet

 by A.J.

Best Pictures #123: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Hamnet

"These but the trappings and suits of woe."

Hamnet begins with a note explaining that the names Hamnet and Hamlet were interchangeable. It gives no such note about the names Anne and Agnes, which it seems were interchangeable as well: Anne Hathaway, later Anne Shakespeare, was referred to in her father's will as Agnes; the film refers to her only as Agnes (pronounced Ayn-yes). I suppose it does not matter whether she was Anne or Agnes because we do not really get to know this character or her husband, Will. This is really too bad because the point of the movie is to make the audience share in their grief over their son Hamnet, who died at the age of 10. This film, and the novel it is based on by Maggie O'Farrell, who co-wrote the screenplay with director Chloe Zhao, suggest that out of that grief Shakespeare was inspired to write his most famous play, Hamlet.

Jessie Buckley plays Agnes, whose mother was rumored to be a forest witch (more of a slander than, at the time, a serious legal accusation) and who herself is deeply connected to the natural world. The opening shot of the movie is of her barefoot and asleep nestled in the root of a gargantuan and ancient tree. To give birth to her first child, a girl, Susanna, she hobbles out to the woods alone. She is unable to do so for the birth of the twins, Judith and Hamnet. 

Paul Mescal plays Will, a mediocre glovemaker, part time tutor, and aspiring poet and writer. The movie goes to great pains to avoid the names William and Shakespeare. When we finally do hear the name “William Shakespeare” it is played as though the full identity of Anne/Agnes’s husband is a great revelation or even a twist. This would make sense and be acceptable if Hamnet was really meant to tell the story of an average Renaissance era woman and did not depend, moreover require, you to know, if only vaguely, who Shakespeare was and that his most famous play is Hamlet in order to have any pathos at all. 

It seems that Buckley and Mescal were not meant to play people so much as vessels for grief and woe. Agnes is not presented as especially witchy, but she does have a vision that at her deathbed only two children will be at her side. So, when the newborn girl seems stillborn then finally breathes, Agnes believes that Judith is marked for death. However, we the audience know that Hamnet is the child fated to die (because that is the premise of the movie), so it is only a shock to Agnes, not the audience, and plays like a cruel joke only meant to increase her pain and suffering. It does not enhance the drama of the movie. Jessie Buckley is almost certain to win the Best Actress Oscar, but I never felt that Agnes was a full character, much less a person that really lived. A scene of Will in London consumed by grief as he stands at the edge of the Thames River and speaks the “To be or not to be” soliloquy made my eyes nearly roll out of my head.

The pacing never felt slow and very few scenes felt extraneous, yet afterwards I wondered how this movie took up 2hours and 5 minutes. Until Hamnet’s death from the plague, the movie is scenes of day to day life in a rural Renaissance era English village, specifically around one cottage. The romance between Agnes and Will is sweet and passionate; both feel like outsiders in their families and their community. Agnes encourages Will’s move to London because she believes he is meant for more. However, we do not get any hint of his potential greatness; at least a sonnet would have helped. All we get is a scene of him so frustrated with writer’s block that he wakes their baby. 

The most exciting part of Hamnet is the performance of Hamlet at the Globe theater. This is meant to be the great catharsis of the movie for both Will and Agnes, but it does not work. Agnes behaves as though she is an alien just arrived on earth and has no idea what the hell a play is. She shouts at the actor playing Hamlet. She frantically and confusedly speaks to her brother and the stage itself so loudly that even the groundlings, notorious for their rowdiness, shush her. We know from a scene earlier in the movie, where the children act out what would become the Weird Sisters/Witches opening scene of MacBeth, that Agnes is familiar with the idea of a performance and of people pretending. I applaud Buckley for playing this straight but that is far from the same as saying she should be nominated or win the Best Actress Oscar. 

Hamnet is absolutely not how Shakespeare came up with Hamlet. Of course Shakespeare in Love is absolutely not how he came up with Romeo and Juliet either, but that film behaves as though it knows everything it is showing you is made up. Hamnet takes itself too far too seriously without giving you anything, aside from the premise, to stand on. Shakespeare left no diaries or letters for later generations to know what he thought and how he felt. This is a gift to modern storytellers who want to make Shakespeare into whatever they will. This one falls flat. Every high school student has the same reaction when they find out that Shakespeare’s son was named Hamnet and his most famous play is Hamlet–at least currently, as Shakespeare’s most popular play changes with whatever the era. This story would have you believe that Hamnet's death and the production of Hamlet happened one after the other. In reality four years passed between Hamnet’s death and the first performance of Hamlet. Shakespeare was much more likely cashing in on the trend of “revenge plays” like The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd. Shakespeare wrote plays about fathers and sons before Hamlet and did so after. His last sole authored play, The Tempest, is about a father and daughter; Shakespeare’s daughters have little purpose in this movie. A much more moving and affecting version of everything Hamnet is striving for has already been put on screen in Kenneth Branagh's All is True (2018)–a movie I assure you exists–which has all the insight and pathos that Hamnet lacks.

Hamnet is streaming on Peacock.

Nominees: Liza Marshall, Pippa Harris, Nicolas Gonda, Steven Spielberg, Sam Mendes, producers

Director: Chloé Zhao

Screenplay: Chloé Zhao & Maggie O'Farrell; based on the novel by Maggie O'Farrell

Cast: Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal, Emily Watson

Production Companies: Hera Pictures, Neal Street Productions, Amblin Entertainment, Book of Shadows

Distributor: Focus Features

Release Date: November 26th, 2025

Total Nominations: 8, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actress-Jessie Buckley; Director-Chloé Zhao; Adapted Screenplay-Maggie O'Farrell, Chloé Zhao; Production Design-Fiona Crombie (production designer), Alice Felton (set decorator);  Costume Design-Malgosia Turzanska; Original Score-Max Richter; Casting-Nina Gold

Best Pictures #121: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein (2025)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #121: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Frankenstein (2025)

"What manner of creature is that? What manner of devil made him?"

I am a fan of director Guillermo del Toro, however, it always seems to be a coin flip whether I'll like his next movie or not. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is one of my favorite books and holds the rare distinction of being a book I have read more than once. So, I was more trepidatious than excited to see del Toro's adaptation of Frankenstein. There have been so many Frankenstein movies from the silent short in 1910 to the landmark Universal monster movie in 1931 to many, many more and now to del Toro. With so many versions of Mary Shelley's story, so many variations, so many re-imaginings, do we really need one more? The answer is yes, if it is this one.

It’s no surprise that this was a passion project for del Toro, who has been obsessed with the novel and 1931 film, directed by James Whale, since childhood. His wonderfully macabre visual style, approach to certain themes, and ability to create sympathetic portrayals of monsters make Frankenstein the perfect story for him to tell. Even more than Pan's Labyrinth or The Shape of Water, this feels like the ultimate Guillermo del Toro movie. It is the movie he was meant to make. 

The plot is, dare I say, familiar. I read some reviews that claimed this adaptation was more faithful to the novel, which is a sign that someone has not read the novel. This is something that gets said whenever a movie includes the framing device of the arctic expedition that discovers Frankenstein and the Creature. del Toro's adaptation does begin with an arctic expedition trapped in the ice that comes upon a weary and ailing Victor Frankenstein who tells his woeful tale to the captain. Of course, del Toro makes sure that the Creature also gets to tell his tale. 

In this version, young Victor Frankenstein learned the basics of medicine from his cold and demanding father (played by Charles Dance, of course). At university Victor’s (Oscar Isaac) boundary pushing experiments and ideas catch the attention of the eccentric Harlander (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to bankroll Frankenstein’s experiment to create a new and improved man. Frankenstein becomes infatuated with Harlander’s niece, Elizabeth (Mia Goth), who is engaged to his younger brother, William. The movie takes its time before the Creature is introduced; fortunately none of that time is wasted and Jacob Elordi as the Creature does not disappoint. 

Like Sofia Coppola in Priscilla, del Toro uses Elordi’s 6’5” stature to overwhelming effect. The special makeup effects are quite impressive (Make Up and Hairstyling are just one of a total 9 Oscar nominations), and all the more impressive because they do not hide or distract from Elordi’s performance. He effectively conveys the longing and anger of the Creature so well articulated in Mary Shelley’s novel. Elordi has earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination, the film’s only acting nomination. Neither a trophy nor a damsel, Mia Goth as Elizabeth is the promise of comfort and safety and love for Victor, William, and the Creature. Her compassion is the first kindness that the Creature knows. Oscar Isaac is at his best when playing mad scientists (see also Ex Machina for further proof and another excellent performance not nominated by the Academy). Isaac is delightfully over the top, clearly having fun with the role, and the movie benefits from it. Frankenstein is audacious, rakishly charming, arrogant and also selfish, abusive, and cowardly. One of the first things he does with the Creature is to put it in chains in the laboratory basement. His arc from protagonist to essentially a villain is done with care and Isaac handles Victor’s complexity very well. 

Both the Production Design and Costumes received Oscar nominations, and rightfully so. The story is set in the 1850’s, though things are not quite period accurate. They are, however, accurate to del Toro’s sensibilities. An elaborate statue of an archangel comes to fiery life during a nightmare (inspired by a real waking nightmare del Toro had as a child). The former armory turned laboratory is a bizarre and impractical but visually stunning tower on the edge of a cliff. There is a large chute down the middle from the top of the tower to the basement–reminiscent of the hole in the roof of the estate in Crimson Peak, itself inspired by Poe’s The Fall of House of Usher–that I can’t imagine would serve any real purpose. The costumes, especially Mia Goth’s gowns, follow this same outlandish but eyecatching style.

There is enough of the novel in this adaptation to satisfy a fan like me. There is also enough that is new and different that a viewer, horror fan or not, won't feel like they're watching the same old story. Though one of the great pillars of horror literature and cinema, the Frankenstein story is more macabre and spooky (gothic, you might say) than scary. The best film adaptations tune into Shelley's sympathy for the Creature and that Victor is actually a mad scientist, and even a villain. Mary Shelly created a thematically complex story and that is not lost in del Toro’s version. This movie gets gory and violent at times and it is perfect for a dreary day, a stormy night, or any time you’re in a spooky mood.

Frankenstein is available to stream on Netflix.

Nominees: Guillermo del Toro, J. Miles Dale, Scott Stuber, producers

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Screenplay: Guillermo del Toro; based on Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz

Production Companies: Double Dare You, Demilo Films, Bluegrass 7

Distributor: Netflix

Release Date: October 17th, 2025

Total Nominations: 9, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Supporting Actor-Jacob Elordi; Adapted Screenplay-Guillermo del Toro; Cinematography-Dan Laustsen; Production Design-Tamara Deverell (production designer), Shane Vieau (set decorator); Costume Design-Kate Hawley; Makeup and Hairstyling-Mike Hill, Jordan Samuel, Cliona Furey; Original Score-Alexandre Desplat; Sound-Greg Chapman, Nathan Robitaille, Nelson Ferreira, Christian T. Cooke, Brad Zoern

13 Nights of Shocktober: Mr. Harrigan's Phone

by A.J. 

Night 10: Stephen King Night

“All of us need to be very frightened by this gizmo.”

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone

Earlier this year The Life of Chuck was released in theaters to either deeply affected or puzzled audiences. It reminded me of another recent curious adaptation of a Stephen King story, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone. Both stories were published in the collection If It Bleeds and they share similar themes (both deal with the supernatural to some extent and are unconventional coming of age stories) even though they are quite different in subject matter. They would make an interesting double feature. Call it The Boy and the Beyond double feature. 

Somewhere in the rows of chaotic mayhem that is Netflix, you can find Mr. Harrigan’s Phone. It is not a horror movie, not really. In the tradition of gothic literature, it is not a ghost story but a story with a ghost. The film begins in 2003 when young Craig is offered a job reading books aloud to old Mr. Harrigan (Donald Sutherland), a wealthy and reclusive retired businessman who enjoyed Craig’s readings at the local church. Years pass and teenaged Craig (Jaeden Martell) receives an iPhone for Christmas; he loves it. After one of the scratch off lottery tickets Mr. Harrigan gives to Craig for Christmas pays off big, Craig uses part of the winnings to buy an iPhone for Mr. Harrigan. Harrigan is thankful but has no interest in the phone until Craig shows him the stocks app that updates in real time and the free access to the most current edition of the Wall Street Journal. 

Being a shrewd businessman, Mr. Harrigan foresees all of the possibilities and consequences of smart phones. Companies giving away their product for free can’t last forever and eventually people will have to pay. But will people pay, or go looking for other free news and entertainment sources, even if the source is questionable? King’s story heavily ponders the consequences and effects of smartphones and addictive technologies. This is present in the movie too but blends into the story and characters well so the movie never feels like it is preaching or trying to be prescient. 

When Mr. Harrigan passes away, as a final gesture Craig puts Mr. Harrigan’s phone in his suit pocket. Feeling lonely one night, Craig calls Harrigan’s phone and leaves a message. Then he receives a reply, a garbled text from Mr. Harrigan’s phone. Later, Craig calls Mr. Harrigan’s phone and leaves a message about a violent bully. The next morning he finds out the bully died suddenly. 

There are not really any scares but there is a sense of unease that pervades throughout the movie, especially after that iPhone makes its first appearance. Craig’s investigation about the mysterious deaths provides some answers but also more questions. Further text messages from Mr. Harrigan from beyond the grave only bring with more unease and more death. 

There is something gentle to this story of a teenage boy whose best friend is an old reclusive billionaire. Some scenes and music choices play with heartstrings, but there is also a pall over every scene. The decision Craig makes about his phone in the final scene may not be satisfying because it is likely the same decision we would make.

Mr. Harrigan's Phone is available to stream on Netflix.

Best Pictures #116: 2024 (97th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Conclave

by A.J.

Best Pictures #116: 2024 (97th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Conclave

“No sane man would want the papacy.”

A movie about the college of cardinals meeting in conclave, the paradoxically famous and secretive gathering to elect the new pope, could be so reverent and serious as to be pandering and dull or it could be so artificially sensational as to be tawdry and disrespectful. Director Edward Berger's Conclave, based on the novel by Robert Harris, finds a delicate and wonderful balance. This isn’t an exposé of the Catholic church, nor is it a Christ-sploitation movie. This is an exciting and thrilling film full of intrigue and secret conversations, incredible performances, and excellent filmmaking on every level. The result is an absorbing and electrifying film, without a doubt one of the best of 2024. 

After the death of the pope (from natural causes), the task of assembling and running the conclave falls to the dean of the college of cardinals, Cardinal Lawrence played by Ralph Fiennes. We learn early on that he is dealing with doubts, not so much in faith but in himself, and tried to resign from his position at the Vatican but the pope refused his resignation. He is dedicated to doing his job well, but everyone and everything seems to be against the conclave running smoothly. All the better for us. The candidates emerge: the liberal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), the conservative Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), the ultra-conservative Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), the opportunist Tremblay (John Lithgow), and the drama and infighting begins. 

The cast is an incredible collection of great performers, some well known, others lesser known but no less impressive. The breakout performance belongs to Sergio Castellitto as the ultra-conservative Italian Cardinal Tedesco. He arrives with such force that wind billows under his red coat making it look like a cape. At one point he howls with laughter and is constantly vaping. Carlos Diehz finds the exact notes necessary for the quiet and mysterious Cardinal Benitez, who no one knew about and arrived only at the last minute. Brían F. O'Byrne as O'Malley, Cardinal Lawrence’s right hand man, gets to play the only character who is maybe more stressed out than Cardinal Lawrence and provides some comic relief. Isabella Rossellini lends her great screen presence to a small and mostly silent role. Nevertheless she has a stand out scene and curtseys like it is a mic drop. Of course Tucci and Lithgow shine at every moment. 

At the head of the incredible ensemble is Ralph Fiennes, giving one of his best performances in a very impressive career. His Best Actor nomination is most deserved. It is clear Lawrence does not want his job, and he certainly doesn’t want votes when they start coming his way, but he also wants everything to go the way it should and the most worthy man to be elected. When his frustrations boil over, even his outbursts feel constrained, but Fiennes conveys everything that Lawrence tries to conceal. Lawrence does not have the most lines. He is a character who observes and reacts. Fiennes makes a would-be passive character into a sympathetic and relatable leading man.

Many reviews have called Conclave pulpy, trashy, even like an airport novel, but I have a word that better describes Conclave: fun. I suspect that this caught many people off guard and will continue to do. For several scenes Cardinal Lawrence has to be a detective, searching for information and answers without directly breaking the sequester. Characters gossip, scandals are uncovered; there are whispers in hallways late at night, and shouts in the cafeteria. The pageantry and rituals of the Vatican provide a certain level of class and seriousness, but the brilliance of this story is that it remembers that all of these aged holy men are just people and people can be petty, ambitious, deceitful, secretive, and sometimes even righteous. The Oscar nominated screenplay by Peter Straughan (who also wrote the adaptation for the brilliant character piece Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) provides for nuance as well as showpieces and speeches. Nothing that happens in Conclave feels contrived or unbelievable. Even an explosion (shown in the trailers) does not feel out of place.

Of course you don’t have to be Catholic or religious or familiar with anything about the church to enjoy Conclave. Neither director Berger or Straughan’s screenplay condescend to the audience. Explanations arise as they would in the natural course of events. When Lawrence tries to cardinal-splain simony to Bellini, Bellini responds curtly, "I'm aware of what simony is." If you are not aware of what simony is it becomes apparent a few scenes later. At its core, this is a movie about a stressed out manager, which is something that is very relatable.

Nominees: Tessa Ross, Juliette Howell and Michael A. Jackman, Producers

Director: Edward Berger

Screenplay: Peter Straughan; based on the novel by Robert Harris

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini

Production Companies: FilmNation Entertainment, House Productions, Indian Paintbrush

Distributor: Focus Features

Release Date: October 25th, 2024

Total Nominations: 8, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actor-Ralph Fiennes; Supporting Actress-Isabella Rossellini; Adapted Screenplay-Peter Straughan; Editing- Nick Emerson; Production Design-Suzie Davies (production designer), Cynthia Sleiter (set decorator); Costume Design-Lisy Christl; Original Score-Volker Bertelmann