It was a good year for several films at the Oscars on Sunday. “One Battle After Another” took best picture, among other prizes, but “Sinners” scored several trophies as well, including best actor. And films as varied as “Weapons,” “Sentimental Value” and “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” also were decorated. But how did our chief film critic, Manohla Dargis, and our movie critic Alissa Wilkinson view the evening? Rather positively, as it turns out:
MANOHLA DARGIS Last night, the Oscars achieved the seemingly impossible or at least something they rarely manage to do: They were worthy of the work they celebrate. The event was overlong, sure, the writing at times bumpy, the sound quality often suboptimal. But the ceremony had real emotion, narrative variety — comedy, drama, tragedy, absurdity — nice surprises and welcome love for the movies themselves. I especially appreciated that in his opening monologue, Conan O’Brien underscored the art’s international character, noting that 31 countries from six continents were represented that evening.
And he did so by addressing the reality of both the larger world — “these are very chaotic, frightening times” — and the art. He mentioned “beauty” (hallelujah!) and he also, with palpable sincerity, spoke of “the ideals of global artistry, collaboration, patience, resilience and, that rarest of qualities today, optimism.” Here and elsewhere, he addressed the world outside the auditorium, President Trump included, and he honored (and gently teased) the people in the room. That’s a tricky balancing act to pull off, and he did it well, which made this overstuffed, self-aggrandizing carnival, you know, pretty fun.
And, oh: “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners” both got a whole lot of much-deserved love.
ALISSA WILKINSON I agree! The Oscars sometimes feel like one long, frantic attempt to remind us that movies are cool and fun. (Remember the 2022 Oscars, with its “five cheerworthy movie moments” and cringey “fan favorite movie of the year”?)
This year’s Oscars showed, rather than told of, the joy of movies. They were in luck, since “Sinners,” the night’s most-nominated film, was also far and away one of 2025’s most popular movies, and many of the other nominees had lots of fans, including “One Battle After Another.” (Paul Thomas Anderson’s movies never make bank, but this one is the highest-earning of his career.) Movies are cool and fun, and people like watching them, including in movie theaters. If you’re watching the Oscars, you probably already believe that!
There was also an undercurrent of unease to the night, because the business itself is in a state of chaos and uncertainty, largely driven by technology. O’Brien started the evening by joking about being the “last human host” of the Oscars, gesturing at A.I. The rest of the ceremony included bits about vertical video (the kind we watch on our phones) and how distracted we get while streaming movies at home. One segment joked about the Oscar ceremony’s (very real) migration to YouTube in 2029, a change nobody really seems ready for.
What wasn’t mentioned was the big story in Hollywood now: Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Which was both a nice break and ironic, since both “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners” are Warner Bros. movies!
DARGIS I so wanted O’Brien to thwack David Zaslav, the chief executive of Warner Bros. Discovery, like a piñata. That didn’t happen, alas, perhaps because that would have been too inside baseball even if this is of vital interest to anyone who loves movies and, you know, actually believes in free markets. Given how Disney’s acquisition of Fox effectively destroyed Fox, there is a lot of reasonable fear about what will happen to the industry and to Warners, one of the great old Hollywood studios — which was founded, incidentally, by four immigrant brothers. Last month, California’s attorney general said that the state had opened an investigation, so we’ll see (fingers crossed).
Given the deal, though, it is genuinely ironic that “Sinners” and “One Battle” made such a big noise last night. Since they were released to widespread critical and popular acclaim, their very existence has felt like a rebuke to the industry’s blockbuster-driven business model of the past few decades. For years, the major studios have made ever bigger movies while cutting back on the number of releases, which has been terrible for filmgoers and for theaters. I doubt strongly that’s going to change, no matter how many promises by David Ellison, the chief executive of Paramount.
What I hold tight to is that Ryan Coogler (“Sinners”) and Paul Thomas Anderson (“One Battle”) have made movies without the support of the major studios, and even if the business finally succeeds in destroying itself, filmmakers are going to keep making movies and we’re going to keep watching them.
Films like “Moonlight” (2016) and “Parasite” (2020) winning best picture give me hope, as do all the independent and international movies that were represented last night — I mean, “Sirat” was in the mix!
WILKINSON You mention that Coogler and Anderson started out without the support of major studios, which is something I thought about a lot last night: Both began their careers making little indies that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival (Anderson with “Hard Eight” in 1996, Coogler with “Fruitvale Station” in 2013). That’s worth noting because that festival is organized by the Sundance Institute, which was founded by Robert Redford, who died in September and was in the final spot during the night’s longer-than-usual In Memoriam segment.
When Barbra Streisand, Redford’s “The Way We Were” co-star, spoke about him, she noted how many people in the room had careers because of his belief in the power of independent filmmakers to shape the future. In fact, four of the five best director nominees made their debut at Sundance, all five of the documentary feature nominees premiered at the 2025 festival and one of the best picture nominees, “Train Dreams,” did as well. So Streisand’s comments felt of a piece with O’Brien’s sincere statements about hope, optimism and the movies.
Speaking of the tribute: I can’t believe I’m saying this, but the In Memoriam segment was one of the highlights of the night for me. This year we lost so many legends — if I try to list them here, I will miss someone! But I’m glad they decided to use extended airtime to offer particular attention to the loss of Rob and Michele Singer Reiner, Diane Keaton, and Redford along with the customary montage. I thought about younger or newer movie fans who might even get curious about these artists’ movies. It was an elegant way to celebrate show business. And the broadcast still wrapped at a (relatively) reasonable hour.
DARGIS The In Memoriam section always makes me cry, but I’m usually weeping while clenching my jaw because of the segment’s vulgarity and omissions. As you said, though, last night was both gratifyingly touching and simply gratifying because it made institutional connections that tend to get lost or ignored in favor of spectacle. For decades, the Sundance Institute and its festival have been critical to the American cinematic ecosystem, with the mainstream industry tapping new, rejuvenating talent, much like it drew from the worlds of theater and TV in earlier eras. I give Sundance a lot of (deserved!) grief, but Redford’s impact on American cinema just can’t be overestimated, and the Oscars rightly gave him his due even if the sound quality during Streisand’s eulogy was exasperatingly bad.
Seeing her talking about working with Redford in “The Way We Were” reminded me of when she presented the best directing Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow 16 years ago for “The Hurt Locker.” Streisand walked onstage then to the title song from “The Way We Were,” which she sang last night. I gotta say, that song is starting to feel like an Oscar anthem. The event trades on our nostalgia about the movies, what they were and how they once mattered culturally. And those sentiments help feed the assertion that, as O’Brien said, a billion people were watching the show worldwide. Years ago, The Hollywood Reporter estimated that the number was closer to several hundred million, which isn’t bad, but the academy brain trust needs to get a grip on reality.
I mean, movies matter and will matter, just not the way they once did — and that’s fine!
WILKINSON I think you’re totally right — it is fine! The movies are always caught in a tug of war between art and commerce, but it’s felt lately like the commerce side is winning. The age of megablockbusters, with their bloated budgets, has meant that a movie has to make absurd amounts of money just to break even. Studios have had to please shareholders as much or more than audiences, which means eliminating risk (via sequels, reboots, remakes) and costs (which often means taking humans out of the equation). The results, most of us agree, have often been pretty dismal.
That’s what was so refreshing about this year’s Oscar nominees. They were imperfect and weird and unpredictable. Both “Sinners” and “One Battle After Another” feel almost gleefully resistant to conventional Hollywood studio wisdom. But that was true for so many other great films that were nominated last night, whether or not they won: international pictures like “Sentimental Value” and “The Secret Agent,” a bizarre sci-fi homage like “Bugonia,” heart-wrenching documentaries like “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” and “Come See Me in the Good Light,” a tiny gorgeous indie like “Train Dreams.” The lush landscapes of “Hamnet” and “Frankenstein” enthralled audiences as much as the frenetic exuberance of “Marty Supreme.” The variety was splendid and spectacular.
The future is uncertain, at the movies and in the real world. Hollywood has real reasons to be worried about what comes next. But I suppose that’s why the producers last night chose Redford’s quote to end his In Memoriam tribute: “The glory of art is that it cannot only survive change, it can lead it.” Last year proved that cinema is alive and well, wherever the artists are allowed to do what they do best.
Manohla Dargis is the chief film critic for The Times.
The post For Once, the Oscars Got a Lot Right (Even the In Memoriam Segment) appeared first on New York Times.
