In the lead-up to the 2026 Academy Awards, many people try to watch all 10 Best Picture nominees to see which movies should be considered the best of the year. However, with how long it takes to find and watch all of the films, it can be easy to miss one and then have no idea why it was nominated for Best Picture. But now, you do not have to worry about missing a nominee: the Road to the Oscars series has arrived! Over the past several weeks, I have been watching and writing reviews for all 10 Best Picture nominees so that you, faithful Justice readers, can hear my opinions about the films and gain some insight into why each movie was nominated.

Spoilers ahead for “Marty Supreme” and “F1.”

“Marty Supreme” — Dir. Josh Safdie

“Marty Supreme” is a technically great film with a protagonist so unlikable that it detracts from the film. Even if the point of “Marty Supreme” is that viewers are supposed to dislike Marty, his personality and actions are so obnoxious — he literally steals a dog to make money off of it at one point — that it feels nearly impossible to root for him during any of his table tennis matches or his get-rich-quick schemes. Safdie and the writing team were too successful in making Marty a thorn in the audience’s side.

This is not to say that Timothée Chalamet’s performance is poor; by all accounts, his portrayal of Marty was good enough that I was frustrated by the character for the entire runtime. However, I was not particularly impressed by Marty’s depth as a character; most of “Marty Supreme” was simply “Timothée Chalamet acts like a jerk to everyone around him for most of the film.” Chalamet stays at one level for most of the film: loud, manipulative and angry, like a spoiled toddler who does not face enough consequences for his actions. Even his moment of remorse at the end of the movie was not enough to suddenly blow me away. I did not feel “Marty Supreme” challenged Chalamet’s acting range very much. .At the heart of “Marty Supreme” is the table tennis world cup that Marty desperately wants to win. Getting to the World Cup and proving his skill motivates all his risky decisions, which often puts other characters in harm's way. Marty is a top-tier shoe salesman, as shown in a really informative opening scene, and he uses his overconfidence and unstoppable charisma to convince everyone he meets to help him. At first, it was fun to watch Marty gain support at every turn, even when he was clearly manipulating people. However, as the story progressed, the lack of consequences for his choices became tedious and unbelievable. Every moment when it seemed as though he was going to face his comeuppance for his numerous selfish decisions, every individual who was about to reject him folded and believed his completely ridiculous promises and stories. Eventually, it becomes more satisfying to hope that Marty will fail than to watch him worm his way through to another success. The script cannot decide whether viewers should root for Marty to win, such as during his intense table tennis tournaments, or whether they should be uncomfortable and angry with him for getting away with so many harmful actions. 

Of course, it is not all negative. For starters, Gwyneth Paltrow and Odessa A’zion’s performances were surprisingly strong. A’zion was, in my opinion, snubbed for a nomination, but the other nominees were also fantastic, so the loss is not massive. Her portrayal of Rachel, Marty’s girlfriend,  matched Marty’s chaotic, selfish energy while also containing more emotional variety. 

The production design of “Marty Supreme” was well put together. The cars were perfect for the period and the sets were filled with dramatic colors and period accents. The sets, as with many A24 films, are very detailed. The film proudly exemplifies to the audience that it takes place in the late 1950s, creating an eye-catching and entertaining aesthetic. 

Another part of the film that was directed very well was the interaction between background characters during each scene. Any scene featuring  more than just Marty and one other character felt alive, and extras in every scene interacted with the world and sets in ways that effectively immersed the audience into the world of “Marty Supreme.” In the pet store scene, for instance, as Marty bursts through the door, a boy and his mother are conversing with Rachel at the front desk, paying little attention to Marty because they are deciding between an armadillo and a rabbit. It is a small moment, but it added depth to the world. The dialogue between characters was amazing in the film. In many scenes, three or four characters are speaking over each other, and none of the words are lost. The pacing of dialogue and the words being said feel rough and unscripted, which created a nice flow during character interactions; however, a few choice words and jokes definitely remind the audience what era the film takes place in and that A24 is unafraid of putting controversial topics in their films — which, personally, I think is not necessarily a bad thing, when executed correctly.

Rating: 7.5/10 — While the structure of “Marty Supreme” is superb, with a thorough plot, great music choices and, in true A24 fashion, fantastic dialogue, Marty as a character makes the 2-hour-and-40-minute movie really feel like 2 hours and 40 minutes. It is a long time with a character you want to spend virtually no time with at all.

“F1” — Dir. Joseph Kosinski

“F1” is a reminder that sometimes movies can be good just because they are entertaining. There is no deep story to “F1” — in fact, it is filled with clichés and was so predictable that half of my notes became “predictable action leads to predictable action.” Yet, even though I was able to guess every plot point before it happened, I was very entertained by its cinematography and car racing. “F1” did not need an exorbitant amount of plot twists or to have viewers leave with a new outlook on life; the goal was to get people to watch people race in fast cars and enjoy it.

Overall, it worked.

The cinematography in “F1” is dynamic. During racing scenes, cameras were mounted on moving cars and the variety of angles and captured motion effectively made the audience feel the car's motion. One memorable shot was on a track, where the camera faced a race car’s front-right wheel and then smoothly cut to the back of the car, showing the speed of the environment zipping by. It was a small moment, but a behind-the-scenes marvel, considering the equipment to rig up the camera to the car safely. Claudio Miranda, the film’s cinematographer, clearly spent as much time as possible determining the most effective way to capture the power of the vehicles. There are plenty of amazing camera moments in “F1,” all connected to the cars’ motion. Outside of the races, the camera work is less expressive, but that can be forgiven considering the quality of the camerawork during the action, which is most of the movie. “F1” does its best to spend as much time on the race track as possible, which, considering how thin the plot of the movie is, I appreciated. The film is at its best when on the racetrack; outside of that, the quality is much shakier.

Another way “F1” excels is sound design. The sound of the cars captures every pop of the engine and every small crunch of metal during crashes. The sound design in mundane scenes is also phenomenal. In the opening scene, as Brad Pitt splashes a dish in the sink of his van, the water sounds are crystal clear. The sound design was wonderfully immersive and added to the entertainment value immensely.

Taking off the rose-tinted glasses of the entertainment of watching cars go super fast and compete against each other, “F1” lacks in most other categories. For starters, the color grading is abysmal. Every scene was frustratingly grey, unnaturally so. I even checked the settings on my screen to make sure that the desaturated tint overlaying the entire movie was not my fault. It was distractingly grey for the entire runtime and took away from the great-looking cinematography. 

The dialogue of “F1” is also a weak point. Aside from some funny moments and one-liners, most of the conversation between characters is stilted, with most interactions feeling noticeably scripted. I liked that most of the discussions about the cars and racing felt professional, although, without any personal car experience, I cannot determine if any of the more complicated phrases are even slightly accurate. There is also a heavy-handed exposition about the history of Sonny Hayes, Brad Pitt’s character, with three different instances of news clips or characters describing his bad gambling habits and divorces after his terrible racing accident. One time was enough to get a handle on who Hayes was. In addition, the film’s costumes, besides when the characters are in racing gear, leave a lot to be desired. One example is the jeans that Pitt wears in a few scenes, which not only do not seem to fit the personality of Sonny Hayes, but also do not look like they fit Pitt, period.

However, even with the weak plot, terrible color grading and other overlooked production elements, “F1” was unexpectedly entertaining. As someone who does not follow racing or sports in general, I could not help but feel invested in every race put on screen.

Rating: 7/10 — Filled with clichés, predictable plot points and stiff dialogue, “F1” does not feel like it should be as entertaining as it is. But, with its impressive cinematography, great sound design, a few good one-liners and a lot of fast cars, the film ended up being a really enjoyable experience — which, in the long run, is what a film ought to be.

If this is the first Justice review of the Oscar nominees you have seen, consider looking at my other reviews to hear about what the Academy considered the best films of 2025!