Published: February 12, 2025 | Last Updated on February 24, 2025, 10:50 PM
The Best Picture slate at this year’s Academy Awards boasts two science-fiction films, which is actually two more than in a lot of past years.
Sci-fi has historically had a load of bad luck at the Oscars, rarely getting any love in the major acting categories and only ever winning Best Picture one single time when the multiversal fever dream that is “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once” took the big prize in 2023.
But this year not only sees two far-out sci-fi flicks vying for the night’s biggest prize, but also a potential acting frontrunner from one of those genre offerings.
And yet, these two movies couldn’t possibly be further apart in style, smarts, or (in my opinion, at least) in quality.
‘Dune: Part Two’
A full year on from release now and I still haven’t seen a better film from 2024 than “Dune: Part Two.”
I would argue (and have, in fact) that it may well be the most impressive cinematic achievement to come out of Hollywood in at least a generation.
The continued story of space-faring royal heir Paul Atreides and his reluctant path toward something messianic and horrible is a towering film.
Its scope, scale, performances, design, framing, and writing are all second to none, and the implications and indictments of its storytelling – and the way that director Denis Villeneuve pulls them off – are staggeringly powerful, timely, and effective.
And that’s not even mentioning the gorgeous, transcendent score and its heartbreaking and terrifying musical themes and developments.
All of which make it infinitely frustrating that it’s not even in serious contention for Best Picture.
Whether that’s because it was released too long ago (major awards players tend to hit theaters post-summer) or because the Academy traditionally turns its nose up to both sci-fi and sequels, I don’t know.
Whatever the reason, it’s a shame.
“Dune: Part Two” is a monumental achievement in filmmaking and feels very much like one of the only films up for Best Picture this year that is guaranteed to still be watched, discussed, and loved for years to come.
Yes, it’s a massive-budget sci-fi adventure fantasy, and I know how film snobs and Academy voters can believe all that automatically disqualifies it from any serious consideration. But it not only excels in all of those categories, it also brilliantly deconstructs and inverts them all and lifts the entire sci-fi adventure genre to the heights of artistic prestige cinema.
The bottom line is that “Dune: Part Two” is easily my vote for the best film of 2024. But alas, there’s no hope for it to win. Like the manufactured prophecies and long-decided fates of the film’s characters, it’s just not the way the path has been laid.
“Dune: Part Two” is streaming now on Max.
‘The Substance’
However, the other sci-fi nominee, “The Substance,” is pulling some serious consideration for at least a couple of the night’s biggest awards.
Following an aging, discarded actress and fitness star as she injects a mysterious compound that births a younger, better version of herself, this is one of the extremely rare horror films to get a Best Picture nod.
That big award is probably still out of reach, but screen legend Demi Moore is starting to feel like a lock for Best Actress and French writer/director Coralie Fargeat has a clear shot at Best Original Screenplay.
And that’s also infinitely frustrating because “The Substance” is an obnoxious bore with nothing interesting or insightful to say and no motive beyond relentlessly sledgehammering you for two and a half annoying hours with the only statement that it knows how to make.
Yes, it’s absolutely disgusting how sexist and ageist and impenetrably male-dominated the entertainment industry remains, and any time that a story explores that reality, it should be seen and heard.
But “The Substance” doesn’t explore anything. It just tells you over and over and over again ad nauseum that men only want young, attractive girls and that getting older is the most terrifying thing imaginable for women.
Those are important issues to confront and condemn, but Fargeat’s film never feels like it does. It just tries to disgust you into submission.
It attempts to say that the male gaze is subjugating and oppressive and then spends over two hours catering to the male gaze with scene after scene and shot after shot just openly objectifying the film’s young women with no deeper statement or expression.
It attempts to lampoon and vilify American society’s attitudes regarding age and women’s beauty and then spends over two hours driving home that aging is the worst and most disgusting thing in the world.
Its only goal is just to constantly broadcast – as loudly and annoyingly as possible – how subversive it thinks it’s being.
But it’s not subversive.
Fargeat seems to think that she’s being subversive by showing the audience things they don’t want to see. But subversion in storytelling is about saying things that the audience doesn’t want to hear. And this movie effectively says nothing new or insightful at all.
In fact, nearly every statement that it has to make about America’s dehumanizing way of using young women as disposable sexual objects was said better in this year’s “Anora.”
”The Substance” barely says anything, actually. The minimal dialogue is mostly awful and stilted and there’s nothing even resembling explanations or creative explorations of its premise. A story can be great when it’s mysterious or when it refuses to answer questions in favor of interpretation, but this one just doesn’t seem to even acknowledge that there are questions to be asked.
I even have a deep love and fascination with body horror and with creative and shocking creature effects and makeup, and “The Substance” uses those elements relatively well. But even though there are some creative designs in the final act, there’s nothing that’ll particularly surprise or excite actual horror fans.
The Kubrick-style cinematography is misguided, the only attempt at tone is relegated to unnecessary close-ups and obnoxious sound effects every time anything so much as moves or cuts to another shot, and the characterization is practically non-existent.
There are no deeper characters and no personalities, only tropes and one-dimensional caricatures.
Which is what makes it all the more frustrating that Moore looks like a favorite for Best Actress. Her remarkable talents are squandered on a role with no roundness, minimal dialogue, and nothing worthwhile beyond glowering into a mirror and acting under a mountain of latex.
Ultimately, the only real goal of “The Substance” is to be disgusting. But disgusting isn’t the same as subversive and it’s definitely not the same as insightful.
But of course, it’ll be classic “Oscars” if the sci-fi film most deserving gets no recognition and the other sci-fi film with nothing deeper to offer gets heaped with praise.
We’ll find out on March 2nd.
“The Substance” is available for digital rent and purchase now.
Catch Brett Fieldcamp’s film column weekly for information and insights into the world of film in the Oklahoma City metro and Oklahoma. | Brought to you by the Oklahoma City Museum of Art.
Brett Fieldcamp has been covering arts, entertainment, news, housing, and culture in Oklahoma for nearly 15 years, writing for several local and state publications. He’s also a musician and songwriter and holds a certification as Specialist of Spirits from The Society of Wine Educators.
