Oscar Best Picture betting odds

Oppenheimer is the prohibitive favorite:

The format of the list below is (Title Odds IMDb RT%)

Oppenheimer -700 8.4 93%
Poor Things +1200 8.4 92%
Barbie +1400 6.9 88%
The Holdovers +1400 8.0 97%
Killers of the Flower Moon +2500 7.7 93%
Anatomy of a Fall +2500 7.8 96%
The Zone of Interest +4000 7.7 93%
American Fiction +5000 7.6 94%
Past Lives +10000 7.9 96%
Maestro +10000 6.6 79%

I have seen them all but Anatomy of a Fall and Past Lives. I will see Anatomy tomorrow, but I’m not sure when I’ll see Past Lives. I agree with IMDb voters and critics that Maestro is the weakest entry. I think Bradley Cooper did a great job of putting it all together as the director, but not such a great job on the script.


Speaking of Oppenheimer, Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Junior are also heavy favorites for the male acting nods, and Chris Nolan is considered an absolute lock for the direction award. (-2000)


Last year all the favorites won in the major categories except for Best Supporting Actress, where Angela Bassett was considered a very slight favorite over the winner, Jamie Lee Curtis. That one was considered a three-way horse race among those two and Kerry Condon, and it was so closely matched that it would be fair to say that they were all co-favorites.

Only one long shot came in last year. All Quiet paid off 9-1 for best production design. (I’m assuming that you consider 9-1 a long shot, and that you give a shit about the Oscar for production design).

8 thoughts on “Oscar Best Picture betting odds

  1. Honestly this year wasn’t great. Oppenheimer was too long. Killers was too long. Barbie is a popcorn flick. Poor Things is probably the best of the bunch, but it’s still pretentious.

    Honestly struggling to think of a single movie I actually enjoyed this year on its own merits. Maybe Guardians 3 lol.

    1. I think I’d vote for Oppenheimer if I gave enough thought to which film was the most impressive achievement. That or Poor Things.

      The one I like best is American Fiction, which is the kind of movie I like – a movie with a serious point hidden painlessly inside satire. Think of it as Barbie for grown-ups. I like it best when a smart movie is also entertaining. For some reason that I can’t comprehend, that combination rarely occurs.

      In a way AF has a lot in common with The Producers in that a person trying to create the worst thing he can imagine ends up with a massive success. Using a pseudonym, a scholarly author who is disappointed by the public’s lack of interest in his painstakingly crafted literary fiction, decides to goof on the establishment by using a pseudonym to write a parody of the mass-market crap he despises. The author is a black man with a Ph.D., whose own dense books play off the structures and tropes of classic literature dating back to the ancient Greeks. Think of James Joyce with a different skin color. His alter ego, on the other hand, is an ex-con, a poorly educated black man named Stagg R. Lee who writes in stereotypical ebonics.

      He augments the ruse by giving interviews as Stagg R. Lee with his face and voice distorted, crafting an angry, almost illiterate persona. The more outlandish and low-brow his performances, the more books he sells, and the more the intelligentsia fawn over the book and his alter ego.

      Because he is a distinguished scholar, he gets placed on the committee to choose the book of the year for a major literary prize. The rest of the committee members, not knowing that he is Stagg R. Lee, are determined to vote for the book that he carefully crafted as utter crap.

      The point eventually verges away from Mel Brooks territory. People loved “Springtime for Hitler” because the play went so far beyond bad that they saw it as a comedy, whereas the intellectual community embraces “Fuck” as a masterpiece coming from an authentic voice. Mel Brooks gave people credit for getting the joke, whereas American Fiction basically posits that nobody gets the joke. Even the most intelligent people in the establishment are utterly feckless and gullible, especially liberals who are evaluating an angry book authored by a member of a minority group.

      In a way, I’m surprised that critics liked this movie, since it is basically ridiculing critics. Maybe they honestly feel that movie critics could never be bamboozled like book critics, perhaps forgetting that many of them keep praising the incoherent babble of Terrence Malick.

  2. Scoop:

    I recall you saying that you did NOT want to see Barbie, but it sounds like you saw it. I was curious as to what you thought of it?

    1. Many people told me they loved it, so many that I finally had to break down and watch it. I liked it a lot as work of visual imagination, and I liked the humor. If I had not heard the hype, I doubt that I would have considered it Best Picture material. I think the IMDb score of 6.9 is in the right ballpark.

Comments are closed.