The Brief

L.A.’s homelessness agency revised the locations of over 400 sheltered people in its 2025 homeless count — moving them out of the city of L.A. — in the days before the public release of the findings this week. The moves were made without informing elected officials who had seen the earlier numbers.

On July 7, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority told local elected officials and their aides that overall homelessness had declined by 2.5% within the city of L.A. This week, the agency publicly touted a slightly larger 3.4% reduction in the city.

The changes — which revised the city’s count down by 437 people — were not disclosed to elected officials when LAHSA provided the updated numbers Monday morning ahead of their public release that afternoon.

Following questions from LAist, LAHSA said it acknowledged and explained the changes to city elected officials on Tuesday, the day after the count’s public release. Representatives of several L.A. City Council offices told LAist they are asking LAHSA for more information about the revisions.

LAHSA gathered the data used in the estimate in February, as part of a tally mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD.

LAHSA officials said the last-minute revisions were made because the agency discovered that several hundred interim housing units had been incorrectly tagged as being in the city of L.A. by LAHSA’s new housing inventory system, agency spokesperson Ahmad Chapman told LAist. He pointed to HUD’s rules requiring that so-called scattered site beds be tagged as all being in the city where most of the beds in a given project are located.

The issue was fixed after LAHSA briefed council members and staffers on July 7 and before the data was released publicly this week, the agency said. But the homelessness agency did not inform the city’s elected officials until after LAist asked about the revisions.

L.A. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez told LAist that LAHSA should have been more transparent about the changes and that information was withheld by the agency. She said the revisions were made after LAHSA had delayed the briefing for elected officials multiple times.

LAHSA representatives declined to respond to that accusation.

“I don’t think that the outcomes reflect a moment of celebration because it’s unclear to me how real these numbers really are,” Rodriguez added.

"Any changes made to the numbers, the public is entitled to know because these are their taxpayer dollars that are being used for this work.”

A spokesperson for Mayor Karen Bass told LAist the mayor was first provided the updated numbers on Thursday, July 10, a few days after LAHSA's initial briefing to public officials. That’s when the mayor received an updated draft slide deck indicating the updated numbers, the spokesperson said.

The changes made by LAHSA, which happened after when city officials were briefed on the results of a yearly homelessness count, have led elected officials to raise questions about the report's accuracy.

(

Frederic J. Brown

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

What changed?

These revisions did not alter the total population estimates across L.A. County, but the overall homeless population estimate for the city of L.A. was revised down to 43,699, from 44,136.

That downward revision consisted of a 475-person reduction to the city’s sheltered count and a 38-person increase in the city’s unsheltered estimate.

While past year’s shelter counts publicly list the service provider names for each shelter site, LAHSA declined LAist’s requests to identify which shelter locations they revised. The agency said the issue was with multi-site or “scattered site” programs with housing units across multiple jurisdictions.

In response to LAist’s question about which shelter spots had their locations revised, LAHSA officials said: “The most important thing is that LAHSA identified the misassignment in the draft data and corrected it before the results were finalized and announced.”

Regarding the revision increasing the city’s unsheltered estimate by 38 people, the presentation to officials and their staffs on July 7 provided a city unsheltered number that was from an earlier set of draft data that was supposed to be updated before the briefing, LAHSA officials told LAist.

LAHSA communication

When LAHSA presented its findings to officials July 7, the agency told them the information was subject to change but that any “possible changes would not be expected to change the overall narrative of the Homeless Count," Chapman said in LAHSA’s written response to LAist’s questions.

After that meeting, LAHSA said it discovered that the way it was tagging cities for multi-site or scattered housing programs did not follow HUD’s geographic coding specifications.

LAHSA said it then adjusted the official addresses accordingly and submitted the information to USC School of Social Work to recalculate the results.

(The agency did not answer how it discovered the issue. HUD’s geographic coding specifications for scattered sites did not change from 2024 to 2025, according to the federal agency’s records.)

USC’s Ben Henwood, an expert on housing and homelessness, told LAist that LAHSA informed him last week that some shelter data had been misclassified and required updating. He said that kind of change is not uncommon.

“The annual count is an intensive process conducted in a compressed period of time, so it is not unusual for us to have to rerun our estimates during this process as we work closely with LAHSA,” Henwood said.

In arriving at the final estimate for the region’s overall homeless population, USC combines estimates of the unsheltered count conducted by volunteers from February and the count of people living inside shelters and other interim housing sites on the same nights. The sheltered portion of the count does not rely on volunteers, but is reported to LAHSA by the shelter providers and is considered an exact count of people.

A spokesperson for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass did not respond to questions about the changes.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

On Monday, when the agency publicly announced slightly lower homeless population numbers in the city of L.A. than they had a week prior, LAist asked LAHSA for an explanation of any changes to the main numbers since the briefing of officials.

“There were no significant differences in the data that was shared,” LAHSA’s deputy chief external relations officer Paul Rubenstein responded, as Bass stood nearby.

“The topline numbers were the same.”

Further reporting from LAist found that LAHSA’s top bullet point of numbers had been revised from a 2.5% drop in the city count to a 3.4% drop.

Chapman later told LAist that Rubenstein had been referring to the overall countywide point-in-time results and associated percent decrease, which stayed the same.

On Tuesday, LAHSA first informed public officials of the revisions via email, with the following message:

“You might see slight differences in the Council District, Supervisorial District, and SPA sheltered counts compared to last week’s draft. The data collected did not change, but we corrected some interim housing locations. This happened because our new inventory system initially misassigned some locations for multi/scattered-site programs, which required updates due to HUD’s rules for reporting these types of sites. We identified and accounted for this issue prior to the public release on July 14 by ensuring all programs were accurately assigned, using last year’s address for consistency when appropriate. We’ll refine this mapping for next year’s Housing Inventory Count to comply with HUD’s requirements while also addressing our need for precise local mapping of locations.”

LAHSA says its annual homeless count was conducted in accordance with HUD regulations and the official data released at Monday’s news conference met HUD’s standard.

HUD did not respond to LAist’s request for comment.

Count concerns

Several City Council members and their aides told LAist that slight revisions to the count sometimes happen after their offices are briefed but that LAHSA typically informs them of these changes.

Meanwhile, Councilmember John Lee is raising concerns about the sheltered counts provided in his district. Lee said he’s worked to bring 371 shelter beds online in his San Fernando Valley district and believes they are typically occupied. However, he says data shared with his office last week indicated just 78 of those beds were being used, while the rest sat empty.

“Based on district-specific PIT count data we have received from LAHSA, we have questions regarding the sheltered count: how 'sheltered' is defined and how the data is collected and verified,” said Roger Quintanilla, Lee’s communications director. “Our office continues to seek clarity from LAHSA in order to better understand how they arrived at these figures.”

Asked by LAist about Lee’s concerns, LAHSA officials did not provide an explanation but said they would follow up with Lee.

The agency said it will be releasing more information from the 2025 homeless count this week. That is expected to include breakdowns of the raw homeless count by council district, as well as demographic information about the region’s unhoused population.

Wanna watch the Oscars this weekend with other movie lovers, but don’t want to host a watch party yourself? Many Los Angeles bars and restaurants have you covered.

While the fifth annual “Official” Oscars Watch Party held at The Academy Museum is sold out, there are still plenty of places showing the Academy Awards live. Here are a few to check out below:

(And when it comes to your Oscar ballot, LAist has you covered with expert predictions — and heated debates — from FilmWeek’s 24th annual Oscars Preview.)

Brazilian Oscars Watch Party

Sunday, March 15, 3 p.m.
Dusty Vinyl
11326 W Pico Blvd., West L.A.
COST: $50; MORE INFO

LAist events columnist Laura Hertzfeld suggests checking out this unique watch party: “Why not celebrate with the Brazilians and their nomination for (the excellent film) The Secret Agent? Dusty Vinyl is being turned into a 1977 secret-agent-themed hideout for the occasion, with a bespoke menu (food is included) and live music before the show starts; '70s costumes encouraged.”

The Hollywood Roosevelt’s Academy Awards Viewing Gala

Sunday, March 15, 3-10 p.m.
The Hollywood Roosevelt 
7000 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood
COST: $375; MORE INFO

If you’re looking to splurge on a four-course dinner and get as close to the actual Academy Awards (held at the Dolby Theatre) as possible, the gala at The Hollywood Roosevelt is your spot. There’s also the added fun of watching the show in the ballroom where the very first Academy Awards were held in 1929.

Beers, Burgers and Best Picture

Sunday, March 15, 3:30 p.m.
33 Taps, all locations
Culver City, Silver Lake, DTLA, WeHo
COST: Free; MORE INFO

All 33 Taps sports bars will be showing the Oscars live on Sunday.

Oscars Watch Party at The Greyhound

Sunday, March 15, 4 p.m.
The Greyhound Bar & Grill
5570 N Figueroa St., Highland Park
COST: Free; MORE INFO

The Highland Park bar and grill will have an Oscar ballot contest with a $5 buy-in for a chance to win a cash prize.

Rooftop Red Carpet Dinner + Watch Party

Sunday, March 15, 2:30 p.m.
Elevate Lounge
811 Wilshire Blvd., DTLA
COST: $39; MORE INFO

If a “celebrity-style atmosphere” with a red carpet, rooftop views and 360 degree photobooth is what you’re looking for, Elevate Lounge has got you. Your VIP ticket includes complimentary hors d’oeuvres for the first two hours of the event from Takami Sushi & Robata.

Oscars Trivia + Screening Party

Sunday, March 15, 2 to 10 p.m.
2636 Huron St., Cypress Park
COST: Free; MORE INFO

This trivia night, Oscar ballot contest and watch party is free, but formal attire is required. Trivia begins at 3 p.m., before the show starts.

Dinner in WeHo + the Oscars

Sunday, March 15, 4 p.m.
La Boheme
8400 Santa Monica Blvd, WeHo
COST: Free admission; MORE INFO

The West Hollywood Mediterranean restaurant will be showing the Oscars on their projector screen and offering Happy Hour specials all night (which they also offer every Monday-Thursday and Sunday).

It’s hard to look at a restaurant menu without being able to order anything from it, but Tien Nguyen has made it her mission to do exactly that.

Nguyen, a food writer and Los Angeles Public Library creator in residence, has been digging through the library’s archives of restaurant menus, some of which go back to the early 1900’s. She’s specifically focused on the neighborhood we now know as Koreatown, and says tracing the evolution of dishes offered can help us understand its history.

“ L.A.'s Koreatown is a really great example of the ways we can look at menus and see how the neighborhood has changed over time,” she said.

She’s been sharing her research with the public, and will be giving a talk this Saturday at L.A. Central Library’s Taper Auditorium.

How restaurants reflect K-Town’s history

In the early 20th century, Koreatown was mostly known as Wilshire Center. Its Art Deco apartments were freshly built, and landmarks like the Ambassador Hotel were trendy spots for celebrities and dignitaries.

“There's one menu that I remember that is in honor of Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa, and you could see there was a big feast and banquet for them,” Nguyen said. “There were also menus for the king and queen of Greece.”

But soon after, other L.A. neighborhoods became in vogue and Koreatown hit a period of decline, even as high-rise buildings started to go up in the mid-20th century.

Following that, Koreatown started to take shape as into the diverse ethnic enclave it is today. Nguyen ties the changes to the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which removed the United States’ highly restrictive quotas on immigration from certain countries, especially those in Asia.

About the menus

Nguyen told LAist the menu of the Korean restaurant The Prince is one of the best examples of this evolution. The restaurant now offers comfort food favorites like bibim mandu and its signature dakgangjeong. But in the middle of last century, it was known as The Windsor, and offered European continental fare.

The Windsor's food offerings from 1958.

(

Courtesy Los Angeles Public Library

)

“ It looks like they have great cocktails, they have really great fresh fruit alongside steaks and all sorts of different types of pastas,” Nguyen said. “When I look at those menus, you do have a bit of FOMO, but at the same time, I also am a person of color. So there's also this recognition that maybe I wouldn't have been welcome in some of those spaces as well.”

In the 1990s, the space came under new ownership and became The Prince – a Korean restaurant that still preserves its Old Hollywood charm.

“The thing to get there really is the Korean fried chicken, the tteokbokki – the rice cakes – and the Korean pancakes,” Nguyen said.

Another example which shows the emerging Korean influence of the area comes from the restaurant Beverly Soon Tofu, which opened in 1986. The restaurant’s menu was painted onto gourds, one of which is currently on display at Koreatown’s Pio Pico Branch Library until the end of the month.

Nguyen, who co-authored a cookbook with Beverly Soon Tofu’s founder Monica Lee (not to mention two books written with Kogi’s Roy Choi), said the menu was inspired by Korean countryside decor.

Monica Lee of Beverly Soon Tofu, pictured soon after her restaurant's opening in 1986, along with a letter announcing the opening.

(

Kevin Tidmarsh/LAist

)

“ These dried gourds were also used as lanterns, so that was her inspiration for wanting to make it look like a menu, because her restaurant at the time was decorated kind of like a countryside restaurant,” she said.

As Korean-Americans settled in what Monica Lee called a sometimes “hot, busy and bothersome” city when she founded her restaurant in 1986, they shaped the neighborhood into the largest Koreatown in the United States – and also shaped the way Americans far and wide eat.

An translation of Beverly Soon Tofu's opening announcement.

(

Kevin Tidmarsh/LAist

)

“ You go to Trader Joe's, and there's that kimbap that was really popular for so many years,” Nguyen said.

Korean-Americans did this alongside many other immigrant populations that call Koreatown home – many of its strip malls represent cuisines from several different countries.

“What's kind of amazing about that to me is that it is something that feels natural,” Nguyen said. “ Koreatown has a large Oaxacan population, for example. It has a very big Bangladeshi population. And so all these foods, all these cultures, [mingled] together to create a food culture that I think is so distinctly Los Angeles.”

Nguyen also credited Korean restaurants with sourcing fresh ingredients locally – even though they aren’t as celebrated as other Californian restaurants for doing so.

How to attend the talk

Nguyen will give her talk “Menus as Neighborhood Maps: How Los Angeles Restaurant Menus Tell Stories of Community Formation” at 10:30am Saturday, March 14, at the L.A. Central Library’s Taper Auditorium.

You can RSVP here.

While the only officially gendered awards for the Oscars are for acting, it’s no secret the Academy historically has favored men when it comes to handing out statuettes. Between 1929 and 2026, women made up less than 18% of all nominees, according to a report by the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative.

If you exclude the acting nominees, women have been nominated for just under 13% of all awards in the nearly century since the awards began, said Stacy L. Smith, who founded the initiative in 2005 to track inequality in entertainment.

Smith said the numbers, while stark, aren’t surprising.

“This industry cannot change itself,” Smith said. “To create change, you really need to work with folks and bring them in.”

To better understand where gender disparity stands today, we analyzed who actually speaks in the 10 films up for what many consider to be the highest honor in film: best picture at this Sunday’s Academy Awards.

Why? Because gender disparity in dialogue tells us something about the kinds of films that get nominated for awards — or made in the first place — and whose stories tend to be institutionally valued.

We went into this analysis knowing that historically, films that contend for best picture have been dominated by stories driven by male characters. We analyzed the 10 nominated films of 2026 and also analyzed the 2025 nominees to determine the most recent patterns.

Our findings: Women characters spoke about a quarter of the words. That’s down from a third of words in last year’s nominated films.

“Whether we look at just who's on screen, and now when we look at how much they speak, your findings reiterate this real lack of inclusion for women and girls on screen,” Smith said.

The details:

Men overwhelmingly dominate dialogue in eight films. In each — save for Bugonia — at least 70% of the words go to men. Bugonia has the narrowest difference at 56% men and 44% women, snagging the third-highest percentage of female dialogue.

Two films stand out for having twice as much dialogue by women than the overall average of 25%. In Sentimental Value, women speak 57% of the words, and in Hamnet, they speak 51%.

One Battle After Another is the only film where an explicitly nonbinary character speaks. However, their number of words spoken — 25 — is so small compared to the rest of the dialogue that it comes out to 0.2% of the film.

Hamnet is the only best picture nominee to be directed by a woman: Chloé Zhao.

How this compares to last year

Last year, women spoke the majority of words in three films: Emilia Perez, Wicked and I’m Still Here. In all three, women spoke at least 60% of the words.

In 2025, like this year, one film directed by a woman, Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance, was nominated for best picture.

Why lead characters matter 

This year, Sentimental Value, Hamnet and Bugonia have the biggest share of dialogue by women among the best picture nominees. They’re also the only films with a lead woman character.

Michelle (Emma Stone), the main character of Bugonia, speaks the most out of the three women in lead roles. Of the leads in nominated films, she ranks fourth overall behind Marty (Timothée Chalamet) in Marty Supreme, Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) in Frankenstein and her own co-lead, Teddy (Jesse Plemons).

Agnes (Jessie Buckley) from Hamnet ranks fifth. Nora (Renate Reinsve) from Sentimental Value ranks eighth behind the male leads from One Battle After Another and Train Dreams.

We should note that what constitutes a “lead” role can be subjective. For the purposes of this analysis, we based it on plot summaries and the prominence of the character in the arc of the film.

In most films, lead characters talk more than people in supporting roles. Sentimental Value and Train Dreams are the exceptions. Stellan Skarsgård is nominated for best supporting actor for his role as Gustav Borg in Sentimental Value. Borg speaks about 2,000 words, while his daughter, Nora, speaks about 1,300 in what’s considered a lead role. And in Train Dreams, a man narrates (Will Patton) and speaks about 1,500 words, while Robert Grainier (Joe Edgerton) speaks about 1,400.

Half of last year’s best picture nominees had a woman as the lead character. Female leads outnumbered male leads seven to six, and they generally spoke a greater share of dialogue than them too — save for Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) from Conclave and Bob Dylan (Chalamet) from A Complete Unknown.

Unlike this year, not all films with a woman in a lead role had majority women’s dialogue overall. In Anora and The Substance, women still spoke less than men.

However, lead characters did speak more words than any other character individually — except for in Wicked, where Glinda (Ariana Grande) speaks about 200 more words than Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo).

To try to measure how interested characters are in themselves compared to others and compare that across genders, the analysis looked at how often characters speak “I” words such as “I,” “me” or “my” (among others) versus “you” words like “you,” “your” or “yours” (among others).

We found that women speak more about themselves in half of the best picture nominees. That includes Sentimental Value, Bugonia, Frankenstein, Marty Supreme and The Secret Agent. Admittedly, this is a limited evaluation. It doesn't include first-person plural words like “we,” it doesn’t include third-person pronouns like “he,” “she” or “they,” and it doesn't include the names of characters if they're used to address others. The bottom line: It shouldn't be taken as definitive, especially not without context from the movie.

What women talk about on screen has been the subject of interest for some time. In 1985, Alison Bechdel, a graphic artist, started talking about her criteria for watching a film. Now commonly called the Bechdel test, she said a film had to 1) feature two women characters who 2) talk to each other about 3) something other than a man. This analysis did not measure whether the best picture nominees passed the Bechdel Test, but it’s nonetheless an alternative way to measure women’s representation.

Looking at this data comprehensively — while taking into account the percent of words spoken by women, which films have a woman lead, the content of women’s dialogue and its relationship to their share of words — one film emerges as a standout.

And the Oscar for Most Woman-Driven Story goes to …

An image from the film "Sentimental Value."

(

MK2 Films

)

Directed by Joachim Trier, the Norwegian film Sentimental Value follows sisters Nora (Reinsve) and Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) as they reunite with their estranged father, filmmaker Gustav Borg (Skarsgård). Elle Fanning also stars in a supporting role as actor Rachel Kemp. Aside from best picture, the film received eight other nominations.

Sentimental Value has the highest percentage of words spoken by women. It’s one of just three films with a woman lead. And women refer to themselves more than they refer to the characters they speak to.

It’s the only film where women speak the majority of words and where their word choice favors themselves.

How we got here

Sexism in Hollywood has been the subject of scholarly research, books and, yes, movies. Women are underrepresented in what’s known as “below-the-line” roles, as well as in top executive positions. While the #MeToo movement that called out powerful men in Hollywood led to some actions, change has been slow.

Carolyn Finger, a former media analyst at Variety and Luminate, said conversations around representation — like the #OscarsSoWhite social media campaign in 2015 — help to bolster change in the industry. But there’s still much work to be done.

“What I’ve observed is that when those conversations happen, there is incremental change, but it’s not often sustained change,” Finger said.

This dialogue analysis, she added, “look[s] at who literally has a voice.”

To be clear, the quantity of words spoken is just one measure. On screen, sometimes silence, an action or a particular facial expression carries a greater message than words could convey. And a male-driven story may still have strong, nuanced and well-written women characters.

What's next

Smith said that to create change, studios need to adopt more equitable hiring practices and ensure the films they produce reflect the people watching them.

“If you’re a shareholder, if you go to the movies and buy tickets. If you support these companies by watching their shows, communicate back at what you’re not seeing and why that’s a problem,” Smith said.

Still, this year could be a potentially historic Oscars ceremony. The Annenberg Inclusion Initiative reported that a record-tying 33% of this year’s Oscar nominees are women. Hamnet director Chloé Zhao is the second woman, and first woman of color, to be nominated for best director twice. And if she wins, she’ll be the first woman to win best director more than once.

The 98th Academy Awards will take place 4 p.m. Sunday.

For 24 years, I've been bringing together audiences here in Southern California ahead of the Oscars so we can review our favorites together.

Last week, we had a packed house at the Alex Theater in Glendale for our annual Film Week Academy Awards Preview.

We gathered nine of our regular FilmWeek critics, whose voices listeners hear on LAist 89.3 on our weekly review of movies. Hundreds of LAist listeners and readers who attended also got to vote for their personal favorites.

If we missed you March 7, we have clips of all 10 of the best picture nominees and the favorite for best animated feature. I have to say, I really loved sharing the experience of the movies with so many people. We'd love to see you in person at next year's event.

Meet the FilmWeek critics

• Tim Cogshell: FilmWeek critic, Alt-Film Guide and CineGods.com
• Christy Lemire: FilmWeek critic, RogerEbert.com and co-host of the Breakfast All Day podcast
• Lael Loewenstein: FilmWeek critic
• Wade Major: FilmWeek critic and CineGods.com 
• Amy Nicholson: FilmWeek critic, film critic for the Los Angeles Times and host of the podcast ‘Unspooled’
• Claudia Puig: FilmWeek critic and program director for the Santa Barbara International Film Festival
• Peter Rainer: FilmWeek critic and the Christian Science Monitor 
• Charles Solomon: FilmWeek critic, Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine 

Watch our full Oscar preview story

Best Picture

Nominees

Bugonia
F1
Frankenstein
Hamnet
Marty Supreme
One Battle After Another
The Secret Agent
Sentimental Value
Sinners
Train Dreams

• Critics consensus: Sinners
• Audience: Sinners

Best Director

Nominees

Chloé Zhao, Hamnet
Josh Safdie, Marty Supreme
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Joachim Trier, Sentimental Value
Ryan Coogler, Sinners

• Critics' consensus: Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another

Some other critics said that while they wanted Coogler to win, they thought the Oscar would go to Anderson.

Best Actress

Nominees

Jessie Buckley, Hamnet
Rose Byrne, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You
Kate Hudson, Song Sung Blue
Renate Reinsve, Sentimental Value
Emma Stone, Bugonia

• Critics' consensus: Jessie Buckley for Hamnet
• Audience choice: Emma Stone for Bugonia

Lemire said that while she'd love to see the win go to Rose Byrne, she called Buckley the "only lock of the night"

Best Actor

Nominees:

Timothée Chalamet, Marty Supreme
Leonardo DiCaprio, One Battle After Another
Ethan Hawke, Blue Moon
Michael B. Jordan, Sinners
Wagner Moura, The Secret Agent

• Critics' consensus: Michael B. Jordan for Sinners
• Audience choice: Michael B. Jordan for Sinners

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees:

Elle Fanning, Sentimental Value
Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, Sentimental Value
Amy Madigan, Weapons
Wunmi Mosaku, Sinners
Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another

• Critics' consensus: Amy Madigan for Weapons
• Audience choice: Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees

Benicio del Toro, One Battle After Another
Jacob Elordi, Frankenstein
Delroy Lindo, Sinners
Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
Stellan Skarsgård, Sentimental Value

• Critics' consensus: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
• Audience choice: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another

Best Original Screenplay

Nominees

Blue Moon, written by Robert Kaplow
It Was Just an Accident, written by Jafar Panahi; script collaborators: Nader Saïvar, Shadmehr Rastin, Mehdi Mahmoudian
Marty Supreme, written by Ronald Bronstein and Josh Safdie
Sentimental Value, written by Eskil Vogt, Joachim Trier
Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler

• Critics' consensus: Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler
• Audience choice: Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler

Best Adapted Screenplay

Nominees

Bugonia, screenplay by Will Tracy
Frankenstein, written for the screen by Guillermo del Toro
Hamnet, screenplay by Chloé Zhao and Maggie O'Farrell
One Battle after Another, written by Paul Thomas Anderson
Train Dreams, screenplay by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar

• Critics' consensus: None
• Audience choice: Train Dreams, screenplay by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar

Best Animated Feature

Nominees

Arco
Elio
KPop Demon Hunters
Little Amélie or the Character of Rain
Zootopia 2

• Critics' consensus: Tie, Little Amélie or the Character of Rain and KPop Demon Hunters
• Audience choice: KPop Demon Hunters

Best Documentary

Nominees:

The Alabama Solution
Come See Me in the Good Light
Cutting Through Rocks
Mr. Nobody Against Putin
The Perfect Neighbor

• Critics' consensus: The Perfect Neighbor
• Audience choice: no vote