Plainclothes (2025)

I'm always excited for the debut of a promising new film maker and Emmi is certainly in that category. His first feature, Plainclothes, features a tight and smart script and is filmed with a flair that is fascinating. He shows he is a true story teller, getting into the hearts and minds of his characters in an organic, natural way while also moving his story forward cleverly and, most importantly, with an eye for a compelling and satisfying narrative. 

Plainclothes explores closeted men (set in the 90s) and their connections. Yes this is somewhat well trod territory, may I even say tired, but Emmi finds a way to make it fresh and relevant. His main character is a cop whose job it is to entrap men who are "cruising" for public sex. Yet he finds himself drawn to one of his targets who also appears to have his own closeted issues. I think what made Plainclothes work for me narratively is how the film eschews most of the cliches of down-low men and instead reaches into the multifaceted pain of the closet. Emmi's strength here is how he paints robust portraits of both his main characters that make them feel more real and less like caricatures.

Emmi also impresses with his directoral style. He finds creative ways to be in the head of his protagonist and not just tell his story pedantically. He uses a bit of timeline jumps, which he handles effectively, but it is more in the way he finds perspective that I found so interesting. Visually Plainclothes is a beautiful watch and demands more of your attention than more by-the-book stories. 

Blyth and Tovey are both strong and create a good connection. Tovey really comes to life at the end of the story with a scene that helps flesh him out in ways that we aren't expecting. But it's Blyth who is the anchor for this throughout and gives a breakout performance.

For me the real star is Emmi who i hope is working on something new to follow this up as I am excited to see what he does next. 

Plainclothes

Starring: Tom Blyth, Russell Tovey 

Writer/Director: Carmen Emmi

Keeper (2025)

Clearly my tastes are different from the mainstream. I really didn't like Longlegs or The Monkey and I kinda enjoyed Keeper, a film that is almost universally disliked by the film bros. I liked it straightforward creepy story vibe. I liked that it was more visceral and emotional than plot forward. Perhaps the ending explained a little too much for my tastes but generally I left far more entertained and creeped out than I have at Perkins' other recent films. 

The story behind the making of Keeper is that it was thrown together as a way to keep a film crew working during the shutdown of another production. Keeper has a very small production vibe. Maslany and Sutherland bring a realness to their roles and the limited scope of the film keeps it all tight. It feels more like something you'd see at a midnight screening at a film festival than a release from a rising-star director. And perhaps that's why it resonated for me. 

As I said I wish Perkins kept the ending a bit more ambiguous and didn't hold our hands throughout an explanation but that's something he's guilty of generally in his films I've seen. Still, Keeper is just disquieting enough to be haunting. And it makes me more curious about a film maker that had kind of lost me.

Keeper

Starring: Tatiana Maslany, Rossif Sutherland

Director: Osgood Perkins

Writer: Nick Lepard

Now You See Me Now You Don't (2025)

Heist movies are fun. And if I'm being honest, the Now You See Me Movies are not the best but they're not the worse either. They fall very much in the realm of "that was fine." Again, full disclosure Now You Don't is also fine. Like its predecessors the magic in Now You Don't doesn't feel all that magical, and the gimmicks work on an extreme level of coincidence and coordination. What makes Don't work is the same thing that made the other films work, a fun cast that makes it all worth watching even if we are willfully blind to the scripts' short comings. 

And once again that's where we are at. The old cast is all here (even *spoiler redacted* which was a nice inclusion) with the sole exception of Michael Caine who is happily retired and is truly missed. Also added in for fun are three really delightful Gen Z actors (Smith being one of my favourite) who help the film feel like it's not aging out too quickly. All this and Pike in a wonderful villain role (she's so good at those). You'd almost think there are too many characters running around but the one thing the script does well is balance all their parts in a way that's easy to follow along. 

However if it wasn't for how much fun it is to watch this group interact, the film would likely be less watchable as the plot is, once again, rather silly and ridiculous and its messages are pretty heavy handed. Still, as part of a rather sleight but entertaining series, it is another sleight and entertaining entry. Sure do I wish there was a magic/heist franchise that was so intricate and mysterious that it took multiple rewatches to catch all the underlying plot points and themes? Sure this movie nerd does. But am I down for filling 2 hours with a silly fun story featuring Pike creating a real villain and not just chewing scenery? Sign me up. 

Now You See Me Now You Don't

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Isla Fisher, Lizzy Caplan,  Justice Smith, Dominic Sessa, Ariana Greenblatt, Rosamund Pike, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Writers: Michael Lesslie, Paul Wernick, Rhett Reese, Seth Grahame-Smith

The Running Man (2025)

Hollywood still hasn't learned two lessons, (1) Edgar Wright doesn't make big blockbusters for normies, and (2) despite his leading man looks and his talent as an actor, Powell still hasn't convinced audiences he is a movie star. All the attempts to make Powell the next Tom Cruise don't seem to be working. It might be he's more of a Colin Farrell, a handsome character actor more destined to get nominated for awards than head a major action franchise. 

Back to Wright. I really enjoy his films and find his quirky style right up my alley. But like Scott Pilgrim and Last Night in Soho, The Running Man falls too far into the oddball camp than the Hollywood blockbuster camp. Sadly the studio wants this to be a mainstream hit so the film always feels like it's being pulled too much in that direction which takes away from the charms it has as a Wright film. The balance never quite feels right. I found it an enjoyable romp but the messaging was too heavy handed and sometimes felt a bit disingenuous. And the ending, which cowardly avoids the ending from the source material, is a real disappointment. 

Back to Powell. He is on the mark here (as is the rest of the strong cast - Domingo gives another star turn). He has the swagger/body/face/screen presence of the leading man this film is dying for. I hope one day he gets his break cause he's the real deal. I think he is good here with what the film gives him. But the problem is the film is too busy being an action movie to do what it really needs to be, a truly prescient comment on modern media distraction. King's novel on which this is based was set in 205 and its story feels like King had time travelled to this year it is so damn accurate. This Running Man film wants to be too much fun to truly feel like it hits its mark. Perhaps how close to reality this "reality" show is is just too cynically depressing for a major studio. 

So The Running Man is fun, up until it chickens out with its ending, and hopefully one day Powell will be the star he should be. While I had hopes this film would be more than it is, I can watch it and enjoy it for what it is because Wright does infuse it with a watchability and cleverness that transcends the overall studio-ness of this particular production. 

The Running Man

Starring: Glen Powell, Josh Brolin, Colman Domingo, William H. Macy, Lee Pace, Michael Cera, Emilia Jones, Daniel Ezra, Jayme Lawson, Sean Hayes, Katy O'Brian

Director: Edgar Wright

Writers: Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright

Fairyland (2025)

Director Durham's debut is a competent if somewhat standard biopic of writer Steve Abbott, queer activist who died of HIV related complications in 1992 told from the perspective of his daughter, writer Alysia Abbott. I have a lot of thoughts about that, a queer story filtered through a straight lens, and how that colours the way the story is told. Based on her memoir, the film becomes her story, the experience of being straight in a queer world. There is something to that that is worth exploring. 

Fairyland is about a young woman growing up in a "bohemian culture" after her mother dies in a car accident and she is raised by her gay father. It attempts to show how beautiful this unorthodox upbringing was. Despite this there the film still has a feeling of "in spite of" which pulls the film in different directions which it never quite manages to balance. The film's answer is to do the standard arc of a child pushing back against their parent to eventually reconnect just before its too late. While this is a true story it does feel a bit trite and over simplified. 

I'm probably being too hard on the film which is generally quite watchable and lovely in how it portrays this relationship between these two people, father and daughter. But for me there are two other films here which could have potentially been far more interesting and original; (1) a film about the magic of growing up outside the heteronormative conventional culture (something this film never quite manages to quite do), and (2) a film about the man himself, told from his point of view. I imagine how fascinating it would be to watch a film about a queer writer who lived and breathed at a time of great upheaval and struggle for that community and died as of a result of the larger nation's indifference to the health of queer men. 

Anyway, despite all of my gripes, Fairyland is still a lovely little movie that I think general audiences will enjoy. It is an accessible film that doesn't make anything seem to radical or threatening. Perhaps that's why it wasn't all I wanted it to be despite still being a good, watchable film. 

Fairyland

Starring: Emilia Jones, Scoot McNairy, Geena Davis, Cody Fern, Maria Bakalova, Adam Lambert

Writer/Director: Andrew Durham

Nuremberg (2025)

Nuremberg is an old school Hollywood Oscar-bait epic, the likes of which we don't see as often as we used to. An A-list cast, sweeping direction, and an important subject matter, with some historic inaccuracies thrown in for dramatic flair. In those things the film was emotionally stirring however it also felt a bit all over the map in terms of what story it was trying to tell. It mixes two main threads; the prosecution's efforts and the more personal story of a psychologist and his relationship with his patient, who happens to be one of history's worst war criminals. Not only do those threads not always come together seamlessly, the film keeps flip flopping on its mission, confusing a lot of what it is trying to say. Still, it is big and grand and reminiscent of the kinds of historical epics Hollywood used to make more of. 

I am not an expert in Nuremberg and cannot comment on its accuracy but I have some background in international criminal law and the events covered in Nuremberg are certainly an important stepping stone to the development of the concept of war crimes, human rights law, etc. The film has a little bit of a war crimes 101 feel, especially at the beginning, but as I said it sort of gets lost not figuring out what it wants to be. Is it a critique of methods of the first big coming together of nations to try war criminals, a justification for some of those missteps, an endorsement of the attempt to move post-war justice into the court room and out of the hands of the victors, a personal story? It feels like it is sort of trying to be all things and doesn't quite do much of it really well. 

Having said that it does manage to do some of it competently and there are moments it pulls off some real entertainment and perhaps even reflection. There is a moment in the middle, where the film choses to show real footage of the true evil of the concentration camps, that is rather unflinching. It is a moment that refuses to let you look away and get mired down in the legal details. It highlights the true horror that is being put on trial. 

But the film ends with a more ambiguous ending. I am okay with ambiguity but here it feels less intentional and more due to the film's true identity crisis. The ending feels rather anticlimactic. It both tries to revel in the triumph over evil and question the effectiveness in a way that a better film may have pulled of strikingly but here just feels confused. It feels like it wants to be more straight forward that it is. 

Yet again, the film isn't a failure in this entirely. The final denouement is chilling. It all but holds our hand and tells us that we should be worried about all this happening again. This part is quite effective and, honestly, rather correct. I just wish the film had found a way to build to this message a little more cohesively, more organically.  

Nuremberg

Starring: Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Leo Woodall, John Slattery, Mark O'Brien, Colin Hanks, Wrenn Schmidt, Lydia Peckham, Richard E. Grant, Michael Shannon 

Writer/Director: James Vanderbilt 

Frankenstein (2025)

Much has been said about how visually striking del Toro's long awaited adaptation of the legendary science fiction novel is. From the art direction to the make up to the visual effects, Frankenstein is a glorious spectacle that is incredible to watch. Is this ironic as it will most often be enjoyed on the smaller screen due to its release being focused on streaming? Perhaps. But regardless del Toro, as with so many of his films, delivers cinema in all its beautiful, visual opulence.

But the source material contains multitudes. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is literature that has sparked the imagination for centuries and inspired so much discussion. It is rich with ideas that remains incredibly relevant to audiences over time. Often adaptations of this work are unable to capture the complexity of all that. I believe there are ways del Toro has managed to translate some of that to the screen but in ways that often feel heavy handed, embedded in what is his monster movie.

His approach has never been one of subtlety. del Toro invites us into his discussion quite blatantly. The script works in references to the themes of the tale in overt ways, eg. someone calls Victor "Prometheus" as a jab and Victor's lab is in a tower that is obviously phallic. His script has people speaking the point of the scene verbally, often quite literally. He says the quiet part out loud. If you're looking for subtext, this isn't your film, but I never felt this approach sacrificed the moralities for the enjoyment of the story. 

del Toro inserts Shelley herself into the film, but not in the literal way Whale did in the classic Bride of Frankenstein. He has altered the character of Elizabeth to be a rather blunt stand in for the author. So much of Shelley's point is a critque of male ambition and she is here to voice that. While I often find Goth's performances rather wooden, and that's not much different here, she does actively give perspective to the critique of what is going on. 

The film allows time for something that is often missing in these adaptations, time for Victor to revel in his "success" before, after attempting to exercise his control and fails, then turns on the "monster" he creates. 

This Victor is far more a straight up villain that we usually see. We see how his abusive father crafts him into an abusive adult himself. He is a fountain of arrogance and ambition who blames others for his mistakes. And he is cruel. Yes the film gives him some reasons to be, but still holds him accountable for his own cruelty. 

del Toro presents his version as body horror. He focuses on the gore of the body, something this story is quite open to exploiting. The questions of morality are tied very much to the physical realities of mankind and how those are tied to our souls or our intellects or however you wish to understand it. I know there are critics who eschew the physicality and fetishization of the scientific tropes to be "missing the point" of Shelley's writing, but for me it creates a grounding in just how horrific it is. It is one thing to discuss the morality from an intellectual standpoint, but that can ignore the human experience of it.  

Like of a lot of del Toro's films, there is an almost cartoony fantastic feel to Frankenstein. Elordi's creature never feels quite real but that doesn't take away from how successfully he imbues the creature with humanity. This film is bombastic and bold. And it's likely longer than it needs to be. It is in your face, holding your hand to ensure you get the point, and that will not be to everyone's taste. del Toro wears his passions on his sleeve and he clearly is passionate about this story and tells it with a relish that is delicious.  

Frankenstein is a delightful watch even if its approach is on the spectacular and rather obvious side. I'd say del Toro is mostly successful in capturing the spark that gives this legend so much life. 

Frankenstein

Starring: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, Lars Mikkelsen, Felix Kammerer, David Bradley, Charles Dance, Burn Gorman

Writer/Director: Guillermo del Toro