Zootopia 2 (2025)

Normally I am not a fan of sequels to big animated blockbusters. With the rare exception (Toy Story 3) they end up being corporate recycling of the same old ideas but with little to none of the inspirational magic that made the first one so good. Sorry not sorry but churning out an other Minion movie or telling another Shrek story has produced nothing but diminishing returns. The further adventures of Anna and Ilsa or even Moana have just left me cold. I had hopes Zootopia might have the unique sort of narrative structure that could lead to further sequels that didn't feel like cheap copies. The first film is remarkably clever mixing a mystery story and wonderfully developed characters with truly brilliant social commentary. It is detective stories that lend themselves to so well to franchises (there is always another case to solve). So could this be the magic formula for Disney to have lightning strike twice?

I'll start by saying 2 is not as great a movie as 1. But despite that it is quite entertaining, very watchable, filled with new great characters while bringing back some of the previous ones, and once again it's metaphors are on point. This time we tackle gentrification (and the ways that is often tied into xenophobia) in far more sophisticated ways than a film like this should have. So more than other recent Disney sequels Zootopia 2 feels like it justifies its existence and makes for a worth follow up. 

But it doesn't improve on the concept. It's mystery plot points are a little muddled and even simpler than the previous case. The new characters aren't as integrated with the old ones (who are mostly pushed to needless cameos) in very successful ways. It establishes a Zootopia formula when compared with the first (and every franchise needs that to some degree) but doesn't build that out expansively in a way that something like Toy Story 3 did. While the pacing and bread-crumb-laying was quite masterfully done in the first film, this one feels like it's purposefully dragging out the development of its plot so that it isn't wrapped up too quickly.  

But Zootopia 2 does develop the relationship between our main characters quite effectively, picking up from their previous equilibrium to take their relationship to the next level...no not like that. Their friendship and chosen family status is deepened in a lovely, moving way. Bateman and Goodwin continue to make their characters so interesting and likeable. It's hard not to want to see them solve all sort of mysteries. 

Despite this film not reaching the heights of its predecessor, it is the first Disney animated film I've wanted more of a follow up to in a long time. The end of Zootopia 2 teases a possible new story (stick around after the credits) and I'd be down for that. Maybe third time will be the charm and this could make for a pretty satisfying trilogy. 

Zootopia 2

Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Ke Huy Quan, Fortune Feimster, Andy Samberg, David Strathairn, Idris Elba, Shakira, Patrick Warburton, Nate Torrence, Bonnie Hunt, Don Lake,, Macauley Culkin, Brenda Song, Maurice LaMarche, Leah Latham, Raymond S. Persi, Tommy Chong, Tommy Lister Jr., Danny Trejo, John Lequizamo, June Squibb, Jenny Slate, Alan Tudyk, Yvette Nicole Brown, Ed Sheeran, Robert Irwin, Jean Reno, Dwayne Johnson, Josh Gad, Wilmer Valderrama, Rachel House

Directors: Jared Bush, Byron Howard

Writer: Jaren Bush

Wicked For Good (2025)

Dune Part Two, Kill Bill Part Two, The Two Towers, some could argue Superman II. These sorts of "sequels" aren't really sequels at all but truly the second part of one longer movie. They face different challenges as they cannot really exist on their own without the first film in the same way something like The Dark Knight, Skyfall, or even Mama Mia Here We Go Again can. Those are films with their own beginnings, middles, and ends, films that tell one coherent and separate story, no matter how connected it is to what came before. Wicked For Good, shot continuously with the Wicked film, is just the continuing of the same story. Perhaps it is most analogous to Quintin Tarantino's revenge saga which was also made as one complete movie before being split in two parts. And perhaps one day we'll have a complete epic Wicked film that edits these two films together like we do with Kill Bill. But for now we have For Good all on it's own and while I do worry it would be almost impossible to just sit down and watch this one without having ever seen the first film, for me For Good sticks the landing and provides a very entertaining and moving finale for this saga. 

We pick up soon after Elphaba defied gravity and leap right into the action. I think one of the biggest reasons for the success of these films has been the ambition of the film, to not just run through one plot point to the other but flesh-out the events, back stories, and fill each moment with real weight and pathos. Dividing Wicked into two has allowed this in a way that just wouldn't be possible in one film. We get to give the characters time to breath, the story time to play out, and the emotional core to come together. I really appreciated how the film helped massage some of the stage plays weaknesses this way. We get more of an understanding of plot points that are sort of glossed over, especially how it connects to the Wizard of Oz story. It all feels more organic than it had on stage. 

I loved that the film chose not to centre Dorothy or her story. While the overlapping plot points are laid out Dorothy and her mission are always kept at arm's length (literally at one point through a crack in the door) so we remember this is Elphaba and Glinda's story. Instead of following the yellow brick road we explore how the Tin Man and Scarecrow come to be because they are the relevant characters here. 

But overall what really makes it work is how much it sets out its metaphor. At its heart Wicked (as a novel, a stage musical, or as a film) is about the choices we make in the face of oppression, the way our different perspectives colour those choices, and how to find our road to integrity. What does it mean to be "good"? This film spends its time, and its two new songs, focusing on that question in a very effective and accessible way that isn't whitewashed or oversimplified. The metaphor of this take on the Oz stories is both wonderfully strong and clear while also being embedded in a very entertaining adventure. 

And For Good is damn entertaining. Again the bold choice to make it two film, gave the film makers the chance to truly go all out and make spectacle. This is blockbuster film making with an air of the golden age of cinema. I do love a film that can be both crowd pleasing popcorn entertainment and tell a great story with a non-superficial moral. I was also impressed with how it manages the other big challenge of adapting this particular musical, one whose second act isn't quite as "strong" from a big musical number, big excitement point of view. It instead chooses to focus on the emotional core of the story and give us our climax with a beautiful melancholy moment instead of a grand triumph. 

So for me Wicked does stick the landing. I know I'll never just watch For Good. But I'll likely never just watch Wicked Part One. They will always exist forever just as Wicked. 

Wicked For Good

Starring: Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang, Marissa Bode, Michelle Yeoh, Jeff Goldblum, Colman Domingo

Director: Jon M. Chu

Writers: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox

Sentimental Value/Affeksjonsverdi (2025)

I remember being taken off guard by just how much The Worst Person in the World affected me. I didn't know exactly what to make of it when I first saw it and over time it has just continued to find its way into my film memory. It can be hard for a film maker to follow up a breakthrough film like that, a film that brings them so much attention and acclaim, especially a film that holds up so well. So I was perhaps a bit cautious, although excited, about Sentimental Value, his first film since then, and a film which demonstrates Trier's (as well as cowriter, Vogt's) incredible promise as a film maker. 

Sentimental Value is an intricately woven and intimately perceptive portrait of a family, a father and two sisters, whose lives are intersecting through their art and their resentments. It would have been easy for this particular story to feel overdramatized and sensational but Trier and Vogt craft it in such a way that it feels so richly honest. The themes of estrangement and regret should feel so rote. It's not like they are themes we've never explored before. But there is such a freshness to this film's perspective that it felt like it was the first time I was watching a father-struggling-to-reconnect-with-his-adult-daughter story. 

Much of this has to do with the performances. Reinsve, Fanning, and Skarsgård are all incredible actors but they each give some of their best work here, especially the latter. This may be my favourite performance I've seen him give. The film draws some serious attention to its actors' performances. The film is about actors, and we see them "acting" at points in the movie. The film moves between the constructed world of performance and real reacting. There are moments we aren't sure which is which. To rise to this occasion as well as this case does is quite remarkable. 

What is amazing here is how well put together this film is. Every scene seems thought out to be placed and framed exactly as it is, feeding into the story and the emotional power because of how it is shot, edited, and set into the narrative. There is a self-consciousness to Sentimental Value which doesn't take you out of the story but has the opposite effect of bringing you into it deeper. 

While Sentimental Value has all the hallmarks of the sort of cinema a film studies class would want to pull apart, the film also never feels unwatchable. It is engrossing from frame one and tells an emotionally satisfying story that breaks you heart and soothes it a little. There is a lot of critical hype built up around this film and it is all deserved. But it is also a sweet, lovely little movie that will make you so glad you watched it. 

Sentimental Value

Starring: Renate Reinsve, Stellan Skarsgård, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, Elle Fanning, Anders Danielsen Lie, Cory Michael Smith

Director: Joachim Trier

Writers: Eskil Vogt, Joachim Trier

Train Dreams (2025)

Writers-directors Kwedar and Bentley have been making quiet yet emotionally powerful films together for a while now, switching off who directs while they co-write the films. The latest is the sumptuous and thoughtful Train Dreams, the story of a working man in the early 20th century watching the world change around him. For a movie that focuses on a man's interiority Train Dreams is gorgeously filmed, and visually rich. Bentley's instincts lean towards finding beauty wherever he can and Train Dreams is a beautiful film. 

A lot has been made of Edgertn's performance and that is deserved. His character is the strong silent type but he manages to do a lot without saying much. But there are breautiful supporting turns from the likes of Macy and Collins and others. Jones feels wasted a bit as her character doesn't have a lot to do. 

Train Dreams employs the device of a narrator, voice provided by Patton. This is a simple means of getting into our protagonist's head but it is extremely effective here. The most remarkable thing about this film is how strikingly visual it is while remaining very much about the thoughts and feelings of a quiet man. Adapting a novel which spends so much time inside the head on its character can be a difficult transition to the screen but Kwedar and Bentley have done it incredibly. 

Train Dreams ends up being a love letter to life itself, even when that life is hard and filled with loss and some love. 

Train Dreams

Starring: Joel Edgerton, Felicity Jones, Will Patton, Clifton Collins Jr., Kerry Condon, William H. Macy, Nathanial Arcand, Alfred Hsing, Paul Schneider  

Director: Clint Bentley

Writers: Greg Kwedar, Clint Bentley

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

Predator: Badlands (2025)

Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of the Predator films but I loved Prey and Killer of Killers. And now I can say I loved Badlands as well. The direction Trachtenberg has taken this franchise is my vibe for sure. While I still think Prey may be the best of the series, I may have had the most fun in the Badlands. 

Switching the perspective to a Predator is a simple yet brilliant way to breathe life into the story. The film's focus on chosen family and the rejection of who you are supposed to be keeps the film from upending years of continuity. The Yautja are still monsters. This doesn't change that. The corporations are still monsters. This doesn't change that. But it is saying you don't have to be. I am a sucker for a family-is-what-you-make-it story. 

Badlands is a funny movie. Not in a spoof or satire sort of way but in the way the humour is organically woven into the story. Fanning is a standout here, creating two characters, with her main one balancing pathos with humour in a completely natural way. She has always had an incredible screen presence and she elevates this film. 

Badlands is an action packed movie. Much has been made of its PG13 rating but some of that must have to do with the fact that there are no humans (seriously, not one character is human in this film) getting brutally killed. It's all monsters and aliens and robots. The action is good. Trachtenberg films it incredibly. It is the sort of film that keeps you on the edge of your seat. 

After the success of Prey it would have been easy for Trachtenberg to simply replicate that again with another timeframe. Instead he went in a different direction and we are all richer for it. He isn't repeating himself. He delivered another great film with a very different tone and flavour yet which all fits together so seamlessly. Let him make as many Predator movies as he wants. 

Predator: Badlands

Starring: Elle Fanning, Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi, Mike Homik

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

Writers: Patrick Aison, Brian Duffield

The History of Sound (2025)

Humanus' love story set in the early 20th century, is beautiful in so many ways, the kind of story about loss and regret, about holding for a moment something truly beautiful, but letting if fall through the cracks. I was impressed with Mescal's against-type performance and the way he captured levels of pain in quiet and reserved ways. But I was also struck by some of the film's narrative choices which somehow seemed to sap some of the power of the story, a story which feels a little like ground we have treaded before. 

The History of Sound is a lovely movie, but its story isn't an unfamiliar one. There are shades of other films in the queer cinema cannon that it is reminiscent of. A film like this needs to differentiate itself a bit and I'm not sure Sound finds a way to do that. It builds to a powerful moment in the films final moments but one that feels like it has been done before, more profoundly. Sometimes the way Humanus has constructed the story feels like it could have found a different rhythm. Perhaps breaking the narrative into different parts and rearranging them may have captured something unique for this story. But what is here feels familiar and somewhat worn. 

Having said that it remains a gorgeous movie that its cast handles beautifully. The heartbreak here is palpable and the underlying themes of queer pain remain potent. By the end it was a film where I was moved by its themes but maybe not resonating to the level of some others. 

The History of Sound

Starring: Paul Mescal, Josh O'Connor, Chris Cooper 

Director: Oliver Humanus 

Writer: Ben Shattuck

Sharp Corner (2025)

What I appreciated most about Buxton's thriller is how it didn't lean into sensational or exaggerated takes, allowing instead his protagonist to slow spiral into a very realistic deterioration. I fully expected his actions to become more and more depraved, but as the story went on, it felt realistic. He does some terrible things but never beyond what we can see him able to justify to himself. This was truly effective and chilling as it is something you could see happen to someone you know. 

Foster is wonderful here, bringing the reality of this man's understanding of his world to life. He also doesn't take his character into parody but instead keeps him quite grounded. He plays him like an everyman. We all know this neighbour, friend, family member. 

The ending is strikingly emotional as it forces us to sit with an uncomfortable realization that these things don't always work out. Again, perhaps trained by decades of Hollywood movies, I was expecting an explosive finish (perhaps literally in this case) and the film delivers something far more unsettling than that in its final moments. Foster in the final shot sticks the landing in a quiet way. 

Sharp Corner

Starring: Ben Foster, Cobie Smulders, William Kosovic
Writer/Director: Jason Buxton

Bugonia (2025)

Bugonia is the sort of film that wants to keep you guessing and it is very effective in making you do so. The film is rather relentless in building up a narrative that our main character is "crazy" and while you may feel sympathy for him and the history that drove him to what he is doing, we are to dismiss his obviously insane ideas and root for the undermining of his plan. Or are we? The film hints are perhaps some truth to what he is doing. It juxtaposes our desire to be rational, with the true frustration of needing there to be some explanation for the pain and suffering that so many people are crushed under the weight of. The continued suffering of so many cannot simply be the excused greed of a small minority of powerful people whose basic fears and passions are the same as everyone else's, right? But wouldn't that be crazy?

I'm not going to spoil the ending of Begonia... yet. The film creates a compelling game of cat and mouse between Plemons and Stone who both do wonderful work here in this nihilistic cautionary tale. So much holds us captive to the story. The film plays with our discomfort with violence and kidnapping, so it can hook us into its morality play. And it keeps us guessing until the end. 

My main critique is the way the film clings to its absurdist aesthetic. This is something that Lanthimos brings to a lot of his work and it often doesn't work for me. Here is doesn't ruin what is otherwise a fascinating power struggle, but it does keep the audience at arms length. We don't have to take much of it too seriously, which saps the power of the ending which is truly quite striking. Perhaps Lanthimos' was worried the denouement would be too earnest, and need to keep the irony flowing to make it more palatable. I think I would have preferred the different take. One example of how the film keeps things "safe" by being in-your-face preposterous is the film's score which is self-aggrandizing and often self-consciously conspicuous in a way that takes us out of the film reminding us that no matter how much the film transgresses it's all just a film, a story, so don't worry. 

I still enjoyed the film and will find its themes interesting to reflect on. I also appreciated Stone and Plemmons' strong performances here which kept Bugonia grounded despite how much it wanted to blast off into a dark silliness. But stop reading here is you don't want it spoiled cause I have one more thought which can only be discussed with *spoilers*.

I am still wrestling with the film's implication that the Andromedean plan was one of charity. I appreciate the critique of humans as a selfishly self-destructive species. But when the film has placed its "combatants" as a poor working man who has had everything taken from him against an obviously hypocritical CEO who clearly thrives off the suffering of others, to turn her into a saviour figure who fails in her benevolence due to humanities own failures feels like a dissonance I can't square. Regardless I am thinking about it and I likely will give a lot of thought to Bugonia over time. 

Bugonia 

Starring: Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Aidan Delbis, Stavros Halkias, Alicia Silverstone 

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

Writer: Will Tracy

Hedda (2025)

There is a general perception that period pieces, especially those based on classic works of literature, are slow, stuffy, pondering, and even restrained. I appreciate when film makers attempt adaptations that capture the passion and urgency that the people of the time would have experienced. DeCosta's fiery and bold take on Ibson's Hedda Gobler is stunning and kinetic. It is lush and rollicking throughout, intensely emotional, and a gut punch. She has infused a relentlessness to the story in a way that makes it far more compelling than modern audiences would expect from an adaptation of classic theatre. 

At the centre of DeCosta's piece is the outstanding Thompson who is mesmerizing and complex in the title role. She is entirely seductive, grossly manipulative, and ruthlessly sympathetic as she navigates the madness that is her desperation. Hedda throws a party and the course of events spirals so deliciously out of control, while remaining mostly in her control. And she remains completely the master of her domain right up to the end, refusing to capitulate 

Thompson isn't alone. Her supporting cast is tremendous, especially Hoss in a stand out role. DeCosta has queered the story, breathing so much life into this tale. Hedda is erotic and every scene is charged. The characters exist in a beautiful space that DeCosta films with an eagerness and vivaciousness that makes Hedda so incredible to watch. And its hard not to watch Thompson. She is a triumph here. Hedda is a film that pulls you in and makes you want more. 

Hedda

Starring: Tessa Thompson, Nina Hoss, Imogen Poots, Tom Bateman, Kathryn Hunter

Writer/Director: Nia DeCosta

 

Ballad of a Small Player (2025)

While critics have been harder on Ballad of a Small Player than they were with Berger's last couple films, but I found it riveting. Most agree Farrell is outstanding here and he is. This is a tour de force performance for an actor who has been doing amazing work for some time now. But the film itself is gorgeous and emotionally powerful. If anything its one weakness is that the story feels a little common; we've seen it play out a number of times. But what Berger and Farrell bring to it makes up for that.

Berger captures a bold and striking vision of Macau that makes it feel like a magical dreamscape. He spirals his main character into moments of madness and depression that are exacerbated by the fantastic visuals. Berger merges the narrative, the environment, and the interior of the protagonist in ways that are delicious, delightful, and frightening. Small Player is extremely watchable even when it is difficult. 

Farrell is as good as everyone is saying. But he's not alone. Chen is quietly profound and Ip is a terrifying delight. No suprises here but Swinton is, as always, an incredible presence. They all inhabit Berger's audacious vision so differently and yet so seamlessly. 

So while the story may feel somewhat rote, what Berger and his cast led by Farrell do with it is remarkable and I felt very enjoyable. 

Ballad of a Small Player

Starring: Colin Farrell, Tilda Swinton, Fala Chen, Deanie Ip, Alex Jennings 

Director: Edward Berger

Writer: Rowan Joffé