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

Universal Monsters - Frankenstein (1931)

In my opinion of all the Universal Monsters movies, only one film outshines Frankenstein, and that's its sequel, The Bride (which I will talk about in another post). Frankenstein itself is a cinematic masterpiece that is the high point of the series of films and of its genre. Director Whale is in a league of his own, making films which transcend their genre and stand the test of time. 

Frankenstein is shot beautifully creating one of the most cinematic films in the series (with only Dracula rivalling it for visual splendour). His audacious opening sequence, daring the audience to leave or buckle in for an unprecedented experience, is delightful. This is a story that is chilling, because of what has now become a cliche, but at the time (and at the time of the film's classic source material) was rather revolutionary, that it is us who are the monsters. Dracula is about true evil terrorizing people, while The Wolfman is about a sympathetic, misunderstood "monster". But Frankenstein is about how monstrous we are.

It's hard not to watch the film today without seeing things through the Creature's eyes and reading the ending as tragic and forbidding. There are queer readings of the film and its messaging that I'll discuss more in my discussion of its sequel, but suffice it to say the conclusion pointing to a wedding and future grandchild is not portrayed as a "happy ending." The film is evocative and emotional. Little Maria's death has a clumsy comical feel at the time but when we get to the scene where her father is carrying her body through the town streets, the film reaches an emotional crescendo. Whale is interested in making his audience think about what they are witnessing, not just react. It remains an extremely watchable film. 

Frankenstein is followed by 3 direct sequels and then the creature appeared in numerous crossovers such as House of Frankenstein and he even met Abbott and Costello. As I said I'll discuss The Bride of Frankenstein on its own as it deserves such attention. 

The second sequel, The Son of Frankenstein, is a strong film as well despite having to exist in the shadow of its masterpiece predecessors. While it doesn't live up to their legacy it remains a good film and stars Sherlock Holmes himself, Basil Rathbone, in the title role. About community paranoia and legacy, the film is most notable for introducing Igor although this character barely resembles the caricature that name has come to embody (which is more along the lines of Fritz in the original film). It also is the last time Boris Karloff played the monster on screen before Universal recast its famous character.  

Following Son was the final stand alone sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, another entertaining film despite starting to feel the diminishing returns of sequelitis. This is Igor's story continued on from the previous film, exploring his search for eternal life. the film can be read numerous ways by today's audience including seeing his schemings as push back against a world that unfairly rejected him, the deviousness of a heartless man, or somewhere in between/both. 

There have been a plethora of reimaginings of the film and other interpretations of Mary Shelley's novel including the legendary Hammer film Curse of Frankenstein starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, with its own mixed reception and legacy. It launched that studio's high era and leaned into the violence of the story in a way that was shocking for its time. 

One of the most famous is the criminally underrated Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by Kenneth Branagh, a film I adore for its bold, operatic style and visual lushness. It remains the most loyal to the plot of the novel (despite some small divergences) and is truly emotionally satisfying in my opinion. I love how Branagh gets Shelley’s critique of the male ego and the attempt to dominate nature/God. To highlight the gendered aspects of the story, he centres Elizabeth in ways she isn’t centred in other takes and I’m not talking about just the end. She is presented as a possible real partner to Victor and it’s when he pushes her away that he is on the wrong path. She refuses to be a prize for men to compete over. The moral of the story is tied to male ideas of ambition and self-destruction.

There was also a surprisingly boring 2015 adaptation named Victor Frankenstein which throws all but the most basic resemblance out for a rather new take which generally disappoints despite featuring a cast including James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe, and even Andrew Scott. Guillermo Del Toro's 2025 adaptation has caused a sensation while being divisive as well. If there is one thing the adaptations appear to have in common is they divide audiences. 

But the character and/or the monster have transcended mere adaptations. In everything from The Munsters to Young Frankenstein, to the Monster Squad, to Frankenweine, the concept and character have become one of the most iconic in pop culture. No doubt there will be many more appearances of the character and adaptations of the story in the future and it is due both the power of the original novel and Whale's beautiful classic film. 

Frankenstein

Starring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles, Boris Karloff, Dwight Frye 

Director: James Whale

Writers: Garrett Fort, Francis Edward Faragoh

Twinless (2025)

Twinless is the sort of film that is best to go with as little information as possible and that makes it a rather difficult movie to discuss with anyone that hasn't seen it. I will say that it's hard to think of a movie that shook me and touched me as much as Twinless in a very long time. Sweeney's intricate, provocative, and rather fearless screenplay and direction take us to places I did not expect. Twinless is the sort of film that will haunt you afterward. Without understanding the context, that makes it seem like a different film than it is. But once you have seen it, Twinless is the sort of film that burrows into your mind in both recognizable and uncomfortable ways, and forces you to sit with it. 

I'll start with O'Brien, who I believe has always shown a strong talent as an actor that is often belied by his handsomeness. Here he truly shines, as a pair of twins. He embodies both beautifully, in complicated ways. He makes neither a stereotype and he gets deep into each (the one perhaps a bit less as the film spends less time on him). 

I will say his performance was one of the most haunting qualities of the film. He is at once both the cliched straight man crush trope that is infused in so much gay culture, and something more deconstructed. O'Brien doesn't allow himself simply to be the desired but unattainable friend that is so problematic in both gay art and in gay culture. He is also seeking something from his relationship with his gay friend that is problematic but relatable. Twinless doesn't allow him to be tokenized or objectified and a big part of that is O'Brien's rich, understated performance that values all parts of Roman, including the less respectable parts. 

But it is the central character of Dennis, played so remarkably by writer/director/actor Sweeney, who truly pushes Twinless into the stratosphere. This is one of the most complicated and challenging and problematic characters I have come across in a film recently. I hated him, loved him, resented him, wanted to hold him and tell him everything was going to be okay. I was deeply uncomfortable with anything I saw in him that reminded me of, well... me. 

He is queer coded in ways that echo the villainous queer coding of Hollywood's golden era, while simultaneously being profoundly honest about real life gay men and the struggles with socialization, relationships, and existing as a queer man in the 21st century. He finds the complicated places of truth in the ways we hate ourselves, the ways our culture hates us, and takes that into places where we might be able to love ourselves, see value in ourselves. I had quite an emotional rollercoaster with Dennis and there were times I didn't want to be on that ride. I found Rocky also interesting to engage with, as there were a lot of convoluted feelings buried in his character too. Sweeney's boldness in his creation and execution of these characters is striking and just emotionally draining. 

Twinless is one of the queerest films I've seen in a while and it reached in, found something raw, and really went with it. I found it cathartic. I wasn't sure it was going to be able to stick the landing as so many films with challenging premises struggle to "wrap up" their stories in satisfying ways, in ways that are intellectually and emotionally honest. With Twinless Sweeney manages to do that in a quietly beautiful way. 

I wanted to immediately watch it again upon its conclusion knowing it would be may be even more moving the second time through. 

Twinless

Starring: Dylan O'Brien, James Sweeney, Lauren Graham, Aisling Franciosi, Chris Perfetti

Writer/Director: James Sweeney 

Eden (2025)

Eden is based on a real life Lord of the Flies like event which occurred early in the 20th century. When differing groups of Europeans, with very different reasons for doing so, attempted to settle on an uninhabited Galapagos Island, this did not go well despite all their high and low ideals. The story is a rather pessimistic examination of our humanity that brings its characters to their knees. I'm just not sure the film does the story enough justice. 

Perhaps director Howard wasn't the right choice for this story. He goes to some dark places I don't remember seeing in his work before, but it always feels like the safety is on, that the story should feel even more unsettling than it does. Eden is about isolation and the inhumanity of desperation. It explores how the rejection of collectivism reduces our humanity and how competition leads to degradation and violence. But Howard always holds back a little. Eden should have been a darker story than it ends up being. 

But what does work is how wonderful the cast is. Armas has some amazing moments and Kirby, Law and Brühl are remarkable. So much of what makes Eden so watchable is the way the cast creates their characters and navigate their relationships together. It ends up being incredibly watchable while touching on discomfort. There is a great scene near the end between Law and Kirby where he ends up pulling her tooth, which is riveting. 

The one weakness in the chain is Sweeney who does a capable job but never feels like she is up to the rest of the ensemble. There were times this pulled me from the story. She doesn't ruin the film but also does not help overcome some of the film's insecurities. 

Overall Eden is a mixed bag. I would not say it is not worth watching. But I couldn't help but think of what a better movie there is to be made out of this story. 

Eden

Starring: Jude Law, Ana de Armas, Vanessa Kirby, Sydney Sweeney, Daniel Brühl, Felix Kammerer, Toby Wallace, Richard Roxburgh 

Director: Ron Howard

Writer: Noah Pink

A House of Dynamite (2025)

A House of Dynamite is an ambitious telling of the events which would happen on a day when a nuclear missile is detected on its way to Chicago. We watch as different players in the chain of command (all the way up to the President) come to the reality of the situation and deal with what is truly impossible. The film's story is constructed in a manner that is extremely disconcerting and disorienting. It is hard not to be shaken by the events and director Bigalow's expert handling of the narrative. 

Bigalow very deftly structures her story so we get different pieces of the story separately, which works well to capture how each of the characters are only working with pieces of the whole picture. Instead of giving the audience the omnipotence of seeing it all play out linearly, she puts us in the position of the different actors trying their best to deal with the most horrifying situation imaginable. And it is only through experiencing the different points of view that we are able to get as much of the picture as possible. 

I loved how she worked into her story little moments of clarity that help to truly centre the story and the stakes. There is a moment when the president asks the Lieutenant Commander next to him if he has a family, he looks out as they drive past soldiers blocking traffic for his motorcade and we realize they all have families. In the moment we are confronted with the humanity of, well everyone, those characters in the background. 

I said the film was ambitious because it takes a big swing. It has an extremely large cast, some of whom have only moments on the screen, but Bigalow finds ways to make this all work and have impact. Sometimes it feels the film could have spent a little more time fleshing out certain moments. Perhaps there is a desire to pump up the urgency of the story so we always feel like the clock is running out. I get that but I felt it might have been a bit richer with some moments explored in more depth. Still it does put you on the edge of your seat and keeps you questioning everything. 

The film takes a bold swing at the end. It's the sort of ending that will make you scream "whaaat??" but after thinking about it I felt it was perhaps the only ending that could have worked here. I was worried they would try to find an easy way out of this mess. I appreciate how they committed to the story. 

A House of Dynamite is the sort of film you have to pay attention to. It's not for "second screen" scrolling. So when you watch it, make time for it, sit with it. And really let it make you ask questions. 

A House of Dynamite

Starring: Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Tracy Letts, Anthony Ramos, Moses Ingram, Jonah Hauer-King, Greta Lee, Jason Clarke, Renée Elise Goldsberry, Kaitlyn Dever, Kyle Allen

Director: Katheryn Bigalow

Writer: Noah Oppenheim

Shelby Oaks (2025)

A mix of Blair Witch Project, Ghost Hunters, and Rosemary's Baby, Shelby Oaks is mostly successful debut from a new writer/director. It stumbles occasionally and doesn't always balance its stylistic choices, but it certainly unnerves and gets under our skin. A test for a horror movie is whether or not its scary and Oaks manages to scare. It gets under the audience's skin and manages to be authentically creepy even if narratively there are some bumps along the way. It makes me excited to see what Stuckmann will do next. 

The film does manage to fall into some cliches occasionally and borrows a lot from what has come before. But it also manages to take those things and work them into a fun spooky story, even if it is rather close to ones we have heard before. 

Stuckmann shows a lot of potential here. He structures the story well, builds in the characters and underlying threads, pulling it all together into a satisfying if somewhat foreseen conclusion. But it does all come together and in the end has an unnerving quality that a film like this needs.

Shelby Oaks

Starring: Camille Sullivan, Sarah Durn, Brendan Sexton III, Michael Beach, Keith David

Writer/Director: Chris Stuckmann

Good Fortune (2025)

Generally I was impressed with Good Fortune’s recognition of the systemic nature of poverty and the way capitalism is designed to benefit some at the expense of most others. The film expressly recognizes this a number of times in both subtle and obvious ways. It is a funny movie filled with funny people and it makes it point. But as I continued to watch it I wondered how it was going to resolve its problem. It needed to either go very dark with its ending or compromise on its message and it chooses the latter. I didn’t feel this ruined the movie but it was a bit of a disappointment after the film does such a good job of highlighting something that most of us understand but don’t want to admit. 

Still Good Fortune is quite funny. Both Reeves and Ansari have an awkwardness to their screen presence which can be off putting at times. Fortunately Rogan and Palmer are both more natural and much of the catharsis and pathos of the movie falls on them. Good Fortune sometimes feels a bit clunky but for its faults it still remains entertaining which is remarkable with how dark its subject truly is. 

Still I wish they had been a bit braver with their ending and didn’t try to find the resolution that “solves” anything. 

Good Fortune

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Seth Rogan, Keke Palmer, Sandra Oh, Aziz Ansari, Stephen McKinley Henderson

Writer/Director: Aziz Ansari

 

Tron: Ares (2025)

If we're being honest, none of the Tron movies are really very good. The plots are often non-sensical and overly simplistic, even bordering on dull, with rather paper thin characters who experience only the most rote development. What makes the Tron films work at all is they are visually incredible, each for their time, and speak to our anxieties and fascinations about the digital world. It is often the video games inspired by the films which are the bigger hits and create the nostalgia. There is a reason why this franchise has never quite taken off and only pops up every decade or so hoping to finally crack the blockbuster code never quite achieving that. 

Tron: Ares is unlikely to change the trajectory for these films but I'm going out on a limb to say I found it more engaging than the earlier films. It doesn't always make much sense either but the plot (while still rote) wasn't quite as (dare I say it) boring. Yes it was still about as predictable as anything Hollywood puts out, and yes the characters remained 2D while the effects around them stole the show. I just wasn't as bored as I have been watching the previous films. 

I know people love to hate on Leto and Ares likely won't change that but for different reasons. The title character is the opposite of a normal Leto role. He is drab and dull and lifeless. You aren't going to care for him or what happens to him at all. Everyone around him is far more interesting (Lee, Turner-Smith, Castro). Peters and Anderson are just there to chew scenery and they prove the understood the assignment. The more I talk about Ares the more I'm talking myself out of liking it. 

But I did sort of enjoy it. Visually it is remarkably gorgeous. I felt Legacy always felt a bit hollow in its beauty but Ares nails it. Rønning structures his set pieces incredibly and captures a kinetic energy that is palpable. I saw this film in Imax 3D and perhaps that influenced by experience because this took advantage of those gimmicks wonderfully. Maybe it wouldn't work as well watching it on a plane on a tablet. Perhaps, like with the other films, the spectacle remains the thing. 

But there was something else. The film got me thinking. This last part requires some mild *spoilers* so stop reading if you are adverse to that. The film ends with Ares, an AI character, escaping into the physical world and making his life there. He quite offhandly references Quorra (Olivia Wilde's character from Legacy) and it got me thinking about how we are so used to having AI presented as a threat in film. The AI gets so intelligent it tries to attack us as it sees us as the threat (the premise of Terminator). Here the opposite is presented. The AI is told to follow its programming (which will hurt people) and it rebels from that directive. There are interesting ideas here. Are they presented in the most engaging manner? Likely not. But there is something to chew on. 

So I didn't hate Tron: Ares (a film which does not feature the character Tron) but rec
ommend it mostly if you can see it on a big screen, in 3D. 

Tron: Ares

Starring: Jared Leto, Greta Lee, Evan Peters, Jodie Turner-Smith, Hasan Minhaj, Arturo Castro, Gillian Anderson, Jeff Bridges 

Director: Joachim Rønning

Writer: Jesse Wigutow

The Woman in Cabin 10 (2025)

I am not familiar with the novel The Woman in Cabin 10 is based on but if the film adaptation is any indication it would be the sort of light, somewhat schlocky book you'd buy at the airport and finish on your flight home, that is if the absurdities of it don't force you to give up. The plot is cliched, the "mystery" is filled with over the top dramatics, and the ending feels too pat and unlikely. If it wasn't for the strong cast the film might be entirely unwatchable. 

Knightly leads a strong team of actors here who hold together the cheesiest of plots. I find her quite engaging, even when struggling with such a weak script. She manages to make it through to the end relatively unscathed but it makes me wish I was watching her in something stronger. 

I with the film had even a small sense of camp. Perhaps that would have saved it and made it a more thrilling watch. But it isn't even able to bring up any self-awareness to its own weaknesses. The Woman in Cabin 10 is an easy one to skip.

The Woman in Cabin 10

Starring: Keira Knightley, Guy Pearce, David Ajala, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Hannah Waddingham, Daniel Ings, Lisa Loven Kongsli

Director: Simon Stone

Writers: Joe Shrapnel, Anna Waterhouse, Simon Stone 

Roofman (2025)

Roofman is the sort of Hollywood true story where all the rough edges are rounded off and hits all the emotional beats (comedy, romance, a little bit a crime, some tears). It is elevated by the fact that it has a stacked cast of great actors (look at this troupe!) who really give it there all. It gives Tatum a chance to really shine and show off all his talents (he's great at the comedy, also shows some real acting chops, and he runs around naked a bit). In the end it's a good watch. 

This is the sort of "true story" that if it didn't actually happen it likely would have been too outlandish to believe. The film never quite wrestles with all the implications of its protagonists' actions but it doesn't give him an entire pass either. It sits in a bit of a safe middle ground, showing him empathy and endowing him with a large amount of likability while also confirming he is being held accountable. The script clearly is attempting to make a very watchable and enjoyable film and it does that. 

I do believe most what makes Roofman work is its cast. Besides Tatum in a show-stopping role, everyone from Dunst and Dinkladge to the smaller roles is doing bang up work here and it is truly enjoyable to watch them. It's hard not to get sucked into this story for a couple of hours. 

Roofman

Starring: Channing Tatum, Kirsten Dunst, Ben Mendelsohn, Uzu Aduba, LaKeith Stanfield, Juno Temple, Peter Dinklage, Jimmy O. Yang, Lilly Collias, Tony Revolori, Emory Cohen

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Writers: Kirt Gunn, Derek Cianfrance

Good Boy (2025)

It is great when a horror movie can be genuinely unnerving and creepy (so few are) and there is a tone to Good Boy that achieves this. Perhaps it is the film's central conceit that pulls it off. We see the story through the dog's point of view and in doing so we're missing large pieces of information and experiencing events more viscerally. Therefore it becomes less of a gimmick and more of a successful means of telling what turns out to be a rather tragic story. 

Shot over years using the film maker's actual dog in little bits and pieces, Good Boy is a simple yet powerful story that hits home. It is a story of loss with a lot of what-goes-bump-in-the-night style old fashioned scary story. It all works so well. 

At the centre of this is the film's star Indy, who has such wonderful screen presence and is a delight to see carry his own movie. Good Boy manages to give us the chills while also touching our heart strings. It is a good example of how horror can truly speak to the human condition, and perhaps the canine as well. 

Good Boy

Starring: Indy

Director: Ben Leonberg

Writers: Alex Cannon, Ben Leonberg