Sundance 2025 shows off its wild and predictable sides with genre gambles and straightforward indies
Our third Sundance 2025 dispatch ranges from the familiar dramedy of Love, Brooklyn to the oddball non-doc Zodiac Killer Project.
Photo: Sundance
The two opposing poles of the Sundance Film Festival are always the overly familiar and the cloyingly offbeat. Too many films fall at the extremes of either side, yet those in the middle are easily written off as “Sundance films” that cram buzzwords together into their own uniquely twee packaging. But even these movies have something to offer as a filmgoer, if only to understand the undercurrent of modern indie (or indie-adjacent, at least) filmmaking. This is the shape of a movie that sells, and this is how up-and-coming directors put their own stamp on it. Sundance 2025 has its own selections that fall into these categories—the predictable and the wacky—with a few films on each end of the spectrum still managing to make their mark.
But first, there’s Love, Brooklyn (C), a well-acted but slight “guy needs to grow up” romance between André Holland’s Roger, his ex (Nicole Beharie), and his new flame (DeWanda Wise). Though helmed by accomplished TV director Rachael Holder in her feature debut, the film’s light drama and breezy New York cinematography zips by like Roger on his bike, leaving little impression after the credits roll.
Though the city and its apartments look nice in a confined way—think High Maintenance or Girls—there’s not a lot of sexual chemistry or comic zing pulling Roger along his arc. This life is realistic, quiet, and more than a little dull. Part of this is due to Roger having very little character of his own, while the more fleshed-out women split screentime. Beharie and Wise are excellent at carving out small details of a dynamic that’s more complex that it seems on the surface, but in a larger narrative sense, everyone’s making the most out of a thin script. Drilling down into the details which, among other too-cute subplots, gives Roger a half-hearted freelance writing assignment about his changing city (and a painful piece of ending voiceover reading from this essay), does the film no favors. It ends up like every other three-person romantic dramedy ends up, but at least Love, Brooklyn boasts competent players going through its motions.
More intriguing are two documentaries that find unexpected power in their newsy subject matter. Heightened Scrutiny (B) makes a well-argued case, but not exactly against the topic that ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio is fighting in the Supreme Court. As Strangio prepares to be the first trans lawyer to argue in front of the land’s highest court in United States v. Skrmetti, which assesses the legality of bans on gender-affirming healthcare for trans minors, Sam Feder’s intimate film spreads out its purview to better understand how the nation took a hard turn against trans people.
With plenty of moving testimonials and charming talking heads, Heightened Scrutiny draws damning lines between the “just asking questions” opinion pieces published in respected mainstream media publications like The Atlantic and the New York Times and the legal arguments made in our judicial system. The damaging rhetoric in these outlets is directly and immediately echoed by lawyers, judges, and “experts” brought into court—and because of how clicky transphobic stories have historically been, this vicious cycle has recently ramped up. Add in the targeted bigotry of the increasingly radical right, and the legal, cultural, and medical fight for acceptance now waged by trans folks has gotten all the tougher as public awareness has grown. Strangio, charming and dedicated in equal measure, carries us through the rest of the film, even as it loses steam after setting its stage so searingly.
Middletown (B) actually ramps up considerably after establishing its “high school A/V club journalists uncover a Dark Waters situation” premise. Sundance regulars Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine (Girls State, Boys State) take on this extremely ‘90s investigation into an environment-poisoning dumping scandal using a massive backlog of archival footage (teacher Fred Isseks’ kids recorded everything they did, even making an hour-long film called Garbage, Gangsters And Greed) and modern-day interviews.
As endearing as these high schoolers are, with their gelled hair and big jeans and sailor’s mouths and New Yawka accents, the case is even more compelling. As the problem they’ve encountered just gets bigger and bigger, involving local government officials and trash companies and (yep) the mob, their dogged investigation is inspirational. Even if their actions were raging against a machine too powerful to be moved (and even if Middletown gets a little bogged down in all the threads of the scandal), the pride felt by those who returned for an interview is deeply affecting. A compelling piece of straightforward true-crime that makes the most of its throwback form.
A far less straightforward doc that explicitly makes its form part of its subject matter is Zodiac Killer Project (C), which is a self-reflexive exercise in turning lemons into lemonade. Filmmaker Charlie Shackleton almost made a true-crime Zodiac Killer film perfect for half-aware consumption on your streamer of choice. But that film fell through at the last minute, his main source revoking the book rights and leaving Shackleton high and dry. So, instead, he made a film about what that film would’ve been—as cynical about the subgenre and snide about its standard-issue aesthetic as one would expect from someone recently burned by that world.
Zodiac Killer Project isn’t getting Netflix money. It’s no Tiger King or Don’t F**k With Cats. It’s a meta project, critiquing the template of this easy-to-digest fad through Shackleton’s constant narration over the anonymous B-roll and stock footage that make up these kinds of docs. For those who haven’t really thought about the filmmaking behind the glut of true-crime clogging up the streamer carousels, there are some revelatory moments of media criticism in here. But for those more aware of how the sausage is made, it’s simply a light and dry bit of jabbing at a dominant kind of media. If you’re already at your true-crime limit, though, this experimental not-making-of can be more demoralizing than anything else.