Crazy Old Lady a.k.a Vieja Loca (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A man is asked by his ex-girlfriend to care temporarily for her senile mother, Alicia. But Alicia won’t let him leave,

Okay, this is the second film I’ve reviewed in a row which starts with a male character running over a dog. I hope the next film I watch, “Man Runs Over Dog At The Start Of The Movie”, doesn’t start the same way. It’s not even a genre trope as the films have been two different genres. Not localised either, as from two different countries, continents, in fact.

Crazy Old Lady (COL) is a strange watch. For one, it doesn’t open like a horror movie. I love that. It means that people react believably, as real-life people, as opposed to characters in a horror movie. It contextualises actions and behaviours. As it goes on, it does become a more traditional horror movie, but that’s excused because it takes place at night, so of course it’s going to be dark. Otherwise, it is shot in a pretty standard way; there are no shaky-cam jump scares or weird walking towards the camera.

The downside to the traditional horror nature (when it becomes one), it’s sooooo dark. Not tonally (okay, slightly yes tonally), but visually. It makes it difficult to actually see anything. I don’t need to see clearly enough to make out the book titles in the background (I wouldn’t be able to read them anyway, what with them likely being in Spanish), but it would be good to be able to see characters facial expressions, or know where they are in relation to each other, rather than straining to work it out through the shadows.

Alicia is an interesting villain. You get the idea that she’s always been a little of a sociopathic monster; the things she says certainly allude to a past that’s darker than this movie’s visuals. There is always the question about whether her memory is accurate, though. So how much of her actions are due solely to her senility, and how much of it is just her senility leaving her unable to mask her true nature? It’s an interesting question which will leave audiences with their own opinions. The other interesting part is that it’s difficult to see how you personally would escape. Yes, she’s an old woman, so you could just punch her in the face. But she’s also an old woman suffering from senility, so it would be a bit weird to just punch her in the face without it feeling a bit weird. And even if you did, there’s not a Facebook group around that wouldn’t crucify you. The other nice thing about the villain is she’s so out of her mind with random non-sequiturs, blatant falsehoods, and overly sexual creepiness that I feel I don’t need to watch the Melania documentary now.

I respect Crazy Old Lady for having a sexual assault scene as skillfully done as it is, and for having a female-on-male one, which is very rare. The last one I remember is the first Black Christmas remake. This is certainly the first time I’ve seen it where it’s not a villain origin story, so kudos for that. Surprisingly, that’s not the most shocking moment. When Alicia stabs her daughter, it genuinely stuns you despite you somehow knowing it’s coming. It feels like she should have some sort of familial defence clause. “Yes, she’s stabbing this random man, but surely she’d recognise her daughter, and that will bring her back to normality?” Nope.

The performances are fine. Carmen Maura definitely gives a stronger performance. Daniel Hendler occasionally veers into comedic territory with how he portrays fear. It would have been nice to see footage of Alicia when she was a bit younger, maybe in family videos of BBQ’s and Christmases, etc., just to get a taste of what her actual personality is like.

Now for the negative. The ending feels lethargic. There’s a definite sense of “is that it?” It looks like it is intending to end with her getting deliberately hit by a train because she realises what she’s done. Nope, she just walks away as a train rolls nearby, leaving her Granddaughter alone in an unlocked car at night. It’s incredibly anticlimactic. It’s possibly the only moment where the fact it doesn’t feel like a horror movie lets it be down. Because it’s shot and feels like a drama, there’s no tension or fear in that scene. You don’t have that “is she going to now kill a child?” worry. It’s just, I dunno, nothing. It’s as if a rollercoaster ended with a slow, gradual descent into an empty room.

“Crazy Old Lady” is currently available for streaming on Shudder

They Will Kill You (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Asia Reaves (Zazie Beetz) infiltrates a high-rise building in New York in an attempt to find her sister.

As anybody who has played The Executive – Movie Industry Tycoon can attest, release dates can drastically affect how a movie is received. Some are simple: don’t release Christmas movies in April, for example. But some are more unpredictable: can you imagine how badly an anti-military film would have been received after opening weekend if it were released on September 7, 2001? It’s not quite that unlucky, but my view of They Will Kill You (TWKY, pronounced Twick-ey) has certainly been negatively affected by its release date. 7 days. That’s the difference; if I had watched it 7 days earlier, I’d have liked it more. So what happened in those 7 days? Did I also get a job in a shady building to save my sister, only to find out that the building is full of immortal satanists that pray to a pig’s head? No, nothing like that (the ones I had to kill prayed to a hippo). What happened was I watched Ready Or Not 2. In some ways, there are no similarities at all. This doesn’t involve a game of hide and seek, the villains don’t rule the world, and the racial component of TWKY does add another layer to the satire. But there are spiritual similarities.

When you compare the two, TWKY is found lacking. The characters aren’t as compelling, the satire isn’t as sharp, and it doesn’t look anywhere near as good. The action sequences are fun, with some great fight scenes. But it’s when people get hurt that it doesn’t impress. Limbs are sliced off far too easily; there’s almost no impact to dismemberments and decapitations. It all feels a bit too rubbery for my taste. It’s not helped by not having any memorable music, so the scenes aren’t quite as good as they should be: to be perfectly honest, some of them feel unfinished.

I don’t think it realises how good some of the ideas it introduces are. A character says that each floor is tailored to a different vice, then only shows us two floors. It doesn’t even do the most with the floors it gives us. I remember Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, which had a fantastic action scene that incorporated sex toys; despite having a floor based around sex, this doesn’t attempt anything similar. It also seems to waste the emotional potential of that being the floor where Asia finds her younger sister. I don’t think every female character in fiction has to have sexual assault as a backstory, but if you find a young woman working on a floor dedicated to sex, that question does have to be asked. But again, think of all the fun they could have had with Asia working through multiple floors all dedicated to different vices: her fighting a group of drugged up psychopaths, against people who are much larger than they should be because they spend their entire days eating. To be honest, with the satanic themes, it could have been very unsubtle and have floor be a deadly sin. I’m not sure how you could have action scenes based on Envy, maybe a hall of mirrors, or people focused on destroying the face? I dunno.

It’s a shame, as this could have been great. It’s really just a mix of bad timing in terms of release date, and too low a budget (or a director who doesn’t know how to utilise the budget). On its own, it is pretty fun. Asia is a great character. It’s nice to see Paterson Joseph on the big screen. It is odd that Tom Felton is in a film based around satanists sacrificing people, and it’s still not the most evil franchise he’s been involved in. There’s not a single weak link in the case, and the characters they portray all make sense and are entertaining.

In summary: a solid 6.5/10, that had the misfortune to follow an 8. The scene where Asia sets an axe on fire and attacks a room full of people in the dark is fantastic, and if it kept that energy and invention up, it would have been a 9/10.

Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: After surviving a deadly game of hide-and-seek, Grace is forced into a repeat, this time with her sister.

Sadly, I missed out on the first movie. Not because I didn’t want to see it, but because every year, no matter how many films I watch, I always get a bit burnt out in Autumn, so I end up missing stuff I otherwise would have seen. I am aware of what happened in the first film due to watching the trailer and the Kill Count. Truth be told, I’m not sure you NEED to have seen the first one for this to make sense: it does a pretty good job of catching you up on the essentials, and the stuff it doesn’t tell you is stuff you can figure out yourself. I’m sure there is stuff that I missed or didn’t appreciate fully because I hadn’t seen the first one, but I was never lost, and that’s what you want from a sequel.

But how is it as a film? I loved it. Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come (RON2: HIC, pronounced Ron-two-hick) is ridiculous, but it leans into it so you never sit there thinking “well that’s not realistic”. It’s also much more fun than mass death should be. Everybody is clearly having a blast. Samara Weaving is quickly becoming an icon of modern horror, and she’s joined by someone else who is gaining a similar reputation: Kathryn Newton. The two work well together, but it would be nice if their characters had a few more differences in their personalities. They’re joined by Sarah Michelle Gellar, who seems more comfortable lately going back to horror, and she’s always welcome, especially when she’s chewing the scenery as gleefully as she is here. The weirdest casting choice is David Cronenberg: he’s known for directing incredibly bleak fare like Maps To The Stars, Scanners, and Eastern Promises. So it’s strange he’d be in something as fun as this.

Cronenberg has stated in the past that he views all art as inherently political, and it’s easy to see RON2: HIC as political, it’s not even subtle about it: a group of rich people control the world and kill poor people to increase their power? Too believable. It’s notable that the rich dickheads are forbidden from killing each other, only targeting unwitting players in their game. They’re all deeply unlikeable, but on the bright side, they suffer. The deaths and injuries are brutal. Much like Jaws made people afraid of going in the water, Psycho made people afraid of showers, and 2024’s The Crow made people afraid of watching movies, RON2: HIC could keep you afraid of washing machines: at least that’s what I’m using as an excuse anyway.

It’s not just the deaths; the fights are great too. A lot of films lately are using Bonnie Tyler songs to score action sequences, to the point where it’s almost becoming a cliche. As someone who has openly declared how much he wants to see a car cash set to Total Eclipse Of The Heart, it’s a cliche I very much welcome. The other thing that’s notable about that particular scene is that both characters are blinded for a large portion of it. I love how this film does things like that, adding creative twists to scenes that render them different from what we’ve seen before.

Now for the negative: the split between the two sisters feels fake. The longer the film goes on, the less their relationship feels real. Their relationship with each other isn’t consistent; if it were The Sims, then their relationship meter would be going from 20 to 70 and back again on a whim.

That’s a minor complaint. RON2: HIC is a highly enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. It’s funny, fun, with a great soundtrack. It also features one of my favourite endings in a long time for pure batshit insanity. It could have slightly more memorable needle drops, and it does feel a bit more like the second in a trilogy rather than a finished narrative.

Final note: this will sound weird, but Samara Weaving and Kathryn Newton suit the blood-soaked look.

The Bride! (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Frankenstein is fed up with being lonely, so he asks a doctor to give him a bride. A corpse that just so happens to be possessed by Mary Shelley is chosen.

I’m writing this review less than a week removed from Jessie Buckley winning best actress at the Academy Awards for her performance in Hamnet. Personally, I didn’t love that film as much as everybody else seemed to, but I’m glad to see she won because she’s one of my favourite performers at the moment. Her performance as the titular character in this is one of the highlights. Her manic energy is exhilarating and makes you want to see her let loose in films a bit more, rather than being restrained to emotional and high-art pieces; give her the villain role in a slasher movie, and she’ll kill it. Without her in this movie, it would be a lot worse, and that’s saying something.

I should have liked The Bride. I want to look at it and see something lovingly crafted, feminist as fuck, and batshit insane. It is all of those things, but it’s also messy. Not in a “blood and guts everywhere” way, In a “this needs to be better” way. It’s telling that the film it most reminds me of is Joker: Folie A Deux. But whilst that felt like a musical that didn’t want to be a musical, this feels like a film that wants to be a musical but isn’t. It’s horrifically anachronistic, and it feels deliberately so. A film set in 1930’s Chicago that features references to astronauts, and a club that plays modern techno music support the theory that it’s deliberate, but it’s also incredibly annoying as a viewer to have the story break like that in completely inconsequential ways. It would be like if the Starbucks cup in Game Of Thrones was a deliberate choice.

Let’s be honest, though, a lot of the film is inconsequential. The Bride inspires a feminist uprising, where women across the country mimic her style in a show of defiance. Guess how that plays into the plot? The women torture a mobster during the closing credits, or to put it another way, it doesn’t tie into the plot in an important way. It should have. How can you have a Frankenstein movie that involves an angry mob and NOT have a “villagers storming the castle by torchlight” scene? It should have been a big part. Frank and The Bride should have had an argument which led to her leading the group to his home. Maybe not that, but something. The Bride leading a group of women would be an incredibly powerful scene to witness, but we don’t get it.

The Bride! has so many good ideas contained within: the allusions to Old Hollywood, the isolation that the monster feels, a wronged woman seeking revenge against an uncaring society. All of them are perfect ideas for a story like this, yet it tries to do all three and has no idea how to connect the differing threads. So it doesn’t bother to try; instead, it just has the two characters lurch (lol, Addams Family reference) from one scene to the next like two characters in a video game.

The characters don’t even feel consistent. We’re never given a reason for The Bride to like Frank. At one point, she even decries the name Bride of Frankenstein, saying she just wants to be known as The Bride. She is her own person, she is independent, and she doesn’t need to be tied to a man for happiness and fulfilment. Then, a few minutes later, they’re portrayed as soulmates who will spend eternity together. No matter how cool the moments are on their own, there’s no cohesion between them.

Before seeing this, I had one of my friends tell me she thought it was “the worst film of the 2020’s”. Personally, I feel that that’s War Of The Worlds erasure. It’s not quite the worst film of the decade, it’s not even the worst of the year, but it’s probably the biggest gap between potential and result that I’ve seen in a long time. Like I said, it has some great moments, and the story being told is interesting, but it doesn’t make for a good final product. Ultimately, it’s like a really drunk person retelling Paddington 2 who keeps getting distracted by the football results: you can tell there’s a good story underneath the bullshit, but you don’t have a shovel big enough, and all you want to do is tell them to focus the fuck up.

The Good Boy (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A couple try to rehabilitate a teenage criminal, by kidnapping him.

Thoughts Going In/Expectations: None. I didn’t even know this film existed, and considering it was a secret screening I had no idea what type of film it was until at least 5 minutes in.

This could have been terrible. It could have ended up being overly Guardian Newspaper, either going “we just need to teach those ruffians good manners” or “these louts are too low class to fit in. They should be killed”, both of which would have been extremely annoying. In the end, the most annoying part of this movie is the title: released as “Heel” in some locations, “Good Boy” in others, and even more confusingly, being called “The Good Boy” in some publications. I’m just gonna go with “The Good Boy” as it sounds more like a title than Heels, and I already have a film called Good Boy from 2025 reviewed in the archives.

So that’s an entire paragraph about the title, how about the film itself? It’s fine. I don’t regret watching it, but I won’t rush out to see it again. It’s narratively and thematically ambitious. Stephen Graham continues to give a performance that isn’t Oscar-worthy, but you can easily imagine being used as justification for a studio casting him in something that would win him one. Andrea Riseborough is up there with Sally Hawkins as one of the most consistent British performers around. Fun fact, this isn’t the first time the two have played a married couple; appearing together in the film adaptation of the Matilda musical, which I haven’t seen, but I’m guessing is tonally very different from The Good Boy (TGB, pronounced Ta-goob). Without those two performers, TGB would be terrible. It’s anchored by those two, with both giving just enough layers to their performance to make the characters believable.

As I alluded to earlier, I had no idea what kind of film this would be when I sat down to watch it. The opening scene depicts Tommy. Tommy is a dickhead. He starts fights, pisses at bus stops, and is generally the kind of person everybody hates to see walk into a pub. I was concerned he was our lead, and we were going to spend the film watching his everyday life; I was not looking forward to it. I detested this guy, but it turns out that’s what the film wanted us to think: so that when he’s knocked out and chained in a basement, our first thoughts aren’t “oh, that’s terrible”, they’re “oh, he probably deserves this, it’s probably due to something he’s done in the past”. Those thoughts are fleeting because obviously they’re terrible things to think. But they are there, and the film wants those thoughts there. It wants us to be morally conflicted. We have a couple who have kidnapped someone, keeping them locked in their basement, and beating them whenever they feel he gets out of line. That’s all shitty, obviously. But the audience isn’t completely repulsed by them. It’s an incredibly fascinating, morally complex piece of viewing.

Until the closing section. The film hints at a disturbing past for the characters: a past which shapes their motivations. It feels like it’s building up to a revelation, something big that will recontextualise everything we’ve seen: constant mentions of someone called Charlie who used to live there. We see Tommy bullying a child, maybe that child was Charlie and he ended up killing himself. Maybe Tommy drunkenly caused a car accident that killed him. Maybe Charlie took a wrong turn and ended up overdosing, so the couple try to stop others walking that path. Or maybe he wasn’t even their child, but was another hostage who they’ve failed so is now dead to them. But subtle hints towards the past are all we get, and it’s too vague to be satisfying.

That’s not the other way TGB runs out of steam: the Macedonian housekeeper is dispatched with all the narrative efficiency of an Evri parcel. You could excise her subplot completely and it wouldn’t matter that much. The only impact she has is when she’s attacked at the end and Tommy stands up for her. That’s it. Might it have made more sense if it was one of Tommy’s friends, and the moment functioned as a clear divide between his past life and his future?

In summary, a feature film is possibly not the best way to tell this story. A book would have worked; each chapter from the POV of a different member of the household. A play would be intriguing, it already has a limited number of locations so would be easy to do. Even better: an episode of a TV show. Specifically, an episode of Inside Number 9. It does occasionally feel like an extended episode of that show, for better and worse.

TGB is one of the most fascinating and interesting films of the year, and if it sorted out the final 10 minutes it would have stayed as such.

Scream 7 (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a new Ghostface killer emerges in the quiet town where Sidney has built a new life, her darkest fears are realised as her daughter becomes the next target.

Thoughts going in: I’m assuming Stu will be back. Curious how this will work, though.

Scream is an anomaly among horror franchises. For one, it’s protagonist-centred. Most horror movies are focused on the villain, whereas Scream has always been about Sidney Prescott (except for the sixth one, but even that featured characters we’d met before, some from the first movie). It has also remained relatively well-received. By this point, Friday the 13th had reached lows twice (the third and fifth movie), Saw had basically imploded, Child’s Play had gone past Seed, and Halloween had suffered The Curse Of Michael Myers. The low point for this franchise has been the third, and even that has its defenders. Personally, I think the sixth was the lowest because of the lack of Sidney and the unremarkable killers.

Sadly, Scream VII has more in common with the sixth than the others. Characters who should be here are missing due to studio bullshit (Neve Campbell for 6 because she knows her worth, Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega from this one due to the studio being anti-Palestine and pro killing children), characters survive what should kill them, and most of all, most annoyingly, incredibly weak killer reveals. Much like the sixth one, the reveal of the killers negated most of the goodwill the rest of the movie built up. It reminds me of Sherlock, the Benedict Cumberbatch TV series. The second series ended with Sherlock faking his death; to say fans were excited to see how it was done would be an understatement. The internet was full of fan theories and suggestions. Everyone was eagerly looking forward to the first episode of the third series, explaining it. Then the third series started, and the explanation was………not there. I think it’s fair to say that enthusiasm for the series has cooled down significantly, and it’s hard to think that the way the show handled this wasn’t a small part of it. That’s what Steven Moffat did, though; he would do tremendous setups, but they were only tremendous because the audience had a belief that things would pay off, but the resolutions were never satisfying.

For two-thirds of Scream 7, I was into it. Every time I thought I had the answers, they changed the questions. I was enthralled, making mental notes of everything that could be a clue or foreshadowing. Sure, there was a guy who worked at the hospital who was weird, but surely he is too obvious and is placed there as a red herring? I had faith that it would wrap together in a neat little package.

Did it fuck. The red herring turned out to not be one; it wasn’t a subversion, it was just bad writing. The other killer isn’t much better, being someone we’ve barely spent any time with. It’s like the script spent so long saying “this person isn’t the killer” that it forgot to write for the people who turn out to be the killers. I’d estimate that before the reveal, the killers have a total of 5 minutes of screen time, and even that feels generous.

Like I said, it’s a shame the reveal is so shit, because if it nailed that, then this would be among the best. I do appreciate that they turned Neve Campbell’s absence from the sixth one into a plot point/motivation. The kills are sadistic and brutal as hell. There’s no art to these deaths, just pure sadism and cruelty. Sidney’s daughter being named Tatum (after her friend in the first movie) is incredibly sweet. Gale’s entrance is pure brilliance. And the way the final killer is disposed of will make you feel like cheering.

Really, it’s all about the next step. If Scream 8 is a misfire, then seven will be seen as the place where the rot is solidified; if it’s an improvement, it will be seen as a set-up. It’s hard to see where they can go from here, though. Rumours have been circulating for years that Stu is still alive, which is why it was somewhat believable that he was the killer here. But now that the franchise itself has addressed that possibility, it makes it VERY hard for it to be true in the next film without it coming off as weak. I’d say they’re cut off from “person from an earlier movie who we thought was dead is now the killer” reveals for at least 2 movies now. Maybe by the time the next one comes out, the whole cast will be there, and it won’t feel like something is missing. It is hard to see where the next one will go, because when Scream has been successful, it’s been when it’s been satirising current horror tropes and trends. I’d like to see the Stab franchise matter again, maybe in-universe it can be rebooted, and the next film looks at that, mixed with overly gimmicky horror films. Essentially, the Scream series needs to remember to be ABOUT horror tropes, not be full of them. This series is at its best when it’s treating the horror genre as the set text that the audience is to study. Scream 7 treats its own franchise as the text instead. It’s not about horror movies, it’s about the Scream movies, and nothing more.

How To Make A Killing (2026) Review

Quick synopsis: Disowned by his obscenely wealthy family, Becket Redfellow will stop at nothing to reclaim his inheritance, no matter how many relatives stand in his way.

Thoughts going in: Should be fun. Very Plaza-esque mixed with dynamic scenes.

I have a list of all the films I expect to watch at the cinema this year. Looking at the list for 2026, there’s not many that I feel excited about. It may seem a bit pessimistic, but I doubt that I will see a film this year that I’ll list in my top 100. There are still films which I’m looking forward to in a “that should be a solid 7/10” way. One of those was How To Make A Killing (HTMAK, pronounced Hah-two-mack). The trailers made it seem like a comedy darker than a nightime walk in the woods whilst blindfolded, and just as fun. Alas, it does not match those expectations.

It’s not helped by an indecisive view on how to view its characters. The film is uncertain whether we should hate the rich family members or crave their lifestyle. For a film like HTMAK to work you need to do one of two things: either lean into the moral ambiguity, or make the victims so despicable that we want to see them dead. At most, the victims are entitled rich pricks. nothing worse. Not pleasant people, not people you’d want to spend any time with, but not people who are reprehensible enough that you cheer their deaths. So really the film is just someone who feels entitled to wealth because of his birth, killing people who have a lot of wealth because of their birth. There could have been something done with that: the film could have played with the idea that he’s just as bad as the people he’s killing.

Those issues could have been ignored if the film was pacier, then your brain wouldn’t have the time to think about it as you’d be too distracted. John Patton Ford can direct, but his style doesn’t quite work for this. Personally, I think he should have taken The Running Man, he could have added a lot of the original novel’s satire and dark humour to the mix, and Edgar Wright should have taken this. He would have been able to add the one thing missing from this: energy, it’s incredibly sedate to the point of almost being dull.

The performances are fine, but there’s something about Glen Powell that makes it difficult to buy into him as this character. Margaret Qualley is perfectly cast as a sociopathic femme fatale. My personal favourite performer is Jessica Henwick, whom I last saw in Glass Onion. She plays a semi-similar character here; a grounded and likeable character surrounded by rich assholes. Her relationship with Beckett is very sweet, but it does happen a bit too quickly, and we’re not given a reason why she’d be into Zach Woods character in the first place.

Truth be told, most of the background characters could do with fleshing out. Most of the family members are introduced just before they’re killed; their entire existence is to be victims. I feel it may have been better to see them all at the start of the film, see how they react to their family members being killed, scenes where one of them worries they’re being murdered, but the fears are dismissed as paranoia (maybe because they smoke weed, IDK). That way, we’ll be given a reason to feel something for these characters, even if it is hatred. It would also allow us to see the family dynamics more. Think of Knives Out, how the family interplay was key to that film working. Imagine if that film was Benoit investigating them one by one, and the family never interact with each other onscreen. The other advantage of having the whole family shown throughout is it would stop the film coming off as episodic or like a video game where he’s slowly going through each level in no particular order (side note: it’s weird he never even considers killing more than one at a time at a family gathering, such as a funeral).

This has all seemed very negative, I know. HTMAK does have moments where it’s brilliant. The deaths themselves are fun, especially the death of Cassandra. It subverts expectations immediately by telling us he’s on death row. I hated the ending; it felt mean-spirited and not true to the character. And then it continued, and we heard his justification to himself. That saved it. I’ve never seen a voiceover save an ending as much as it does here. It turns it from a terrible ending to one that’s bittersweet and borderline poetic.

In summary, I don’t regret seeing this. It is fun at times, and it’s worth a watch. But it’s nowhere near essential or highly recommended. It’s “leave on if you’re in a hotel room switching channels” quality. As Alise Chaffins said here: “it struggles to figure out what kind of movie it wants to be, ultimately leaving it rather forgettable, if momentarily entertaining.”. It’s stylish, no doubt about that, but ultimately rather hollow.

Cold Storage (2026) Review

Quick synopsis: Two employees of a self-storage facility have to deal with an escaping parasitic fungus. Shit gets wild.

Thoughts going in: I get the feeling Liam Neeson is going to die very early on. This was incorrect, by the way.

You don’t get enough films like Cold Storage. Films which are dumb fun without being stupid. Yes, there is a difference. Dumb means its just fun, not intended to have a deeper meaning or be too interested in plot twists and wrongfooting the audience. Stupid is when characters change personalities based solely on what the story needs; there’s no consistency in villain weakness, or everything is just too convenient. Cold storage is firmly in the “fun” category. It does occasionally get close to stupid, but the general tone allows it to do things I’d insult other films for.

The best example comes in the opening scene. There’s a character called Dr Hero. Most films, I’d insult that, but for this, it kind of works. The tone is so tongue-in-cheek you can swear it’s searching for an ulcer. It’s helped by the music. Lots of high-tempo songs to get the blood pumping, from Blondie, all the way through to a cover of Don’t Fear The Reaper. The performances are good too. Obviously, Liam Neeson, Vanessa Redgrave, and Leslie Manville are good performers; that’s not a shock to anybody. It’s been said before, but Neeson is great at comedy. Leslie Manville has done comedy before, but it’s usually been sitcoms or farce; this is a completely different ballgame, and she nails it. Georgina Campbell is the best performer throughout, but she is responsible for the worst line delivery of the movie. When she realises Neeson’s character set off the bomb before handing it to them, her “he set the bomb off” delivery sounds flatter than a freshly ironed shirt. It brings to mind someone saying, “My landlord, and my plumber are both here. And I don’t have the money to pay them”, in a low-budget porn. I get the feeling it was ADR’d, it certainly sounds like it, and it’s a weird blemish on an otherwise sensational performance.

I also wasn’t happy with the way this movie ended. What’s worse is I could sense it coming. I knew we’d get the “there’s still an infected creature out there” opening, and I knew it would end up with something either jumping at the screen, or exploding, or something similar, where it’s a split-second THING before credits. It’s a trend in modern horror movies, and I hate it. You wouldn’t write an atmospheric horror novel, have an incredibly well-crafted conclusion, then have the final line be “Emily sat down in peace, drifting into a peaceful slumber. AND THEN A SHREK ATE HER!” It would ruin the atmosphere, destroy the story you were telling, and get you sued by DreamWorks.

Those are minor complaints, though. Cold Storage is one of the most outright fun films of the year. It’s incredibly funny at times, a lot slicker than its budget would suggest, and has a script full of likeable and believable characters. It reminds me of Shaun Of The Dead, mixed with slight Kingsman energy. It’s only Johnny Campbell’s second film as a director, his first being Alien Autopsy. He’s most known for his TV work, directing two episodes of Doctor Who that could not be more different from each other: The Vampires Of Venice, and whatever the Van Gogh one was called. This has more in common with the vampire episode than it does the Van Gogh one, with emphasis on scares (with a small “S”) and shlock than emotion. That’s for the best, as emotion has no place in a film like this. If anything, it would just slow things down.

Which brings me onto the pacing. Cold Storage is efficient as hell; setting up the fungus very quickly. The opening scene could be a short film on its own. Fun fact: the part about a parasite that takes over an animals brain and makes it climb high so that the parasite can be released over a wider area? That’s accurate, and is why I’m deeply suspicious of mountain climbers. It feels longer than 99 minutes, but that’s only because of how much it gets done in such a short space of time. It juggles so many characters, so even characters with only a few minutes screentime have clear motivations and character arcs.

I won’t say this is among the best films of 2026, but it is one of the least flawed. Yes, it never reaches greatness, but it also doesn’t make too many mistakes. In the buffet of cinema, this is a lasagne. Not going to be the best meal you’ve eaten, but you’ll enjoy it more than you would most.

Whistle (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Terror strikes when a group of misfit high-school students discovers an ancient death whistle.

Thoughts going in: Saw this the same day I watched Cold Storage, and Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die. I knew this would be the one I enjoyed least.

It may not seem like it, but I do genuinely love horror movies. I’m getting that out of the way now, because I did not like this. It had too many moments which annoyed me. The most obvious one was the use of music. Horror movies have a long history of music use, probably more than any other genre as a whole. But it has to be done a certain way. During the early 2000’s, it was standard for horror soundtracks to consist of nu metal tracks, whether it suited it or not. This resulted in a weirdly high number of deaths set to the songs of Ill Nino or Spineshank, which tonally didn’t work as there was no atmosphere. This does something similar; there are at least two deaths which are accompanied by what sounds like the start of a metal/hip hop song. This makes it seem like the deaths are supposed to be “cool”. The songs don’t even lead anywhere, so it’s not as though they build into the next scene where we find characters listening to the song. It also felt weird to have a character who was portrayed as a dark, brooding gothic teen, and have her accompanied by an Olivia Rodrigo track. That’s not a slight against the big O, I love her stuff, but it doesn’t suit the character as much as the movie thinks it does.

It’s a shame that one of the deaths is so badly soundtracked, as that death is otherwise pretty good. The deaths are unique here, with the characters being killed by what would have killed them later. Kind of. Some, the ones which are disease/age-based have the disease rapidly develop, so it is that which still kills them. Then there are some where it just injures the body in the same way; so a car crash victim is thrown into the air by an invisible force. The disease death happens almost instantly, whereas the accident deaths seem to happen in real-time. So there’s a kind of inconsistency which harms the internal logic.

Speaking of logic: a scene in a hospital establishes that a teenager who died was identified by the coroner as being in his late 40s. So the coroner was handed a body of someone who died in mysterious and unexplained circumstances (he burst into flames in the shower), you’ve been told that the deceased was a 17-year-old athlete, yet in your analysis, you discover that the body in front of you actually belongs to a man in his late 40s. Would that not be a big deal? Would that not get reported? At the very least, there’d be a conspiracy theory about it. Yes, you could make the argument that the town covered it up. But if that’s the case, the coroner wouldn’t note the age in his report; he’d list the body as 17. Also, the staff at the school haven’t taken a vow of silence about it, because the teacher has zero idea either, being equally confused at the death whistle.

The way the town reacts is weird: it doesn’t. A star basketball player dies mysteriously, and the school barely acknowledges it. They don’t even clean out his locker. You could say “but the whistle magically transported itself back into his locker”. 1) That’s lazy writing. 2) Why did it wait six months? Why not transport to another locker straight away? 3) Unless it also packed lunch and schoolwork, that’s demonstrably false.

I looked at the user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and saw some which called it “agenda-driven propaganda”. Which made me think I watched the wrong movie. Then I remembered the main character is a gay woman who ends up in a relationship with another girl. It’s weird to hate this film for that, considering there are many other reasons to hate it. Plus, that relationship provided some of the best parts. Dafne Keen and Sophie Nelisse have a naturally sapphic chemistry when they share the screen. It’s badly written, though. They fall in love far too quickly, and it means Chrys seem kind of callous when she appears to be unbothered by the death of her cousin, but completely crushed by the harm potentially coming to a girl she’s known for roughly two days. You can’t deny their chemistry, though, and I’d love to see the two of them work together again in a standard romantic drama/comedy.

Anything else positive? It constantly flirts with good concepts, but then turns away from them. Characters hitting future versions of themselves, which causes physical harm to their current self? Smart. Those same people continuing to fire a gun at future versions of themselves, even after they’re aware of what’s happening? Less smart. Death skipping you if you die, then come back to life? Smart, albeit a rehash of Final Destination. Being able to “pass death” onto someone else if they touch your blood? Also smart (but the way it’s done in this is done in a way that absolves them of responsibility, because you can’t have morally complex characters). Using BOTH of these at the end? Feels like overkill.

In summary, some good ideas, but the script is nowhere near good enough to make the most of those ideas. Also, can we call for an end to horror movies doing the “creepy character crawling unnaturally” thing? It’s overused to the point of annoyance. The image at the top of the screen may make it seem like an 80’s throwback, but this is very much a film of the 2020’s, for better or worse.

2025 Film Awards: Day Five

Most Disappointing

Nominees

Havoc

The Raid is a modern classic, Tom Hardy is one of the top performers around, and who doesn’t love seeing Timothy Olyphant in stuff? I remember being incredibly frustrated in the build-up to this, not with the film itself, but with the lack of information or a concrete release date. I was really looking forward to it, and was desperate for it to be released so I could finally watch what I was sure would be one of my favourite films of the year. It’s not. It’s not outright bad, but it’s incredibly forgettable. There’s nothing about it that stands out.

Love Hurts

Maybe this is my fault for expecting something similar to Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. Not in terms of depth, but in terms of fight scenes. That’s on me. What’s not on me is just how bland this is. What’s worse is that you can tell they’re really trying. That’s less annoying than if nobody cared, but it is more disappointing. You can tell there’s a great movie somewhere in the depths, but it never reaches it.

Matt And Mara

I love romantic comedies, and I love dialogue-heavy low-budget films. Matt and Mara just didn’t work for me, though. I think it’s because I didn’t care about the characters or their relationship. Romantic comedies only work when the audience wants the characters to be together before the characters realise it. Defenders may argue that this isn’t technically a romantic comedy, but that’s clearly the vibes it was going for; one of missed maybes and overlooked opportunities.

Nosferatu

I should have liked this. I like dark and weird. But for whatever reason, this left me cold—not in a “this is too horrific” way but in a “yeah, I don’t actually care anymore” way. The only thing stopping me from spending half the film looking at my watch was that my watch had broken. I would have enjoyed that more.

Saturday Night

I REALLY wanted to like this more than I did. It just felt more like a love letter than an actual story. It was created more for the sake of the creators than it was for the audience. I’m not saying creators need to cater solely to audiences, but you need to be aware of them. It’s clear that Reitman has a great affection for the era, but he never gives the audience a clear reason to share that affection.

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery

It’s weird to put a film that was in the top 10 of the year in this category. But normally, these films are in the top 3, so it definitely feels like a step down.

Winner

Death Of A Unicorn

A film starring Paul Rudd, with a ridiculous premise, a fast-paced trailer, and an opening full of silly, light-hearted jokes. Maybe my expectations for it to be silly and fun weren’t all just me being stupid. I get that sometimes films need messages, and it was possible to portray messages in films like this, but the way it’s handled here is terrible. There’s no sense of fun or joy to any of this. It tries to be The Menu, but ends up being more like a shoddily photocopied discount flyer posted through your door.

Most Surprising

Nominees

Deep Cover

An Amazon Prime original, starring the lead from Argylle, directed by someone mainly known for television. Yeah, my hopes were not high. If you think about it too much, the whole plot falls apart. But whilst you’re watching? It’s an utter delight. This isn’t among my favourite films of the year, but it is one I will watch again, and which I will recommend to people if they have a Prime account.

Fackham Hall

A British comedy released with ZERO marketing in the run-up to Christmas? Screams success. Plus, it’s written by Jimmy Carr, who is very funny, but also makes questionable decisions for his career (Hosting the “top 100 blah de blah” on Channel 4 early in his career? Fine. Going to the Saudi comedy festival in 2025? Nah). Plus, I don’t really give a shit about the genre it’s spoofing, I’ve avoided stuff like Downton Abbey, etc., because they don’t interest me in the slightest. Yet this works. It’s so funny that it broke my brain and made me look for comedy in the next film I saw.

Heads Of State

Very similar to what I wrote for Deep Cover. I love Idris Elba, but he does have a habit of occasionally choosing shit films to be in. This isn’t one of them. His chemistry with John Cena is key to this working, and I want to see them in more. I’m not saying they should remake Lethal Weapon with those two, but they should remake Lethal Weapon with those two.

Winner

Last Breath

I was genuinely disappointed when I finished this film. Not with the film itself, but with how bad the marketing was. Well, I assume their was marketing, it was just done in a way that I never saw any of it. I had a vague idea of what it was about, and that Woody was in it. I didn’t even know it was based on a true story, and that it was set in Britain rather than America. So I was pleasantly surprised by just how damn good this is. It’s everything you want from a movie like this; it’s tense, it’s brilliantly made, and it’s paced well enough that you never get bored. It helps that the characters are believable. There’s not really a villain; there are just people who have to make REALLY tough choices.

I Don’t Get It

Nominees

Matt And Mara (RT Score: 87%)

I genuinely did not give a shit about these characters. Individually, they were fine, but when they were together, they became insufferable. To paraphrase (I’m not confident enough to state it’s a direct quote), It’s Always Sunny: this isn’t will-they/won’t-they. This is I know they won’t, and I hope they never do.

Silent Night, Deadly Night (RT Score: 77%)

Similar to what I’ll say about Toxic Avenger; too bleak, stopped caring. The fact that the victims were all terrible people does not absolve the movie. If anything, the “Yes, we killed these people, but trust us, they were horrid” approach is so transparent you wouldn’t dare use it as a bathroom door. It also means you cheer the serial killer. There’s no horror with the brutality; there’s celebration.

Toxic Avenger (RT Score: 87%)

I feel like the reasons people like this are the same reasons why I dislike it. The tone, the deliberate shoddiness, the needless ultraviolence, etc. It didn’t feel like some of the choices were for budgetary reasons, but more like they were designed to make it look like they were made for budgetary reasons. The cinematic equivalent of pre-torn clothes.

Urchin (RT Score: 96%

Imagine if Bojack Horseman had zero charm and no jokes. It was just a drug-addicted mess fucking everything up and blaming everybody else for it. How quickly would that get frustrating?

Winner

Nosferatu (RT Score: 85%)

Obviously, this was going to win. It was pretty much destined to win from the moment I saw it. I have almost zero positive recollections of this movie. Everything about it either frustrated me or bored me.

Well I Liked It

Nominees

M3gan 2.0 (RT Score: 57%)

That’s an insultingly low score. This is a flawed movie (I genuinely figured out the villain reveal and his motivations within a second of them being introduced), but it’s also a lot of fun. It’s tonally different from the first one, but also feels like a natural progression of the story.

Snow White (RT Score: 37%)

I am in no way saying this was a good movie. But the vitriol it received was far beyond what it deserves; you’d think this movie literally killed children. There’s no way that this deserves to receive as many Razzie nominations as War Of The Worlds, which was one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. Snow White is, at worst, mediocre.

Winner

The Roses (RT Score: 64%)

Nope, I refuse to accept that. I know a lot of people who have seen this, people with varying cinematic tastes and opinions, and they’ve all liked this. It’s hilarious, dark, and has one of the best endings I’ve seen in a long time. 67% is not a failure, but it’s still much lower than it deserves to be. That’s only 12% higher than Weekend At Bernies.

Worst Movie

Nominees

Everything here

Winner

War Of The Worlds

My fear is that I come off too negative. I don’t want that. I read a lot of wrestling reviews where it feels like they hate everything; they seem bitter and annoyed. I don’t want to be like that. I want my love of film to still come through; it’s why I prefer talking about films I love rather than ones I hate. When I left the cinema after watching Eternity, I messaged 5 different people telling them about it. War Of The Worlds? That’s the ONLY film I felt negatively enough that I told people about it unprompted. That’s how bad this movie is; it made me impolite. I’ve never seen a film as stupid, badly written, corporate shilling, and lazy as this. Everything about this is terrible.

Best Movie

Nominees

Everything here

Winner

If I’m being honest, it was always down to three films. A Real Pain, Sinners, and Eternity. Then, whilst going through the end-of-year roundups, I discounted A Real Pain. Don’t get me wrong, it’s incredible, but it’s clearly more flawed than the other two. So down to Sinners and Eternity. One of which has received more Oscar nominations than any film in history, one of which I’ve not even seen anybody mention. It’s incredibly close; it’s the first time I’ve considered co-winners. Then I remembered Five Nights At Freddy’s 2. Trust me, I am going somewhere with this. After leaving the cinema for that, I read that there was a mid-credits scene that’s incredibly important to the narrative. That annoyed me. If a scene is that important, it shouldn’t be mid-credits. But Sinners has that. So can I really give “Best Movie” to a film which does something I’ve criticised another film for?

Then I thought: fuck it, yes I can.

Winner – Sinners

It has one of the best scenes I’ve ever seen. A scene so good it almost made me rude. I said semi-loud “This is fucking cinema”. No film has had that effect on me, has felt as earth-shattering as this has. So it has to win. Fun fact: I genuinely still had Eternity winning until about 3 minutes ago.