Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: A forgotten Peter Parker lives completely isolated four years after No Way Home. While working as a full-time, anonymous hero, he faces a bizarre crime wave tied to a psionic threat while dealing with a dangerous physical mutation and reconnecting with a memory-wiped MJ

Online discourse states that superheroes are used as the ideal male fantasy. A strong man who single-handedly defeats evil, gets the girl, and is admired by society, and sometimes he’s rich. In a way, that’s pretty accurate. The male gaze is generally used to discuss how female characters are viewed, but it definitely applies to male ones too. They’re people we’re supposed to envy, people we’re supposed to want to be. So with that in mind, it’s somewhat sweet how one of the most highly regarded superheroes on the big screen began as a teenager full of sarcasm and anxiety. Not including television films, there have been 11 Spider-Man films, and only three of them have really fallen out of favour with audiences or critics. On the other hand, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is in a slump, with recent films not reaching the commercial, critical, or pop culture-penetrating heights of some of the previous. It’s into this pit of uncertainty that SM: BND (Pronounced Sum Bond) steps. The highs of the character and the lows of the MCU mean that expectations are uneven: you can go into this expecting either the next great Spider-Man film or another symptom of Marvel’s current decline

In the end, it’s pretty damn good. Firstly, it feels less gimmick-dependent than the previous three movies. There’s no expectation of a twist or unexpected-but-actually-expected-by-everyone characters. So it’s standing on its own legs for the first time in a while. Much like Peter himself, the franchise has matured into something worthy. Holland and Zendaya have incredible chemistry; even an idiot could guess they’re dating in real life. This is the best work the two have pulled off in this franchise; both giving their characters inner depth and turmoil.

I’ve always rated Tom Holland as Spider-Man; he’s always been the right performer for this iteration, playing him with just the right balance between anger and lightheartedness. BND adds a new level of weariness to his performance. You have the suspicion that his version of Peter Parker does not want to be Spider-Man anymore; he doesn’t get any sense of pride or joy from it. It’s not even a societal need; he does it because he feels he has nothing else to his life now that he no longer has MJ. He feels he has no life outside of Spider-Man. BND doesn’t give us much sense of what he does when he isn’t Spider-Man. We don’t really see a job, a social circle, or much of a life at all. Spider-Man is all he has right now. There’s a real sense of hopelessness to the character that is refreshing to see. Yes, he still makes jokes (this is an MCU film after all; if Stalin was a character in this universe, he’d be making quips as he kills people), but they mask a sense of sadness.

On the downside, the villain is underwhelming. BND does the same thing that a lot of superhero films have done lately; the person you thought was the villain turns out to not be a villain, and they end up teaming up with the hero to defeat a bigger, supposedly more important villain (who was usually someone we thought was a hero). Narratively, that’s risky, because it could mean the actual villain ends up feeling superfluous and defeated too quickly. That’s the case here. I can’t even remember their name; I can’t even remember what happened to them at the end. Were they killed? Arrested? Not a clue. Their impact on this movie is the same as a wasp flying into a cruise ship.

That’s a shame, as there’s a lot of villains they could have worked into this. I’m surprised they haven’t turned Ned into a villain. The mind-wipe would have been the perfect opportunity. It’s established he’s good at science; it would have been easy enough to give him a grudge against Spider-Man. The moment where Peter realises that he has to fight Ned could have been one of the most powerful moments in the franchise, and could have allowed Jacob Batalon to show a bit more range than he’s been allowed to show. It would mean the villain isn’t just someone for Spider-Man to fight; he’s someone Peter has a deeply personal history with. It would also give Peter something he desperately lacks in this film: someone who knows him. Peter has lost MJ, Aunt May is gone, his identity has been erased, and his former best friend doesn’t know him. Making Ned the villain would turn that loneliness into the actual dramatic conflict. Plus, it would write your closing shot for you: Ned and Peter are friends again, Ned unaware that Peter is Spider-Man, they’re joking and having fun, then there’s a look of slight distrust from both of them to the other; MJ sits unaware of the potential problem brewing in front of her.

A smaller issue is the time jump. There’s a montage of Spidey defeating low-level foes, but there’s not enough variety in it to make it feel like years have passed. We see him stopping a few crimes, beating up a few interchangeable villains, and generally doing the same thing Spider-Man has always done, but there’s no real sense of time passing. If you removed that montage and one or two lines of dialogue, you could pitch this film as happening a few months after the events of the previous one and very little would need to change. That’s particularly strange because the film has apparently decided that several years have passed, which should mean Peter has fundamentally changed. Instead, everyone feels more or less frozen in place. Peter has become more miserable, but that’s a development the film could have established without telling us several years have passed. MJ hasn’t meaningfully changed, and the world around them doesn’t feel substantially different. A time jump can be a really useful storytelling device because it allows you to skip the less interesting parts of a character’s life and show us the consequences of that time passing, but here it feels more like the filmmakers wanted the novelty of saying “years later” without actually doing anything with those years. It’s not a huge problem, but it does make the film’s timeline feel strangely artificial.

BND exists in a slightly strange position. As a Spider-Man film, it doesn’t really need to care about the wider MCU. As an MCU film, however, it’s impossible to completely ignore what comes next, especially when what comes next is supposed to be one of the biggest films in the franchise. The problem is that Marvel has spent years training audiences to look for the bigger picture. We’re supposed to notice the references, remember the post-credit scenes and speculate about what everything is building towards. When that build-up suddenly disappears, it becomes noticeable. Especially when they’re still doing the post-credit scenes, only they’re not building towards anything. Vulture still hasn’t reappeared, the beacon sent out by the Ten Rings hasn’t been answered, and Charlize Theron’s cameo in the last Doctor Strange film still appears to have led absolutely nowhere. Side note: that list was originally MUCH longer, but my editor said it was too tiring to read, which kind of proves my point about the MCU’s lack of follow-up.

Obviously, Doomsday could be incredible as a film and as a villain. Maybe the lack of set-up is the point. To be honest, after the Kang issue, I can see why they’d be reluctant to throw everything into one basket. Marvel’s response to that has been weird. It hasn’t really been to course-correct; it’s been to quietly remove the things that were supposed to lead somewhere. But there’s a difference between not revealing your villain and not establishing the world in which your villain exists. Thanos wasn’t properly explained until Infinity War, but we’d already been given reasons to know he was important. The Infinity Stones had been introduced, the Avengers had encountered his influence, and the universe had gradually been moving towards him. If Doomsday is going to be the new centre of the MCU, Marvel has some catching up to do.

Still, that’s a problem for the next film, not necessarily this one. And I think it’s important to separate the two. I’ve spent a lot of this review talking about the state of Marvel, but that’s because BND is arriving at a particularly awkward point in the franchise’s history. It would be unfair to judge it entirely on whether Marvel has a coherent five-year plan, especially when the film itself is actually quite good. When BND is focused on Peter, it works. When it’s asking me to think about where the MCU is going next, it reminds me of everything that’s gone wrong with the franchise.

And ultimately, that’s why Spider-Man has endured. He isn’t the ideal male fantasy I talked about at the beginning. He’s not a rich, confident man who gets everything he wants and is universally admired. He’s a lonely, sarcastic idiot who has been given incredible powers and somehow ended up with even more problems. He loses people, makes mistakes, gets beaten up, and still gets up the next morning and puts the suit back on. There’s something much more appealing about that than watching another superhero who seems to have everything figured out.

That’s what BND gets right. It doesn’t need to make Peter the most powerful person in the MCU, or give him another universe-ending threat to defeat. It just needs to make me care about the miserable bastard underneath the mask. And for the most part, it does. It’s not the best Spider-Man film we’ve had, and it certainly isn’t going to rescue the MCU single-handedly. But it doesn’t need to. Spider-Man has survived three different actors, multiple reboots, a cinematic universe, several attempts at making everything connected, and at least one film where the villain was a man made entirely of sand. He’ll probably survive Marvel’s current existential crisis too.

That being said, I’d still rather have another Spider-Verse movie.

The Drama (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: A happily engaged couple get put to the test when an unexpected revelation sends their wedding week off the rails.

I don’t want to, but I feel I have to give spoilers for The Drama to discuss how I feel about it. Since I’m not a complete dick and don’t want to spoil for people who just click and have wandering eyes that briefly look over the whole page, I’ll add a certain amount of preamble, and won’t spoil anything until I say the words BUTTERED PARSNIPS.

I’m only doing that because it’s clear that a part of the marketing was based on curiosity about what the worst thing she ever did was. It’s a simple strategy: “You want to see what the conflict is about? Buy a ticket”. I was unfortunate enough to accidentally glance at a news headline about it, specifically how controversial it is. To be even more specific, they named the groups opposed to it, which automatically gave a pretty big clue as to what it was. It wasn’t this, but if the article header was “9/11 survivors object to The Drama”, you’d know it was something to do with 9/11.

The Drama was written and directed by Kristffer Borgli, who also made Dream Scenario, a film which I loved the concept of, but felt the execution was deeply flawed. After watching this, I have come to the conclusion that Borgli loves writing arguments and having characters scream and yell at the leads. The Drama has a lot of that, and unlike in Dream Scenario, those moments make sense. It helps that The Drama is much more grounded and has a more focused narrative. It does occasionally veer into dream sequences and imagine spots, which veer from the useless to the great. There are some moments which I’m still not sure if they were real or not, and if they were dreams, to whom did they belong? These moments will put people off.

Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. From the reveal (which I will get to), to the editing, to the scenes of characters loudly talking over each other, The Drama feels designed to make you uncomfortable. It’s not designed to be a lovely life-affirming watch. Sometimes that worked for me, sometimes it didn’t. The way it was edited did feel like it was building towards something huge. Shots of people who were clearly stressed out, staff at the wedding who are angry at being fired, the partner of a woman that Charlie kissed is at the wedding, etc. It all feels like it’s building towards a huge, explosive event that will scar you. Nope. Rude comments are made at the wedding, and Charlie gets headbutted. That’s it. Narratively, it’s like being promised a fireworks display and ending up with a sparkler.

BUTTERED PARSNIPS

The terrible thing she did? She planned a school shooting. She had a gun, trained with it, made videos online that she planned to be released after the event, etc. Truly horrible and unexpected. But pretty brilliant. It allows the film to ask questions about morality: is planning something that’s a 9/10 on a shithead scale worse than actually doing something that’s a 6/10 (locking a mentally challenged boy in a strange vehicle in the woods and not telling people he’s there)? It also talks about America’s obsession with guns, to the point it almost sexualises them (the random cuts of Zendaya posing with guns are artsy as hell). America (and yes, it is a uniquely American problem) focuses so heavily on guns as aspirational things to own, then acts surprised when kids shoot each other.

I mostly liked The Drama. When it was funny, it was laugh-out-loud hilarious. The fact that the thing that stopped her from carrying out the shooting was that another one happened nearby is funnier than it should be. The humour is darker than the POV of someone wearing a blindfold at midnight in a locked casket. I’m someone who has said multiple times that genocide is bad, and racism is the preserve of dickheads, so obviously I’m an easily offended snowflake, but I didn’t find this movie offensive in the slightest. It’s not making light of school shootings. The entire conflict is based on the notion that it’s a terrible thing to do. It’s obvious she’s haunted by her almost actions. All things considered, it’s actually handled relatively tastefully.

Now onto the downside: I didn’t think Alana Haim’s performance was at the level of everybody else’s. Charlie’s characterisation is a bit inconsistent, especially in the final third, where his actions seem to be stuff that drives the plot forward rather than stuff that the character would do. It also has far too many inconsequential moments; it’s as if the film is throwing as many moments at the screen and seeing what sticks. Personally, I don’t think the relationship between them is quite sweet enough for the ending to land. It’s sweet at the start, but they spend a lot of the film’s runtime in conflict with each other, so that’s our main impression of them as a couple. A buildup to a wedding is the perfect opportunity to explore characters’ pasts, so it would have been easy for them to have flashbacks to better times, so we could feel more of the love between the two of them. If the love felt genuine, the ending would have worked. It’s also so heavily tied to the reveal that if you happened to find it out before you watch, it won’t be as good an experience.

In summary, a truly divisive film that I kind of loved. People who love it, will really love it. People who hate it will consider it one of the worst films of the year. It’s 1-2 out of 10, or 8-10 out of 10. Nobody will give this a meh.