Review: Psycho Killer

Image courtesy of 20th Century Studios.

A new serial killer thriller from the writer of "Seven" and "8mm" would seem like a movie of some intrigue, but unfortunately Gavin Polone's "Psycho Killer" is a mostly lumbering affair, much like its villain. It feels like a movie that is scraped together with pieces of other, better movies of this type as well as some lesser efforts (the killer's gas mask seems to be borrowed from the grisly and mostly unseen "Found").

The picture follows a young state trooper, Jane Archer (Georgina Campbell), who becomes obsessed with catching a killer who preys on those along the nation's highways and is known as the Satanic Slasher, whose name is more descriptive than it is creative. Her obsession started after she watched the killer murder her husband, also a cop, along a desolate stretch of Kansas highway.

The killer leaves satanic symbols in the wake of his murders and his trail seems to be heading toward a specific purpose. That, at least, is what Jane believes, though she's stymied at every turn by the FBI, which seems pretty bungling, whereas Jane appears to be unbelievably resourceful.

One of the problems with the film is that the Slasher, as portrayed by James Preston Rogers, isn't particularly compelling or convincing. His victims could probably hear or see him coming from a mile away as he's always stomping around in big, loud boots; he wears a radiation mask; he's about seven-feet tall; and has a voice so deep that it sounds as if it should be reading the scripts for movie trailers.

As Jane continues to track the Slasher across the country - a journey that begins in Kanas and makes its way to the east coast - the film begins to get progressively stranger. It all culminates with a bloodletting at a satanic orgy where Malcolm McDowell is acting as the master of ceremonies and everyone is eating boxed Chinese food. It then veers into a plot line that could best be described as "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "The China Syndrome."

Campbell, who was the lead in Zach Cregger's breakout film, "Barbarian," is good enough here as Jane, though she's stuck with some ridiculous dialogue - "go to hell, psycho!" - and her character seemingly exists only to seek revenge for her murderer's husband. But she still can't save a mostly mundane serial killer thriller that gets increasingly ludicrous. 

"Psycho Killer" was apparently stuck in development hell for years before it was finally released this week. That it is now finally seeing the light of day is, perhaps, only a cause for celebration for those who made it.

Review: How To Make A Killing

Image courtesy of A24.

There have been wiser and more thematically rich movies about the haves and have-nots (Bong Joon Ho's "Parasite") and others that are more scabrous ("Triangle of Sadness"), but John Patton Ford's "How to Make a Killing" - a comedic thriller that follows his promising debut, "Emily the Criminal," which explored some similar themes but more seriously - is one that is merely amusing without getting too heavy about the topic.

The reviews for the film, which is a remake of the 1949 film "Kind Hearts and Coronets," have mostly been middling, perhaps because other films have explored the ideas therein in a manner that was more reflective of the times or had more to say. This is probably true, but I still enjoyed Ford's film, which makes up for its lack of rich thematic content with dark humor and some solid performances.

The story follows the tale of Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell), whom we know must have been born into a rich family because who else would give their children such a name? Becket's mother was one of the children of a rich man named Whitelaw Redfellow (Ed Harris) - again with the names - who disowned her after she became pregnant with a poor man's child.

She is ostracized and her son, Becket, faces a lower middle class upbringing. His desire to attain wealth first finds its inspiration in a haughty young girl who will grow up to be a sinister femme fatale played by Margaret Qualley. The other inspiration is that he learns that his mother, despite being kicked out of the family, is still in line to obtain the family fortune.

Becket gets an idea to get close to the seven family members ahead of him on the family tree and, learning that most of them are terrible anyway, decides to bump them off. The first murder is amusingly simple, although they become more elaborate from there.

During this scheme, Becket meets two people of worth - Ruth (Jessica Henwick), the girlfriend of a layabout artist cousin who is among the seven to knock off, and Warren (Bill Camp), an uncle who is among the seven but has a kinder heart, helping Becket to get a job in the family business, where he quickly ascends the ranks, all the while killing family members in manners that he attempts to make look like accidents.

Soon enough, a pair of FBI agents begin sniffing around and, considering his recent appearance on the scene, make Becket their prime suspect. Meanwhile, Qualley's horrific Julia pops back up and, when he spurns her for Ruth, begins to blackmail Becket.

Like other recent films such as "The Menu" or "Blink Twice," Ford's film finds humor in awful rich people getting their comeuppance. The murders in "How to Make a Killing" are not particularly gory, but they are pretty funny. And most of the family members - especially Topher Grace's televangelist character - are absurdly awful individuals. 

So, while "How to Make a Killing" doesn't particularly say anything that films like "Parasite" or "The Menu" didn't say better, it's still an enjoyably well made, well acted, and darkly comedic remake of the classic British film by Robert Hamer. It's certainly better than some of the reviews out there may have led you to believe.

Review: Wuthering Heights

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

There are times when a director of some acclaim or success becomes drunk on their own style and, in the process, goes a little off the deep end. 

Such is the case with Emerald Fennell, whose "Promising Young Woman" was a critical success - and it remains her best film in my opinion - although some have taken aim at the way it portrays justice for survivors of sexual assault. Her second film, "Saltburn," was effectively made, while at the same time making it very clear that Fennell's primary interest is pushing buttons.

Her latest, an adaptation of Emily Bronte's masterpiece "Wuthering Heights," finds her taking a beloved Gothic tale and turning it into a horny harlequin romance - but one that's a bit on the dark side. Yes, it's stylish in the manner of her other films and features a soundtrack by Charli XCX, which is honestly the least distracting thing going on here.

Remember in Bronte's novel when a man on the gallows gives all new meaning to being hung as the crowd giggles at his prominent erection and the executioner shouts, "It's a fucking hanging!"? 

Recall that scene when Heathcliff ties up poor Isabella and makes her bark like a dog? Or that scene when Heathcliff and Catherine watch two servants get randy in the barn? How about that other sequence in which Heathcliff catches Catherine masturbating on a rocky cliff?

Me neither. Before being accused of being a prude or someone who doesn't like to see great works deviate from the text in new adaptations, I must point out that my problems with Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" has less to do with the fact that she is mucking about with a story that has been done better in 1939 by William Wyler and in 2011 by Andrea Arnold, but rather that the film is concerned more with style over substance and button pushing over providing a new perspective on a classic tale. It also conveniently skips over the possibility of Heathcliff being of mixed race.

Both Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi do their best as Catherine and Heathcliff, while Alison Oliver is amusing as Isabella and Hong Chau is an effective Nelly Dean, but it's the material - or rather, the interpretation of it - that fails them.

This is an often visually gorgeous film, and the set design is immaculate, from Isabella's somewhat creepy doll houses to the interior decor at the home of Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), the rich man whom Catherine marries. There are beautiful shots of snow falling and scenic views of the cliffs surrounding the home where Catherine and Heathcliff face a cruel childhood, only to reconvene years later for a fated romance.

The film ends somewhere around the novel's midway point, perhaps because the second half of the novel would have made for a too long and expensive film - or maybe because it lends itself more to being the kind of tragic romance to which the filmmakers seemingly aspired.

I've read in interviews that Fennell said the film was inspired by her reading it as a teenager and how it made her feel at that time. The picture was borne out of her 14-year-old's obsession, apparently, with the novel. This might explain why the film could best be described - to quote the Sex Pistols - as oh so pretty... vacant.

Review: Crime 101

Image courtesy of MGM Studios.

There's a famous quote that "good artists copy and great artists steal." While I'm not sure whether director Bart Layton's L.A. saga "Crime 101" is a case of theft, it certainly borrows some elements in terms of visual style, film language, and other elements from some other films - notably, Michael Mann's "Heat," but also Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" and Walter Hill's "The Driver."

The film marks the British director's second foray into narrative filmmaking and his previous efforts - the docudrama "American Animals" and documentary "The Informer" - both were centered around crimes, so this new film seems like an obvious step in his oeuvre.

But regardless whether it borrows from Mann's film - this one too centers around a cop chasing down a high-profile thief in Los Angeles - "Crime 101" is a crackerjack crime thriller that boasts a number of strong performances from its cast. It's also slickly made with superb cinematography - it's yet another picture to do a great job of capturing L.A. at night - and even has a few surprises up its sleeve. It's the type of film that ends up in some places that might stretch credibility, but I was willing to play along because of how effective it is.

In the film, Chris Hemsworth plays a thief named Mike Davis (assuming that's his real name) who takes part in complicated heists. But he never resorts to violence and doesn't take unnecessary risks. He works with an older man played by Nick Nolte, although their relationship is a bit nebulous, and there's a creepy fellow played by Barry Keoghan whom Nolte calls in to keep a tail on Mike after he starts to lose trust in him. 

Mike has an on-again-off-again romance with a woman named Maya (Monica Barbaro) whom he meets during a fender bender. Not surprisingly, he doesn't want to give her his registration information. And she sees something in him - perhaps a touch of mystery - that she finds compelling.

There's also an insurance agent named Sharon (Halle Berry) who is trying to land some high-profile rich clients for her firm, where her male bosses give her the runaround when she asks about moving up the ladder. Her boss spits her age - "53" - at her like an epithet during one scene that makes her wonder if she should take up Mike's offer - it's too complicated to explain here how they meet - to pass him some valuable information for a payout.

Meanwhile, a cop (Mark Ruffalo) who's on the outs with his corrupt chief and other members of his department believes that the robberies committed by Mike are the act of one person, while his department is primarily concerned with their arrest rate - and not so much getting it right.

While "Crime 101" follows some familiar beats - the criminal trying to land one big job that could provide him with "getaway money," the cop going up against his department to solve the crime spree, and the desperate character (Berry) who is looking for a way out of the life in which she is stuck - it never feels like just an homage to the films that came before it. 

Instead, it's a stylish thriller that runs at two hours and 20 minutes, but speeds by because it is compelling. Although Keoghan's character is, perhaps, slightly underwritten (his performance is still good), all of the film's leads give strong performances, especially Ruffalo, whose world-weary cop goes to great lengths - including taking yoga classes - to get to the bottom of things. This film is 2026's first genuine surprise.

Review: The Strangers: Chapter 3

Image courtesy of Lions Gate.

 

The third and final chapter of "The Strangers" saga is the least worst of the bunch - which is not the same thing as being good. It's still pretty bad - and the question of characters' motivations and their inability to behave in a way that resembles anything that humans actually do remains a complete mystery - but at least there's no wild boar attack in this one.

The film picks up where the previous one left off with Madelaine Petsch's Maya hiding in the woods after killing one of her masked attackers. But first we get a flashback several years in the past during which the three murderers stalk yet another woman, this one at a hotel room, before killing her.

Flashbacks pop up throughout the film and even if they don't exactly shed a light on why the killers are doing what they do, it at least provides some sort of precedent. As for motivation, all we're left with as usual are dead-eyed stares and sinister smirks from the villains during the rare moments when they have their masks off.

As to the question whether the entire town in which the film is set is in on it, or whether they merely know what's going on but won't say anything, at least gets answered. A few new characters are introduced for the sole purpose of quickly dispatching them. There is some catharsis in the final reels, but it's still dragged out like much of the rest of this entire series.

I haven't been much of a fan of this series, even the 2008 original, which was given pretty decent reviews at the time and has been ranked among some critics' favorite horror movies of recent years. I wasn't having it then - and I'm no convert now. The best thing I can say about chapter three of this reboot series is that it's better than the first two chapters.

This final entry may not do much in the way of furthering the story, but it amps up the gore. Several people are whacked to death with axes and other sharp tools, while one body gets fed to a wood chipper. And yet, everything about the film moves at a disinterested pace as if the characters - and, perhaps, the cast - is bored with what they're doing.

Chapter three is only slightly better than the two that came before due to the fact that the first two films felt like the exact same movie, whereas this one at least goes in a direction that introduces some new information and finds a resolution. This is, again, not to say that it's that much of an improvement - but I'll take it. The only reason why "The Strangers" series isn't my least favorite of the 21st century is due to the existence of the "Terrifier" and "Saw" franchises.

Review: Sound Of Falling

Image courtesy of MUBI.

It would be safe to call Mascha Schilinski's compelling but complicated "Sound of Falling" a ghost story. It's not a horror movie by any stretch of the imagination and the ghosts haunting the singular location - an old house in Germany's Altmark region - in which it is set are those of the past.

Set during at least four different periods - and I phrase it this way because the film is nonlinear and we are often not sure when we've passed from one moment in time to another, other than the fact that the characters change - "Sound of Falling" is a movie that really makes you work for it.

The first period is some point in the 1910s at the house, which is being used as a farm and as some sort of mortician's business (either that, or this family just happens to have a lot of dead people lying around at any given time). This section is from the perspective of a young girl named Alma (Hanna Heckt), who spends a lot of time spying on people through keyholes, especially her older brother, Fritz (Filip Schnack), who becomes an invalid during an accident and spends much of the rest of the film in various states of undress while bedridden.

In the 1940s section, which is the one that actually opens the film, a young woman named Erika (Lea Drinda) stares at a nude man under a blanket with a missing leg - who, it turns out, is an older version of Fritz) - when she's supposed to be tending to the farm's pigs with her father.

As the film skips around, we land on a 1980s-era story in which teenage Angelika (Lena Urzendowsky) visits her aunt and uncle at the farmhouse. Angelika is free spirited and sexually provocative, which captures not only the attention of a male cousin, but also her uncle, Uwe (Konstantin Lindhorst).

In the present day, the farmhouse and other parts of the property have been converted into apartment units, and the story involves a young girl, Lenka (Laeni Geiseler), and her obsession with an attractive and depressive friend, Kaya (Ninel Geiger).

One of the film's most consistent aspects is its intense sound design - which includes floorboards creaking, the wind howling, flies buzzing, and a strange muffled tone that sounds close to white noise. At times, the film is straightforward, especially Angelika's escapades, while others border on the surreal - the film's transfixing final shot is a perfect example of this. 

Strewn throughout are gorgeously memorable shots - a young woman lying down in front of an approaching tractor, children running through tunnels made of straw, and a children's game in a barn that increasingly becomes unclear whether supernatural forces are at play or whether the children are just very good at pretending.

The eras blend together and there's only a stray clue to let us know when the current action is taking place - clothing or, in one instance, Bluetooth headphones. During the 1940s section, there's a brief sequence in which a character or two visiting the farm might be attempting to recruit Fritz for World War I, while a mention of East and West Berlin during the 1980s section is so fleeting that you'll miss it if you blink.

This is a film that requires the audience to put in some work to follow everything that is going on. It is not what one might call an easy sit, and what you take out of it will probably be determined by how much effort you put in. It is a film that, at just over two-and-a-half hours, probably could have been a bit shorter and delivered the same effect.

"Sound of Falling" was one of last year's Cannes Film Festival's critical hits. While I didn't feel as strongly about it as some of the other Cannes selections - such as "Sirat," "Sentimental Value," "It Was Just an Accident," or "The Secret Agent" - it's an impressively made movie that moves at its own pace and relies heavily on vibes. It's equally mysterious and maddening but those who are willing to give themselves over to its peculiar wavelength will likely find it to be a unique experience.

Review: Send Help

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

 

“Send Help” is a solid return to horror filmmaking for director Sam Raimi, who hasn’t made a genre movie of this type since 2009’s “Drag Me to Hell.”

The picture has a premise that might seem overly familiar – especially for those who saw Ruben Ostlund’s 2022 film “Triangle of Sadness” – but its lead performance and its increased intensity and over-the-top wackiness make it an overall enjoyable viewing experience.

In the film, Rachel McAdams plays Linda Liddle, an overly earnest and good-natured office drone whose awkward attempts at socialization make her the object of ridicule at the corporate hellscape where she works. The company’s previous owner, who recognized Linda’s accounting talents and had planned to promote her, dies, leaving his asshole son, Bradley (Dylan O’Brien), in charge.

Linda tries – awkwardly – to ingratiate herself to Bradley, but he’s having none of it, instead choosing to ogle women who visit the office and elevating his frat-type corporate bros to positions of power – Xavier Samuel’s Donovan gets the vice president role that Linda was originally promised.

After Linda confronts him in his office, Bradley allows her to attend a company trip to Thailand, but the plane malfunctions and crashes – one awful character from Linda’s office gets dispatched in a particularly nasty way – in the ocean. Linda drifts to an island, where she finds Bradley – who’s injured – to be the only other survivor.

Much like Ostlund’s film, “Send Help” finds the underdog character – Linda – in charge, mostly due to her survival skills. Earlier in the picture, we see survivalist books on her apartment’s shelf and we learn that she’s a “Survivor” enthusiast, which is yet another tool in her tormentors’ toolkit once they find out about it.

While Linda thrives in the atmosphere of the island, Bradley is mostly reliant on her. The tables are quickly turned after he tries to remind her that he’s still her boss, and she lets him know that the old rules no longer exist on the island.

But then, the story takes a strange turn. Linda and Bradley actually start to get along and seemingly enjoy one another’s company – at least, that’s how it seems. At various points, the characters are obviously questioning whether they can trust each other – and for good reason.

Things take another turn and the film becomes increasingly violent – a final series of battles are especially grotesque, and there’s even a plot twist involving discoveries on the island. But while the film heads more into horror territory in the finale, it’s still handled with a tongue planted firmly in cheek – and the occasional finger in the eye socket or knife in the ribs. This is, after all, a Raimi film.

While Raimi had veered far from his filmmaking origins in recent years to make numerous comic book movies and a “Wizard of Oz” prequel, it’s great to see him return to the type of filmmaking on which he originally cut his teeth.

His first two “Evil Dead” movies remain staples of the genre and I recall enjoying “Drag Me to Hell.” Although “Send Help” isn’t in the same vein – there’s nothing supernatural about it – it’s still a welcome return for this filmmaker.

And McAdams – whose character begins as a caricature but increasingly unveils surprising depths – gives one of 2026’s first memorable performances. Last year was a very good one for the horror genre – and this film, along with “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” suggests that this year could be a strong one too.

Review: The Testament Of Ann Lee

Image courtesy of Searchlight Pictures.

The husband-wife team of Brady Corbet and Mona Fastvold are becoming one of the most intriguing duos in cinema. They both collaborated on Corbet's first three films, reaching a creative peak with 2024's remarkable "The Brutalist," and now they have collaborated for the second time on a film (the first was the mostly unseen "The Sleepwalkers") directed by Fastvold, who has also made a total of three other films.  

If nothing else, "The Testament of Ann Lee" is a fastidiously researched, gorgeously shot, ambitious, strange, and well performed - especially Amanda Seyfried as the titular character - film about a, shall we say, enthusiastic religious movement. Characters randomly break out into song or, when touched by the spirit, begin to screech or make grunting noises as they beat themselves on the chest. There are few other films like it. 

At the film's beginning, Lee is a young woman in Manchester, England in the 1700s who takes on a leadership role in her church and, much to its leaders' chagrin, becomes a female priest. Her leadership in the Shakers movement brings her and some of her most ardent followers to America around the time of the American revolution.

The Shakers believed that God created humans in his image and, therefore, the second coming of Christ could be embodied by a woman. Given her tendency to have visions, Lee's followers believe she might be the one. And after losing all four of her children, she decides that the movement should not practice sexuality or intimacy of any kind, giving themselves over to God completely.

The film works mostly because of its offbeat nature and stunning cinematography, but more so due to Seyfried's almost otherworldly performance. If there's a critique to be made, it's that none of the characters - including Lee - are given much in the way of development. We see that Lee learns to dislike intimacy early in life after watching her parents have sex and we observe her religious fervor - but that's basically everything to which we are privy. None of the other characters are developed much either.

"The Brutalist" was my favorite movie of 2024, and it established Brady and Fastvold as one of the most exciting pairs working in film. This latest pairing is a film that is more to be admired than loved, but it's impressive nonetheless. And Seyfried gives a performance that ranks among her best and that should have been recognized in this week's Academy Award nominations. This is an ambitious film that mostly succeeds but doesn't reach the heights of its creators' previous collaboration.

Review: Dead Man's Wire

Image courtesy of Row K Entertainment

 

Gus Van Sant's first feature in seven years is a throwback to the gritty type of dramas, thrillers, and character studies that were considered mainstream in the 1970s. Set in 1977, "Dead Man's Wire" is a hostage story that bears some similarity to Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon," although it's not set at a bank and the circumstances of the man at the center of the drama are different.

Based on a true story that took place in Indianapolis, Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard) is a desperate man who fell behind on mortgage payments for a property that he intended to turn into an affordable shopping center for merchants and, as a result, was denied by his mortgage broker, M.L. Hall (Al Pacino) and his son, Richard (Dacre Montgomery).

Kiritsis became enraged after he suspected that the mortgage company attempted to defraud him by allowing the land go into foreclosure and buying it for less than its market value. On a February day, he stopped by the mortgage company's office and, upon finding out that M.L. was on vacation, took his son as a hostage, affixing him with a "dead man's wire," which was connected to a shotgun that would kill the person to whom it was attached if there are sudden movements.

Tony makes a spectacle of the hostage situation, parading Richard in front of police down the street and then stealing one of their cars, which he drives back to his apartment, where much of the rest of the film takes place. Holed up in the apartment, Tony begins making demands - an apology from M.L., a payment of $5 million, and a written promise from the district attorney not to prosecute him - and decides to call in to this favorite disc jockey, Fred Temple (Colman Domingo), who becomes involved by trying to keep Kiritsis calm.

"Dead Man's Wire" doesn't exactly go anywhere that you wouldn't expect for a film of its type, other than the surprising outpouring of sympathy that Tony - who comes off as slightly unhinged - gets from the public. The trial that makes up the very end of the picture brings this wild scenario to a conclusion that, due to what has come before, won't exactly surprise you.

The performances are pretty solid across the board, and Van Sant and company have done a great job of capturing the visual style of the era in which it is set. Everything from the lighting and camerawork help to create the sense that even before he took a hostage, Kiritsis' life was a bleak existence in which he was trapped by his financial situation.

It's great to see Van Sant back behind the camera. Even if this isn't one of his best features, it's still pretty good. The director is one of the best examples of a filmmaker who juggles solid mainstream fare ("Milk" and "Good Will Hunting") with indie filmmaking ("Elephant," "My Own Private Idaho," and "Drugstore Cowboy"). "Dead Man's Wire" somewhat bridges the gap - it feels like a low budget indie drama but isn't nearly as experimental as some of Van Sant's most celebrated work. Overall, it's a solid crime drama about the haves and have-nots that provides some subtle commentary on our current state of existence.

Review: Resurrection

Image courtesy of Janus Films.

A valuable lesson in filmmaking: Just because something worked once doesn't mean it will yield the same results each time. This certainly applies to Bi Gan's "Resurrection," the director's first picture since 2009's dreamy and transfixing "Long Day's Journey Into Night," a film that used dream logic to tell a twisty, noir-like story.

The director's previous efforts - the naturalistic "Kaili Blues" and the visionary "Long Day's Journey Into Night" - announced the arrival of a major filmmaker. "Resurrection" certainly lives up to the ambition that one might expect from the director. It's a two-hour-and-40-minute dreamscape filled with some of the most mesmerizing imagery you're likely to see this year.

But while "Long Day's Journey," much like the most fascinating dreams or best surrealistic films, wasn't entirely meant to be comprehended, the viewer was well rewarded for giving in to its dream-like logic. "Resurrection," on the other hand just feels confusing, disorienting, and hard to follow, despite it being filled with some breathtaking shots.

The film, which opens in a movie theater in which the picture's audience is staring out at the audience watching it, is set in a future in which imagination - or to be more exact, dreams - are in peril. Humans have discovered that the lack of dreams leads to immortality - later in the film, these people are represented as actual vampires - but a subset known as the "deliriants" continues to dream, knowing that in response their lives will be shorter.

The movie follows the story of a deliriant played by Chinese pop star and actor Jackson Yee who goes from dream to dream after a woman (Shu Qi) places a film projector inside him. From there, I can't logically fit all of the film's various narratives together until the end, when the deliriant goes up against a group of gangster vampires.

Regardless that the film is challenging to follow narratively - and feels a bit too long, as opposed to "Long Day's Journey," which was long but did not feel so - it is filled with stunning cinematography (a long tracking shot through a rainy, muddy alleyway) and captivating scenes (a shootout in a hall of mirrors). There's also a subplot about a con artist and the young girl who he enlists to help him cheat people at cards. 

Gan is a talented director with a clear vision, even if this time it didn't translate as well - at least, for me. This film is nothing if not ambitious - it's a science fiction movie, a surrealistic dreamscape, at times a monster movie, a crime drama, a noir, and a romance. It is also, if one is to consider that the film opens and closes in a movie theater (the final shot is among its best), a movie that compares the experience of cinema to a dream. But while Gan's previous two films were ones to love, this is one more to admire, if not fully endorse.

Review: No Other Choice

Image courtesy of Neon.

It's hard out there for job seekers and the unemployed, a theme that Park Chan-wook's latest film, "No Other Choice," which is the second adaptation Costa Gavras' 2005 picture "The Axe," explores to brutal and occasionally hilarious ends.

The film starts out as upbeat - paper industry manager Man-su (Lee Byung-hun) lives in a gorgeous house that once belonged to his father and that he has now bought, refurbishing it and even adding his own greenhouse (he's obsessed with plants). He has a supportive and loving wife, Mi-ri (Son Ye-jin), two children - a cello prodigy daughter and somewhat delinquent teenage son - and two big fluffy dogs.

But his life quickly takes a turn when an American company with intentions of substituting A.I. for workers purchases his Korean one and he is among those to get laid off. He spends months searching for a job to no avail, his unemployment runs out, and Mi-ri has a blunt conversation with the family about everything they'll have to give up - the dogs (who will stay with her parents), various extracurricular activities, Netflix (the sound of the channel being turned on moments later elicited a laugh from the audience with which I saw it), and possibly even the house.

Out of fear and desperation that he'll lose all he has, Man-su realizes that the only way that he will survive is if he literally eliminates his competition in the seemingly cutthroat world of the Korean paper industry. This plan starts out comically. His first attempt to bump off a competitor is the most hilariously botched murder attempt since the hitman's spree at the office in "Mulholland Drive." Seriously, I don't know if I laughed harder at any other movie scene this year, with the possible exception of the removal of snake bite venom that is also in this movie.

But the film increasingly gets darker as he begins to stalk a second victim - a former paper industry leader fallen on hard times who now sells shoes - and then a third, a heavy-drinking young man who tempts Man-su back toward the bottle (it is hinted at that he's a former alcoholic). Meanwhile, Mi-ri and Man-su's son, who has some crime-related problems of his own, begin to get suspicious.

Despite the film beginning to feel more like a dark thriller in its final third, "No Other Choice" remains one of Park's most accessible and least gruesome films to date. Keep in mind that he's the director of the bleak "Oldboy" and the violent "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance." It is also his best film to date, both due to the terrific performances of its cast and its incredible visual style. Park knows where to point a camera and so many of the shots have a gorgeous, painterly quality to them.

2025 was a very strong year for world cinema and Park's latest ranks high among the best foreign language films. Last year was also a very political year for the movies, and "No Other Choice" is one of the year's angriest, which is evident in its final shots over the credits in which A.I. is used to chop down treats, cut paper, and completely operate in a factory with hardly any workers to be seen. This is an intelligent, suspenseful, and grimly funny picture.

Review: 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

The middle chapter of a planned trilogy often ends up being a placeholder – the film that is intended to bridge the first and final chapters, often through dense plotting or delving deeper into themes already explored in the first chapter. With a few notable exceptions – “The Empire Strikes Back” or “The Godfather Part II,” although I’m not sure that was a planned trilogy – the middle chapter is often the one with the least amount of personality.

So, I’m pleased to report that Nia DaCosta’s “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” the second chapter in a planned trilogy that was kicked off last year by Danny Boyle’s “28 Years Later,” not only does not fit into that pattern – it’s an extremely bleak and tense standalone picture – but it’s also the best film in the series since Boyle’s original 2003 movie.

Picking up shortly after the events of “28 Years Later,” young Spike (Alfie Williams) has fallen into the hands of the Fingers, a group of savage marauders led by the sinister Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell), a violent charlatan who has led his group of followers – all of whom go by the name Jimmy – to believe that he is the son of “Old Nick,” AKA Satan.

The film opens with Spike being forced to take part in the group’s ritual: He must fight another Jimmy to the death to decide which one of them will be in the group. Spike, although much smaller than his opponent, uses his wits and survives.

As the group makes its way through the countryside and to the home of a group of survivors – who will become the Fingers’ next victims in a series of ghastly scenes – Ralph Fiennes’ Dr. Ian Kelson has made an unlikely friendship with Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry), the gigantic and nude alpha zombie who has a penchant for ripping people’s heads and spines right out of their bodies.

Kelson’s home in the titular place becomes a laboratory of sorts, where he uses morphine to calm the hulking Samson and the two form a strange bond, sitting around getting stoned and listening to Duran Duran records. Eventually, he begins to believe he can restore Samson's humanity through medicinal means. Although seemingly mad, Kelson is among the few who have retained their humanity in this “28 Years” saga, a trait that can be seen in his dealings with Samson and, later, with Spike.

In many ways, “The Bone Temple” is unlike a typical middle chapter of a trilogy because it does not seem to really further the story in any meaningful way – that’s not meant as a slight – and there are only a few appearances of the rage-filled zombies, Samson excluded. It’s not until the films’ end – where audiences will be treated to a pleasant surprise – that the narrative takes a leap forward.

Regardless, “The Bone Temple” is the most memorable film in this series since the fantastic original film, which remains one of my favorite 21^st century horror movies. By not adhering to the rules of a trilogy’s middle chapter, the picture is a wild and gloomy standalone film that is brutal, very intense, visually memorable, and full of strong performances.

While O’Connell, paired with his “Sinners” performance, makes for a great screen villain, it’s Fiennes who steals every scene he’s in as the mad doctor. There’s a scene set to an old Iron Maiden tune that I doubt I’ll soon forget. This is the first movie of 2026 that I’d consider well worth seeing.

Review: Is This Thing On?

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Bradley Cooper's third time behind the camera is, similar to his other two pictures, about performance, although not about music as his previous works - "A Star is Born" and "Maestro" - were. In "Is This Thing On?" the lead character literally wanders his way into standup comedy, and it ends being a form of therapy.

Will Arnett plays Alex Novak, who vaguely mentions that he has some sort of job in finance and is, at the film's beginning, in the process of getting a divorce from his wife, Tess (Laura Dern), a former volleyball player who now has the opportunity to get into coaching. They have an amicable relationship and two young sons who spend more time with her, a lot of which is spent playing Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure" on the keyboard and guitar.

While wandering around in Greenwich Village, Alex stumbles into a nightclub that features standup comedy. He doesn't have $15 for the cover charge, but is told he'll get in free and can get a drink if he signs up to perform. During his first time on stage, he gets in a line or two about his divorce, draws a few laughs, and convinces the other standup comedians there that he's not entirely hopeless.

There have been numerous scenes in movies in which a divorced parent must drop off the kids at his ex's house for a date - in this case, it's for a gig. Alex continues to perform on the standup circuit, mostly unbeknownst to his ex-wife, children, and parents (Christine Ebersole and Ciaran Hinds).

Alex and Tess's friends - which include a couple played by Bradley Cooper and Andra Day who have their own marital complications - have mostly just accepted that their friends are splitting up. So, it becomes their mission to keep it a secret when, after accidentally witnessing one of his standup routines, Tess spends the night with Alex and they start seeing each other again on the sly.

"Is This Thing On?" is an enjoyable look at the standup comedy scene and it mostly works as a divorce dramedy. Alex's standup is occasionally funny - and sometimes awkward, especially during a scene when he rants angrily - and the relationship drama elements become more compelling as the film goes on. 

That being said, the film is my number three of the ones that Cooper has directed. "A Star is Born" was a crowd pleaser - and my favorite of his films - that took a well-trodden story and made it fresh again, while "Maestro" was an artier and more ambitious work. "Is This Thing On" has a more laid-back vibe and feels as if it has a little less to prove than Cooper's previous ventures. As such, it's an agreeable picture, if not one quite as memorable as his other two features. But all in all, it works.

Review: Father Mother Sister Brother

Image courtesy of MUBI.

"Father Mother Sister Brother" is a Jim Jarmusch film that is stripped down to its bare elements. The picture is a triptych of three stories involving children and parents, and what one takes from the material probably depends on what one is willing to give to it. This is not a film that provides easy answers and in each of the three scenarios, it feels as if we are being dropped into the middle of complex relationships but without all of the necessary information.

The first segment involves two aging siblings - Jeff (Adam Driver) and Emily (Mayim Bialik) - who are visiting their estranged father (Tom Waits), who lives along a secluded, but scenic, pond somewhere on the East Coast. We get the sense that Jeff occasionally sees his father, mostly to help out with repairs to his old house, but that Emily rarely does. This first chapter is comprised of the three characters attempting to share pleasantries and not delve much further to the point of being awkward.

Of the three chapters, this one is the funniest, despite its stark nature. At one point, Emily asks her father if he is taking any drugs - meaning medications - and he ends up rattling off a list of all the recreational ones that he's given up over the years. There's a feeling that Jeff's assistance with financial matters is helping his father to stay afloat - but there's a punchline at the end of this segment that is among the film's most memorable moments.

In the second chapter, two sisters living in Dublin - Timothea (Cate Blanchett) and Lilith (Vicky Krieps) - have their annual tea party with their mother (Charlotte Rampling), a seemingly accomplished novelist who doesn't like to talk about her work with her daughters and who appears to be somewhat demanding. Timothea seems to share a closer bond with the mother - who praises her daughter's promotion - while Lilith seems to be some sort of influencer whose descriptions of her own life appear to be somewhat fabricated. There's a great shot in which a vase of flowers placed on the table obscures each of the characters from each other's view, representing their estrangement from one another.

If in the first section, awkwardness prevailed during the trio's conversation, tension is more present in this one. Lilith, clearly bullshitting about the fabulous car she owns (which is not seen; her friend gives her a ride to her mother's house) and the lifestyle she leads, gets scolded at one point by her mother for using her iPhone at the tea table. Each of the three characters seem to be navigating what they should or shouldn't say to upset the apple cart during the gathering.

In the third section, a pair of siblings - Skye (Indya Moore) and Billy (Luka Sabbat) - with American parents who were raised in Paris return to their parents' apartment after the two of them were killed in a plane crash to wrap up some details. Billy has already transferred all of their parents' belongings to a storage facility. They reminisce on memories of their upbringing and, while searching their parents' belongings, learn some new things about their family.

Curiously, there are elements that repeat in each of the three sections. At least one character in the three sections is wearing a Rolex watch, which is noticed by another character. A character or two pauses to watch as skateboarders - in slow motion - ride by on the street in all three sections. Several of the characters are wearing matching outfits - in the first section, they all have something maroon on, while in the second section they laugh about having matching red clothing.

In each section, a character says that you can't toast with a specific liquid - in the first, it's water; then tea, and finally coffee. The British phrase, "And then your uncle's Bob" - which basically means "and there you have it" - is spoken by a character in each section, though the line is bungled at least once.

Jarmusch leaves it to the viewer to decide what this all means. Each story is about families that are estranged - or, in the case of the siblings - left in the dark somewhat about their parents' past. The three stories are simple in nature - as usual, characters are given to reflective moments of silence, as one might expect in a Jarmusch film - and don't have much in the way of plot. But they all hint at something deeper beneath the surface.

While "Father Mother Sister Brother" isn't my favorite Jarmusch film of recent years - that honor would belong to the wonderful "Paterson," which also starred Driver - it's a quiet, reflective, often surprisingly funny, and even a bit elusive film about the mysteries of the family structure. Characters aren't quite who they seem to be and awkward silences say a lot more than the strained dialogue they occasionally spout. This is an interesting film for those in the mood for something contemplative and slightly mysterious in nature.

Review: The Plague

Image courtesy of UTA Independent Film Group.

"Hell is for children," Pat Benatar once sang and that certainly applies to Charlie Bolinger's debut," The Plague," which acts as a devil's advocate to all of those films that portray adolescence as a wistful and magical time.

The picture, set inexplicably in 2003, takes place at a sleepover water polo camp - which I suppose must be a real thing - where newcomer Ben (Everett Blunck) briefly falls in with the camp's in-crowd before eventually becoming one of its objets of torment.

The film's title refers to a skin ailment of some sort with which the kid - Eli (Kenny Rasmussen) - who was the previous target of the camp's bullies appears to be afflicted. The boys tells Ben that the plague can spread, so they move away quickly when Eli approaches or jump in the shower if they bump into him.

The camp's director (Joel Edgerton) clearly does not like the lead bully - Jake (Kayo Martin), a pint-sized monster who seems too small to effectively be a bully, yet he somehow has sway among all the others - and tries to keep some semblance of order at the camp. But it's obvious that he cannot watch everyone's every move, and so the bullying ramps up gradually.

"The Plague" plays like a horror movie - and for some the characters who are experiencing it, it probably is. But this is no after-school special: There are some truly unsettling moments involving bodily mutilation and a final scene of dancing that strikes a balance somewhere between euphoria and mania.

Blunck is very good in the lead role, while Martin does a great job of capturing the smiling, banal evil that preteen boys can often inhabit. The film's score often sounds like one lifted from a 1970s Italian giallo, and the camera work - both underwater and above - is memorable.

I'm not sure if "The Plague" says anything groundbreaking on the topic of bullying, but its overall atmosphere is effective and the queasy depiction of how the bullied must walk on eggshells around their tormentors feels right on the money. Bolinger is obviously a talent and I'm curious to see what he does next.