|
Review by Steve Barton II Paramount started their media campaign for Scream 7 on a horrible note when they announced the firing of their lead actress, Melissa Barrera over her outspoken criticism of the genocide being committed by Israel. With that decision, they also lost their new co-lead of the next generation cast with Jenna Ortega and then were forced to pivot completely with the overarching story. After the fallout, the decision was quickly made to revert back to the series’ original final girl Sidney Prescott and why she was (mostly) absent from Scream 6. The other major swing in the “back to basics” direction was getting Kevin Williamson (the original writer of Scream 1, 2 & 4) back into the writer’s chair to revive his story, except this time he’s also got the title of Director. Did all of these hasty decisions end up producing a solid new entry into the Scream franchise? That’s a complicated question with an even more difficult answer. While there are subtle references to Sam and Tara, the topic of our former main characters is never fully breached which feels especially odd given that two of the surviving friends are in Scream 7. While Sam’s plot does seem purposefully left open in case they strike a deal for her return, more could’ve been done to address the ginormous elephant in the theater. The enticing aspect of the writing for Scream has always been the meta commentary and poking fun at the horror tropes, Scream 7 also falls into the trope trap itself. Scream 7 had some interesting points to make about the world’s disturbing obsession with true crime, A.I., survivor’s guilt and the over saturation of remakes and sequels. While the script does have strengths, its weaknesses are the overly familiar tropes and references to the original movie that feel heavily recycled by year 30. Williamson made references to the original Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, so it was honestly shocking not to see someone from Dawson’s Creek dawn the Ghostface mask! He was able to bring back the fan favorite Stu Macher and it surprisingly worked out well. Matthew Lillard is able to tap into that crazy energy and the look in his eye that makes you believe he’s a true psychopath. The actual reveal of the Ghostface killer is easily one the weakest of the series, next to Roman in Scream 3 and is fairly predictable if you’re even slightly paying attention.
The biggest compliment to give Scream 7 is that it has some of the most brutal kills in the entire franchise. Between the school auditorium scene and the crescendo death at the bar, these are scenes that I can’t stop thinking about and need to see again ASAP! The visceral nature of Ghostface in Scream 7 stands up next to the original film and might even outshine it in this department. In the end, Scream 7 is a decent entry into the Scream franchise that most fans will enjoy. While the script is messy and some character motivations and developments really don’t work, there’s enough Scream DNA for fans to sink their blades into. It does stink that we don’t see where Sam and Tara are after New York, we still get the Meeks-Martin duo and that gives hope that they won’t fully abandon the Carpenter sisters. Fans of the newer films may have to wait a while to see their story finished, but Scream 7 was made purely for the original fans. Scream 7 is playing in theaters starting February 27th! Rating: 3/5
0 Comments
Review by Chadd Clubine In the Blink of an Eye will likely slip quietly under the radar. It’s difficult to imagine the film even attaining cult status, as it proves to be as bland as it is ambitious. Sharp-eyed viewers may recognize director Andrew Stanton from his celebrated work at Pixar, including WALL-E, Finding Nemo, Finding Dory, and the upcoming Toy Story 5. On paper, this project appears to be an intriguing departure from his usual territory, and the ambition behind it is evident. Unfortunately, by the time the film’s central idea fully comes into focus near the end, it’s essentially over. Rather than landing with impact, the late reveal leaves viewers questioning what the film was building toward all along. Set across three distinct timelines, the film weaves together three separate yet thematically connected stories. The first centers on a family of prehistoric humans struggling to survive in a harsh, primal world. The second follows the characters played by Rashida Jones and Daveed Diggs as they meet and fall in love in the present day. The third storyline tracks Kate McKinnon as a lone traveler journeying through the vastness of space. Ambitious narrative structures like this do not always cohere, yet the film ultimately succeeds in leaving audiences with resonant reflections on the meaning of life and human connection. It feels especially fitting for a filmmaker like Stanton to tackle material of this scope. The movie has been cited as drawing inspiration from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Magnolia, and Interstellar, while its cross-cutting between timelines also evokes the structure of Cloud Atlas. Each of those films has, in its own way, achieved classic status. However, given this film’s short runtime and comparatively modest impact, it is unlikely to reach the same heights as those landmark works. The film finds its strongest moments within the storyline shared by Rashida Jones and Daveed Diggs, as well as in the eventual reveal that ties everything together. Jones and Diggs are inherently likable performers, and their natural chemistry provides the movie with much-needed warmth and momentum, keeping it engaging even when the broader narrative begins to drift. By contrast, the prehistoric storyline struggles to leave a lasting impression outside of its role in the conclusion—perhaps a result of its limited emotional grounding and absence of recognizable star power. Meanwhile, the space-set arc centered on Kate McKinnon offers a glimpse of a more restrained, dramatic side of her abilities. Still, it never fully lands, at times feeling slightly miscast or underdeveloped. As the film continually cuts between timelines, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern its ultimate direction. When the final revelation arrives, it is undeniably inventive and intriguing. However, the impact is softened by a rushed execution, causing what should be a powerful culmination to feel somewhat diminished. Principal photography began in March 2023 and wrapped just two months later in May. With Thomas Newman composing the score, and a seasoned creative team both in front of and behind the camera, the project appeared poised for success from the outset. Given that Andrew Stanton is also set to direct Toy Story 5, it is particularly interesting to see how this film has taken shape—especially since it, too, falls under the Walt Disney Company banner. Stanton’s continued collaboration with Disney suggests a strong working relationship, one that has endured even after the commercial disappointment of John Carter. Three years after filming concluded, the movie finally saw the light of day. Given its muted buzz and uncertain commercial prospects, it likely would have struggled both critically and financially in a theatrical run. Opting for a streaming release ultimately feels like the most strategic decision—an effort to preserve and perhaps rediscover the potential the film once promised. The film might have been better served as an episode of Black Mirror, where its high-concept ideas and technological themes could have been explored with greater focus and precision. In its latter half, the story leans heavily into questions about technology and the direction of humanity, suggesting it has something urgent to say about where we are headed. Yet it never fully commits to a clear perspective. It remains uncertain whether the film is arguing that technological advancement is pushing us backward or that human connection remains our only true evolutionary force. Just as it seems poised to offer a definitive statement, it instead pivots to a heavy-handed cosmic image meant to encapsulate the meaning of existence. Rather than delivering clarity, the moment feels abrupt and unearned—less like a profound conclusion and more like a vague gesture into the void. Despite its shortcomings, the film is undeniably well-crafted on a visual level. The cinematography strives for a sweeping, cinematic scope, lending the story a sense of grandeur that may ultimately work in its favor as a streaming release. Even so, the three-year gap between production and release speaks volumes about the studio’s confidence in the final product. While the storyline anchored by Rashida Jones and Daveed Diggs provides the film with its emotional backbone, their performances alone are not enough to carry it across the finish line. Not even the unexpected conclusion fully compensates for the narrative’s uneven execution. At this point, it may be fair to suggest that Andrew Stanton is at his strongest working in animation rather than live-action—a medium where his storytelling instincts have historically flourished. In the Blink of an Eye streams on Hulu February 27th! Rating: 2.5/5
Review by Chadd Clubine The concept of The Bluff shows early promise. Priyanka Chopra Jonas once again brings her charm and commitment to the action genre, elevating even the film’s weaker moments. Opposite her, Karl Urban steps into a villainous role that hints at something more dynamic than the material ultimately allows. Both actors already have established relationships with Prime Video — Chopra Jonas through Citadel and Heads of State, and Urban through The Boys — which lends an air of familiarity to the collaboration. Yet that comfort may be part of the problem. Rather than feeling like a bold new venture, The Bluff comes across as a side project, a breezy detour from their more demanding work. While the film flashes occasional potential in its action sequences, it ultimately falters. What begins as a promising swashbuckler gradually reveals itself to be a generic outing, thinly disguised beneath a surprisingly dull pirate backdrop. At a lean 100 minutes, the film never quite gives its story room to breathe. The potential is evident, which makes it difficult not to measure it against the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy — films that fully embraced their swashbuckling identity with scale, spectacle, and personality. Here, however, the narrative hesitates. It never fully commits to being a true pirate adventure, instead settling for a straightforward rescue-and-revenge plot that merely happens to unfold against a pirate backdrop. The result feels less like a bold entry and more like a generic action story dressed in period costume. The film offers little that feels fresh within the action landscape, and the writing plays things as safely as possible, seemingly focused more on deliverability than distinction. It’s difficult to imagine this project earning serious consideration for a theatrical run. Still, despite its repetitive storytelling and underwhelming visuals, the film will likely find a measure of success on streaming, buoyed by its accessibility and the draw of its stars. The opening sequence hints at the right tone for a pirate adventure, briefly suggesting a film willing to embrace the scale and tone its setting demands. Even when the first half is weighed down by underwhelming visuals, those shortcomings become easier to overlook whenever the movie leans into its action set pieces. The action is easily the film’s strongest asset, with sharp pacing and clean transitions that keep the momentum intact. For a time, it feels as though the cast and crew are doing their best to elevate material that doesn’t always support them. There’s a sense of effort in the early stretch — an attempt to compensate for thin writing and uneven effects through energy and commitment. However, once the film crosses into its second half, that momentum fades. The urgency that once made the action engaging begins to dissipate, replaced by rushed storytelling and increasingly unconvincing visuals. What starts with flashes of promise gradually unravels into something far less inspired. By 2026 standards, this is the kind of mid-tier spectacle that feels more suited for streaming than the big screen. Priyanka Chopra Jonas makes the most of what she’s given, though the material never allows her to stretch beyond familiar territory. Her charm remains intact — reliable, polished, and undeniably watchable — but it feels carefully calibrated rather than daring. In that sense, her presence here recalls the steady, brand-safe appeal Dwayne Johnson leaned into for years. That consistency may not surprise audiences, but it’s likely the very quality that keeps her fan base returning. Karl Urban, meanwhile, appears to be enjoying himself more freely, though not necessarily in pursuit of a standout performance. His villain carries flashes of personality, yet the execution feels uneven — particularly with an accent that shifts often enough to suggest a lack of clear direction. Temuera Morrison does what he can with limited material, bringing a degree of gravitas to his role. Unfortunately, much of the supporting cast never fully commits to their characters, resulting in performances that feel more functional than invested. With cliché writing, underwhelming visuals, and a noticeable lack of strong characterization or directorial vision, The Bluff delivers little that hasn’t been executed on a far grander scale elsewhere. Its action sequences show flashes of engagement, hinting at a more compelling film buried beneath the surface. Fans of Priyanka Chopra Jonas will likely find enough to appreciate her steady screen presence alone. However, viewers seeking a more imaginative, fully realized pirate adventure would be better served by revisiting the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy — a franchise that embraced its swashbuckling identity with far more confidence, spectacle, and originality. The Bluff streams on Prime Video February 25th! Rating: 1.5/5
Review by Steve Barton II When folks rank the best horror/thrillers over the last 30+ years, Se7en is always near the top of everyone’s list! The writer of Se7en, Andrew Kevin Walker attempted to get back to his roots with Psycho Killer, but failed miserably. Psycho Killer follows Officer Jane Archer (Georgina Campbell, Barbarian) after she witnesses the murder of her husband and makes it her life mission to take down the perpetrator. As she looks into the killer more, she finds that her target is responsible for a spree of violent, satanic ritual killings. The plot isn’t the weakest I’ve seen from the genre, but it lacks anything to differentiate itself from other “cookie-cutter” movies on a streaming service. The movie starts with an intense inciting incident to motivate Jane to avenge her husband, but we don’t get to know Jane beyond that. Andrew didn’t care to flesh out the protagonist and it makes it difficult for the audience to become fully empathetic to her. With a weaker protagonist, one might think that the villain must be written incredibly well, but that’s incorrect. While you never get a face reveal of the killer, the mask reveal and his motivations are spoon fed to you right away before you can even start to form any questions or theories. When you look into the director, Gavin Polone's previous works, this is his directorial debut and it does show. He’s produced a few movies and several television shows and he made Psycho Killer feel like an episode of television that was drawn out too far. There isn’t anything personable or compelling about the killer, other than his satanic devotion while also having an odd moral compass and empathy for the innocent (sometimes). The odd, deep voice that’s intended to strike fear into the protagonist and audience only musters laughs from the masses. The one thing that most people will take away from the killer is how insanely muscular he is, especially for being an anti-technology nutjob. What gym is he a member of and does he wear the mask?
It ends up feeling like an episode of Criminal Minds with Malcolm McDowell as the week’s special guest. With it being advertised with Se7en all over the promotional material, you’d also expect some gnarly practical effects and spooky settings, but Psycho Killer misses the mark yet again. While the motel room is creepy and eerie, the digital blood splattered on the walls takes all the tension out completely. The eyes on the killer’s mask may pierce your memory for the next few days, but no one will be thinking about any of the death scenes in a disturbing or memorable way. In the end, Psycho Killer doesn’t live up to the Se7en shoes that the marketing claimed to fill. Georgina Campbell is chasing the success of Barbarian, but her performance in Cold Storage will be the one talked about at the end of 2026. The story is entertaining enough for genre fans, but the gore hounds will be extremely underwhelmed and let down. Thanks for trying Malcolm McDowell, but you couldn’t save this one. Psycho Killer is in theaters starting February 21st! Rating: 2/5 Review by Chadd Clubine There’s plenty to unpack about the upcoming film How to Make a Killing. Among this weekend’s new releases, it stands out as the clear highlight. Carrying an R rating, the film is poised to draw audiences largely on the strength of its all-star cast, its intriguingly offbeat premise, and the backing of A24 as distributor. The concept may sound bizarre—even morbid—on paper, but under the direction of John Patton Ford, the material fully embraces its absurdity, balancing sharp intention with darkly comedic humor. Looking at Glen Powell’s filmography, his strongest performance to date remains in Hit Man, directed by Richard Linklater—though this latest turn is a close second. Here, Powell taps into flashes of Patrick Bateman-esque slickness, blended with the calculated precision of Agent 47 from the Hitman video game series. While the film doesn’t fully flesh out his character’s motivations, it pointedly underscores how intimately tied he is to the family—and the weight of the choices he ultimately makes. The first act may not lean as boldly into its themes as it could, but by the final stretch, the film leaves little ambiguity about its intent. At a brisk 105 minutes, the film moves with remarkable speed, propelled by an infectious, tightly controlled energy. That momentum feels like a natural evolution of John Patton Ford’s work on Emily the Criminal, while also signaling the emergence of a more defined signature style. There’s substantial thematic and narrative ground to cover, yet Ford never lets the story stall. By infusing the film with sharp humor and layered themes, he sustains its pace without sacrificing depth, ensuring the momentum carries through to the end. Each character feels vividly drawn and alive. Glen Powell commands the bulk of the screen time, but the supporting cast leaves a lasting impression despite more limited appearances. Margaret Qualley is especially striking in a deliberately distasteful role that serves as a warped mirror to Powell’s character. Jessica Henwick reveals a softer, more grounded dimension of Powell’s character—the version of him that could choose contentment. Bill Camp brings a quiet compassion to his role, suggesting that not everyone in the family shares the same immoral compass. Meanwhile, Zach Woods and Topher Grace inject sharp humor into the film, even if both could have benefited from additional screen time. Finally, Ed Harris makes a formidable impression in a brief appearance, his icy presence lingering long after he exits the frame. The third act is packed with genuine surprises. Even with the film’s structural framework established early on, it continues to twist and recalibrate expectations in satisfying ways. While flashbacks can often stall momentum in film or television, here they’re used strategically—deepening the intrigue and prompting us to question how the protagonist arrived at this precarious point. There’s an argument to be made that the film could have explored Ed Harris’s character more fully, particularly the reasons behind his estrangement from Powell’s character’s mother. That added context might have sharpened the emotional stakes. Still, the conclusion effectively circles back to the film’s central themes, underscoring the extreme lengths people will go to for money. It lands with clarity and bite, leaving a lasting impression of the story’s moral undercurrent. Drawing from its literary source material and additional influences, John Patton Ford crafts an adaptation that still feels distinctly original. Much of that uniqueness comes from the film’s striking visual language and evocative score by Emile Mosseri. Cinematographer Todd Banhazl washes the frame in a hazy green palette that subtly echoes the color of money, reinforcing the film’s thematic undercurrent without feeling heavy-handed. Meanwhile, Mosseri’s score injects a sense of character and texture that gives the film its own sonic identity. Together, these elements elevate the material, creating an atmosphere that demands attention and sustains it from beginning to end. How to Make a Killing stands as another strong entry in this year’s cinematic slate, signaling the promise still ahead. Glen Powell delivers a layered performance that balances sympathy, sharp humor, and moments of outright revulsion. The supporting cast makes the most of their material, each performance adding texture and dimension to the story. Behind the camera, John Patton Ford maintains a brisk momentum, using dark humor and timely themes to keep the narrative both entertaining and pointed. As it stands, the film ranks among the year’s most pleasant surprises so far. How to Make a Killing is in theaters February 20th! Rating: 4/5
|
Archives
February 2026
Authors
All
|