Mutiny (2026)

I had the choice to either see the new Insidious movie or the latest Jason Statham hitting and shooting people. I chose the latter cause I knew it would be more fun. You know what you are getting with a Jason Statham film. He usually plays an ex army guy or ex special forces or in this case an ex-police officer that finds himself framed for the murder of the man he is protecting because the company is about to be sold and some criminals want to use the business to transport people in a human trafficking ring and Statham is trying to find out who killed his boss.

Jason Statham is as good as he always is. He isn't the best actor in the world but he gets by on his fight scenes and the fact he understands his audience and doesn't stray too far away from that. There was one moment where he attempts to show he has some range but getting teary eyed over his dead dad who we learn died trying to save his son. He doesn't quite pull it off but it was fun seeing him attempt something some 30 years after first appearing in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Annabelle Wallis plays Angie who is summoned to the ship at the last minute and ends up helping Statham’s Cole. I thought that Wallis did a good job with what was a rather limited role. They do have a silly scene where they are in the engine room and are communicating on headsets which made me wonder why they didn't just shoot the scene in another room but both Statham and Wallis do well with it and work well together.

There are the usual issues with a Statham film, the plot is somewhat cliched and generic and I thought having the boat as the singular setting would be a huge advantage because I usually like films with one setting but it felt like it was a disadvantage. Also the fact that whilst the captain (Roland Møller) is a villain the main villain is actually Daniles (Simon Kluth) who is only in the film for about 10 minutes and 2 of those are his death scene. Ok it led to a good one liner from Statham but I think the film would have been better served with just one main villain and that would be the captain cause he was quite good.

At the point where Statham kills the captain with the harpoon gun, the crowd in the screening I was in cheered. Not quietly but quite loud in a way that I hadn't heard for a very long time. It was quite surprising that the screening was as full as it was. I would say that it was about half full and ok the screen was one of the smaller ones but that's still an impressive turnout for a film that will end up on Sky Cinema in a couple of months. I did enjoy this film although I enjoyed Shelter a lot more. I felt that the film did not embrace the absurdity of the situation as much as other Statham films. The fact that everyone is putting in effort helps cover up some of the issues with the film but if you want to spend 90 minutes watching Statham beat people up then this is well worth your time. It’s just that there are better Statham films out there.

Batman Returns (1992)

After the success of the last Batman film, it was inevitable that we would get a sequel. This film sees Batman take on Penguin and Catwoman in a format that would be used in the next two Batman films because one villain is not enough. I thought it was a brave move to not really have any connection to the previous film. There is a brief mention regarding the Joker and also reference to Vicky Vale but aside from that it almost treats this as a standalone movie. Like the Joker, we get to see how Selena became Catwoman whereas Penguin already is the Penguin when the film starts although we see his early years.

Danny DeVito is very good as the Penguin. I think that Colin Farrell's version of the character is really good but this version plays into the idea that he the human form of a penguin. The character gets some unusual emotional depth by having being abandoned by his parents because he didn't look how a child should normally look. This does feel like something that wouldn't get used in today's movie so it adds something different to the film. Michelle Pfeiffer is very good as Selina who then becomes Catwoman. It's a role that is quite difficult to pull off but being Pfeiffer is a great actress and I did like the dynamic between her and Keaton. That seemed to be a more interesting aspect of the story than Batman and Penguin. I also thought that Christopher Walken was great as Max Shreck. If the film had just been him then I would have still enjoyed the film because Walken is always great as a villain. This was a more confident performance from Michael Keaton although the increased payday might have helped but I still thought that the overall performance was better. Bruce Wayne came across as a more complicated character and Batman feels more like a strong character than in the previous film. 

Despite this being another Batman film directed by Tim Burton, Gotham feels slightly different to how it did in the first one. I think there must have been a bigger budget because it feels like its heading towards the Gotham we see in the Joel Schumacher films which is sad to see but I do like the fact that this is effectively a Christmas film and its barely acknowledge and often gets overlooked as a Christmas film. I don't think that Batman Returns is as good as the first Batman film. I think the fact that the villains don't really connect means that there doesn't seem to be to much of a threat for Batman. I can see why people like this film but for me the first one is a more enjoyable film to watch although this is pretty close in terms of enjoyment.

Batman (1989)

The two Tim Burton Batman films were being shown at the cinema and I thought that there was no better way of spending a Sunday afternoon. I have always felt that these were worthy of being in the discussion for the best Batman movies alongside the Christopher Nolan films. This is the one that reset the Batman movies after the camp 1960’s offerings. 

It always strikes me as funny that Jack Nicholson got his credit BEFORE Michael Keaton, you know the actor playing the lead character. There is no way that would have happened today but I suppose because Nicholson was the more famous actor it would make sense (sort of) to lead with him. Jack Nicholson is very good as the Joker. I know that Heath Ledger leads the way as the best Joker but for a long time it was impossible to think that anyone could be better than Nicholson because he walked that fine line of being menacing and yet over the top in that 80’s kind of way. I think that it's a great performance from Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne. Having just watched the Christian Bale trilogy, it's weird to see Bruce Wayne in such a way that makes him quite likeable instead of the rich playboy that we are supposed to dislike in future films. Keaton does go a bit Beetlejuice at one point which must have been an accident but was quite amusing.

I do miss this era of comic book films where the villain would be your normal villain and then something would happen to turn them into the villain. With this film, Jack Napier is set up by Grissom (Jack Palance) because he is having an affair with Grissom’s girlfriend Alicia played by Jerry Hall and after encountering Batman falls into an acid bath and becomes The Joker. It’s a great set up and something that needs to be brought back. Nicholson is one of those actors that can always be relied upon to give a great performance and despite being the villain he does it again.

There are a couple of effects shots that do stand out but overall the production value from a film in the late 80s is still pretty good. There are lots of model shots which still look amazing and something that also needs to be brought back in today's films because when done right they wont age badly whereas CGI that is overused will be dated within 10 years. Overall this is a great Batman movie. There are very many indicators that Tim Burton directed this film but it's the least Tim Burton film that Tim Burton ever directed. The story is really good, the performances are above what you would expect from this type of film in the 1980’s and we don't have the silliness that would come with the Joel Schumacher films and as a result you don't appreciate how good this version of Gotham City is. Ok Keaton isn't the best Batman but for this film he is the Bryce Wayne that works. Even the Prince tunes don't ruin this although it does date it.

Leviticus (2026)

Leviticus was a mystery horror screening that I was convinced was the new Insidious movie and I have to say that I was relieved that it wasn't. This is an Australian film which sees Naim (Joe Bird) fall for his classmate Ryan (Stacy Clausen) and when Ryan is subjected to a gay exorcism he and eventually Naim are stalked by a figure that takes the form of the person you have feelings for in an attempt to kill you.

The film works because of the main two performances. Both Joe Bird and Stacy Clausen give very strong performances as people falling in love when people around them will try their best to stamp it out. Yes, Naim effectively starts it when he grasses Ryan up just because he was jealous that he was kissing another guy but they do work well together. There is something about Mia Wasikowska’s performance (in a good way). She doesn't support Naim in the way that she should really and almost seems to be against him just by not being around.

I thought that the end was quite good. It would probably have been a cop out if they had managed to completely defeat it but the fact that Naim sees it as the coach he and Ryan are on and dismisses it shows that in a way they have defeated it by seemingly accepting it. Not sure if everyone else would see the ending in a good way but for me it worked and it did not undo all the good will that the film had generated over the previous 80 minutes or so.

I actually enjoyed this film. It reminded me a bit of Get Out in the sense that it has a serious theme but horror is used in a creative and effective way. The story is quite good although I could have used a better exposition scene but aside from that I thought it was a good horror film. There is something about Australian horror that is under-appreciated. This is the sort of film that I would probably have waited until it came out on streaming so I think that this was a good choice for a mystery screening and to the best of knowledge there were no walkouts which is the first time that has happened in a long time.

The End of Oak Street (2026)

The trailer made this look interesting at first with the mystery then they spoiled it with another trailer showing more dinosaurs. You can tell what JJ Abrahams saw in the story because there is a mystery in the story but what has become clear over the years is that Abrahms doesn't really care if it makes sense or not.  The story sees Denise (Anne Hathaway) and Greg (Ewan McGregor) who have two kids and their marriage is starting to break down when they find out that their street has gone back in time with dinosaurs roaming around eating the other residents and they have to try and figure out how to get back.

There is an interesting film at the centre of this and I feel like something went wrong during the production. The main issue really is that the film doesn't really make much use of the setting. We never venture outside of the streets and all that wildlife and forestry is left to the background and it seems like the dinosaurs are around for five minutes before they start trying to get back and its just feels like the film doesn't go as far as it could, which is a big shame. I usually like Ewan McGregor and think that he is a great actor but he is not the best in this. His passive manner borders on cliche and when Greg and Denise get back together it just makes his character feel a bit of an afterthought. How does Anne Hathaway go from playing Penlope in The Odyssey to Denise in this? It is quite the transformation. Like McGregor, Hathaway does her best with what is a fairly ordinary and at times cliched character. She has some good moments with other characters but aside from that it is cliched.

The writing is not the best and the brief explanation was laughable and so was the forced love triangle. Aside from how predictable it was, it was also something that was completely unnecessary and could and should have been taken out of the plot. In fact there isn't even a scene between Audrey and Jeannette showing that they are a couple but its just brushed under the carpet. When they get back to their normal time and the woman said that they were in 1982 I didn't even pick up on the fact that it was 1982. I thought it was in more recent times that she was being sarcastic when she said 1982. The film has one more dose of stupid to throw at us and that is the very quick plan to try and get Greg and other members of the street out of the area that would go missing. It felt like they needed to bolt on a happy ending to keep people happy which I was glad of because I thought they were going to end the film with no real ending.

It’s not terrible but it is an underwhelming film. It feels like we have been on a good run of great movies and its a shame that this film came out now. The film had a low budget by recent standards and whilst its used well and the dinosaurs looked quite good it didn't have quite the epic feel it needed. This is another one of those films where there is a good story in there but it’s handled in such a dumb way. It does feel like Mitchell’s idea was hijacked and put through the Bad Robot filter and it stripped all the good things and replaced it with a substandard film. I had heard a theory that this could have been in the Cloverfield universe but I dont think that would have improved things.

Lady (2025)

Lady was a mystery screening that was fairly well attended on a Monday night. I would estimate about 30-40 people were in attendance when the film started but after about 20 minutes I would say 10 people left and to be honest I couldn't blame them. For the first time since Megalopolis I seriously considered walking out. Ultimately the reason why I didn't is because at the point I was considering getting up, the film started getting interesting.

The set up of the film is that Sam (Laurie Kynaston) is an aspiring documentary maker who is hired by eccentric Lady Isabella (Sian Clifford) to make a film about her for Netflix. The truth is that there is no documentary and as the film progresses she starts to turn invisible. She tells Sam that her son is at boarding school but this turns out to be a lie as he died and the invisibility and the fact that she hasn't left the house/mansion in five years becomes about her grief and their odd relationship.

The main issue is that the film is trying to be like Saltburn but it doesn't have the story or the characters to pull it off. I think Sian Clifford does a good job of presenting Isabella as an odd and tragic person and Knynaston does an ok job as Sam and there is some interesting character stuff regarding his issue with performing but it never comes together in a coherent way. The invisibility stuff comes at the right time but it's never acknowledged in an attempt to try and explain it. By the time we learn about her son’s death it is way too late into the movie to save it and it really becomes a film where strange things happen for strangeness’ sake. I think if the film were a short then it would have worked better but at 95 minutes the film is stretching itself too thin. 

Lady isn't the worst film of 2026 but it's pretty close. I think what stops it beating 100 Nights of Hero is that film genuinely frustrated me and bored me whereas there was something intriguing about this film and despite it being a terrible film I think that the mystery aspect was a success because it means that I see films that I probably wouldn't have seen normally or on streaming and most of the time they are good but occasionally they are bad. I wouldn't recommend seeing this as there is very little to get you through it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

The first Pirates film was released 23 years ago and is the latest of the re-releases that I have gone to see. Before the film started one of the trailers was the first Fast and the Furious film which turns 25 this year. This is what is truly scary. Not films I saw growing up but films that were released when I was in full time work not reaching a quarter of a century. The set up is that Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is trying to get back his ship which was taken from him by Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who is trying to get rid of a curse with the help of a medallion that Elizabeth (Kiera Knightley) took from Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) several years earlier to hide the fact he was a pirate.

Johnny Depp gives one of his best performances since Ed Wood and he arguably hasn't had a role as good as this since. The over top manner is not too bad in this film but in future films it would become a parody. It’s reigned in enough to make the character likeable and funny. Another trailer before this film shows Depp plays Ebeneezer Scrooge in the latest remake of the Christmas classic and they cite Jack Sparrow and whilst I think it might be good, it wont be as good as Sparrow because the character is so memorable. Despite being a pirate, he is likeable and you want to see him get the Black Pearl back.

Orlando Bloom was clearly cast to cash in on the Lord of the Rings trilogy because that was the only reason to cast him in this. I have grown to like his performance in this over the years but I still think that was cast not for his acting abilities but because he was in one of the most popular trilogies in movie history. Kiera Knightley is another that wasn't really cast for her acting abilities. I think that at that time Bend it Like Beckham had gone down a storm and so they were probably trying to use her name recognition. She has the looks but there is very little there in terms of acting but because the film works as well as it does means that Knightley’s performance doesn't bring the film down. The chemistry that the film hopes is there between Bloom and Knightley sadly never appears in any of the films. As much as my opinion of Bloom and Knighley has improved over the years, the one thing that hasn't improved is their chemistry. It’s non-existent which is a shame.

Geoffrey Rush is really good as Barbossa. The friction between Barbossa and Sparrow is at the heart of the movie and Rush seems to be having fun playing a villain which is pitched just right for a Disney film.

The supporting cast is also really good with Jonathan Pryce being his usually charming self as Governor Swann (Elizabeth’s father), Jack Davenport as the likeable but equally snarky Norrington. Lee Arenberg and Mackenzie Crook are a great double act as Pintel and Ragetti (Crook was another who was quite well known in 2003 with The Office still popular). There isn't really a weak performance from the supporting cast and that helps make the film enjoyable because you want the team that Jack cobbles together to succeed even if they abandon Jack at the end.

Considering that this film is over 20 years old, the special effects obviously hold up a lot more than films from the 90’s or 80’s. There are a couple that look a little iffy but to be fair given how many special effect shots there are in the film, one or two isn't a bad number. The dynamic between Depp, Knightley and Bloom is a good one although that is largely due to Depp.

The film is the best in the series and the one that doesn't suffer from the weight of an overcomplication in the plot. The film feels like a lot of fun which is something the later films lack and the film moves along at a great pace and is as much fun as it was 23 years ago. The story works because it is relatively straightforward, the action scenes are well done and you can see everything that is happening so the shaky cam thing is not an issue and the score is fantastic from Klaus Badelt. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is a film that can still be enjoyed and seeing it on the big screen is the best way to watch it.