Street Fighter (2026)

2026 has been a big year for movies based on video games. We have had Super Mario Galaxy Movie, Resident Evil, Return to Silent Hill and Mortal Kombat II so it seems like the perfect time to bring back Street Fighter after the terrible 1994 version with Jean-Claude Van Damme and Raul Julia taking the two main roles. Set in 1993, Bison wants the power of Ryu so he can be big and powerful and comes up with a tournament to try and draw Ryu out of hiding who disappeared several year earlier.

The plot to the film seems simple enough but there were times that the people writing the film and producing didn't seem to know what they wanted to achieve with the film as the whole film seemed to be going through the motions and despite the film being two hours long, it felt a whole lot longer. The film took itself a bit too seriously and didn't embrace the silliness of the 1994 version without fully embracing it.

It was a mixed bag in terms of performances. Andrew Koji (Ryu) seemed to be in a brooding gritty character drama. He isn't in the first half of the film and when he does appear he is very moody and very low energy. Noah Cetineo (Ken) was fine but doing the whole 'wasting talent and living on being famous' thing a bit too well. He seems to want to be the fan favourite and he doesn't quite good too far in the narcissistic part of the character.

Calling Liang (Chun-Li) was good although she played the character just right. The whole undercover thing was a bit unnecessary but when the main part of the film gets going, she comes into her own and has some good fight scenes. Cody Rhodes is the best thing in the film. He is the only one that seems to understand what type of film he is in. He was funny in every scene he was in and it would have been nicer to have him in it more. Unusually he wasn't the only WWE wrestler in the film as Roman Reigns (aka Joe Anoa'i) playing the big bad guy Akuma. I was slightly disappointed that he when he appears properly that he didn't say his WWE catchphrase 'Acknowledge Me'. His character didn't seem to be the big bad guy that he had been built up to be throughout the film so Anoa'i felt let down but what he was given.

David Dasmalchian (Bison) seemed to be reining it in. There were times where it felt like he wasn't going as over the top as he could have done and as a result it felt underwhelming. It does feel unfair comparing performances to the 1994 terrible version but I did prefer the Raul Julia performance.

When I saw the trailer, I thought Eric Andre was going to irritate me but I thought that it was as it should be. It was over the top just enough to be entertaining but not irritating. Andrew Schulz's performance as Dan Hibiki was also entertaining enough but not too irritating.

It felt like all the other known characters were very underserved. It felt like they should have done most of them like they did with E. Honda. Have them in a scene, in a fight or something and then write them out. That way you please the fans but don't weigh down the story with too many characters.

The fights were all rather good. They all looked like they performed by people who knew how to do that sort of thing and given that it's an important part of the game, it feels like they took this aspect of the film importantly. I also like how the actors looked like their computer game characters. The whole look of the film was rather good as well with each scene not looking like it was filmed 100% in front of a green screen which is where films seem to be heading nowadays. I really liked the animated parts of the film and do wonder whether they should have done the entire film like that but then it probably wouldn't have ended up in the cinema.

Street Fighter is an ok film but slightly disappointing. I think they didn't go over the top enough and not in the way that the 1994 version did but something close to it. The ending suggests that they are planning for future films which I would be very surprised because this doesn't seem like it's going to do well enough but I could be wrong. I think that fans of the game will not be that be terribly impressed with it and non-fans will just be underwhelmed with it. 

The Influencer Project (2026)

This was a mystery screening at my local cinema and I had absolutely no idea what it could be. My best guess was that it could have been Clayface as it was the only horror film I was aware of so I was slightly disappointed when the BBFC title card said 'The Influencer Project' which is the first time that I was even aware that this film existed. The film had a trigger warning which is something that I don't recall seeing in a newly released film which I suspect that this is going to be the norm. The film follows influencer Chiara King (playing herself) who is on a trip to Amsterdam and is being followed by a masked stalker.

As the film progresses the tension builds up quite nicely and I don't know if it was because Other Mommy annoyed me so much but I enjoyed this film a lot more than I was expecting. The film starts off with a young girl who starts a video and ends it by hanging herself. The main issue with the film is that it isn't terribly original. You can tell from the moment the masked figure appears that they will have something to do with the young girl and that is exactly what happens as he turns out to be the father and Victor is the brother. 

The film does end with Chiara committing murder on livestream and it would have been nice to have maybe 10-15 minutes seeing the fallout. It did remind me of the ending of Ready or Not. The film ends pretty much the moment that Victor falls to his death. Chiara King does a good job as an influencer and being terrified of being followed. The scene at the flea market was well done because the search for the masked guy seemed to come out of nowhere and was a short intense moment. 

There always comes a moment in these films where they ask (usually in a found footage film) why they don't stop filming and there is poor reason given. The question is why Chiara doesn't go back home and it's because she would stand to lose I think £100,000 so there is a huge financial reason for staying in Amsterdam. 

This is the sort of film that you would see on Amazon Prime. Maybe it might even end up on Tubi but I think it's too good for Tubi. Once you get past the fact that influencers are quite insufferable people then you can enjoy it as a decent 90 minute horror film and this shows Other Mommy how to do a horror film which must be embarrassing for those at Blumhouse. This film has the same amount of blood than Other Mommy but this film has a simnifically smaller budget and yet I think uses a more creative way and perhaps simplistic way.

Despite how good the film is, the most horrifying thing in the movie was that shot of Simon Cowell.

Other Mommy (2026)

From the director of pandemic film Host and The Boogeyman (which were both good) and Dashcam (which wasn't), we get one of the worst films I have seen this year and currently the worst horror film of the year. Other Mommy looked like it was going to be classic Blumhouse film. The trailer made the film look like it might be worth watching. The film follows Bella (played by Arabella Olivia Clark) who has a sort of imaginary friend who she calls Other Mommy. When the film starts, Bella already knows Other Mommy and so there is no real introduction given into what is going on. There is no real explanation why Bella of all people can see this entity.

We meet Frank who is called Uncle Frank in the way that people who aren't related to people who have kids but are close enough to be called Aunt or Uncle but for some reason Bella doesn't like Frank so she asks Other Mommy to get rid of him. To be fair Arabella Olivia Clark is the best thing about the film. I find myself sympathising with her. Jessica Chastain was a bit bland as Mommy but when she was Other Mommy I found her to be effectively creepy. 

My main issue with the film is that I just found it a bit bland. The main family just don't seem to be clicking in a narrative sense. Karen Allen comes in for a 10 minute stint and does very little so I was a bit annoyed that they wasted her. Dichen Lachman pops up for her stint and is also wasted. The whole seance in Grandma's house felt rushed and didn't feel like it was built up to in an effective way. 

I did find myself laughing at one point although I don't think it was intentional. When they go back to the house and seem to be acting like things are normal and they walk to the dining table and it is completely full of knives and other deadly weapons. I don't think it was intended because there weren't any other humorous moments. The tone is another problem with this film. It doesn't want to go quite  too serious like Obsession or Backrooms but doesn't want to go completely schlock like the Conjuring films or Insidious and they somehow manage to just be nothing at all which is quite a skill.

There are good moments such as when Frank got killed but to be honest the good moments are few and far between. The 'twist' that Daddo (Jay Duplass) wasn't Bella's biological father wasn't quite the twist that they thought it was because it was obvious from quite an early stage. Also it didn't seem to quite make sense why it would be a good time when Other Mommy was trying to kill them to pour there heart out as it didn't work and was never going to work.

The ending felt like sequel bait. The mere hint that Other Mommy may be gone felt like they couldn't end the film on a good note for some reason. This will probably make its money back so there will undoubtedly be a sequel but if it's going to be anything like this film then they shouldn't bother because it was a massive disappointment. My expectations were low and they still weren't meant. I think that Blumhouse really needs to up their game because when stuff like Obsession, Backrooms and Weapons exist, then you can't get away with putting out this type of rubbish. This film made Whistle look like a masterpiece. Whistle wasn't great but at least it attempted to have an atmosphere and try to be scary.

The Social Reckoning (2026)

The Social Reckoning which is the sequel to the excellent 2010 film The Social Network with this focusing on the social media giant that has billions of users across multiple platforms. Sadly David Fincher doesn't return to direct instead with Aaron Sorkin sitting in the directors chair. Jesse Eisenberg also sadly doesn't return as Mark Zuckerberg. 

Mikey Madison is good as Frances Haugen. The character who reluctantly decides to help Jeff blow the whistle on her employers. Madison plays Frances as someone who wants to believe that Facebook can be a source for good. Jeremy Allen White is also good as Jeff Horwitz who is the Wall Street Journalist who is working with Frances to get to the truth behind Facebook. White is a very good actor and I don't know how close this performance is to the real Horwitz but the character comes across as a nice guy who is reluctant to engage in the social media world. The dynamic between the two is what keeps you engaged with the story. Frances is torn between believing that Facebook is a good thing and the dangerous path they are walking on.

Jeremy Strong does a really good impression of Mark Zuckerberg. But that is what it feels like, an impression. Strong comes across as a strange person which is quite he seems so good at playing Zuckerberg. He's a good actor but it did feel like an impression at times. I was surprised at how good Bill Burr was. He plays Charlie and all his scenes are with Jeremy Strong and he is basically telling Mark what he should be doing and Zuckerberg not listening to him and still holding a grudge for some article that Charlie wrote.

The film basically covers the period of time of 2019 and 2021 when Frances and Jeff meet to the insurrection of January 6th when mad people stormed the Capitol Building and the Covid pandemic also features although its used in a way that explains how Frances is in a warmer climate. Also get use to hearing the term MSI or Meaningful Social Interaction as it gets referred to about 150 times in the film (slight exaggeration). The more that the film talks about this sort of stuff the more that I found my dislike for social media grew. Not just Facebook but all forms of social media. If you didn't like it before then this film isn't going to convince you otherwise and likewise if you liked Facebook before then this film is just going to be 'fake propaganda' or something like that.

I went into this screening not expecting it to be as good (or anywhere close) to The Social Network but I was still slightly disappointed because whilst the performances are fine, the writing is standard and so is the directing now the writing for me is the bigger issue because Aaron Sorkin knows how to write great dialogue but for some reason there are very few memorable moments in this film whereas in The Social Network there are plenty. The directing is also an issue because David Fincher's style was missing here and it didn't have the vibe that you would expect from Fincher. The Social Network is a film that I have watched multiple times but I don't think that I will be rushing to watch The Social Reckoning anytime soon. It's not terrible by any means but it doesn't have that impact that the first film has. It is so well behaved that it's a feels like a wasted opportunity to really say something impactful about the dangers of social media in general.

The Uprising (2026)

The Uprising is basically the birth of Robin Hood which given I saw 'The Death of Robin Hood' seems like quite the year for the famous character. The film starts in 1381 and England is run by Richard II who is only 14 years old and too young to rule so he has advisors who advise him to increase taxes and this causes the titular uprising.

Andrew Garfield is really good in this. It looked like he took this role seriously and managed to pull off quiet determination. All of the uprising was happening because of the 'ploughman' yet he was the last person you would expect to be like this. When it is made clear that he is basically Robin Hood then it makes the character a lot more interesting and I wish they had done this earlier in the film. Thomasin McKenzie was quite good as Alyce. The character was a little underwritten but I thought that McKenzie managed to squeeze every interesting drop out of the character and was a good supporting presence to the Ploughman.

It took me a long time to realise that Jamie Bell was in this movie. He has shaved his head and also it's been a while since I saw him in something so he managed to sneak into the film as John Ball. He was usually referred to as the Heretic that just that one name made him interesting although Bell deserves a lot of praise for what he did in the film. I thought that Woody Norman was really good as King Richard. He is trying to be some sort of king but when he listens to his advisors and sees it going wrong then he just seems to double down. He was utterly unlikeable and the fact that he wasn't killed but allowed to be suffering from his nightmares is perhaps the best punishment for the King.

There was a scene where the King and the advisors are looking over a map as the people get closer and the way that it was directed and acted reminded you that this was a Paul Greengrass film. Paul Greengrass manages to make this film entertaining which given there aren't that many action scenes and he can't use tank or guns or anything like that and still make the film work shows how good a director he is. Credit also has to go to Volker Bertelmann for another great soundtrack after working wonders on Conclave and All Quiet on the Western Front. The costume designers Godena-Jihasz Attila and Toth Andras did a great job with the costumes and the cinematography was also stunning and made 14th century look like an interesting place to visit despite the horrible stuff that was happening. 

This was a mystery screening at my local cinema and it was one of the best ones for a long time. I really enjoyed this film even though its not a big action packed film but Greengrass manages to make stories that don't have the biggest range in terms of drama and make them interesting and at 128 minutes it does not outstay its welcome. I thought that it was an interesting story with great performances and it is the best Robin Hood story of the year which isn't something I thought I would right.

Verity (2026)

I must admit that I was curious about Verity based on the trailer so it did its job. Verity has a relatively simple premise but it basically asks what is truthful and what is a lie and given that the story features authors, it is perhaps the occupation for this type of story.

Anne Hathaway plays the titular Verity who is a successful author who was involved in a car accident and has been left in a catatonic state. Josh Hartnett plays her husband Jeremy who looks after her and their son Crew following the loss of their daughter Harper. Dakota Johnson plays Lowen who is a struggling author who is given the opportunity to help finish Verity's books.

There is something about Dakota Johnson that p work for me. I don't think she's a terrible actress but whatever she is in I just think that there is someone better that could have had the role. But then I don't think that her casting ruins a film. There is something about Josh Hartnett that instantly makes me think he is playing a bad guy, either up from bad or in the case of this film discretely. Anne Hathaway does well with Verity. On the fact of it the character is a cold and horrible person but what Hathaway does is still may the character likeable and even when the truth comes out about what she did and why she pretended to be in a vegetative state, she is still a likeable person. 

It was obvious that Jeremy was responsible for the car accident that Verity was in and it was also obvious that Verity was faking her comatose state but the reason why makes her come across in a good way whilst Jeremy and Lowen come across as the villains of the story but to be honest I found all of them to be unlikeable to varying degrees. This means that as a viewer, I'm not sure who I am supposed to be rooting for. I suppose the ambiguous morals of the characters makes it a bit more interesting to tell a story about.

The idea of setting the film in one location is one of the few things I liked about the film. Singular settings are always good for me cause it means that your focus is one what is going on and not worrying about anything or anyone else. The house that features in the film is quite nice although it looks awful from the outside. The snowy setting also helps make the house a nice setting. 

I thought Verity was ok. It wasn't anything spectacular and the performances were good enough so I wasn't bored even at how flimsy and predictable the plot was. I haven't read the book that this is based on so I don't know how faithful the film is to the source material (or not) but its a perfectly fine thriller but I suspect there are probably better thrillers out there.

Casino Royale (2006)

It is genuinely scary that it's been 20 years since I walked into the cinema to see what Daniel Craig could achieve in the iconic role. I am literally walking into the same cinema and its films reaching milestones like this that I saw when I was an adult that make me feel like old man. (I'm 43 by the way!!!). There was no way in knowing that this was the beginning of the longest tenure in the franchise's history. 2006 was a perilous time for the famous spy as it has been made to look dated because of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. A change was needed and Casino Royale was that change. 

The film starts off in Black and White and we learn that it takes two kills to become a 00 agent and we see those kills and it shows that we are in a new era. Then cue the great theme song sung by Chris Cornell.  I have a theory that the quality of the song tells you the quality of the Bond film. This one is great as is the film, Skyfall song is great as is the film and Die Another Day song is garbage and so is the film.

The story is a key reason why the film is so good. The villain of the story is Le Chiffre who wants to blow up a plane that is about to go public so he can profit from selling shares before the plane goes up in smoke, once Bond stops that from happening and costing Le Chiffre $100 million, Le Chiffre puts on a poker game at the titular Casino Royale. They use the word 'the organisation' which I think at the time was a get around because they couldn't use the Spectre name. I thought that Le Chiffre was a great villain. Aside from introducing the world to Mads Mikkelsen. The toned down villain is in keeping that the new vibe and the weeping blond worked well. The fact that Le Chiffre doesn't really get involved in the story apart from two brief scenes until about an hour in is quite a bold move but Mikkelsen is so good that he makes the character memorable.

Daniel Craig is a great Bond. No one would know this in 2006 but he brings an intensity to the role that made me re-evaluate Timothy Dalton's Bond. When he got announced there were people who didn't like the idea of Craig being Bond and came up with 'jokes' like  James Blond but if you were still that sniffy after seeing this film then there was no pleasing you. People don't realise that Craig does manage to do some light hearted moments. There are a couple of moments which highlight this including when Le Chiffre is torturing a naked Bond.

Vesper is the new Bond girl and Eva Green does a great job with what starts off as a cold character but then becomes a complex character. When she enters the story as someone tasked with keeping an eye of the money Bond was using for the poker game, she says that she is the money with Bond quipping back 'every penny of it'. It was a nice in-joke to get round the fact that there is no Moneypenny (or Q).  Vesper's secret is one of the few issues I have with the film. There are too many people with double loyalties. The Montenegro Police Chief is one, Mathis is the second and Vesper is the third. Vesper's backstory does come right at the end and feels a bit like being crowbarred in to explain why she did what she did and ultimately died.

The film's actions scenes are all really good. The Miami airport is really good even with the cameo from Richard Branson. The Bond chasing the parkour guy was another great period of the film and the whole Venice portion had great moments so the film continued the tradition of great action scenes in Bond films. The Bond that we get in this film feels like an obvious response to Bauer and Bourne which is what was needed cause we couldn't have another Die Another Day type film with invisible cars, terrible CGI and poor dialogue. Bond came out of Casino Royale showing that the character could change for a 21st century audience. Craig's Bond feels like a proper tough guy. You feel like the punches and cuts hurt. There is no way that Brosnan's Bond or Connery's Bond would have done the torture scene. 

It always feels like you're not Bond until you say the immortal line 'The Names Bond......James Bond' which has typically come early on. In Dr. No it is one of if not the first line that Sean Connery's Bond says and yet in Casino Royale, it's the last thing he says. I'll be honest it wasn't something that I was keen on being said early on but it would have been strange at the end if he had not said it.

Casino Royale is a brilliant Bond film but it's not my favourite (that would be Skyfall). It was perhaps the most important Bond film at that time and yet the film feels fresh and that the problems the franchise had at that time were nothing to be worried about. Bond is back, Daniel Craig is very good (and would be great) and things would only from strength to strength......after Quantum of Solace of course.