Iron Lung (2026)

 For the second time in as many months, I am sat in a cinema watching a film made by a YouTuber. The film is directed by Mark Fischbach (aka Markiplier) and is based on a video game which I have never played so in regards to authenticity I cannot comment. The plot of the film is that Fischbach plays Simon who starts the film in this iron submarine type thing and has to find something. The entire film takes place in this submarine and the closest that we get to coming outside is when we see through a window at some other humans and a couple of flashbacks. The film has very little space in which to keep things moving but to the film's credit it manages it. 

The last 40 minutes dragged for me and as a result I stopped paying attention so I didn’t keep track of what was happening or why. I don't know if the plot was based on the video game or they have just borrowed some elements but I felt like the plot was starting to get a bit convoluted after a while. It also felt like the longer the film went on the more the camera was shaking so much that you couldn’t see what was going on. The last shot was of the life jacket with the black box in it but we don't know if Simon’s sacrifice was in vain or achieved something substantial. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that if they had found a better actor then the performance might have kept me engaged with the story. Fischbach might be a popular YouTube but I don't think he is going to be a contender at the BAFTA’s or Oscars anytime soon. Normally the lack of star power might be a red flag but on this occasion i dont think that it was a problem.

The thing I liked about the film is the production values. As the film takes place entirely in the submarine it is important that it looks good and despite the low light I thought that it was a really good job. I also like the ‘photos’ that were produced when Simon pressed the button. They looked very creepy and showed us what threat there was outside in this world that we know very little about (unless its explained in the game)

The film cost a reported $3 million and has made around $20 million which for a film with very little traditional promotional stuff is quite an achievement and in the screening I was in which was 10pm on a Friday night it was pretty much full so it shows that you dont have to spend millions to get people to go and see your film. Will Hollywood learn a lesson from this? Of course not. It’s a great film by any means but on a technical level and on what it has achieved I think that it should be seen but maybe wait for it to come out on streaming. Just dont see it if you suffer from claustrophobia.

Primate (2025)

 Primate has a very simple premise. A bunch of young annoying people go back to Lucy’s home where they have a chimp that’s called Ben and gets Rabies and then goes apesh*t and tries to kill everyone. Sometimes films work best when they are stripped back to just being your typical b-movie schlock. This is directed by Johannes Roberts who previously did the most recent Resident evil film which I quite enjoyed. 

The film is rated an 18 which is quite a difficult thing to achieve but it definitely deserved it. On one occasion Ben rips a guy's jaw off and on another occasion rips a bit of someone’s scalp off. The girls ring some guys they meet on the plane and they are literally just in the movie so that Ben can kill them. Ok they were rather annoying but when they appeared I knew that they weren’t going to feature in the final act of the movie. 

If I had an issue with the film it's that the film is in constant darkness. I know that it's in the middle of the night but they could have jus stuck a couple of more lights on. As a result because all the girls kind of looked the same I could tell who was the main girl and her sister. The film only had one person that I recognised and it was the guy from CODA Troy Kotsur. He is in it briefly but he is rather good and it's quite nice and refreshing to have a deaf character in one of the central roles and others knowing sign language.

I like the fact that Ben was played by an actual person. It was obvious that they weren’t going to get a real chimp so as I was watching it I wondered if they were going to do a mixture of actor and CGI/AI. Thankfully they seem to have gone for the former and Miguel Hernando Torres Umba plays the role brilliantly and comes across as one of the scariest monsters that I have seen in a horror film for quite sometime.

Overall I enjoyed this film a lot more than I was expecting. There are some pacing issues especially when we have to spend a long time with the girls before Ben goes bad and when they move into the pool after the rampage starts there are moments where it feels like the pace is stuttering a bit. However the film is 89 minutes long and it doesn't outstay its welcome. The plot is simple and doesn't complicate itself although the dad disappearing just so he could come back and save the day did feel a little cliched. However despite these minor issues it is a film that I recommend but be mindful if you dont like gore then this might not be the film for you.

R.I.P Ben

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

 It just occurred to me that the showing of The Balloonatic was the equivalent of showing a short animated film before the slightly longer running time so it makes the £13 you’ve spent on one ticket worth it. I wasn't expecting it but I do appreciate it. As Sherlock Jr was the ‘main event’, it got the intro treatment which really wasn’t worth it but I suppose if you didn’t see Radiohead X Nosferatu then it wouldn’t have been as much of an issue.

The film starts off with Buster Keaton sitting in a theatre and reading a book about how to be a Detective and from pretty much that moment the good stuff happens. There is a bit where he is sweeping up outside and one women claims she has lost a dollar and Keaton gives it too her, then a moment later the same thing happens and he does the same thing. Then there is a man that comes along and as Keaton goes to give him the dollar, the man hands it back and it was a moment where you think he is being reward for his generosity but then hilariously the man rummages through the rubbish to find his wallet with what is most likely a lot more money.

The story then moves to a house where Keaton is trying to woo a lady but someone also has eyes on her and frames him for stealing a pocket watch. In an attempt to try and solve the mystery and prove his innocence, Keaton follows the man but then is ultimately unsuccessful. He returns to the cinema where whilst asleep he seemingly solves the mystery of who took the watch. By the end of the film the woman has been told by her father that they made a mistake and they end up happily ever after.

I had seen this film before (a few years ago) and I didn’t appreciate the technical feat that the film pulls off which is made even more crazy when you realise it was made 102 years ago. The use of colours is achieve much better than in Nosferatu although that might be because of the quality of the film. The billiard ball effect was really good and not only looked good but highlighted to us in a black and white film which ball was the one we needed to focus on. Another great effect was the use of the double buster in the projection room. That must have taken so much time to figure out and even now it looks like a good effect. The stand out effect was of him jumping through the hole in the women and then she walks away on the same shot showing there was no hole in the wall which is a mind blowing effect in 2026 let alone 1924.

The whole faux Sherlock adventure at the house with Keaton as Sherlock was clearly the best part and it was fun owners films were over a century ago. The thief and his butler trying to kill Sherlock Jr with an exploding billiard ball and only in a silent film could an example of an exploding billiard ball go off and no one in the house notices.

Second time this year I have been in a film where people have walked out. They were an older couple so clearly not a fan of R.E.M or hadn’t seen the Nosferatu X Radiohead film but it was nearly forty minutes into the double feature and I would love to have gone out with them to see what was the breaking point for them.

Like in The Balloonatic, the song’s transitions were done better. There were a couple of moments where the songs ended mid-scene but the gap didn’t seem to be as long as before. Still not convinced by using more modern music. I think you could give this to a composer today and the could come up with music that would appeal to a modern audience but crucially work better than R.E.M or any band really.

I enjoyed this film very much. I think that it again proves why Buster Keaton in my eyes was the better star of silent cinema over Charlie Chaplin. The story was good, the action scenes were well done and show how insane Keaton was for trying to do them in an age before stunt doubles were a thing and the humour was there and again better than what Chaplin did most of the time. Sherlock Jr. is definitely one of the best Buster Keaton films and if you are looking to get into silent films then this is one of the ones to start with.

The Balloonatic (1923)

 Back in October 2025, I went to a screening of Nosferatu that had music from Radiohead playing over it. I was intrigued to see whether it worked and barring a couple of minor issues (one with the cinema itself), back then I knew there was this screening coming and so I waited because this time it wasn't a horror film but a Buster Keaton film. There was a mystery before I even got there because on the website it said that the running time was an hour and 15 minutes and yet Sherlock Jr. is only 45 minutes. As you are reading this review then you know that there was another film before Sherlock Jr.

No intro like with Nosferatu. I didn’t mind that too much as I thought that they didn’t really add anything. Not being an R.E.M. fan I don't know if their music was used on this one but it would make sense if they did. The first couple of minutes were distracting as the image would go ‘funny’ when certain beats were hit in the song.

Bearing in mind its only 22 minutes, Buster Keaton manages to get through quite a lot. First he goes on a water ride to try and meet a girl and by the end of the ride he gets a black eye so clearly whatever chatup line (or what passed for a chat up like in 1923) didn’t work. Next up he is walking past a hot air ballon and gets asked to attach something to it, the balloon then ends up flying into the air prematurely and he is on top of it oblivious. The final part sees him trying his hand at fishing and this was the best part of the movie as he ends up walking unaware that a bear is following him and until the bear gets shot, it looks like it's a real bear which is definitely a brave thing to do. When the bear is shot it does seem to turn into a bloke in a costume but there was obviously no way of making a bear co-operate.

More happens in this 22 minute film that sometimes happens in a $200 million action film. I enjoyed this and it shows in my mind why Buster Keaton is better than Charlie Chaplin. I think he is a better actor and he manages to show more emotion than Chaplin. I get that Chaplin is more of a comedy performer but in this era I would have definitely been more of a Keaton fan. I thought that the run time was the perfect length and didn’t need to be any longer.

On the song front I thought that they were used better than they were in Nosferatu. Despite being a bit distracting at first they helped after a while and there wasnt the issue of awkward silences like in Nosferatu.I had seen this before and think that the music originally used worked better but as a fun experiment, this version did what it needed to do. Now onto the main event and what the four people in my screening were there for……Sherlock Jr.

Send Help (2026)

 Send Help is the latest film from Sam Raimi. It sees Rachel McAdams (Linda) and Bradley (Dylan O’Brien) survive a plane crash and have to survive but when Linda sees a boat passing by she tries her best to stay on the island to extreme measures. The plot is simple, the characters are not very likeable in different ways and there is a high level of slapstick gore. Rachel McAdams does really well as Linda. She starts off as a frumpy unlikable office worker but when the story moves to the island she seems to become a different person. Someone who is in her dream location and has an upper hand on her loathsome boss. Dylan O’Brien plays Bradley really well. He is unlikeable because he is the typical horrible boss that will say whatever it takes.

There are many moments which feel very much like you are watching a Sam Raimi film. One moment comes when the plane starts to crash and one of the passengers flies out the plane and his tie catches off the side and bashes his head on the side of the window which leads Linda to comically close the window blind. Another moment comes when Linda is attempting to give Bradley mouth to mouth resuscitation and between every breath attempt she is throwing up all over him. There are plenty more funny moments and this is why Raimi is such a good director because he makes it work and doesn't make the film feel farcical. 

I knew the exact moment when I loved this film and it comes quite late into the film when we discover what is on the other side of the big X that Bradley was told not to go past and it is in fact a fancy beach house with all the mod cons that you would want. In any other film this would have totally lost me and I would have rolled my eyes at but I found it quite funny in the context of this film. I thought that it fitted the humour quite well. The film ended in a way that I liked. Even though neither character is particularly likeable, I was happy that Linda literally drove off into the sunset. I can see some people not liking this but I thought that she sort of deserved this ending.

There is a plot hole that stood out to me during the film but it isn’t big enough to ruin my enjoyment but I would be failing in my review if I didn’t point them out. The plot hole is concerning Zuri and the guy who has the boat. Did neither of them let anyone know where they were going and did no one ask Linda if she knew anything about them. The only real issue with the film is that the opening 10-15 minutes is a bit unnecessary. The film spends too long hammering the point home that Linda isn’t that likeable and lives alone with her bird and has aspirations of being on a Survivor-style reality show.

There is enough Sam Raimi stuff in it that you will be entertained. I don't think it is quite up there with the first two Evil Dead films but it was definitely an enjoyable film. I think had the film started a bit better then this would have become my film of the year but I think that and some other pacing issues means that this is a fun if slightly flawed Sam Raimi film.

Shelter (2026)

There are some actors you know what sort of film you are going to get and Jason Statham is the modern day poster child for this. You know that you are going to get a film where people are sent to attack/kill the Statham character and he ends up killing them. Shelter is another example of an acting giving the audience what they want and it sees Statham play Michael Mason who is an  ex member of a black ops group black kite is hunted down by the th ex head of MI6 (played brilliantly by Bill Nighy) because 10 years earlier he refused to kill someone and now along with a young girl he has to try and avoid being killed.

The plot is simple but it doesn't really need to be anymore complicated or convoluted. It’s your typical Jason Statham film and it’s a lot of fun. The only real issue that I have with the film is that it does feel a bit rushed at the end but the action scenes are quite good and it’s worth seeing just for evil Bill Nighy. I was impressed with Bodhi Rae Breathnach as Jesse. I recently saw her in Hamnet but in this she is quite good considering her role is nothing special but she makes the most out of it and the relationship with her character and Mason was nice to see. The whole idea about surveillance isn’t really that explored very much but it’s a Jason Statham film so you’re not expecting Oppenheimer.

Bill Nighy is clearly having fun as the evil boss of MI6 Manafort but there is also a good performance from Naomi Ackie who is named as his interim replacement Roberta who uncovers what her predecessor has been up to but stops short of pardoning Mason. Daniel Mays pops up for about 10 minutes and they have his character dying from cancer and yet he doesn’t get to do a noble sacrifice which is a minor criticism as it’s always nice to see Mays on screen.

Shelter is a lot of fun and one of the better Statham films. The action scenes are fun and its clear that some effort has been put into making them look as good as possible. The thing about Statham is that he knows his audience and knows what they like so he gives them what he wants but what puts him above some in this genre is that he seems to still care. That might not sound like a big thing but given how many people seem to have been phoning it in in recent years you end up appreciating what Statham does a little bit more. Definitely worth your time.

Is This Thing On? (2025)

Is This Thing On? is a film about Alex (Will Arnett) and Tess (Laura Dern) who within 3 minutes of the film starting are about to get a divorce and when Alex walks into a comedy bar he attempts stand up and decides he likes it and the film follows as Alex tries to develop his career whilst trying to navigate his new relationship with Tess.

This film reminded me a bit of The Roses with Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch. In that film Kate McKinnon and Andy Samberg play a couple that is supposed to be the opposite to the main couple and their own is slightly dysfunctional and in this film it is Bradley Cooper himself and Andra Day who are the opposite couple. The Cooper/Day couple isn’t as funny as the McKinnon/Samberg couple but it works in the context of this film. 

I really like Will Arnett and Laura Dern in this. I thought that they worked really well as a couple that seemed to have a fun relationship with each other. The film didn’t force them to be horrible to each other or bitchy at certain times. There is a moment where they have a discussion with each other but it never felt like it was going to be a volatile moment. Ciaran Hinds pops up as Alex’s dad Jan who seems to be having fun playing the elderly father figure although he has a lovely moment with Alex after he has just done an angry routine. Hinds is one of those actors who can elevate whatever role he finds himself in. 

This is apparently based on the life of UK comedian John Bishop who had a stint in Doctor Who so that was enough to get me intrigued although based on the trailer the film doesn't really say that its worth coming to the cinema for. For the record this was another mystery screening although unlike my previous cinema encounter ‘Saipan’, there were actually people in the screening with me.

There are only a couple of things that I wasn't as keen on. Firstly is the moment when Tess arrives with her ‘date’ at the same comedy club that Alex is performing at and just at the same time. You could see that coming a mile off. The other thing and this one might be argued as a creative decision but something that I am never keen on and that is the close up. Someone needs to tell Bradley Cooper that camera even 40 years ago had zooms on them. There were a couple of times I wished the camera would take just a couple of steps away from Will Arnett. A final thing which might come across as unfair or harsh is the casting of Peyton Manning. He might be considered one of the greatest of all time in the NFL but in acting terms it's a dud piece of casting. Thankfully he is only in the film for about five minutes but when the rest of the cast is so good, his performance stood out and not in a good way.

Overall I found Is This Thing On? to be charming. This is technically a romcom and does a far better job of keeping me interested unlike Materialists and this film had characters which felt like real people and situations which felt real without coming across as fake. I like Bradley Cooper as a director. I think he is quite underrated because him films aren’t flashy and they don't have a ‘message’ that a lot of films nowadays seem to have. I was genuinely and happily impressed with this film and think that it should be seen because the story is good and the comedy routines are rather good.