Primetime (2026)

Primetime was a film that seem to have gained some notoriety because the guy that the film is based on wasn't happy with how he was portrayed and decided to take out ads to seemingly discourage people from seeing the film. I do like the fact that he was confident to think that people would be rushing to see this film. This film is based on Chris Hansen who in the film is about to launch his show 'To Catch a Predator' and because it is being put up against a little known show called Lost, he decides that he needs a big 'fish' to beat Lost in the ratings. Also he is trying to stop news about his extra marital affairs from getting out (which might be the thing that Hansen is annoyed about maybe???). 

I got slightly excited when I realised Alex Winter was in it. I think because the film was so I thought that the film desperately needed some more strong performances. There is nothing wrong with this film because it's well acted with Robert Pattinson leading. I haven't seen a whole lot of the real Chris Hansen so I don't know how accurate the performance is but I just got the feeling that this was an impression instead of a performance. It's not the best performance from Pattinson this year but it's the one that he seems to be proud of the most. I thought that Skyler Gisondo was very good as Dan Plum who is hired to be an actor in the house with the 'predator' but because he slept in and was late to the house he wasn't prepared when he turned round to the guy who had dropped his trousers and was holding a can of whipped cream.

The ultimate problem with the film is that it feels very surface level. It was about the hour mark that I was wondering what exactly they were building up to. Then they decided to drop in the whole pervy politician because Hansen decided they needed something big because of a scene from Lost. It almost made me want to watch Lost again but then I remembered who downhill it goes after about the third season. They have spent so much time trying to make it feel authentic that they forgot they were making a film and trying to add some depth. The whole of the third act felt rushed to me and after Alex Winter's character killed himself, the film just ends with a mumbling VoiceOver.

Primetime is ok but it does feel like a missed opportunity. It's worth seeing because of Robert Pattinson and Skyler Gisondo but I think it is something that will be watched by most people when it arrives on streaming. I really think that they should have spent a bit more time on the screenplay because the whole infidelity subplot never goes anywhere on screen (the news seems to be broken by his wife on the phone). A bit more attention and I think this would have been a much better film.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

With Pan's Labyrinth celebrating its 20th Anniversary, I thought this was a great opportunity to visit this film on the big screen. I was surprised that this was a very well attended for a 7pm film on a cold Sunday night. Unlike when I saw Casino Royale, I didn't see this film when it came out because it wasn't the sort of film I would like but thankfully my film tastes have improved in the two decades since and I was more than happy to buy a ticket for this film. The film takes place in 1944 where 10 year old Ofelia and her pregnant mother are on their way to live with her new step-father but in an attempt to escape from her new reality, she enters a dreamlike world.

Guillermo del Toro is a master at creating bleak scenarios but still have enough humanity and warmth to make the films accessible. For close to two hours the film flips between the grimness of Captain Vidal and his harsh treatment of anyone that displeases him to the magical craziness of all the creatures and its great that after 20 years, the special effects still hold up. All the sets look amazing and usually filming in woods is quite a boring experience but del Toro makes them interesting.

The performances are all really good. Ivana Baquero is great as Ofelia. She is a rare example of a child actor that is actually good. Nowadays it is fairly common for this to be the case but in 2006 it was still a rare thing. You feel sorry for her because she is being forced to call a horrible man father even though her real father died in the war and she loses her mother. It is nice that Ofelia gets her nice ending even though she dies in the 'real' world. Sergi Lopez is a great as Captain Vidal. He is totally horrible and every time he is on screen I just found myself really disliking him with great intensity. When Mercedes cuts his cheek, I was cheering but disappointed when it wasn't the end. This is how to write a good strong villain.

Maribel Verdu as Mercedes is the mother figure that Carmen can't be because she is heavily pregnant. She is trying to kill Vidal and so she has some interesting moments in the film. She has some personal motivation to kill Vidal and yet she remains connected to Ofelia. It was lovely performance from Verdu. Despite being a monster, Dave Jones played Pale Man brilliantly. I would have liked more from the Pale Man as it is so iconic and is such a great creation. Thankfully he gets more screen time with Fauno and that is a better performance and it the design is brilliant and has aged perfectly in the last 20 years.

Credit has to go to Guillermo Navarro for the cinematography of this film. The film is a very dark film both literally and metaphorically and despite it being dark I could see what was going on which isn't the case with a lot of dark looking movies made today. The one scene where there is some colour I found myself relieved that we had some colour and its looked stunning as well. Javier Navarrete has made a stunning score for this film and made me want to buy it.  The only thing that wasn't great was the idea of screening this in 3D. It added nothing like in all 3D releases and as I am someone who usually wears glasses, it is always annoying to wear two sets of glasses. That gripe aside, Pan's Labyrinth is a beautiful looking film with a great central performance from Ivana Baquero and a story that is well written and directed by Guillermo del Toro. 

Scream 2 (1997)

After the success of the first one, it was inevitable that there would be a sequel which seemed to come out about 15 minutes after the first. The opening scene is quite good as a film based on the events of the first film has been made called Stab and I honestly don't know how we haven't had a Stab film or limited series. It is funny that Jada Pinkett Smith is only in this opening scene and yet she is on the poster. This is one of the few scenes that I can remember from the Scary Movie film (I think the first one, although I only saw the first two). Like Drew Barrymore, Sarah Michelle Gellar plays the famous actress in a slasher film for about 10 minutes and like Barrymore, Gellar’s involvement is perfectly fine and ends in a horrific death. 

David Arquette comes across even sadder in this film that he did in the previous film. When Dewey gets stabbed and is seemingly killed, it's apparently due to the scar tissue that he somehow managed to survive. This is apparently the same scar tissue that didn't save him in whatever Scream film he ends up being killed in. Liev Schreiber plays Cotton who is the one accused of killing Sidney’s mom but is released and is sort of in the background wanting a big tv interview to start his road to redemption and gets his redemption when he shoots Debbie. For some reason I found it hard to believe that Jerry O’Connell is a college student. I don't know how old he was in 1997 but even then he looked too old and doesn't really 

Laurie Metcalfe is good as Debbie Salt. I loved how Sidney recognised who she was even though Gail didn't and the get around was that Debbie had some work done. It doesn't explain how Gail didn't even click that there was something familiar with her. Timothy Olyphant like Jerry O’Connell looked a little bit too old for a college student but gets away with it and gives the sort of performance that Olyphant is known for. 

Also like the first film, this film is almost too smart for its own good. The discussion about sequels and when they list sequels that are better than the original The Godfather gets brought up and as well as Terminator 2 and Aliens but when Empire Strikes Back gets mentioned it is immediately dismissed as being part of a trilogy even though at this point in time Aliens was part of a trilogy and so was The Godfather Part 2 but thats a minor geeky gripe. The references to movies apart from this scene don't seem quite as wink wink as they were in the previous film. 

The twist like the first film is ok. The fact that one of the people involved were related to people from the first was somewhat predictable but I suppose it was inevitable. The first half of the film did feel like a bit of a slow burner which I doubt was intended. Once the action starts then the film picks up but it doesn't fall into that category which they talk about in the film of being sequel that is superior to the first. It's not terrible but its just ok.

Scream (1996)

Back in 2025 (or last year if you are reading this in 2026), my local cinema did a four film marathon which I thought was great. This year they have done a Scream double bill which is fine but it would have been nice to have a four film marathon. It’s fair to say that Scream did reinvent the genre that it was parodying. The opening scene sets up the film with Drew Barrymore ended up being the first victim of the film. It was a great scene that was tense and also very dramatic.

The film is very 90s which might be a stupid thing to say but it has somehow managed to age well. I think people of a certain age will have to be told what a video store is and why they were so busy. The film follows Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) who in the last year lost her mom who was murdered and when the murders start, the media circus comes into town and one of those people are Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox).

The twist that Billy (Skeet Ulrich) killed Sydney’s Mom because she was dating Billy's dad which forced his mom to leave was a good enough motive. It's easy to say now but it was clear that there was something not right about him because he just looks like a psycho. The film does a great job of throwing in red herrings to try and throw us of the sent.

It's always funny seeing Henry Winkler in this film as Himbry because it is such a different type of performance than what he was known for. Being a bit nuts only for him to be killed so soon was obviously the classic red herring but I just thought they could have strung it out a bit longer.

Neve Campbell is quite good as Sydney. She is the right sort of leading lady as she is a strong character but still has the flaws that make her character interesting in this sort of film. Courtney Cox was at the peak of her stardom with Friends only starting a couple of years earlier. The arrogant news reporter who wrote stories on Sydney’s mom cause the needed. Inflict between the two but by the end she has become a nicer person.

David Arquette is good as Dewey although he is never treated as a serious person. He is what constitutes the leading man but he is more of a supporting role to Sydney. He gets a romantic subplot with Gail and it is always going to be amusing that he and Courtney Cox ended up married. Matthew Lillard is funny. There is a reference about the blood used matching what was used on Carrie and then Lillard appears with the TV show Carrie having just been released. Once it's revealed that he is involved in the killings, his performance is somewhat over the top. Somehow Lillard manages to pull it off and it works in this film.

Jamie Lee Curtis is only in this film cause they show bit of Halloween but she is mentioned so many times that it felt like she was in the film and this leads me to the main issue is that the film does come across by today’s standards as a bit to clever for its own good. All the rules and references were ok but it does come dangerously close to be annoying. If your making a film and you are in on the joke then you have to be careful not to be too up yourself.

The film is an 18 which for a film that is 30 years old surprised me but I suppose how much knife crime is an issue in society the 18 certificate is perhaps justified. I also forgot how much blood there is. It isn’t an excessively gory film but there is enough blood that you get your moneys worth. Overall I enjoyed this film. Despite being dated by the 90's fashion and attitudes, the film gets away with it. I didn’t see it at the time but  many years later. It’s an important film in the horror genre but I think if you want scarier films then there are pleny out there but this one should be watched and even when you know the twist it is still fun to watch.

The Exorcist (1973)

There was a time when the idea of going to see a film like The Exorcist would have been the last thing I would have wanted to do. When I think about how my film watching habits have improved, I think about films like Alien and this to show how I have developed/improved. I doubt I will ever enjoy films like Saw, Hostel or Terrifier but time will tell I suppose.. Watching the film in the cinema has been a great experience. I think the film was great before this cinema visit but watching at the cinema made it even better. This film is rated as an 18 which for a film that came out half a century ago shows how shocking some of the things that happen in this film still are. The set up is simple, a young girl is possessed by something claiming to be the devil and two priests try and help. That's it. However the film is also about faith and how something so horrific tries to test that faith and our ability to confront what terrors appear in front of us.

Linda Blair is great as Regan. Part of the reason why the film is so effective is that Regan comes across as a likeable young girl. The dynamic between her and her mother is lovely to watch and is heartbreaking when things start to go wrong. She isn't portrayed as needy, or entitled or anything that would become commonplace in today's horror films but she is instead portrayed as a simple and likeable young girl. When she is at the hospital having all the tests, you feel for her because and this is just how medicine was in the 70's but the scans and procedures seem so aggressive. It's hard to fine kids who can act (especially in the 70's) and Blair gives a superb performance. Ellen Burstyn is also great as Chris. In the first half of the film, when she is trying to find out what is wrong with Regan, she slowly starts to despair when the tests don't show anything conclusive and when she tries to get Karras to do something and he isn't much help to begin with the exasperation is hard to watch. Again the relationship between Chris and Regan is lovely to watch.

Jason Miller is also great as Father Karras. He also comes across as likeable person with his own family issues. His elderly mother occupies his involvement in the film but once she dies, the grief is what drives him in the second film. Miller brings a vulnerability to the film as Karras is not happy in his current employment  Max von Sydow is great as Father Merrin. It might be strange that he appears for first ten minutes or so and then disappears for about an hour but he gives a great performance. He is the reason why the exorcism part of the film is so good because he brings an intensity to the scenes and when he is sitting on the stairs with Karras looking so despondent it is so well acted by both von Sydow and Miller. It would have been nice to have see his death on screen as it feels a bit rushed. Despite that von Sydow's involvement might be brief but brilliant.

The effects that are used in this film are great. The increasing rotting look of Regan once she is possessed is truly horrifying. Your are left in no doubt that she is possessed and like Blair's performance help make this version of Regan look truly scary. The sound effects were great in this film. The moment when Reagan is doing the spider walk down the stairs is made even more creepy because for a few seconds before you see Regan you can hear a light rumbling and then the shot of her walking with blood

The final part of the movie sees the actual Exorcism and Chris takes a backseat. This gets referred to in The Exorcist: Believer, blaming it on the patriarchy even though she is not an exorcist and her previous encounters with the possessed Regan ended in violence, she ended putting this absence down to misogyny. The fact that Karras is willing to sacrifice himself to save Regan (again forgotten by Chris in Believer). The Exorcist is one of the greatest horror films ever. It might come across as a slow burner although it shows that slow burners are great as long as things start to happen and are interesting and this film manages that. I don't know if it's my favourite but it is one of the greatest. I think that despite the film being 53 years old it still holds up better than films that came out just a few years ago. It reminds you everything that is wrong with The Exorcist: Believer and makes me looking forward to The Exorcist: Matyrs which is coming out in March 2027. It is well acted, well written and directed superbly by William Friedkin. This is definitely a film that should be seen by anyone who enjoys horror. 

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.