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.

Digger (2026)

Digger has intrigued me from the moment I first heard about it. It was always going to be interesting to see what Tom Cruise would do post Mission: Impossible and his first offering is arguably the most out-there thing he has done since Eyes Wide Shut. I think one of the main problems with modern cinema is that trailers spoil things but that definitely isnt the case with this film. The trailer made it seem like Tom Cruise plays Digger Rockwell who is a wealthy oil tycoon who has ignored the problems going on in a ?? which is splitting off from Greenland and about to hit Europe causing destruction on a biblical scale. The twist comes when what we are seeing are scenes from a stage play that is based on the 'real' character of Digger. In between scenes Digger is trying to locate his daughter who seems to have gone missing on a. plane.

The trailer not telling you the truth is a gamble. It worked for me but I think for some it will annoy others. I think the idea of the world that this catastrophe caused is more interesting that the story of Digger himself. I think that it is only Tom Cruise and the curiosity of why he chose this role that will get people to buy a ticket. This isn't the first time that Iñárritu has set a film in the theatre but at least you knew that when you bought the ticket and the fantastical moments were the exception to the story. In the case of this film it's the straight moments that are the brief moments. 

There were a couple of moments that I wasn't sure if they were intended or not. The first came when Digger is talking on the computer and a few shots later the monitor has disappeared and there is no clear idea of where it went. The weirdest one was when Digger was talking to that group of people there were several mannequins in the crowd and they weren't very well hidden. Now I know that it wasn't where my focus was suppose to be but at first I only noticed cause one of the mannequins was sitting down whilst everyone else was standing up. I am curious to know whether it was deliberate or an accident.

I think Tom Cruise is great. I recently watched Tropic Thunder for the first time recently and thought it was a great performance and thought that Digger was going to be on the same level and whilst it was closer to Les Grossman than Ethan Hunt, it wasn't quite as intense and Grossman which means that at times it did feel like he was hamming it up. I like Riz Ahmed as an actor. He is always one of those actors that can give a great performance in literally whatever he is in and as the scientist that is advising Digger he does that part very well and he is having the time of his life when he is playing drunk. John Goodman plays the President which is clearly suppose to be a Donald Trump parody. They hammer this point when in one shot all of the President's cabinet are praying behind him in a scene mirroring what really happened with Trump. Goodman (or what's left of him) is great and at times I thought he was better than Cruise.

Digger is a film I liked but I didn't love. It is going to confuse a lot of people because of the switching of the settings but I thought that it worked surprisingly well. I think that if it had been a straight drama parody then it might have worked better but as it is I think that it will definitely be one of those films that people in about 10 years will say is a misunderstood masterpiece and I don't think I will be one of those people but I suppose time will tell.