Film 2503 - Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Intro: I mean, I was quite excited about this one, although I wasn't quite sure what to expect, to be honest. The only way to find out was to go to the movies and check it out for myself.

Film 2503: "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" (2026), directed by Destin Daniel Cretton
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: So, I'll be honest from the get-go: I didn't love it.
Everyone seems to be pretty excited and content with this movie -- it made two billion dollars, after all -- and sure, it's not bad or anything. On the contrary, it's obviously well made, and it doesn't feel like a cash grab, which is nice especially considering how Sony has been developing its own Spider-Man-related cinematic universe. That said, I didn't love the story too much or, to be more precise, I didn't love the ending.
I think, to justify the existence of this fourth outing, the plot twist at the end is quite weak. I love that they're bringing new characters in, I love that we're finally moving towards a new X-Men era, but (**spoiler**) to introduce the Jean Grey character, the story could have come up with something a bit more meaningful than an air vent label. I was so disappointed when that whole bit was revealed that it really ruined the whole vibe of the movie for me.
I'll say it again, "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" is not bad or anything, it's just OK. To be fair, coming up with something as iconic as they did in the previous film would have been impossible, and I appreciate that, in a way, the stakes of this story were scaled down and re-aligned with Peter's life rather than another save-the-world adventure that involves half of the MCU. That said, bringing back the Hulk was a little pointless -- he doesn't do much here and he's soon gone -- and Punisher's character development is a bit odd. MJ's, though, is quite interesting and actually makes sense and feels very mature (she is still the same MJ, but she doesn't remember Peter, so that version of MJ is now gone and can't be brought back just because Peter told her they were in love).
So yeah, a bit of a mixed bag for me: not bad, but I wasn't blown away by this new Spidey adventure.
Film 1394 - Spider-Man: Homecoming
Film 1653 - Spider-Man: Homecoming
Film 1781 - Spider-Man: Far from Home
Film 2077 - Spider-Man: No Way Home
Film 2226 - Spider-Man: No Way Home
Film 2503 - Spider-Man: Brand New Day
Film 467 - The Amazing Spider-Man
Film 718 - The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Il potere di Electro
Cast: Tom Holland, Zendaya, Sadie Sink, Jacob Batalon, Jon Bernthal, Florence Pugh, Tramell Tillman, Michael Mando, Marisa Tomei, Mark Ruffalo.
Box Office: $2.506 billion (to this day)
Worth a watch?: I'll be honest, this isn't my favourite of the franchise, which, I think, peaked with "No Way Home". I love Spider-Man and I appreciate Tom Holland playing the character, so if you feel the same, go for it (you probably did already, but in case you missed it at the movies, I'm pretty sure it's still in cinemas).
All of this said, I think the plot twist gets way too hyped by the story, and by the time it gets revealed, it is a little bit of a let-down. The cast is great, I think Sadie Sink is going to be an interesting Jean Grey, and the scenes that include Florence Pugh are frankly the best part of the movie, which is, quite surprisingly, very comedy-heavy.
So my suggestion would be to go ahead and check "Brand New Day" for yourself and see what all the fuss is about (in a nutshell: the highest-grossing Spider-Man film, the highest-grossing film of 2026, the highest-grossing film in the United States and Canada, and the third-highest-grossing film of all time).
Awards: /
Key word: V-Max.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2502 - Scary Movie

Intro: I watched it at the movies a while ago and forgot to add it to my list of movies to review. I'm not sure how or why, but the other day it came back to me that I never posted anything about this film on the blog and realised I had forgotten to do my review. So here we are.

Film 2502: "Scary Movie" (2026), directed by Michael Tiddes
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh, Debbi
Thoughts: Did we need a new "Scary Movie"? Probably not. Was I excited for the sixth installment of the franchise? Absolutely! Was it as good as I hoped? Not really...
Reality is, "Scary Movie" (or "Scary Movie 6") is a middle-of-the-road sequel that is a welcome departure from the fifth horrendous outing of the franchise, but it also doesn't fully deliver. There is some good in there, yet I'm not sure it was enough. If a seventh film were to come out, tho, I'd say this is the right direction for the franchise to go in.
As usual, the plot is just an excuse to make fun of other movies. Sometimes the comedy works, sometimes it doesn't. I particularly enjoyed the references to "The Substance", "Weapons", "Sinners", "M3GAN" and "White Chicks" -- with honourable mentions to the dildo fight à la "John Wick" and the cartoon "dream" sequence inspired by "KPop Demon Hunters" -- whereas I found the constant references to "Scream" and especially its recent sequels to be a bit tiring after a while. I do understand what the plot was trying to do, in a sort of meta-commentary on the meta-commentary that the "Scream" saga tends to position itself as, but here it only works to a certain point. After that, it's almost a copy-and-paste situation that doesn't add much to the end result.
To be fair, I was unsure of what to expect with this new chapter of this parody horror saga. On one hand, I was happy to see the original team return: the Wayans, Anna Faris, and Regina Hall. On the other hand, the "Scary Movie" franchise has been very inconsistent in terms of quality. Here there's some sort of balance between these two elements: the return of the original cast brings back a certain freshness that was missing for a while, while the movie isn't as hilarious as one would have hoped.
So, all in all, I enjoyed "Scary Movie" enough to be happy this franchise is back, but the end result didn't match my favourites "Scary Movie 3", "Scary Movie" (the OG from 2000) and "Scary Movie 4".
Film 1038 - Scary Movie
Film 383 - Scary Movie 3
Film 1449 - Scary Movie 3
Film 2041 - Scary Movie 3
Film 2396 - Scary Movie 3
Film 1603 - Scary Movie 4
Film 550 - Scary Movie V
Film 2502 - Scary Movie
Cast: Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Kenan Thompson, Dave Sheridan, Lochlyn Munro, Kim Wayans, Cheri Oteri, Chris Elliott, Damon Wayans Jr., Joe Jackson, Carmen Electra, Teyana Taylor, Anthony Anderson, Shaquille O'Neal, Anna Faris, Regina Hall.
Box Office: $278 million
Worth a watch?: If you're like me and you've watched all the previous movies, then it only makes sense to give this one a go. If you've never watched the other five films or you've never been fond of this kind of comedy, then I'd skip this one and check out something else. Like the original "Scream", for example.
Awards: /
Key word: Rebootquel.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2501 - Exit 8

Intro: The horror saga continues, and Niamh and I watched a second movie on the couch after "Leviticus" didn't leave us fully satisfied.

Film 2501: "Exit 8" (2025), directed by Genki Kawamura
Watched: From the projector
Language: Japanese
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: If I hadn't read the synopsis on Wikipedia, I'm not sure how much of this movie I'd have remembered. This isn't to say that I didn't enjoy "Exit 8", but its repetitive nature and lack of major plot points until the end of the story kind of erased the plot bits that aren't repeated over and over.
That said, I think "Exit 8" is a perfectly fine film, visually interesting and simple enough to follow, although personally I wouldn't call this a horror movie, but rather a psychological mystery film with some thriller elements and a scare or two along the way.
I didn't know anything about the game this is based on -- "The Exit 8", a 2023 indie adventure game developed and published by Kotake Create -- and I went in without knowing what to expect. The only reference I had that I could compare this movie to was "Iron Lung", as these two films share a similar starting point: they're based on video games I've never heard of, they're not major studio productions, they have confined settings and claustrophobic elements, and there's a repetitiveness to the plot.
Based on what I saw and my experience of both films, I have to admit "Exit 8" is more my vibe. I'm not saying it's a movie I would watch again, but at least it feels like a fully fleshed-out and realised film, competently made and with an obviously higher budget (I couldn't find a source for how much this film cost to produce, tho). And I know the comparison isn't necessarily fair, but my brain inevitably went there.
All in all, "Exit 8" was an interesting watch: I liked the visuals, the segment that focused solely on the kid was my favourite -- the child actor is really good -- and the idea behind the story is fascinating enough to carry the whole movie through. But after the first few times you witness the same elements happening, you start to lose focus a bit and, especially towards the middle section of the story, the lack of progression makes the story feel heavier and slower. When it eventually catches up, things get interesting again.
So, yeah, I don't regret watching it, but considering I was looking forward to watching a horror movie, this was definitely not it.
Cast: Kazunari Ninomiya, Yamato Kochi, Naru Asanuma, Kotone Hanase, Nana Komatsu.
Box Office: $44 million
Worth a watch?: I remember watching the trailer for the first time and being quite intrigued. The story of a man who is caught in a looping subway corridor definitely tickles my curiosity + the reviews were really good.
Now, I'm not saying "Exit 8" is bad, but it's definitely not a mind-blowing experience as they try to sell it to you. It's a perfectly fine psychological film with mystery and horror elements that also happens to be based on a popular video game. I never played the game, so I'm of no use there, but as a movie watcher, I can say I enjoyed this film enough, but I wouldn't say it's a must-watch.
Awards: It won Best Poster Design at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival.
Key word: Anomaly.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2500 - Leviticus

Intro: May the horror fest continues!

Film 2500: "Leviticus" (2026), directed by Adrian Chiarella
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: I think this movie is enjoyable, but not as life-changing as the reviews would like you to think. I still had a good enough time, but yeah, I was expecting something a bit different.
Specifically, "Leviticus" reminded me of other films, particularly "It Follows", but also other recent Australian movies like "Talk to Me" (the young protagonists of both movies) and "Bring Her Back" (the ritual part of both stories). With the latter two, it's more a similarity in tone and general vibe, whereas I think there's a genuine likeness to "It Follows"'s story, as literally the monster/creature follows the protagonists to attack them in both movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing it out to say it's a bad thing, but simply that this came to mind when I was watching this film.
Other than this, I do believe that the best way to describe "Leviticus" is through the words of a review I read online, which went roughly like this: homophobia is the real monster in this story. And I think it's so true.
I mean, there is an actual monster: an entity that impersonates the person you desire the most to then attack you: in this case, as the two protagonists are gay and in love, they basically get attacked by each other, but the "monster" version of themselves. And because this entity gets summoned through some sort of supernatural conversion therapy ritual, it is indeed a case of homophobia at its core. And when you think that the protagonist's mom is also involved in the ritual... it makes it even more upsetting.
Because of these unusual elements, I enjoyed the movie's take on this issue combined with an unexpected horror setting, which is quite refreshing. Additionally, the actors playing the two teenagers in love (Joe Bird, Stacy Clausen) are quite good, and their performances really carry the film, considering they have to portray both the normal and monstrous versions of their characters. On top of that, I didn't expect to see Mia Wasikowska in a movie again (here also producing), as I thought she had retired from acting -- which she clearly didn't, although she stepped away from the Hollywood spotlight.
All in all, I think "Leviticus" presents an interesting take on queer youth -- in Australia, specifically -- and is able to demonize homophobia in such a tangible way that is rare to see on the big screen, especially in the horror genre. That said, I wouldn't say I was blown away.
Cast: Joe Bird, Stacy Clausen, Jeremy Blewitt, Ewen Leslie, Davida McKenzie, Mia Wasikowska.
Box Office: $8.6 million
Worth a watch?: It's an interesting combination of queer cinema and horror, a genre that rarely engages so openly and honestly with teenage gay characters. If you're looking for a story that is gay and scary at the same time, go for it. Especially because, for once, i'ts not a product from the US or the UK. This film has an interesting point of view and occasionally delivers on the horror as well. If you're looking for a more traditional scary movie, then look elsewhere.
Awards: /
Key word: Desire.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2499 - The Odyssey

Intro: Back in July I was supposed to go and watch this movie at the Irish Film Institute -- my first time there. I booked my ticket for the 70mm IMAX show (because that's how the director intended the audience to watch the movie) but karma had a different plan in mind.
A few days before the show, my sight went double and I got hospitalized for a while to run some tests. I got discharged on the day I was supposed to go and see this movie and, obviously, I couldn't make it. It took another week before my sight went back to normal and only at that stage did I decide to give this movie another try. No more IMAX experience tho, just the regular one.

Film 2499: "The Odyssey" (2026), directed by Christopher Nolan
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: I think it was important to explain what happened to me before I went to see this movie because the issue with my eyes had an impact on my perception of this film.
I'll start with the positives: I think "The Odyssey" is masterfully crafted and shot and, overall, it is indeed a cinematic experience. Possibly the true definition of a movie event -- more so than the new Spider-man, which is part of a massive franchise and extremely recognizable IP -- Nolan's new epic adventure dominated the mainstream conversation for weeks (ahead of and after its release) and took the box office by storm. In this regard, this is truly an amazing feat, considering how hard it is to bring people to the theaters nowadays, even more so if it's a film not attached to any previous franchise or saga and, like in this case, it's taken from an epic poem based on ancient Greek literature.
In this scenario, I think Nolan would play the intellectual property: he's one of the most recognizable and successful directors of our time and all his movies have seen an insane amount of success (box office and award-wise). So it comes as no surprise that people would be immediately interested in seeing his new movie, not to mention the follow-up to "Oppenheimer", the film that won Nolan the Academy Award for Best Director. Add in the insane amount of Hollywood A-listers that are playing big and small roles here and... I think it comes as no surprise that people were quite interested in checking "The Odyssey" out. Me included.
All of this taken into account and digested... it's time for me to admit that I didn't particularly like this film. For a variety of reasons. Maybe a list would make it easier, so here we go:

1. The reviews. As we know, good reviews create expectations. This film got crazy good ones, so I was expecting to be blown away, almost like my life was meant to be changed by this masterpiece. Needless to say, this had an impact on me.
2. I struggled to follow. I didn't know the story well enough from the get-go: I knew bits and pieces, but not the whole thing, and I have to admit I struggled to follow the story quite a lot, especially at the beginning. It's like I couldn't get into the story's rhythm. The many characters, the amount of dialogue, the time jumps, the unfamiliarity with the source material... So much to take in so quickly, and I felt like I had no time to process what was shown to me, nor was I given enough tools to follow along. As a non-English native speaker, I am aware that this isn't necessarily the movie's fault but, still, I think the story is a bit confusing. And this gets me to the next point.
3. The time jumps. I have no issues with a story jumping back and forth in time, but I believe it should be signaled somehow. I feel like here it's very much left to the viewer to realise where exactly in the story we are. There's no added text on the screen to signal location or time and -- what I found to be the most shocking part -- there's no real progression (or regression) of time visually. Or at least that was my perception. Anne Hathaway looks always the same throughout the whole 10 years this story covers, Tom Holland never loses his baby face and if it wasn't for Matt Damon's beard, I don't think I would have gotten any indication that some time had passed between the scenes. So confusing.
4. The characters. There are way too many. I realize that the source material has even more, but even as a movie adaptation that runs for 173 minutes there's way too much going on that cannot be addressed properly and in full.
5. The dialogue. This is what bothers me the most about "The Odyssey", especially because it's such a long movie: the dialogue is constantly rushed. Two things in particular stood out to me: a) there's never time to sit with what the characters have just said and b) the back and forth between characters is so fast that sometimes their answers feel unnatural because of how quickly they banter with each other. If something is said to a person that has an impact on them, you would expect them to take a moment to process that information and then react accordingly. Here there's none of that: the first line is said, then immediately we get a reply, then the subsequent reply and so on. And once the conversation is over, off we go to the next scene with no time to process what we just heard and watched.
6. The pace (aka editing). This doesn't refer to the whole movie, but sometimes the film jumps from one scene to the next in such a rush that -- yep, you guessed it -- there's no time to take in what was just shown.
7. Sound and visual effects. This could be just me because of my personal issue, but I thought everything was amped up to the maximum: the volume is crazy loud and some scenes show intense lights or flashing that I found so overwhelming I had to close my eyes and disengage for a moment. The sound especially I thought was too loud and overpowering.

So, because of these reasons, I really struggled with "The Odyssey". Technically, it is quite impressive and I love how much of the marketing campaign revolved around the behind-the-scenes and the technical skills that went into creating this film. I think it's so refreshing to put the artistry that made it all possible front and center, use it to draw people in and make them curious to catch this film at the cinema. That said, I won't lie: I miss sci-fi Nolan. I miss intricate plots and plot twists, I miss space and dream sequences, magicians and superheroes. I loved "Dunkirk" but wasn't super fond of "Oppenheimer" and I feel like this new entry follows a very similar path to these two previous movies, but in a way that has further taken away the fun and excitement that used to come with a new Christopher Nolan film. I mean, don't get me wrong, people are still extremely excited every time this director adds a new creation to his filmography -- me included -- and I'm still gonna go and see whatever he comes out with next, but I am a bit nostalgic for that era when a new Christopher Nolan movie meant new world building, the creation of the impossible and an original story that would take you on a journey.
Ps. It's pretty early to say, but I think it's safe to say that this movie will do great at next year's Oscars. Maybe it won't win it all, but definitely the technical categories are locked, possibly even Best Director for Nolan.
Cast: Matt Damon, Tom Holland, Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson, Lupita Nyong'o, Samantha Morton, John Leguizamo, Jon Bernthal, Himesh Patel, Bill Irwin, Elliot Page, Benny Safdie, Corey Hawkins, Mia Goth, James Remar, Travis Scott, Zendaya, Charlize Theron.
Box Office: $1.721 billion (as of today)
Worth a watch?: Definitely not my favourite Nolan movie, it doesn't even make the top 10 to be honest. It's long, loud, overly stuffed and a bit overwhelming at times, but just because it didn't work for me, it doesn't mean it's a bad movie or you shouldn't give it a go (if you didn't already). And especially because this film was so successful and drove much of this Summer's movie conversation, I'd suggest you make your own idea about it.
Awards: /
Key word: Zeus's law.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2498 - Iron Lung

Intro: My long, hot horror Summer continues!

Film 2498: "Iron Lung" (2026), directed by Mark Fischbach
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I knew nothing about this film before hearing about it on TikTok. Someone was talking about this renaissance moment for the horror genre, and "Iron Lung" was quoted as one of the entries that contributed to this revival. So, obviously, I was extremely curious.
And look, I didn't hate the movie, but it definitely wasn't made for me. I appreciate the effort that went into creating a product like this on a small budget ($3 million), and all the hard work that went into bringing it to life, considering Mark Fischbach (Markiplier on YouTube) wrote it, directed it, edited it and, yeah, you guessed it, starred in it. So it's clearly a project he really believed in and put a lot of effort into creating. I respect that.
That said, I think the issue of setting your whole story in one confined space becomes more and more evident as the story progresses. Don't get me wrong, it's not that the story gets boring because we're stuck in one place. That's not it. But when a movie with a limited budget is also shot in a tiny submarine where all the props look a bit on the cheaper side... You start to notice. The command control has like 10 buttons overall. The whole room where the main character spends all his time is empty. There's literally so much space you could fit eight other people. And the images that come from the scanner... I understand they're supposed to mimic the original material this film is based on -- the submarine simulation horror game "Iron Lung" created by David Szymanski -- but damn, you really don't understand what you're looking at. Yeah, every now and again the shape of a monster would be easier to spot, but for the rest I was like... What's going on?
Additionally, I found the plot quite confusing. I do believe it was partially my fault because I didn't have subtitles and I would occasionally miss a line or two, but I still thought things could have been explained a bit more clearly. At least this is the point of view of a person who never played the game this is taken from, nor has ever heard about it before watching this movie. I had to go on Wikipedia to read the plot to be able to piece some things together... And that's never a good thing.
Again, I don't necessarily blame the movie. I think after a while I got a bit bored and my brain zoned off and wandered a bit too much. I read that fans of the video game actually appreciated "Iron Lung", so... good for them!
Cast: Mark "Markiplier" Fischbach, Caroline Kaplan, Troy Baker, Elsie Lovelock, Elle LaMont, Mick Lauer, Seán McLoughlin, Isaac McKee.
Box Office: $51.2 million
Worth a watch?: Not for me. I wouldn't even consider this a horror movie, to be honest. If you like the game or know about it and you're curious, I'd say go for it. Otherwise, I'd recommend watching something else. Especially if you're claustrophobic.
Awards: /
Key word: Sample.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2497 - They Will Kill You

Intro: I was really curious to see this one, but when it came out in theaters, I didn't make it in time to go and watch it. Being 2026, the year of the horror renaissance, I couldn't possibly leave this one behind. So, a few weeks ago, I decided to give it a go.

Film 2497: "They Will Kill You" (2026), directed by Kirill Sokolov
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I think this movie is full of ideas, and some of them are really good, but towards the end, the story takes such a turn that it ruins the ending a bit for me.
I'll be honest, overall I enjoyed "They Will Kill You": it's bold and very creative, and it has the guts to tell a completely new story in such a unique way, combining elements from horror and thriller, sci-fi and comedy for an overall result that is a crazy ride. And if you like it, what an actual ride it is! It's not perfect, though. I think there is a tonal shift towards the second half of the movie that messes up the vibe a bit, but I appreciate the effort in delivering something new, especially in such a stacked year for horror films.
That said, the ending is where "They Will Kill You" lost me. The cult plot twist is fine -- I mean, not groundbreaking, but it's fun -- and when you mix this element with the fact that its members are immortal and keep on resurrecting... it's actually fun to watch.
My issue is the (real) villain of the story and the fight between him and our main protagonist: it's such a weird scene to watch and, without giving too much away, I think the visual effects are not up to par and, in general, this bit of the story is so over the top that it actually took me out of it. It looks so obviously computer-generated, and what's at stake is so out of the ordinary that I disengaged a bit. Not to mention that the skin part confused me a bit.
All in all, though, this movie surprised me. I went into it without knowing anything about it, with no expectations whatsoever and, yeah, I had fun. It's a combination of so many other movies blended together that it comes out the other side like something new.
Cast: Zazie Beetz, Myha'la, Paterson Joseph, James Remar, Angus Sampson, Tom Felton, Heather Graham, Patricia Arquette.
Box Office: $19.4 million
Worth a watch?: Definitely not a film for everyone, it's extremely violent and filled with dark humor. But if you enjoy films like "Kill Bill", "Ready or Not" and its sequel, or even "Rosemary's Baby", this one could actually work for you. Visually, it's very interesting, Zazie Beetz and Patricia Arquette banter off each other perfectly and, overall, the movie is such a crazy ride that, if you're into it, you end up having fun. For what it is, I enjoyed it.
Awards: /
Key word: Sister.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2496 - The 'Burbs

Intro: I started watching the TV show that is based on this movie a while ago and got curious. So, once I finished the show, I decided to give the OG film a go.

Film 2496: "The 'Burbs" (1989), directed by Joe Dante
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I'll be honest, I had never heard of this film before, which is a bit strange considering Tom Hanks is in it. In Italian, the movie is called "L'erba del vicino" and even that didn't ring a bell, so I went in completely unaware of what to expect. I mean, to a certain extent, considering "The 'Burbs" TV series is based on it, but we all know remakes tend to differ quite a bit from the original material, so I was definitely expecting differences and changes to the plot, the first one being that the main character here is a man, whereas in the series it's a woman (Keke Palmer).
Differences from the original material aside -- there are, but not to the point that the main idea is different: the shady neighbors remain, the mystery behind everyone's door and how everyone keeps a secret is still there -- I have to admit I enjoyed the TV series more. Obviously, this movie is from the late 80s, so it's more rooted in the culture of the time. So is the humor and the execution of the mystery, which to me felt like the weakest point of the whole "The 'Burbs" experience. I know this isn't a horror movie, so it's OK that there aren't scary moments, but considering how the sketchy neighbors plotline is portrayed, I was expecting a little bit of... fright?
Instead, after spending so much time dissecting the mystery, the whole thing resolves in such a hurry that, as a viewer, I wasn't sure the story was actually done. Which felt quite strange, to be honest.
In this sense, I think this movie is a product of its time: it utilises a different visual language that I'm not sure fully works nowadays. The resolution of the story is explained rather than shown, and you get to know what the whole mystery was mostly through dialogue and what is said afterwards, rather than seeing it on the screen.
Aside from this, though, I can't say I didn't enjoy this trip to "The 'Burbs". It's a fun enough ride, and I can understand why it is now considered a cult classic: the characters are all over the top, the shady neighborhood is a fascinating idea, and Tom Hanks gives a quirky performance that is quite unusual for him. On top of that, Carrie Fisher -- the icon that she is -- plays his wife, and the movie was shot on the same set that would later be used to create Wisteria Lane from the (iconic) show "Desperate Housewives", so I totally see the appeal.
So, all in all, I think the TV series spoke to me more, but I still enjoyed Joe Dante's crazy ride to the suburbs.
Cast: Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern, Carrie Fisher, Rick Ducommun, Corey Feldman, Wendy Schaal.
Box Office: $49.1 million
Worth a watch?: If you watched the recent TV series, I'd say go ahead and watch this film to fully commit. The same applies to the opposite scenario: if you loved this movie in the past, I think Peacock's series is worth the watch, even just to compare the two products and see how they apply to the time period they were released in.
Awards: /
Key word: Furnace.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2495 - The Invite

Intro: There was good buzz around this film and I was really curious to see for myself if it was worth the watch.

Film 2495: "The Invite" (2025), directed by Olivia Wilde
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh, Debbi
Thoughts: "The Invite" is a very interesting film, especially in the current cinematic landscape. And it's even more interesting that it managed to become so successful, considering I would consider this quite the niche film rather than a mainstream one. Instead, it managed to do well at the box office (on a $15 million production budget) and gather Oscar buzz this early in the year.
What caught my attention the most is how intimate this movie feels, to the point that I thought its story was taken from a play. There are only four characters, basically just one location we never get to escape, a dialogue-heavy script, and themes that are mainly ordinary and close to what would be any adult's life nowadays. Instead, this is actually the English-language remake of the 2020 Spanish film "Sentimental" by Cesc Gay.
Because of its theatrical vibe and remake essence, this film inherently reminds me of these other two: "Carnage" -- based on the play "Le Dieu du carnage" by Yasmina Reza -- and "Perfetti sconosciuti" -- in 2024 recognised as the most remade film by Guinness World Records, with productions in 24 different languages.
All three of these movies share similar qualities and themes: the confined space, limited characters and a story that revolves around couples, their relationships, struggles and secrets. Additionally, they all share a very specific tone: the story starts slowly in what would be an everyday life situation and gradually (and brutally) escalates, eventually peaking in some sort of explosive truth that shakes the couples to their core.
In this specific instance, "The Invite" leans more towards comedy than drama, which I appreciated. I especially enjoyed this because I don't think many would have expected Olivia Wilde and Penélope Cruz to be such a perfect fit for a story like this. To me, they are the true stars -- I can't call them revelations, as we all know how amazing and talented these ladies are -- of this film. It's true I'm drawn to strong female characters, but here I think they really outshine their male counterparts. Don't get me wrong, both Seth Rogen and Edward Norton do a great job, but I think the ladies really ate their parts. The sexual tension Cruz is able to bring to life between her and literally any other character is insane, and I never would have expected to see her in such a sexually charged role. On the other hand, Wilde portrays her character with such tension. There's a nervousness about her, an uneasiness that makes you feel the same way while you watch the story unfold. It's nerve-wracking, but it serves the character so well, especially opposite Cruz.
On top of a great performance, Wilde also directed the movie. This is not her first endeavour, but possibly her best one so far. I always find it commendable when a director succeeds in finding a way to tell a story that is spatially limited to a sole location. It would be so easy for the story to fail and for it to be visually presented in such a boring way that it would turn the audience away. Instead, Wilde's vision is extremely aware of the spaces and camera angles and never shies away from the actors' faces, keeping you constantly (and emotionally) engaged.
Overall, I really enjoyed "The Invite". I think it's a refreshing example of how smaller movies can feel big and engaging and entertain the hell out of you.
Cast: Seth Rogen, Olivia Wilde, Penélope Cruz, Edward Norton.
Box Office: $55.6 million
Worth a watch?: I really liked it. The actors are perfectly cast, the story is interesting and has enough crazy twists to keep you entertained and engaged. It's the perfect movie for a movie night that doesn't require bombastic entertainment, but rather something more adult-themed (there's a lot of sex talk indeed). If you liked "Carnage" or "Perfetti sconosciuti" (here's my personal deep dive on this unexpected Italian sensation), you can't miss this film.
Awards: /
Key word: Sex party.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2494 - Predator: Badlands

Intro: I didn't get the chance to see this film when it came out later last year and, to be honest, I kinda forgot about it. Then, a couple of months ago, somehow I remembered its existence and decided to give it a go.

Film 2494: "Predator: Badlands" (2025), directed by Dan Trachtenberg
Watched: On the computer
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I've never been a massive "Predator" fan, but I've watched enough entries in the franchise to be able to say that I really like the new direction they're going for. And it's mainly thanks to Dan Trachtenberg, who directed both this film and "Prey", the previous one from 2022.
What I enjoy the most about these movies is that the character of Predator is the main focus of the story in a way that's unconventional for the genre. Other franchises like "Alien", "Halloween" or "A Nightmare on Elm Street" have the bad guy - or alien, in this case - simply being the main antagonist. There's not much character development, and they are usually not what the story focuses on, but rather a mechanism that serves the plot and scares the viewer. But not here.
"Prey" before and "Predator: Badlands" now put the title character at the center of their plot. Here especially, we get to spend time with what traditionally would have been the villain of the story: Predator has to prove to its dad that he can hunt the apex predator and, to do that, it travels to a different planet and sets the story into motion. It's such a refreshing perspective!
Not only this, but the movie is actually good. Considering how few characters the story puts together and the limitations of having your lead not speak any human language, it's quite impressive how the screenplay is able to smoothly move things forward in an engaging and cinematic way. I especially like how many visual cues are used to progress the plot - the spit thing above anything else for me - and how much world-building has gone into creating this film. And it all plays out well in the end, because the film is engaging, visually interesting and never boring. For a standalone product like this, the world and character creation is quite impressive.
If I had to find something negative to say, Elle Fanning's character could be the weak link for me. Not because she's not good in the film, but mainly because her character does most of the talking - sometimes it could be a bit much - and because Fanning plays two roles here and, although it's understandable why, it would have been nice to have seen another human face.
All in all, I really enjoyed "Predator: Badlands" and, together with its predecessor, I think it's an impressive entry in the world of this franchise.
Film 2134 - Prey
Film 2494 - Predator: Badlands
Film 1707 - The Predator
Cast: Elle Fanning, Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi, Reuben de Jong, Mike Homik, Alison Wright.
Box Office: $184.6 million
Worth a watch?: If you liked "Prey", you'll definitely like this one! It's unfortunate this film didn't make enough of a splash at the box office to spawn more movies -- although the animated anthology film "Predator: Killer of Killers" was released on Hulu/Disney+ in June last year, just before "Badlands" hit theaters in November.
It's a good sci-fi film that takes the franchise in a new direction that is both refreshing and entertaining. Watch it and you'll see.
Awards: /
Key word: Spit.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2493 - Fear Street: Prom Queen

Intro: I was looking to extend the horror movie streak a bit longer, but had no idea what to watch. So I turned to Netflix, hoping its catalogue would save me. And, for the purpose of what I was looking for, it did.

Film 2493: "Fear Street: Prom Queen" (2025), directed by Matt Palmer
Watched: On the computer
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: When I was a kid, I was a huge fan of R. L. Stine's "Goosebumps". I had most of the books, I read them constantly - even re-read one or two a bunch of times - and it was such a beloved franchise to me. So when I was scanning through Netflix's catalogue looking for something horror-related to spook up my evening, finding out that "Fear Street: Prom Queen" was based on the work of the same author was 100% the decisive factor. And sure, it wasn't mind-blowing, but I had enough of a decent time.
I'll be completely honest: this is not a good movie, but there's a certain vibe to it that I resonated with: the nostalgia. I love the 80s and I love horror movies, so the two elements combined definitely worked for me. But - and it's a big but - the acting isn't great, the plot twist at the end is a weak payoff for all the mystery set up throughout the plot, and overall "Fear Street: Prom Queen" feels more like - you guessed it - a Netflix production than an actual movie that would hit theaters and justify its existence by having something to say rather than simply filling out the catalogue.
I was happy to see Katherine Waterston again, though, and Lili Taylor is always guaranteed to deliver in the horror genre.
Cast: India Fowler, Suzanna Son, Fina Strazza, Chris Klein, David Iacono, Ella Rubin, Ariana Greenblatt, Lili Taylor, Katherine Waterston.
Box Office: /
Worth a watch?: I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but if you're looking for something silly and easy to watch that falls under the horror umbrella, then go for it and see if it sticks. I think the original "Fear Street" is so much better, but the 80s prom night vibe could be a turn-on for some(one like me).
Awards: /
Key word: Winning.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2492 - Meg 2: The Trench

Intro: Once I heard it was bad, I never convinced myself to go and see it at the movies. Then, a few weeks ago, I saw it listed on Netflix and I said to myself: "Why not?"

Film 2492: "Meg 2: The Trench" (2023), directed by Ben Wheatley
Watched: On the computer
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I mean, if you've seen the previous one, you know exactly what to expect from this sequel. And look, I'm not saying it's good by any means, but if you enjoyed "The Meg", you should have a good time this time around as well. And I did.
I think they tried to go even bigger with this one, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the story ends up having way too many plots and subplots, and way too many main and side characters for the audience to be fully invested. To be fair, if you're watching "Meg 2: The Trench", you're doing it for the spectacle it provides and definitely not for the plot, but still, it's worth mentioning the overstuffed script.
And, as is to be expected, Jason Statham goes above and beyond to prove how badass he can be.
Not much else to say, really; either you have a good time or you think this is the stupidest movie in the world.
Film 1700 - The Meg
Film 2492 - Meg 2: The Trench
Cast: Jason Statham, Wu Jing, Sophia Cai, Page Kennedy, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, Skyler Samuels, Cliff Curtis.
Box Office: $398.5 million
Worth a watch?: "A research team's journey into the depths of the ocean turns into chaos when a mining operation forces them into a battle for survival, facing off against Megalodons and relentless environmental marauders." (from IMDb). If this sounds like your jam, damn, you're gonna have a good time. Otherwise, venture elsewhere.
Awards: 3 nominations at the Razzie Awards for Worst Picture, Worst Director and Worst Actor (Jason Statham).
Key word: Rare-earth minerals.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2491 - Fall

Intro: I was aware of this movie, but it never crossed my mind to watch it. Then recently I came across this film again and said to myself, why did I never watch it? It had all the elements that I would enjoy, so one evening I decided to give it a go.

Film 2491: "Fall" (2022), Scott Mann
Watched: From the computer
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I'll admit I was expecting a bit more, but overall I enjoyed "Fall".
A few elements stood out to me:

- Conceiving an engaging story that is set in one tiny, confined location for 2/3 of its runtime is quite impressive.
- The 610-meter-high television broadcasting tower shown here - which I thought was ridiculously tall to actually be real - is based on the real 625-meter-high KXTV/KOVR tower in Walnut Grove, California, United States. Once I realized a similar structure actually exists, my perception of this movie and its believability radically shifted.
- The height element is the real driving force of this story. Whether you're afraid of heights or not, it's undeniable that this movie is able to capitalize on this visual element to produce a continuous adrenaline boost that runs throughout the story. Without it, "Fall" wouldn't be as effective or have much else that would make it stand out. Remove the broadcasting tower and this is just another survival story, as we've seen many times before portrayed on the big screen.

All of this said, the downside is that the big plot twist at the end isn't as creative as the rest of the story. I mean, I didn't necessarily see it coming, yet it felt like a cheap twist timed to give the main character one last challenge to face.
And speaking of challenges - although I understand that the particular setting of the story made it, in a way, necessary - I thought the script gave its main protagonists way too many obstacles to overcome. The constant twists and turns the story pulls out get more and more frustrating as time goes by. I often found myself wondering: "And now what?" Obviously, it shouldn't be too easy to get rescued from the tower or there would be no story to tell, but the way the story persists in presenting new life-threatening or emotionally stressful plot points (the shoe, the drone, the flare gun, the injuries, the vulture, the cheating) compromised the overall enjoyment of this film for me. Not totally, as I still had a good time overall, but I wish there were fewer twists so that the story would feel less packed and flow slightly better.
Ps. A sequel, "Fall 2: Deadpoint", is coming out this September.
Cast: Grace Caroline Currey, Virginia Gardner, Mason Gooding, Jeffrey Dean Morgan.
Box Office: $21.8 million
Worth a watch?: If you're scared of heights, this is either the film that will get you over it or send you over the edge. I could barely handle it, to be honest, but I enjoyed how much "Fall" had me on the edge of my seat. Up to you to decide if you're up to the task.
Awards: /
Key word: 1-4-3.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2490 - Ghost Ship

Intro: Over at Simon's we were looking for a movie to watch after (my first) taco dinner. Somehow, I remembered this movie existed and we just went for it.

Film 2490: "Ghost Ship" (2002), Steve Beck
Watched: From the computer
Language: English
Watched with: Simon
Thoughts: I mean, certainly not a masterpiece, but "Ghost Ship" is fun enough to be entertaining for what it is.
The horror elements of the story aren't new and you can see them coming a mile away, but this movie has more of a vibe that stays with you rather than a compelling story no one has ever told before.
Specifically, I feel the set pieces are quite good considering the $20 million budget and the fact that this film was never meant to become a box office juggernaut. So the fact that so much thought and care was put into crafting visually interesting sets and visuals - including some camera angles and shots - really surprised me. I mean, I'd seen this movie before ages ago and certainly didn't remember this aspect of it.
The one thing I remembered, though, is the fact that Francesca Rettondini is in it. I'm sure she acted in other Italian projects before and after this, but to me she's always been the partner of Alberto Castagna, a very famous Italian TV presenter who was big in the 90s. The fact that Rettondini somehow landed this (mute) role is so fascinating and legit the one memory of "Ghost Ship" that stayed with me over the years.

And there is another element here that is connected to Italy: the disappeared ocean liner at the center of the story is, in fact, Italian. Therefore, a lot of design elements (signs) and even a song are technically in my native language. Why the 'technically'? Because they're either spelled wrong or pronounced incorrectly which, to me, added a fun element to the whole experience.
Like, for example, in the picture here, you can read 'Cabina di capitano', which should be 'Cabina del capitano' instead. It's just... funny.
All in all, "Ghost Ship" is fine enough to be enjoyable. The premise of the disappeared ship that might contain a golden treasure is intriguing, the cast is quite packed with extremely familiar faces, the scary bits are predictable but work, and the bloody opening sequence is actually quite impressive and a good way to start the story with terror and disgust.
So yeah, I had a good time rewatching this.
Cast: Julianna Margulies, Ron Eldard, Desmond Harrington, Isaiah Washington, Karl Urban, Emily Browning, Francesca Rettondini, Gabriel Byrne.
Box Office: $68.3 million
Worth a watch?: It's not a must-watch, but it has its moments, especially the opening sequence. I'd say, if you're curious, go for it.
Awards: /
Key word: Gold.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2489 - Tre uomini e una gamba

Intro: I don't know why or what caused it, really, but all of a sudden I felt like I really wanted to rewatch this Italian movie. When it came out, I was 10 and I think I remember going to the movies to watch it with my parents. So it's possibly a combination of nostalgia for this movie, missing my parents and/or Italy. I guess...

Film 2489: "Tre uomini e una gamba" (1997), Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo, Massimo Venier
Watched: From the computer
Language: Italian
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: Man, I really didn't remember much about this film. Like, it was almost like watching it for the first time all over again. And honestly, I had a blast.
It's hard to explain to non-Italian speakers the appeal of Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo. They're super funny here, but it doesn't look like they're doing much, really. It's a mix of physical comedy, the juxtaposition of Northern and Southern habits and ways of life and, in this specific movie, the sketches. The latter, especially, are an interesting choice: they don't progress the story - if anything, they pause it - and yet they're possibly the funniest comedy bits here. Obviously, this was a clever way to include and acknowledge the trio's background in improv and theater, and these short stories within the actual main story are when the three comedians really shine the most. I didn't realize this until I rewatched "Tre uomini e una gamba", but most of the bits I remembered from the movie actually come from the sketches: Dracula, the 'cadrega', and Ajeje Brazorf are all small pieces of Italian pop culture from that time that I carry with me to this day, and I was so surprised to realize that I had completely forgotten they belonged to this film.
Needless to say, I quite enjoyed this watch. It's reminiscent of a specific time and place that reminds me of my childhood and offers a fast track to nostalgia, in a way that's hard to describe. I look at this movie in a way that isn't just from the perspective of the story it tells, but also (mainly?) what it reminds me of and what it means to me.
I really do find "Tre uomini e una gamba" to be extremely funny and probably Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo's best movie to date. It's naive and simple, yet effective because of how straightforward the story is: the trio embarks on a journey to the South of Italy to get to Gallipoli in time for Aldo's wedding. On the road, adventures and misadventures happen and, of course, someone falls in love unexpectedly. It's just that, yet it's effective and heartwarming in a way that (Italian) comedy isn't capable of being anymore.
Cast: Aldo Baglio, Giovanni Storti, Giacomo Poretti, Marina Massironi, Carlo Croccolo, Luciana Littizzetto, Maria Pia Casilio, Augusto Zucchi, Mohamed El Sayed.
Box Office: €33.6 million
Worth a watch?: "Tre uomini e una gamba" is basically a time machine: if you're curious to see how we used to be and live in Italy back in the day, this is definitely one of the comedies I would recommend. And, if you end up enjoying it, other similar films to consider could be (from the same trio) "Così è la vita" and "Chiedimi se sono felice", Leonardo Pieraccioni's "Il ciclone", or Carlo Verdone's "Viaggi di nozze".
Awards: Nominated for Best New Director (Migliore Regista Esordiente) at the David di Donatello 1998.
Key word: Garpez.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi