Film 2477 - Benedetta

Intro: I wanted to see this movie for a long time, but I never found the right moment. A month ago Simon came to my place to watch something and, when I recommended this one, he was almost immediately on board. But I think we both weren't ready for what was to come...

Film 2477: "Benedetta" (2021), Paul Verhoeven
Watched: From the computer
Language: French
Watched with: Simon
Thoughts: Possibly one of the wildest movies I've ever seen.
From the lesbian affair in the convent to the naked Jesus with no penis and the wooden dildo used as proof to accuse the title character, "Benedetta" is definitely a crazy ride. Not a bad one, I actually quite enjoyed the film, but it definitely caught me by surprise. To some comedic effect, at times.
Specifically, I think the comedic element of the story was mainly enhanced in my case by the subtitles, which were clearly not professionally made. I don't speak French fluently, but I do understand some bits and I could tell that the dialogue wasn't properly translated. Oftentimes a sentence would be translated literally from French in a way that wouldn't make any sense in English, which added a ridiculous tone to certain scenes. It was frustrating at first, but we decided to keep them on because of how absurd the whole thing eventually got. So, not the proper way to experience this movie, but one impossible to forget.
In a world of biopics that take themselves extremely seriously, I think Verhoeven clearly leaned into the absurdity of this story and ran with it. From IMDb's logline: "A 17th-century nun in Italy suffers from disturbing religious and erotic visions. She is assisted by a companion, and the relationship between the two women develops into a romantic love affair."
It's clear from the get-go that this isn't your typical religious movie tale: Benedetta (Virginie Efira) is a nun who rarely wears any clothes, has a lesbian love affair, speaks to Jesus, fakes stigmata, dies and resurrects—while her lover (Daphné Patakia) carves a wooden dildo... And these are just some of the more extreme examples of what the story throws at you. If you're up for the challenge, it's definitely a refreshing watch. It doesn't happen often that a movie showcases its most controversial elements in such a candid way: literally, what you see is what you get. It's crude, but not exploitative, as Verhoeven definitely displays a voyeuristic tone in his films ("Basic Instinct", "Showgirls", "Elle"), while clearly caring about his female characters. And although the sexual element is quite prominent, it never completely takes over the plot. Benedetta's story arc is defined, clear, and coherent, never compromised in favor of the sexual scenes. Obviously I can't be sure how much of what is shown matches the true story of the real Benedetta Carlini—I'm quite sure a great deal of artistic license was taken—but all in all I really didn't mind the wild direction this movie takes. At least, in its own way, it's a memorable cinematic experience.
Cast: Virginie Efira, Charlotte Rampling, Daphné Patakia, Lambert Wilson, Olivier Rabourdin, Louise Chevillotte, Hervé Pierre, Clotilde Courau.
Box Office: $4.3 million
Worth a watch?: Not your usual biopic, "Benedetta" is a film that would shock many viewers, but could be a great ride for some. It's definitely way too long (132 minutes) and some bits could've been cut out, but if you're up for it and you're ready to be entertained, this is surely a film that delivers.
Awards: In competition for the Palme d'Or and the Queer Palm at the 74th Cannes Film Festival. 1 nomination at the César for Best Actress (Virginie Efira).
Key word: Dildo.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2476 - Backrooms

Intro: Extremely excited to see this movie, we timed it perfectly so that Jake—whether he wanted to or not—ended up coming with us. It was his first time at the movies in years, so I was happy to be the one who brought him back.

Film 2476: "Backrooms" (2026), Kane Parsons
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Jake, Niamh, Debbi
Thoughts: What a time to be a horror fan!
Within the span of a couple of weeks, "Obsession" and this film have taken the box office by storm, brought people back to the theater, smashed record after record, and created such a cultural phenomenon that we haven't seen in a while. Not of Barbenheimer proportions, but quite impressive still. Keep all of this in mind when I say: I had big expectations for this one.
Pumped up by my "Obsession" fever, ecstatic because of the massive opening weekend gross in the US ($81.5 million! The movie cost $10 million to produce!), and excited about this horror abundance, I didn't necessarily know what to expect, but I was really hoping that "Backrooms" could deliver. And, well, it did. And it didn't. Let me explain.
I want to start by saying I don't know anything about the lore behind this story. I didn't know Kane Parsons or his web series, I didn't know what creepypasta meant—I still don't, if I'm being honest. So I went into this just hoping for a good time. Which I did have, for the most part.
The premise is this: Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor) owns a furniture store. His life is falling apart: he's an alcoholic, he's getting divorced, and the business is failing. For this reason, he moves into the store. One night, he notices the lights flickering mysteriously in the basement and, when he goes to check the breaker box, there's a glowing slit in a wall. When Clark approaches it, he falls through and enters the Backrooms. And what are the Backrooms? (From Wiki:) A labyrinthine extradimensional space containing a chaotic expanse of dull yellow rooms, fluorescent lights, long corridors, and malformed furniture.
So the story starts really strong: the mystery is intriguing and the screenplay does a great job of giving you enough details to understand what's going on while avoiding giving too much away, so that the second part of the movie doesn't get ruined. Amazing. The issues, though, start with the second part of the movie.
The more the screenplay tries to explain itself and its lore, the more things start to get complicated and harder to understand. Or maybe I just lost interest, I don't know. I was initially extremely invested, but once Clark's therapist (Renate Reinsve) enters the Backrooms herself and the big mystery behind the monster is revealed... things really take an odd turn, and the big reveal is so meh that I found it almost lazy, if I'm being honest. I don't want to give too much away, but I don't understand how the monster was created. And what's its meaning in the story? I don't get what it's supposed to symbolize, considering the first thing it does after we see it on screen for the first time is kill its creator.
Another thing that I found confusing is why the Async Research Institute plotline is so underutilized. The movie opens with a scientist from this project being killed by the monster: was the monster the same one that is later revealed, or was it a different one? Because it seemed to me that Clark doesn't enter the Backrooms until after the scientist has been killed, so how could the monster be that monster, if you know what I mean (I'm trying so hard to avoid spoilers and name names not to give anything away). And, anyway, why don't we get more details about this research institute? Maybe they're going to use it in the already announced sequel, but so far it's absolutely unclear to me what is going on with the science people and why they're there.
So yeah, a lot of confusion that kind of ruined the well-built first half of the movie. The tension and uncertainty I experienced at the beginning of the story quickly disappeared once the monster was finally revealed, and for the rest of the movie I struggled to follow and grasp what was going on. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad: it could be that all of this gets fixed in the sequel and we get all the explanations and details we lack here. I highly doubt it, but it's possible.
Based on the information I have now, though, I have to admit that "Backrooms" was a bit of a letdown: a great starting point and build-up, but the plot twist and ending didn't deliver for me.
All in all, I did enjoy "Backrooms" as a collective cinematic experience: the theater was full, and it was nice, for once, to be in sync with the current pop-cultural discourse (usually I'm always late to the game). On top of that, Chiwetel Ejiofor's and Renate Reinsve's performances are extremely good so, if not for the plot, I appreciated this movie for their committed, convincing performances.
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Renate Reinsve, Mark Duplass, Finn Bennett, Lukita Maxwell.
Box Office: $350 million (as of today)
Worth a watch?: Is it my favourite horror movie? No, but it's still a solid one. I think "Backrooms'" problem is that its premise is so good and intriguing that it's hard to write a whole story that can keep the hype and mystery as high. So yeah, the plot twist isn't my favourite, but overall this movie is a good watch and a fascinating one: the whole liminal-space aesthetic, malformed furniture, and insane spaces all come together to create such a distinct cinematic experience that it's hard to describe unless you see it. So give it a go and see it for yourself. You might enjoy it more than I did.
Awards: /
Key word: Mascot.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2475 - I Saw the TV Glow

Intro: I heard great things about this film and wanted to check it for myself. So on the way back from Fuerteventura earlier this year I started watching it and, unfortunately, I stopped almost immediately. Back then it was mainly because there isn't a lot of dialogue here and the plane was so loud I could barely follow what was going on. In retrospect, it might have been a sign...

Film 2475: "I Saw the TV Glow" (2024), Jane Schoenbrun
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: Jake
Thoughts: Possibly my least favourite film I've seen recently. I'm sure "I Saw the TV Glow" has its fans out there, but this is definitely not my cup of tea.
My main issue with this movie is its pace, and a little bit the outlandish plot (especially towards the end).
Specifically, it's evident from the get-go that the screenplay is in no rush to let you know what's going on: the pace is slow, the dialogue is minimal, the soundtrack takes the lead, things happen and yet it feels like nothing is going on. I would describe it as one of those stories where vibes and aesthetic vision take over the plot to deliver a product that is more in the range of a long music video or something that would be shown at an art gallery as a visual piece from an artist. That's how I felt watching it — together with frustration.
Yes, frustration, because "I Saw the TV Glow" was sold to me as an indie masterpiece and a psychological horror drama, so my expectations were high and connected to a specific movie genre. So I was definitely disappointed when a) I wasn't particularly taken by the story while watching it and b) I realized there was no conventional horror element in the story whatsoever. And it definitely didn't help that Jake and I were making fun of some bits of the story while watching it: the amount of time they repeat "The Pink Opaque" in the fucking dialogues is insane and drove me crazy.
All in all, this movie wasn't what I expected it to be (and probably needed to see that evening, if I'm being honest) and ended up not enjoying it at all. Justice Smith and Jack Haven's performances are good but didn't blow me away, while Jane Schoenbrun's artistic vision is clear and consistent throughout the whole story, but it's so prominent that it ends up outshining the script. They have a new movie coming out soon that looks promising ("Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma" with none other than Gillian Anderson and Hannah Einbinder) and I'm probably gonna watch it, but I'm afraid I'll end up feeling the same way I felt watching this film: having bought into the promising trailer and enthusiastic reviews only to find it didn't live up to the hype.
P.S. I don't want to deadname anyone, but for the sake of clarity, I just want to point out that Jack Haven here is credited as Brigette Lundy-Paine.
Cast: Justice Smith, Jack Haven, Helena Howard, Lindsey Jordan, Conner O'Malley, Emma Portner, Ian Foreman, Fred Durst, Danielle Deadwyler.
Box Office: $5.4 million
Worth a watch?: The obsession for a TV show pushes two high school friends to question their reality when the show starts to feel more real than their own lives at times. This idea is quite intriguing and I was curious to see where the screenplay would have led this story, but I have to admit that I really struggled to stay focused the more the plot developed and progressed.
It's a very slow-paced film that relies heavily on aesthetics and vibes: if this is what you're looking for in a film, go for it, I'm sure you'll have a great time. For those who enjoy a more structured and dialogue-heavy story, this might not be your cup of tea.
Awards: Presented in the Panorama section at the 74th Berlin International Film Festival.
Key word: The Pink Opaque.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2474 - Sinners

Intro: It was only a matter of time before I gave this one another go. Especially after I spent months listening to the "Rocky Road to Dublin” song from its soundtrack.

Film 2474: "Sinners" (2025), Ryan Coogler
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I like it the first time around, but this time I loved it.
There's a lot to take in when you watch "Sinners". It's a vampire story, a horror movie, a musical, it's set in a historical setting, and it focuses on racial issues (of the African-Americans mainly, but the Irish as well). In many ways, this film reminded me of "Get Out": a social commentary of the African-American experience framed in the horror movie genre, where the scary elements of the plot are hightened by the horrors of reality. And interesting enough, both movies won the Oscar for Ogiginal Screenplay.
On top of a great story, "Sinners" fetures an amazing cast of talents: Wunmi Mosaku gives possibly her best performance so far and Jack O'Connell is delisiously evil, while Delroy Lindo finally get his first Oscar nomination as the old town harmonica player. Leading them all, Michael B. Jordan plays both twins Elijah and Elias, in a dual performance that secured him the Oscar for Best actor. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it was about time Jordan finally got some award recognition and he 100% deserved the win, but I can't not awkclnoledge the fact that Timothée Chalamet's strange Oscar campaign definitely worked in his advantage. It's possible that, without the theater and ballet controversy, Chalament could have won instead as he was predicted as the favourite to win in the category for at least half of the award season. That said, I'm glad Jordan won instead: it might look like a "quieter" performance in a way - especially compared to Chalament's on in "Marty Supreme" - but it is indeed a great one. Playing twins, there was definitely a challenge there in differentiating both characters in a way that would make them both stand out and Jordan absolutely succeded. Especially watching the movie this second time around, I noticed the different mannerisms, the different way he carries himself depending on which character he's playing, details I didn't notice before as I was more focused on following the overall story and keeping up with the dialogues (yes, I struggled a bit with all the different accents).
All in all, I think "Sinners" is the perfect example of what great movies can do: transport you to somewhere different you've never been before, tell you a compelling story you can fully immerse in, trascend you into someone else's life for a couple of hours making you feel what they feel and go through. It's magical. And that's why I love movies so much.
Film 2377 - Sinners
Film 2474 - Sinners
Cast: Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Jack O'Connell, Wunmi Mosaku, Jayme Lawson, Omar Benson Miller, Delroy Lindo.
Box Office: $370 million
Worth a watch?: Look, it might not be your cup of tea and it's absolutely fine. Personally, I loved it: it's a feast for the eyes and ears (the soundtrack by Ludwig Göransson is crazy good), it's an original story full of creativity and meaning that goes beyond the expected and seens before "it's a vampire story". There's so much more to this film, it's shot beautifully, all the performances are top notch and Ryan Coogler's vision really comes to life here.
Give it a go and see how you feel!
Awards: The movie received so many accolades, I'll list them like this for convenience. In

bold the wins.

Oscars
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor (Michael B. Jordan)
Best Supporting Actor (Delroy Lindo)
Best Supporting Actress (Wunmi Mosaku)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Casting
Best Cinematography
Best Film Editing
Best Costume Design
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song (for "I Lied to You")
Best Production Design
Best Sound
Best Visual Effects

BAFTAs
Best Film
Best Director
Best Actor in a Leading Role (Michael B. Jordan)
Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Wunmi Mosaku)
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Production Design
Best Costume Design
Best Makeup and Hair
Best Editing
Best Original Score
Best Sound
EE Rising Star Award (Miles Caton)

Golden Globes
Best Motion Picture – Drama
Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama (Michael B. Jordan)
Best Director
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score
Cinematic and Box Office Achievement
Best Original Song (for "I Lied to You")

Actor Awards
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture (Miles Caton, Buddy Guy, Michael B. Jordan, Jayme Lawson, Delroy Lindo, Omar Miller, Wunmi Mosaku, Jack O'Connell, and Hailee Steinfeld)
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Michael B. Jordan)
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (Miles Caton)
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role (Wunmi Mosaku)
Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

Grammy
Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media
Best Score Soundtrack Album for Visual Media
Best Song Written for Visual Media (for "I Lied to You")
Best Song Written for Visual Media (for "Pale, Pale Moon")
Best Song Written for Visual Media (for "Sinners")
Best Instrumental Composition (for "Why You Here / Before The Sun Went Down")

Key word: Blues.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2473 - What Lies Beneath

Intro: Simon came over to watch a movie at mine, and I suggested this one, which had been on my watchlist for a while (and, of course, he hadn't seen it before as he's younger than me...).

Film 2473: "What Lies Beneath" (2000), Robert Zemeckis
Watched: From the projector
Language: English
Watched with: Simon
Thoughts: 26 years later, I'm still a big fan of this movie. I remember going to the theater with my mom the first time I saw it, so I obviously have a personal connection to it, but I still think it's a great blockbuster film.
I do believe it's insane that this film cost $100 million to produce. I think it's a bit mad, if I'm being honest. Like, yeah, it looks good, but to justify a price tag like that, you'd expect something a bit grander and on a bigger scale. Instead, most of the story is shot indoors, mainly in the gigantic house our main couple lives in, so it's a bit mind-boggling to think that a story like this one cost this much to bring to life. On the flip side, "What Lies Beneath" still looks amazing all these years later.
Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are amazing leads, and they really exude that A-list Hollywood aura; they're just so hot together. Pfeiffer especially—the real lead of this film—is captivating to watch and gives a great performance. She basically carries almost the whole story by herself, considering Ford is, for the most part, more of a supporting character. They should have co-starred in more films together; I really enjoyed their chemistry on screen.
The only small critique I have of this film is its length: 130 minutes feels a bit too long for this genre, especially because it takes a while to get to the juicy, spooky bits. For a film categorized as a supernatural horror thriller, the supernatural—and especially the horror—elements come quite late into the game. I still enjoyed the build-up and the fact that the screenplay takes its time fleshing out the characters, especially the dynamic between the two leads. Still, a few things here and there could have been shortened—I feel like we really didn't need to go all the way to the couple's daughter's dorm on the day she leaves for college, for example—but considering Robert Zemeckis directed this film, I'm not surprised by the attention to detail ("Forrest Gump", "Contact", and "Cast Away" all run for at least 140 minutes each).
All in all, I really enjoyed rewatching "What Lies Beneath". I think it's very entertaining and fun for what it is, and Pfeiffer and Ford really help elevate the final product thanks to their committed performances. Without them, this would have been just another average, slightly scary film the turn of the millennium.
Cast: Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, James Remar, Miranda Otto, Amber Valletta.
Box Office: $291.4 million
Worth a watch?: "The wife of a university research scientist believes that her lakeside Vermont home is haunted by a ghost—or that she is losing her mind" (IMDb): sounds interesting? Well, if you give it a go, I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy the ride. Especially if you like that late '90s–early 2000s vibe that movies from that era encapsulate so perfectly.
Awards: /
Key word: Braid of hair.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2472 - Obsession

Intro: I've seen this movie three times already since it came out a little more than a month ago. Some might say I am... obsessed.

Film 2472: "Obsession" (2025), Curry Barker
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: I don't think I realized how much I liked this movie the first time I watched it. I mean, it was clear that I liked it, but to be willing to go back an additional two times—and, on top of that, always finding new details and things to appreciate and enjoy—that is definitely a testament to how good this movie is. And I think it's even more remarkable when you factor in that "Obsession" is a horror movie and, usually, once you know the plot and the horrific secret/monster/mystery is revealed, part of the novelty and thrill of the story is gone forever.
It's clear that I'm not the only one who liked Curry Barker's film: $370 million made so far (over a budget of $750,000), many records broken (from Wikipedia: In its third weekend, the film made $27.4 million, becoming the first wide release outside of the Christmas season since E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) to increase its earnings for three consecutive weekends), the One Wish Willow merchandise and, as it happens when movies perform better than expected and connect with audiences, an extremely early potential Oscar campaign (that Focus Features seems to have confirmed). But is the movie really worth all the buzz that it has generated so far?
My personal opinion aside, I think "Obsession" is an incredibly clever movie. Unlike many other horror outings, this one actually presents a solid screenplay with an ending that not only makes perfect sense and surprises with a twist, but also wraps the story in a full-circle moment that is both satisfying and terrifying to watch. Considering there is nothing worse than a horror movie with a bad ending, "Obsession" feels even more refreshing because of this.
Additionally, both lead performances are great. Michael Johnston has the difficult task of portraying Bear, a shy and nerdy guy who has been secretly in love with his friend and co-worker Nikki. At the beginning he seems so nice and you really root for him; you feel sad for what happens to him and what he's going through. I guess everyone can identify with his experience in some capacity: we've all felt lonely, lost someone, or fallen in love with a person who didn't reciprocate our feelings. That said, it doesn't take much time before we realize how shitty of a person Bear is: his bruised ego makes him selfish and deaf to Nikki's cries for help (or mercy). There's really no other way to put it: he's a gigantic piece of shit.
Opposite him, Nikki (played by Inde Navarrette in a breakthrough performance) is, at the beginning of the story, ready to move on with her life, quit her job, and focus on her passion for writing, looking to fall in love with life again. This is obviously cut short by Bear's actions: imprisoned by the One Wish Willow curse, she'll turn into Bear's perfect girlfriend for a while, until things gradually take a crazy turn. Nikki's overall story arc and extremely sad and disturbing fate are perfectly portrayed by Navarrette's hypnotic performance. She's mesmerizing and clearly the star of the movie, and rightfully so. Her character's journey is terrifying, to say the least: trapped in a body that isn't hers anymore, forced to please her jailor in every possible way—mentally and physically—and unable to escape her fate. She's basically turned into an object, stripped of everything that made Nikki herself: her future and her will. I know this is just fiction, but it's scary when you think about it and reflect a bit deeper on this movie's plot and themes. And I do think it's relevant that the character who goes through this journey is the female one: dehumanized, objectified, and sexualized. In this political climate, I cannot help but wonder if Nikki's fate is just an extremified take on the female experience. But I digress.
Navarrette's portrayal is powerful and extremely physical, sometimes so hard to watch that you have to look away. But at the same time, so many iconic moments belong to her Nikki, and I think partly this is where the power of this movie lies: its story is simple and scary, the performances are good, and there are so many memeable moments. Go on TikTok and look for "Obsession" content and see it for yourself.
All in all, Curry Barker's film was such an amazing surprise. It's no secret I love horror films and I feel blessed with the amount of good content we've gotten lately: we've been spoiled with "The Substance", "Weapons", "Sinners", "28 Years Later", "Final Destination: Bloodlines" and "Send Help". With newcomers like this one and "Backrooms", the horror genre seems to find itself in a moment of cultural resurgence and relevance thanks to new, good stories and possibly the current need for escapism and entertainment. And "Obsession" rightfully takes its place in the zeitgeist of it all: it's a crazy, terrifying ride thanks to a smart script and a simple idea behind it all. That once again proves that you don't need a stellar budget and the biggest names in Hollywood to bring people to the theaters: the right ingredients will do that for you.
Cast: Michael Johnston, Inde Navarrette, Cooper Tomlinson, Megan Lawless, Andy Richter.
Box Office: $370 million (as of now)
Worth a watch?: Horror movies are not for everyone, for sure, but if you do enjoy them, this is one for the ages. So far, my favourite movie that I've watched this year.
Awards: /
Key word: One wish.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2471 - The Sheep Detectives

Intro: Back in Ireland, I wanted to go and watch "Mortal Kombat II" after work, but the time slots available at Cineworld weren't suitable, so I ended up going to see this one with Debbi instead.

Film 2471: "The Sheep Detectives" (2026), Kyle Balda
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Debbi
Thoughts: I'd be honest, putting Hugh Jackman front and center on the poster and pushing him as the lead of this movie is a little bit of false advertising if I've ever seen one. He's at best a supporting character.
I have no beef - wink wink - with this one, it's a perfectly fine movie that does its job. I'm not as enthusiastic about it as everyone else apparently - the ratings are high almost everywhere and the critics loved it - which kind of surprised me. Usually I'd be the perfect audience for a film like this, but I wasn't as invested, let's say.
Partly because of the Hugh Jackman thing I mentioned, partly because, as good as the CGI is here, it's still too obvious that all the animals are computer-generated, and possibly because I was expecting more after reading the good reviews, I have to admit I wasn't vibing too much with the story and I couldn't really connect with any of the characters.
This is not to say that "The Sheep Detectives" is a bad movie, because it's not. Despite its themes and plot points - a murder, of all things! - it's almost like a fairytale: all the animals talk, the human characters are either stupid or silly (apart from the shepherd, of course), and the animals save the day. The mystery isn't that complex either, in the sense that the green paint found on the body was obviously a clue from the get-go.
All in all, I had a good enough time not to regret watching it. But I don't think I'd watch it again.
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Nicholas Braun, Nicholas Galitzine, Molly Gordon, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bryan Cranston, Chris O'Dowd, Regina Hall, Patrick Stewart, Bella Ramsey, Brett Goldstein, Hong Chau, Emma Thompson.
Box Office: $126 million
Worth a watch?: This film gives off whodunnit vibes, a murder mystery solved by sheep, yet it's somehow more of a family-friendly story. If you like movies that include talking animals, though, I'd go with Chris Noonan's "Babe" if I were you.
Awards: /
Key word: Blue and yellow.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2470 - 30 notti con il mio ex

Intro: Still in Italy, I was looking for something to watch on the one evening I decided to spend at home. I was scrolling through Netflix, unsure what to watch, and found this. The last time I watched a new Italian movie was ages ago, so I decided to give it a go. To feel a bit like I still belong.

Film 2470: "30 notti con il mio ex" (2025), Guido Chiesa
Watched: From the TV
Language: Italian
Watched with: No one
Thoughts: I think the idea behind this story works and the potential is there, but I didn't fully buy the overall execution.
Bruno (Edoardo Leo) lives with his teenage daughter, with whom he struggles to connect. His ex-wife (Micaela Ramazzotti) comes back into the picture when she spends 30 days with them before being able to return to the real world now that her mental health treatment has concluded. I thought this premise was intriguing and could definitely set up an interesting story for all the characters involved, which it does to a certain extent. Being back together as a family is initially a struggle, but then things seem to work once again and, inevitably, feelings resurface and it all gets messy again. I'm fine with the story; I think it certainly doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it does a decent job of portraying a realistic scenario of what it would look like if a situation similar to the one depicted here happened in real life.
The issue for me lies with the ending, a classic cliffhanger that doesn't really work here. I'm not sure if this choice of ending the movie this way was intentional or just a replica of the Argentinian film this movie is inspired by ("30 noches con mi ex" by Adrián Suar), but it really bothered me. You've invested a couple of hours in this story, these characters, their lives and struggles, and how they finally start to cope with the new setup they're in and... the story ends. Caput. No more. Go home.
I'm sure this is supposed to be the movie's way of letting you decide for yourself what happens to these people, but it's actually just extremely frustrating. I really, really don't like open endings and, for a movie like this one, an alleged romcom, it is possibly the worst way to end your story. Or rather, not end it at all.
Ending aside, I appreciated Edoardo Leo's performance. To me, it was the one most grounded in reality. Micaela Ramazzotti is an extremely gifted actress, but here I felt she was basically giving off the same character vibes as the one she previously played in "La pazza gioia". Additionally, the whimsical, slightly frantic way she plays Terry started to get on my nerves after a while. You'd expect her character to grow and change as the story progresses, but there's a child-like quality to her that never really goes away, and I thought it felt unnecessary once Terry starts to regain her confidence and reconnect with her family.
I think I was expecting "30 notti con il mio ex" to be something different, maybe more comedic and lighthearted than it actually is. Which is obviously fine, but possibly not what I was looking for at that moment. That said, I still believe this could have been a better movie with a different ending, fewer dead moments, and a more grounded portrayal of mental illness, recovery, and reconnecting with the world and your loved ones.
Cast: Edoardo Leo, Micaela Ramazzotti, Gloria Harvey, Claudio Colica, Francesca Valtorta, Matteo Scattaretico, Anna Bonaiuto.
Box Office: $1,552,852
Worth a watch?: Not a romcom, more a dramedy... maybe? I didn't necessarily laugh, but there are definitely lighter moments. The ending was a big no-no for me. Overall, if you enjoy Italian movies, this is definitely not the worst one you could watch, but not the best either. It's more middle of the way for me.
Awards: /
Key word: Mental illness.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2469 - Mortal Kombat

Intro: For whatever reason, I fucking love this franchise. So when I was back in Italy, I decided to watch the first one once again to prepare for the second movie coming to theaters..

Film 2469: "Mortal Kombat" (2021), Simon McQuoid
Watched: From the TV
Language: Italian
Watched with: Giulio
Thoughts: Still love this movie. I watched it for the first time back at DCU during Covid - so yeah, from home - and I remember being really surprised by how much I enjoyed it.
I mean, it's not perfect by any means, but it's a fun, easy ride. The fight scenes are good, the whole vibe isn't too serious, and for almost 2 hours you forget about everything and bask in the sweet memories of your childhood when playing videogames was one of your biggest concerns.
For what it is, "Mortal Kombat" delivers an uncomplicated spectacle that works and balances enough references to the OG game with new, cool scenes perfect for the big screen.
Film 2014 - Mortal Kombat
Film 2469 - Mortal Kombat
Cast: Lewis Tan, Jessica McNamee, Josh Lawson, Tadanobu Asano, Mehcad Brooks, Ludi Lin, Chin Han, Joe Taslim, Hiroyuki Sanada.
Box Office: $84.4 million
Worth a watch?: Although some performances are a bit stiff - but are we really here for the performances? - the fight scenes work, and some of them are actually quite cool to watch (and gruesome, let me tell you). I enjoyed it more than I expected the first time and enjoyed it even more this second time around. If you loved the videogame, this is for you.
Awards: /
Key word: Birth mark.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2468 - The Running Man

Intro: A month ago I went back to Italy and stayed for three days at my cousin's in Igea Marina. The second night I was there we decided to watch a movie and eat piadina, and this is what the streaming platform could offer in terms of entertainment. Not necessarily what I would have watched otherwise, but one of the best options available anyway.

Film 2468: "The Running Man" (2025), Edgar Wright
Watched: From the TV
Language: Italian
Watched with: Fre, Giamma
Thoughts: I mean, I heard it wasn't good and that it flopped hard at the box office last year (this movie cost $110 million just to produce), but I didn't expect it to be bad, in a way. I love Edgar Wright's previous movies like "Hot Fuzz", "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", "Last Night in Soho" and especially "Baby Driver", so I was sure he could deliver a decent film. Additionally, this story is an adaptation of a Stephen King novel, so overall this whole "The Running Man" experience seemed to have potential.
Reality is, there's just too much going on here to be enjoyable. The pace is so fast that there's barely any time to process what you've just watched before the story immediately pushes you to the next plot point. And it doesn't help that the screenplay throws so much at you that it's almost impossible to let it all sink in. It's simply overcrowded.
It also doesn't help that this is far too similar to things we've seen before and seen done better: "The Hunger Games" franchise, "1984", "Squid Game", and, more recently, "The Long Walk" (also adapted from a Stephen King novel) immediately come to mind. It's clear that this movie has potential; the idea is there and so is part of the execution, but overall it feels too overcrowded with characters and plot points, resulting in a story that somehow feels both half-baked and overlong. I wonder how it would have worked if this movie had been split into two separate films that actually took the time to tell the story properly, slowing down the pace and allowing us to sit with the characters, what they go through, and how they react to the environment they're immersed in.
Unfortunately that isn't the case, and what we're left with is a fast-paced science-fiction action film that includes dystopian elements while barely addressing the implications of its own themes: social inequality, privacy, voyeurism, and the extent one would go to achieve their goals.
On a personal side note, it's impossible not to notice how Glen Powell's career seems to be losing momentum rather quickly. He's not a bad actor by any means, and he's clearly a perfect fit for a product like this, but I think his recent flops ("The Blue Angels", "How to Make a Killing" and this one) are testament to how willing Hollywood is to bet everything on a new face before they've had the time to prove their value. Again, this isn't a dig at Powell, who does a decent job here, but rather what I consider an interesting example of how quickly things evolve in the world of cinema and how it's becoming harder and rarer to find new actors capable of reaching that A-list status which, back in the day, almost guaranteed box-office success and long-term career stability.
Cast: Glen Powell, William H. Macy, Lee Pace, Michael Cera, Emilia Jones, Daniel Ezra, Jayme Lawson, Katy O'Brian, Sean Hayes, Colman Domingo, Josh Brolin.
Box Office: $69 million
Worth a watch?: It's not so bad that it's unwatchable, but it's definitely not a good movie. Everything happens too fast, there's no time to process any information before we jump to the next scene, and it's overcrowded with characters. There's potential in there and the main idea behind the story is interesting, but the consequences and implications of having to survive on a lethal reality television show aren't fully addressed. Instead, the spectacle overshadows any meaningful commentary on relevant issues, which are only explored at a very surface level.
Awards: /
Key word: Flu medicine.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2467 - The Devil Wears Prada 2

Intro: Boy oh boy, was I scared.

Film 2467: "The Devil Wears Prada 2" (2026), David Frankel
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Debbi, Niamh
Thoughts: I've been saying this since before the movie came out and, now that I've watched it, I can confirm it: we did not need this sequel.
The fact is, the first "The Devil Wears Prada" wasn't perfect, but it has become a cult movie in its own right. It's constantly quoted, it has spawned several memes, its cast is iconic and, of course, it gave us Miranda Priestly. Groundbreaking.
So how can a sequel replicate the same success 20 years later while being its own thing at the same time? It can't. And it's not because it didn't try.
For starters, the whole team is back. The four main characters — now all either Oscar winners or nominees, as the trailer eagerly reminds us — have all reprised their roles, together with the same director and screenwriter. Which is clearly a good place to start. The vibe seems to be similar, the themes seem to mirror the previous ones and the overall experience would suggest that, yes, two decades have passed, but if you enjoyed the first outing, this second one will be just as entertaining and iconic. But it's not.

The thing that annoyed me the most about "The Devil Wears Prada 2" is that everything that was done in the first film has been undone here. Miranda is a softie now, Emily secretly wanted to be Andy's friend all along, Andy leaves the business but then here she is back again, Nigel is still waiting for a promotion and finally gets it. I understand that this screenplay is essentially continuing the previous story in a way that gives closure to most of the arcs previously presented, but it does so in a way that goes against how the first story was told. Everything Miranda stood for is rejected here. She's still mean, don't get me wrong, but her resolution with Nigel was so out of character that it really bothered me. And it's not because the character changed, but because it doesn't feel like real growth. Instead, it feels like a happy ending designed to please the audience. If a person like Miranda wanted to reward one of her collaborators, she would have done it and she would have gotten there herself. She's a smart, intelligent and perceptive woman; she doesn't need Andy, of all people, to point out the obvious to her.
Andy, on the other hand, doesn't have much to do here. She's back to save the sinking ship, she has 20 years of journalistic experience behind her, yet the minute she steps back into Runway, it's like she goes back to her first day of work at the magazine. Why? I understand Miranda is bossy, often intimidating and sometimes scary, but the way the story portrays Andy is so diminishing to her character that she seems to regress instead of grow.
And, to close the circle, Emily. I don't have much to say except: why? Why bring her back only to give her the silliest storyline? She's the surprise villain of the story, yet everything is undone by the screenplay when the ending comes around and suddenly all is forgiven and forgotten. Emily is probably the standout character from the first movie. She's mean and haughty, yet so interesting and funny thanks to Emily Blunt's unforgettable portrayal, but here she's just an empty shell. She wants to steal Runway from Miranda — the same plot point from the previous movie, by the way — thanks to her useless millionaire boyfriend, then her plan doesn't work out and... it's all good and forgotten. Andy and she go out for lunch and are now friends. The end. Once again, I don't understand.
I do get the appeal of bringing such an iconic IP back and repackaging it for a new demographic. I mean, the box-office numbers are through the roof, so it clearly worked. But in terms of the quality of this movie, we're certainly not there. The fashion is there, the soundtrack is there, the cameos are there — actually, some of the characters feel more like cameos themselves, as the story doesn't really utilise them at all — but the magic? Definitely not there for me.

And one last thing that really, really bothered me was the three main couples. At least to me, none of the pairings works here. Miranda has a new, useless husband. Kenneth Branagh's talent is so underutilised here that it's shameful. Emily's millionaire (billionaire?) boyfriend, played by Justin Theroux, is useless and only serves the plot when needed. And don't even get me started on Andy's love interest, the Australian construction worker... why is he in the movie at all? Why does Andy need a new boyfriend at all, especially after the terrible one she already had in the previous movie? That is beyond me. All three couples are so ill-fitted and such a waste of the actors' talent.
All in all, "The Devil Wears Prada 2" is another sequel we didn't ask for and really didn't need. It's a pity that such an iconic piece of pop culture ended up becoming another cash-grab opportunity for Disney. I think this franchise deserved better. I don't know if I'll ever force myself to watch this movie again and maybe my opinion will change or soften with time — it happened with the first "Sex and the City" movie, at least — but for now it was a clear disappointment.
Film 204 - Il diavolo veste Prada
Film 741 - Il diavolo veste Prada
Film 2120 - The Devil Wears Prada
Film 2467 - The Devil Wears Prada 2
Cast: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, Justin Theroux, Kenneth Branagh, Stanley Tucci, Lucy Liu, B. J. Novak, Simone Ashley, Tracie Thoms, Patrick Brammall, Rachel Bloom.
Box Office: $676.3 million (to this day)
Worth a watch?: I'm not sure being a fan of the original is enough to enjoy this second outing. I had low expectations and still I was disappointed. Maybe you'll find some comfort in seeing these characters on screen once again, I'm not sure. I just didn't vibe with the whole project and the overall movie experience. It felt like a cash-grab to me and I didn't appreciate it.
Awards: /
Key word: Holy Grail.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2466 - Bring Her Back

Intro: I remember watching the trailer and thinking I really wanted to see this movie. Then I never actually got around to it when it was out in theaters. So, one evening when my twink boy was at mine, we decided to give it a go.

Film 2466: "Bring Her Back" (2025), Danny Philippou, Michael Philippou
Watched: From the computer
Language: English
Watched with: Bill
Thoughts: I surely enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say I'd watch it again anytime soon. Reality is, I had big expectations for this one because it was Danny and Michael Philippou's follow-up movie (and only their second overall) after the unexpectedly good "Talk to Me". I say unexpectedly only because I knew nothing about that film and watched it on a whim, not because no one expected it to be good, mind you. Anyway, with this one I definitely had expectations, which we all know what that means. "Bring Her Back" is a decent horror story supported by an amazing Sally Hawkins performance. I would say she carries the whole movie herself, but that wouldn't be entirely true, as her younger co-stars are quite good as well. Sora Wong and Billy Barratt work well off each other, and you'd believe they're actually step-siblings; Jonah Wren Phillips undergoes a physical transformation for the ages, and at such a young age the visual result is absolutely impressive. What I would consider the weakest link of "Bring Her Back" is the plot. It delivers the conventional horror scares, but the mystery behind it all is fairly easy to figure out by the midpoint. From then on, the story lost me a little, in the sense that I was more interested in seeing whether my theories were correct than actually following along and enjoying the movie. I think if you've seen a fair share of horror movies before, it's not too difficult to figure out what's cooking before the screenplay decides to tell you. I understand it's hard nowadays to deliver a truly original story—especially in the horror genre—so I wasn't too bothered by it, but I remember thinking about it while watching the film, and that feeling has stayed with me since. Especially now that I've seen "Obsession" twice and "Backrooms", two of the most successful horror movies of all time, both of which came out almost back-to-back. And with "Weapons" and "Sinners" making such a splash last year, both culturally and at the Oscars, it's impossible not to keep that in mind when checking out other horror films.
Cast: Billy Barratt, Sora Wong, Jonah Wren Phillips, Sally Hawkins.
Box Office: $39.1 million
Worth a watch?: Solid enough, but not the most original horror movie I've seen recently. If you liked "Talk to Me", give this one a go..
Awards: /
Key word: Grapefruit.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2465 - Lee Cronin's The Mummy

Intro: God love a movie about ancient Egypt, pyramids, mummies and old curses. So when I heard about this film - from an Irish director, nonetheless! - I couldn't wait to go to the movies to see it!

Film 2465: "Lee Cronin's The Mummy" (2026), Lee Cronin
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: Ok, let's be honest here: I didn't have big expectations for this one. I mean, I do have a fascination with ancient Egypt, I always have, so stories like this one are always a go for me. That said, I have to admit that, given the production budget ($22 million), the lack of star power (Jack Reynor is really the only recognizable face for English-speaking audiences) and the very demure marketing approach, I was expecting "Lee Cronin's The Mummy" to be an absolute abomination of a movie. And don't get me wrong, it isn't great, but it's also better than I expected, which genuinely surprised me.
First of all, the scope of the story is surprisingly big: we start in Egypt - first Aswan, then Cairo - before moving to Albuquerque, New Mexico. We move around, we chase some people, we relocate... and none of the locations ever feel cheap. It's not just an ugly green screen and a fake background. So I was quite impressed. Additionally, the visual effects aren't too bad and really help convey the story and its visual elements, especially when it comes to the little girl turning into the mummy (no spoilers here, it's literally on the movie's poster). I mean, you can tell they had to keep an eye on the budget, because some elements of the story are simply told to the audience rather than shown, but I understand the limitations and respect the effort. With what they had, they did a great job.
But I was mostly impressed with Lee Cronin. I have no idea who this man is, but he managed to:

• Put his name on the poster before the title of the movie in true horror style - I mean, I'm sure it was mainly because of trademark reasons, but hey, it is what it is.
• Secure funding for this crazy story about a cursed girl who turns into a mummy, possesses her siblings and, together, they desecrate their grandmother's corpse. Not the easiest pitch to sell to a studio.
• Produce this movie on a decent budget, put it out there and even open to $13.5 million and #3 at the American box office!

I mean, good for him! He had a vision and stood by it, and I respect that. Again, the movie isn't a masterpiece, but after considering all of the above, I have to admit that the whole operation behind "Lee Cronin's The Mummy" leaves a different impression. More than that, I'm glad that so many original stories are making their way to the big screen lately, and this is just another example of a (moderately) successful original IP that serves its purpose: telling a new story, entertaining its audience and providing a good time. And a good time I had.
Cast: Jack Reynor, Laia Costa, May Calamawy, Natalie Grace, Verónica Falcón, Hayat Kamille.
Box Office: $90 million
Worth a watch?: I've seen better movies, but I've also definitely seen worse. The story works well enough up until the end, when the whole ritual just sort of happens and you're not quite sure how or why. But I mean, do we really need to know? No. You can perfectly enjoy the crazy ride that is "Lee Cronin's The Mummy" and move on with your life without any problem.
Awards: /
Key word: Nectarine.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2464 - The Drama

Intro: TThe buzz around this movie was impossible to miss: an A24 production with Zendaya & Robert Pattinson (on their first movie collaboration of many upcoming ones in 2026), an interesting concept, a marketing campaign for the ages and, cherry on top, good reviews. We couldn't miss it.

Film 2464: "The Drama" (2026), Kristoffer Borgli
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh, Debbi
Thoughts: I wasn't sure what to expect with this one. I can't say I was completely won over by it, but I definitely found it interesting, and I appreciate how it sparked a conversation and a media frenzy around the story's main topic, as well as how well Alana Haim played her character. I'll say it straight away: I liked "The Drama". I think Zendaya and Pattinson are perfect scene partners and deliver amazing performances, the screenplay is well written - really funny at times, surreal at others - and overall this is a very interesting ride. The dramatic aspects of the story definitely land, although I wish the film had focused on more than just one subject. I won't spoil anything; suffice it to say that the dramatic core of the story stems from a revelation made by Zendaya's character at the beginning of the movie. From there, chaos slowly builds until the day of the wedding, where everything culminates in madness. I'm not mad at the fact that the dramatics promised by the title of the movie - and the posters and trailers - are ultimately tied to only one element of the story, I just wish they had delivered a bit more. Because of how the marketing campaign was handled, I imagined shenanigans happening left and right, some sort of trainwreck unfolding in slow motion as the wedding date approached. Instead, although shenanigans do happen, they all stem from one thing and one thing only. And look, that's OK, but after a while I have to admit I got a bit tired of how the story kept bringing this revealed secret back up without having the characters really acknowledge it until the very end of the movie. It could have been cool to use it as the perfect dramatic engine to kick the story off and then eventually move on to other shocking revelations or events so that the story would keep progressing and become more chaotic each time. Instead, we spend the whole movie focused on one topic, and the screenplay chooses to explore how all the characters react and interact after the secret has been exposed. As I said, I'm not mad about it; it's all handled in a way that works for the story. I just think a different approach would have worked better for me. That said, while the two main leads are perfectly matched for their roles, I think Alana Haim is really the scene-stealer here. Her performance as Rachel is so good that you can't help but hate her. I was really impressed by her portrayal. All in all, "The Drama" definitely delivered enough dramatics to be entertaining and refreshingly good. The story could have pushed things even further, but I appreciate how the movie manages to start a conversation around a tough topic in a way that shows both depth and a clear point of view, while being satirical and serious at the same time.
Cast: Zendaya, Robert Pattinson, Alana Haim, Mamoudou Athie, Hailey Benton Gates, Zoë Winters.
Box Office: $130.8 million
Worth a watch?: Its vibe reminded me of another A24 film that came out last year, "The Materialist", though obviously the two stories are different. If you enjoyed that one - or if you appreciate A24 movies in general - definitely give this one a watch. Zendaya and Robert Pattinson once again prove their star power and why they are two of the most interesting actors working in Hollywood today.
Awards: /
Key word: Worst thing.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi

Film 2463 - Ready or Not 2: Here I Come

Intro: I watched the first one because I was so curious to catch the sequel in theaters, so the moment I had an opportunity to go, off I went.

Film 2463: "Ready or Not 2: Here I Come" (2026), Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett
Watched: At the movies
Language: English
Watched with: Niamh
Thoughts: One of the best cinematic surprises of the year so far. Not in my wildest dreams would I have thought that the sequel to a relatively low-budget movie from 7 years ago—a film that had a good run but didn't necessarily make waves in pop culture—would turn out to be not only better than the original, but also THIS good. The cast is iconic, the story is extremely inventive, and it expands the lore in a way that pays homage to the source material while taking it to a whole new dimension. Overall, "Ready or Not 2: Here I Come" is such a wildly chaotic cinematic experience that—if you enjoy this genre—it's impossible not to have a good time. I have to admit that I particularly appreciated watching these two "Ready or Not" movies almost back to back, as I don't think I would have remembered much from the first movie had I not watched it just before catching its sequel at the cinema. Because of this, I was able to enjoy some of the references and callbacks from "Ready or Not" that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'm notoriously bad at remembering things. Samara Weaving is once again perfect for the role. She has a sort of fearless-but-pissed-off look that makes her character, Grace, so iconic. This time she's joined in the fight by her estranged sister, played by Kathryn Newton, while on the other side of the story, not one but two iconic actors enjoying a resurgence in popularity join the cast: Sarah Michelle Gellar and Elijah Wood. I think those two alone are reason enough to give this franchise—and this film specifically—a chance. All in all, "Ready or Not 2: Here I Come" is a breath of fresh air in a storytelling landscape that seems to be slowly moving toward more innovative and creative ideas, leaving at least some of the superhero blockbuster franchise fatigue behind. The shift was already in the air, but it's now even more obvious thanks to movies like this one and other recent unexpected hits such as "Obsession", "Backrooms", "The Drama", and "Send Help". It's an exciting moment for cinema, and it feels like we're finally moving beyond existing and established IPs to embrace original ideas and concepts that make the movie landscape feel interesting once again.
Film 2461 - Ready or Not
Film 2463 - Ready or Not 2: Here I Come
Cast: Samara Weaving, Kathryn Newton, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Shawn Hatosy, David Cronenberg, Néstor Carbonell, Kevin Durand, Elijah Wood.
Box Office: $42.8 million
Worth a watch?: If you liked the first one, this sequel will blow your mind. I had the best time and was amazed by how much the scope of this franchise has expanded, and by how perfectly all the elements of the story come together. The result is a satisfying and remarkably well-executed film. This franchise really surprised me!
Awards: /
Key word: Rules.
Trailer
#HollywoodCiak
Bengi