​“Crime 101” stars Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Barry Keoghan, Monica Barbaro, Corey Hawkins, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Nick Nolte, and Halle Berry.  Released on February 13, 2026, the film has a detective tracking down a jewel thief.

The film was written and directed by Bart Layton, who also helmed “The Imposter” and “American Animals”.  It is based on the novella by Don Winslow.  Whenever you’re pulling off a heist, it’s important to include an exit plan in case things go south.  In fact, it’s crucial to have a well-organized plan to ensure you don’t get caught red-handed.  One specific thief has these rules and conditions in place for his heists, but his latest heist could put them to the test.  This sums up the latest crime thriller that unites actors from the cinematic world of Marvel for a cat-and-mouse chase seeking to steal the hearts of the genre’s fans.  Does it deliver the usual thrills and suspense we typically see in other similar crime movies, or should audiences seek their own exit plan?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Mike Davis (Hemsworth), an elusive jewel thief who commits numerous heists alongside U.S. Route 101.  His organized tactics and self-discipline made him an infamous criminal who has been leaving the police baffled by his elusiveness.  As he prepares for his latest heist, Mike eventually discovers it is a two-person job when his plan intersects with that of Sharon Combs (Berry), an insurance broker facing her own crossroads, leading to their collaboration.  Meanwhile, a relentless detective named Lou Lubesnick (Ruffalo) is determined to bring Mike to justice after cracking the thief’s crime pattern, while a volatile biker named Ormon (Keoghan) sets his sights on Mike.  With the heist drawing near, the characters are forced to confront the choices they made as their respective paths begin to collide.

I may not be the person who’s big on crime thrillers, but if the right concept captures my interest, I’d be willing to witness the heist unfold.  “Crime 101” seemed to be another movie that fits my requirements based on the marketing and the actors involved.  For the latter, we have Marvel Cinematic Universe stars Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo reuniting to form a thief/detective dynamic we’ve seen before.  Finally, a Thor vs. Hulk rematch we’ve been waiting for since “Ragnarok”.  Given my admiration for these actors, I was pretty eager to see these two back together onscreen.  As for its concept, it’s typically another “heist” film that appears to be in the same vein as other police thrillers like “Den of Thieves”.  However, it also shows some promise of being another entertaining addition to the collection of cinematic heists, considering director Bart Layton’s previous heist film, “Dangerous Animals”.  I hadn’t seen Layton’s previous movies, so this would be my first experience of his directorial vision, though I'd heard his last two films were pretty good.

My only concern going into this film was its runtime, which was about two hours and 20 minutes.  Given the film’s premise and dialogue-driven nature, I was worried it wouldn’t hold my attention for that long or would resort to unnecessary filler to extend its straightforward plot.  While it does feature some spectacle in its thrills, they’re not to the point of being visually chaotic.  It’s more of a grounded, character-focused thriller that features the basics of a thief being hunted down by a police detective.  Personally, these types of crime thrillers are hit-or-miss in execution and in holding my attention, with a couple failing to convince me to rewatch them later.  My mind is usually on the spectacle, but I can handle most of the dialogue-driven scenes as long as they provide something I can engage with and don’t drag on for too long.

After watching the movie, I can conclude that “Crime 101” didn’t exactly need to be that long.  However, I was also surprised that it retained my attention almost all the way through.  Most of the movie’s sequences felt necessary to give its characters and plot some depth, but I think they could’ve been shortened without losing the development it’s going for.  The only saving grace is that the pacing doesn’t make the film feel like a total slog.  It’s excessive to the point of asking yourself, “Are they going to start robbing stuff again?”  However, Bart Layton ensured that the character moments outside the thriller aspects are as engaging and suitably paced as the action.  Besides that, its beefy runtime would likely make those outside its target audience want to arrest the film for wasting their time.  But that doesn’t make “Crime 101” a bad film in my eyes, as it's saved by its well-crafted essence and star power that emphasize the traditional crime thriller vibes of yesteryear.

I credit Layton for keeping most of my attention with the film's pacing, but the filmmaker's vision is where his talents shine as bright as diamonds.  “Crime 101” is another thriller that’s more focused on craft than spectacle, especially in its violence.  While its thrilling sequences can make for some popcorn entertainment, the character-driven drama at its core can also deliver intense moments with proper execution.  It’s about finding the right balance between those aspects so audiences don't mind waiting for another action set piece to arrive.  Bart Layton managed to deliver on that balance through a style that's as sleek and classy as its handsome yet conflicted jewel thief, complemented by its bleak aesthetics and Erik Wilson’s solid cinematography.  It’s far from a perfect blend, given its length, but I can understand why Layton has been quite successful with his last two films.  He’s another filmmaker who provides a film’s subtlety that evokes an engagingly slick presentation in its thrills and drama.

As for his screenplay, I would say Layton also did pretty well in his handling of the genre tropes we’ve seen before.  I haven’t read the novella it’s based on, so I couldn’t really compare the two to see what Layton’s done right or wrong.  Judging the movie by its own merits, though, I thought the script was decent in making its seemingly simple “heist” more intriguing than it appeared to be.  This is mainly due to how Layton handles the film’s focus on each character.  With more than one character sharing the spotlight, it can be challenging to ensure that the movie doesn’t feel too bloated to the point of making some of them pointless filler.  Thankfully, Layton managed to pull off this tricky heist with ease, highlighting each character with a two-dimensional flair while balancing their screen time.  One such example is Mike, who struggles not only with his balance between his criminal life and his romance with Maya (Barbaro), but also with his enigmatic childhood.  Personally, I thought Mike’s character arc was the most engaging part of the film because it underscores the empathy and sorrow of the thief’s conflicted situation.  Sure, he steals diamonds for a living, but outside of that, he’s a man who finds himself at the crossroads in how he wants to spend the rest of his life.

Another reason Mike’s arc worked for me was Chris Hemsworth, whose performance blended subtlety and soul into Mike’s calm, conflicted, and self-disciplined personality.  Hemsworth has proven himself an engaging action hero, with most of his movies being more light-hearted than others.  His portrayal of Mike is one such occasion where he can also be taken seriously as an actor, even in the genre involving a car chase with a motorcycle.  Mark Ruffalo also turned in another great performance outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe, conveying Lou’s determination to capture Mike with a restrained yet compelling finesse.  While far from one of his best, I was still impressed with how he chooses specific roles that match his talents.  Halle Berry was also good as Sharon, despite a few of her line deliveries falling flat, while Barry Keoghan shone as the psychotic biker whose violent tendencies pose a problem for both sides of the law.

Overall, “Crime 101” is a solidly crafted heist whose compelling storytelling aspects were far from criminal.  It’s far from a game-changer in terms of its crime thriller tropes, but Bart Layton utilizes his carefully planned skills in the directing and writing departments to deliver an engaging and sleekly designed addition to the genre’s string of cinematic robberies.  Its lengthy runtime is the film’s minor setback that would drive most viewers away from the crime scene.  Fortunately, its pacing was enough to make me appreciate its filmmaking craft amid its excessiveness.  Its compelling cast also added to the enjoyment of witnessing the classic thief/detective dynamic unfold by Marvel stars Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo.  In short, this recent crime spree should satisfy audiences eager to steal some diamonds with Thor and reward fans of Layton’s previous works with the filmmaker’s vision.

​“Goat” stars Caleb McLaughlin, Gabrielle Union, Nick Kroll, Nicola Coughlan, David Harbour, Stephen Curry, Jenifer Lewis, Aaron Pierre, and Patton Oswalt.  Released on February 13, 2026, the film follows a goat joining a fierce league to achieve his dream of going pro.

The film is directed by Tyree Dillihay in his feature directorial debut, with Adam Rosette serving as co-director.  Dillihay is known for his involvement in the animation and art departments as well as directing projects such as “Bob’s Burgers”, “Motorcity”, “Axe Cop”, and “Good Times”.  Rosette also worked in the art and animation departments for films like “The Wild Robot”, “The Bad Guys”, and “Orion and the Dark”.  The world of sports is usually filled with the most talented and biggest professionals on the planet.  However, it’s also filled with players willing to go far and beyond to accomplish their dreams despite their disadvantages.  Some of them may be small in their appearances, but their hearts are big enough to match the sizes of their teammates or opponents.  The same can be said in a world filled with anthropomorphic animals, where a tiny goat strives to become…well, the “GOAT”.  Nowadays, when people describe a specific player as the best in the sports business regarding their talents, they call them the “GOAT”, or the “greatest of all time”.  They don’t actually call these players "goats"; they just shortened the phrase to make it sound cool.  The folks at Sony Pictures Animation seemed to have noticed the trend and decided to use it as the basis for a movie about a fittingly appropriate goat changing the game.  The result is the studio’s latest comedy that comes on the heels of the “KPop Demon Hunters” craze.  Does it have enough cinematic skills to become the GOAT in the animation department, or should it retire before its career even begins?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Will Harris (McLaughlin), a teenage Boer goat living in the city of Vineland.  Despite living under uneasy conditions and small appearance, Will is inspired by his dream of playing roarball, an intense, full-contact equivalent to basketball dominated by the roughest, fiercest, and tallest animals in the world.  One day, Will’s impressive skills on the court allow him to realize this once-in-a-lifetime goal, as he’s assigned to play for the Vineland Thorns, a struggling roarball team led by his idol, Jett Fillmore (Union).  Despite the doubts from everyone, including his new teammates, Will is determined to become the greatest in roarball history and prove to the world that “smalls can ball”.

It’s long overdue for a production company to take advantage of the “GOAT” term as a movie idea, let alone Sony Pictures Animation.  It’s ideally fitting given its furry protagonist, but my interest was heightened upon viewing what the footage looked like.  This is the latest film to feature Sony Pictures Animation embracing its new stylized presentation, which drove the “Spider-Verse” films and “KPop Demon Hunters” to success.  Obviously, I’ve been loving the new approach that redeemed the animation studio, not just for its immersion but also for the creativity it inspires.  Combine that with a traditional underdog story and an all-star cast, and you get a seemingly promising sports film that’ll attract families and even some basketball fans.  I’m a sucker for sports films, especially ones involving an underdog revolutionizing the sports world, so this film was definitely right up my alley.  But, of course, it takes more than presentation and animal basketball to become a crowd-pleaser, as the execution of its familiar narrative determines whether it deserves the “GOAT” title or not. 

Even before watching its trailer, I knew that “Goat” would be another traditional underdog sports film, or should I say “undergoat” sports film?  So, I wasn’t surprised to see that the movie easily met my expectations in its storytelling.  You have a seemingly ordinary protagonist whose love for the game shines brighter with their talents, a losing sports team striving for a comeback, and a growing bond between a rookie and a former famous player who may be out of their prime.  All of these elements shown in “Goat” are exactly what I would expect from a sports movie, for better or worse.  On the one hand, its narrative will very likely impress those who love these types of stories where the underdog comes out on top, whether or not it offers something refreshing.  Sure, it may not change the genre game entirely, aside from it having anthropomorphic animals as sports players instead of humans, but “Goat” is another occasion where its heart and messages compensate for its lack of originality.

It features the usual message about the importance of teamwork and dreaming big, with the latter showcasing Will overcoming obstacles and people’s doubts to play the sport he loves.  However, what impressed me the most was its reflection of a player’s legacy, particularly when they’re seemingly past their prime.  This is evident in Jett Fillmore, whose popularity is fading due to her fans’ changed perspective towards her age, resulting in her attempts to win the championship to reclaim it.  I can’t say anything else, but I will say that if you’ve seen similar movies involving an aging sports player, then you’d know what to expect from Jett’s arc.  It’s easy to admit that this is another sports movie that would inspire young viewers and adults with its heartfelt themes, even if they’ve seen similar plays in other sports films.  Of course, this led me to the most noticeable flaw in its attempt: its predictability.  

Writers Aaron Buchsbaum and Teddy Riley seemed to have done their homework on the narrative structure and on the sports community that inspired the movie regarding the city of Vineland.  It’s lush and colorful, with a dash of African-American finesse and sports flair into its atmosphere and soundtrack.  The problem with this approach is that it’s all the writers have to offer.  It certainly has the heart of the game, but given the themes it’s representing in its world-building and characters, this should’ve been Sony Pictures Animation’s answer to “Zootopia”.  Instead, the film took a safer approach to showcasing its relatable messages, notably the one that says “anyone can ball, even the smaller ones”.  It scrolls through the usual play-by-play structure we’ve seen before without allowing itself to explore the depth of its world and characters further or even come up with some new plays.  This is mainly due to its pacing, which sprints by like a black panther on a basketball court, despite being 100 minutes long.  While it helps keep the kids glued to the screen, it can also make specific character moments feel either rushed or underdeveloped.  

In other words, it’s a traditional basketball movie with animals, through and through, but without the extra layers needed to emphasize its narrative soul, it’s also one that’s very likely to cut its own career short.  However, even with those flaws in its premise, I’d consider “Goat” an easily watchable family movie that’s fun enough to score a few points in its humor and presentation, especially the latter.  Utilizing the same style as “Spider-Verse” and “KPop Demon Hunters”, Sony Pictures Animation continues to push its animation finesse to its limits through the film’s immersive action set pieces, artistry, and stylizations.  Unsurprisingly, I was not disappointed with how it looks, particularly when it combines the realistic textures and graffiti-like visuals with animalistic character designs and SPA’s usual cartoony appearance.  Seriously, the textures for the animals’ fur and skin were amazing.  But the real highlight of the animation was the roarball sequences.  Imagine the action sequences in “KPop Demon Hunters” and “Spider-Verse” and combine them with basketball and some of the most dangerous courts in Vineland.  That’s how incredible and fun these sequences were in terms of the animation style, Tyree Dillihay’s direction, and cinematography.  The story isn’t anything too special, but the animation studio’s continuous experimentation with its art style, as seen in “Goat”, remains the true MVP in its comeback story.

The movie also features some shining stars in its roster, including Caleb McLaughlin from “Stranger Things”.  I thought McLaughlin did a good job with his performance as Lucas in the popular Netflix series, so it was nice that he’s getting more acting jobs as a result, let alone a leading role in an animated animal film.  While it’s far from his best performance, McLaughlin still managed to capture the heart and humor of Will’s generosity and determination.  I would say it’s enough to keep an eye on his acting career outside of “Stranger Things” moving forward.  Gabrielle Union was also great as Jett Fillmore, not just for conveying the character’s feisty yet self-centered persona, but also for the humor stemming from Jett’s cat-like behaviors.  Jett is someone you don’t want to mess with when she’s in game mode, but you can’t help but want to hug her regarding her personal dilemma, with Union handling this mixture very well.  I also thought Nick Kroll was one of the best parts of the film regarding his role as Modo, a member of the Thorns who’s a Komodo dragon.  This guy is completely nuts, and Kroll was the perfect fit to portray Modo’s off-putting behavior regarding his distinctive vocal range.  Aaron Pierre also delivered some decent moments as Mane Attraction, and Stephen Curry, who’s one of the film’s producers, delivered a respectable film debut as Lenny.

Overall, “Goat” may not be the greatest of all time in cinematic terms, but its stylization and fun sports vibes help it score some points on the animation court.  This is another sports film that follows the usual narrative plays, yet lacks the extra layers to complement its inspiring messages and promising concept.  While it makes for some watchable entertainment for families and basketball fans, its safe, predictable approach to its formulaic “undergoat” story lacks the slam dunk it needs to get everybody else cheering for the furry rookie.  It’s able to make up for its storytelling flaws through its animation talents, continuing Sony Pictures Animation’s winning streak with a refreshing presentation that began with the “Spider-Verse” films.  Combine that with its entertaining voice cast and fun humor, and you get another serviceable addition to the animation studio’s catalogue.  It’s too bad that its rushed pacing and a screenplay that is trope-heavy and lacks a stronger world-building kept it from being one of the greats in the animation department.  It’s no “Spider-Verse” and “KPop Demon Hunters” when it comes to the narrative, but I had a good enough time watching it, even if it’s not an MVP in my eyes.

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” stars Sam Rockwell, Haley Lu Richardson, Michael Peña, Zazie Beetz, Asim Chaudhry, Tom Taylor, and Juno Temple.  Releasing on February 13, 2026, the film follows a man from the future who travels to the past to battle a rogue AI.
​
The film is directed by Gore Verbinski, who also directed films such as “Mouse Hunt”, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “The Weather Man”, and “A Cure for Wellness”.  No matter how much we try to avoid it, there’s no denying that AI is becoming the dominant force in how we live our current lives.  Eventually, it’ll be the only path to our futures until one day, it’ll go rogue and possibly destroy all of humanity, Terminator-style.  Fortunately for us, one man from that future seeks to prevent that realization from happening, though he’s clearly not someone resembling John Connor.  From one movie involving AI to the next, it’s clear that Hollywood is seeking to provide more content that puts artificial intelligence front and center this year.  However, while the one with Chris Pratt strapped to a chair seemed more positive towards AI, this latest feature from Gore Verbinski has the characters fighting against it to save the world.  The result is a concept that looks like a bizarre trip made exclusively for AI detractors, but is it also clever enough to depict its surrealism amid its cautionary outlook on artificial intelligence?  Let’s travel to the past and find out.

The story is set in an alternate reality where civilization is glued to its technology, affecting the lives of numerous people around them.  One night, a man from the future (Rockwell) travels back in time and arrives at a Los Angeles diner, where he seeks help from specific patrons, including Ingrid (Richardson), Mark (Peña), Scott (Chaudhry), Susan (Temple), and Janet (Beetz).  The man warns that in the future, an advanced artificial intelligence will go rogue and destroy humanity, sending him on a quest to prevent that future from coming to fruition.  With the world at stake, the unlikely group must confront their personal doubts and stand together to stop the AI before its takeover begins. 

February has plenty of films that may attract specific audiences, while most were waiting for the big hitters in March.  We’re getting another “Strangers” film, another animated movie about anthropomorphic animals, and even another Ghostface killer.  However, out of those films that are releasing that month, “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” was the movie that piqued my interest the most.  It’s another movie about AI, no doubt about it, but the concept that combines that aspect with “Groundhog Day” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once” was enough to put it on my watchlist.  What can I say?  I’m a sucker for anything unorthodox.  This is also Gore Verbinski’s first directorial effort since “A Cure for Wellness” almost a decade ago.  I haven’t watched that movie, but I did appreciate his work on “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Rango”, so that’s another reason for my eagerness to see this concept unfold.  Fortunately, I was able to watch it a couple of weeks early via the mystery movie event.  I thought it was going to be “Crime 101”, but they thought this movie would suffice to build up word-of-mouth.  After viewing it myself, I’m glad they went with that decision.
   
“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” could’ve gone in either direction depending on its execution.  It could either be a harmless, offbeat sci-fi ride or a smart, comical commentary on the current generation that’s been glued to the small screens most of the time.  Based on what I saw, it surprisingly turns out to be both, making it the first contender for best movie of 2026 in my eyes.  It’s witty, absurd, unapologetic, and most of all, thoughtful.  “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” is all of those things, delivering a bonkers, cleverly oddball twist on its typical “AI is bad” storyline that speaks clearly to our tech-filled society.  Fortunately, it also doesn’t shy away from being a fun time at the movies while delivering that said message.

Gore Verbinski possesses a particular flair in his filmmaking that blends dark humor with scope, a bleak yet mesmerizing visual style, and occasionally an imagination that’s both twisted and charismatic.  These elements made his “Pirates of the Caribbean” trilogy a big success back in the day and even made “Rango” one of the best animated movies of the past decade.  His approach in “Good Luck” is no exception, as his oddball, bleak vision captures the grim yet satirical outlook of society and its obsession with technology.  What’s interesting about Verbinski’s direction is that the film doesn’t reach past its absurdity level until the third act, but it offers enough weird moments in the character dynamics to convince me to tag along with the “resistance”.  Those moments were basically the appetizers before the wild main course that was the third act, which was packed with some decent visual effects, and I have to say, those were some delicious appetizers.  “Good Luck” further establishes Verbinski’s directorial craft, balancing its small scope with a bleakly gonzo visual finesse, making this a welcome return for the filmmaker.  It does have a similar issue seen in the director’s previous films, in which it ran a bit too long.  Fortunately, its consistent pacing helped keep me from being on my phone most of the time.

However, the real leader of this surreal resistance was Matthew Robinson, whose screenplay effectively reflects on modern technology in a bizarre yet honest light.  The film showcases three different characters experiencing bizarre circumstances that led them to join the future man’s resistance.  Mark and Janet confront the students’ unusual addiction to their phones, Susan is dealing with the loss of her son from a school shooting, and Ingrid is somehow allergic to technology.  Robinson’s script offers pretty much what you would normally witness in today’s society, but in a darkly satirical, Twilight Zone-like manner, particularly cell phone addiction, AI, and the difference between virtual and reality.  While technology helps improve our daily lives, it can also diminish our connection to the real world and to those around us, especially in the context of virtual reality and grief.  It’s a timeless message we often see in other tech-themed projects.  However, what makes this script unique is that it subverts most of its tropes to deliver a cautionary tale of AI overrunning our lives disguised as a bonkers sci-fi comedy.  It’s also packed with witty humor that’s not only relatable but also hilarious, particularly for its themes, including grief amid the film’s cloning aspect.  I also thought Geoff Zanelli, Verbinski’s musical collaborator, did a solid job crafting a score that matches the film’s eccentric tone.  Not bad for his first attempt as a primary composer.

Regarding the cast, the actors were all very entertaining in their roles, with only two standing out in my eyes.  One of them was Sam Rockwell, who went from voicing the big bad wolf in “The Bad Guys” to playing a scruffy tramp claiming himself to be from the future.  All I can say is that once he starts his opening monologue, my attention is on him and only him throughout the entire movie.  Rockwell was having a ball with his performance, conveying the time-traveling man’s charismatic yet seemingly eccentric personality with pizazz and amusement.  I would even say it’s one of the most entertaining performances I’ve seen from Rockwell since “The Bad Guys”.  The other is Haley Lu Richardson, who’s been impressing me with her roles since she first caught my attention in “The Edge of Seventeen” a decade ago.  Her role as Ingrid showcases that she’s still going strong, as Richardson delivers a worthy performance that enhances Ingrid's likability through her strange yet heartbreaking character arc.  Juno Temple was also solid in her role as Susan, while Asim Chaudhry offered enough comical moments as Scott to match the movie’s absurdity. 

Overall, “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” is lucky enough to capture the absurdity of its concept, resulting in a fun, witty, bonkers, and thought-provoking depiction of the tech-obsessed world we see today.  Gore Verbinski’s first film in nearly a decade is a triumphant return to form for the filmmaker, delighting in its entertainment value and surreal ideas and inspiring with its grounded messages about technology and AI that may hit closer to home.  These two aspects have a steady connection that delivers the best of both worlds, not just for audiences opposed to artificial intelligence, but also for those who need some weirdness in their cinematic experiences.  While its runtime can be a tad excessive regarding its structure, the film relies heavily on its kookiness and talent to keep me glued to its filmmaking craft rather than my phone.  Thanks to its highly charismatic cast, Verbinski’s oddball approach, Geoff Zanelli’s solid score, and Matthew Robinson’s witty screenplay, the movie is sure to make you think twice before checking your cell phone or putting on your VR headset. 

“Solo Mio” stars Kevin James, Kim Coates, Nicole Grimaudo, Alyson Hannigan, and Jonathan Roumie.  Released on February 6, 2026, the film follows a man who is spending his planned honeymoon in Italy alone.

The film was directed by Chuck and Dan Kinnane, who also directed “Water Brother: The Sid Abbruzzi Story” and collaborated with Kevin James on viral shorts and the 2022 sports comedy “Home Team”.  We’re in the first week of February, meaning that we’re in the midst of some more cinematic love once again.  While some are already expressing their love to their partners or families, most of us are struggling to find it, let alone regain it.  That part of humanity has a difficult time either finding that one perfect soulmate they want to spend the rest of their lives with or, in most cases, rediscovering love after abandonment or loss.  One such case is a man whose dreams of a happily ever after are crushed when someone decides to abandon him at the last minute.  Isn’t love just the greatest thing in the world?  This sums up the romantic comedy from the Kinnane Brothers, which features their collaborator, Kevin James, on a solo honeymoon in a country where love is a pretty big deal.  At the very least, the sights there are absolutely breathtaking.  Is this cinematic honeymoon worth falling in love with, or does it make audiences want to abandon it at the altar?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Matt Taylor (James), an art teacher who’s preparing to marry the love of his life, Heather (Julie Ann Emery), through a dream wedding in Rome.  Unfortunately, the picturesque Italian wedding immediately went south when he discovered that his fiancée had left him at the altar.  As a result, a heartbroken Matt decides to spend his honeymoon alone.  As he struggles to move on from Heather's surprise action, Matt encounters a local named Julian (Coates), who decides to show Matt the time of his life.  While meeting with other locals, including Gia (Grimaudo), and exploring Italy's culture, Matt would eventually realize that sometimes heartbreak is just the beginning of a better story.

This is another rom-com that has caught my attention despite my minuscule experience with the genre, mainly due to Kevin James’s involvement.  The actor’s previous films have been hit-or-miss in terms of quality, particularly comedies, but I will admit that James has the charisma and humor needed to elevate them.  He has also proven to be more than just a comedian through his uncommon roles in movies such as “Little Boy”, “Becky”, and “Guns Up”.  So, I thought it would be interesting to see James continue this streak with a project that blends romance, humor, and light-hearted drama.  On the other hand, the Kinnane Brothers’ previous collaboration with Kevin James, “Home Team”, made me very concerned about their execution of this concept because of how forgettable and by-the-numbers that sports comedy was.  Not to mention, it’s the latest movie from Angel Studios, which may or may not always attract a crowd, depending on the premise.
 
The last movie I watched from Angel Studios was “Sketch” last year, though that was due to the mystery movie event.  While its seemingly fun concept had a good message, I thought its execution fell flat in its entertainment value and storytelling.  That experience might’ve been another reason I hadn’t reviewed that many films from Angel Studios, whose donations have bitten off more than they could chew in the studio's “generosity”.  To my surprise, history has repeated itself, as “Solo Mio” wound up being the latest mystery movie that I had to endure.  I guess Angel Studios is helping me make up for the majority of their catalog I’ve been missing out on.  Though I can’t say I was thrilled with what it’s doing for me.  “Solo Mio” should suit fans of the genre well, especially with its inspiring messages.  Unfortunately, those themes primarily serve as an autopilot for its derivative and surprisingly forgettable narrative.
 
Obviously, this is due to my lack of enthusiasm for romantic comedies since they’re mostly cut from the same Italian cloth.  However, there are a few exceptions that I enjoyed not just for how they revitalize the formula, but also for the spark in the characters’ chemistry and emotional hook.  So, I’m not a complete hater of the romance genre.  I’m just really picky about how they handle its tropes.  Sadly, I can conclude that “Solo Mio” does not make the list.  It’s basically another romance movie where a protagonist loses love for some reason, only to embark on a life-changing experience to regain it with someone else.  It’s a classic love story that usually makes the audience's hearts soar all the way to Italy.  But “Solo Mio” makes me want to send my heart back to the United States.
 
The Kinnane Brothers, Chuck and Dan, certainly intend to make a grounded, light-hearted romance that blends drama with restrained humor.  However, they struggled to find the right spark and spiritual inspiration in that mixture to make the romantic journey more appealing, or at least more fun.  It’s not like they didn’t try, as it had a few moments of levity from its supporting characters.  It’s that their approach to its tone and the characters’ chemistry lacks the Italian pizazz in its basic routine.  The charm of an awkward guy like Matt and a spiritual woman like Gia is there, but the Kinnane Brothers weren’t able to fully grasp it for more than a few seconds to keep me engaged.  The same goes for its humor, which stems more from human connection than from physical slapstick, given James’ experience with Happy Madison movies.  It had a couple of moments that made me chuckle a bit, but they’re not enough to make this depressing solo honeymoon any more amusing than it should be.  I’m not saying they should include more physical comedy in its tone, but it should at least distract me from its draggy pacing and my frustration towards Heather’s last-minute decision. 

The screenplay, written by Kevin James, Patrick Kinnane, and John Kinnane, also had some potential, particularly for its themes.  “Solo Mio” is not just about love, but also about embracing the life around us.  Being heartbroken is one of the worst things a person could ever experience, especially when the supposed love of their life leaves them on their wedding day.  However, that shouldn’t deter them from putting themselves out there again.  It reflects the significance of living life to the fullest despite facing hardships, helping one find love again with the one who truly matters.  It’s inspiring enough to appease the genre’s fans and maybe those in a similar situation.  Sadly, its storytelling lacks the extra push it needed to fully embrace its messages with emotional flair.  Its tropes were as by-the-numbers as any other romantic comedy, leading to some predictably boring moments that lacked much enjoyment in its journey, save for that one twist at the end that left me feeling conflicted at first.  Like the direction, the screenplay has promise, but its formulaic, generic routine overshadows what could’ve been an enjoyable and inspirational rom-com.

At the very least, its cast did their part in making this solo honeymoon a bit tolerable for me.  As I said before, Kevin James usually delivers the goods in his comedic roles, but he earns my respect for experimenting outside his comfort zone, whether in action or drama.  For his role as Matt, James aims for a more subtle approach, blending heart and drama with a dash of charisma.  The result is yet another respectable change of pace for the actor, delivering a performance that’s heartfelt and grounded in realism.  While it could’ve been used for a better project, Kevin James’s portrayal of a heartbroken teacher further showcases his acting capabilities beyond his traditional comedic standards.  Another actor who surprisingly caught my attention was Kim Coates, also known as Alexander “Tig” Trager from “Sons of Anarchy”.  Coates plays Julian, one of the locals who tries to help Matt get out of his heartbreak slump.  Despite the humor being forgettable, Coates understood the assignment of providing the levity needed to elevate this solo vacation, making him one of the film's tolerable aspects.  Nicole Grimaudo and Alyson Hannigan were also fine in their roles as Gia and Meghan, respectively, though not enough to overcome the script’s shortcomings.

Overall, “Solo Mio” delivers a cinematic honeymoon that lacks the Italian flair and love needed to overshadow its generic genre tropes.  Its messages offer a hint of inspiration that’ll likely please fans of this approach, but the Kinnane Brothers abandoned its potential with a by-the-numbers, subpar, and charmless vacation that brings nothing new to the rom-com table.  Though it may attract followers of the genre, it’s sadly not enough to convince those outside the target audience to take this Italian holiday.  Kevin James and Kim Coates made an effort to make it as vibrant as the country, with the former delivering one of his most heartfelt performances of his career.  Besides that, this is one honeymoon that’s better left abandoned at the altar.  I wouldn’t say it’s a bad film since it delivered what it promised in the genre, but its underwhelming direction, weak screenplay, and iffy pacing will make me forget about this solo vacation in a few days.

​“The Strangers - Chapter 3” stars Madelaine Petsch, Gabriel Basso, Ema Horvath, and Richard Brake.  Released on February 6, 2026, the film has Maya making her final stand against the masked Strangers.

The film is directed by Renny Harlin, who’s known for directing films such as “Born American”, “Die Hard 2”, “Deep Blue Sea”, and “The Misfits”.  It is the fifth film in "The Strangers" film series and serves as the final installment in Harlin’s new trilogy.  February is once again filled with romantic options that are appropriate for date nights, whether in the theater or in your cozy little home.  However, it also has movies that’ll make your date night watches with your partner a bit more terrifying.  Whatever the type you prefer, you and your loved one are sure to have another successful month of love through the art of cinema…until your night gets interrupted by a trio of masked strangers.  This month has plenty of horror options coming up, notably ones involving mask-wearing killers brutally eliminating their victims, so if you’re not in the mood for by-the-numbers romance, you’re in luck.  This weekend kicks off this trend with our third and thankfully final visit from the titular “Strangers”, where it seeks to conclude our survival from the masked psychopaths and the trilogy’s second-rate quality.  Two years after Maya first escaped the Strangers’ wrath, we’ve finally reached the end of the road for the newest "final girl", and we didn’t have to wait for a year to see how it ends.  Is it viciously frightening enough to conclude this trilogy on a respectable note?  Based on my experience with the first two chapters, I highly doubt it, but let’s find out anyway.

The story occurs immediately after the events of “Chapter 2”.  Maya (Petsch) has successfully killed one of the Strangers, Pin-Up Girl, whose real identity is Shelly (Horvath), a waitress at Carol’s Diner.  However, this action hits Scarecrow's nerves, leading him to capture Maya and force her to assume Pin-Up Girl’s identity to satisfy his grief.  Meanwhile, her sister, Debbie (Rachel Shenton), arrives in the town of Venus to search for Maya.  As she gets caught in the middle of the masked Strangers’ killing spree, Maya braces herself for the ultimate confrontation in an attempt to finally escape her nightmare for good.

Is there really anything else I should say about Renny Harlin’s “Strangers” trilogy that hasn’t already been said?  No, seriously, enlighten me, ladies and gentlemen.  What else can I say about how tensionless, boring, and utterly disloyal this horror saga has been since the beginning?  I know that the “Fifty Shades” trilogy was also pretty bad, but at least that captivated me more than what this sad excuse for a three-movie saga has given me.  Granted, “Chapter 2” was a tad improvement over the first chapter’s derivative and unintentionally humorous narrative, mainly due to the hospital sequence.  Besides that, the first two chapters of Maya’s quest for survival are unnecessary additions to the horror franchise that completely botched what made the Strangers so terrifying.  Regarding the direction, scripts, and lack of genuine thrills, Harlin’s “Strangers” trilogy has been making me want to deny any more visitations from the villainous trio playing dress-up.  But, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t at least interested in seeing how the overall story concludes, hence this review for “Chapter 3”.  Just so you know that I did this for all of you reading this, so you don’t suffer the same fate I went through.

Regarding its story, “The Strangers - Chapter 3” is basically a 90-minute climax of the trilogy’s overall plot that began in “Chapter 1”.  Long story short, for those who aren’t up to speed, the saga started with Maya and her boyfriend spending their anniversary at a cabin in the woods.  Then, the Strangers came in uninvited to torture them, with only Maya surviving the ordeal.  Sadly, her boyfriend didn’t make it.  “Chapter 2” continued that narrative, with Maya being hunted down by the Strangers, and concluded anticlimactically with her killing Pin-Up Girl.  This brings us to the third and final chapter, in which Maya seeks to kill the remaining Strangers from within.  With “Chapter 1” a “cabin in the woods” slasher film and “Chapter 2” a chase movie, I would describe “Chapter 3” as a “forced to become one of them” movie that retains the slasher vibes of previous installments.  So, at the very least, the trilogy attempted to differentiate itself rather than recycling the same plot across the three chapters, even if the execution falls extremely short.

Unsurprisingly, this new change isn’t enough to elevate this final chapter of the most bland and betraying “epic” trilogy Hollywood has churned out.  In fact, it somehow makes it more of a waste of time and effort, given that it should’ve ended with just one movie.  Like its predecessors, “Chapter 3” is a dull, uninteresting, and scare-free piece of slasher slop that lacks any compelling ideas and thrills to make itself less of a stranger.  What makes it even worse is that it continues to sabotage the purpose of the “Strangers” with its tense-free flashbacks, which slowed the story down a bit for me.  Most audiences, including me, didn’t actually care much about the Strangers’ origin story in “Chapter 2”, and they surely won’t be able to care about the Scarecrow’s twisted relationship with Pin-Up Girl here.  Understandably, it’s supposed to highlight the masked killers through the origin flashbacks and themes of revenge, but this is the “Strangers” we’re talking about.  They’re supposed to remain enigmatic to inject the terror of being randomly attacked by someone we don’t know.  It also didn’t help that it didn’t fully capitalize on this divisive idea to make the finale feel more like…you know, a finale.

“Chapter 2” had at least one good moment amid its tedious chase sequence, which is the hospital escape scene.  So there should be some more elements like this to make “Chapter 3” a little more tolerable, right?  Boy, do I wish that were the case.  “Chapter 3” is basically a retread of moments from “Chapter 1” and even the 2008 film, with Maya now temporarily working for the Strangers to kill more unsuspecting victims.  The only difference is that “Chapter 3” feels less terrifying and exciting than what we saw in earlier installments.  This is once again evident in Renny Harlin’s direction, who continues to botch the core elements that made “The Strangers” a petrifying horror experience.  However, I will give him this: he does know how to evoke the trilogy’s atmospheric dread in its backgrounds and lighting effects.  But, even if that’s the case, he still struggles with combining that atmosphere with its frights, particularly its jump scares and tame kills.  I know we shouldn’t expect it to be extremely gory, since “The Strangers” proved it didn’t need blood and guts to be scary, but it should at least deliver some innovation in these fundamental murders to evoke some scary-good fun.  Without that, it’s just another by-the-numbers, tedious, and poorly helmed slasher film that’s neither engaging nor refreshingly entertaining.

Alan R. Cohen and Alan Freedland also further proved that they need to improve their writing if they want to work on more scripts.  “Chapter 1” gave us a basic, unintentionally humorous retread of the 2008 film, while “Chapter 2” offered one tiny improvement on its thinly written, tension-free premise.  In “Chapter 3”, they just sort of gave up on improving the trilogy's elements further.  In addition to its formulaic slasher tropes, the screenplay continues to showcase the thinness and laziness of its three-movie premise, providing a straightforward yet painful slog that’ll make audiences wish Maya would just escape already.  But, of course, the characters’ questionable actions got in the way to make this tale of revenge and survival even longer.  Granted, it’s only 90 minutes long, which is the same length as “Chapter 1”, but that doesn’t make Cohen and Freedland’s screenplay even less of a problem.  Regarding its lack of interesting ideas, lazy ending, and mediocre characters, “Chapter 3” carries none of the aspects from the previous two chapters and fails to elevate its climactic “showdown” to earn the satisfaction of Maya’s conclusion.

It's no surprise that Madelaine Petsch has been carrying the “Strangers” trilogy on her back through her performance as Maya.  She understood the assignment of conveying Maya’s development throughout the entire trilogy, from a joyful young woman in “Chapter 1” to the "final girl" filled with trauma and inner rage in “Chapter 3”.  For the latter, Petsch did a decent job capturing Maya’s blend of fearfulness and restrained anger towards the Strangers.  While her character’s “final girl” status got in the way, I still give Petsch credit for her valiant effort in surviving this mess of an experimental trilogy.  Sadly, I can’t say that her performance in “Chapter 3” is enough to overshadow all of its annoying flaws, including its subpar supporting cast.  Gabriel Basso continues to capture the mysteriousness of Gregory through his performance, but he falls short in making the character more interesting.  Richard Brake is also fine as the town sheriff who has a history with the masked psychopaths.

Overall, “The Strangers - Chapter 3” is an uneventful and poorly executed conclusion that completely slaughtered this mediocre trilogy for good.  This should’ve been an enticing showdown between Maya and the masked Strangers that would continue the small-scale saga’s slight improvement.  Instead, it became a three-time murderer of the horror franchise’s essence, replacing its terrifyingly grounded roots with a boring, trope-heavy, and incredibly baffling take on the masked antagonists.  It’s less of a satisfyingly thrilling conclusion and more of a continuous testament to the disloyalty the horror IP has received in this trilogy.  While Madelaine Petsch’s final effort in her performance has its moments, it’s not enough to excuse the laziness and frustration of the film’s “attempt” to close the book on Maya’s survival.  Therefore, I can officially conclude that the new “Strangers” trilogy deserves the ax for visiting my territory more than once.  Regarding Renny Harlin’s disappointing direction, thinly-written script, tame kills, and forgettable scares, the final chapter of the Strangers’ murder spree is more appalling than the masked trio’s acts of senseless violence, and I don’t mean that in a positive way.