​“Mercy” stars Chris Pratt, Rebecca Ferguson, Annabelle Wallis, Kali Reis, Rafi Gavron, Chris Sullivan, Kenneth Choi, Kylie Rogers, and Jeff Pierre.  Released on January 23, 2026, the film follows a detective as he seeks to prove his innocence to an AI judge.

The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov, who also directed films such as “The Arena”, “Night Watch”, “Wanted”, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”, and “Profile”.  It’s no secret that everyone, and I do mean everyone, is against artificial intelligence, regardless of how it’s utilized.  Sure, it helps us accomplish most of our mundane tasks in a matter of seconds, but, like all technology, AI is prone to making mistakes in its functionality.  Personally, all I’m concerned about is how people are using it as a permanent replacement for human creativity rather than as an assistive tool, whether for writing essays, drawing art, or whatever.  But why stop there?  Let’s add the justice system to the list of things AI could do and see how that would turn out.  While that idea hasn’t come to fruition just yet, we do have an action thriller that shows what that future would look like if artificial intelligence served as judge, jury, and executioner.  Spoiler alert: it didn’t turn out so well, at least for Chris Pratt.  But is this piece of pro-AI cinema functional enough to pass as popcorn entertainment, or should it find itself guilty of supporting the most infamous piece of technology in history?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Detective Chris Raven (Pratt), an LAPD officer in the near future, where the city's crime rate is on the rise.  That all changed with the creation of an advanced justice system known as the “Mercy” program, in which convicted criminals have 90 minutes to prove their innocence to an AI judge, Maddox (Ferguson), before they are executed.  Chris was one of the few who championed the system for reducing crime.  That is, until he, too, becomes the victim of the AI system, as Chris finds himself on trial for murdering his wife, Nicole (Wallis).  He now has 90 minutes to prove his innocence to Maddox before the judge’s final decision, utilizing various footage of the day of Nicole’s murder to track down the real killer.

As I said before, I’m not the type of person who supports AI because of how flawed its functions and prompts can be.  However, I couldn’t help but feel that we’re in a position where people just treat it as the plague, regardless of how it’s used.  Fortunately, that hasn’t stalled my interest in “Mercy”, which explores artificial intelligence being used for criminal justice.  On the other hand, its director, Timur Bekmambetov, hasn’t been known for cinematic quality, at least from a couple of films I’ve seen.  “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” was an enjoyable yet generic horror film featuring the president battling vampires, and the “Ben-Hur” remake in 2016 was just…there for some reason.  Regarding Bekmambetov’s work on American cinema, 2008’s “Wanted” was the only one to gain decent acclaim from critics and audiences.  Sadly, his latest film couldn't replicate the Angelina Jolie-led thriller’s success, with its less-than-pleasing reviews signaling another missed opportunity for Pratt outside his IP franchises like Marvel and Super Mario.  

But is it really as bad as the flawed AI in real life?  That’s the question I sought to answer by experiencing Chris Pratt spending 90 minutes in the electric chair myself.  After careful consideration, my verdict is that it’s not entirely awful in terms of the experience it sought to create.  “Mercy” is another single-location thriller in which the protagonist uses everything at their disposal to escape a life-or-death scenario, including their brain.  It’s limited in its scope and storytelling, but it was utilized to evoke the suspense of deciphering the puzzle or, in this case, proving one’s innocence to an AI judge inside a single room.  With its combination of the “screenlife” gimmick and traditional filmmaking, the movie presented the idea of placing its audience in the chair themselves to solve the crime and survive the trial.  On the other hand, it’s also another throwaway “protagonist is falsely accused” action thriller that’s enjoyable for its thrills and nothing else.

The evidence in this case points to Marco van Belle’s screenplay, which suggests a deeper thematic resonance within its programming.  However, it has a few bugs in its system to make the premise work for everybody, including me.  “Mercy” is somewhat akin to a dollar-store “Minority Report” in its futuristic tech for the justice system.  The only difference between this and the Steven Spielberg sci-fi thriller is that “Mercy” has audiences stuck in one room playing a “whodunit” game with Chris Pratt for 100 minutes.  In addition to its reflection on the justice system, the film also depicts artificial intelligence and its use to provide a fairer, safer approach to reducing crime.  What these two elements have in common is that they’re both flawed in their functioning.  Obviously, AI is the true crime of making several mistakes despite its efficiency, but the justice system can also make mistakes depending on how it’s manipulated.  But the film wanted to ensure that AI is depicted as good despite its flaws, which might not bode well for most of the biggest AI detractors.  

However, I wouldn’t call its portrayal of AI the script's main problem.  My mindset is on the narrative itself, which obviously follows the usual “clear someone’s name” structure.  Aside from its presentation and twists, “Mercy” doesn’t really offer much in its narrative to set it apart from other similar movies.  Along with its mediocre dialogue and some questionable plot points, Marco van Belle’s script may have drawn inspiration from films like “Minority Report”, but it lacks the innovation and emotional gut punch to clear the writer's name of this cinematic crime.  If you’re going into this film expecting a thematically deep exploration of AI and the justice system, you’ll easily find this one guilty of lacking such substance.  It’s straightforward, limited, and occasionally far-fetched.  Fortunately for me, it has enough evidence to prove itself as a fine watch for those seeking solid thrills.

As I stated earlier, the film’s presentation combines the “screenlife” gimmick seen in movies like “Searching” with traditional filmmaking.  Timur Bekmambetov has been pioneering the “screenlife” filmmaking technique, like how Chris Pratt’s character champions the “Mercy” program, having worked on films like “Unfriended”, “Searching”, and “Profile”.  So, it’s easy to spot some similarities in the film’s approach.  While the combination is far from revolutionary, Bekmambetov used it in a respectable manner to deliver the necessary thrills of watching the action unfold, particularly in its crazy yet tense third act.  Regarding the “screenlife” approach, I still think “Searching” handled this gimmick better because it was also used as an effective storytelling tool.  However, I would say that “Mercy” is another piece of evidence that highlights Bekmambetov’s fascination with this format.  Even the visuals for the gimmick were passable for its holographic screens and action, though some looked a bit iffy.  Thankfully, they’re not as bad as the ones from the recent “War of the Worlds” adaptation last year, which Bekmambetov also produced, believe it or not.  So, in a way, the film is his way of apologizing for his involvement in that cinematic blunder.

As for the film’s cast, the main attractions carrying the story are Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson.  While the supporting characters appear in the footage, the main leads are front and center, driving the film’s thrilling moments through their performances.  Chris Pratt is the kind of actor whose usual schtick can be enjoyable under the right circumstances.  But in some cases, he does attempt to inject serious drama into his performances, and his role as Chris Raven is no exception.  Even though it’s not the best performance I’ve seen from Pratt, he does show that he can act beyond playing the typical generous or “cool” hero.  Raven is perceived as an officer whose trauma affected his marriage and even his temper, and is used against him amid his quest for redemption. This characteristic was suitably displayed by Pratt’s performance, further indicating the actor's status as an action star.  Rebecca Ferguson also makes for a convincing AI in her performance as Judge Maddox, a computerized judge presiding over the trial.  She acts in a way any AI person would, which, in context, helps inject some tension into her chemistry with Pratt.  If that program were to become a reality, I actually wouldn’t mind having someone like Maddox as my judge.  Kylie Rogers and Kali Reis also delivered commendable performances as Britt, Chris’s daughter, and Jacqueline Diallo, Chris’s partner, respectively, although the scene involving the latter character was understandably one twist too much.

Overall, “Mercy” is guilty of not taking full advantage of its AI themes, but it offers clear evidence of being a straightforward yet watchable thriller that’s far from a crime against cinema.  Its single-location approach and “screenlife” gimmick have enough merit to complement its murder-mystery aspect, especially its thrilling yet far-fetched finale, with Timur Bekmambetov leading the trial with a passable level of confidence.  However, this direction can only take it so far when its screenplay doesn’t elevate beyond what we usually see in other similar films.  It’s a competent thrill ride that mostly succeeds in delivering what the premise suggests, and that is Chris Pratt sitting on the chair for 90 minutes solving a murder case.  But those seeking a thematically grounded thriller that combines storytelling with cinematic innovation may find themselves accusing it of being another disposable January film.  Pratt and Ferguson are compelling in their roles, along with some passable visuals, but the film’s subpar screenplay and its handling of themes and tropes aren’t enough to bring it to the right side of the law.  It’s a fine enough watch for those seeking more “screenlife” thrills.  However, I don’t see it being remembered as we head down to the rest of the year.

​"28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" stars Ralph Fiennes, Jack O'Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman, and Chi Lewis-Parry.  Released on January 16, 2026, the film has Spike confronting a cult in a post-apocalyptic England, while Ian Kelson makes a shocking discovery.

The film was directed by Nia DaCosta, who also directed "Little Woods", "Candyman", "The Marvels", and "Hedda".  It is a follow-up to "28 Years Later" and the fourth installment in the 28 Days Later film series.  It felt only yesterday when Danny Boyle and Alex Garland joined forces to bring audiences back to the zombie-infested world that revolutionized zombie horror cinema.  That came to be known as "28 Years Later", which delivered not only the kinetic and gory style the horror franchise is known for, but also the most surprisingly emotional story of the "28 Days" saga in my eyes.  This innovative approach to the zombie formula may not have impressed everyone when it first came out, but it did reward most fans with a welcome and poignant return to form for the horror franchise.  However, its ending demonstrated that our long-awaited return to the Rage Virus-infected Earth was only a taste of what's to come, as the film was part of a planned trilogy composed of a single narrative.  Fortunately for us, "28 Years Later" was successful enough to see how the rest of the story unfolds, but with Nia DaCosta leading the charge as director instead of Boyle.  With that in mind, let's dive back into the chaotic, zombie-filled land and see if this next chapter is worth biting into.

The story is set immediately after the events of "28 Years Later".  Spike (Williams) was recently rescued by the Fingers, a satanic cult led by its psychopathic leader Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal (O'Connell).  As Spike remained in quarantined Britain with them, he started to question Jimmy Crystal's true intent amidst the post-apocalyptic landscape.  Meanwhile, Dr. Ian Kelson (Fiennes) continues his maintenance of the Bone Temple, where those killed during the Rage Virus outbreak were laid to rest.  His studies were then interrupted by the sudden appearance of a local Alpha, which he named Samson (Lewis-Parry).  Their confrontation leads to a shocking discovery involving Samson's drug-induced state, prompting Kelson to form an unexpected bond with him while experimenting in hopes of finding a cure for the Alpha's condition.

If you can't tell at this point, I included "28 Years Later" on my top ten 2025 films list because I was honestly surprised at how great the film was.  Granted, I understand why some didn't love the movie as much as others, but in my eyes, it's a bold and surprisingly poignant horror sequel that effectively blends traditional zombie horror with character-driven drama.  I would even say it's one of the very few horror movies that actually made me cry, though not as much as "The Long Walk" and "Hamnet" did.  It's one of the reasons I was looking forward to seeing its continuation, though I remained cautious given the change in directors and the hit-or-miss quality of horror sequels.  Though Nia DaCosta seemed to be a respectable choice to continue the saga, as she did a pretty good job with the recent "Candyman" installment.  However, the limitations imposed on her for "The Marvels" spoke volumes about how modern studios often lack trust in a director's unique vision.

That alone led me to worry that "The Bone Temple" would follow suit by not giving DaCosta free rein to helm something as kinetic as this.  However, those concerns quickly flew out the window upon hearing its early praise, with some clamoring that it was superior to its predecessor or even one of the best films of 2026.  Given the franchise's underlying themes, frenetic presentation, and gory aesthetics, it's no surprise that this installment would earn such praise, but is it really as great as the early reviews suggest?  Yes, but calling it one of the best films of the year does feel like a bit of a stretch.  In my eyes, it may not be as exciting or emotionally satisfying as "28 Years Later", but "The Bone Temple" continues the franchise's attempt to reinvent the zombie horror genre with rewarding results.  However, this reinvention may not impress everyone, depending on their taste in zombie films.

"28 Years Later" delivered pretty much what its predecessors did: a frenetic, intense, and fiendishly violent horror experience.  However, what made it stand out from the first two installments was that it injected a human soul amid the zombies ripping people's heads off, reflecting its depiction of family and coming-of-age.  It was a zombie movie with teeth, but it also possessed a beating heart that transcended the genre's traditional jump scares and R-rated violence.  "The Bone Temple", which was shot back-to-back with "28 Years Later", offers plenty of zombie flair we'd typically expect from a "28 Days Later" film.  However, it also continues to highlight its predecessor's grounded, character-driven essence, surprisingly more so than the previous film.  While "28 Years Later" is equal parts zombie horror and family drama, "The Bone Temple" is what I'd describe as a character-driven horror drama that happens to feature zombies.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly a couple of moments involving people confronting the infected in the film.  Besides that, the film focuses only on the one element that's more terrifying than the zombies themselves: a Satanic cult inspired by the Teletubbies.  On the one hand, this continued reinvention further demonstrates why the "28 Days Later" franchise is one of the boldest and most fascinating accomplishments in the horror genre.  It provides not just another well-written, expertly crafted sequel, but also one that's mostly rewarding in its dialogue-driven scenes and its thematic dread.  Unfortunately, its reliance on character-driven sequences over zombie confrontations may not bode well for those seeking relentless gore and zombie thrills.  This tiny bit of information is less of a flaw and more of a caution for people expecting it to be another traditional horror film with zombies.  Some of the zombie scenes in the movie were engaging, but compared to those in "28 Years Later", they're not something that would get etched into my brain for the rest of the year.

Now, the scenes involving the Fingers, on the other hand… Those are what made "The Bone Temple" an unnerving watch from start to finish.  As I mentioned earlier, the film focuses mainly on the cult that's more dangerous and deranged than those affected by the Rage Virus.  Regarding its approach that blends dark humor with grisly images, "The Bone Temple" is another example of showcasing the dangers and terror of a cult whose demonic beliefs made them more monstrous than fictional ones.  With this and the "Candyman" sequel, Nia DaCosta is undoubtedly another director who understands the nature of the horror genre.  Rather than relying on the usual horror tropes as shortcuts, DaCosta utilizes them to blend unnerving terror rooted in humanity with thematic resonance.  It's been a while since I've watched the recent "Candyman" film, but after watching "The Bone Temple", I would say the latter handled this direction better, offering greater discomfort in character-driven horror.

It's also easy to tell that "The Bone Temple" is a different beast from its predecessors, thanks to its style.  Boyle's directorial style provides a kinetic, livelier presentation that matches the energy and danger of the aggressive infected, as evidenced by "28 Days Later" and "28 Years Later".  "The Bone Temple" emphasizes DaCosta's vision as a calmer, dreary approach that takes its time with its character-based drama.  It does feature a bit of franticness in its zombie action and heavy metal aura, notably Kelson's satanic-laden show in the third act.  Besides that, the remaining film is more subdued in its presentation and drama.  It's equivalent to comparing a child dosed on sugar with a mild-mannered adult, or in this case, comparing a crazed zombie with a sane person who's not infected.  The difference is very noticeable, and I don't mind it one bit.  DaCosta's vision complements flawlessly with its hauntingly gorgeous scope brought vividly to life by Sean Bobbitt's cinematography.  It's enough for me to say that this might be the best-looking installment of the franchise so far.

Alex Garland has also continued to prove his worth as an innovative screenwriter and a crucial piece of the zombie-filled puzzle.  While the script for "The Bone Temple" doesn't have the same emotional hook as "28 Years Later", Garland still knew how to expand on the lore he created while retaining the grounded nature of its underlying themes.  In this case, "The Bone Temple" not only explores the characters' continued journeys that began in its predecessor but also sheds light on people's faith in the face of the Rage Virus outbreak, particularly satanic beliefs.  Dr. Ian Kelson's beliefs fell mainly on scientific reasons, while Jimmy Crystal possesses a deranged faith in Satan, claiming himself to be the devil's son.  It does feature zombies, along with a special cameo at the film's end, but Alex Garland demonstrated that the true terror lies in the monsters hidden within people's religious faiths.  Its themes were discomforting without being overly complicated, and they're suitably defined with his reinvention of the zombie genre.

The cast also shone through their performances, with some returning actors shining more in their expanded screen time compared to their roles in its predecessor.  Alfie Williams made a superb first impression in his film debut as Spike in "28 Years Later", and he's still great in "The Bone Temple", faultlessly conveying the boy's frightened expressions as Jimmy's sadistic actions unfold before him.  However, the film's real focus is Ralph Fiennes's Ian Kelson, who confronts an astonishing discovery regarding the virus.  This expanded screen time gave Fiennes much to do with this character, and he pulled that feat off easily.  His performance was subtle yet engaging enough to underscore Kelson as another interesting character the franchise has to offer, and his scenes with Chi Lewis-Parry's Samson were nothing shy of compelling.  In case you're wondering, yes, I did enjoy Kelson's satanic sequence during the third act.  But the real highlight for me was Jack O'Connell's unhinged and satisfyingly sadistic portrayal of Jimmy Crystal.  He absolutely nailed the character's blend of creepiness and dark humor, which is enough to make his unnerving sequences watchable.  With "Sinners" and now "The Bone Temple", I can safely say that O'Connell knows how to make these types of villains work.  They're crazy, yet oh-so-satisfying to watch.  Erin Kellyman also did very well with her performance as Jimmy Ink, one of the Fingers who befriends Spike, and Lewis-Parry made stellar work with his almost dialogue-free performance as Samson.

Overall, "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" is a bold and unnervingly satisfying continuation of the "28 Years Later" saga that highlights the dread and terror of humanity beyond the raging zombies.  Audiences who enjoyed the franchise's reinvention will be treated to another rewarding change in direction, with its story and beautifully haunting scope both elevated by Alex Garland's screenplay and Nia DaCosta's remarkable vision.  Unfortunately, others eager to see more zombie violence and relentless gore would likely find this one challenging to bite into, especially when it's more focused on the grounded character drama than the infected.  Regardless, this is a horror sequel that isn't afraid to take some risky swings with its genre formula.  While not all of them hit their mark, they still equate to a well-crafted and frightening exploration of faith amid a post-apocalyptic landscape.  It doesn't impress me as much as "28 Years Later" due to its lack of an emotional hook and minimal zombie violence.  Nonetheless, it further proves the franchise's worth as the Alpha of the zombie horror genre.  Regarding its superb cast, Nia DaCosta's direction, Garland's well-written script, and gorgeous cinematography, "The Bone Temple" is another January horror film I would gladly give my seal of approval to.  It sucks that I didn't love it as much as everyone else did, but I liked it well enough to get me interested in the upcoming final chapter of the "28 Years Later" trilogy. 

​“Greenland 2: Migration” stars Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, Roman Griffin Davis, Amber Rose Revah, and Trond Fausa Aurvåg.  Released on January 9, 2026, the film follows the Garrity family as they journey across the decimated Earth to find a new home.

The film was directed by Ric Roman Waugh, who also directed films such as “In the Shadows”, “Snitch”, “Angel Has Fallen”, and “Kandahar”.  It is a sequel to Waugh’s 2020 disaster thriller, “Greenland”.  The end of the world usually means the end of humanity’s life on Earth, as foretold in the many end-of-days films we’ve watched in previous years.  But in some cases, our planet’s end means a new beginning for the remaining survivors, depicting another chance of survival.  Given the conditions left behind by the disaster, it’s far from an easy feat compared to before Earth was reduced to ashes.  “Greenland” was one of the cinematic victims that skipped the theatrical release due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to its straight-to-video-on-demand release.  While seen as another typical disaster film filled with visual spectacle and massive destruction, “Greenland” pulled off an impressive hat trick by emphasizing the human drama about hope and survival amid an extinction-level crisis.  The result is a thrilling and surprisingly heartfelt experience that stands out as one of the more enjoyable outings from the disaster genre.  It also resulted in a sequel in which Gerard Butler once more protects his family from an even greater danger that awaits after the comet decimated most of Earth’s environment.  It’s not January without a Gerard Butler movie, after all, even if it’s in the form of a sequel.  Does it retain the heart and thrills of its predecessor’s impending doom, or does it deserve to go extinct?  Let’s find out.   

The story takes place five years after the events of the first film, when most of Earth was demolished by the Clarke interstellar comet.  Former structural engineer John Garrity (Butler), his wife Allison (Baccarin), and his son Nathan (Davis) continue to adapt to their new lifestyle within the underground bunker in Greenland.  However, their new sanctuary suddenly came crashing down when a series of earthquakes forced the family and the other survivors to evacuate the facility.  Now out in the open, John and his family embark on a treacherous journey throughout the decimated Earth to search for the “promised land” in the Clarke crater.  Their trek is far from easy, as they encounter several obstacles that test their resilience and familial bond, including electromagnetic storms and the radioactive fallout from the Clarke comet.

I’ve seen plenty of disaster films that I mostly enjoyed for the spectacle, but “Greenland” is that rare occasion where I appreciate both the destruction and the human soul residing within it.  I would even say it’s one of, if not my favorite, disaster movies, based on my recent rewatch.  It featured the usual elements we’ve seen from other familiar disaster thrillers, especially the destruction sequences occurring in the background.  Fortunately, they didn’t overshadow the heart at its core, grounded in themes of family, hope, and generosity amid Earth’s final days.  In short, it’s a surprisingly good mid-budget “comet destroys Earth” film that features one of Gerard Butler’s most heartwarming performances.  That’s why I find it surprising that we were getting a continuation of the film that further explores the aftermath of Earth’s final hours, as “Greenland” was more of a one-and-done deal.  Most people survived, and Earth got wrecked by a big-as-hell comet, end of story.  Is there really much else to tell?

Well, director Ric Roman Waugh and writer Chris Sparling answered that question with “Greenland 2: Migration”, a sequel no one really needs, but got it anyway because Hollywood.  Now, I do want to express my apologies to you all for two different reasons.  First off, I want to apologize for getting to this movie a week late, as I was coming down with something and needed to take the week off to recover.  Second, I want to say sorry to all of the Gerard Butler fans reading this review from the bottom of my heart because I was really disappointed with his latest sequel.  I would probably say that this might take the cake as my least favorite movie that Butler has starred in.  While it may have featured the post-apocalyptic spectacle audiences come to expect, “Greenland 2” lacks much depth in its story and emotional thrills to make this aftermath actually worth exploring.

One element I should give “Greenland 2” credit for is that the sequel retained most of the small-scale drama amid its apocalyptic scale.  As I mentioned earlier, I enjoyed “Greenland” for how it balances the small-scale family drama with the end-of-days spectacle dancing in the background.  The destruction sequences in that film were pretty enjoyable, but the emotional core of the family’s survival was what drove the stakes even higher, at least in my eyes.  Instead of being nothing but visual chaos, Chris Sparling ensured that the Garrity family’s personal struggles remain front and center, notably John’s strive to protect his family, through his screenplay.  “Greenland 2” continues Sparling's thematic essence with co-writer Mitchell LaFortune, as John guides his family through a post-apocalyptic wasteland while battling his own health issues.  Given the stakes that stemmed from the comet’s aftereffects and humanity’s post-apocalyptic paranoia, this would’ve been another thrilling roller coaster packed with plenty of feels.  Instead, it came across as a dry, derivative, and visually murky trek that wasted its potential just like how the Clarke comet wasted almost half of Earth’s population.

“Greenland 2” is basically another post-apocalyptic thriller that depicts a character’s journey to the “promised land”, one that should’ve been more exciting than what we have now.  On the one hand, the screenplay maintains its predecessor’s reflection of hope, survival, and family amidst people fighting for themselves.  That alone is enough to inject some interest in the Garrity family’s struggle, particularly when it refers to John’s sickness.  On the other hand, it’s got multiple plot elements that weren’t explored much to achieve the poignancy the film was hoping to achieve.  Along with the formulaic tropes we’ve seen in similar post-apocalyptic thrillers, the film failed to fully capitalize on Nathan’s character arc, in which he wants to be a scout like John.  It was mentioned in the film’s first act, but then it was never brought up again, leaving me with a father-son relationship that lacks the spark and subtle depth of its predecessor.  Roman Griffin Davis was a decent substitute for Roger Dale Floyd in his performance as Nathan, but I feel like the script didn’t fully develop the character’s arc to showcase the young actor’s talents.  It also made the third act’s emotional payoff feel very unconvincing, given the lackluster familial core and the narrative's low stakes.

Ric Roman Waugh isn’t the type of director who makes action movies into art, but strives to make them entertaining when it counts.  “Greenland” is undoubtedly his best work for providing emotion that’s well-earned along with his approach to small-scale thrills, so seeing him returning to direct “Migration” should give us some hint of merit, right?  Well, not exactly.  Waugh retains the small-scale essence of its character-driven drama amid its destruction, but he doesn’t offer much else in his vision to keep the film from careening towards direct-to-streaming territory.  That includes the action set pieces, which were more ho-hum than exciting, though the English Channel crossing sequence was pretty intense.  I also found Waugh’s approach to the human drama less compelling than what he accomplished in the first film.  I guess with the world already at its end, there’s really no other emotional chord to strike when they’re surviving for the second time.  As for the visual effects, they’re not entirely bad for the post-apocalyptic wastelands, but I wouldn’t say they’re awe-inspiring in the film's murky atmosphere and destruction sequences, especially the tsunami.  Even the post-apocalypse can be limited by its budget.

Regarding the cast, they did all right, but none of them really stood out for me.  As mentioned earlier, Roman Griffin Davis was a respectable choice to play Nathan despite the script underutilizing his character.  The young actor has certainly come a long way since his Golden Globe-nominated role in “Jojo Rabbit”, and even though this film isn’t his best work, I still appreciate that he’s still finding more acting roles.  Besides that, the only other actor that actually caught my attention was Gerard Butler, who reprised his role of John.  While his performance was a bit rough, Butler remains a compelling figure who drove the film’s subtle heart, even if that aspect falls short of rewarding me with its poignancy.  It bears repeating that if you like Butler in his other films, action or otherwise, you might feel the same way towards him in “Greenland 2”, though not as much as how you feel towards his previous roles.  Morena Baccarin was also fine as Allison, while Amber Rose Revah provided a commendable performance as Dr. Amina, one of the survivors who accompanies the Garrity family.

Overall, “Greenland 2: Migration” forms the new year’s cinematic wasteland with a dreary and disappointingly lackluster sequel that’s more disastrous than the Clarke comet’s destruction.  Despite retaining the heart of its themes of family and survival, the movie relies mainly on its post-apocalyptic narrative trappings to chart its course rather than to heighten the thrills from its stakes and drama.  As a result, it became an unnecessary and mediocre continuation that only exists to capitalize on Gerard Butler’s star power and nothing else.  I wouldn't say that's a bad thing since Butler was one of the only elements keeping it from losing too much hope, along with its intense English Channel crossing sequence.  But regarding a story that lacks a compelling emotional hook in the familial bond and murky visuals, this is another film that deserves to go extinct along with the other second-rate January movies.  For both Ric Roman Waugh and Butler, I would say that this is the worst collaboration I’ve seen from them so far, let alone a pretty big step down from their surprisingly solid work on “Greenland”.  Waugh has another thriller on the way later this month with Jason Statham in the lead role, so we’ll see if that could help the director overcome his post-apocalyptic blues.

​“Primate” stars Johnny Sequoyah, Jessica Alexander, Troy Kotsur, Victoria Wyant, Gia Hunter, Benjamin Cheng, and Charlie Mann.  Released on January 9, 2026, the film has a family surviving against their savage pet chimp.

The film is directed by Johannes Roberts, who also directed films such as “Hellbreeder”, “Storage 24”, “47 Meters Down”, and “Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City”.  Having a pet around can make a huge difference in one’s life.  Whether it’s a dog, cat, bird, or even a fish, pets can make us feel at ease regarding their support and companionship.  But in some cases, your pet could unexpectedly become the thing that inspires fear rather than love, especially if it's a chimpanzee with rabies.  As is tradition, we’re starting the new year with a scare-your-fur-off horror film that would either be surprisingly good or a giant piece of monkey poop.  This time, we have a human-vs-monkey horror movie from Johannes Roberts, featuring a group of teens facing the deadly wrath of their own pet chimp.  The rise of Planet of the Apes has to start somewhere.  Is this simple, chilling premise bananas enough to deliver the first good movie of 2026, or will it make audiences go apeshit for the wrong reasons?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Lucy (Sequoyah), a young woman who returns home to Hawaii and reunites with her family, including her father, Adam (Kotsur), her sister, Erin (Hunter), and their pet chimpanzee, Ben (Miguel Torres Umba).  After Adam is called away for work, Lucy and her friends Kate (Wyant), Hannah (Alexander), and Nick (Cheng) throw themselves a pool party at Lucy’s house.  Unfortunately, the special occasion between friends suddenly turns into a bloody nightmare when Ben is bitten by a rabid animal, causing him to go savage and attack his unsuspecting owners.  Lucy and the others must now work together to escape the ferocious monkey they once saw as family.  

If there’s one thing I know about these kinds of horror movies, it’s that nature is just as terrifying and deadly as the supernatural, maybe even more, especially when confronting wild animals.  Regardless of the quality, there is no doubt that confronting these ferocious creatures is nerve-wracking enough to make me steer clear of their natural habitats.  It doesn’t matter if they’re wolves, sharks, lions, or even monkeys; interfering with nature is one of the major death flags that’s worth avoiding.  That alone is what got me interested in this latest film from that subgenre.  On the other hand, the film’s director, Johannes Roberts, hasn’t been impressing me with the previous movies I’ve seen from him so far.  “47 Meters Down” was his only film that I mostly enjoyed because sharks terrify me to no end.  As for his take on “Resident Evil”, that reboot failed to invigorate the video game franchise for both fans and general audiences.  Let’s hope Zach Cregger can give us a “Resident Evil” film that’s actually worth our time surviving a zombie apocalypse.

However, I found myself surprised when I heard good things about “Primate” leading up to its release.  So, it seems that Roberts may have found his gory spark regarding his approach to low-budget horror.  But is it really as good as the word-of-mouth suggests?  After viewing it for myself, I would say it’ll depend on your horror needs.  If you’re seeking a straightforward, brutally savage horror experience about a chimp with rabies, “Primate” delivers a suitable amount of bloodshed and entertainment that’ll make you go bananas.  Given its simple premise, suspense, and atmospheric paranoia, the film used these elements to deliver old-fashioned animal-horror fun.  However, if you wanted a horror film with a bit more beef in its story and characters, you probably won’t find any monkey business lying around in this film.

To be fair, “Primate” does have a story underneath its savagery, in which Lucy attempts to reconnect with her sister Erin after returning home from college.  But then their adopted pet chimp decided to go full-on “Planet of the Apes” on them and Lucy’s friends because of every pet’s number one enemy: rabies.  Most modern horror movies can be hit-or-miss when it comes to character development, as they often drive their plots by making their characters one-dimensional victims of their grisly kills.  While they’re excused by the entertainment value of their premises on some occasions, there’s a reasonable chance that the characters, whether dumb, annoying, or both, can negatively impact the experience.  “Primate” is that one occasion where the characters aren’t entirely memorable with their depth, but are bearable enough for me to tolerate their scenes between Ben’s rampage.

Johannes Roberts and co-writer Ernest Riera tapped into the potential of Lucy and Erin’s sisterly bond in the first act, emphasizing the film’s heart amid its bloody banana pile.  After that, though, it was tossed aside to make room for the film’s horror-genre blueprint.  The best way I would describe “Primate” is that it’s sort of like a combination of every slasher film in existence and “Planet of the Apes”.  But instead of a traditional machete or fishing hook, Ben, the chimpanzee, uses his ape-like strength to rip a person’s skin off.  It’s not something we haven’t seen before in regards to animals attacking people, but what really matters is whether its seemingly gonzo plot is fun enough to warrant a recommendation.  In my eyes, I can definitely say that I had a decent time with “Primate”.  Yes, it is far from original and lacks much substance to transcend beyond its “chimp killing people” concept.  However, it boasts a pretty healthy mixture of suspense, horror, and dark humor to highlight its breezy, squeamish, and consistently engaging 90-minute trip through monkey hell.

As I mentioned earlier, I wasn’t much of a fan of some of the movies I’ve seen from Johannes Roberts.  But, I do admire “47 Meters Down” for underscoring the genuine terror of being in shark-infested waters amid its micro-budget thrills.  This gave Roberts the mindset to make a seemingly harmless chimpanzee as murderous as the Great White Shark, and he played to that strength pretty well.  It’s not just because of the jump scares that are actually frightening rather than annoying.  It’s also because of how he handled the tension of avoiding the vicious monkey.  Sure, getting your butt whooped by a crazy chimp is scary enough, but the process of having to sneak past it without creating too much noise or making any sudden movements?  Oh boy…  That’s something you don’t want to do during your next game of “Truth or Dare”.  Those sequences somehow reminded me of “A Quiet Place”, where a single loud noise can lead to your death.  Although that movie did this concept better, “Primate” used this tense element to evoke terror from confronting a rabid monkey.  With how well he handled the movie’s tension, darkly lit atmosphere, and some convincing frights, I’m surprised to see that Johannes Roberts may have stepped up his game regarding the horror genre.

Another element I admired was the film’s practical effects, which were used for the gore effects and the creation of Ben.  Most times, I give filmmakers credit for not blowing their budgets with CGI effects, instead relying on the creativity and realism of practical effects.  I usually find it satisfying to see the effort put into these types of effects, even though some of them can be goofy-looking, and “Primate” is unsurprisingly no exception.  Granted, there were some scenes where “Primate” took some shortcuts with CGI for understandable reasons.  But most of the time, I was treated with some pretty disgusting stuff, especially the kills that were occasionally far-fetched.  The gore effects are solid enough to make me squirm, even if the lighting sometimes obscures them.  However, that also means I can’t recommend this movie to those who aren’t fans of gore.  But if you can handle it, you might find yourself having fun getting grossed out by Ben’s brutalities.

Additionally, I found the actors' performances suitable, but nothing to write home about.  Johnny Sequoyah, known for her roles in “Believe” and “Dexter: New Blood”, was pretty decent in conveying Lucy’s genuine fear towards a rampaging chimpanzee.  It’s not the best performance I’ve seen from her, but she does show potential in her talents, especially in the horror genre.  As for the rest of the cast, I recognized only two actors from previous projects, including Jessica Alexander.  Chances are, you might have recognized her for her role as Vanessa in the live-action “Little Mermaid” remake.  Her performance as Hannah was fine, which is pretty much all I could say about it.  The other is Troy Kotsur, who’s best known for making history as the first male deaf actor to win an Oscar for his role in “CODA”.  I didn’t expect him to show up in another movie after that, but here he is, playing a father in a horror movie about a killer chimp.  But, in all seriousness, I thought Kotsur was good in the film, particularly for his shining moment in its climax.

Overall, “Primate” goes bananas for the right reasons, delivering a simple, brutal, and effectively chilling horror experience involving a killer monkey.  This is one of the few modern horror films that offers enough merits from its straightforward yet occasionally insane concept to excuse some of its shortcomings, whether through entertainment value, filmmaking craft, or both.  In this movie’s case, it takes advantage of its short runtime, suspense, and premise to deliver the enjoyment of watching a rabid chimp go psycho on its human owners.  Its screenplay doesn’t pack much protein into this blood-soaked banana to highlight the heart of its characters, nor does it transcend its traditional genre tropes.  However, it's enough of an entertaining animal chiller to make fans of killer-animal movies want to monkey around.  From its suitable cast to Johannes Roberts’ approach to its old-school thrills and practical effects, the film is another horror movie that avoids the dreaded tradition of subpar January horror slop that’s as stinky as a monkey’s “business.”

​“The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” stars Tom Kenny, Bill Fagerbakke, Rodger Bumpass, Clancy Brown, Carolyn Lawrence, Mr. Lawrence, and Mark Hamill.  Released on December 19, 2025, the film has SpongeBob SquarePants confronting The Flying Dutchman.

The film was directed by Derek Drymon, known for co-directing “Hotel Transylvania: Transformania”.  Drymon was also involved in shows like “SpongeBob SquarePants”, “Rocko’s Modern Life”, and “Adventure Time”.  It is the fourth main movie in the SpongeBob SquarePants film series.  Regarding the holiday season, there was no doubt that everyone was heading over to Pandora once again to hang out with the blue alien people.  However, those whose kids are too young for that thrilling experience would likely treat them to an alternate destination for their Christmas vacation.  One where a giddy yellow sponge lives in a pineapple and catches jellyfish for a living.  

What even is there for me to say about "SpongeBob SquarePants" that hasn’t already been said?  It’s one of the classic cartoons that define Nickelodeon as a go-to channel for kids and adults, and the only fuel that keeps it going in recent years.  Despite the ups and downs from some of the show’s recent seasons, SpongeBob remains a popular icon for the channel, more so than Mickey Mouse is for Disney.  His big-screen adventures have also been making a splash at the box office, further proving the spongy protagonist’s longevity and popularity beyond our television screens.  This trend continues with the latest film adaptation that takes SpongeBob on a pirate adventure akin to the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, but underwater.  Was it able to deliver another fun addition to the ever-lasting franchise or make audiences want to say “Yo-ho-no”?  Let’s find out.

The story once again centers on SpongeBob SquarePants (Kenny), a fun-loving sponge who finds himself in another dilemma.  This time, he seeks to become a “big guy” despite his boss, Mr. Krabs (Brown), seeing him as a weak, cowardly, bubble-blowing man-child.  SpongeBob’s attempt to prove his bravery resulted in him and his best friend Patrick (Fagerbakke) encountering a ghostly pirate crew led by the Flying Dutchman (Hamill) and his assistant Barb (Regina Hall).  As a result, SpongeBob and Patrick find themselves on a dangerous journey to the Underworld, during which SpongeBob tests his courage and discovers the Dutchman’s true purpose.  Meanwhile, Mr. Krabs, Squidward (Bumpass), and Gary the Snail (Kenny) embark on a rescue mission to save SpongeBob before the Dutchman’s plan comes to fruition.

I’m pretty sure you all know by now how much “SpongeBob SquarePants” means to me growing up.  If not, then I’ll tell you that this iconic cartoon has been one of the most significant parts of my childhood.  It was basically one of the shows I was introduced to when my parents first exposed me to television.  While I can agree that some of its modern seasons aren’t as good as the earlier ones, I still appreciate the show for its surreally goofy charm and memorable characters.  So much so that I make sure to see the film adaptations of the series whenever they emerge from the waters.  Yes, that includes the ones made for Netflix, and no, mayonnaise and horseradish do not count as SpongeBob movies.  Unsurprisingly, “Search for SquarePants” is no exception, especially since this is the first theatrical movie of the franchise since “Sponge Out of Water” a decade ago.  “Sponge on the Run” was supposed to be released in theaters five years ago until the pandemic forced it onto Paramount+, though it did get a theatrical run in Canada.  So, this is clearly a test to see if the target audience is still willing to pay to see SpongeBob grace the big screen, as they did for the previous theatrical installments.

However, the actual test is whether its plot is worthy of the cinematic treatment, as it was initially developed as a direct-to-streaming movie centering on Mr. Krabs.  Given the film’s pirate theme, I could see Mr. Krabs being the main star of his own adventure beyond managing a fast-food restaurant and obsessing over money.  Since Plankton’s movie on Netflix was a serviceable hit, I won’t be surprised if Mr. Krabs gets his own film in the near future.  But I’m getting way too ahead with myself.  I was hoping to see it earlier when it first came out, but I wound up saving it for last due to my schedule, particularly my preparation for this year’s awards season.  It was a grueling wait, given my love for SpongeBob and the endless times I listened to Ice Spice singing about him being a “big guy”.  But, thankfully, the wait was worth it.  Was it the best SpongeBob movie ever?  Not even close, and it sure as heck didn’t have enough guts to stand alongside the other big animation titans.  However, it does provide a constraint yet consistently entertaining undersea adventure for families and fans of the popular cartoon, which is all it needed to do.

The thing to know about SpongeBob as a whole is that the series is like a child who's high on sugar.  It possesses an active imagination and is zany enough to run circles around you, keeping you on your toes at all times.  Or, if you want to get really edgy, you might consider it to be an all-access acid trip without the drugs, regarding its wacky yet creative visual gags.  Remember, don’t give your kids actual drugs unless that drug happens to be a talking sponge who loves blowing bubbles.  “Search for SquarePants” embodies that similar aura from the series to deliver a 90-minute-long surreal undersea adventure that’s swift enough to capture kids’ short attention spans but also fun enough to appease their parents.  Derek Drymon is another veteran of “SpongeBob SquarePants” who understands what makes the yellow sponge tick, not just through his personality, but also through the charm and humor that stem from his goofy behavior.  Of course, his biggest challenge was translating his cartoon knowledge and the show’s absurdity into a cinematic format.  Its zaniness and fast pacing may be a bit much for some casual viewers to abandon ship.  Nonetheless, what Drymon delivered in his direction was suitable enough to match the harmless fun and visual wackiness of the popular cartoon.  He knows that it’s silly and downright insane, and he just goes along with it, adding to the enjoyment of watching SpongeBob and Patrick becoming swashbuckling pirates.

However, it’s also far from a perfect voyage regarding its straightforward screenplay by Pam Brady and Matt Lieberman.  This is another family movie focused on delivering simple family entertainment, without any metaphorical or mature themes like those in most sophisticated animated films we’ve seen.  This is evident in the movie’s restrained, undemanding narrative about SpongeBob’s quest for bravery, which could’ve been seen as a Nickelodeon television movie.  At 90 minutes, or 96 minutes if you count the “Ninja Turtles” short that plays beforehand, the film wasted no time sailing through treacherous waters at a swift pace.  Yet, it gives itself enough time to highlight the film’s heart, particularly in its message about bravery.  The movie centers on SpongeBob believing that being a big guy means growing tall enough to ride the roller coaster, only to discover, through Mr. Krabs’ swashbuckling days, that it also means being brave in the face of danger.  But, amid his journey through the Underworld, SpongeBob would soon learn what it actually means to be courageous.

This message, which played a role in SpongeBob’s friendship with Mr. Krabs, is simple and to the point, like its storytelling.  Fortunately, it also possesses a hint of inspiration that’ll teach young kids that bravery doesn’t just come from growing up, even if it does remind me of the first SpongeBob movie.  Of course, I would even say that co-writer Pam Brady has redeemed herself from the recent “Smurfs” reboot that came out last year, not just for her clear understanding of the assignment but also for the humor.  The film features a couple of butt jokes thrown in there because what kid doesn’t love seeing a snail’s naked rear end?  But, they’re also well-balanced with a few jokes that the adults might get, particularly the brick puns.  Most of them are amusingly ridiculous or even just plain ridiculous, from the fourth-wall-breaking shenanigans to the wacky visual gags and cartoony slapstick.  Fortunately, it’s not to the point of being annoying, as I wound up giggling at the absurdity almost throughout the entire film.  That’s how you know how much I grew up watching the series.  It may not match the cinematic and emotional scale of other well-received animated outings, but the screenplay capitalized on its simplicity to deliver a humorously zany ride that highlights its message, which is as sweet as jellyfish jelly.

Regarding the voice cast, it’s no surprise that the original cast from the show continues to deliver excellent work for their characters.  Tom Kenny further demonstrates that no one is a better fit for SpongeBob than him.  His vocal range conveys SpongeBob as a likable, highly energetic, and gullible sponge whose innocent intentions often land him in hot water.  However, it’s never to the point of making him insufferable through his playfulness, further emphasizing why I love the character in the first place.  Bill Fagerbakke and Clancy Brown were also very entertaining in their roles as Patrick and Mr. Krabs, respectively, with the latter playing a bigger role in SpongeBob’s Underworld quest.  However, it’s also worth noting that Carolyn Lawrence’s Sandy Cheeks and Mr. Lawrence’s Plankton aren’t in the film as much as the other characters, with Plankton only appearing in one scene.  Given its restrained structure, it makes sense why those two characters only serve as cameos, but those hoping to see Sandy and Plankton join this pirate adventure would likely be disappointed with how they’re treated.

Speaking of cameos, “Search for SquarePants” is another SpongeBob movie that features an A-list supporting cast complementing the show’s veteran actors.  Unfortunately, most of these actors, including George Lopez, Ice Spice, and Arturo Castro, serve only as cameos designed to deliver gags.  The only exceptions to the case are Mark Hamill as The Flying Dutchman and Regina Hall as Barb.  While I got a kick out of Lopez voicing a fish executive from Paramount Studios, I would have to say that Hamill as the ghost pirate was the best part of the film’s supporting cast.  The Flying Dutchman has appeared numerous times in the show, brought to life by Brian Doyle-Murray, so it was long overdue for him to get his moment to shine on the big screen.  It would’ve been nice to see Doyle-Murray reprise his role, but I thought Mark Hamill did a fantastic job conveying the character’s raspy vocals as well as the persona that blends goofiness with villainy.  The Dutchman has proven himself an entertaining supporting character in the show's universe of oddball characters, and the film showed he can also serve as a fun antagonist for SpongeBob to face.  I also thought Regina Hall did surprisingly well with her unique vocal performance as the Dutchman’s assistant.  Seriously, you can barely tell that was Hall regarding how she disguises her voice.

Finally, we have the film’s animation, which serves as the backbone of this spongy flick…if sponges actually have backbones.  It’s still a shame that the movie doesn’t have the same 2D animated presentation as the first two SpongeBob films, especially in today’s world, when people need theatrical 2D animation now more than ever.  But if there’s one thing I learned from this film and “Sponge on the Run”, it’s that the CGI style can be as visually kooky and imaginative as the franchise’s classic 2D days.  It’s hard to say which CGI SpongeBob I enjoyed the most, but I will say that the animation in “Search for SquarePants” is the most fluent and vibrant I’ve seen from the franchise’s current cinematic presentation.  Regarding its cartoonish designs, simple yet colorful settings, and well-defined textures, “Search for SquarePants” respectfully reflects the source material’s surrealism and slapstick without losing much of its own identity.  Of course, the monsters in the Underworld can look a bit terrifying for younger kids, but some of them are designed to balance out their frightening nature with the movie’s humor.  Additionally, the animation works really well for its visual gags, including a few trademark close-up shots seen in the cartoon and the live-action segments.  The latter aspects were pretty cheap-looking, but they add to the uncanny charm while imbuing specific sequences with a cinematic flair.

Overall, “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” offers plenty of nautical wackiness and visual appeal to deliver a straightforward yet seaworthy cinematic voyage.  While it’s nowhere near as bold as the other animation titans of 2025, SpongeBob’s latest undersea adventure retains the show’s enjoyment, charm, and silliness to delight young kids and even adults who grew up watching the iconic Nicktoon.  It’s simple to a fault, and its cartoonish tone can be a bit overwhelming for some casual viewers.  Nonetheless, it’s a harmless, suitably animated, and often sweet addition to the SpongeBob universe that’s as fun as blowing bubbles with a bubble buddy.  Its screenplay lacks an extra heft in its plot elements to match the heights of the titular sponge’s previous cinematic endeavors, particularly the first two movies.  Fortunately, it easily compensates for its flawed narrative with a slew of jokes, quirky vibes, and visual gags that made me laugh as much as the spongy protagonist.  It’s not my favorite movie in the SpongeBob SquarePants film series, but it benefits from an entertaining voice cast, vibrant animation, an absurdly amusing tone, and a heartfelt message that keeps the franchise’s ship afloat.  As a fan of SpongeBob, I was mildly satisfied with the ghostly voyage I partook in.  As a movie critic, I would say it’s a decent watch if you understand the show’s offbeat, kid-friendly tone.