​“Fall 2: Deadpoint” stars Harriet Slater, Arsema Thomas, Tom Brittney, and Grace Caroline Currey.  Released on September 2, 2026, the film follows two women as they’re left stranded on a mountain in Thailand.

The film was directed by Peter and Michael Spierig, who also directed films such as “The Big Picture”, “Daybreakers”, “Jigsaw”, and “Winchester”.  It is a sequel to the 2022 survival thriller “Fall”.  Some people are brave enough to perform life-threatening stunts to “live life to the fullest”.  Others, on the other hand, prefer to live by not constantly putting their lives on the line, and I don’t blame them.  Despite the differences, we all share a common trait that’s been in our system for a long time: our phobia of heights.  That fear was displayed on the big screen via Scott Mann’s “Fall”, chronicling the two friends left stranded on the world’s tallest broadcasting tower.  It not only provided an enjoyable yet consistently tense experience worthy of such treatment, but also reminded audiences why they’re better off remaining on the ground.  Its mild success led to a sequel that features a new duo tackling an even more dangerous stunt, testing their thrill-seeking limits and even their sanity.  Does it provide the similar heart-pounding tension of its long-feared phobia, or are audiences better off remaining on Earth?  Let’s find out.

The story is set after the events of “Fall” and focuses on the new protagonist, Jax Hunter (Slater).  Jax is the older sister of Shiloh, who died from her attempt at climbing up the 2,000-foot-tall B-67 TV Tower.  While grieving over Shiloh’s death, Jax is approached by Shiloh’s friend, Luce (Thomas), with an idea to honor her memory.  They decide to travel to Thailand to perform a treacherous plank walk on Mount Kwan, guided by John (Brittney), intending to pay tribute to Shiloh’s bravery.  Unfortunately, their stunt quickly turns into a fight for survival when a rockslide traps them at 3,000 feet above the ground.  This forces Jax and Luce to work together to stay alive as they try to find a way off the mountain.

“Fall” is the type of movie that’s best enjoyed as an experience rather than an actual film.  While nothing special in its narrative, I admire Scott Mann for using the film’s dizzying cinematography and intense sequences to convey the terrifying reality of being on top of the world.  I am a really big chicken when it comes to heights, especially when I’m really high up with nothing to protect me from unintentionally falling.  In a way, the movie helped me be super careful with how I approach tall buildings and everything else, or stay far away from them.  Whichever works.  So, of course, I was willing to brave its out-of-nowhere sequel, which not only gave us new characters to care about, but also a new location that seems more life-threatening than a television tower.  The reason?  The planks are too flipping narrow!!

That fact alone is the main reason I’m better off admiring Mount Kwan from afar rather than risk my life traversing its illegal plank walk.  “Fall 2” easily validates my decision, to the surprise of no one.  While the views from Mount Kwan are nothing shy of breathtaking, they’re immediately shut out by the urge not to fall more than 4,000 feet from a teeny tiny, unstable plank.  It’s enough to give me and someone else pure anxiety to the point of panic, but it’s also what made this and “Fall” enjoyably frightening.  Granted, you’re seeing actors perform stunts on screen, but both “Fall” and “Deadpoint” share a common ability to transport audiences into this horrifying predicament.  Whether it’s the height, the limited amount of space, or the mental stress, these movies make us feel like we’re literally high up in the sky.  It’s the kind of experience that feels like real life rather than a fake, Hollywood-esque location.

Unsurprisingly, “Deadpoint” managed to retain this cinematic tactic, mainly for the plank walk on Mount Kwan.  The Spierig Brothers have been hit-and-miss with their filmography, and the only movie I’ve seen from them was “Jigsaw”, a fine yet flawed installment in the Saw series.  So I’ve been pretty cautious about how they’ll replicate the heart-pounding tension Scott Mann created for its predecessor.  Safe to say that they got the job done without fail.  The Spierig Brothers provide a dizzying, constantly tense excursion that can take a bit to reach that specific point.  Once it does, it never lets me go until the end.  Of course, I mean that in a literal sense because I do not want to fall off the plank.  Regarding the brothers’ approach to the fittingly disoriented cinematography and good suspense, Scott Mann may have found himself a respectable successor in retaining the fear-inducing anxiety stemming from these death-defying tricks.   

With that said, it’s also worth pointing out that this thrilling conquest isn’t for everyone.  Similar to “Fall”, “Deadpoint” is designed for those brave enough to conquer this daring feat.  If you have a severe case of anxiety or a drastic fear of heights, I would advise you to stay clear of the film at all costs.  Since we might get a franchise out of “Fall”, it’s also best to stay away from its potential sequels.  You’ll thank me later.  But even with this extremely risky trek across the mountain, there’s also the matter of the story’s execution that makes the trip worthwhile.  Sadly, like its predecessor, “Deadpoint” seemed dead on its tracks when trying to express its characters and emotional depth.  As I mentioned before, “Deadpoint”, as well as “Fall”, are best seen as cinematic rides rather than as movies themselves.  Admittedly, there are admirable attempts at character-driven moments.  Sadly, the direction for those scenes outside the tense climb somehow lacks the push it needs to propel past that limit.

Again, the Spierig Brothers did a good job representing the anxiety of being stuck on the world’s narrowest plank walk.  But when they get to the dramatic scenes, I couldn’t help but wonder if it’s directed by the same guys.  Most scenes felt like the movie was made to be released on a streaming service before being sent straight to theaters, including the character-driven drama, lighting effects, and pacing.  The moments involving the characters are practically the bridge that connects the film’s gripping sequences.  But the journey to those scenes is like the plank walk itself: wobbly and unstable.  Even when it tries to take the emotional route through the characters’ anxieties, it comes off as underwhelming, mainly because of the cast’s performances.  Harriet Slater is probably the weakest of the bunch as Jax, delivering a performance that lacks a human touch in her character’s grief and fear.  Arsema Thomas was a bit more tolerable as Luce regarding her attempts at levity, but that’s about it.  As for the editing, it wasn’t overly terrible; it had one scene with a flip-camera trick that strengthens the dizzying sense of the mountain’s height.  However, that doesn’t excuse the other times when it looked scattershot in its transitions.  Then, there were the visual effects, which looked surprisingly mediocre compared to the first film.  They’re not noticeably bad, like “direct-to-video” bad, but they do take me out of the illusion in most cases.

It’s certainly a case of having a sequel that’s less effortful in its quality than the first film.  But to the credit of writers Scott Mann and Jonathan Frank, there’s at least an effort in its story progression.  Instead of a flavorless retread of the predecessor, “Deadpoint” aimed to expand the universe it introduced, both in its locations and its characters.  They knew that climbing up the radio tower was a one-and-done deal, so having another tower to climb would’ve been too obvious.  So they decided to go even bigger on the danger, thus Mount Kwan.  Additionally, the story continues to highlight the central theme of fear seen in “Fall”, focusing on Shiloh’s sister, who strives to conquer her own, as well as her relationship with her late daring sibling.  It’s a noteworthy way to inspire audiences with what it means to live, but the script was anything but inspired.  At times, the dialogue felt rough around the edges, and the film has a habit of setting up future sequels or revisiting familiar tropes without much gusto.  It’s as smart as any other low-bar popcorn thriller could get, but at least it’s better than having to climb up the radio tower for the second time. 

Overall, “Fall 2: Deadpoint” retains its anxiety-inducing stakes seen in its predecessor, but it also fails to grasp onto its storytelling roots as hard as it could.  It has the proper supplies to give audiences another cinematic reflection on fear, especially its tale of finding the courage to overcome it.  Not to mention, the dizzying sequences involving Mount Kwan are undoubtedly worth watching on the big screen…unless you have a dreadful fear of heights.  However, when it comes to the story’s execution, these merits aren’t quite strong enough to carry it through its cheap quality and subpar direction.  It’s not a massive fall from grace, thanks to the Spierig Brothers’ commitment to delivering an immersive, constantly tense thriller from a technical aspect.  But regarding everything else, you might be better off staying on the ground.  If they’re really moving forward with another sequel, then I wouldn’t mind giving this franchise another shot.  However, they really need to patch up its quality to make their new dangerous trip worth taking.  

“Idiots” stars Dave Franco, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Mason Thames, Kiernan Shipka, Nicholas Braun, and Peter Dinklage.  Released on August 28, 2026, the film follows two young men as they transport a rich teen to rehab.

The film was written and directed by Macon Blair, who also directed “I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore” and the 2023 “Toxic Avenger” reboot.  He also wrote other films like “The Monkey’s Paw”, “Hold the Dark”, and “Brothers”.  With summer drawing to a close, it doesn’t hurt to go on one final road trip to celebrate our last days of freedom.  But, as usual, it’s always crucial to be prepared for any possible scenario thrown right at us, especially when we’re transporting someone to their destination.  Unfortunately for these dumbheads, they weren’t ready for what their passenger is capable of during their own road trip.  As is tradition, the last weekend of the summer gave us plenty of lesser-known films aiming to keep audiences occupied while Spider-Man and The Odyssey continue to dominate the box office.  One of these selections is the latest R-rated comedy, where actor/director Macon Blair takes his audience on a raunchy road trip filled with poor choices and crazy shenanigans.  Was this cinematic trip worth taking, or does it prove to be as idiotic as its characters for the wrong reasons?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on two unprofessional people who were recently fired from their jobs.  Mark (Franco) is a scumbag who is suddenly let go from his work, while Davis (Jackson Jr.) is a God-loving striver who’s removed from the church for his poor decision-making.  Desperate for a new job, Mark and Davis apply for a shady transport service, forcing them into an unlikely alliance to complete their task.  Their first assignment is to transport a rich, troubled teen named Sheridan Kimberley (Thames) to rehab to treat his addiction.  What seemed to be an easygoing road trip quickly spiraled into a series of mishaps, as Mark and Davis confront Sheridan’s mischievous ways during the trek.

You know those road trip comedies involving people going from point A to point B for a specific reason and ending up getting caught in crazy setbacks along the way?  Well, “Idiots” follows a similar setup in its narrative and humor.  However, instead of focusing on the lighthearted goofiness of these mishaps, the film presents them through its grounded, low-budget appeal, subtlety, and dark humor.  You still get some of the troubles you’d expect from a road trip comedy, but it pulls itself back to avoid overstaying the raunchiness’s welcome.  Macon Blair sought to convey this blend of humor and subtle character moments through a story about stupid people making poor choices.  The result is a well-intentioned change of pace for a subgenre that surprisingly didn't go the extra mile with its themes.

I first encountered Macon Blair’s directorial style through the “Toxic Avenger” reboot, which I thought was an entertaining yet messed-up reimagining that retains the franchise’s schlocky exploitation appeal.  From that experience, I figured Blair would have a knack for outrageous dark comedy and raunchiness.  At least, until I watched “Idiots”.  Blair has continued to prove himself a suitable filmmaker, notably by subverting most genre standards while retaining the ridiculousness and hilarity of the characters’ actions.  Even if the humor and gentle aura don’t land all the time, it definitely provided a bonkers trip that made me either question their professionalism, laugh at their stupidity, or both.  When he tries to balance that earnest vision with the script, the movie almost loses its sense of direction.

Granted, Blair offered exactly what the title suggests: a group of people making dumb decisions that would get them in trouble or worse.  Whether you’re a good person or a spoiled brat, these types of choices sometimes stem from them being…well, uneducated about the world around them.  The film also speaks plenty about class, notably Thames’s character, Sheridan, who believes he can get away with anything because of his popularity until he gets a taste of his own medicine.  The film should’ve been a crazy, fun, and thought-provoking depiction of redemption through facing responsibility for the consequences of one’s poor actions.  However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.  While the first two acts were enjoyable for the cast and road trip shenanigans, the ending failed to tie the narrative together, favoring an unrewarding, rushed closure to the characters’ development that’s been teased since the beginning.  It works well as a watchable and amusing road trip comedy. However, as a film that aims to reinvent the subgenre through its themes and characters, it’s more a game of patience to see who can tolerate these awful characters longer, for both the right and wrong reasons.

But again, despite those shortcomings, “Idiots” offers some good company in its cast, notably the three main actors trapped in the same car.  Dave Franco has been having a pretty solid run in his career for as long as I can remember.  Stepping out of James Franco’s shadow, Dave delivers plenty of performances that range from good to great, including last year’s “Together”.  In “Idiots,” Franco portrays a crazy, objectionable person whose ideas put him and others in hot water, and, as usual, he delivers another good performance.  While far from his best, I still admire Franco for conceiving a balance between over-the-top and restraint regarding his acting.  I’m also happy to see O’Shea Jackson Jr. back on the screen after appearing in last year’s “Den of Thieves” sequel.  He continues to display his talents effectively as Davis, a generous, soft-spoken “man of God” whose buttons are constantly pushed by Mark and Sheridan.  His sudden outburst towards Sheridan was one of my favorite parts about his performance for that reason alone.  I would also credit Mason Thames, who adds Sheridan to his list of performances that are elevating his career.  Sheridan is the type of person that you’d love to hate for his mischievous attitude and spoiled arrogance, and Thames managed to convey that personality pretty darn well.

Overall, “Idiots” may not be smart enough to elevate its road-trip narrative to new heights, but it offers a smooth, subtly kooky trek that warrants the humor in its stupidity.  On the one hand, it avoids most of the similar subgenre tricks to deliver a toned-down take on the road-trip shenanigans we’re familiar with.  This results in a fairly enjoyable, humorous reflection on bad choices that's self-restraint on its raunchiness.  On the other hand, its limitations on the comedy and plot can also make for a straightforward, mildly underwhelming experience for those eager to see the wilder road-trip mishaps unfold.  It also doesn’t help that the ending felt less rewarding with its character development and themes, or lack thereof.  While these shortcomings kept this trip from being among the more memorable ones, it’s still a messed-up one worth taking, especially for its enjoyable cast portraying the dumbheads on board.

“Coyote vs. Acme” stars Will Forte, Lana Condor, Tone Bell, Luis Guzmán, Martha Kelly, P.J. Byrne, Eric Bauza, Kenneth Choi, and John Cena.  Released on August 28, 2026, the film follows a billboard attorney representing Wile E. Coyote in a lawsuit against Acme.

The film is directed by Dave Green, who also directed “Earth to Echo” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”.  It is based on the 1990 The New Yorker magazine article “Coyote v. Acme” by Ian Frazier.  The Looney Tunes have been a staple of our childhood cartoon era for as long as we can remember, with memorable characters and slapstick shenanigans keeping us laughing our pants off.  With that in mind, it's all the more surprising that the franchise has recently been struggling with its current projects.  The “Looney Tunes Cartoons” show on HBO Max proved the brand still has the juice in its wackiness and charm, but its movies tell a completely different story.  The “Space Jam” sequel failed to recapture the original’s wacky magic financially and critically, and the two recent films starring the Looney Tunes characters ended up being shelved as tax write-offs under David Zaslav’s rule.  Fortunately, these movies saw the light of day after public backlash, thanks to a small studio named after a popular condiment.  One of them was “The Day the Earth Blew Up”, which saw Porky Pig and Daffy Duck saving the world from an alien invasion.  The other is an adaptation of Ian Frazier’s New Yorker parody article that pits the Looney Tunes against the corporation behind their kooky products.  Like what happened with “The Day The Earth Blew Up”, the massive fan support convinced Ketchup Entertainment to acquire the distribution rights to this film.  The question now is whether this support is actually worth it.  Let’s find out.

The story takes place in an alternate reality where the Looney Tunes coexist with humans.  One of the Looney Tunes characters, Wile E. Coyote, continues his pursuit to capture the Road Runner with the products made by the Acme Corporation.  However, every single invention he purchased has backfired on him.  This leads Coyote to sue Acme and hire a down-on-his-luck billboard attorney named Kevin Avery (Forte) as his lawyer.  The duo is then pitted against Acme’s own lawyer, Buddy Crane (Cena), who happens to be Kevin’s former boss.  Faced with impossible odds, Kevin and Coyote seek to uncover a conspiracy involving the Acme Corporation and win this loony court case.

Considering that I grew up watching the Looney Tunes, it’s a no-brainer that my interest piqued upon hearing the concept.  It not only harkens back to the previous live-action/animated Looney Tunes movies like “Space Jam” and “Back in Action”, but it also offers a clever twist to the usual courtroom drama narratives usually aimed at older audiences.  What’s clever about it is the connection between Acme and the Looney Tunes, particularly the inventions Wile E. Coyote uses to catch the Road Runner.  Since the fictional company’s crazy devices have setbacks that cause bodily harm to these various characters, who doesn’t want to sue the corporation for its crappy contraptions?  It sounded like an ingenious way to revive the IP that’s entertained audiences for generations, which made it all the more baffling that Warner Brothers tried to remove it from existence after it was completed.  Fortunately, thanks to the support from multiple fans and creators, we’re finally able to witness this loony concept unfold on the big screen rather than on a streaming service.  Of course, that includes yours truly.

Since I’ve shown my support for “The Day The Earth Blew Up”, it made sense that I would do the same for “Coyote vs. Acme”, whose comeback story is undoubtedly one for the history books, Looney Tunes-related or otherwise.  What’s even better is that it managed to meet my expectations of being an absolute blast from start to finish.  It not only works as a worthy, chaotic tribute to the iconic Looney Tunes characters, but it also serves as a highly entertaining, witty, and heartfelt satire of courtroom dramas of years past.  Yes, even the ones that are based on actual case files.  It even said it’s “based on a true story,” meaning cartoon characters are actually running amok in real life.  We just don’t know it yet.  I knew that I would enjoy it because of the brand and my love for the Looney Tunes, but I didn’t expect it to be the best Looney Tunes film in the live-action/animated space.

Part of the reason is its director, Dave Green.  While not a perfect director, Green offered a notable blend of family-friendly entertainment and wholesomeness that made “Earth to Echo” and “Out of the Shadows” solid entries in his filmography.  His third film, “Coyote vs. Acme”, tasked him with delivering that same mix to the Looney Tunes world while ensuring the IP’s charm and kookiness remained intact in its live-action setting.  Did he accomplish that goal?  Absolutely!  This is possibly Green’s best effort to date in feature films because he retained the family-friendly aura and charismatic enjoyment of his other works.  He also injected the right amount of wackiness and soul into its world-building, while making sure the heart of its characters and messages shone as brightly as its looniness.  The narrative momentum is pretty swift, throwing out numerous gags and elements at once without a moment to breathe.  It’s akin to the Road Runner itself.  It keeps moving quickly until it stops by a mountain of birdseed.  It can be a bit too much for those wanting an extra minute of character exploration, both in pacing and its contained narrative structure.  However, it’s also fitting for the Looney Tunes’ zany nature, meaning that Dave Green understood the assignment very well.

Of course, the real winner was its screenplay by Samy Burch.  For those unfamiliar, Burch was responsible for writing “May December” and “Late Fame”, with the former earning her an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  With such a peculiar lineup, it got me wondering if Burch was up to the task in writing something more lighthearted and wacky than dramatic and mature.  Well, I got my answer when I watched it, and it was a glowing one.  Like Green, Samy Burch also had a clear understanding of what makes the Looney Tunes iconic, not just in the slapstick, visual gags, and witty dialogue, but also the heart behind them.  However, the commentary and messages further emphasize this tribute, making this seemingly family-friendly adventure more than just a series of loony jokes.  By portraying Acme as a real-life company, “Coyote vs. Acme” offers a humorous yet relatable reflection on corporate greed and even discrimination against its “subjects.”  Its higher-ups, including Foghorn Leghorn (Bauza), are willing to make an extra buck without much care for the subjects they test their products on, an ironic parallel to other companies with similar tactics.  It’s no wonder Warner Brothers wanted to erase it from existence.  This satirized commentary is portrayed in a way that’s thoughtful and also smart without dumbing things down for young children.  Along with its genuine message about perseverance amid constant failures, this hilariously clever “David vs Goliath” scenario is what I would call a huge “screw you” to corporations that care more about money than their consumers, particularly Warner Brothers.  Additionally, it serves as a strong introduction to the legal procedural narrative for kids.

But what about the animation, notably the Looney Tunes characters?  Honestly, it wasn’t too bad.  The film aimed to use 3D effects to make the 2D-animated characters look more “alive” when interacting with the real world.  However, there were a few moments when certain characters remained in 2D.  While some of the CGI looked a bit more “3D-ish”, including Foghorn, they didn’t ruin the illusion for me.  They captured the 2D appeal of the characters and Acme products through design and wacky expressions, making them feel modern and nostalgic for those who grew up with similar live-action/animated hybrids.  It’s not quite as revolutionary as what “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” accomplished in 1988, though the technology was limited back then.  But on its own, the animation side of the film is as wacky and surreal as it was well-crafted and honorable to the Looney Tunes IP.  

The cast also did a great job matching the ensuing chaos through their performances, both from the live-action and animation space.  Will Forte has delivered solid work in the past few years as an actor and voice actor, including MacGruber.  Heck, I would even say that he did a pretty good Shaggy impression in “Scoob!”.  Yeah, I said it, and I’m not taking it back.  “Coyote vs. Acme” sees him back in the live-action space once more, portraying a lawyer who’s afraid of taking big risks for fear of embarrassment.  As usual, Forte retains the charismatic nature of his performance, offering both comedy and heart into a character who’s initially unlikable for his cowardliness.  Additionally, Forte provided some great chemistry with Wile E. Coyote, whose actions speak louder than words.  John Cena was also very entertaining as Buddy Crane, proving he can be magnetic as a protagonist and delightfully devious as the bad guy.  In other words, John Cena still knows how to draw in the cinematic crowd, regardless of what character he plays.  Lana Condor also did a solid job as Paige, Kevin’s niece who helps him overcome the impossible.  She is certainly making a name for herself since debuting in “X-Men: Apocalypse”, especially in recent films this year like “Pretty Lethal” and “The Devil’s Mouth”.  It’s close to being her best performance, but based on what I’ve seen here and the previous ones, Condor still has promise in doing so.  Of course, I would also credit Eric Bauza for keeping the spirit of specific Looney Tunes characters alive through his distinctive vocal range, like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Foghorn Leghorn.  He was once again fantastic, delivering impressive work in the voice acting business.
​
Overall, “Coyote vs. Acme” is a loony court case worth talking about, as it delivered a swift, hilariously entertaining, and heartfelt satire of corporate greed that’s as wacky as the Looney Tunes themselves.  More importantly, it is a remarkably sincere tribute to the brand, showcasing the slapstick and soul that make them more than just cartoon characters.  That alone shows that these kooky individuals still haven’t lost their zany touch, while also proving that other characters besides Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are worthy of the spotlight.  At times, its pacing can feel a bit too chaotic, and its contained narrative may not leave much room to expand its world-building.  Fortunately, it saved enough room to highlight its commentary and messages, revitalizing the court-case narrative through its fun premise, wacky mishaps, and loony heart.  With its highly enjoyable cast, Dave Green’s direction, witty screenplay, and well-crafted blend of animation and live-action, this film is guilty of being the best live-action Looney Tunes movie ever.  Whether you like the Looney Tunes or not, it’s definitely worth watching to celebrate the hard work many people put into the film and to have a great time.     

“Insidious: Out of the Further” stars Amelia Eve, Brandon Perea, Maisie Richardson-Sellers, and Lin Shaye.  Released on August 21, 2026, the film follows a woman who discovers a terrifying ability tied to the Further.

The film is written and directed by Jacob Chase, who’s known for directing “Come Play”.  It is the sixth installment in the Insidious franchise.  When “The Red Door” was released three years ago, it marked the last time we would see the Lambert family confront the nefarious entities from the Further.  While they finally got the peace they deserved after three movies, that doesn’t mean the Further is done making things go bump in the night.  As is tradition in the realm of horror, the terrifying world of “Insidious” returns once again with yet another installment that focuses on the demons’ latest victim, but with a catch.  These entities usually bring their haunts within the astral plane, notably the “Further”, but now, thanks to its new protagonist, they’re taking their brand of terror to the real world.  Does this addition to the franchise’s lore help revive its formerly scary concept, or should we stay away from the Further for good this time?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Gemma Hall (Eve), a young mother raising her daughter, Maya (Island Austin), in her childhood home.  Amid her challenges as a single mom, she discovers an unusual ability that affects her daily life: she can travel into the Further, a purgatorial realm filled with lost souls and dangerous entities.  Not only that, but she can also bring whatever lives in the Further back into the real world with her.  Once the demons recognize Gemma’s potential, they seek to exploit her newfound power to wreak havoc in her own world.  This led Gemma to find a way to prevent the entities from invading the mortal world.

It's been a while since I’ve seen the previous “Insidious” installments, but I remember liking the first and third movies most, especially for their frights and spine-chilling aura.  The other ones, on the other hand, were pretty much akin to any other modern horror sequels: cheap cash grabs that lack as many memorable scares as their predecessors.  Even “The Red Door”, which is classified as the end of the Lambert family’s journey, failed to generate any interest or scares in its unnecessary chapter of their encounter with the Further.  So, it’s easy to see why I was hesitant about seeing “Out of the Further”.  On the one hand, it features a new protagonist confronting the Further, akin to “Insidious: Chapter 3”, as well as a new addition to the franchise’s lore, providing another refreshing perspective of the creepy world-building introduced in the first film.  On the other hand, “The Red Door” felt like a respectable conclusion to the franchise, so the existence of this installment seems more like a desperate plea for more money.  

After another trip back to the Further, I realized it is another plea for more money, like other horror sequels that overstayed their welcome.  However, I also came to a surprising realization: the overall experience was anything but desperate.  “Out of the Further” may not have helped the franchise escape from cash grab hell entirely, but it does deliver a small improvement over the Lambert family’s last encounter with the demon-filled realm.  One factor in that mild success is its world-building.  “Insidious” and its sequels have crafted and expanded on certain details and rules that shape the Further as an eerily haunting and bleak version of the real world, something you would usually see in your nightmares.  These elements, along with its intense terror and demon designs, are enough to push the PG-13 rating just a smidge over the limit, so like its predecessors, this film will very much make you think twice before taking your underage kids.  

“Out of the Further” introduces audiences to a protagonist who’s allowed to interact with the Further and even bring spirits or objects in and out of it.  While that may seem helpful in getting in touch with some dead relatives, it can also be pretty dangerous, especially when there’s a new demon eager to use it to set the spirits free.  Unsurprisingly, the film plays out like the previous “Insidious” movies regarding its structure and concept, a common misstep that plunged the franchise’s terrifying impact.  Fortunately, rather than letting the formula run its tedious course, writer/director Jacob Chase emphasized this refreshing idea, making its clichéd plot a more compelling, nightmarish ride than “The Red Door”.  Gemma’s ability plays a crucial role not only in her relationship with her daughter, but also in her past.  Gemma’s traumatic childhood highlights the film’s theme of generational trauma, as she strives to become a better mother to Maya than her own mother was.  This alone offers some surprising emotional hints of Gemma’s struggle to face her past in hopes of a brighter future for her and her daughter.

That emotional heft is certainly a breath of fresh air, especially in a horror movie like “Insidious”.  Sadly, those intentions were bogged down by its franchise limitations and a screenplay that favors genre cliches and simplicity over expanding on its thematic depth.  Granted, people come to an “Insidious” film for the scares and nightmarish thrills rather than a layered masterpiece, and “Out of the Further”, to my surprise, offered several moments that were worthy of those reasons.  Again, that includes the new characters, who are tolerable enough in their relationship, and Gemma’s gift, which resulted in some decent jump scares.  But it’s also easy to admit that, six movies into the franchise, the concept still shows minor cracks in its horrific impact compared to the first three installments.  Its emotional moments, while promising, didn’t feel as rewarding as they should have, and the third act can feel sillier than frightening.  However, even with these noticeable flaws, I still think “Out of the Further” came pretty close to being as enjoyable as the first three “Insidious” movies.

One such reason is Jacob Chase.  I’ve seen bits and pieces of his previous film, “Come Play”, which was released during the early days of the pandemic.  It’s anything but a horror masterpiece, but the atmosphere and creepiness somehow compensate for its shortcomings.  The same can be said for his vision in “Out of the Further”, where Chase starts to find his footing in the horror space, especially with the atmosphere.  “Insidious” brings us an eerie, unnerving, and empty world of the Further, along with fitting shots and visuals that earn its jump-scare tactics.  Chase follows those elements with a tee, delivering an eerily engaging ride through its familiar space that also evokes some solid jump scares, but only in the first act.  The rest of the scares didn’t quite match the impact of what I’ve seen.  However, I did get a kick out of the pillow fort sequence, where Gemma travels through the Further’s never-ending pillow maze.  It’s tense, claustrophobic, and pretty darn spooky.  This blend, along with Chase’s approach to the fear stemming from its location, makes it one of the highlights of the horror franchise in my eyes.

Another reason is the respectable cast, mainly Amelia Eve and Lin Shaye.  Eve is no stranger to the supernatural, thanks to her role in Mike Flanagan’s “The Haunting of Bly Manor” on Netflix.  So it shouldn’t be a difficult task for her to take over the franchise as its new protagonist with a terrifying ability.  Fortunately, she was able to accomplish that with her performance.  Amelia Eve managed to instill fear and shock into Gemma’s experiences with the Further and even the heart that stems from her relationship with Maya.  The result is a respectable performance that earns my attention towards Eve’s upcoming projects.  But, of course, it isn’t an “Insidious” film without Lin Shaye, who continues to dominate as the main face of the franchise.  Despite being dead, Shaye’s Elise is still here to lend a helping hand to those who fell victim to the Further’s devious ways.  She has a couple of enjoyable moments that may not be as memorable as her previous outings, but they're fun enough to justify her existence, mainly because of Shaye’s commitment to the role.  Brandon Perea was also all right in his role as Nick, Gemma’s love interest, while Sam Spruell brings out the terror with his performance as Cyrus Lam, even if he doesn’t compare with the franchise’s other antagonists.

Overall, “Insidious: Out of the Further” barely escapes from the depths of horror mediocrity with a surprisingly tolerable nightmarish ride that improves over our last couple of trips.  It may be another cash-grab sequel in the horror movie realm, but its new addition to the Further’s lore helped provide a refreshing perspective on the terrifying realm that’s been giving audiences nightmares since 2010.  Not only that, but it also delivers a plot that’s familiar by franchise standards yet engaging enough to warrant our attention to its new characters and themes, even if its narrative potential got lost in its usual cliches.  Its attempt at providing emotion and its hit-and-miss third act doesn't convince me that the “Insidious” franchise is back in full swing, but after the dull experience that was “The Red Door”, I’m willing to call it a small step in the right direction.  Regarding its cast, Jacob Chase’s direction, and enjoyable jump scares, this latest trip back to the Further will surely satisfy those eager to confront the devious demons once more.  As for those who gave up after the first three films, they’re better off staying put in the real world.  ​

​“Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie” stars Carter Young, Hayden Chemberlen, Mckenna Grace, Henry Bolan, Rain Janjua, Lucien Duncan-Reid, William Desrosiers, Nylan Parthipan, and Ron Pardo.  Released on August 14, 2026, the film follows the Paw Patrol as they uncover an island full of dinosaurs.

The film was directed by Cal Brunker, who directed the previous “Paw Patrol” movies, as well as “Escape from Planet Earth” and “The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature”.  It is the third film in the “Paw Patrol” franchise, based on the show’s “Dino Rescue” sub-series.  If there was one thing that could cure the late summer blues, it’s a weekend packed with dino fever, with two similar movies aimed at different audiences.  While older folks can enjoy a more fearsome “Jurassic Park” clone set in the suburbs, families are left with a safer option featuring these prehistoric creatures.  Fortunately for them, our particular group of cuddly yet brave puppies was here to ensure a more fun and harmless experience with the dinosaurs for the younglings.  It bears repeating that “Paw Patrol” is one of Nickelodeon’s most successful franchises to date alongside SpongeBob and will continue to thrive in television for the next decade or so.  Of course, like SpongeBob, “Paw Patrol” is also dominating the big screen through movie adaptations of the regular show and its “Mighty Pups” sub-series.  Unsurprisingly, this trend continues with the team’s latest cinematic mission that takes them from the boisterous Adventure City to a “Jurassic Park”-inspired island.  Was this latest big-screen outing starring the Paw Patrol worth howling for, or does it prove that some children’s shows should remain on the small screen?  Let’s find out.

The story once again centers on a team of search-and-rescue pups known as the Paw Patrol.  Led by Ryder (Bolan), the Paw Patrol embarks on a mission to rescue a family from a boat fire.  However, the team gets caught in a storm that washes them up on a seemingly uninhabited island.  While exploring the island, they made a shocking discovery: the island is actually home to a group of dinosaurs.  Accompanied by a paraplegic pup named Rex (Chamberlain), the pups learn about the island's prehistoric creatures and their ways of life.  Eventually, they come across another nefarious plot by Mayor Humdinger (Pardo), who seeks to mine the island for its diamonds.  This results in the Paw Patrol cooperating with Rex to rescue the dinosaurs and stop Humdinger’s plan, while one of its members, Marshall (Young), confronts his own dilemma.

I still find it crazy that I didn’t get into the “Paw Patrol” craze until its first movie came out during the pandemic.  I mean, I was in my second year of college by the time the show even came out.  While I may not be a huge fan of “Paw Patrol”, I appreciate the films for staying true to the show’s roots despite their cinematic scale.  I found the first film surprisingly decent because of its harmless, charming plot involving the team protecting Adventure City from Humdinger’s terrible ideas.  Despite “The Mighty Movie” falling a tad short from a narrative perspective, it was still an enjoyable piece of children’s entertainment that I wouldn’t mind revisiting at some point.  More importantly, both these movies work pretty well in delighting fans of the source material, mainly younger children, and even newcomers who don’t feel like watching endless hours of the television show.  Despite being beyond the series’s target demographic, I was somehow interested in seeing how this dino-sized adventure would continue its solid theatrical run, even though I wasn’t expecting anything more out of its kid-friendly plot.

Like “The Mighty Movie”, “The Dino Movie” continues the tradition of adapting one of the show’s sub-series as a feature film.  In this case, the film is based on the “Dino Rescue” episodes in season seven, in which the Paw Patrol works on missions in the Dino Wilds.  In short, it’s set in the same universe where the dinosaurs didn’t get killed by a flaming ball of death.  Imagine if that were to happen in our universe.  It also continues to focus on developing one of the group’s members during their assignments, which is one of the strongest aspects of the films.  The first movie focused on Chase’s trauma from Adventure City, and “The Mighty Movie” had Skye (once again voiced by Mckenna Grace for this movie) proving that even small pups can do big things.  For “The Dino Movie”, the story’s main focus is the firefighter puppy Marshall, who confronts his own clumsiness to prove his own worth to the team.  Of course, on an island full of prehistoric animals, it’s not an easy task to flawlessly perform a task without slipping up.

The “Paw Patrol” movies are in no way masterpieces of animation when it comes to storytelling.  However, they’re at their best when they stick with the merits that made the series special for its target audience: fun, charm, and, most importantly, life lessons that kids and even adults can understand and relate to.  “The Dino Movie” is no exception, as it provides exactly what you would expect from a Paw Patrol movie while highlighting its positive messages.  This dino adventure shows Marshall challenging his belief that rescue workers never make mistakes while on duty, thanks to his clumsy behavior.  However, he realizes that everyone makes mistakes, and the important part of being a hero is never giving up, despite imperfections.  It’s moments like this that make me appreciate “Paw Patrol” as a franchise, mainly the movies.  It not only delivers fun rescue missions that can be occasionally intense, but it also takes a safer, kid-friendly approach to its themes that may inspire children to become heroes themselves.  Was the franchise perfect?  No, but its balance of education and entertainment has a specific charm that helped drive its success.  Thirteen years in, and it's still going strong.

In short, “The Dino Movie” is the third big-screen outing for the series that works best as a Paw Patrol movie because of these merits.  However, when you take off the Paw Patrol glasses and identify it as a regular kids movie, it’s another fairly tolerable piece of young-age entertainment that’s more about advertising its brand and nothing else.  For better or worse, “The Dino Movie” showcases another round of rescue missions performed by the pups themselves while dealing with a member’s personal issue.  The plot is straightforward and predictable, especially in how the narrative is structured for Marshall’s dilemma.  If you’ve seen the previous two “Paw Patrol” movies, then you'll be able to connect the dots in “The Dino Movie”.  As the third film in the franchise, you might expect a different structure, especially since the entire scenario takes place on a dinosaur-infested island.  Well, that’s not the case.  Despite the change in location, the narrative elements are basically the same as the previous movies, including the one pup’s personal problem affecting the team’s duties and the flashback involving their first encounter with Ryder.  

This makes sense thematically, especially in how it showcases Marshall’s role on the team.  But after three Paw Patrol movies, these elements are now starting to become too obvious, which doesn’t help the film’s screenplay by Cal Brunker and Bob Barlen.  Like the previous two “Paw Patrol” movies, “The Dino Movie” relies more on its simple concept.  It gets the message across while delighting the target audience with puns and low-level dialogue, rather than offering a more layered approach to its themes and narrative.  If that’s the intent, Brunker and Barlen once again did a pretty good job capturing the heart and spirit of the source material while understanding the target demographic.  But if you’re hoping for it to get a massive upgrade in storytelling, I can only say that the only upgrade you’re getting is the advertisement for the franchise’s set of “Dino Rescue” toys.  But hey, that means more money for Nickelodeon and Spin Master.  Granted, there were a few fun moments that stem from its silly charm, particularly from Rubble (Lucien Duncan-Reid) and Mayor Humdinger.  Other than that, “The Dino Movie” is like the first two films: a 90-minute toy commercial that showcases the pups’ gadgets and vehicles amid a cinematic aura, now with ferocious yet adorable dinosaurs.

As for the cast, they made a respectable effort to inject childlike charisma and likability into their performances.  Most of the members from the show and movies returned to reprise their roles, like Mckenna Grace and Ron Pardo, while others either replaced those who came before or tried to shine in their new characters.  Carter Young marks the latest actor to voice Marshall in the film, and admittedly, he was one of the best parts of the lineup.  While his performance is anything but perfect, Young did a suitable job conveying Marshall’s determination and clumsy persona, adding a blend of humor and heart that the series is known for.  Ron Pardo also continued to shine as Mayor Humdinger, who returns once more to cause trouble for the Paw Patrol.  As usual, Humdinger is delightfully evil, the complete opposite of the heroes’ selfless intentions, yet he has an appealing charm to his nefarious deeds that makes him as entertaining as the protagonists.  Of course, besides the main pups, “The Dino Movie” is full of celebrity guest stars joining in on the adventure, such as Terry Crews, Jennifer Hudson, Fortune Feimster, Snoop Dogg, Paris Hilton, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy.  While none of them stand out as much as the main cast, they’re still respectable in making their respective characters appealing to children.

Another aspect I’ve enjoyed about the “Paw Patrol” movies is the animation.  While the CGI presentation is as simple as the movies themselves, it captures the scale and cinematic essence worthy of their theatrical treatment, especially the rescue missions.  “The Dino Movie” is no different, with Mikros Image returning once more to deliver the kid-friendly action we’d expect from these heroic canines, as well as the colorful visuals of the environments.  While far from innovative, the animation delivers another burst of vibrancy and appeal that’s gorgeous by design and adorable by children's movie standards.  The rescue missions remain thrilling and entertaining, especially the third act, where the characters rescue the dinosaurs from an active volcano.  Plus, the dinosaur designs are just so cute, especially the baby T-Rex named Rhubarb, making the film a proper introduction to cinematic dinosaurs for small children outside the “Jurassic Park” franchise.  It may not be special in its presentation, but it further proves that no job is too big for Mikros to convey the show’s straightforward concept and environments on a larger, more detailed scale.

Overall, “Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie” performs its duty of providing kid-friendly entertainment to its target audience, even if its story is nothing worth roaring about.  Like its predecessors, this dino adventure is full of adorable charm and colorful vibrancy, along with its positive messages and fun rescue missions.  As a Paw Patrol movie, it’s another strong reminder of why the series remains popular in the modern children’s entertainment space.  However, as a regular kids movie, it’s also a safe, straightforward, and familiar experience that functions as a 90-minute commercial for the IP’s toy line.  While tolerable in the franchise’s first two theatrical outings, this third big-screen mission highlights that it’s starting to run out of new tricks in the storytelling department, despite the heart that stems from it.  But again, I’m not the target audience for these types of movies, even though I got enough enjoyment from seeing puppies interact with dinosaurs in this film.  They’re more geared towards younger kids who watch the series daily, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.  While it fulfilled this assignment easily with its tolerable appeal and messages, its tame execution may make casual viewers want to yelp for help.