​“In the Grey” stars Henry Cavill, Jake Gyllenhaal, Eiza González, Kristofer Hivju, Emmett J. Scanlan, Jason Wong, Michael Vu, Fisher Stevens, Rosamund Pike, and Carlos Bardem.  Released on May 15, 2026, the film follows an elite team as they seek to reclaim a fortune from a tyrant.

The film was written and directed by Guy Ritchie, who also helmed other films such as “Snatch”, “Sherlock Holmes”, “The Gentlemen”, and “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare”.  If you’re eager to take back something that’s yours, the best way to do so is to hire the right people for the job.  If one of them is the guy who formerly played Superman, then you’re undoubtedly in good hands.  The weekend before Memorial Day may not have had as many big movies compared to the first two weekends of summer, with “The Devil Wears Prada” and “Mortal Kombat”.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything worth talking about, especially when one of those films is helmed by Guy Ritchie.  This year sees the filmmaker releasing more than one movie once again, including a nearly impossible heist led by two of the toughest, most handsome guys in the business.  Is this latest cinematic outing from Guy Ritchie worth stealing?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on a covert group of operatives that live in the shadows, led by two extraction specialists, Sid (Cavill) and Bronco Beauregard (Gyllenhaal).  Negotiator Rachel Wild (González) hired the two experts to embark on a new mission.  A ruthless despot, Manny Salazar (Bardem), has stolen a billion-dollar fortune from Bobby Sheen (Pike), leading Sid, Bronco, and the team to devise a risky plan to steal it back.  Deemed impossible by everyone, the mission leads Sid and Bronco to an all-out war of strategy, deception, and survival.

While my experience with Guy Ritchie’s films has been hit-or-miss, I couldn’t help but be impressed by his ability to entertain his audience.  I wouldn’t say that some of his recent movies are bad, as Ritchie’s slick presentation and humor more than make up for their narrative flaws.  It’s that some hadn’t been as effective or memorable as those that I liked, such as “Sherlock Holmes” and “The Covenant”.  Regardless, I still appreciate Guy Ritchie for remaining consistent in his vision and approach to the entertainment value.  His latest action film, “In the Grey”, looks to be another enjoyable addition to the director’s streak based on the marketing, despite being something we’ve already seen countless times before.  But I know I couldn’t resist seeing three attractive actors, particularly González, performing the “ultimate heist of the century”.      

Unsurprisingly, “In the Grey” gave me exactly that: three attractive characters preparing for the heist while exchanging banter with each other.  Combined with Ritchie’s usual visionary flair, the film provides plenty of delightful charm and explosive action that coincide with the leads’ presences.  However, that also left the film with one major flaw in its strategy: it has nothing else to offer.  It’s a straightforward, action-packed thriller that benefits from the energy and charisma of its stars and visuals.  If that doesn’t seem much of an issue for you, especially if you’re a Guy Ritchie fan, you’ll certainly have a good time watching “In the Grey”.  But if you’re hoping for it to have a compelling plot amid its stakes, I hate to say that this is one heist you won’t feel bad skipping out on.  This is another film that favors big names and explosive action over an interesting narrative that ties them together, for better or worse, and to me, it’s slightly towards the latter.

I wouldn’t say that “In the Grey” is bad or poorly made, as I found myself enjoying specific moments of the elite team’s unraveling plan.  Of course, this is largely due to Guy Ritchie himself, who continues to revitalize his presentation with light-hearted visual gags and slick style.  He’s one of the filmmakers who takes most of the narrative tropes from other action or heist movies and sprinkles them with various seasonings, adding stylish flavor and personality to the premise.  The same goes for his approach to the action sequences, mainly in the film’s second half.  While not over-the-top or wildly creative, Ritchie still succeeds in infusing the gunfights with a grounded yet heart-pounding aura, resulting in a series of entertaining moments of two muscular men shooting down bad guys.  While his scripts can be hit or miss, depending on the concepts he came up with, I did not doubt that Guy Ritchie’s vision remains the main reason he deserves my respect.  

Another reason is the cast itself, who provide enough magnetism in their performances to warrant the characters’ downtime in between.  I’m still glad that Henry Cavill is continuing to work hard as an actor, even though his recent films outside of DC and "Mission: Impossible" weren’t earning a lot of attention from audiences.  Regardless, he’s been putting out some solid performances outside his take on Superman so far, and his role as Sid is undoubtedly no different.  However, I would say Jake Gyllenhaal has won me over the most.  Not only was his performance as magnetic as Cavill’s, but the delivery of his dialogue was enough to bolster a few laughs from me.  Not all of the jokes presented in the movie landed as I hoped they would, but it offered just a few to inject some life into the movie’s familiarity.  However, these men weren’t the only ones who grabbed my attention, as Eiza González did a decent job commanding the screen as Rachel, the strategic negotiator who doesn’t take no for an answer.  She can set the plan in motion and look really good while doing it.

With these elements in play, it’s no surprise that “In the Grey” is what I expected out of a Guy Ritchie movie.  But without an engaging hook, it can get surprisingly boring as it progresses.  You might think it’s absurd of me to think that a Guy Ritchie film is “boring”, but I had my reasons why.  As I said, his screenplay is pretty straightforward with its premise: the money was stolen, and an elite team with special skills is hired to get it back.  Its tropes are familiar, and the ending was abrupt, but they can also be watchable with the proper execution, which Ritchie mostly accomplished.  However, what really disappointed me the most was how he approaches the characters and stakes amid its similar game plan.  The main characters are introduced through their personalities and connections to each other, but their backgrounds are extremely bare-bones or nonexistent.  They’re underdeveloped to the point of being carbon copies of similar characters done better in other heist movies.  You’re pretty much watching this team perform a mission and nothing else.  Without much interest in their development, there’s little urgency to the plot’s stakes to make me hope for their survival, leaving the explosive spectacle and the cast’s charm to do the heavy lifting.  What we got is a low-stakes heist that’s more inconsequential and tame than exciting and twisty.

Overall, “In the Grey” lacks a more interesting hook to make its familiar yet mildly watchable heist stand out from the cinematic grey area.  Guy Ritchie remains a delightfully vibrant filmmaker to watch, thanks to his captivating, visually slick presentation, which may or may not be enough to entertain his fans once more.  However, if you’re looking for something beyond its traditional and straightforward premise, you might not be sticking around with this elite group for much longer.  While it has enough fun moments to keep me engaged throughout its runtime, the surprisingly low stakes presented in the narrative and characters make it one of Ritchie’s weaker projects as a director.  The main actors, including Gyllenhaal, are some of the movie’s brightest spots in this below-average action thriller, along with its explosive second half.  Outside of those aspects, it’s safe to say that you’re in no rush to steal this pile of money.  If you enjoy Ritchie’s other works, you might find a few merits in this film as well, but you’ll also end up forgetting about it later on.

​“Obsession” stars Michael Johnston, Inde Navarrette, Cooper Tomlinson, Megan Lawless, and Andy Richter.  Released on May 15, 2026, the film follows an employee who uses his wish to make his longtime crush fall in love with him.

The film was written, directed, and edited by Curry Barker, who also directed “Milk & Serial”.  He’s also associated with the internet sketch comedy duo, “That’s a Bad Idea”, alongside Cooper Tomlinson.  We all have that one moment in our lives when we have a crush on someone we’ve known for years, but are too scared to confess to them out of fear of rejection.  But what if there’s a way to make them fall head over heels for you the same way you do for them?  That would be an absolute dream come true, right?  Well, that would depend on what they’re willing to do to retain that love, whatever means necessary.  We’ve heard the phrase “Be careful what you wish for” more times than the number of swipes we've made on our dating apps.  It’s a way of saying that you’re better off with what you have now than hope for something different and regret it later on.  That phrase couldn’t be any truer than it is now, thanks to the latest horror film featuring a comedian going from making audiences laugh to scaring their pants off through their terrifyingly cinematic vision.  Was this downward spiral of obsession worth falling in love with, or is it the type of wish that shouldn’t be granted?  Let’s find out. 

The story centers on Bear (Johnston), a music store employee who works with his childhood friend and co-worker, Nikki (Navarrette).  Bear has strong feelings for Nicki, but has a difficult time voicing them out of fear that she won’t feel the same way towards him.  He then decides to buy a gift for Nikki, leading him to a particular shop where he discovers a mysterious item called the “One Wish Willow”.  This item promises to grant one wish, prompting Bear to purchase it and use it to make Nikki love him more than anyone else in existence.  His wish was suddenly granted, and Nikki immediately fell head over heels for Bear.  However, her sudden affections start to become more problematic, as she becomes increasingly clingy and obsessive, to the point where her emotions are becoming more erratic and even deadly.  This finds Bear in a situation where he faces the consequences of his seemingly “harmless” wish.

I know we’ve been saying this many times, but it’s pretty fascinating that we’re living in an era where comedians and YouTubers created some surprisingly scary horror movies.  Whether it’s Jordan Peele, Chris Stuckmann, Zach Cregger, or RackaRacka, these online celebrities and comedians proved that their visions for the genre are no laughing matter.  Not all of them landed with their executions, of course, but it’s still nice to see their creativity flourish on the big screen outside of them making online videos or comedy sketches.  Now, we have another online icon, Curry Barker, stepping into the horror spotlight with “Obsession”, a Twilight-Zone-like horror movie featuring the fundamental “wish-gone-wrong” concept.  But here’s the catch: it’ll make you want to delete your dating apps forever, or better yet, scare you into actually asking a girl out.  This is another horror film that’s been getting a lot of great buzz since its release, with some calling it the most demented and terrifying movie they’ve seen.  Like we haven’t heard that before.

Fortunately, I’m one of the people who gets to see if that’s really the case, because if there’s one thing that scares me more than monsters and ghosts, it’s lovesick individuals who are off their rockers.  Good thing I don’t get to experience that phase of love…at least not yet.  I usually remain cautious about specific horror movies that were deemed “one of the scariest films ever”, only to find some of them not living up to all those expectations.  But color me surprised when I say that “Obsession” might be the one movie that managed to match that seemingly impossible expectation.  Sure, opinions may vary, depending on a person’s perspective on the horror genre, but personally, this is some pretty messed-up stuff, and I do mean that in the best way.  While “Obsession” plays out exactly what you’d expect from its “monkey’s paw” and “toxic love” tropes, its execution makes its familiarity less campy and more genuinely disturbing.  It’s dark, awkward, humorously deranged, and, above all, sadistically frightful.

All of these elements came together seamlessly under Curry Barker's watchful eye.  I haven’t seen his previous film, “Milk & Serial”, so I was left wondering what made him capable of helming a horror film like this.  After watching the movie, I may have found that answer.  “Obsession” could have easily turned into just another typical, subpar horror movie filled with mindless chaos, relentless gore, and numerous jump scares.  However, that is not the case.  Instead, Barker envelops the familiar structure with a sense of craftsmanship and atmospheric dread that made me feel genuinely uneasy.  I’ve experienced this sensation multiple times while watching various elevated horror films, and “Obsession” stands out as another compelling example that evokes the same unsettling feeling.  This is evident throughout the movie’s buildup, which delivered both effective dark humor and a rewarding dose of insanity alongside discomforting frights.  There were actually times when I was like, “Okay, get me out of this relationship right now!  Goodbye, crazy lady, have fun being alone.”

This is another movie that uses supernatural horror tropes to highlight the cautionary lesson and its authenticity.  While there are some supernatural elements involved, particularly the “One Wish Willow”, it’s more along the lines of a psychological horror film mixed in with some romance and dark humor.  You can practically take away the wish aspect, and you still get a terrifying reflection on love and toxic obsession.  Barker not only did an amazing job visualizing its sadistic tone and nightmarish craft, but also provided a strong screenplay that effectively handles its usual tropes.  Yes, it’s a familiar lesson that shouldn't be ignored, but his screenplay actually emphasized the genuine terror of making a wish.  However, it’s also mainly about the difference between real love and fake love, in which taking a shortcut to a woman’s heart can only take you so far.  Unfortunately for its main character, he figured that out the hard way when he changed his childhood friend, and it was incredibly satisfying to witness the consequences unfold.

Like I said, it’s messed up, but in the best way, especially in the film’s second half.  It even has this one sequence that had to be trimmed down to avoid an NC-17 rating, and I can see why.  There were a few times where it could’ve ended up being too far-fetched for its own good, particularly for Nikki’s odd behaviors.  Fortunately, Curry Barker managed to retain the grounded nature of the scenario without losing much of the shock factor from her actions.  His vision was also enhanced by its haunting score and eerily striking cinematography.  Rock Burwell’s score underscores the film's atmosphere of dread and madness without overwhelming the audience.  At the same time, Taylor Clemons’s cinematography captures the unsettling nature of Bear’s loneliness and his discomfort with Nikki.  These two elements, working in harmony with Barker’s vision, create another shocking, crazy, and expertly crafted experience that dares to be viewed with an audience.

However, the experience isn’t complete without the main actors leading the charge, and yeah.  They most definitely made this experience worth it.  Michael Johnston is another promising actor worth keeping an eye on due to his superb performance as Bear.  He conveyed his character’s awkwardness and uneasiness with a nuanced flair, without overselling them.  Johnston certainly made Bear feel more like a flawed human being who shot himself in the foot by not having the courage to ask his childhood friend out.  Speaking of which, I know you guys wanted to know my thoughts on Inde Navarrette’s performance as Nikki, so I’m just going to go straight out of the gate and say…wow.  This wasn’t the first time I saw Navarrette in the movie, as I’ve also seen her in “Trap House” with Dave Bautista.  Long story short, it’s not worth your time, but Navarrette’s performance in “Obsession” most certainly is.  Navarrette proved herself to be a terrific actor throughout the film’s runtime, but when it comes to her blend of crazy and scary, she also makes me afraid of her.  Either way, I can agree that Inde Navarrette is one of the movie’s highlights, delivering what I believe to be her best and most frightening performance of her career.  Regarding her impeccable range and authenticity, Navarrette flawlessly conveys her character as both a threat and the victim of Bear’s selfish wish.  Here’s hoping we get to see more of her in the future, especially in the horror genre.  

Overall, “Obsession” is a haunting, sadistic, and satisfyingly twisted experience that fulfills its wish of being a genuinely terrifying modern dating nightmare.  Its themes are familiar by design, but Curry Barker utilizes them to effectively convey a demented, gradually unnerving depiction of toxic obsession caused by a person’s wish.  Most well-received horror movies tend to be perceived as overhyped in terms of their scare factor and narratives.  But this is one specific case where it actually lives up to that specific hype.  It not only revitalizes the traditional monkey’s paw formula and toxic love tropes, but also makes them more terrifying through its tragic consequences and discomforting frights.  The result is one of the most impactful and insane horror movies of the year that many genre enthusiasts will obsess over for a long time.  More importantly, it indicates a promising future for Curry Barker as a filmmaker, continuing the recent trend of online celebrities and comedians expressing their passion for horror through their creativity.  It’s definitely worth watching if you're a fan of horror, especially with an audience, that is, if you’re brave enough to handle its craziness.

​“Mortal Kombat II” stars Karl Urban, Adeline Rudolph, Jessica McNamee, Josh Lawson, Ludi Lin, Mehcad Brooks, Tati Gabrielle, Lewis Tan, Damon Herriman, Chin Han, Tadanobu Asano, Joe Taslim, and Hiroyuki Sanada.  Released on May 8, 2026, the film follows Johnny Cage and his allies as they compete in a dangerous tournament to save Earthrealm.

The film was directed by Simon McQuoid, known for directing the short films “The Stone Forest” and “The Night-time Economy”.  It is a sequel to McQuoid’s 2021 reboot of “Mortal Kombat” and the fourth installment in the Mortal Kombat film series.  “Mortal Kombat” has been one of the most successful video game franchises of all time, displaying a slew of distinctive characters and freaking out multiple parents with its hardcore violence in the process.  But, of course, with every booming game franchise comes a film adaptation that mostly struggles to capture its essence on the big screen.  While the recent animated direct-to-DVD adaptations found some success in their own way, the live-action films have so far been a mixed bag from a critical standpoint.  Paul W.S. Anderson’s “Mortal Kombat” from 1995 has its fans despite the mixed reviews, but its sequel, “Annihilation”, quickly killed the franchise's potential by being a bad sequel and a terrible movie overall.  It wasn’t until 24 years later that Hollywood resurrected the brand with a more faithful adaptation of “Mortal Kombat”, complete with some gruesome fatalities we’ve known and loved from the games.  Despite being released during the COVID pandemic and receiving mixed reviews, Simon McQuoid’s reboot was successful enough to continue Earthrealm’s fight for survival.  Now, with the focus on the anticipated tournament and even more fatalities that’ll send parents into a frenzy.  Does this sequel have enough cinematic moves to dominate the tournament, or should audiences perform a fatality on it?  Let’s find out.

The story is set after the events of 2021’s “Mortal Kombat”.  The warriors of Earthrealm, including Lord Raiden (Asano), Sonya Blade (McNamee), and Cole Young (Tan), are seeking other volunteers to help them compete in the Mortal Kombat tournament.  The competition pits multiple fighters from different worlds against one another to save their homes.  The nefarious Shao Kahn (Martyn Ford) and Shang Tsung (Han) seek to win the tournament to conquer Earthrealm.  Raiden and his allies recruit Johnny Cage (Urban), a washed-up actor past his prime, to help them win the dangerous tournament.  As a result, Johnny Cage will have to utilize his skills from his acting career to dominate the competition and save Earthrealm.

In case you haven’t read my review of 2021’s “Mortal Kombat” reboot, I have not played a single installment of “Mortal Kombat” in my life.  However, I did get some experience with its concept and world-building through the playthroughs I watched on YouTube and the 90s movies.  Sure, the 1995 film was cheesy and barebones regarding the dialogue and premise, and its toned-down violence was frustrating compared to the games.  But it was still fun and charming enough to declare it one of the only good video game movies from Paul W. S. Anderson, along with the first “Resident Evil” film.  As for “Annihilation”, do I really need to say anything else about it?  Those movies were enough for me to check out the 2021 reboot, which I thought was decent enough to continue the popular franchise on the big screen.  Besides the clunky pacing and fundamental premise, the reboot was a respectable, gritty, fun, and faithful adaptation that emphasizes the hardcore violence and production values of the games.  One can argue that it’s more of a setup for the tournament than an actual movie about it.  However, for a film that attempts to offer a new narrative while remaining faithful to the games' lore, particularly for Lewis Tan's Cole Young, it’s not bad.

Fortunately for us fans, Hollywood saw our appreciation towards the reboot and gave us exactly what we wanted in the first place: a sequel centering on the Mortal Kombat tournament…and Johnny Cage.  In a way, it’s a reverse of what the two “Mortal Kombat” movies from the 90s have done, where the first movie was the tournament, and the sequel was the fight in Earthrealm outside the tournament.  Was it worth the wait?  Regarding the tournament, yes.  Narrative-wise?  That will depend on one’s expectations.  If you’re hoping for another fun video game movie that’s more on references and Easter eggs and less on an Oscar-winning story, “Mortal Kombat II” is the chosen fighter you seek.  It’s a brisk, bloody, gritty, and unapologetically silly continuation that understands what fans want out of a “Mortal Kombat” adaptation.  But if you’re looking for more than just people flying through the air and gruesomely murdering people, you’re not going to find much in this bloodbath.  From my perspective, it’s an enjoyable experience that satisfies my interest in the franchise, ranging from its references to the production designs that faithfully capture the games’ memorable locations.  However, it may not be enough to combat the narrative flaws that held it back.

To the film’s credit, it appears Simon McQuoid and the crew took the criticisms of its predecessor to heart.  We have a tournament that’s fully reimagined for its bleak, modern tone, but the most important factor is that it focuses more on the games’ characters this time around.  Cole Young from the first film is still present, though he’s not in it that much, which should make the character’s haters pretty happy.  Of course, we have Johnny Cage, who’s forced to rediscover his glory days in an attempt to help Raiden and the others win the competition.  However, the film also focuses on another familiar character from the games, Kitana, the adoptive daughter of Shao Kahn.  Those familiar with Kitana’s background will know what her arc is like from the source material, but “Mortal Kombat II” did a respectable job at crafting its own narrative for Kitana while staying true to her roots.  It’s enough to make her followers happy, but it’ll also get newcomers rooting for the fan-wielding fighter.  But I will say that this direction makes “Mortal Kombat II” another video game movie sequel that attempts to juggle the multiple character arcs equally.  While Kitana’s arc was a tad more interesting than Johnny Cage’s, the latter offers a few amusing moments in his character to keep this actor from being blacklisted.

Although the course correction for its fan service was admittedly promising, I feel that the narrative aspect still needs a few tweaks if they want to continue with a third film.  Understandably, it’s a movie based on a fighting game that’s more on fatalities and style rather than substance, so it didn’t need to have Christopher Nolan-levels of quality in the writing.  But here’s the thing.  We have three films based on a video game franchise about a speedy blue hedgehog battling an evil scientist, and they feature some surprisingly decent writing that highlights its characters through depth and heart.  The film’s writer, Jeremy Slater, attempts to take a similar approach with Johnny Cage and Kitana.  However, he only succeeds in making Kitana's character more compelling than Cage's throughout their story arcs.  Despite this, Slater struggles to portray the characters more humanly than their portrayals in the games, especially given the lack of significant stakes in the plot.  Its pacing also didn’t help much, as it still felt pretty rushed in how it presented certain character moments and themes, including a message of self-discovery for Johnny Cage.  It’s not as bad as the pacing in “Super Mario Galaxy”, but there were a few moments that I would like the film to explore further to warrant its longer runtime.

However, regardless of the film’s story, I am still impressed that Simon McQuoid remains a suitable choice to bring the world of “Mortal Kombat” to the big screen.  “Mortal Kombat II” retains the darker, violent tone of its 2021 predecessor, while McQuoid balances its bleakness with a few light-hearted, yet far-fetched, moments that showcase its silliness.  But what really captured my attention was his ability to translate specific game elements in cinematic form, particularly the fight choreography.  “Mortal Kombat” is known for featuring a bunch of characters with special moves that seem implausible to pull off in real life but are also pretty satisfying to watch.  “Mortal Kombat II” delivers plenty of fight sequences that are not only entertaining and suitably directed but also rewarding in their ability to replicate the characters’ signature fight styles.  Before you ask, seeing Johnny Cage punch someone in the privates was something that I humbly enjoyed the most.  Some of the effects shown in these sequences do look a bit floaty or iffy, but thankfully, they’re not as bad as the ones from “Annihilation”.  Despite his tame approach to the film’s emotional core, McQuoid successfully retains his stance as a filmmaker who understands the source material’s lore while also evoking some mild fun into its familiar “save the world” concept.

Regarding the cast, the only two actors I found most enjoyable were Karl Urban and Josh Lawson.  Karl Urban has been having a pretty good year so far, as he’s wrapping up on the final season of “The Boys”, and now he’s gracing the silver screen as everyone’s favorite arrogant yet charming actor.  Given my appreciation for the actor, it’s nice to see Urban getting more attention outside the raunchy superhero series on Amazon Prime.  While it does take a bit to get used to Urban’s rough take on Johnny Cage, he’s able to capture the character’s arrogance and charismatic nature through his performance pretty well.  I don’t think he was the perfect choice for Johnny Cage, but Urban offers enough amusing moments for me to let this casting choice slide.  The other actor I enjoyed was Josh Lawson, whose performance as Kano was one of the main highlights of the 2021 reboot.  In terms of the line deliveries and snarky attitude, Lawson delivered a near-perfect iteration of Kano that I can both hate and love.  Unsurprisingly, he’s no different in the sequel, with his chemistry with Urban’s Johnny being my favorite part.  I would definitely be down for a road trip comedy involving these two characters if they’re planning on any “Mortal Kombat” spin-offs.  Adeline Rudolph also did pretty well with her portrayal of Kitana, while Martyn Ford conveyed Shao Kahn’s menacing, tough presence with his performance.  For the latter, the villain’s personality fits almost perfectly with the costume design, which is both familiar and modern.

Overall, “Mortal Kombat II” may not be a flawless victory by storytelling standards, but its faithfulness and entertainment value kept it from being eliminated too early.  Like its predecessors, this latest installment in the “Mortal Kombat” franchise offers plenty of corniness, fatalities, and Easter eggs for fans to enjoy, thanks to Simon McQuoid’s understanding of the source material.  Of course, the inclusion of the highly anticipated tournament didn’t disappoint in terms of fight sequences.  However, its character moments and tone surprisingly lack the extra punch to become the true victor of the video game movie genre.  This is another game-to-film adaptation that stays true to what made the games so beloved by their fans, but doesn’t offer much else to convince most newcomers to join this bloody competition.  It’s got its entertaining moments, much like the previous “Mortal Kombat” installments.  Unfortunately, there aren’t enough for me to put it on par with the 1995 film and the 2021 reboot.   

​“Hokum” stars Adam Scott, Peter Coonan, David Wilmot, Florence Ordesh, Will O’Connell, Michael Patric, Brendan Conroy, and Austin Amelio.  Released on May 1, 2026, the film follows an author who discovers that the hotel he’s staying in is haunted.

The film was written and directed by Damian McCarthy, who also directed “Caveat” and “Oddity”.  When you’re traveling to a different country, it's important to have the best possible accommodation, whether a hotel or an Airbnb.  That means it has to exclude any shady conditions, provide a tidy environment and excellent customer service, and, most importantly, be ghost-free.  Unfortunately, this hotel from Ireland doesn’t exactly meet those criteria, particularly the latter, which spells bad news for those unaware of its nefarious truths.  Usually, we’d start the summer movie season with a blockbuster, notably the ones involving superheroes and from Disney.  But this year, I decided to commence the season with yet another horror film set to kick off the summer of terror, one that’s helmed by another promising filmmaker in the genre.  Does it provide the most terrifying service that's worth a five-star rating, or should audiences search for another hotel to stay in?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Ohm Bauman (Scott), a writer struggling to write an epilogue for his novel.  This resulted in him traveling to a remote part of Ireland to clear his mind and spread his deceased parents’ ashes.  During the trip, he rents a room at an Irish inn for a few days.  However, unbeknownst to Ohm, the hotel he’s residing in includes a honeymoon suite that is haunted by a mysterious witch (Sioux Carroll) who preys upon its victims.  Even worse is that one of the hotel’s employees, a bartender named Fiona (Ordesh), has mysteriously gone missing.  While trying to find Fiona, Ohm is placed in a dire situation where he must escape with his life before he succumbs to the witch’s wrath. 

I couldn’t help but be curious about this movie, and it’s not just because it’s another horror film worthy of my attention.  It’s also because of the word of mouth that I’ve been hearing about it.  Yes, it looks like another straightforward haunted house horror movie we’ve seen countless times.  However, it also seems to be one of the examples that does this familiar premise justice, notably due to Damian McCarthy’s atmospheric vision and genre storytelling.  I was tempted to watch his previous film, “Oddity”, two years ago, but I didn’t get the chance because of life.  So, this marks my first exposure to McCarthy’s vision, which has been garnering massive attention following his previous projects.  After watching it for myself, I would agree that he deserves this type of recognition.

It is another slow-burning horror film that may not be for those looking for a fast-paced, scare-a-minute roller coaster.  However, “Hokum” is also another horror film that combines its basic tropes, thematic depth, and haunting folklore to deliver a creepy-as-hell, rewardingly unnerving experience from top to bottom.  On paper, it can be conceived as a basic “haunted house” movie in which a specific hotel room is reserved for a supernatural entity, complete with jump scares and atmospheric dread.  While that may be the case, it’s also a mystery film about the disappearance of a hotel employee and a drama exploring Ohm's traumatic past.  It’s basically three different movies in one gift basket to accommodate the audience’s stay at the creepy hotel.  While the mystery angle may not be as effective, it’s still engaging enough to accompany the other stronger aspects, even if the pacing can be a bit slow at times, notably for its first act.

Regarding the direction itself, Damian McCarthy is another filmmaker who understands the basics of the horror genre and gets them right.  It’s not just the entities themselves that are frightening.  I mean, just look at the design of the donkey-man-like individual and tell me that it'll make for a wonderful host in a children's program.  It’s also the surroundings and even the character moments that elevate the film’s nightmarish aura.  The atmospheric dread was sublime in highlighting the remoteness and discomfort of an abandoned suite, almost as if I were in the room myself, largely thanks to Colm Hogan’s nifty cinematography.  The way it was shot was pretty satisfying, with a blend of eeriness and beauty.  But more importantly, McCarthy is one of the few directors who can make a jump scare actually terrifying.  Instead of using jump scares frequently, McCarthy strategically placed them in moments that truly deserve their impact, particularly in scenes featuring the witch.  While these jump scares may be familiar from other horror films, they are executed in a way that feels natural rather than forced or annoying.  As a result, they evoke the same feeling you might experience when listening to a ghost story around a campfire.  You have the build-up filled with anticipation, and then BAM!  It gets you good despite knowing what’s coming.  Good luck falling asleep at night after hearing it.

In short, I was impressed by how McCarthy created a sense of creepiness in its Irish folklore while drawing on familiar elements of elevated horror movies.  But that’s not the only element I was impressed with, as he also makes for a solid storyteller in the horror genre.  His screenplay doesn’t offer much in its seemingly conventional narrative, showcasing the usual genre tropes we’ve come to expect.  However, it more than makes up for it by focusing more on its character depth rather than the frights themselves.  Amid its “haunted house” routine, “Hokum” is more of a therapeutic journey that explores the grief and guilt Ohm has suppressed after a traumatic childhood event.  You’ll despise Ohm’s ill-mannered, strict personality at first, but after seeing what he’s going through, you’ll eventually hope that he gets the closure he needs.  Ohm is another example of a character whose personality would make you want to throw a book at them, but is well-rounded enough to help you understand their unmannered behavior towards others.

For a character like Ohm, they needed a talented actor to effectively convey their engaging journey, and that’s Adam Scott.  Scott is best known for his comedy roles, but he has also been gaining recognition for performances across different genres, including horror.  “Hokum” is the latest movie that has Scott go from making audiences laugh to confronting a supernatural being and even depression.  The result is one of the better performances I’ve seen from him outside of comedy.  Ohm can be a butthead sometimes, but Adam Scott’s attention-grabbing performance helps make him into a tolerable butthead with trauma issues.  Peter Coonan was also decent as Mal, the desk clerk whom Ohm confronts during his stay.  I also enjoyed David Wilmot's performance as Jerry, which elevated the character’s role in Adam’s investigation.

Overall, “Hokum” is a pleasantly creepy, bleak, and surprisingly thoughtful “haunted house” experience that’s worth a stay at the eerie hotel.  Damian McCarthy effectively blends the film's fundamental genre tropes with his dreary, atmospheric vision and Irish folklore to deliver a supernatural horror film that’s unnerving and, more importantly, scary.  Of course, it isn’t without its compelling reflections on grief and trauma, which serve as an example of the genre’s blend of terror and thematic depth.  Its slow-burn approach leading up to its frights can be another test of patience for fans of fast-paced horror.  But once they get past that uneventful first night, they’ll likely find that their stay will be worth it, not just for the effective jump scares but also for the story itself.  Adam Scott delivered a rewarding performance as a struggling author haunted by his trauma, while Damian McCarthy impressed me with his eerily engaging vision and suitably written screenplay.  It’s more than enough for me to check out the director’s previous movie, “Oddity”, at some point.  Until then, consider me impressed with his craft for the horror genre.