​“The Furious” stars Xie Miao, Joe Taslim, Yang Enyou, Jeeja Yanin, Brian Le, Joey Iwanaga, and Yayan Ruhian.  Released at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6, 2025, and followed by a United States and Hong Kong release on June 12, 2026, the film follows a handyman who teams up with a journalist to rescue his daughter.

The film was directed by Kenji Tanigaki, an action choreographer and stunt performer who also directed “Legend of Seven Monks” and “Enter the Fat Dragon”.  It’s sad that criminals never learn the consequences of harming or kidnapping the loved one of an individual.  Sure, this person may seem harmless based on their appearance, but that doesn’t make them any less dangerous.  It’s what makes their punishments so satisfying, especially when that ordinary person turns out to be a butt-kicking machine who’ll stop at nothing to avenge or retrieve those they care about.  The cinematic world has always proved time and again that this action-paced concept never fails to deliver the nonstop thrills and intense choreography stemming from a protagonist’s rescue mission.  Of course, I’m not just talking about the ones made in Hollywood.  I’m also referring to the film industry in international countries, particularly Hong Kong, where they develop high-octane action movies that pull no punches in their choreography and violence.  This latest blood-soaked thrill ride from stunt performer/filmmaker Kenji Tanigaki is no different, as it highlights a tough-as-nails rescue mission formed by an ordinary duo who are anything but.  Was it furious enough to deliver a white-knuckled, merciless treat for action fans?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Wang Wei (Miao), a mute handyman living in a Southeast Asian city with his daughter, Rainy (Enyou).  One day, Wang discovers that Rainy has been kidnapped by a ruthless gang of criminals responsible for the disappearances of many children, prompting him to set out to rescue her.  He also joins forces with a journalist named Navin (Taslim), who’s searching for the same group of kidnappers responsible for taking his wife.  They infiltrate the criminal underworld, where they confront the toughest thugs in the country.  Fortunately, Wang and Navin are far from ordinary, as the duo possesses skills that are as dangerous as they are, which they’ll use to survive and rescue their loved ones.

I have an undeniable soft spot for action movies, but seeing those made in other countries, including Japan and Indonesia, is a completely different story.  Yes, they follow similar narratives to those we usually get from Hollywood, but they also have one aspect that sets them apart from traditional American ones: the choreography.  There’s just something about it that makes almost every scenario feel more authentic and intense as opposed to modern action blockbusters.  These movies make me feel every punch, kick, bash, crack, and slash generated from people’s bodies as if they were the real deal.  They’re extremely painful to watch, but they’re also filled with the satisfaction of watching the relentless storm of flying fists unfold on the screen.  I applaud not only these international action movies for standing out from the genre crowd with their gruesome violence and choreography, but also the stunt performers, who went through hell and back to pull off these dangerous stunts.  

That alone was the main reason why I had been anticipating “The Furious”.  Right after watching the film’s trailer, I immediately knew that it would be on my list of must-see movies of the summer.  It’s got pretty much everything I would expect from an international action thriller, such as ruthless choreography, a grounded, gritty tone, and some of the biggest names in the cinematic martial arts industry, including Joe Taslim.  But what matters the most is whether these elements would be enough to carry its straightforward narrative and grisly appeal.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in on the relentless action and stakes.  In fact, they’re some of the things that keep me engaged.  It’s that in most action movies, the violence shown can only take them so far if their plots don’t have enough heft to warrant people breaking their bones or worse.  Fortunately for me, “The Furious” offers more than enough in its familiar narrative to elevate the explosive violence depicted onscreen.  It’s brutal, relentless, wild, and consistently satisfying in its action and heart, all of which equate to the most fun I had this year, action or otherwise.

The plot is, unsurprisingly, straightforward, akin to “Taken,” if "Taken" stars Liam Neeson as a silent protagonist whose fists move faster than the Road Runner.  You have a man attempting to be a better father to his daughter, and he gets the chance to do so by rescuing her and beating the crud out of the kidnappers.  It also features an unlikely partnership between Wang and Navin, who seek different kinds of justice: Wang, fueled by his love for Rainy, and Navin, by his determination to expose the organization’s heinous crimes.  The elements are on the wall, clear as day, but its strong execution helps keep its tropes from taking too much of a beating.  The story is not only constantly exciting, well-paced, and fun, but it also infuses plenty of heart, making its butt-kicking duo worth rooting for.  Even amid its familiar outcome, it’s always crucial to make the characters compelling enough in their backgrounds to match the intense stakes it sought to portray.  “The Furious” is another solid example of this case, particularly in its “less is more” approach for Wang and Navin.  Besides its familiarity, my only issue with its script is that the English dialogue was pretty iffy in most cases.  It didn’t distract me from the white-knuckled journey too much, though it can be a problem for those who prefer characters speaking in different languages.

Now, I’m sure you only checked out my review to read my thoughts on the film’s action scenes, and I always deliver on those promises.  The action was seen as the main highlight of “The Furious”, especially when it comes to the insane choreography.  I was a little concerned at first that these scenes might not live up to the hype they built, and I’ve seen plenty of movies that were similarly designed, including “The Raid”.  But after watching the movie, I felt nothing but relief and happiness that the action lived up to the movie’s title.  It’s downright furious in the best way.  The action sequences are ferocious, savage, and bone-crushingly intense, especially in their brilliant choreography, which highlights the fast-paced dynamics of the combat and the props they use to deliver wince-inducing pain.  They’re also framed very well by Meteor Cheung’s cinematography, and the third act?  Ooo, boy.  You won’t be prepared for what the third act brings to the table.  Given Kenji Tanigaki’s skilled direction and the scenario's fierce nature, the finale is a bloody, fist-flying Battle Royale that’s also one of my favorite sequences in the action genre.  Its runtime may feel like overkill due to its gritty, repetitive structure, but the pacing and dynamic tension ensure that every minute of this violent mission is earned.  It’s moments like this that make me glad I support these types of action films and even the stunt people behind them.  They'd better get good paychecks for these crazy and painful stunts they’ve endured.

Xie Miao was someone I wasn’t familiar with until I saw him in action in “The Furious”.  Not only were his martial arts skills incredible to watch, but his acting between the beatdowns was pretty good, too.  Miao was tasked with injecting emotional heft into a protagonist whose actions speak louder than words.  Wang is another character who doesn’t speak throughout the entire movie, leaving the actor to convey their emotions through facial expressions and choreography.  The result is far from perfect, but it is nonetheless an engaging and even heartfelt display of talent, showcasing Miao as both a lean, mean fighting machine and a confident actor.  Another actor worth noting is Joe Taslim, who’s one of the cast members I recognize the most, particularly for his appearances in modern Hollywood movies like “Fast & Furious 6” and the “Mortal Kombat” reboot.  He was also Sergeant Jaka in “The Raid”, another international action movie I really enjoyed.  Taslim made a solid impression on me as a martial artist and actor based on the previous roles he took, and I’m happy to see that his performance as Navin is no different.  As Miao did for Wang, Taslim effectively conveyed his character’s determination for justice, with his background adding a touch of emotion to underscore his personal journey.  Additionally, Yayan Ruhian from the “Raid” movies and “Boy Kills World” makes an appearance as the bow-wielding Tak, and he was once again fierce with his choreography.  You can say that Robin Hood wished he could move as swiftly with a bow and arrow as he did.

Overall, “The Furious” lives up to the name with a fierce, bone-crushing, and highly entertaining action bonanza that’s furious enough to stand alongside the genre’s other violently satisfying hits.  While its plot is basically “Taken” meets “The Raid”, director Kenji Tanigaki makes the most of its similar premise by delivering some of the best, most brutally inventive action sequences ever put on film.  More importantly, they’re effectively combined with an engaging narrative that offers enough heart in its characters to fight past its noticeable tropes with ease.  Its English dialogue does come off rough at times, especially in the way it’s delivered by its supporting cast.  Besides that minor flaw, this is another great reason why international martial arts films stand out in the genre compared to those made in traditional Hollywood.  Heck, I would even be quick to call it one of my favorites in the genre.  In terms of its main leads, Tanigaki’s dynamic direction, incredible action scenes, and compelling narrative tropes, the film has the right fury to stand out from the Hollywood summer blockbuster crowd.  If you enjoy these types of movies, especially “The Raid”, this relentless, bloody-knuckled venture is worth your attention.

​“Disclosure Day” stars Emily Blunt, Josh O’Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Colman Domingo.  Released on June 12, 2026, the film follows a whistleblower as he seeks to expose the truth about the existence of aliens.

The film was directed by Steven Spielberg, who also directed films such as “Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Jurassic Park”, and “The Fabelmans”.  Have you ever wondered whether we’re actually alone in the vast universe?  Well, I’m here to tell you…you’re not alone.  We’ve been pondering that age-old question since the dawn of humanity, especially with all the mysterious photos and footage floating around that show possible signs of other life forms among us.  Many people have debunked those as a load of baloney, but what if these peculiar creatures actually exist, and they’ve been keeping it a secret this whole time?  Amid his expansive filmography, Steven Spielberg is no stranger to the sci-fi genre, delivering movies that made audiences believe in the extraterrestrials living in the same universe as us.  The most notable ones that came to mind are “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”, two masterpieces that shape Spielberg’s traditional and awe-inspiring vision of humanity’s encounter with aliens.  This year, the acclaimed filmmaker returns to the roots that shaped these sci-fi classics, notably “Close Encounters”, with a film that unravels the answer we’ve been yearning for years, at least in cinematic form.  Is this life-changing event able to further highlight Spielberg’s knack for movie magic, or is it better off hidden from existence?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Daniel Kellner (O’Connor), a young cybersecurity expert who discovers a shocking conspiracy within the Wardex Corporation involving the various events of human-alien contact.  Upon this revelation, Daniel steals the classified information and sets out on a dangerous journey to expose the truth behind the Wardex’s actions.  As a result, he becomes a target for chief executive Noah Scanlon (Firth), who will stop at nothing to keep the truth hidden.  With the help of his girlfriend, Jane Blankenship (Hewson), and Wardex defector Hugo Wakefield (Domingo), Daniel must outrun the corporation to bring about the day that will change human history forever.  Meanwhile, television meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Blunt) unexpectedly gains psychic abilities that may connect to her mysterious past, leading her journey to collide with Daniel’s.

I’m pretty sure you’d figure out my reason for my anticipation towards “Disclosure Day”.  If not, then allow me to explain it briefly.  I’ve been a massive fan of Spielberg for as long as I can remember.  While most of his films were less effective than others, I always champion the filmmaker for retaining the old-fashioned movie magic and emotional wonder he’s known for, especially for his recent ones.  It’s hard to pick which one of his movies is my exact favorite, such as “Jaws”, “Indiana Jones”, “Jurassic Park”, and “The Fabelmans”, but I found them to be fantastic for various reasons.  Not all of Spielberg’s movies landed in the same way as others in my eyes, but when they did, they did so with cinematic gusto.  So, I was expecting “Disclosure Day” to capture that same impact as the director’s other works in the sci-fi genre, particularly “Close Encounters”, which I thought was also brilliant.

Now that I saw the truth unfold, was it able to accomplish the task?  In my eyes, I would say yes.  Would I say it’s just as great as Spielberg’s other alien classics like “Close Encounters” and “E.T.”?  Well, not exactly, though that’s a high bar to reach, given how impactful those films are, let alone emotional.  From what I see, its sole purpose is to provide a traditional popcorn thriller that’s equally engaging, awe-inspiring, and subtly thoughtful in its commentary.  To me, the movie mostly achieves its goal, delivering that good old Spielberg magic we’ve admired for years.  It’s tense, well-shot, and, above all, quite interesting, even though it doesn't fully convey the shock of the life-changing event it depicts.

The crucial aspect of Spielberg as a filmmaker is that he knows how to keep his cinematic techniques traditional, even in the current years.  He’s the type of filmmaker who effectively blends genre/blockbuster standards like action and sci-fi with a more authentic and stunningly vintage appeal.  On some occasions, he doesn’t rely heavily on bloated visuals and busily dynamic set pieces to make a thrilling blockbuster, but rather balances them with his thematic soul and imagination while retaining its grounded essence.  “Disclosure Day” is undoubtedly no exception to this case, with Spielberg crafting another appealingly influential addition to his cinematic sci-fi encounters.  His use of Janusz Kamiński’s cinematography was top-notch in capturing the dimly lit, beautiful scenery and long-take action sequences in 35 mm film, and the visual effects, while iffy at times, didn’t threaten to ruin the illusion.  Additionally, John Williams still knows how to make great music that’s neither overwhelming nor underwhelming, with his score for “Disclosure Day” delivering the subtle mystery of its balanced symphony. 94 years old, and he still has enough juice left in his tank.

This is clearly the type of film Spielberg was destined to helm, especially since he came up with the story himself.  Of course, the person who’s actually responsible for writing the script from his outline is his collaborator, David Koepp, who I thought did a solid job with the task he’s given.  But I wouldn’t say it’s a perfect depiction of Spielberg’s UFO idea, inspired by the New York Times article “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”.  The movie offers a reflection on the modern era of conspiracy, in which a company conceals crucial secrets that could have lasting consequences if disclosed.  Given that many of us have questioned the existence of aliens based on various footage and photos, I would argue that this film might be one of the most relatable projects Spielberg has created, despite its familiar vibes.  It not only addresses the buildup to this destination in a compelling and traditional manner, but also briefly highlights the enduring thought of how we might react if such an event were to happen in our lives.  This theme could also be connected to religion, as seen in Jane’s background as a former nun.

Though thoughtful on paper, I hate to admit that the writing came very close to being another masterpiece for the acclaimed filmmaker.  Its narrative tropes involving whistleblowing and government conspiracies steered clear of being overly preposterous or loud, thanks to Spielberg’s carefully crafted vision.  However, some of them can come off as underwhelming or thin in their execution of the film's themes and emotional weight.  It’s more of a standard, two-hour-plus chase than an emotionally thematic drama set around the world of conspiracy and whistleblowing, with a few scenes being dragged out to match the blockbuster-sized standards.  So, if you’re expecting “Disclosure Day” to match the similar emotive, impactful heights of the director’s other works, you might feel a tad let down by this exposure.  But as I mentioned earlier, Koepp’s script was good enough to come pretty close to reaching the narrative impact Spielberg was hoping to achieve.  Of course, even with these minor setbacks in storytelling, it still possesses the awe-inspiring wonder and classic thrills that the director’s been known for in his other blockbusters.

I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter about Emily Blunt’s performance as Margaret Fairchild, with some claiming it as a career highlight for her.  I found Blunt to be a terrific actress in some of the movies I’ve seen her in, so I wasn’t surprised to see her earning some praise for speaking some strange language on live television.  After watching the movie, I can definitely see where the praise is coming from.  Blunt’s portrayal of a meteorologist gifted with unknown abilities is subtle, but the emotional range has a balanced hook that makes her character’s confusion seem more genuine than cheesy or overblown.  While I wouldn’t say it’s the best performance I’ve seen from Blunt, I will say that her talents as an actress still shine as brightly as the U.F.O.’s zestful lights.  Josh O’Connor also did a good job in his performance as Daniel, capturing his personality, which blends calm determination with fear, enough to have the same level of interest as Margaret’s journey.  Then there’s Colin Firth, whom I didn’t realize until I heard his voice.  It might have been due to the makeup that made him look almost like Sam Neill.  I know that sounds crazy, but that’s how my brain looks at it.  Anyway, he was decent in paving the classic antagonist route in Noah’s goal of preventing his company’s secrets from being revealed to the public.

Overall, “Disclosure Day” exposes the truth in another entertaining, thrilling, and well-crafted sci-fi venture that only Steven Spielberg can create.  Utilizing the film’s blend of vintage cinematic finesse and subtle thematic nuance, the filmmaker emphasized his knack for genre storytelling through a compelling exploration of conspiracy and religion amid its usual extraterrestrial tricks.  However, it doesn’t quite reach the heights of his other classics, particularly in the sci-fi realm, as its narrative tropes lack the same shock value as the themes it represents.  Nevertheless, this is another film that oozes the good old movie magic we’ve come to expect from one of my favorite directors, even if it’s not as revolutionary as his previous otherworldly encounters.  Regarding its cast, Spielberg’s strong direction, solid visuals, engaging script, and John Williams’ score, this cinematic truth is worth exposing to the entire world.

​“Scary Movie” stars Anna Faris, Regina Hall, Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Kenan Thompson, Dave Sheridan, Lochlyn Munro, Kim Wayans, Cheri Oteri, and Chris Elliott.  Released on June 5, 2026, the film has Cindy Campbell reuniting with her friends to confront a new masked killer.

The film was directed by Michael Tiddes, who also directed films such as “A Haunted House”, “Fifty Shades of Black”, and “Sextuplets”.  It is the sixth installment in the "Scary Movie" film series and serves as a spiritual sequel to the first two films.  It’s no secret that we love to get scared by various cinematic ghouls, monsters, and psychotic masked killers.  But now and then, we would also like to take a moment to laugh at specific moments that were initially frightening.  Maybe even poke fun at the iconic horror villains and scenarios that made cinematic history.  Fortunately for us, one comedy franchise has what we need to make the scary parts less scary while staying unapologetically lowbrow in its limitless boundaries.  The Wayans Brothers were the pinnacle of comedy back in the day, but it wasn’t until their parody film, “Scary Movie”, that their popularity soared to new heights.  

With its display of spoof shenanigans, crass and gross-out jokes that’ll offend plenty of snowflakes, and a charismatically cheesy cast, “Scary Movie” revitalized the parody genre until its co-writers, Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, dismantled it with their excuses for “spoof movies” in the 2010s.  More importantly, the film, along with its sequels, showed that no horror film is safe from the franchise's twisted sense of humor, especially “Scare Movie 5”, which was seen as the death of the franchise and even the parody sub-genre regarding its poor reception.  That is, until the Wayans crew reunite to give audiences a proper sequel to the movie that started Cindy Campbell’s hilarious survival against every horror shenanigan imaginable.  Does it offer enough hilarity to revive the franchise’s frighteningly silly concept or show that some lines shouldn’t be crossed?  Let’s find out.

The story is set after the events of “Scary Movie 2”.  Cindy Campbell (Faris) and her friends, Brenda Meeks (Hall), Shorty Meeks (Marlon Wayans), and Ray Wilkins (Shawn Wayans), have gone their separate ways after college.  Despite leaving behind the traumas of their past encounters, they still ended up confronting plenty of random, silly scenarios everywhere they went.  As they adjust to the new chapters in their lives, they receive word that the Ghostface killer they encountered 26 years ago has returned, embarking on a new murder spree that’s equal parts scary and questionably silly.  This prompts Cindy, Brenda, and the others to come together once more to help Cindy’s daughters end the killer’s rampage for good while surviving another round of bizarre characters and goofy scenarios.

While “Scary Movie” is one of the popular examples of the parody sub-genre, I hadn’t actually gotten into this series of live-action parodies until the 2010s, thanks to the likes of “Epic Movie” and “Meet the Spartans”.  I know, it’s absolutely wild that Friedberg and Seltzer’s failed spoof movies got me into this series of crude, comical versions of popular movies.  These movies helped me get into the “Scary Movie” installments and even the satires from Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker.  I hadn’t watched “Scary Movie” and its follow-ups that much until recently to prepare for the new film, but I usually found them dumb yet gleefully silly and unapologetically crude, even if some jokes and mean-spirited ridicule weren’t as tolerable as others.  That alone is enough for me to see if the once-popular parody card is worth redrawing in today’s time, when we get a lot more snowflakes on social media than usual.  But that’s not the only concern I have with the franchise’s sixth installment, titled “Scary Movie”, which parodied franchise sequels having the same titles as their first movies.

One aspect worth noting is that it’s a long-awaited follow-up to 2013’s “Scary Movie 5”, which attempted to replicate the formula with a new cast, but failed spectacularly.  I was obviously one of many people who absolutely loathed that film when I first saw it in the theater.  It was the worst film in the franchise, and after revisiting it recently, it still is.  Fortunately for us, “Scary Movie” did us a great favor by reuniting the original cast from the first two films, including the Wayans, Anna Faris, and Regina Hall.  My other concern is the movie’s director, Michael Tiddes, Marlon Wayans’ frequent collaborator, whose track record, including his previous parody movies, has been pretty abysmal so far.  I watched his “Haunted House” movies and “Fifty Shades of Black” to know that his approach to satire has been very rough.  I didn’t even bother watching “Naked” and “Sextuplets” due to my lack of interest in them.  So, I couldn’t help but be a bit worried about him tackling a popular parody franchise like “Scary Movie”, especially how much it means to those who want to laugh without judgment.  Thankfully, some of my concerns were put to rest upon seeing the long-awaited sequel, or “rebootiquel” in this case.

Like its previous installments, “Scary Movie” understood exactly what it’s supposed to be, and it never apologizes for being that way.  It’s dumb, crude, mean-spirited, cartoony, and offensive with a capital O.  Given my experience with the previous “Scary Movie” movies, I already knew it wasn't going to be anything but that, which helped me set my expectations.  Safe to say that I was mostly satisfied with the result.  It doesn’t quite match the heights of the first two films, but it is certainly more tolerable (and amusing) than “Scary Movie 5”.  Of course, it’s mainly due to the return of the main cast, mainly the Wayans Brothers, who were basically the heart and soul of the franchise, even if their jokes were hit and miss.  It’ll likely be enough for their fans to give the parody series another shot, but, and there’s a really big “but”, it doesn’t offer much else in its series of random, lowbrow horror mishaps to lure in casual viewers.  In other words, it’s loud and crass for both the right and wrong reasons, depending on your taste in comedy.

Following the formula seen in other installments, or parody movies in general, “Scary Movie” riffs on almost every movie, horror or otherwise, that was popular during a specific time.  Maybe even sneak in a joke about a tough-to-swallow topic or two?  You’ve got “Sinners”, “Get Out”, “Weapons”, “The Substance”, the works!  As for its core narrative, the film mostly pokes fun at horror legacy sequels, mainly 2022’s “Scream” and 2018’s “Halloween”, as Cindy helps her daughters confront the killer she faced years ago.  It not only follows the same plot as the 2022 “Scream” sequel, but also satirizes it, along with the formula of “remake sequels”, particularly the cooperation of fresh and older blood.  It’s a fairly enjoyable yet thinly written spoof that constantly takes joy in what we love or don’t love from the “legacy sequels”, especially with how Michael Tiddes handles its parodic tone.  Granted, his approach was similar to the previous parody films he’s helmed, in which the tone is intentional yet lacks the heft to balance the film’s dense and gross humor with joyful wit.  His direction may not work well in its favor all the time, but in some respects, Tiddes delivers a style that faithfully replicates the goofy, nonsensical charm of its predecessors, minus the fifth film.

That being said, I would also point out that while its parodic tone serves as the movie’s strength, it does also become its weakness.  If you’re looking for a spoof that carries an actual substance underneath its offensive rags and intentional corniness, “Scary Movie” isn’t the type of horror film to watch for your date night.  Regarding the screenplay, it’s basically one joke after another, one parody after another, one stereotypical pun after another.  You know, stuff that’ll make several snowflakes go into raging fits.  There are even moments that don’t make any sense, but in all fairness, the “Scary Movie” franchise isn’t well-known for its continuity.  I mean, Brenda Meeks died in “Scary Movie 3” and returned to the fourth movie unscathed, so this isn’t very surprising.  There is a lot to unpack in the humor, but it didn’t leave enough room for any depth or sophistication beyond its crass characters and simple premise.  It may be excusable for the last five installments, but now that we’re in the sixth movie, it’s starting to become more of a punchline that should’ve stayed in the 2000s.

But how was the overall humor, you ask?  Well, it’s a toss between amusingly silly and brain-rotting.  As I said earlier, they’re more humorous than the jokes seen in “Scary Movie 5”.  While the tone for that movie remained the same as the others, the problem was that its parodic jokes were either tame, unfunny, lazy, or all of the above.  With the Wayans’ return, “Scary Movie” sought to correct that mistake by poking fun at today’s culture amid its horror-related SNL skits, such as COVID, woke culture, and gender identity.  Despite finding myself chuckling at these jokes, not all of them land in their execution, especially those involving tough topics.  The humor involving the horror tropes and legacy sequels was pretty enjoyable, especially when it also took the time to laugh at the franchise’s own stupidity.  However, there were also some jokes that dragged on a bit, were overused, or were rushed in an anticlimactic way.  It’s like a series of “Family Guy” cutaway gags if it were helmed by the Wayans Brothers.  The film is 96 minutes long, unusually long compared to the previous installments' 80 or so minutes.  So that might’ve explained why the pacing was a tad unbalanced with its humor.  Regardless, this is another spoof movie that’ll heavily depend on how a viewer prefers their comedy.  If raunchy and silly is their thing, I see no reason why they wouldn’t enjoy “Scary Movie”.  But those wanting something else underneath its crass and weed jokes would be begging for the killer to shut the characters up.

Going back to the cast, part of the reason the first two movies work is not just the Wayans Brothers, but also the main cast.  Their performances may have sounded like they’re phoning them in, but that’s basically the entire point of a spoof movie.  They’re literally the parodic versions of the characters from the serious horror movies they’re riffing off on.  Anna Faris, Regina Hall, Marlon Wayans, and Shawn Wayans are the key reasons the first two movies were silly and entertaining, and with their long-awaited reunion, it felt like they had never even left.  Sure, Faris and Hall did the heavy lifting by themselves in the third and fourth installments, but seeing them together with the Wayans just felt nostalgic in a good way.  Anna Faris still delivers the corniness and charmingly dumb essence that I’ve expected in her performance as Cindy, who goes from spoofing Sidney Prescott to parodying Jamie Lee Curtis and her crazy hairdo.  Considering that she didn’t find much success in her recent roles, this is a much-needed turnaround for the comedian whose career launched with the first installment.  Of course, I can’t forget about Marlon and Shawn Wayans, who continue to provide serviceable chuckles regarding their roles as Shorty and Ray, respectively.  I would also acknowledge Olivia Rose Keegan for catching up with the Wayans’ cheesy, parodic ways regarding her performance as Cindy’s daughter, Sara.

Overall, “Scary Movie” revives the parody franchise with an inconsistent, overly crass, and mildly amusing stab at the horror tropes of current years.  This is another comedy that’ll heavily depend on a person’s taste in adult and parodic humor.  Fans seeking the same old goofy, unapologetically raunchy essence from the previous installments would find this eccentric killing spree a fine return to form for the 26-year-old IP.  However, if you’re looking for some extra meat in this victim’s body in terms of narrative and wit, the film doesn’t offer much else for you to jab your knife into.  It offers more of the same audiences would expect from a spoof movie, but its reliance on lowbrow gags and satirical skits, rather than balancing them with substance, would make certain snowflakes want to watch an elevated horror movie instead.  It’s great to see the main cast from the first two installments again, and it shows in their performances.  Other than that, this is more reserved for the franchise’s fans who prefer dumb, cheap laughs over relentless gore and dreary frights.  At least it’s an improvement over “Scary Movie 5”, which is good enough for me.

​“Psycho Killer” stars Georgina Campbell, James Preston Rogers, Grace Dove, Logan Miller, and Malcolm McDowell.  Released on February 20, 2026, the film has a patrol officer pursuing a sadistic serial killer.

The film featured the directorial debut of Gavin Polone, known for producing films such as “8mm”, “Panic Room”, “Primeval”, and “Zombieland”.  The year of twisted masked killers started pretty rough back in February, with the “Strangers” concluding its bloody rampage on a rather unsatisfying note.  Seriously, that final chapter of this experimental trilogy was anything but eventful.  But that hadn’t stopped there, as we had another masked psychopath striving to elevate the terror of the genre and audience’s thirst for blood, hopefully more so than the masked “Strangers”.  This new killer came from first-time director Gavin Polone and writer Andrew Kevin Walker in their first collaboration since 1999’s “8mm”.  This latest horror film seemed to hearken back to the old-school mystery horror films akin to “Seven”, which Walker also wrote, based on the marketing, or lack thereof.  If that’s the case, this could mean that we would be in for a pretty gnarly treat that the masked strangers failed to deliver.  At least, that’s what I thought before the reviews arrived.  With that said, let’s dive into this mystery and see if it’s worth going psycho for.

The story follows Jane Archer (Campbell), a highway police officer from Kansas whose state trooper husband has been brutally murdered.  This tragedy sends Jane on a grueling journey to find the person responsible for her husband’s death.  She eventually finds that the suspect she’s hunting is a dangerous serial killer known as the Satanic Slasher (Rogers), a mentally depraved maniac infamous for murdering his victims in grisly fashion.  Knowing how dangerous the Satanic Slasher is, Jane must decipher the clues to end the killer’s murder spree before his sinister agenda comes to fruition.

This was one of the movies I heard about from only its trailer a while ago.  No joke.  I only watched one trailer of this film and hadn’t heard much else about it since.  Either I haven’t been watching much television to see its commercials, or they haven’t put out any TV spots at all to hide its additional "surprises".  Regardless, its trailer gave me some shred of hope that I would get something out of this slasher film, especially after the pain I experienced from watching “The Strangers - Chapter 3”.  However, that hope seemed to have been dashed upon hearing the surprisingly scathing reviews for it.  Given Polone’s experience with these types of horror films, you would think that this would be another decent hit for the genre, but I guess you can’t win them all, even if your previous movies are decent.  As a result, I decided to skip “Psycho Killer” during its theatrical run and wait until it was available to watch at home.  I took that approach for “Bride Hard” last year, so why shouldn’t I do the same for “Psycho Killer”?

Upon watching this killing spree unfold, I immediately realized I didn’t regret my decision to save it for streaming.  It had some noticeable intent in its horrific subject matter and cinematography that kept me mostly intrigued.  Besides that, “Psycho Killer” is anything but psychotic, relying mostly on narrative tropes seen in other familiar cat-and-mouse thrillers to carry its murky, underwhelming premise.  It looks and feels like anything Gavin Polone and Andrew Kevin Walker had done in the past, ranging from its down-to-earth crime thrills to the disturbingly violent content that’s icky enough to make us turn away in disgust.  Of course, it isn’t without its metal-head soundtrack, which calls back to the action thrillers of the 2000s, infusing its nostalgic scenery.  However, it just didn’t have the proper impact from those projects to make it as unsettling as it wanted it to be.  Rather than taking inspiration from these masked-killer thrillers to refreshingly explore its dark themes, the film is a bland, occasionally dumb, and gloomy copycat of that concept and nothing else.

Gavin Polone certainly has ideas that translate to the screen as a producer, with some being more tolerable than others.  Unfortunately, his idea for “Psycho Killer” was one such instance in which his directorial vision just fell apart after the first kill.  The only aspect I can credit Polone with is that he knew how to frame specific shots, both from Jane’s scenes and from the Satanic Slasher’s cross-country road trip.  There were a few moments in Magnus Jønck’s cinematography that were actually framed pretty well for its bleakly unnerving tone, almost as if I was watching a horror film from Neon.  Sadly, this is a 20th Century Studios film, meaning that its commercialization is bound to overshadow that intention.  Think of “Longlegs,” but it was distributed by Warner Bros. While well-intentioned in its framework, Polone easily undermined that mood with his mishandling of the suspense and draggy pacing.  Even the slo-mo sequences were more phoned in than stylistically gritty, and there’s one death scene that I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be intentionally funny or not.  It’s one of the films whose vision lacks a coherent balance between craft and tonal intrigue, an element that Polone should improve on if he’s willing to direct another project.

As for Andrew Kevin Walker, I would say he’s in the same situation as Polone, but as a writer.  He has ideas in his writing that worked a bit better than others, and “Psycho Killer” was not his best idea.  Regarding Walker’s screenplay, “Psycho Killer” functions in the same vein as other serial killer thrillers, but in a way that’s both subpar and occasionally idiotic.  It not only centers on the cat-and-mouse chase across the entire country, but also Jane’s trauma stemming from her husband’s death at the hands of the Satanic Slasher.  So, it is also another revenge thriller now that I thought about it.  Unfortunately, Walker struggled to make any of those aspects interesting or even twisty.  It’s a fundamental, cliched, and downright dismal road trip that would’ve been more fun if Jane’s partner were an angel sent from God.  Come to think of it, that would make for a more enticing premise compared to what we got.  Combined with its subpar dialogue and forgettable antagonist, you get a boring, suspense-free reflection on the horrors of satanism that’s more on the murky and less on the psychological disturbance.  Speaking of murky, the visuals were very lackluster, particularly the CGI blood, which didn’t mesh well with the muted lighting.  While the film didn’t go all out with the gore, its effects are another reason why CGI isn’t the perfect replacement for practical effects.

The cast also didn’t do much to elevate their performances beyond the run-of-the-mill concept.  However, the only actor who showed any effort was the one chasing the masked killer: Georgina Campbell.  I've heard she’s the only positive aspect of the film, and after watching it, I don’t blame them.  Despite her character’s formulaic structure, Campbell delivered a performance that respectively highlighted Jane’s traumatic condition and determination to avenge her husband.  I still think Campbell’s performance in “Barbarian” was better, as there were a few moments in “Psycho Killer” when her line delivery sounded a bit rough.  But she has proven to be another actor whose efforts were fine enough to carry most of the projects they're in.  James Preston Rogers, a former professional wrestler, also made an okay effort to provide a menacing, mentally unstable presence in the Satanic Slasher.  However, other than being a fan of Satin and having a kink for drinking “Priest Juice”, there’s nothing really terrifying about this killer that I would remember for years to come.  Also, Malcolm McDowell is in the film as the leader of a Satanist cult.  Yeah, I don’t know why either…

Overall, “Psycho Killer” lacks the psychotic edge of its run-of-the-mill, dreary premise to slaughter the competition in the thriller genre.  Despite the intentions presented in its cinematography and concept, the film is nothing more than a basic, dull, and tediously muted hunt that’s more about putting its cliches on autopilot than providing unnerving terror.  This could’ve been another solid collaboration between Gavin Polone and writer Andrew Kevin Walker that hearkens back to their previous unsettling thrillers of years past, including “Seven”.  What we got instead is a mishmash of familiar ideas that failed to elevate its grisly nature to exciting heights, resulting in another forgettable murder case that’s best left alone.  Regarding Polone’s dreary direction, the film’s lackluster terror, subpar screenplay, and murky visuals, it’s better if you run, run, run, run, run, run, run away from this killing spree for good.