​“War Machine” stars Alan Ritchson, Dennis Quaid, Stephan James, Jai Courtney, Esai Morales, Keiynan Lonsdale, and Daniel Webber.  Released on Netflix on March 6, 2026, the film follows the Army Ranger recruits as they battle an otherworldly machine.

The film was directed by Patrick Hughes, who also directed films such as “Red Hill”, “The Expendables 3”, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”, and “The Man from Toronto”.  Many films have depicted the U.S. Army surviving wars against opposing forces from another country, with some more grounded in reality than others.  But, in the world of Hollywood, there’s nothing more exciting or absurd than the army or the military confronting a fictional threat from another planet.  These types of movies blend the authenticity of military traditions with the typical, explosive sci-fi goodness to get people’s hearts pumping.  “Transformers”, “Battle: Los Angeles”, “Battleship”, the list goes on.  While some were anything but masterpieces, they occasionally deliver nonstop popcorn entertainment for those seeking a war film that isn’t based on a historical event.  Last weekend, Netflix added a new entry to that cinematic list, whose title may make people mistake it for a Marvel spin-off movie featuring James “Rhodey” Rhodes.  But it does feature Alan Ritchson battling a massive piece of alien tech, which should be enough to make the actor’s fans happy.  Is it enough to make its similar concept entertaining for those outside that group, or should it be kicked out of our planet?  Let’s find out. 

The story follows a Staff Sergeant (Ritchson) who attends a RASP course to become an Army Ranger following the death of his brother (Courtney).  As candidate number 81, the Sergeant excels at training, yet he refuses to bond with the other candidates or accept the role of team leader.  He is then tasked by Sergeant Major Sheridan (Quaid) and First Sergeant Torres (Morales) to perform a simulated mission with his given teammates.  However, their final exercise immediately turns into a fight for survival when they discover a massive, formidable machine that starts killing off the team one by one.  Realizing that the machine may be from another world, Staff Sergeant 81 and his remaining teammates must rely on one another to survive against their powerful adversary that’s anything but human.

You might be wondering why I decided to review “War Machine” instead of something in theaters like “Protector”.  Well, for starters, the trailer for “Protector” made it seem like another “Taken” rip-off, both in its premise and its quality.  Plus, its reviews didn’t seem too promising for Milla Jovovich’s struggling post-Resident Evil career, so I decided to skip out on that.  I may check it out once it's available on a streaming service, but until then, I couldn’t even be bothered to watch it in the theater.  I already suffered through “In the Lost Lands” last year, and I really don’t want to relive that torment with Jovovich’s attempt to become Liam Neeson.  Fortunately for me, I have Netflix to rely on in case something like that happens, with its latest original film being one of my top options.  Given its action-packed premise and Alan Ritchson’s involvement, “War Machine” felt like another movie that was made just for me, but is it actually worth watching for the streaming service’s subscribers?  That would depend on your expectations towards its execution.

If you’re expecting it to be the next “Saving Private Ryan” or the next “Dunkirk” regarding the storyline, this film is certainly going to be a tough sell for you.  While it contains the tactics you’d normally see in the genre, “War Machine” also fails to add anything new to its “military vs. alien” premise we’ve seen in “Transformers” and “Battle: Los Angeles”.  But, if a battle against an intergalactic machine is only what you’re craving, “War Machine” delivers on that concept without much else to offer, for better or worse.  I personally enjoy these types of war movies where military units fight or survive against an alien invasion, even if they’re not as well-written or impactful as the realistic ones.  They’re guilty pleasures that mostly deliver solid entertainment, emphasizing explosive, CGI-filled action over emotional narratives and character depth.  So, I was unsurprised to see that “War Machine”, not to be confused with David Michôd's film of the same name featuring Brad Pitt, was heading towards that similar approach, with some “Predator” vibes added in for good measure.

While this execution may not work for everyone, given its familiar premise, “War Machine” offers enough fun moments to deliver another thrilling addition to the sci-fi military catalog.  Given my experience with these types of films, I did not doubt that I would be entertained by a massive machine laying waste to its victims, and entertained I was.  The film does take a bit to get going, given its sluggish first act.  Through its formulaic tropes involving trauma and Patrick Hughes’ direction, the sections involving 81’s brother and the training sequences lack the emotional hook that other similar war movies achieved.  However, once the characters discover the machine, that’s when the real fun begins.  Those patient enough to wait out its first act would be rewarded with its nonstop, explosive, and grisly chase sequence, which puts 81's leadership and resilience to the test, even if its familiarity wears thin.

Patrick Hughes may not be the best filmmaker to emphasize the war genre’s storytelling.  However, he certainly knows how to make an action-packed premise engaging, especially when paired with suitable shots and thrilling violence.  It’s part of the reason I enjoyed his direction in “Expendables 3” and “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”.  “Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard” and “The Man from Toronto” weren’t exactly my favorites, but they’re not without their moments that highlight Hughes’s vision.  “War Machine” has Hughes underscoring its gritty, violent tone rather than his blend of action and comedy in his previous movies, and the result is, debatably, his best since “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”.  Again, his approach to the character-driven scenes and genre formula is far from an achievement, particularly in the script he co-wrote with James Beaufort.  But, when it comes to the action and tension, Patrick Hughes has done a decent job in retaining the given stakes in the character’s lengthy escape from the alien machine.

The action scenes in "War Machine" are undoubtedly a blast to watch, particularly the chase sequence featuring the armored personnel carrier (APC), which stands out as the highlight. This scene captures the heart-pounding tension and explosive atmosphere that we often seek in classic popcorn entertainment. Although the iffy CGI effects may detract from its overall visual appeal, the APC chase is an exhilarating experience that showcases the film's intensity in portraying a terrifying pursuit by a formidable, unknown enemy.  Aside from the CGI, the other visuals were surprisingly decent, particularly the design of the machine. While it’s not very creative, the effects work well with the film’s grim, grisly scope.  As for the film’s cast, Alan Ritchson was the only actor who made a good impression as the lead.  It wasn’t anything special, but his decent portrayal of 81 helped add some engagement to the movie’s reflection of resilience amid the character's trauma.  Dennis Quaid and Stephan James were also solid in their roles as Sheridan and Staff Sergeant 7, respectively.

Overall, “War Machine” overcomes most of the narrative malfunctions to earn a Silver Star in its entertainment value and visual grittiness.  Its formulaic narrative may not earn itself a badge of honor from everyone, especially those wanting another masterpiece in the war genre.  However, it will likely satisfy people who enjoy watching “military vs. alien” content, with Patrick Hughes balancing its old-school action finesse akin to “Predator” with thrilling, explosive sci-fi violence.  Its first act can take a bit to get itself going, and a few iffy CGI effects can occasionally take viewers out of the immersion.  Besides those flaws, it’s a solid piece of cinematic machinery worthy of rivaling other films with similar thrill-a-minute concepts.  In terms of Alan Ritchson’s performance, entertaining action sequences, and decent visuals, the film is another diverting option on Netflix I wouldn’t mind watching again in the future.

​“Hoppers” stars Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Jon Hamm, Kathy Najimy, and Dave Franco.  Released on March 6, 2026, the film follows a girl who uses an invention to transfer her mind into a robotic beaver.

The film is directed by Daniel Chong, who’s best known for creating “We Bare Bears” and writing and directing “We Bare Bears: The Movie”.  Chong is also known for working as a storyboard artist for “Bolt”, “Cars 2”, “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax”, “Free Birds”, and “Inside Out”.  In another universe, we would have been able to communicate with animals, making it easier for us to coexist with them and save their species.  But that seemed like wishful thinking…at least until science came along to make it a reality.  While it sounds like a dream come true for animal lovers, it can also lead to something as wild as the furry creatures themselves.  Pixar’s recent return to its original projects started pretty rough with the disappointing box office run of the criminally underrated “Elio” last year.  Fortunately, that didn’t stop the studio from moving forward with more of its ingenious ideas amid its upcoming sequels, including an original comedy from “We Bare Bears” creator Daniel Chong.  Who would’ve thought that Chong has a strong connection with the wildlife regarding this and “We Bare Bears”?  Is this environmental-based premise wild enough to blend with the typical Pixar charm, or are we better off hanging with the humans instead?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Mabel Tanaka (Curda), a 19-year-old animal lover in Beaverton who continuously strives to defend the wildlife.  Mabel learns from her biology professor, Dr. Sam (Najimy), that she has invented a solution to transport human minds into lifelike robotic animals known as “hoppers”.  Mabel then uses the hopping technology to transfer her mind into a robot beaver to help the animals, including a beaver monarch named King George (Moynihan), save their habitat from a construction company led by the city's mayor, Jerry Generazzo (Hamm).  However, this led her to unintentionally spark an animal uprising against the humans, prompting Mabel to find a solution for both sides to coexist.

While I don’t mind Pixar’s sequels if their executions are good, I will always champion the studio’s creativity for its original films, and “Hoppers” is no different.  Of course, another reason for my interest is that the concept made it seem like Pixar’s answer to James Cameron’s “Avatar”, despite Dr. Sam denying that claim.  She can deny that all she wants, but it definitely looks like “Avatar” if it were aimed more at younger kids.  However, what really won me over is the involvement of Daniel Chong, who made “We Bare Bears” one of the surprising hits on the Cartoon Network.  Even I thought that show was surprisingly entertaining, with enough charm and heart to complement its simple art style and slice-of-life humor.  I also found “We Bare Bears: The Movie” to be a decent conclusion to that series, despite a few narrative issues, which you can read on my website’s “2020 Reviews” page.  Chong’s approach to animal-type humor and animation style made him a great fit for this concept, in my eyes.  Still, with people’s eyes already on “Toy Story 5”, its execution would have to be good enough to get everyone to support original films again.

Regarding its critical reception, it seems the film made its “Avatar for kids” concept work through its story and animation.  After watching the movie for myself, I would tend to agree.  “Hoppers” is another Pixar delight that utilizes the studio’s heart and charm to deliver a consistently engaging adventure for children and a heartwarming experience for older viewers and wildlife lovers.  However, when compared to Pixar’s other gems like “Inside Out”, “Toy Story”, and “Up”, it doesn’t quite capture the raw beauty of its straightforward narrative as it does for the forest glade.  It’s basically another “save the environment” film, with its protagonist defending the animals’ home from humans because “nature is good, and freeways are bad,” and whatnot.  While its message still rings true today, there's concern that the film might continually shove this theme down people’s throats amid its wildly cartoonish nature.  With Mabel being a lover of all things natural, the film would likely be a case of inserting some “agenda” in children’s media, or so I figured from social media nowadays.

Thankfully, that doesn’t appear to be the case in “Hoppers”.  Jesse Andrews, the author of “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” and co-writer of “Luca”, has mostly succeeded in achieving this blend of family entertainment and pro-messaging in his screenplay.  While it emphasizes the significance of the environment, the movie also highlights the value of unity and the true meaning of making a difference—not just for oneself, but for everyone.  Mabel hopes to make that difference by protecting the wildlife she cares about, but it isn’t easy, even with the hopping technology at her side.  But as I mentioned earlier, the story can be pretty basic in its structure and even the world-building, leaving me with a sense of familiarity in some parts and a lack of emotional impact.  Now, that’s not to say that it is a bad thing, as Pixar is no stranger to providing basic stories that are less complex and boundary-pushing than its masterpieces.  A couple of them may not have hit their storytelling marks, but others succeed in delivering suitable family-friendly entertainment and plenty of heart. 

“Hoppers” is one such case where its simplicity can work just as well as others with deeper storytelling.  As I said, the film is consistently entertaining from start to finish, not just in its concept but also in the humor that drives it.  I admired Chong’s approach to the fast-paced comedy in “We Bare Bears,” which didn’t feel too fast or too draggy.  Sure, it’s a cartoon about three talking bears, but it’s a cartoon that possesses an energy as untamed as…well, the animals.  Chong managed to inject this type of vitality into the film’s presentation, with the difference being in CGI rather than the 2D animation in “We Bare Bears”, and the result is a delightfully wild treat.  With pacing that matches a beaver’s speed and the charm of its simple yet amusing animal characters, Chong expresses the wild side he possessed from his work on the Cartoon Network show to exhibit the wacky nature of Pixar’s traditional presentation.  I would also note that the humor, while amusing, can be surprisingly dark at times, particularly in the climax.  There are even a couple of moments that may make the children’s fur stand up in fright, a trend that Pixar is also familiar with in its filmography.  

As for the animation, “Hoppers” certainly has that classic Pixar finesse in the vibrancy, textures, and depth, notably in its cinematography.  However, it also left enough room for Daniel Chong’s creativity to thrive alongside the studio’s presentation.  Instead of making the characters realistic, “Hoppers” continues Pixar’s tradition of making them more “cartoony”, similar to the designs in “Turning Red”, “Luca”, and “Elio”.  No, that does not mean we get to see more of the characters with bean-shaped mouths.  Rather, the character designs are more in line with those in “We Bare Bears” in terms of facial expressions and rhythmic movements.  While it lacks creativity, it further highlights Pixar’s ability to achieve immersion, energy, and beauty through its straightforward presentation and characters.  In terms of presentation and direction, “Hoppers” symbolizes great things to come for Chong as a director, and I hope it leads to him working on more projects for Pixar or other animation companies in the future.

Speaking of the characters, they each brought their own charm to their personalities, thanks to the voice cast.  Bobby Moynihan (King George) and Demetri Martin (Flock of Birds) previously worked with Chong on “We Bare Bears”, where Moynihan voiced Panda and Martin voiced Ice Bear, so you can say that this is a “bearable” reunion for these collaborators.  Moynihan continues to showcase a strong likability in his vocal performance as King George, who stands out as another supporting character from Pixar who skillfully balances comic relief with emotional depth.  This is evident in his friendship with Mabel, who is voiced exceptionally well by Piper Curda.  While I haven’t watched any of Curda’s previous works, I was aware that she was another former Disney Channel star, having starred in shows like “A.N.T. Farm” and “I Didn’t Do It”.  Regardless, I was highly impressed with how Curda conveyed Mabel’s personality through her energy and warmth.  Mabel is funny and determined, but she’s also a flawed human being who jumps ahead without thinking things through.  I won’t be surprised if we see more of Curda in the future, animation or otherwise.  Jon Hamm also did a great job injecting some charisma into his role as Jerry Generazzo, a mayor who gets tangled up in Mabel’s struggle to protect the wildlife.  All I can say about him is that his character arc makes him more than just a traditional bad guy who threatens nature, which is enough to excuse some of the screenplay’s narrative trappings.

Overall, “Hoppers” hops its way into the hearts of nature lovers and families with a delightfully wild and entertaining comedy that highlights Pixar’s quality.  Daniel Chong expressed his animalistic side from his work on “We Bare Bears” to craft another animal-themed project that’s fun and endearing enough to divert young viewers despite some of its frightening moments.  However, its straightforward and mildly predictable storytelling doesn’t quite match the emotional impact and surprise factor of some of the studio’s animated masterpieces, especially in its themes of environmentalism and unity.  Fortunately, it also shows Pixar’s ability to make even the basic storylines as entertaining, humorous, and heartfelt as those with mature themes.  Regarding the comedy that matches the absurd nature of its animals and a plot that’s familiar yet tolerable in its messaging, the film proves that Pixar still has those creative juices running in its own natural world.  It may not be my personal favorite from Pixar, but I liked it well enough to rewatch it in the near future.  If you’re a big supporter of original films, be it from Pixar or otherwise, I would say this movie’s worth hopping over to check out.   

​“Scream 7” stars Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Isabel May, Mason Gooding, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Roger L. Jackson, Joel McHale, and David Arquette.  Released on February 27, 2026, the film has Sidney Prescott protecting her daughter from a new Ghostface killer.

The film is directed by Kevin Williamson, who also directed “Teaching Mrs. Tingle”.  He’s also known for his involvement in the “Scream” franchise and wrote other horror films like “I Know What You Did Last Summer”, “The Faculty”, “Cursed”, and “Sick”.  It is the seventh installment in the “Scream” film series.  If you’re a killer in a slasher film, chances are you’ll be successful enough to spawn a horror franchise that exceeds past the fourth, fifth, or even the sixth installment.  Those like Jason Voorhees from “Friday the 13th” and Freddy Krueger from “Nightmare on Elm Street” managed to accomplish that feat despite receiving middling results from their sequels.  Others, on the other hand, are lucky enough to get at least two movies, with their futures being uncertain or, in this case, killed off.  Now, we have another masked murderer who's able to reach lucky number seven in a franchise, one who’s been stabbing the horror tropes for thirty years.  We keep believing that people would get over the whole “Ghostface” phase a couple of installments ago, but given the reception of its recent resurgence starting with 2022’s “Scream”, it seems that isn’t happening anytime soon.  Regardless, we have the latest installment that once again puts our favorite final girl, Sidney Prescott, front and center after letting Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega take over for at least two movies.  Does it offer any more slasher tricks to further expand the franchise’s satirized take on the genre, or should this franchise just die already?  Let’s find out.

The story is set after the events of “Scream VI”.  Sidney Prescott (Campbell), the survivor of several Ghostface killing sprees, has now built a new life for herself, residing in a peaceful town of Pine Grove with her police officer husband, Mark (McHale), and daughter, Tatum (May).  Unfortunately, Sidney’s tranquility becomes short-lived upon learning that there’s a new Ghostface killer on the loose.  This Ghostface is setting his sights on Tatum, who’s at the same age as Sidney during her first encounter with Ghostface.  With the help of reporter Gale Weathers (Cox) and twin siblings Mindy (Brown) and Chad (Gooding), Sidney must face her past once more to protect Tatum and end the Ghostface legend for good.

If you’ve been following the behind-the-scenes journey of “Scream 7”, you’ll know that this new installment had a rough road ahead of its release.  The most notable change is the absence of Melissa Barrera, the lead from the previous two “Scream” films, who was fired from the film because Hollywood executives are allergic to celebrities’ political opinions.  This set off a chain of events that led to Jenna Ortega and former director Christopher Landon leaving the project, prompting a creative overhaul that puts Campbell back in the spotlight.  However, the biggest consequence of this action was the backlash from Barrera’s fans that may have taken them a step too far.  I’ve even read that Landon got death threats from that fanbase despite not being the one who fired Barrera, another reason why online fanbases are the worst regarding their toxic behaviors.  That’s how you know how rocky this movie’s journey has been leading up to its release.  Regardless, I was willing to check out “Scream 7” because I’ve been enjoying the franchise since I got back to it with 2022’s “Scream”.  But, it isn’t without my personal concerns that may keep me from enjoying this one as much as I did with the previous installments.

No, it’s not the behind-the-scenes controversy surrounding it.  Rather, it’s how the marketing depicted “Scream 7” as just another traditional slasher film.  “Scream” has always been known for satirizing the genre amid the “masked killer murdering teens” narrative, adding a unique flavor to its tried-and-true formula.  So, I was pretty surprised to see that the trailers for “Scream 7” felt like any other trailers for a copy-and-paste slasher we’ve seen before.  I guess when you get to number 7 in a horror franchise, you start to see the pattern wearing itself thin.  Despite that, I remained hopeful that it would deliver the devilishly violent and humorous goods from Ghostface's latest killing spree.  Its opening sequence, in which Stu Macher’s house is a horror memorabilia museum, hinted at the promise that it would meet that expectation.  After that, however, it just went downhill from there.  It’s not without a few enjoyable moments that I’d usually see from a “Scream” film, but everything else was a surprisingly big letdown, both in direction, predictability, and screenplay.

It bears repeating that the “Scream” franchise is known for blending the typical slasher and whodunnit tropes with meta humor that pokes fun at horror movies.  From the cliches to the franchises and legacy sequels, “Scream” has dominated the genre for 30 years by making audiences scream in terror and laughter.  These installments know they’re slasher films, yet they’re not afraid to make fun of themselves for following the same blueprint, adding to the entertainment value while staying up to date with their commentaries.  While the recent sequels may have grown rusty with the tropes they’re stabbing at, they still serve as enjoyable films for those keen on seeing more bloodshed.  Unsurprisingly, “Scream 7” continues the franchise’s trend, with the film taking a stab at nostalgia and even artificial intelligence, especially deepfakes, because AI remains the sole enemy of our creativity.  Unfortunately, it also provided a very clear indication that the franchise has not only run its course in terms of humor, but also completely succumbed to those horror tropes it's making fun of.  There were a couple of instances of meta humor courtesy of Jasmin Savoy Brown’s Mindy, but they were overshadowed by the film’s darker tone that somehow wipes its silliness clean.  Sure, “Scream VI” was also a bit darker in tone, but it didn’t stray far from its meta commentary and deranged charm.  “Scream 7” just felt like any other grim slasher film that the franchise has been poking fun at for three decades, and not a very interesting one at that. 

This is Kevin Williamson’s first movie he directed since “Teaching Mrs. Tingle” back in 1999, which wasn’t very well received at the time.  I haven’t watched that movie yet, so “Scream 7” will be my first exposure to his directorial vision.  In the horror genre, Williamson has been quite successful as a writer, notably with the “Scream” franchise.  But, after watching “Scream 7”, it’s safe to say that his writing is still his strong suit.  His direction wasn’t entirely awful, as his passion for the franchise he worked on for so long glimmered as much as Ghostface’s knife in the moonlight.  His approach to the film’s tension was respectable enough to make my heart race despite the predictable jump scares.  As for the murders performed by the Ghostface killer, they’re as grisly as one would expect from a slasher film, notably “Scream”, with one creative kill that provides a serviceable blend of dark humor and grossness.  Besides that, the other kills were just okay.  Nothing out of the ordinary.  Other than those two silver linings, Williamson lacks the compelling edge in his vision and tonal balance that Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett brought to the previous two installments.  However, his love for the characters persists in a nostalgic form, even at the expense of storytelling and meta commentary.

As for his screenplay, which he co-wrote with Guy Busick, it’s very clear that the franchise may have run out of ideas.  As I mentioned before, “Scream 7” follows the basic tropes the franchise has been making fun of for years, especially the ones from other slasher movies.  The most notable one is the mother-daughter relationship between Sidney and her daughter Tatum, which is torn apart by Sidney’s trauma, forcing the “final girl” to confront her past.  It followed the usual narrative pattern we’ve seen in similar movies, but lacked the charm and heart in the characters’ development.  But the worst part of the film’s script, aside from its weak meta humor, was the third-act twist.  The “Scream” movies do have their share of surprises when it comes to those twisty reveals, but the twist in “Scream 7” was something I saw coming a mile away.  I won’t go into specifics, since it is a “Scream” movie after all, but I wasn’t very surprised by the outcome.  What I’m really surprised at is that despite Williamson’s knowledge of “Scream” and its characters, he only came up with a story that’s this basic and even lackluster to continue the franchise…on its 30th anniversary, no less.  Maybe the Ghostface killer should be targeting him instead of chasing after Sidney all the time?

Out of the slew of actors in the film, the only ones that stood out were Neve Campbell and Jasmin Savoy Brown.  Campbell’s Sidney Prescott has dominated the “final girl” trope…by being the one who lasted for that long, making her one of the more memorable characters in the slasher genre.  “Scream 7” sees Sidney dealing with the trauma of her multiple encounters with Ghostface and ensuring Tatum doesn’t follow the same path she did.  Neve Campbell once again shows that no one can depict Sidney’s growth better than her.  She did a job conveying Sidney’s emotional restraint regarding her character’s motherly instincts and survival knowledge.  No matter which way you put it, Neve Campbell is Sidney Prescott, through and through.  Jasmin Savoy Brown also impressed me for the third time through her charismatic portrayal of Mindy and her character's attention-grabbing film knowledge.  While it didn’t match the similar heights as her performance in the previous two installments, Brown still proves she can carry the franchise alongside Campbell and Courteney Cox, whose return as Gale Weathers was good enough.  That is, if the franchise does continue, which it probably will.  Isabel May was also decent in her role as Tatum, despite the one moment that demonstrates the stupidity of the genre’s characters.  Other than that, the rest of the supporting characters were very forgettable, which isn’t much of a surprise considering the genre’s trend of one-dimensional slasher victims.

Overall, “Scream 7” lacks the sharp edge of the horror franchise’s meta knife, leaving me with a redundant, trope-heavy attempt at nostalgia-baiting.  It still possesses the killer instinct seen in the previous installments regarding its suspense, but it’s not enough to hide that the cliches it’s stabbing at have been fully rusted.  Kevin Williamson’s involvement in the film as both the writer and director should’ve provided something meaningful for the franchise’s 30th anniversary, especially given his experience with its characters and lore.  Instead, he gave me a dismal and disappointing sequel that sliced the franchise’s legacy into multiple pieces, and not in a good way.  It’s mildly entertaining in terms of its tension and cast, but the latter’s nostalgia couldn’t save the film from burning itself to the ground.  It’s far from the worst movie I’ve seen this year, horror or otherwise.  However, in terms of its cliched screenplay, weak meta humor, subpar kills, and predictable twist, I would consider it the weakest “Scream” installment I’ve seen since “Scream 3”.  Fans of the “Scream” franchise would enjoy some moments in “Scream 7”, but not enough to make them want to scream in delight.

“How to Make a Killing” stars Glen Powell, Margaret Qualley, Jessica Henwick, Bill Camp, Zach Woods, Topher Grace, and Ed Harris.  Releasing on February 20, 2026, the film follows a blue-collar man seeking to reclaim his inheritance from his wealthy family.
​
The film is written and directed by John Patton Ford, known for writing and directing “Emily the Criminal”.  It is loosely inspired by the 1949 film, “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, which was based on the novel Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal by Roy Horniman.  People will usually stop at nothing to claim what’s theirs, even if it means taking drastic measures to accomplish that goal.  Some measures are downright disturbing, while others are twisted enough to be surprisingly humorous.  When that someone is related to a wealthy family, they might want to reconsider keeping their money to themselves.  Amid the abundance of slashers and romantic offerings, this month occasionally offers us a satirical comedy or two to get audiences laughing at some bizarre, dark humor.  We already had one in the form of “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die”, which satirized tech-obsessed society in a darkly amusing and offbeat way.  This week, we have a comedy that satirizes the "eat the rich" scenario, showcasing that being rich doesn't always bode well.  This latest comedy thriller from writer/director John Patton Ford has Glen Powell flexing his acting and humor muscles once again as he embarks on a murder spree against the family who’s in for a rude awakening.  Is this concept really worth killing over in its execution?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Becket Redfellow (Powell), a blue-collar worker who’s also a former member of the obscenely wealthy family.  After being disowned at birth by the Redfellows, Becket spends his life in New Jersey.  One day, he embarks on a quest to reclaim the family’s inheritance that was supposed to be his.  However, to do that, he must deal with his ungrateful relatives who stand in his way, leading him to create specific plans disguised as “accidents”.  Amid his journey, Becket would eventually find himself in hot water when his consequences start catching up to him.

Knowing me, I’m usually in the mood for black comedy, even if some of its jokes are more “WTF” than hilarious.  “How to Make a Killing” seems to be another occasion to my taste, based on the trailer I saw.  It not only has Powell looking for a cinematic comeback after the mediocre box office run of “The Running Man”, but also features a traditional revenge thriller plot with a seemingly satirical bite on its “eat the rich” situation.  With these two elements in place, this movie seemed like a good fit for my twisted taste.  However, I also wouldn’t mind waiting for it to be on a streaming service if I don’t get a chance to watch it in the theater.  But, as luck would have it, I was able to see it earlier through the mystery movie event, continuing my streak of catching the smaller films early before release.  Was it worth it?  Yeah, I think it was.  However, it’s also another film where its execution would depend on people’s various expectations.

“How to Make a Killing” delivered what it promised regarding its premise.  It’s a charming, darkly humorous, and suitably entertaining killing spree involving Glen Powell murdering his rich relatives.  So, one would expect that it would also have plenty of gnarly, twisted kills to go along with Powell’s charisma, right?  Well, yes and no.  While the relatives do die in different circumstances, they’re not to the point where it’s over-the-top or gory.  Instead, the kills Powell’s character, Becket, performed were subtle or off-screen, serving as dark comedy through his sneaky strategies.  In a way, it’s not something I would call a bonkers, far-fetched, and overly bloody roller coaster.  I would say it’s a restrained yet highly charismatic rags-to-riches story that depicts how wealth can bring out people's selfishness, even those eager to regain it.  Those hoping for the film to feature grisly “accidents” in Becket’s revenge spree would likely want to pursue a different way of living the right kind of life.

However, its subtlety in the kills actually worked well in its favor, particularly in how the story is told.  With the film’s focus on its satirical depiction of wealth, “How to Make a Killing” showcases that it didn’t need to be overly violent to be a fun time.  Through his direction and screenplay, John Patton Ford uses the endearing aesthetics of the film's flawed protagonist and his filmmaking craft to highlight the humorous and entertaining “tragedy” of the character’s quest.  Regarding its premise and themes of wealth, one would assume that they know how everything would turn out.  However, Ford’s screenplay has them put the money where their mouth is, providing a few interesting surprises that flip the traditional “rags-to-riches” dilemma on its head.  Not only that, but Ford has also proven to be a confident filmmaker who blends comedy with thriller elements and maintains a smooth, steady pace throughout.  While not all of the jokes work for me, some of them still deliver on the humorously twisted aspect of Becket’s rise to the top.

Becket is certainly one of the protagonists whose flawed intentions were overshadowed by their charismatic pizazz.  This is mainly due to Glen Powell, whose special skill is…well, being incredibly charming.  Unsurprisingly, if you enjoyed Powell in his other roles because of it, then there’s no doubt that you’ll enjoy his presence in “How to Make a Killing”.  He was easily the film’s best part because he understood the assignment of who Becket is as a character.  He’s the appealing “hero” whose quest to reclaim his inheritance by murder lands him in hot water, particularly when his girlfriend, Ruth (Henwick), and his childhood friend, Julia (Qualley), are in the picture.  Through his usual mannerisms and tempting allure, Powell continues to impress with his looks, acting talent, and charm, even when playing a flawed protagonist.  Margaret Qualley also did a pretty good job conveying Julia’s seductive allure through her performance.  Julia’s one of the characters who may seem supportive and friendly at first, but then gradually shows their true colors in the third act.  Jessica Henwick delivered a decent performance as Ruth, while Ed Harris as Becket’s grandfather makes for a compelling presence, especially during the sequence involving him and Becket.

Overall, “How to Make a Killing” offers enough money in terms of charm and entertainment value to make this killing spree a pleasant watch.  It may be a bit subtle in tone regarding its twisted concept, but it was mostly offset by the charismatic, amusing flair of John Patton Ford’s approach to its “rags-to-riches” trope.  This is one of the movies that may impress one part of the audience more than another, depending on their expectations.  On the one hand, it’ll likely appease those hoping for a toned-down, yet captivating comedy that benefited from Glen Powell’s magnetic appearance.  On the other hand, it will also disappoint audiences seeking a wild bloodbath featuring Powell fighting the high-and-mighty rich people.  Personally, I don’t mind the approach it was given, as it provided a suitable yet flawed blend of dark comedy and violence worth killing for, even if some jokes are richer than others.  More importantly, it’s another reason why I should think twice before inheriting that amount of money myself.