​“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.

​“The Breadwinner” stars Nate Bargatze, Mandy Moore, Colin Jost, Zach Cherry, Martin Herlihy, Kate Berlant, Kumail Nanjiani, and Will Forte.  Released on May 29, 2026, the film follows a father who becomes a stay-at-home dad for his three kids.

The film was directed by Eric Appel, known for helming “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story” and several television shows, including “Eagleheart”, “The Office”, “Brooklyn Nine-Nine”, and “The Afterparty”.  A household initially consists of roles that have been the main standards of a traditional family.  While the wife does the heavy lifting by cleaning the house and cooking meals, the husband lies around, watches television, works endless hours, and plays with the kids.  But what if the wife goes out for a few days, whether for a business trip or something else?  Simple: just give the husband that hard labor.  Surely, nothing can go wrong with that.  There’s a good chance you have heard this concept before, and I’m here to tell you that you’re not wrong.  The premise of the dad tackling “mom duties” has been previously done in specific media, particularly the 1983 comedy, “Mr. Mom”, which starred Michael Keaton in his first lead role.  All of that cooking, cleaning, and caring for the kids was part of his training to become the Batman, but you didn’t hear that from me.  This year, we see this history repeat itself, with a family comedy featuring a similar plot and an actor’s film debut.  In short, we have ourselves a “Mr. Mom” for the current generation.  Does it offer the charm and laughs needed to become a winner?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Nate Wilcox (Bargatze), the loving father of three daughters: Gracie (Stella Grace Fitzgerald), Hadley (Birdie Borria), and Sam (Charlotte Ann Tucker).  Despite his generosity, Nate was often known for his “breadwinner” role, working as a car salesman, while his wife/supermom, Katie (Moore), handles everything around the house.  One day, Katie landed a once-in-a-lifetime deal on “Shark Tank” with her new household invention, which sent her on a lengthy business trip.  This leaves Nate to adapt to his new role as a stay-at-home dad, taking care of the girls while keeping the house running smoothly.  However, he quickly realizes that his duties as both a mom and dad aren’t as easy as they sound, prompting him to find a solution to the messes he created in the process.

I’m not joking when I say that “The Breadwinner” is the “Mr. Mom” of the current era.  Although I’ve seen bits and pieces of the 1983 comedy hit, I’ve seen enough to notice the similarities in this film’s premise.  It would’ve been the reason I should wait until it was on a streaming service, since it looked like a straight-to-streaming movie.  However, I decided to check it out in the theater instead, because why not?  But in all seriousness, I’m usually willing to give certain films a chance even if they don’t look very good from their marketing, with “The Breadwinner” being another example.  From its trailers, it looks like it’s aiming only at families seeking harmless laughs and goofy shenanigans, similar to those released in the 2000s.  While I don’t have much of a problem with that, my only concern is whether it’ll impress me outside the target audience.  Well, I hate to say that it didn’t.  While I’m not surprised by this outcome, I was very disappointed by how generic and boring it turned out to be.

“The Breadwinner” certainly has the elements we would normally see in other family-friendly comedies of the past, including charm, humorous and inoffensive shenanigans, and positive messages.  You know, the basic stuff I grew up watching.  However, what makes it stand out from the pack in a bad way is the effort amid those elements, and there isn’t a whole lot of it.  It’s as if these family-friendly elements are used only as shortcuts to breeze through its straightforward premise, which, again, is a modern-day “Mr. Mom”.  Now, I’m fine with a comedy having a simple, uncomplicated story as long as it’s fun enough to excuse its narrative flaws and make me laugh with its humor.  Unfortunately for me, “The Breadwinner” ended up being a loser on both those occasions.  Usually, I would laugh at something silly, like people’s reactions and a few goofy dialogue, but this film and its surprisingly bland tone did nothing to provoke any reaction from me, not even a chuckle.

It’s a shame, too, given Eric Appel’s track record for film and television.  I thought Appel did a good job of capturing the comedic essence of “Weird”, and he was involved in some solid shows like “The Office”.  So, what exactly went wrong with his direction for this one?  Personally, it would have something to do with the execution.  The film seemed to be aiming for a dramatic approach to the “stay-at-home parent” scenario while retaining its family-friendly nature.  While it does have some amusing mishaps involving Nate’s struggles to take care of his daughters, the film forgoes the overly silly slapstick in favor of a laidback, heartwarming perspective on its similar premise.  It comes with the charm it sought to gain, particularly for the family’s dynamic, but there’s just not enough of it to compensate for the film’s safe approach to its conflicted tone.  Without much of a compelling edge to the drama and narrative aspects, the charm it had got immediately lost in Appel’s lazy attempts to make its clean, deadpan appeal feel…well, less dead.  It’s more of the same as other familiar family movies, with the major difference being the lack of soul in Appel's direction, which makes the concept feel less fun or special.

Before “The Breadwinner”, I had not heard a single thing about Nate Bargatze.  Heck, I didn’t even know he existed amid the stand-up comedian crowd until this film appeared on my radar.  From what I can gather, Bargatze is more of a PG-rated comedian rather than one who goes wild with their uncensored jokes and stories.  He can discuss topics with a clean, deadpan, and observational attitude as long as there isn’t any lewdness sprinkling around, making him stand out from the adult-rated comedians we’re used to watching.  With this being his big-screen debut, it allowed me to see whether Bargatze’s brand of humor could work in film, maybe even serve as a solid introduction for casual viewers.  After watching it, I can conclude that Bargatze has a lot more work to do to fully impress me.  While his performance as Nate was tolerable, the delivery of his humor was anything but amusing.  Understandably, it’s how he functions as a comedian, but his way of delivering his jokes felt somehow lackluster to me, both in his performance and writing.  I’m sure his fans would admire his sense of humor, but it just didn’t click with me.  Maybe I might warm up to him a bit more if I watch more of his stuff, but until then, I would consider myself unimpressed with his debut.

But if there’s one aspect of Bargatze’s screenplay, which he co-wrote with Dan Lagana, I'd acknowledge, it’s the messages.  The script is heavily taken from other similar films, mainly “Mr. Mom”, ranging from its “stay-at-home parent” plot to the humor involving the kids ruffling their parents’ feathers.  It’s everything you would want out of a family comedy, but more boring and tame.  However, it did try to incorporate inspiring messages that audiences would take away, even if the journey towards them was extremely rough.  As a stay-at-home parent, Nate takes on the responsibility of adjusting to a role he’s not fully prepared for.  While his “breadwinner” role is more his style, balancing it with his wife’s humongous schedule and chores is an entirely different story.  In short, it highlights that role adjustments can be a challenge, but it also helps us grow as better people or, in this case, better parents.  If everything is easy, then how do we learn?  Its themes would surely inspire its target audience to focus on what’s really important.  It’s too bad that its extremely generic and cliched script couldn’t match that intent.  As for its supporting cast, they had their moments, including Mandy Moore as Katie and Will Forte as Keegan Jones.  Sadly, they aren’t able to make their forgettable characters more than just hollow versions of those done better in other movies.  Luckily, I’m a sucker for adorable kid characters, particularly Charlotte Ann Tucker’s Sam.

Overall, “The Breadwinner” is a dreadfully generic and unfunny comedy that’s as soggy and ill-tasted as a piece of wet bread.  Nate Bargatze’s cinematic debut isn’t without its moments of inspiration, especially its messages involving responsibility and role adjustments.  However, his clean stand-up humor didn’t connect with me as much as it did with his fans, unlike my experience with other lively comedians.  It also didn’t help that his first foray into film territory was boring, derivative, stale, and at odds with the tone it’s aiming for.  While it may be enjoyed by those familiar with Bargatze’s stand-up routines, the film constantly reminded me that I should’ve been better off staying at home instead.  With its mediocre cast, Eric Appel’s uninspiring direction, cliched screenplay, and forgettable characters, this “stay-at-home” experience is my first major disappointment of this year's summer movie season.

“Pressure” stars Andrew Scott, Brendan Fraser, Kerry Condon, Chris Messina, and Damian Lewis.  Released on May 29, 2026, the film chronicles a tense decision hours before D-Day.

The film was directed and edited by Anthony Maras, who also directed “Azadi”, “Spike Up”, “The Palace”, and “Hotel Mumbai”.  It is based on the 2014 stage play by David Haig, who co-wrote the movie’s screenplay with Maras.  One of the crucial aspects of World War II that many historians remembered fondly was the day the Allies turned the tide of the war with a seemingly impossible operation.  That day was June 6, 1944, also known as “D-Day”, when a large number of troops were sent out to sea to invade Normandy, and the rest is history.  Sure, the casualties were severe, but this risky maneuver not only marked the largest seaborne invasion in history but also laid the foundations for the Allied victory on the Western Front.  But, of course, that crucial day all came down to a decision that’s just as intense as the invasion itself, all because the weather may not be nice enough to give the plan the go-ahead.  This pressure-inducing countdown served as the concept for the film adaptation of David Haig’s 2014 play, in which meteorology played a crucial role in a decision that changed the outcome of the war.  I guess some events shouldn’t be ignored, even if the weather is straight-up crappy.  Does this adaptation capture the drama that’s as stormy and tense as D-Day, or are audiences better off postponing this film indefinitely?  Let’s find out.

The story chronicles the events leading up to D-Day, a crucial day when soldiers will be sent out to sea to invade enemy territory. James Stagg (Scott), Britain's chief meteorologist, is tasked with reviewing the forecast to ensure safe ocean travel. However, upon his research, Stagg discovers that a dangerous storm will occur on the same day as D-Day, putting him in an intense standoff with the Allied leadership. They're now faced with the consequential choice between moving forward with the plan or delaying it altogether. The final decision rests on the shoulders of Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (Fraser), who is haunted by a catastrophic rehearsal and has only hours left until the deadline.  

This was one of the films that left me feeling tossed about.  On the one hand, I enjoy plenty of war movies that center either on their violent confrontations or the events outside of war.  Plus, it features Brendan Fraser in another dramatic role, continuing his impressive and refreshing comeback that included his Oscar win.  On the other hand, its trailer didn’t exactly hype me up as much as the other movies that were coming out this weekend.  Yes, it’s another movie that explores a different perspective on D-Day, but for some reason, it made me feel like waiting for it to come out on streaming.  However, since we had already celebrated Memorial Day, which honors those who served our country, I decided it was an appropriate time to see if it’s worth my time.  Nothing screams Memorial Day more than watching people argue about the weather days before D-Day.  Upon watching the film, I think it’s safe to say that I made a good choice.

When it comes to war movies in general, whether drama or action, “Pressure” doesn’t quite stand out from other similar films in terms of its story.  However, it’s still a respectable and mildly tense depiction of one of the most crucial events in history, boasted by its cast and Maras’ approach to the source material.  But what really impressed me the most was how it explores meteorology in the 1940s.  All I remembered from D-Day was the invasion itself, so it didn’t occur to me that the weather also played a key role in the historical event that changed the course of the Second World War.  I also remember taking a meteorology class in college, which was fascinating at first, but I later lost interest.  That means that whenever I hear people talk about meteorology, I recall that time with mixed feelings.  This exploration also showed that we have certainly come a long way in predicting climate change.  

In cinematic terms, it also generated some decent tension among characters that highlight their different perspectives on studying meteorology.  While most involved in the decision rely on similar weather patterns from previous years, Stagg is perceived as a meteorologist who studies every aspect of the weather, including fronts.  In a way, “Pressure” underscores how the weather affects not just our daily lives but also our beliefs about how to handle a tense situation like this.  I think plenty of meteorology fans would greatly appreciate this film for highlighting this aspect in history, regardless of how the narrative turns out overall.  As a whole, “Pressure” is another standard fact-based drama that follows the elements of bringing its true story to life through its screenplay by Maras and David Haig.  It’s one of the movies that doesn’t reinvigorate the formula we’re used to or heighten its emotional stakes through filmmaking techniques and subversion.  However, it’s also one of the fact-based films that compensate with its execution and intrigue, retaining my interest through its inspiring messages of trust amid impossible odds and Maras’s competent vision.

I haven’t seen any of Anthony Maras’s previous works before “Pressure”, although I did hear that “Hotel Mumbai” was pretty good.  So, like always, my first exposure to his directorial style would help me determine whether I should in the near future.  While I wouldn’t call his direction extraordinary, I would admit that Maras understood the assignment of what makes a dialogue-driven drama riveting.  While some war movies entertain audiences with intense gun battles and high-stakes war zones, others prove that the soldiers’ survival isn’t the only thing that keeps us on our toes.  “Pressure” is one such example of the latter, with Maras painting a clear and suitably paced picture of the mounting conflict through his approach to subtle tension and editing.  I haven’t seen the stage play it’s based on, so I wasn’t able to compare the two versions, but I was nevertheless pleased with the concept it presents.  Despite the lack of strong depth that would’ve spotlighted the characters a bit more, Maras delivered a solid amount of suspense in its drama to ensure its stakes match those on the battlefield.

As I said earlier, part of the reason for my interest in “Pressure” is Brendan Fraser.  It’s hard not to be impressed by his recent roles since his reemergence, mostly the dramatic ones, with my favorite so far being his role in “Rental Family”.  Yes, I finally watched it the other day, and it was very heartwarming due to Fraser’s performance.  But what about his role as Dwight Eisenhower in “Pressure”, you ask?  Honestly, it was pretty good.  I can tell it’s just Brendan Fraser playing Eisenhower, but in most cases, I can also see his effort to make his performance convincing.  Was it a career-defining performance?  Not really, but it further proves that Fraser can be a good actor with the proper execution in mind.  Then there’s Andrew Scott, who has been on and off my radar recently, despite starring in movies I’ve watched like “Spectre” and “1917”.  Fortunately, he’s able to reappear on that same radar with his main role and put on a solid show to endure.  With a carefully placed range in his stern yet diverting performance, Scott effectively conveys an expert meteorologist who’s full of doubt about the future due to his findings.  Kerry Condon also did well in her role as Kay Summersby, and Chris Messina performed decently as Irving P. Krick, another meteorologist who butts heads with Stagg over their differing beliefs.

Overall, “Pressure” is a suitably made and diverting depiction of the D-Day countdown that’s as bright and breezy as a sunny day.  When compared with other war movies on similar topics, it falls short of being another strong soldier on the front lines, due to its standard narrative structure and hit-or-miss emotional impact.  But director Anthony Maras ensured that it’s still capable of defying impossible odds through his execution.  He not only adapted David Haig’s play with a traditional cinematic essence but also highlighted meteorology’s key role in this crucial decision that changed the war’s outcome.  This is another movie that’ll entertain war enthusiasts with its solid depiction of one of history’s most dangerous yet memorable achievements, even though it may not receive the highest accolades like other masterpieces in the same genre.  Thanks to its decent cast, its effective handling of dramatic tension, and a diverting yet standard narrative, the film made me feel I made the right decision in checking it out.

​“Backrooms” stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, Renate Reinsve, Mark Duplass, Finn Bennett, Lukita Maxwell, and Avan Jogia.  Released on May 29, 2026, the film follows a therapist who explores a mysterious dimension in search of her missing patient.

The film features the directorial debut of Kane Parsons, known online as Kane Pixels on YouTube.  It is based on Parsons’ web series and inspired by the “Backrooms” creepypasta.  The horror genre has gotten off to a strong start this summer, and it’s not just because of how tolerable and scary they turn out.  It’s also due to the ongoing trend of YouTubers making their cinematic debuts, driven by their passion for the genre.  We didn’t expect it to have a larger impact in the industry than their online videos, but these digital celebrities proved us wrong with their craft and understanding of horror.  Just recently, we experienced Curry Barker’s terrifying tale of obsession caused by a hopeless romantic’s wish, and spoiler alert, it was fantastic.  It made me uncomfortable, but it was fantastic.  Now, we have another YouTuber making the leap from the computer screen to the big screen by introducing his popular web series to audiences beyond his subscribers.

The YouTuber I’m referring to was Kane Parsons, a visual effects artist and filmmaker who went viral for his semi-anthological web series about a mysterious dimension that exists beyond reality.  Inspired by the “Backrooms” creepypasta, the series, titled “Backrooms”, has been praised for its effective use of horror elements, the cryptic mystery surrounding its unknown realm, and visual effects.  What started as a passion project for Parsons to demonstrate his love of visual effects became a viral sensation that reinvigorated interest in the creepypasta trend and scared viewers’ pants off with the endless hallways and even the “creatures” residing in them.  This success led Hollywood to adapt the web series as a cinematic endeavor, with the condition that Parsons direct it, because no one knows this enigmatic world-building better than the one who created it.  But is this strangely eerie concept worthy of getting the big-screen treatment, or are we better off leaving this dimension alone forever?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Clark (Ejiofor), a failed architect who manages and lives at a rundown furniture store following his divorce.  One day, he stumbles upon a gateway to an uncanny dimension, where the maze-like hallways stretch on endlessly beyond the bounds of reality.  He reports his findings to his therapist, Dr. Mary Kline (Reinsve), only to be dismissed by her.  This led Clark and his employees to record their exploration of this otherworldly realm.  However, as they delve deeper into the dimension, Clark and the employees uncover a sinister presence lurking within the realm.  Upon learning about Clark’s disappearance, Mary embarks on a mission to travel inside the dimension and rescue him, unaware of the danger that lurks ahead.

I was pretty new to the whole “Backrooms” craze that has been circulating on the web for four years.  Mainly because I was busy watching plenty of videos that don’t scare the crud out of me during that time.  But that didn’t stop me from feeling intrigued by the film, and it’s not just because of the mysterious concept and my hit-or-miss appreciation for elevated horror.  It was also due to the big names involved as producers, like Shawn Levy, James Wan, and Osgood Perkins, but the most important factor to point out is Kane Parsons himself.  Although I haven’t watched his videos a lot, he’s another YouTuber who earns my respect for taking on the challenge of directing a feature film, let alone a horror movie for A24.  So far, we have had some pretty good YouTuber-to-filmmaker selections right out of the gate this year, like Markiplier’s “Iron Lung” and Curry Barker’s “Obsession”.  So, one has to wonder whether Parsons can continue that streak with a film adaptation of the web series that made him an online sensation.

Based on the one “Backrooms” video my cousin showed me the other day, I would describe the “Backrooms” movie as a vast, haunted-house experience.  There isn’t a lot to admire other than the maze-like halls and odd placements of certain objects, but it still leaves you anxious and uncomfortable about the dimension’s enigmatic origin and “residents”.  Its mysterious creatures can be terrifying, but the emptiness and psychological dread of its environments can be the most impactful, keeping you up all night.  Those who admire this type of horror or watched the “Backrooms” videos will certainly find the film just as unnerving as exploring an empty building in the middle of the night.  However, if you’re looking for a horror movie with numerous jump scares and traditional supernatural threats, you’re better off watching “Passenger” instead.  Personally, I find it to be exactly what I thought it would be from the web series, but with an actual narrative.  It’s mysterious, bleakly surreal, and subtly eerie.  A suitable combination that’ll impress or bore casual moviegoers, yet offers plenty to hold in high regard for its craft and visual horror.

“Backrooms” isn’t the type of horror movie that relies on traditional jump scares throughout its runtime.  There are a couple of them, but not to the point of being frustrating.  Instead, Parsons relies solely on liminal environments and their disturbing nature, both psychological and visual, to make audiences feel uneasy about this odd dimension, similar to what he did in his web series.  Of course, it’s not just the distorted, yellowish maze that was the least of our concerns, but also the gradual anxiety of someone or “something” that may be following us.  It’s this psychological fear of the unknown that makes characters question whether they’re actually safe, like a bad dream they're trying to wake up from.  Much as he did with the source material, Kane Parsons plays both of his strengths very well, proving that an eerily unique experience like “Backrooms” can translate well to the big screen.  Even the found-footage sequences were genuinely tense, faithfully replicating the 90s camera style from the web series with precision.  I might even say that they were the best parts of the movie, mainly because they actually feel like a “Backrooms” episode, but in cinema form.  As for the production design for the Backrooms dimension, it’s as distorted, unusual, and enigmatic as I’d expect from a fictional creepypasta-like place.  

But what about the scenes outside the found-footage sequences, you ask?  Well, it’s very clear that Parsons has been taking inspiration from other horror directors regarding his vision.  One obvious factor is, again, the reliance on psychological and environmental terror over cheap jump scares.  Given its concept, this could’ve been an easy opportunity to include as many jump scares as possible, but no, sir.  Parsons only placed them in scenes that made the most sense, and, admittedly, a couple got me good.  Were they as frightening as the scares in “Obsession”?  Not really, but at least it’s better than getting jump-scared by a random squirrel or something.  When it comes to craftsmanship, this is undoubtedly another well-made horror film that blends its panning and still-frame shots from Jeremy Cox’s cinematography with haunting imagery and dimly lit lighting effects.  Parsons gets lots of credit for staying true to the vision that made him and his web series viral sensations, but he has also become another filmmaker who blends craft with unnerving horror, even if it’s far from perfect.

Yes, I do mean that this movie isn’t perfect because, as I said, it’s the type of movie that’ll either impress or bore casual viewers out of their minds.  This is evident in the story, or in this case, Will Soodik’s screenplay.  This is more of an extended episode of the “Backrooms” series in film format, with the usual structure of its “found footage” episodes included.  Within this structure, the movie tends to fit in a traditional narrative involving Clark’s psychological descent and Mary’s rescue mission amid her childhood trauma.  While it avoids some familiar narrative trappings in modern horror, its approach to its themes and cryptic elements didn’t achieve the intended impact, given the discomforting nature of the surroundings.  It’s still a consistently compelling outlook of a person’s psychological condition, whether from trauma or something even more dangerous.  However, as a blend of traditional and elevated horror, “Backrooms” falls a bit short of being another perfectly terrifying and challenging masterpiece, with some scares being hit-or-miss.  It’s better to think of “Backrooms” as a cinematic haunted-house experience rather than a story-driven scare-fest, which may or may not help adjust your expectations.  Although I thought it would work better with just the same structure used for the series’s “found footage” episodes, what they brought to the table alongside the “found footage” scenes was good enough to endure. 

Regarding its cast, the only highlights for me were its leads: Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve.  Ejiofor’s previous projects have proven he’s another worthy actor to keep an eye on, mainly regarding his talents and ability to convey certain characters’ behaviors.  “Backrooms” has the actor portraying Clark as a store owner who lost everything, such as his architectural career and his wife, leading to his psychological downfall.  The result is yet another superb performance that showcases Ejiofor’s ability to convey a character’s behavioral traits.  It’s subtle, but it also creates a sense of unease in Clark’s behavior, making him more of a tragic protagonist than a hero.  Renate Reinsve also did a great job with her performance as a therapist attempting to rescue her patient, capturing Mary’s subtle anxiety to a tee.  Before that, I only saw Reinsve in “Sentimental Value”, where she was one of the movie’s best parts despite its lengthy runtime.  So it was nice to see her get more acting opportunities after that award-nominated performance.  Finn Bennett and Lukita Maxwell were also solid as Clark’s employees, although they don’t make much of an impact compared to the movie’s leads, other than following Clark into the dimension.

Overall, “Backrooms” is an eerily compelling and visually moody expansion of the popular web series that emphasizes its discomforting oddity through visual horror and dreamlike unsettlement.  This is another solid example of genre filmmaking that makes a rising star out of its YouTuber-turned-filmmaker, as Kane Parsons faithfully adapts his liminal horror phenomenon with creative flair and surreally atmospheric dread.  However, its blend of traditional genre narrative and elevated horror was pretty scarce in generating as much impact as its premise, and most of its scares aren’t as effective as others.  Regardless, it works best as an engaging, well-crafted haunted house experience that underscores a promising future for Parsons as a filmmaker beyond his YouTube videos.  More importantly, it further proves that the fresh faces of horror storytelling are still out there, even from our computer screens.  As I mentioned earlier, fans of the “Backrooms” series will certainly want to jump back into this strange and creepily unique dimension.  As for those who prefer getting jump-scared every five minutes, they might want to remain in the real world.