As a huge Jason Statham fan, I was somewhat disappointed by the balance between drama and action in his latest vehicle, SHELTER. It’s slower and darker than most of his body(-slamming) of work. Here he’s a recluse living solo with his dog on a small island off the dreary Scottish coast, with only a small shack and decommissioned lighthouse. His only dealing with other humans is a boat that brings supplies once a week. Jessie (Bodie Rae Breathnach), the girl who delivers them, is supposed to just drop the box and leave without even seeing him. Her one attempt at conversation is curtly rebuffed.
That solitude falls apart when a sudden storm swamps Jessie’s boat, forcing him to rescue the girl and treat her injuries. He really doesn’t want to leave the island, but eventually must to get medical supplies. That’s when he’s picked up by ever-vigilant government agents who monitor the ubiquitous security cameras throughout what’s left of the Empire. He’s on Her/His Majesty’s terrorist watch list, so the heavy-duty pursuit begins. A retired spy network mucky-muck (Bill Nighy) has his own surveillance system (which even monitors the government’s), and his own agenda. We soon learn that Jason isn’t really a terrorist, but has been framed, which is why he’s been in hiding for a decade, or so. Not much of a surprise there. It’s Jason-freakin’-Statham! We already knew there ain’t no way he’s gonna be the bad guy!
So one faction deploys all their assets to arrest him, and one sends meaner minions to kill him. And Jessie, while they’re at it, since she’s seen too much of this top-secret stuff. The rest is a chase with almost enough action to satisfy Jason’s fans. His backstory is that he’s got super-lethal skills akin to his eponymous character in THE BEEKEEPER, allowing him to contend with vastly superior forces, while having to protect Jessie along the way.
Two problems. One is that most of the fights occur in dark settings, obscuring the action. The main reason for any butts plopping down on those theater seats is to watch Jason go all Statham-y on hordes of baddies in vivid detail. Shame on director Roman Waugh for undercutting his most valuable asset. The dude’s helmed enough action flicks to know better. The second is that Jessie’s character is written (also by Waugh) as annoyingly whiny, imposing too much dialog and too many moody silences on what couldda shouldda been a faster-paced adventure, as THE BEEKEEPER and A WORKING MAN were within the last two years. This plays out as if it were written for someone like Liam Neeson, who typically has more quiet, thoughtful stretches between his action scenes.
So, if Stathamians (Stathamites?) lower their adrenaline expectations, they can still find this worth the time. If not, then hope for BEEKEEPER 2: THE RETURN OF THE HIVE, or some other project that better serves The Master.
SHELTER opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 30, 2026.
After last weekend’s brutal winter storm, aren’t you dreaming of a getaway to a tropical island where you’re not wrenching your back shoveling snow or scraping ice off of your car’s windshield? Ah, but what if it’s deserted, with little to no chance of leaving (if only that old boat that’s got “S.S. MINNOW” painted on its side didn’t have that nasty hole in it hull)? And forget about any rescue ships arriving. Perhaps you’re not alone, at least that makes things more bearable. But what if it’s that co-worker you can’t stand? Or trust? These are all things to ponder while basking away in the warmth of your multiplex while watching at least one of these “stranded castaways” make several attempts to SEND HELP.
One part of that duo is introduced in the film’s opening scenes, Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams). She’s a thirty-something single lady who spends most of her evenings devouring episodes of the TV series “Survivor” with her pet bird, when she’s not prepping for the next day. She’s “workin’ 9 to 5” as a bean counter “cog” at a big investment firm downtown. Its owner has just passed, leaving the company to his arrogant, entitled son, Bradley Preston (Dylan O’Brien). Linda’s all prepared to be appointed the new vice-president, due to her skills, seniority, and a promise from the late Mr. Preston. But naturally, the VP promotion goes to one of Bradley’s “frat bros”. Linda confronts Bradley, who really wants to axe her. However, he’s told of her invaluable “number-crunching”, so she’s spared. This also gets her an invite on the private jet to Bangkok to help seal the deal on a big merger. But these skies are far from friendly, as a storm cripples the aircraft, plunging it into the sea. Linda survives and awakens on the shore of what appears to be a large, lush, deserted island. As she has been researching and training to audition for her fave TV show, she’s in her element. And…she’s not alone. Further down the beach is her injured boss Bradley. Linda tends to the wounds of the ungrateful CEO, while locating food and building a shelter. The two clash, as it becomes clear that in this place, Linda is the boss. Can they work and live together? And does Linda really want to be rescued and return to her dreary life slaving for the obnoxious BP?
As you’ve probably guessed, this is basically a two character study, though enlivened with plenty of action and suspense. At the heart of it is Linda Liddle superbly brought to life by the talented McAdams. Though she’s mainly known for dramas, she expertly delivers her best comedy performance since the original MEAN GIRLS (that can’t be 22 years ago). She’s endearingly awkward and klutzy in the story’s first act, establishing Liddle as socially inept and dripping with “flopsweat” through her “bargain basement” attire. I was reminded of Michelle Pfieffer’s Selina in BATMAN RETURNS. And like her, trauma changes Liddle (the plane crash here) into someone completely different, full of purpose and drive. And often very intimidating. McAdams succeeds at turning our chuckles into gasps, almost reaching through the screen to pull us in (I’m guessing the 3D version works well). Luckily she’s got a superb scene, and island, partner with the versatile rising star O’Brien. I sang his praises a couple of years ago for his remarkable recreations of young Dan Aykroyd in SATURDAY NIGHT. Since then, he was also compelling in TWINLESS (but let’s forget ANNIVERSARY, shall we). As with McAdams, his take on Bradley is a comic horrible boss straight out of many workplace romps in act one. We even see some of his snark and venom-spewing attitude in his beach rescue. Somehow, O’Brien is able to turn it around, and have us in his corner, for a bit. Then we see that his seeming change of heart masks plenty of dark intentions. His vulnerability his another mask to cloud his cruelty. These are two charismatic screen actors in top form.
And who’s “pulling their strings”? Why, it’s none other than the glorious genre movie-making mastermind Sam Raimi. Actually, he’s got his fingerprints all over it, delighting and engaging us with his manic storytelling style, full of dark, almost pitch black, comic set pieces (somehow the plane crash is harrowing and hysterical), heightened by his still energetic compositions that careen from big close-ups (that tuna fish on Linda’s chin) to the sweeping island panoramas (take in the ragged cliffs). Those paying close attention will be rewarded by several of his endearing “call backs” (look at the office wall and the parking garage) that clearly set this in the quirky “Raimi-verse”, much like his last foray in the “Marvel-verse”. Be forewarned that he doesn’t hold back on the blood, guts, and mayhem (yes, there are native wildlife in the tall grass). And there are still lots of narrative “tricks” up the sleeve of this directing “prankster” as he makes good “pop pulp” out of the clever, twisty script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift. Plus, two of Raimi’s stalwarts, cinematographer Bill Pope (making both the gleaming offices and lush beaches glisten) and composer extraordinaire Danny Elfman lift the film up with their artistry. Couple that with some vibrant visual effect magic and startling stunts and Raimi, along with McAdams and O’Brien, bring lots of energy (Sam’s been at this for five decades now) and a very entertaining take on cinematic castaway tropes (a nice mix of the Hanks classic, along with SWEPT AWAY and MISERY) in SEND HELP.
3.5 Out of 4
SEND HELP opens in theatres everywhere on Friday, January 30, 2026
Amanda Siegfried gives a powerful and fearless performance in this drama based on the true story of Ann Lee, the founder of Shaker religious community in 1774 Colonial America. Director/co-writer Mona Fastvold’s historical drama THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE depicts both the life and legend of Ann Lee, the leading light of this religious movement in Britain and then the New World, a faith community known now mostly it’s creation of beautiful practical objects and its lovely hymns, but which also preached gender and social class equality, worshiped through dance and song, and embraced a celibate communal life.
Director Mona Fastvold was inspired to make this historical drama after hearing Shaker songs, and the film is a musical of sorts, with music inspired by Shaker hymns and choreography that recalls the Shakers’ wild religiously ecstatic, whole-body movement way of worship. The musical scenes are striking and integrated logically into the film as moments of worship, using traditional Shaker hymns for choreography by Celia Rowlson-Hall (Vox Lux) that re-imagines the rapturous movements of Shakers rather than strictly recreating them.
Director/co-writer Mona Fastvold and her film-making partner Brady Corbet are the creative team who made THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE, but they were also the creative pair behind last year’s THE BRUTALIST. While the architect character in that film was fictional, Ann Lee was a real person, a historical figure that Fastvold felt deserved more attention, a rare woman religious leader in the late 1700s who rose to head a religious following in England, and then established the religious community in America, just as the country was being born. Like the pair’s previous film, THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE features outstanding cinematography, great acting, and a moving story.
Fastvold leans into the myth and legend of Ann Lee rather than focusing only on facts, although the film is basically historically accurate, apart from a little time shifting for dramatic purposes.
However, it must be said that it is very helpful to already know something about the Shakers beyond that they made beautiful, elegant furniture and wrote a lovely hymn, “Simple Gifts,” that composer Aaron Copeland used in “Appalachian Spring.” The film is light on exposition, despite having a narrator, and really does not give much information on the Shakers until some title cards at the film’s end. Yes, it can be considered a flaw that the film assumes you know more about the Shakers, but a little advance research does enhance the viewing of this ambitious and worthwhile biographical film.
This true story is dramatic, but Amanda Siegfried gives a strikingly raw, no-holds-barred performance as this female religious leader, something very rare then. All this takes place during an era of new utopian religious communities, many of which were drawn to rural Colonial America. People who didn’t fit in to European societies were often drawn to these new faiths.
Thomasin McKenzie narrates, a bit in the style of a myth, the sometimes raw, unblinking, emotional biographical drama. It tells Ann Lee’s story in three parts, beginning with her impoverished childhood in grimy, rough Manchester. The film takes us through Ann Lee’s introduction to and then ascendancy in the British Quaker offshoot then known as the Shaking Quakers, and then to her founding of the Shaker community in Colonial America.
Ann was the second oldest of eight children. With their mother dead, their blacksmith father struggles to make a living, even with a second job as a tailor. Ann and the older children are expected to help out and earn extra cash with little tasks where they can. There is no money for education. Even as a child, Ann is deeply religious, and very close to her younger brother William, and offended and appalled by the sinfulness she see all around her in gritty Manchester.
In the film’s second part, Ann (Amanda Seyfried), now grown, is looking for something more life-changing than the Quaker faith of her family. Hearing about a new branch of the Quakers, called the “Shaking Quakers,” who embrace worshiping through shaking dance and chanting and have more radical beliefs about equality, she and her brother William (Lewis Pullman) seek them out. There they find a spiritual home, and new ideas. Ann also meets the man who became her husband Abraham Standerin (Christopher Abbott). With her fervent belief and charismatic personality, Ann Lee, despite being illiterate, rises in the congregation to become its leader.
In the third part, Ann’s bold, and loud, public worship makes her a target of British authorities, which lands her in jail and an asylum. The persecution ultimately leads her to decide, 1774, to move to Colonial America, along with a group of followers, to establish a utopian Shaker community in rural New York. Meanwhile, after losing all four of her children in birth or shortly after, Ann at the same time concludes that God is telling her that sex is the Original Sin, which leads her proclaim that and tell her followers that renouncing it is the only path to salvation.
This third portion of the film focuses on Ann after this point and as she establishes their utopian Shaker community in pre-Revolutionary, and then Revolutionary, America.
One of the most striking aspects of this film is Amanda Seyfried’s wild, fierce, fearless performance. Be warned that some scenes are unblinkingly, harshly realistic or even, with the birth scenes, bordering on graphic. Another striking aspect are the highly-choreographed singing and dancing sequences. They represent the Shaker’s form of worship, but are certainly not an authentic depiction, although they are beautiful and moving. Yet another aspect to note is the filmmaker’s embrace of myth and tales of Ann Lee almost on an equal footing with the known facts about her, although it mostly follows those.
Still, this is a remarkable film, notable for its visual beauty, remarkable cinematography and powerful performances, making it a film worthy of your time as it throws a spotlight on this too-little known female leader of a religious movement.
THE TESTMENT OF ANN LEE opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
MOTHER OF FLIES is a low-budget horror flick that plays out as a sordid endurance test for both the cast and audience, as it straddles the fence between the psychological and supernatural, without delivering on either. It’s a product of the Adams family, written and directed by John, daughter Zelda and wife Toby Poser; starring that trio, plus their other daughter, Lulu. They are not to be confused in any way with the more familiar, and noticeably superior, Addams family. The missing “d” seemingly makes quite a difference.
The plot follows a grieving woman who retreats into isolation after a personal loss, taking refuge in a decaying rural house that quickly becomes less a sanctuary than a cauldron. As her mental state deteriorates, the environment reflects it: rot creeps into every corner; flies proliferate; her own body becomes another site of infestation. That dangled suspense of insanity vs. the supernatural remains vague – presumably by design.
What could have been a marketable premise turns out confusing and dull. Scenes stretch on forever, not because they’re tense or meaningful, but because no one apparently was objective enough to do some editing. No member of the clan could snip another’s dialog or screen time without offending the rest of the household, and ruining the next Thanksgiving. The camera lingers with more familial pride than dramatic purpose. Grotesque images feel inserted or exaggerated for shock value, more than narrative enhancement.
In terms of the performances, the cast is trapped in monotones. There’s no escalation, no modulation—just suffering, presented as a moral achievement. Dialogue is mercifully sparse, but the visuals between talky bits are nothing special. They rely on tropes – rot as metaphor, insects as symbolism, silence as seriousness, etc.
By the time MOTHER OF FLIES slogs its way to the finish line, it brings more relief than enlightenment, leaving us a package that’s less disturbing than exhausting. This one’s unfortunately short on both the sizzle and the steak. All of which is really a shame. This is the family’s fourth collaboration. I haven’t seen the previous three, but note they earned favorable ratings on IMDb, which supports my belief that they have more to offer than this one displays. Enough so that I plan to check out the others.
MOTHER OF FLIES is available streaming on Shudder starting Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
I would say that it’s unusual for a somber set-in-the-UK drama based on a memoir (yes, it’s all true) to be released three weeks into the new year, well past awards noms deadline, but further research has revealed that this did get a one-week run in a US theater last month to be considered for the accolades. And so far, bupkis (we’ll see early Thursday morning). Of course, that’s no reflection on this film’s quality or merits. Still, its title suggests a whimsical “nature-bonding” story ala THE PENGUIN LESSONS or countless canine sagas. Now, that species connection factors in, but the heart of the story is a woman’s emotional journey in H IS FOR HAWK.
The woman at this story’s center is a research (mostly science history) fellow at Jesus College, Cambridge named Helen Macdonald (Claire Foy). On a blustery day in 2007, she’s birdwatching in the nearby countryside. As she heads home, she phones her photojournalist father Alisdair (Brendan Gleeson) with news that she spotted a pair of goshawks (a rare sighting). Dad cuts the call short as he must head to a London assignment. That evening, at her on-campus housing home, Helen meets another academic, Christina (Denise Gough) for dinner. On the way out, Helen gets a phone call that changes everything: her adored papa succumbed to a fatal heart attack in the city. Helen’s life goes into a tailspin, indecisive about pursuing a three-year position in Germany, which squelches her new romance. She then has an epiphany and knocks on the door of an old friend named Stu (Sam Spruell). Years before, both had been ardent members of a falconry society. He’s still involved (his bird is perched in his kitchen), so Helen asks him for intel on getting back in. But she doesn’t want a falcon. Instead, Helen wants to train the more difficult, spirited goshawk. Stu hooks her up with a seller, and soon the bird she names Mabel is taking up her every spare moment. Quickly the bond between the two becomes so intense that Helen is neglecting her classes and ignoring calls and visits from friends. And then the school administrators tell her that this type of “pet” isn’t allowed in college quarters. Can Helen continue to train and hunt with Mabel? And could this be a way for Helen to escape her grief rather than facing it and moving forward with her life?
This exploration into the art and skill of falconry becomes a compelling showcase for the gifted Foy. We’ve seen her excellent supporting work in films like FIRST MAN and WOMEN TALKING, but we’ve really not seen her carry the emotional weight of a film’s lead performance (though I’m told she was excellent as Queen Elizabeth II in the streaming series, “The Crown”). Foy shows us the vibrant, engaged Helen in the early scenes of her birdwatching and lecturing her class, but with her loss we see the light in her eyes suddenly dim. Not even a romantic online fling brings that spark back, until Mabel literally swoops in. Then Foy shows us another side of Helen, with an overriding obsession that almost seals her off from the world. It’s a tricky balancing act as Helen elicits our sympathy while often frustrating us, and Foy is more than up to the complex challenges. Happily we’re treated to several flashbacks of her opposite the always engaging Gleeson as her lovably gruff, but warm and encouraging papa, perhaps a near perfect “girl dad”. It’s quite a contrast to Helen’s maternal connections with her mum, played with subtle restraint and grace by Lindsay Duncan. We see that the loss of her soulmate has drained her, though she also yearns to share the grief with her increasingly distant daughter. Spruell is strong as Helen’s her birding buddy Stu as he tries to help train Mabel while attempting to calm the always anxious Helen. Speaking of pals, Gough (so wonderful on another streaming show, “Andor”) is also very effective as co-worker confidant Christina, who wants to be a “lifeline” to her floundering chum as she tries to understand her increasing withdrawl into mania.
The impressive ensemble is guided by director Phillipa Lowthrope, working from Emma Donoghue’s screenplay adaptation of Helen Macdonald’s acclaimed memoir. Lowthrope keeps us engaged, as the backdrops suddenly switch from ancient academia to the glories of the countryside. And those scenes of Helen working (she insists that they’re partners in the hunts) with the gorgeous, intense (her glare) Mabel truly soar. A sequence in the deep woods of Mabel swooping in on a very unlucky rabbit is haunting (there’s a drone crew in the credits that were really “on their toes”). While these scenes are worthy of any lauded nature docuseries, it’s the very human drama at the center of the story that’s truly compelling. This is such a well-crafted exploration of the impact of mourning on someone grieving, though it offers no easy fixes. In less works, the introduction of an “animal partner” would be the needed “remedy”, but here we see how the distracting fixation can cut a person out of the human (rat) race. Some viewers may be a bit put off by the rather open-ended finale, but life can’t always be “wrapped up in a bow” to facilitate a desired “happy ending”. That idea and the winning performance of Foy really enables H IS FOR HAWK to spread its wings and take flight.
3 Out of 4
H IS FOR HAWK opens in select theatres on Friday, January 23, 2026
Screens! Aargh! There’s the bane of modern life, for many in the older generations (guilty, as charged), and the source of a new challenge to parents (as they must battle their offspring over “limiting screen time”). Well, according to this new thriller set in the not too distant future, the “screen reliance” will only strengthen. That’s because, in this story’s plot, they can literally be the deciding factor between life and death. By legal execution. Yes, this is a science fiction-tinged tale of crime and really quick punishment. And with this “ice cold” tech advance, there’s little room on the legal system’s “hard drive” for even a gigabyte of MERCY.
Before the mystery really kicks in, we’re treated to a brief prologue explaining this radically new and improved (?) world of 2029. It seems that crime was overwhelming the “city of angels” with entire “ever-expanding” blocks cordoned off as “red zones”, packed with the dregs (addicts, career criminals) of society. To stem the tide, the court system is given an extreme “overhaul” for those accused of capital crime (mainly murder). Every device (phones, security cameras, monitors) are linked to the “cloud” so that when a suspected assailant is observed, the police scoop them up, and whisk them to the monolith Mercy building in downtown LA. They are strapped to a chair in front of a huge screen that lets them interact with an AI judge (and no jury of their peers). They are given 90 minutes to reduce the probability of guilt icon to 92%. If that number can’t be reached, the prisoner is given a lethal shock through that chair. As the backstory ends, the main action shifts to a large empty room where a groggy Chris Raven (Chris Pratt) awakens in that dreaded chair. He is then told by digital Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson) that he is accused of killing his wife Nicole (Annabelle Wallis). Raven is stunned, since he has no memory of that or of being arrested. Oh, and he’s a cop, the police detective that brought in the first person to be tried and found guilty by Mercy (which has reduced the murder rat, so far, to 68%). Things don’t look promising for him as he sees various screen grabs of him getting into a heated argument with her before “falling off the wagon” and being violently subdued (hence the poor recall) at a local “watering hole”. That ninety-minute clock is ticking fast, so Raven gets “up to speed” by contacting his AA sponsor Rob (Chris Sullivan) and his angry teen daughter Britt (Kylie Rogers), who discovered her mom’s body. With help on those mean streets from his current LAPD partner Jaq (Kali Reis) can Raven untangle this twisty “frame job” before his “trial time” runs out, and he is roasted and toasted by “ole’ Sparkey’?
Though he’s “the guy in the chair”, Pratt ably holds our interest, communicating the plight of Raven though his vocal intonations and facial expressions (no body language to read here). Plus, he’s not cruising by with his engaging charm, giving us the dramatic heft missing with much of his post-Starlord roles in direct-to-streaming shows. He can even keep us in doubt as to Raven’s guilt (most of the time). Now “the lady on the big monitor screen” (accented in black naturally), is the terrific Ferguson who we just saw reacting to screens in A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE. Here’s she’s almost as limited as Pratt, since the AI judge is incapable of expressing any emotion (to a point). Yet, she intimidates with her strict adherence to protocols (and her programming), and stubbornness with Raven (raising the guilt percentage ruthlessly), though she almost smiles when called “your honor”. Sullivan embodies the caring sponsor/pal who wants to help, but thinks Raven is guilty. Ditto for Rogers, though she’s full of rage and tears. And much of that is true for Reis, who will fly into the fire for her partner, despite her pessimistic persona. There’s also some strong supporting work from Kenneth Choi as raven’s former partner and BFF, along with Jeff Pierre as a slippery stranger with a link to Raven’s wife.
Now, here’s a nifty idea on the police procedural/crime “whodunit”. Perhaps it may be the only months away dystopian future that recalls MINORITY REPORT, ROBOCOP, and the various incarnations of JUDGE DREDD (comics and films) that makes the plot seem fresh. That cynical take on tomorrow’s lawmen even provides a knowing satirical wink at the current political climate. The use of the various screens is pretty inventive as we watch Raven furiously figuring out a way to exonerate himself while tracking down the killer. Director Timur Bekmambetov juggles the various images (much like his last computer thriller PROFILE), with some reality TV-like dust-ups and some nifty gadgets (there are single-sized police copter/drones). Unfortunately he tosses these elements aside in the last twenty or so minutes to indulge in some “destruction porn” out of the FAST & FURIOUS franchise, with a dash of THE BLUES BROTHERS (I image Michael Bay telling him to “reign it in” a bit). Any semblance of subtlety and drama is replaced by near non-stop carnage and urban mayhem. It’s quite exhausting, and a real shame since there are some interesting concepts and commentary for much of MERCY.
“Are we the good guys?” – Lieutenant Dane Dumars (Matt Damon)
Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have been friends since they were in elementary school, and now they’re bringing that friendship to Netflix. The duo are reteaming for the new crime thriller The Rip, from writer-director Joe Carnahan (Narc, Smokin’ Aces, Copshop, Boss Level). Also coming along for the ride are Steven Yeun, Kyle Chandler, Teyana Taylor, Catalina Sandino Moreno, and Sasha Calle; the film is produced by Artists Equity, the studio-led studio that Damon and Affleck founded in 2022.
If you think you’re going to walk in and figure this one out while watching, I must say, you probably aren’t. The story has more twists and turns than a Monaco race track, and you catch on pretty quick that nothing is as it seems. The pacing is smooth, the dialogue is tight and economical, the action does NOT disappoint either. It may be a Netflix movie, but it really could have killed at the box office. I like Carnahan’s movies, and this is amongst his best. The chemistry with Affleck and Damon has not diminished with time, and the supporting cast all pull their weight with them. It’s definitely the edge-of-your seat action one wants from a crime drama, and the settings all feel like they could stand up to much bigger budget movies.
Beware: spoilers ahead, so if you don’t want to know too much, save the below for later.
THE RIP follows Damon – Lieutenant Dane Dumars – and Affleck – Detective Sergeant J.D. Byrne – as Miami cop partners who find themselves in a sticky situation after their team finds $24 million stashed away in a safehouse. Required by law to count the money before leaving the scene, the cops and their team must survive the night — and each other. Plus the team is already on edge — and under FBI investigation — after the murder of their captain, Jackie Velez (Lina Esco).
And they find the police informant in the house, Dumars and Byrne’s first instinct is soon proven correct: The money is from the cartel.
Desi (Sasha Calle), the home’s owner, is an unwitting pawn in the organization’s game. The cartel paid Desi to place buckets of cash in the attic of her new home, inherited from her recently deceased grandmother. With plenty of funeral and medical expenses to pay, it was an offer the young woman couldn’t refuse. Partner turns on partner, bullets start flying, and the cartel is on the prowl. When threatening phone calls start coming through and the house is hit with a barrage of bullets, the team naturally blames the cartel. But a nighttime chase quickly resolves that question. Byrne finds common cause with the cartel lookout who was communicating through the porch light. He even helps him run off the real culprits and coordinates a phone conversation with his cartel chief (Sal Lopez), who convinces Byrne and Dumars that the cartel didn’t fire a shot.
“The Rip came out of a deeply personal experience that my friend went through, both as a father and as head of tactical narcotics for the Miami Dade police department,” Carnahan explains. “It’s inspired in part by his life and then, by my enduring love for those classic ‘70’s cop thrillers that really valued the character and interpersonal relationships and became touchstones of that era — films like Serpico and Prince of The City and more recently, Michael Mann’s Heat.”
The viewer will discover that there are details in the movie drawn directly from officer Chris Casiano’s true story that inspired the film. The final piece of tension emerges from a procedural detail: will the rip’s final total match the count performed by the Tactical Narcotics Team? It does, to the dime: $20,650,480.
Dumars says goodbye to Desi, and reveals the truth behind his tattoos. They’re not a somber reminder of his duty, necessarily. They’re a memorial to his son. “Are we the good guys?” was the last thing his son said to him; “We are and always will be” was the last thing he said to his son.
Shot masterfully by cinematographer Juanmi Azpiroz, the film is filled with gunfights, car chases, and rooftop shootouts. This is The Rip. You won’t want to miss it.
Dacre Montgomery as Richard and Bill Skarsgard as Tony, in Gus Van Sant’s DEAD MAN’S WIRE. Courtesy of Row K Entertainment
It has been seven years since we saw a film from Gus Van Sant but the director comes back strong with DEAD MAN’S WIRE, an impressive crime thriller/drama based on a bizarre real hostage incident in late 1970s Indianapolis. In 1977, an aspiring businessman, Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard), who felt cheated by his mortgage lender, took the company’s manager hostage, by attaching a shotgun to his neck with a looped wire, while the gun’s trigger was wired to the kidnapper’s body, so that if a sniper killed the kidnapper, the hostage would die too. The method has since called a dead man’s wire. Gus Van Sant uses this real event to craft a tense, thriller film, laced with a dark humor that built on the absurdity of the situation, but also human drama that touches on issues of despair and desperation, economic unfairness, and shady business dealings. DEAD MAN’S WIRE is a technically impressive film as well as working as both a gripping entertainment thriller and commentary on slanted economic system.
Much of this crazy real event was captured on film by news camera, which was shot continuously during the 63 hour standoff with the kidnapper. The engrossing historic thriller is given an authenticity by director Gus Van Sant who captures the feel of 1977, by carefully reproducing the 1970s styles and visual aesthetics of the time period, and most strikingly by recreating the look of TV news and shows of the era, in this film. The visuals so closely match the actual archival footage of the real event, snippets of which Van Sant inserts into his film. The event took place during a transitional moment in how news is covered, and the event is still taught in schools of journalism as an example of news reporting crossing a line to escalate a situation. It adds an eerie level to this already atmospheric, darkly comic thriller/drama.
The film does not condone the kidnapper’s actions but Bill Skarsgard’s masterful performance gives us insights on someone driven to the edge, after being taken advantage of by his unscrupulous, wealthy lender. Austin Kolodney’s script speaks to “Everyman” issues of economic inequality and an unfair system skewed to favor the already rich, a topic that particularly resonates today. There are echoes of DOG DAY AFTERNOON in this film, as well as other “little guy” against the system tales, of someone driven over the edge by circumstances. While DEAD MAN’S WIRE is based on a true story, the drama/thriller goes in unexpected directions, and leans into its dark, absurdist humor at times.
Bill Skarsgard gives a striking performance as the odd, even unbalanced Tony Kiritsis, a would-be real estate entrepreneur who relishes the spotlight, which is part of why this film is so involving.
Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard) has reached a desperate state with a mortgage he took out from local lender Meridian Mortgage. The mortgage was not for a home, but a business investment in real estate, property Tony Kiritsis hopes to develop as the location for a shopping mall. Tony had lined up plenty of would-be business tenants but he is puzzled as they fade away and he has trouble securing businesses to lease space. Without those funds, he falls behind on payments, and Tony has grown increasingly frustrated in trying to deal with his lender. When Meridian Mortage’s owner M. L. Hall (Al Pacino) offers to buy the property – for far less than Tony paid – Tony begins to suspect it is his own lender who is re-directing would-be leasers to other sites, sabotaging Tony’s business plan.
Tony’s anger and desperation leads to his plan with the dead man’s wire. The original target was Meridian’s M. L. Hall but instead, Tony ends up taking Hall’s son Richard, who also works for Meridian, hostage. Since this is based on a real event, that is not much of a spoiler, as the real big question is what happens next.
The police are alerted and are almost immediately on the scene, but there is little they can do, with Tony’s “dead man’s wire” shotgun apparatus pointed at Richard Hall’s head and the trigger wired to be pulled if Tony falls. Shooting Tony means killing his hostage too. Hence, Tony is able to take Richard to his apartment unimpeded, where he holds him for several days.
Meanwhile, ambitious young Black TV journalist Linda Page (Myha’la), who happens upon the scene, recruits her cameraman and starts filming the events, despite her boss’ efforts to hand off the assignment to a more experienced (and white, male) reporter. Events unfold that also involve at popular radio DJ, Fred Temple (Colman Domingo) known for his philosophical, Everyman musings on the radio. Tony Kiritsis is a fan, and the police try to use the DJ as a way to reach the kidnapper. Cary Elwes plays plainclothes detective Mike Grable, who was first on the scene, and who tries to be a calming figure to establish rapport with the kidnapper.
This bizarre crime and ensuing police standoff takes on a media circus-like air out in the Midwestern city streets, but the film also spends a lot of time inside Tony’s apartment, with just Tony and Richard, who goes by Dick. Holed up in Tony’s apartment, we get to know both oddball Tony and buttoned-down Richard. Dick is very much under the thumb of his wealthy father. M.L. knew Tony was on the edge, yet M. L. deliberately leaves his son to deal with the loaded situation, while M. L. heads out of town, becoming unavailable for any face-to-face. In truth, Richard is as much exploited by his father M. L. as his client Tony is.
As the hostage situation goes on, a kind of cat-and-mouse relationship evolves between the two men, with the more outgoing Tony even becoming rather friendly towards Richard, in a bit of reverse Stockholm Syndrome. But whether that does Richard any good is another matter. Eventually, Tony issues his demands, which include an apology from M. L. Hall personally.
Skarsgard’s outstanding performance is supported well by the rest of the cast, including particularly Dacre Montgomery, who plays the kidnapped banker Richard Hall. All the cast are good, with Colman Domingo another strong character as the DJ drawn into the situation. The wealthy M.L. Hall is played as distracted and distant by Al Pacino, in a strong performance, and there also is a little parallel to the real-life kidnapping of millionaire J. P. Getty’s grandson here, as negotiations begin.
That shotgun wired to hostage Richard’s neck ensures tensions are constantly high, but the quirkiness of the people involved, the unpredictability of both their nature, and the situation, make this a film where you never know what will happen next. None of this goes like the typical movie hostage situation. No character feels that strangeness more keenly that Coleman Domingo’s radio DJ, recruited as a sort of hostage negotiator, a role he’d rather not play. The ambitions of the young reporter, the determination of the cops, led by Cary Elwes’ Mike Grable, to find a way out, and the pressure on everyone of being on camera and in the public eye constantly adds fuel to the incendiary situation. And remember these are real people and real events, something that Van Sant reminds the audience about by inserting actual footage of the real events.
While some may see the film as anti-capitalist, that is not quite an accurate description, as the “common man” at its center is also a businessman, even if he is not too successful. Instead, DEAD MAN’S WIRE, in part, is more commentary on the warping of the American Dream and the old American free enterprise system, an aspirational ideal in a post-WWII world marked by the Marshall Plan, but which came to a crashing end in the “greed is good” 1980s. The old free enterprise system promised a level playing field for even small businesses to compete fairly, and succeed through hard work and good ideas, rather than through a “thumb on the scale” and unscrupulous, deceitful practices. Kiritsis’ his lack of success is not due, per se, to lack of skill in business, but by the tilted playing field upon which he treads, ironically being skewed by his own lender, who in a more ethical world be his ally. Instead, his banker is concealing that his thumb is on the scale, and has plans to turn his client’s misery to his advantage. The film’s themes are less anti-capitalist than anti-unscrupulous, a condemnation of predatory business practices, contrasting human dealings versus dehumanized practices, the latter style one which Al Pacino’s morality-free character represents well.
Gus Van Sant’s DEAD MAN’S WIRE is highly entertaining as a crime thriller, as well as a technically impressive film, and enhanced by first rate performances particularly by Bill Skarsgard in what may be a career best, as well as working as historical drama and commentary on a slanted economic system.
DEAD MAN’S WIRE opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.
Whew, now that is a really quick turnaround for a sequel (they way it sprinted to theatres in just a little over six months, you’d think that it had contracted the “rage”). Usually there’s at least a year between franchise entries, even if they were shot at the same time as the WICKED flicks or even more, like the last two “impossible missions” (who knows if or when we’ll have to endure the conclusion to FAST X). Then, this isn’t your usual “tent pole”, since the original sprinted out in 2002, its first sequel in 2007, then the follow-up last June. That installment was both a box office and critical hit, so a different director and much of the same cast are hoping that audiences will be eager to get out of the January chills and warm themselves by the fiery furnaces of 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE.
When we last saw the preteen loner Spike (Alfie Williams), he was saved from a rage-infected pack by a group of track-suit wearing, platinum-haired young men and women. But as we see in the opening sequence, Spike might have gone from the “frying pan into the fire”, as he must face off against an older young man as his “initiation” into the group called “the Jimmies”. Watching over the duel is their leader, Sir Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell), in his thirties, making him a veteran of the “plague” world. He “fancies” himself to be the son of “ole’ Nick” AKA Satan. Somehow, Spike triumphs, is dubbed the newest “Jimmy”, and is forced to join them in deadly attacks on human survivors on the mainland, encounters that end with Sir Jimmy orchestrating acts of barbaric cruelty. Meanwhile, Dr. Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is still tending to the title “Bone Temple”, or “memento mori” dedicated to the dead, the bone towers flanking a massive spire of human skulls. Kelson’s daily routine is broken up by visits (more like roaring attacks) from the hulking “alpha” of the infected, whom he dubs “Samson” (Chi Lewis-Parry). Those encounters turn into a game as Kelson waits until the giant is nearly upon him before using a long tube to blow a dart full of his special sedative, that renders Samson docile. The doctor soon comes to the conclusion that Samson actually welcomes the “rest” and often joins him for a brief “nap”. Kelson then begins to experiment on Samson and somehow is able to counteract the “rage”. However, his research may soon be disrupted when he and his sanctuary are discovered by the Jimmies. What happens when the worlds of these survivors clash? Who will claim the land, Sir Jimmy, Dr. Kelson, or perhaps Samson?
Probably the greatest performance from the last entry was from the gifted Fiennes as the somewhat still sane medical man, somehow learning to adapt to the hellscape of the plague -ridden countryside. Here he actually builds on that work (last time we didn’t meet him until well past the halfway mark), adding some new “layers” to this lonely soul. He shows us that Kelson is yearning for a real human connection, even if it’s with a “zonked out” behemoth. Plus, we get to see a bit of his eccentric side, as his main joy comes from his love of his 80s pop records. Fiennes captures our attention in every one of his scenes (he’s got a long overdue date with Oscar). His character’s “inverse” may be the charismatic O’Connell as the cunning, cruel, and still a bit charming Sir Jimmy. He may be the “wildest card” in the twisted pack of Jimmies, who has a teen idol’s swagger while putting a Manson-like spell on his faithful followers. After his splendid work last year as the “boss vamp” in SINNERS, O’Connell is quite the engaging movie monster. Williams commands our interests and elicits our sympathies as Spike, still a boy, as he tries to survive this world and his still painful family loss. Luckily, he’s got a caring surrogate “big sis” in the enigmatic Erin Kellyman as “Jimmy Ink”, the gang’s “enforcer” who has freed herself from the “cult” of Sir Jimmy. Kudos also to the compelling physical presence of Lewis-Parry who gives some unexpected vulnerability, showing us that like the Frankenstein monster, he could have his cloudy savagery cleansed by a bit of kindness.
Earlier I mentioned that this installment boasts a different director. Taking the reins from Danny Boyle is the versatile, visually elegant Nia DaCosta (after last year’s “chamber drama” HEDDA). She clues us in, with the searing brutality of “Spike’s test” that this second act of a planned final trilogy, won’t dance around its violent, visceral origins. In other words, the blood does flow, like a red storm over the gorgeous green English countryside. The screenwriter of last June’s entry, Alex Garland, does return with a tale that echoes several horror survival themes, showing us how the uninfected humans can be more deadly than the screaming charging hordes. We’re even given an “origin story” set at the beginning s of the “rage”, reminding us that these mindless monsters were exactly like us. What really surprised me this time was the unexpected bursts of very dark, nearly pitch black, humor, especially in the final showdown. Ah, but it’s not really “final” as an epilogue promises another glorious glimpse into this altered Earth. Let’s hope our next visit, probably not a quick seven months wait, will be as well produced and as full of conflict and compassion as 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE.
3.5 Out of 4
28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE opens in theaters everywhere on Thursday, January 15, 2026
Will Arnett stars as Alex, a middle-aged man grappling with the news that his wife is leaving him, who happens into a bar on open-mic night for stand-up comedy. Mistaking him for one of the would-be comedians, Alex suddenly finds himself in front of a mic, and suddenly, the guy who works in finance and has no performance experience, finds a new door opening for him.
Bradley Cooper directs IS THIS THING ON?, a dramedy in which he plays a supporting part as well. The plot is built around a divorce story but it is the comedy club and the amateur comedians who are the real heart of the film.
Will Arnett’s Alex is married to Tess (Laura Dern), a former elite athlete, and they have three kids together. Alex is blindsided when Tess announces she is leaving, to launch a career as a coach, and he seems at a loss what to do with himself. He seems to accept the coming divorce rather than fight it but has no idea how to move forward. Stand-up comedy isn’t even on his radar.
Yet when doing a favor for someone takes him to this bar, he seems to just as passively accept when they call his name and say “you’re next” at the mic. Clearly not a shy person or someone afraid to talk in front of strangers, he tries to be funny but mostly just talks about his crumbling marriage, in a dry, slightly ironic way. It isn’t exactly funny and the audience gives polite applause at most, but suddenly, he’s hooked.
Several films have tried to delve into stand-up comedy, but IS THIS THING ON? takes a kind of backdoor approach by focusing on someone going through a divorce who falls into stand-up. Alex has no prior ambitions to do comedy, and just kind of stumbles in, finds himself front of a mic and a crowd, and decides he likes it there. Not a bad start.
The divorce plot forms the framework for the film, and that story follows a familiar path. It hits all the expected marks:: dad Alex having to figure out cooking and manage household chores, both of them figuring out how to co-parent and co-ordinate schedules, and so forth. While the split takes Alex by surprise, and it is not something he wants, but they are both pretty civil about it, thankfully.
With a familiar framing story, that puts the burden on the comedy, and the denizens of the comedy club world to carry the film. The problem with IS THIS THING ON? is that the comedy routines are not very funny. Bradley Cooper throws a spotlight more on the community these would-be comics form, which is fine. Cooper seems to want to populate that community with colorful characters – including one he plays himself – but instead fills it more with two-dimensional characters, who come across as as odd and cartoonish rather than convincing – or funny.
Director Bradley Cooper showcases some comedy bits, mostly with Will Arnett at the mic. Cooper plays one of Arnett’s character Alex’s friends, an weird actor named Balls (no joke). Why a guy “in finance” has an off-beat actor friend is not clear. Beside Laura Dern as Alex’s soon-to-be ex, Tess. we get Ciaran Hinds as Alex’s soft-spoken dad and Christine Ebersole as his plain-speaking mom. The cast also includes Andra Day as Christine, Tess’ best friend.
The cast do well, especially Arnett, but not everything, or everyone, makes much sense. That would be fine if it were funny, but unfortunately, the humor is tepid at best, including the stand-up. The characters are likable enough but the whole story is just not that engaging.
Still, all that would have worked if more of those comedy routines had been funnier. Instead, we spend more time emphasizing the quirkiness of members of this accidental community, and with Alex’s and Tess’s unlikely best friends, relationships that just doesn’t feel real. In particular, Bradley Cooper’s character Balls is bizarre more than funny, and at times, just irritating.
The best moments are the ones that highlight the camaraderie among the comics, all these souls are trying to find the way to get a laugh, working on their routines or hunting for the right angle. Although most of them are unlikely to make a living at it, they do form a social circle of mutual support, with a bit of competition too.
It just not enough to lift this dramedy above mildly entertaining. IS THIS THING ON? is not a bad film as much as just a marginally interesting one, although with a really good cast. It could have been more. Without some really good comedy to give it energy and the audiences some laughs, IS THIS THING ON? just limps along, gradually lulling us in a stupor. There are moments of mild interest, brief drama and there is a little commentary on how this divorce is best for both Alex and Tess.
Will Arnett and Laura Dern turn in nice performances, and there are a few bright moments from the supporting cast that includes Ciaran Hinds, Christine Ebersole and Andra Day. Bradley Cooper plays the oddball character, Balls, who is more just odd than amusing.
IS THIS THING ON? opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.
