28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026) - That's more like it

After loving '28 Days/Weeks Later' (yes, I even loved the second one), I was left a little disappointed by '28 Years Later' as it felt a bit all over the place.  Yet, '28 Years Later: The Bone Temple' is definitely a step up, largely because it finally feels like it knows what it wants to be. Where '28 Years Later' wobbled under the weight of its ideas, 'The Bone Temple' is far more focused for better and for worse. The tighter script is an improvement, but also means some narrative threads fans may have expected to continue are quietly abandoned. Most notably, this doesn’t really feel like a continuation of Spike’s story at all, which may frustrate viewers hoping for a more direct follow-up.

What truly elevates the film are the performances. Jack O’Connell and Ralph Fiennes absolutely carry 'The Bone Temple' through sheer force of charisma. Both actors bring an intensity to the script, grounding the narrative even when it veers into stranger territory.  Their presence makes the world feel real and dangerous and without them, the film would be nothing.

There’s no shortage of gore and the film deserves credit for being unpredictable as you really won't know where it’s heading from scene to scene. Oddly, for a franchise built on the infected, there aren’t actually that many zombies here, which may come as a surprise.  Instead, the horror leans more toward atmosphere, violence and unease than outright undead mayhem.  The much-talked-about click-bait ending is undeniably awesome, delivering a jolt of excitement that lingers after the credits roll, but it also makes 'The Bone Temple' feel more like a very expensive trailer for what we really want to see in 'Part 3.'

Ultimately, this is definitely better than '28 Years Later,' but it may arrive too late to fully reignite the fanbase.  Strong performances, bold choices and a killer ending can’t entirely shake the feeling that this chapter exists mainly to set the table for something bigger.  Still, it’s an entertaining, bloody and confident entry, even if it’s not quite the payoff fans have been waiting for.

7/10

Evil Dead: Rise (2023) - Okay, but kind of generic

Ever since the 80s I've been a massive 'Evil Dead' fan and love the three Bruce Campbell entries and even followed the story via later videogame entries on the PS2 and PS4.  Finally, us die-hard fan-boys were treated to the awesome 'Ash vs the Evil' dead (which was cancelled waaay too early!).  All of those felt very 'in cannon' and kept the overall original film's cheeky, crazy, gory spirit.  However, 'Evil Dead: Rise' is a decent enough, gory little horror film that clearly understands how to push splatter. The practical effects are nasty, the violence is decent enough and the film doesn’t shy away from soaking its apartment-complex setting in blood. As a straight-up possession horror movie, it works well enough, delivering a steady stream of grotesque imagery and bleak atmosphere.

Where it stumbles is in its connection to the 'Evil Dead' legacy. Without the slapstick energy and dry, charismatic humor Bruce Campbell brought to the franchise, the film feels more like a generic possession movie wearing an 'Evil Dead' name tag than a true continuation of the series. The humor is minimal, the tone relentlessly serious and while that approach isn’t inherently bad, it strips away the unique personality that once set the franchise apart from countless other demonic horror films.  And, was it just me, or did the final act have 'Aliens' vibes about it?  I felt like I was watching a reenactment of Ripley rescuing Newt from a parking garage!

That said, 'Evil Dead: Rise' is still an effective and entertaining watch for gorehounds and modern horror fans, even if it lacks the anarchic charm longtime fans may be hoping for.  The final act does use a few classic lines from the franchise, making it feel a little more part of the series.  It’s solid, bloody, and competently made, just not particularly memorable as an 'Evil Dead' entry. 

6/10

The Menu (2022) - Nearly a good cheeseburger

'The Menu' is a slow-burning psychological horror that takes its time setting up the horror aspect, preferring to rely on atmosphere and tension, allowing the unease to build rather than rush headlong into shock value.  This deliberate pacing won’t work for everyone, but it does help establish an unsettling tone.

Ralph Fiennes is the clear standout, delivering an excellently menacing performance, but Anya Taylor-Joy does well to add an emotional heart to the film as the film’s moral compass. Their dynamic is easily the strongest element of the movie and keeps things engaging even during its slower stretches.

Where 'The Menu' really shines is in its sharp satire.  The film takes some satisfying jabs at pretentious food culture and self-important critics, skewering elitism with a wicked sense of humor.  These moments are often the most entertaining, balancing the film’s darker themes with comedy.

That said, for all its ambition and clever ideas, the movie isn’t without flaws. There are several moments where suspension of disbelief is absolutely required, as certain character decisions and logistical elements don’t fully hold up under scrutiny.  A few glaring plot holes threaten to pull you out of the experience if you think about them too much.

Despite these issues, 'The Menu' remains a fun and stylish psychological horror that at least tries to do something a little different.  Strong performances, sharp satire and an unsettling mood make it worth the watch—even if it doesn’t completely stick the landing.

7/10

The Housemaid (2025) - Flawed moments, but ultimately pretty good

'The Housemaid' was a lot darker than I imaged (as I didn't really know much about it prior to seeing it in the cinema) and I think its biggest plus point in the strength of its performances, even if it occasionally stumbles in its storytelling. While the film positions Sydney Sweeney firmly at its center, delivering a decent leading performance, it’s Amanda Seyfried who ultimately steals the show. Every time she appears on screen (well, mainly for the first three quarters), the film gains an extra layer of unpredictability and intensity, making her presence impossible to ignore.

Where 'The Housemaid' shines most is in its atmosphere. There are several genuinely tense and powerful sequences that linger long after they’ve ended.  However, the film isn’t without flaws. It does drag in places, particularly around the three quarter mark, where the pacing slackens and the momentum falters. Some plot developments feel less like organic character decisions and more like narrative conveniences—moments that exist purely to steer the story in a specific direction rather than reflecting how people might realistically behave. These issues don’t derail the film, but they do blunt its impact slightly.  And, there's a moment that happens about five minutes before the end that I felt was almost too unbelievable to take.  In fact, I try not to think about it too deeply as it's just so unrealistic that it almost completely derails the film's believability in once go.

Despite these shortcomings, 'The Housemaid' remains a well-acted and often gripping thriller. Its dark tone, strong performances - especially from Seyfried - and exhibits moments of genuine tension making it an engaging watch overall. If you’re in the mood for something unsettling and character-driven, it’s an enjoyable, if imperfect, watch.

7/10

Nobody 2 (2025) - Okay, but a bit derivative 

I absolutely loved the first 'Nobody' film.  Every YouTube review I saw told me that pretty much everyone who saw it also enjoyed it.  Therefore, I was pretty excited to see the sequel and pleased it received a little more mainstream attention as, despite the initial excellent reviews, it didn't really 'clean up' at the Box Office.  However, although the sequel mostly succeeds as a piece of entertainment, it can’t quite escape the shadow of its predecessor. The result is a sequel that’s perfectly watchable and often fun, but ultimately a bit too comfortable retracing familiar ground.

Bob Odenkirk once again proves that his unlikely action-hero turn wasn’t a fluke. He slips back into the role with ease, balancing dry humor, world-weary menace and sudden brutality as effectively as ever. Watching Odenkirk dispatch goons with barely concealed irritation remains the film’s biggest pleasure, even when the script leans heavily on beats that feel lifted straight from the first movie.

The action is solid and competently staged, but there’s a nagging sense of déjà vu throughout and a lot more reliance on computer effects like explosions seem evident this time.  So the film does tend to play it safe, repeating the same escalation structure. It’s fun, but it rarely surprises in the way the original did.

Christopher Lloyd’s return is a welcome highlight, but Sharon Stone, however, feels miscast as a secondary villain. While she’s clearly a capable actress in the right role, her character comes across as underdeveloped and oddly disconnected from the rest of the story, as if added late in the process. 

In the end, Nobody 2 is okay—an enjoyable action sequel with a great lead performance, but one that leans too heavily on what worked before instead of evolving. Fans of the first film will likely have a good time, even if they’re left wishing it could have pushed the franchise further.

7/10

28 Years Later (2025) - Good, but a bit 'all over the place'

I remember being completely blown away by the 2002 zombie film (that - technically - isn't a 'zombie' film) '28 Days Later.' Some people weren't that taken by the initial sequel '28 Weeks Later' but I actually loved that too.  So I was desperate to see the long-awaited third entry in what is now a trilogy.  Yet, to my dismay, many reviewers didn't seem to be saying it was that good.

And, they have a point - sort of.  Roughly the first third of the film is definitely strong, but then it seems to take a turn and becomes quite a different film.  Now it's less solid and more messy that starts to mostly work on vibes and momentum rather than the tight storytelling and acting it started out with. 

It’s good fun overall with enough chaos, tension and a few moments that you might not see coming.  But it has plotlines that don't seem to go anywhere and even stylistic techniques that are abandoned about a quarter of the way through.  One minute it’s grim and bleak, the next it’s oddly sentimental or almost playful and the film doesn’t always transition smoothly between those moods. It can feel like a couple of different movies mashed into one.  Still, the acting is pretty even all the way through, so even when it stumbles, it’s rarely boring and - hopefully - the ambition counts for something.  Not a classic, but an enjoyable, uneven sequel that’s easy to recommend if you’re already invested in the series.

7/10

 The Exorcist III (1990) - Which version did I just watch?

The Exorcist III' is one of those horror sequels that is probably better (in some places!) than people expect. The original was a genuine classic which still stands up to this day, but the second sequel in the franchise kind of sneaks up on you with how genuinely creepy it can be. The atmosphere is definitely moody and unsettling, plus some of the imagery (especially the now infamous hallway scare!) will still make you jump, but whether you'll see much of Brad Dourif's excellent performance will depend on which version of the film you watch.

I don't know whether I watched the original or the director's cut, but this one felt like the studio took a hacksaw to it, as there feels like there are missing pieces every other scene. The narrative jumps around, character motivations get fuzzy and the overall story just never seems to find its stride. I'm sure there was a better movie hiding underneath the edits, but what’s left ends up being a bit messy and harder to follow than it should be.

Still, the core creepiness is strong enough to make it worth a watch, even if the final product is uneven. Solid scares, but unfortunately choppy storytelling.

5/10