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

Money Plane (2020) - So, so bad.  I love it

Yes, 'Money Plane' is absolutely every bit as terrible as all those YouTube reviewers said it was—maybe even worse.  So, if you brace yourself for a cinematic train wreck, you can wring a hell of a lot of entertainment out of it.

The whole thing feels like somebody pitched “Die Hard on a casino airplane” and then immediately left the room, leaving everyone else to just… guess.  You get characters who either look like they’re sleepwalking through the movie or, on the complete opposite end, chewing scenery like they’re auditioning for a villain role in a Saturday morning cartoon (Kelsey Grammer, I'm looking at you - how did you ever get roped into a film like this?).

The plot is basically a series of wild, disconnected ideas glued together just firmly enough to keep the plane in the air.  You’ll get moments that make you go, “Wait, what?” followed immediately by something even funnier or weirder and the movie just kind of barrels forward like it knows you’re not here for logic anyway.  And don't expect even anywhere near the amount of action you might get in similar (better!) films like 'Die Hard, Under Siege' or 'Air Force One,' as the main actor spends much of the movie sitting in the cockpit flying the plane!

So, if you embrace the chaos 'Money Plane' has as much goofy charm as 'The Room,' only with a man trying to er 'get it on' with an alligator.  It’s so earnestly silly that it crosses over into that “so bad it’s good” zone, where you’re laughing with it, at it, around it - in fact, whatever works best for you.  It’s not good film-making, but it’s definitely a fun.

Basically, don’t watch it expecting a hidden gem.  Watch it because sometimes you want a disaster that knows it’s a disaster… and maybe even sort of revels in it.

6/10

Cobra (1986) - Not Stallone's finest, but still fun

Sylvester Stallone’s 'Cobra' is one of those movies that practically defines the 80s and their attitude towards action movies, without actually being one it the decade's best.  It’s not even one of Stallone’s best in terms of his filmography, but it's goofy enough and self-knowing to offer fans of the genre a spot of big, loud, dumb fun.

Stallone plays Marion “Cobra” Cobretti, a sunglasses-at-night (how 80s!) rogue cop who’s introduced slicing the tops off supermarket cans with a knife because… well, because it’s 1986.  The plot is little more than a vehicle for his one-liners, explosive shootouts and Stallone driving a cool motorbike.  The story isn't long and the villains feel like they wandered in from a much weirder movie—yet that odd clash of tones makes it feels like two completely different stories were stitched together.

Every shot feels engineered to make Stallone look impossibly tough (as I'm sure he was trying to keep up with Schwarzenegger at the time!), the action sequences are nice and 'real' (i.e. long before everything had to be CGI) and the film takes itself just seriously enough that it loops right back around into being entertaining.  Brigitte Nielsen starts off as a siren-type character and ends up practically as the 'girl next door.'

If you’re looking for a genuinely great 80s action movie, there are better options.  But if what you want is a simple dose of pure, uncut 80s cheese with Stallone at peak “cool cop” intensity then 'Cobra' absolutely delivers.  It’s a flawed movie, but also a wildly entertaining one and sometimes that’s exactly the charm you’re in the mood for.

7/10

Witchboard 2 (1993) - Possibly better than it had any right to be

I'd never even heard of 'Witchboard 2' when I decided I was in the mood for some low-budget horror, so I have no idea how it relates to 'part 1' (or even if there was a previous entry that ran narratively into this one).  So, going into 'Witchboard 2,' I really didn’t expect much.  It’s cheap, definitely looks like a made-for-TV movie and the premise isn’t exactly groundbreaking — another story about someone messing around with a Ouija board and getting more than they bargained for.  But, to my surprise, there was actually enough here to keep me entertained all the way through.

The movie leans into its cheap and cheerful charm and, while it’s not scary in any real sense, it moves along with just enough mystery and weirdness to stay engaging.  I even found myself taking a bit of cheeky enjoyment out of it — the kind where you realize you’re having more fun than you probably should be.  Some of the plot twists actually caught me off guard, which is more than I can say for plenty of bigger-budget horror flicks in general.

Sure, it’s not original and it has that unmistakable early-’90s “cable movie” feel, but for what it is, 'Witchboard 2' offers a solid dose of supernatural fun if you're in a particularly forgiving mood.  You could definitely do worse in the world of made-for-TV-style horror, especially if you can watch it for free like I did on a streaming service.

6/10