Review: The Accountant 2 (dir. by Gavin O’Connor)


“Is there anything better than punching somebody in the face who’s got it coming?” — Braxton

The Accountant 2 plunges back into the offbeat world of Christian Wolff, Ben Affleck’s autistic accounting savant who wields a calculator and a combat prowess with equal deadliness. Directed by Gavin O’Connor, the sequel reunites Christian with his wayward brother Braxton (Jon Bernthal) as they unravel a conspiracy triggered by the murder of FinCEN director Raymond King (J.K. Simmons), pulling in agent Marybeth Medina (Cynthia Addai-Robinson) for a tense alliance. It cranks up the action and brotherly banter from the 2016 original, delivering bursts of gritty fun, but bogs down in bloated plotting and uneven tone that dilute its punchy premise.

The story explodes open with King’s brutal assassination, his dying message—”find the accountant”—dragging Christian out of his trailer-bound solitude. Medina taps Wolff’s uncanny financial insight to sift through King’s jumbled clues, tracing a trail from a pizza parlor’s money-laundering scheme to a vicious human trafficking ring straddling the Juarez border. A sleek assassin named Anaïs (Daniella Pineda) haunts the edges, her fragmented memories linking to Christian’s murky history, while Braxton joins for brawn and levity, transforming the probe into a chaotic sibling odyssey. The narrative sprawls across factories, motels, and hacker dens, blending forensic number-crunching with explosive confrontations, though it piles on subplots—like selfie-stalking tech whizzes and cartel infighting—that strain coherence without sharp resolutions.

Affleck deepens Christian’s portrayal, blending rigid logic with flashes of wry humor that feel more lived-in than the first film’s stiffness. He shines in quirky beats, like speed-dating disasters fueled by probabilistic algorithms or spotting fiscal fraud in pizza dough sales, then enforcing confessions with a vicious finger-twist. Yet the character teeters into trope territory, his neurodivergence often serving as shorthand for unstoppable violence rather than a nuanced lens on isolation. Bernthal dominates as Braxton, his raw charisma and emotional cracks—vulnerable confessions evolving into rowdy bar dances teaching Christian social flow—infuse the film with infectious warmth. Their rooftop schemes and escort-aided stakeouts pulse with buddy-movie spark, a major merit that carries weaker stretches.

Action remains the film’s powerhouse, surpassing the original in raw ferocity if not elegance. The pizza factory brawl erupts from interrogation into a whirlwind of pipes, knives, and improvised carnage, while garage pursuits and a border compound siege unleash R-rated savagery—precise headshots, joint-snapping grapples, even a sniper duel echoing thriller classics. O’Connor’s practical stuntwork and sweaty cinematography ground the chaos effectively, with a throbbing score that heightens tension without flash. These sequences thrill, but the climax devolves into a generic bullet storm, missing the original warehouse fight’s balletic intimacy, and the 132-minute runtime drags amid repetitive cop-agenta standoffs.

Medina’s arc offers steady grit, as Addai-Robinson charts her shift from protocol-bound skeptic to off-book partner, her rapport with Christian adding subtle friction to the bromance. Simmons maximizes his opener, fending off thugs in a dive bar before a fatal shot, nailing a tone of immediate peril. Pineda’s Anaïs cuts a striking figure—poised killer grappling with resurfaced trauma—but her threat fizzles, undermined by sparse buildup and a rushed tie-in to the brothers’ past. Lesser foes like the greasy pizza kingpin or border thug Tomas propel the plot competently yet forgettably, while Christian’s handler Justine (Annie Oosterom) doles out remote wisdom that’s underutilized.​

At its core, The Accountant 2 wrestles with family bonds and hidden pains, pitting Christian’s analytical shell against Braxton’s impulsive soul in redemption-tinged flashbacks. Lighter quirks—honky-tonk flirtations, cat cameos, goofy T-shirts—humanize without diluting the edge, crafting a playful hyperviolence that charms in detours like smart-home hacks gone absurd. These merits shine brightest in hangout vibes, where meandering chats and line dances breathe life into the formula. Failures creep in through diluted quirks: the accounting genius takes a backseat to rote crime-thriller beats, cartel clichés overwhelm the fresh oddity, and pacing lurches from taut kills to listless exposition.

Technical craft holds firm, with O’Connor’s no-frills visuals capturing industrial grime and motel seediness, favoring tangible impacts over CGI gloss. The R-rating justifies itself via unflinching gore and profanity, satisfying gorehounds, though humor occasionally jars—like trailer quips amid slaughter—disrupting tonal balance. Compared to the debut’s sleeper surprise, this entry coasts on familiarity, expanding the Wolff mythos with teases of future clashes but lacking the tight ingenuity that sparked cult love.

The Accountant 2 succeeds as a rowdy sequel when leaning on its stars’ chemistry, visceral fights, and odd-couple heart, making it a blast for action cravings. It falters, however, in overreaching scope, diluting Christian’s uniqueness amid familiar shadows and slack momentum. Solid for fans seeking sibling sparks and calculated brutality, it lands as entertaining excess rather than essential evolution—catch it for the highs, forgive the math that doesn’t quite balance.

Avatar: Fire and Ash Review (dir. by James Cameron)


 “The fire came from the mountain… Eywa did not come. So I went to the fire, and I learned its way” – Varang

Avatar: Fire and Ash plays like a massive, molten crescendo for Cameron’s Pandora saga—visually overwhelming, emotionally heavier than the last two entries, but also very familiar in ways that will either feel comfortingly mythic or a little déjà vu, depending on your tolerance for repetition. The ash-choked skies, lava rivers, and volcanic Na’vi clans are often more compelling than some of the story beats, and the final stretch delivers the kind of operatic, war-movie scale that makes the three-plus-hour runtime go down easier than it should, even though the film clearly didn’t need to run this long.

This time around, the series leaves behind the cool blues and oceanic calm of the previous chapter for a harsher, volcanic corner of Pandora that feels like a nature documentary shot in a furnace. Jagged black rock, roiling lava, and smoke-stained skies dominate the frame, with creatures and plant life that look as if they evolved to survive heat and ash rather than coral reefs and open water, giving the movie an immediately distinct visual identity even when the story rhythms feel familiar.

At the center of this environment are the Ash People, or Mangkwan clan, a Na’vi group shaped by relentless scarcity and violence. They ride creatures adapted to fire and ash instead of waves, cover themselves in soot-black markings, and fight using a deliberate blend of traditional Na’vi weaponry and repurposed human tech, putting them ideologically at odds not just with the human invaders, but with other Na’vi clans who still cling to older, more spiritual ways of living with Eywa.

The story picks up with Jake and Neytiri’s family still reeling from Neteyam’s death, and the film leans hard into unresolved grief as its emotional baseline. Jake doubles down on his protector persona, treating every decision as a matter of survival, while Neytiri’s pain expresses itself as barely controlled rage, and that emotional weather trickles down to their children, who are increasingly frustrated at being treated like liabilities. The problem is that a lot of this family dysfunction was already unpacked in the second film, so instead of evolving those arcs, the script often feels like it is rehashing earlier conflicts.

The dynamic between Jake and Lo’ak is the clearest example of this repetition. Jake’s exasperation with Lo’ak’s impulsive, run-toward-the-bullets mentality resurfaces again and again, echoing arguments audiences have already seen: the father insisting his son isn’t ready, the son bristling at never being trusted. These moments still have emotional sting, but they circle the same drain so often that entire conversations could have been trimmed or removed without sacrificing character depth, and tightening that thread alone would have shaved a noticeable chunk off the runtime.

Where the film becomes more thematically interesting is in how it reframes Pandora’s conflict. Instead of a simple “Na’vi versus humans” setup, it pits the more traditional Na’vi clans—those still committed to a symbiotic relationship with Eywa—against the Ash People, whose warlike nature and embrace of human weaponry make them ideological outliers. That split plays as a pointed echo of historical events in the Americas, where European colonial powers armed and favored specific Indigenous nations to fight their neighbors, turning native communities into proxies in conflicts that ultimately benefitted outsiders more than the people doing the actual bleeding.

The analogy becomes sharper in how human forces hang back and quietly exploit these new divisions. By giving the Ash People access to superior firepower and nudging them toward confrontation, the outsiders effectively inflame existing grievances and reshape local power dynamics, much like colonial regimes once did by supplying guns and promises to one group while framing another as the enemy. The result is a Pandora that feels more fractured and politically complex, where internal Na’vi conflict is as dangerous as external invasion.

Varang, the leader of the Ash People, is one of the film’s strongest assets. She’s portrayed as a true believer who has taken real suffering and twisted it into a doctrine of purifying destruction, convinced that burning the world is the only way to save it. The character blends zealotry and charisma in a way that makes her both frightening and compelling, and she wields faith, desire, and fear as weapons with unnerving ease, giving the movie a volatile energy whenever she’s on-screen.

Her alliance with Quaritch pushes the story into darker, more uncomfortable territory. What begins as a pragmatic arrangement—a trade of firepower and influence for help tracking Jake—evolves into a twisted, intimate partnership that underlines just how far both are willing to go to achieve their goals. Their connection is meant to feel toxic and predatory, and it succeeds on that front, though some viewers may find the intensity of those scenes off-putting compared with the relatively straightforward romance and family dynamics of earlier entries.

On a craft level, the film is almost absurdly polished. Even if it no longer feels like a quantum leap in visual effects, the execution is meticulous: volcanic vistas glow with molten light, ash storms swirl with tactile grit, and the interplay of fire, smoke, and bioluminescence gives many shots a painterly quality. The action sequences rely on clear geography and patient staging, so even when the screen is full of creatures, machines, and chaos, it remains surprisingly easy to track who is where and what’s at stake.

The final act is where the movie unleashes everything it has: parallel battles on land, in the air, and over volatile seas, stitched together into a long, escalating crescendo. Familiar James Cameron signatures return—heroic last-second saves, nature itself intervening, climaxes that mirror earlier films—but the pacing of these sequences is handled with enough control that they rarely collapse into pure noise. Still, you can’t help but feel that with a leaner, more disciplined buildup, that climax would have hit even harder.

Structurally, the story leans heavily on patterns that loyal viewers will recognize. There is yet another relocation to a new culture, another period of uneasy assimilation, another slow slide into open warfare, and another sacrificial, emotionally charged finale. Whether that comes across as mythic repetition or simple recycling depends on how patient you are with Cameron’s tendency to “rhyme” his narratives rather than reinvent them.

Most of the main character arcs feel like refinements rather than reinventions. Jake remains the guilt-ridden warrior father terrified of losing his children; Lo’ak edges closer to full-on protagonist status as the reckless but big-hearted son; Kiri’s mystical bond with Eywa deepens while remaining intentionally enigmatic; and Quaritch once again fills the role of relentless, personal antagonist. With the same father–son friction repeatedly dragged back into the spotlight, the emotional landscape can feel stuck in place, and a stricter editorial hand might have refocused attention on the fresher elements—like Varang and the Ash People’s worldview.

Tonally, the film pushes into darker territory while still staying within a mainstream rating. The battles feel more brutal, with a greater emphasis on the physical cost of arrows, explosions, and close-quarters fighting, and there’s a persistent sense that no one is truly safe. That harshness extends to the emotional side as well, as the Sully family finds itself cornered into choices where every option exacts a price, reinforcing the idea that survival in this version of Pandora demands constant compromise.

Thematically, Avatar: Fire and Ash weaves together ideas about faith, extremism, and the way trauma can be weaponized. The Ash People act as a distorted mirror of earlier Na’vi cultures: a society that has taken genuine pain and turned it into an excuse for cruelty, abandoning balance in favor of cleansing violence. Layered on top of that is the divide-and-rule dynamic, where more technologically advanced outsiders stoke internal conflicts for their own advantage, mirroring how colonial powers in the Americas encouraged Indigenous groups to fight one another while expanding their control and extracting resources.

Despite all the digital wizardry, the performances still manage to cut through. Jake and Neytiri’s scenes carry the weight of years of loss and sacrifice, and there’s a believable exhaustion in the way they argue and compromise. The younger characters, especially Lo’ak and Kiri, feel more rooted and central than they did before, which helps sell the gradual shift toward a new generation, even if the script keeps dragging them back through conflicts that feel like reruns instead of genuine evolution.

At the same time, the movie sometimes undercuts its best character work in its rush to reach the next big set piece. Quieter moments that might have deepened side characters or given the Ash People’s beliefs more nuance are often compressed or sidelined, while scenes rehashing Jake and Lo’ak’s issues are allowed to run long. If the film had trusted audiences to remember the family dysfunction carried over from the second installment and cut down on repeated arguments, those smaller, richer beats could have had more space—and the whole piece would likely feel tighter and more focused.

For viewers already invested in Pandora, Avatar: Fire and Ash is clearly built for the biggest screen available: the volcanic vistas, layered sound design, and carefully staged action set pieces are all engineered to overwhelm in the best way. It delivers a darker chapter without abandoning the earnest, sometimes corny sincerity that has always defined this series, and as a conclusion to this phase of the story, it feels emotionally full even as it insists on revisiting familiar territory and stretching its narrative longer than necessary.

For more casual viewers or anyone who found the earlier films predictable, this is unlikely to be the conversion point. The structure is recognizable, the dialogue is often workmanlike rather than sharp, and the movie leans so hard into repeating certain family conflicts that it can feel like the story is padding itself instead of evolving. But if you can live with those flaws—the repetition, the length, the occasional heavy hand—the combination of technical craftsmanship, volcanic imagery, heavy emotional stakes, and that quietly pointed commentary on colonial-era divide-and-rule tactics makes Avatar: Fire and Ash a fiery, flawed, but undeniably impressive ride.

Review: Lethal Weapon 2 (dir. by Richard Donner)


“We’re back, we’re bad. You’re black, I’m mad. Let’s go!” — Martin Riggs

Lethal Weapon 2 is the kind of sequel that doesn’t really try to reinvent what worked the first time so much as crank the volume on everything: the action is bigger, the jokes come faster, and the chaos feels almost constant. Depending on what you loved about Lethal Weapon, that approach delivers more of the high-energy partnership in a flashier package. It’s a confident, very entertaining 80s action movie that knows it’s a sequel and leans into the spectacle that status allows.

Plot-wise, Lethal Weapon 2 wastes no time reminding you what this world feels like. It drops Riggs and Murtaugh into a wild car chase almost immediately, and from there the story locks onto a case involving South African diplomats hiding behind apartheid-era “diplomatic immunity” while running a massive drug and money-laundering operation. It’s a cleaner, more high-concept hook than the original’s murkier web of Vietnam vets and heroin smuggling, and the script makes the villains broad on purpose, almost cartoonishly arrogant, to give the audience someone very easy to hate. The trade-off is that the plot feels a bit more mechanical this time; you always know who the bad guys are and what the destination is, so the film’s real energy comes from the detours, jokes, and set-pieces rather than any mystery.

One of the big shifts from Lethal Weapon to Lethal Weapon 2 is tone. The first film balanced brutal violence and dark humor with a surprisingly heavy focus on Riggs’ suicidal grief and Murtaugh’s fear of getting too old for the job. The sequel keeps those elements in the background but leans harder into banter, slapstick timing, and outrageous gags like the now-famous exploding toilet sequence, with Richard Donner’s direction pushing the script toward action comedy. It’s still R-rated and not shy about blood or cruelty, but the emotional intensity is dialed down compared to the original’s raw edges.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover remain the anchor, and their chemistry is as sharp as ever. Gibson’s Riggs is still reckless and unhinged, but there’s a looser, more playful side to him this time; he’s less haunted and more of a live-wire prankster until the story gives him something personal to latch onto. Glover’s Murtaugh continues to be the grounded center, constantly exasperated and always half a step away from just walking off the job, and the film has a lot of fun putting his straight-man persona through increasingly humiliating situations while still letting him be competent when it counts. Compared to the first film, where their partnership slowly thawed from suspicion to genuine trust, Lethal Weapon 2 starts from “these guys are already a team” and builds its best moments from how comfortably they now bounce off each other.

The biggest new ingredient is Joe Pesci as Leo Getz, a federal witness turned tagalong who basically functions as the franchise’s third stooge. Pesci leans into the motor-mouthed, paranoid, endlessly complaining energy that would become his signature, and his presence tips some scenes from gritty cop story into broad comedy. He undercuts tension at times, but he also gives the movie a different rhythm, especially in the quieter in-between beats where the first film might have lingered more on Riggs’ inner damage.

In terms of action, Donner clearly has more money and confidence to play with, and it shows. The chases are bigger, the shootouts are staged with a slicker sense of geography, and there’s a steady escalation in scale that makes the film feel like a genuine summer sequel rather than just another mid-budget cop movie. The original had a grimy, street-level intensity, with brutal fistfights and sudden bursts of violence; Lethal Weapon 2 is more interested in creative set-pieces, crowd-pleasing payoffs, and moments designed to make an audience cheer. It’s less intimate, but it is rarely dull.

Where the film lands in a more complicated space is its attempt to keep some emotional stakes alive while also going bigger and funnier. Riggs’ grief over the loss of his wife is still part of his character, and the story finds ways to poke at that wound again, including a new relationship that lets him imagine some kind of future beyond the constant death wish. Those beats are there to echo what worked so well in the first movie, but they have less room to breathe, often getting squeezed between an action scene and a joke instead of shaping the entire film’s tone. You can feel the push and pull between wanting to keep the darker emotional spine and delivering the kind of lighter, more easily marketable sequel a studio would understandably chase.

The villains themselves are effective in that pulpy 80s way: not nuanced, but very punchable. Arjen Rudd, with his smug talk of “diplomatic immunity,” is a villain designed to make audiences grind their teeth, and his main henchman adds a physically intimidating, quietly sadistic presence to the mix. Compared to the original’s more grounded ex-military antagonists, these guys feel one step closer to Bond territory, and that shift mirrors the film’s overall move toward heightened, almost comic-book stakes. What the sequel loses in plausibility, it gains in revenge-fantasy satisfaction.

When stacked directly against Lethal Weapon, the second film feels like a classic case of “if you liked hanging out with these characters once, here’s more time with them.” The original is tighter, more emotionally focused, and arguably more distinctive, with a stronger sense of danger and genuine unpredictability around Riggs’ mental state. Lethal Weapon 2 smooths some of those jagged edges and replaces them with quips, bigger set-pieces, and a more overtly crowd-pleasing structure, which makes it an easier, more consistently fun watch but also a slightly less resonant one. It is still a good film, but in many ways it is also the moment where the franchise shifts from a character-driven cop thriller with action to a full-on action-comedy machine.

As a fair, middle-of-the-road assessment, Lethal Weapon 2 works very well on its own terms and delivers exactly what most people want out of a late-80s buddy-cop sequel. The chemistry is intact, the action is energetic, and the film moves with the kind of confident pace that never really lets you get bored. At the same time, the tonal tilt toward broader humor and more cartoonish villains means it doesn’t quite have the same staying power or emotional punch as Lethal Weapon, especially if what hooked you the first time was how wounded and volatile it all felt. For fans of the original, it’s an enjoyable continuation—a louder, flashier second round that may not hit as hard, but still knows how to entertain.

Review: Extraction 2 (dir. by Sam Hargrave)


“I will not stop.” — Tyler Rake

Extraction 2 drops you right into the thick of things, cranking the intensity way past the first film. To quickly recap, the original Extraction introduced Tyler Rake, a gritty mercenary with a troubled past played with undeniable grit by Chris Harmsworth. The story was simple but effective—a high-stakes rescue of a kidnapped boy in Dhaka, Bangladesh, filled with edge-of-your-seat action and those now-iconic, almost balletic long-take fight sequences. It was raw, realistic, and emotionally grounded. Harmsworth’s portrayal anchored the chaos in human vulnerability, helping the film stand out from the typical action fare.

Now, the sequel’s aim is clear—it wants to go bigger, bloodier, and more relentless, and it pulls that off in many ways. The standout here is definitely the action choreography. Sam Hargrave, the director, really flexes his muscle with several jaw-dropping sequences, especially a breathtaking 21-minute continuous take that makes you feel like you’re running alongside Rake, dodging bullets and throwing punches in real time. It’s an impressive technical feat but, more importantly, it’s incredibly immersive. The fights have that gritty realism where each blow counts, and the camera work lets you see every tense moment clearly instead of hiding behind shaky cuts.

Chris Hemsworth, once again, owns the role. This time around, you can see a bit more of the toll the mercenary life has taken on Rake. Hemsworth brings a subtle layer of weariness mixed with fierce determination. His physicality is on full display—he’s convincing in those brutal hand-to-hand combats without ever feeling like a stuntman stand-in. He does it all, and it’s clear he’s not just punching air; this is a man fighting for something beyond just survival. The emotional beats land a bit more naturally this time around, helped by Hemsworth’s grounded performance, which balances the nonstop action with moments of quiet reflection.

Visually, the film is a significant step up. The settings shift from humid, congested streets to icy, oppressive Georgia, and the cinematography makes the most of this change. The chilly, bleak palette fits perfectly with the film’s mood—harsh, unforgiving, and tense. The camera work is bold yet measured; it takes its time to show us the fights fully, letting the choreography breathe without rushing or confusing the viewer. This clarity turns the action scenes into mini-masterpieces, where every movement, every shot, and every punch feels deliberate and impactful.

That said, not everything clicks perfectly. The plot plays it safe with familiar revenge and rescue-mission beats, and the supporting characters don’t get much development beyond their utility to the story. Golshifteh Farahani steals a few scenes as Nik, adding fresh energy and complexity as a tough and capable ally, but others around her mainly exist to get the body count up. There’s a formulaic feel to the storyline—with plenty of high-stakes tension but little in the way of surprise. If you go in looking for deep storytelling or rich character arcs, you might be left wanting.

The film truly embraces the “bigger is better” mantra, and in many ways, it pays off spectacularly with larger, more intricate action sequences and expanded scale. This escalation brings a fuller, more thrilling spectacle that keeps you hooked from start to finish. However, this increase in scope leads to a trade-off: the narrative feels more convoluted and sometimes weighed down by its own ambition. The plot introduces multiple new characters and intersecting agendas, which lengthens the storyline unnecessarily and complicates what could have been a more straightforward mission. This convolution makes the story not only more formulaic but also harder to follow, detracting from the lean storytelling charm that made the first movie so effective.

Tone-wise, the movie trades some of the first film’s grounded grit for a flashier, more stylized look and feel. Some sequences stretch believability—Rake’s near-indestructibility and certain stunt setups can pull you out of the moment. Still, if you’re willing to accept that and enjoy the ride, the movie delivers on adrenaline and spectacle in full force.

One of the most refreshing things about Extraction 2 is how well it balances raw, physical combat with moments of emotional depth. Between the intense fight scenes, there are small windows into who Tyler Rake is and what drives him. These touches give the film a heartbeat beneath all the explosions and punches. Rake is no cookie-cutter action hero; he’s a broken man clawing his way toward redemption, and that gives the film a surprising amount of emotional weight for a movie mainly about violence and chaos.

Ultimately, Extraction 2 isn’t reinventing the wheel, but it doesn’t need to. It knows its audience and delivers exactly what it promises: high-octane, impeccably executed action sequences tied together by a thread of humanity. Hemsworth’s portrayal elevates it beyond just a flashy romp, lending it a gritty soul. The villains feel suitably menacing, and the stakes are convincingly high, which keeps the tension ticking throughout.

If you loved the first Extraction for its mix of brutal realism and emotional punch, the sequel will feel familiar but amplified—more intense, more expansive, and a bit louder. If you’re new to the series, Extraction 2 still stands solid on its own as a showcase of what well-choreographed action cinema looks like today—raw, precise, and emotionally resonant with just enough story to keep you invested without dragging you down.

In short, Extraction 2 is a wild, thrilling ride with a surprisingly human heart beating beneath all the chaos. It’s a film that knows how to entertain, showcasing Chris Harmsworth at his physical and emotional best and proving that action movies can still push creative boundaries while keeping viewers hooked. The movie brings bigger and bolder set pieces that truly live up to the “bigger is better” slogan, but this comes at the cost of making the plot more convoluted and overly complicated than it needed to be. While the intricate story layers may strain some viewers, the explosive action and solid performances make it a must-watch for any fan of visceral, edge-of-your-seat thrillers. If you want a no-nonsense blockbuster with a pulse, Extraction 2 delivers in spades.

Horror Review: 28 Years Later (dir. by Danny Boyle)


Danny Boyle waited nearly two decades to return to the world he helped redefine with his groundbreaking 2002 film 28 Days Later, which reshaped the zombie subgenre by replacing the traditional, slow-moving undead with fast, feral infected that embody contagion, panic, and societal collapse. While purists continue to debate whether the creatures are technically zombies or infected, Boyle’s vision fundamentally changed how audiences engage with themes of epidemic, survival, and the breakdown of order on screen. The 2007 follow-up, 28 Weeks Later, directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, expanded the Rage virus mythology and landscape but lacked the original’s haunting intimacy and innovation, leaving the franchise in a state of uncertainty until Boyle and writer Alex Garland reunited for 28 Years Later, a film that feels less like a conventional sequel and more like an elegy for a deeply changed world.

The film opens with a short, brutal prologue: young Jimmy Crystal’s family is consumed by the Rage virus while watching Teletubbies, and the boy flees to find safety only to discover his minister father welcoming the infected as a sign of apocalyptic judgment. This early scene deftly establishes the film’s unease, blending visceral horror with spiritual inquiry and foreshadowing a narrative caught between faith, grief, and chaos. Boyle reasserts his command of visceral set pieces while signaling that this film is more concerned with memory and ritual than with relentless terror.

Decades later, the British Isles have been sealed off; NATO forces enforce a quarantine and blockade, isolating the mainland as a toxic exclusion zone. On the tidal island of Lindisfarne, a small community clings to a fragile existence, protected by a causeway that floods at high tide—a detail that metaphorically underscores themes of isolation and dangerous connection. It is here that the emotional core emerges in Jamie and his son Spike, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and the remarkable newcomer Alfie Williams. Their spare, heartfelt relationship grounds what otherwise wanders into meditative and often surreal territory.

Alfie Williams emerges as one of the year’s most impressive new talents. His portrayal of Spike avoids the usual survivor archetype; instead, he presents a boy deeply shaped by inherited trauma and cautious curiosity. Boyle’s camera lingers on Williams’ face, capturing silent shifts of fear, wonder, and resilience, making his quiet moments as powerful as the film’s larger set pieces. Williams shines particularly in a sequence where Spike and his mother, portrayed with subtle grace by Jodie Comer, navigate a moss-covered village reclaimed by nature; Williams embodies awe and terror with a single glance. His encounters with the evolved infected—some sedentary and tree-like, others organized into predator packs—are charged with terrifying authenticity and emotional depth. Early reviews label Williams a breakout star, praising his ability to hold the screen alongside veteran actors.

Visually, Boyle and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle experiment with a striking mix of techniques, blending the use of iPhone 15 Pro Max cameras and drones with traditional film methods to create a language that oscillates between intimate human moments and sweeping, documentary-style landscapes. The Britain depicted is no longer a lifeless wasteland but an ecologically regrown terrain—lush, eerie, and indifferent. This verdant backdrop reflects the Rage virus’s own evolution. The infected have adapted in ways both terrifying and fascinating: some feed off the earth and fungus, becoming near-plantlike and sedentary, while others form packs ruled by alpha mutants, suggesting emergent social structures even after humanity’s collapse. This biological and ecological evolution amplifies the film’s central theme: survival transcending humanity.

Anchoring the film’s philosophical inquiry is Ralph Fiennes’s performance as Dr. Ian Kelson, a former general practitioner who has exiled himself to live among the infected. Fiennes crafts Kelson with haunting solemnity and layered ambiguity—part caregiver, part fanatic, part recluse—who has created the eponymous “Bone Temple,” a shrine assembled from bones and memories to honor the dead and the changed world they inhabit. The role requires quiet intensity, and Fiennes delivers; his interactions with Spike are charged with both menace and melancholy. Kelson’s reverence for the infected and his willingness to coexist with them challenge traditional survivalist narratives, injecting the film with a solemn meditation on loss, acceptance, and the possibility of new forms of life.

28 Years Later opts for a deliberately slower, more contemplative pace than its predecessors. Boyle and Garland invest their energy in exploring grief, adaptation, and collective memory. The infected become symbolic forces of transformation rather than mere antagonists, while survivors seek meaning through ritual and remembrance as a bulwark against despair. This approach has divided fans: some lament the absence of the unrelenting terror and pace that characterized the earlier films, while others welcome the franchise’s intellectual maturity and thematic depth.

Certain scenes—such as the stranded NATO patrol subplot and glimpses of emerging cult-like human factions—hint at a larger, more complex world but never overshadow the film’s intimate father‑son narrative. Jodie Comer complements Williams with a nuanced portrayal of Spike’s mother, and Taylor‑Johnson brings grounded emotional weight to Jamie, embodying a parent wrestling with how to protect the next generation in a broken world and dealing with his own inner demons.

The interplay between Williams and Fiennes forms the film’s core dynamic, uniting youthful vulnerability with somber reflection. Kelson’s philosophical acceptance of the apocalypse contrasts with Spike’s struggle for identity and belonging, producing compelling, often unsettling exchanges that elevate the narrative’s moral complexity.

Toward the film’s conclusion, a jarring tonal shift occurs with the sudden arrival of a grown-up Jimmy Crystal, whose unsettling presence and cult leadership drastically change the mood. The moment is so discordant that viewers are left questioning whether it is literal or a fevered hallucination—an ambiguity that effectively sets the stage for the sequel.

The upcoming follow-up, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, is set for release in January 2026 and will be directed by Nia DaCosta, with Alex Garland returning as screenwriter. This sequel is expected to explore the role of Kelson’s Bone Temple more deeply and develop the cult gathering led by Jack O’Connell’s Jimmy Crystal, expanding on the fractured post-apocalyptic world and the characters introduced in the current film.

Ultimately, 28 Years Later is a film about evolution—of species, storytelling, and filmmaking itself. It balances raw dread with haunting visuals and somber themes, anchored by Alfie Williams’s quietly compelling Spike and Ralph Fiennes’s enigmatic Dr. Ian Kelson. Boyle has not merely revived the franchise; he has transformed it into an unsettling, elegiac meditation on rage, loss, and the fragile hope that survives beyond apocalypse.

Trailer: M3GAN 2.0


M3GAN in 2022 was a surprise hit that no one saw coming. What would’ve been a a nice little horror film from Blumhouse that would’ve come and gone with little fanfare suddenly became a major hit due to the viral marketing of the titular character’s dancing shown in the initial trailer becoming a huge internet meme.

Now we are back with the sequel (I don’t think anyone was surprised that Blumhouse quickly greenlit a follow-up) and it looks like the original team of director Gerard Johnstone and writer Akela Cooper are back to headline M3GAN 2.0.

The sequel looks to be bigger and a bit more ambitious with more than just a bit of a Terminator 2 vibe with the title character looking to be more of the savior and not just an overprotective killing AI doll.

Will M3GAN 2.0 be able to replicate the viral success of the first film? We shall find out on June 27, 2025.

Trailer: The Accountant 2


The Accountant, released in 2016, was an action-thriller that came out of nowhere and surprised a lot of people. The film had come out a two years since the release of John Wick and it would help usher in what I consider a new age of Western action films.

There was instant talk of a sequel after the success of the first film, but with Ben Affleck busy doing his Batman and Justice League bit over at DC Films the sequel had been put on the back-burner. Well, with the crash and burn of the DCEU it looked like Affleck had some time on his hands now and this meant the sequel to The Accountant was back to cooking.

On April 25, 2025, we will see just what Gavin O’Connor, Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal have cooked up as a follow-up to the first film with The Accountant 2.

Spider-Man: Far From Home Teaser and International Trailers


spider-man far from home

Spider-Man: Homecoming was the Spider-Man that fans have been waiting for. It was able to balance the character of Peter Parker and his alter-ego of Spider-Man. Where the Sam Raimi version was able to make the former stand-out at the cost of the Spider-Man alter, the Marc Webb version swapped the two dynamics. Webb’s version had a great Spider-Man but had a Peter Parker whose moral compass was a bit skewed.

Jon Watt’s Spider-Man and Peter Parker were a nice balance. It helped that the character was now free (to a degree) to play in the huge cinematic sandbox that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Last we saw Spider-Man and Peter Parker, he was dusted just like half the living things in the universe following the Thanos Snap. The question that gets brought up whenever Spider-man: Far From Home, the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming, gets talked about is does this film take away from the emotional sucker punch that was Avengers: Infinity War and it’s upcoming sequel, Avengers: Endgame.

From this teaser trailer and it’s international version has shown, the question still remains as both teasers mention nothing about the Avengers and keeps the timeline of the film vague enough to make one wonder if this sequel happens before Avengers: Infinity War.

I guess fans will find out on July 5, 2019 when the film is released worldwide.

….and here’s the International Teaser trailer

Trailer: Men In Black International


MIB International

It looks like we have a set of new agents donning the black suits this time around.

Seems Thor and Valkyrie are doing a side gig for the Men In Black. There’s no Agent K or Agent J to save the world from otherworldly dangers. We now have Agent H and Agent M to take up the mantle of protecting the world. The trailer also shows us that the MIB is a global organization and no more New York as the stomping ground, but we also have London and it’s branch of the MIB.

Men In Black International was a sequel that didn’t garner too much excitement when first announced, but as the cast was finalized and announced the excitement began to rise. And it is quite a cast when one really looks at it: Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall and Rebecca Ferguson.

Men In Black International will be out June 14, 2019. A release date with enough time between it and the juggernaut that will be Avengers: Endgame.

Godzilla: King of Monsters 2nd Official Trailer


Godzilla King of Monsters

This past summer we saw the first trailer to Godzilla: King of Monsters. To say that the reaction to that trailer was positive would be an understatement. It was one of the highlights of San Diego Comic-Con 2018.

Now, Warner Brothers Pictures saw fit to release the second trailer for the film. This time with less classical music and more Kaiju mayhem visuals instead. Michael Dougherty takes over directing duties from Gareth Edwards and this time it shows as the film stresses the action in the film rather than the human interactions underfoot.

Kaiju films have been fan-favorites for decades upon decades because of the monsters and less about the humans. The humans really were just there to give voice to the different factions of monsters duking it out. It looks like this time this sequel will follow the same formula.

Godzilla: King of Monsters is set for May 31, 2019.