Cert – 15, Run-time – 2 hours 7 minutes, Director – Maggie Gyllenhaal

Brought back to life, and possessed by the ghost of Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley), The Bride (Buckley) goes on the run with Frankenstein’s Monster (Christian Bale) after a series of murders attract the attention of police and gang leaders.

The best scene in Maggie Gyllenhaal’s The Bride! is set to the surely intentional tune of Puttin’ On The Ritz. The titular Bride (Jessie Buckley) and Frankenstein’s Monster, otherwise named Frank (Christian Bale), are on the run from the police after a Bonnie And Clyde style murder and flee. Crashing a 1930s high society event they flirtatiously look at each other from across the room while stealing food and drink. Soon, they’ve burst into dance like in the movie musicals they see together (led by Jake Gyllenhaal’s Fred Astaire-like Ronnie Reed). The scene is chaotic, frivolous and a pure surge of electric joy.

It’s all the best moments of The Bride! packed into one sequence. Making the most of the pair enjoying being on the run as the police, and cronies sent by gang leaders, track them down. Gyllenhaal’s Bonnie And Clyde inspiration isn’t shied away from and is evident in a number of shots throughout, she has fun with presenting her two leads in such light, there’s an almost infectious nature to their glee. This criminal strand is where things truly find a spark and most often where they’re most confident.

Gyllenhaal’s screenplay, a very different set of affairs to her excellent drama The Lost Daughter, packs a lot in and not all of it settles. The opening scenes see Buckley’s Ida – as she’s known before resurrection by Frank and Dr Euphronious (Annette Bening), in order to give him a bride to stop his loneliness – possessed by the ghost of Mary Shelley (also Buckley), claiming to want to finish and properly tell her Frankenstein story, leading Buckley to flit between the pair’s voices and vocabulary in the first half before gradually dying down more as the narrative takes hold. It’s evident from this and much of what we see in the first ten minutes that we’re seeing a big-budget B-movie genre flick – the budget is said to have been around $80 million and a good deal of that appears to have successfully gone into the visual design.

There’s an undoubted boldness to The Bride! and for much of the run-time I admired the ambition, even if not everything clicked. We follow Peter Sarsgaard and Penélope Cruz as detectives on the tail of The Bride and Frank, yet don’t quite get enough of them to warrant the pay off and connection the film seems to want. It’s the case for a number of the supporting characters, and the themes and instances that relate to them most. Much like the protagonist there’s a wild nature to the film, but more to just how much it has going on and how it tonally shifts rather than attitude, of which there’s a dash.

The film wants to be wild but there’s a knowledge that it needs to be contained, particularly within a run-time that itself shifts in pacing. There’s a feeling that sometimes things need to let loose just a little bit more, feel the potential madness at hand and let the fun flow. Feel the frivolity of puttin’ on the Ritz. What’s present is still a likable monster caper held up by two effective central performances, especially Buckley’s dual (potentially even triple) performance which emits sparks of firecracker energy in the smirk often wiped on her face. But one that in its search for chaos can sometimes get that tangled in thematic elements which dampens the spark.

There’s an admirably ambitious film in the monster caper of The Bride that has enough occasional frivolity in its ideas and lead performances to see it through patches of jumbled themes and supporting characters with little connection.

Cert – 18, Run-time – 2 hours 35 minutes, Director – Mascha Schilinski

Four generations of women are haunted by isolation and secrets in the walls of the same farmhouse.

Separated by 110 years the four women, each at different stages of their lives, at the centre of Sound Of Falling constantly appear to be on the verge of a shudder. Not from ghosts trapped in the walls of the farmhouse they all live in but from the lingering traumas they carry. Each witness veiled secrets through the cracks in the doors, the changing face of each room; made to feel more isolated from the family and world around them.

Mascha Schilinski’s camera intimately glides through the figures in each scene. Getting close up to the emotion and stillness in each moment without feeling invasive or manipulative. It’s observant – perhaps the only ghost present in the film. The camera moves subtly and brings a lot to our connection with the increasingly isolated characters.

This is a film that’s a quiet slow-burn without a meditative feeling. We see the leads (Hanna Hekt as 1910s 7-year-old Alma, Lea Drinda and Lea Urzendowsky as 1940s and 80s teenagers Erika and Angelika and Laeni Geisler as modern day adult Lenka) carrying their emotions, at different stages of expressing and understanding. Yet, often they’re held in the eyes, let out in glances and looks away; moments alone. Urzendowsky particularly gives a standout performance as a teenager seemingly on the edges of everything. Looking for escape amongst judgement and presumptions from family about her sexual activity.

Secrets, intimacy and judgment play a factor in all the lives we see playing out. Blending together both thematically and in the editing, without feeling overly busy or jumpy – helped by the pacing. With the slow way in which things unfold, and sometimes the ways in which they do, Sound Of Falling certainly won’t be for everyone, but there’s a quietly engaging film here that moves with as much effect and subtlety as Schilinski’s camera. Getting to the core of the minds and feelings of the leads as they break down the walls of both the home they share over more than a century, and the faces around them. This is a film that wears a haunted weight and the only present ghost appears to be an observant, unobtrusive camera.

A quiet, slow-burn drama that cuts to the core of the weighted feelings of the four leads as they uncover secrets around them. Schilinski’s camera subtly weaves through isolation and trauma with great effect.

Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 43 minutes, Director – Frank E Flowers

Ercell’s (Priyanka Chopra Jonas) pirating past is long behind her, however when bloodthirsty Captain Connor (Karl Urban) kidnaps her husband (Ismael Cruz Córdova) and goes in search of her, she must protect her family from attack.

The pirate movie is something of a rarity these days, perhaps now more than ever. Amazon have chosen to bury their crack at the sub-genre, produced by the Russo brothers, directly on Amazon Prime rather than giving a cinema release. It seems something of a wise decision from them as a cinema release may well have led to a Cutthroat Island level impact for pirate flicks, although at least after that we got Muppet Treasure Island.

What The Muppets provided that The Bluff doesn’t is a sense of fun. Entertainment and slight thrills (let’s not forget Kermit The Frog’s sword fight with Tim Curry). This heavy-on-the-blood actioner is a bland trudge from start to finish as Priyanka Chopra Jonas’s Ercell, once nicknamed ‘Bloody Mary’, finds her quiet Caribbean island life turned upside down when old mentor Captain Connor (Karl Urban, boasting one of the most uneven accents for quite some time, ticking off almost every British county along the way) kidnaps her husband (Ismael Cruz Córdova) and attempts to track her down. Constantly fleeing through the island’s terrain a revenge-chase flick plays out while Ercell tries to protect her family.

Director Frank E Flowers and Joe Ballarini’s screenplay cycles through the same set ups of Connor commanding his crew to hunt down Ercell while she finds herself getting more into her old ways and reassuring her family that everything will be fine, whilst still looking worried. For 103-minutes much of what we see plays out along these overstretched, repeating lines, trying to push action that appears to lean into its bloodiness to compensate for the fact that it’s just not very interesting. We’ve seen this film done before, and better, and it simply feels difficult to engage with anything that’s happening on-screen with just how damp it all feels.

The plot is undoubtedly simplistic, and that’s not in itself an issue. It’s fine to have a simple revenge narrative play out, but the problem with The Bluff’s is that it feels like a cardboard cut-out, and at times looks like it was filmed against one too – an insistence on seemingly lighting a number of scenes with one giant spotlight provides some unappealing shots. Style is what the film truly lacks, the formulaic nature is highlighted by the fact that it plays things so safely and even more blandly in the wake of this. Dull from start to finish, it’s one of the most trying films in terms of pure boredom that I’ve seen for quite some time. Not even Karl Urban’s fluctuating accent is down to joyously hamming it up like Tim Curry.

A cardboard cut-out revenge flick with no real style, The Bluff is a bland, repetitive trudge from start to finish. Calling back to the kind of pirate movies that led to a pause in the sub-genre before.

Release Date – 13th March 2026, Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 45 minutes, Director – John Patton Ford

Becket (Glen Powell) has never seen his family after his mother (Nell Williams) was disowned before he was born, deciding he’s had enough he tries to ensure a $10 billion inheritance by pruning the family tree.

It goes without saying that almost no film is necessary, but particular ones along the lines of a remake of Kind Hearts And Coronets. However, while trying to pass itself as ‘inspired by’ the Ealing classic, here we are with How To Make A Killing, a remake that exchanges some of the original’s British wit and sharpness for an extra helping of darkness.

While not pitch black there’s an enjoyable smirk to the film, especially as Glen Powell’s lead Becket Redfellow goes about trimming the family tree in order to obtain an otherwise unreachable $10 billion inheritance, alongside the lifestyle of the ridiculously rich and famous. He’s had to graft and be undermined much of his life after his mother (Nell Williams) was disowned after falling pregnant, eventually passing away when Becket was young, and himself subsequently rejected by head Redfellow Whitelaw (Ed Harris). The kills themselves may not be darkly comic, generally they play out with the humour surrounding them, but over time they develop more into the mould of the film as Becket’s life changes.

He starts to fall in with Jessica Henwick’s Ruth, despite still maybe having feelings for childhood crush Julia (Margaret Qualley). While Ruth is a direct and likable character, bringing about much of the film’s ideas about money and happiness, Julia is an odd figure. As Becket finds himself in better positions at work she starts to appear more with requests for money, and suggestions of unhappiness in her marriage. However, her appearances are brief and each time feel somewhat patchy, bringing about a feeling of unintentional inconsistency to her. Perhaps boosted by the feeling of only a rough character outline.

To some extent her character matches the humour in the film. While there are some good chuckles here and there, especially once the film finds its rhythm with Becket’s plan properly unfurling, there are also good stretches where they falter or just don’t seem to be coming through at all. There’s still a general likability to the film, helped by Powell’s lead performance, as is the case with much that he leads, but it can sometimes feel as if its slowing down as it tries to reconfirm what it wants to say amongst the various killings and relationships we see struck up by the murderous tailor employee trying to evade the circling FBI (with agents played by Phumi Tau and Stevel Marc).

In tackling Becket’s conflicting feelings about money, happiness, love and wants things are dealt with fairly lightly but fitting for what the film is. However, there’s a feeling of things twisting around themselves in the third act, especially in the very final stages where it feels like the film has a slight vein of uncertainty about whether it’s going to get away with its end (which it generally does, but feels held back by that uncertainty). It’s a feeling likely stemmed from the reduced sharpness, and more upfront satirical edges through the lifestyles led by the wealthy Redfellow family members – including an amusing turn from Zach Woods as attempting artist Noah.

For the most part the film works and provides a good amount of chuckles and amusement as Powell goes about offing the Redfellow family more swiftly as the run-time goes on. There may be patches where things sit uncertainly as to character or whether the film will get away with how it eventually presents its ideas, but for the most part the darker edges help to see it through while maintaining the lead’s likability in the wake of his character’s murderous activities.

While there may be some bumpy patches in terms of character and confidence in how themes are presented How To Make A Killing gets through with a good handful of dark, satirical chuckles and Glen Powell’s naturally likable presence.

Cert – 15, Run-time -1 hour 55 minutes, Director – Morgan Neville

Documentary looking at Paul McCartney’s 70s career, from the break-up of The Beatles to chart success of Wings.

Throughout the 70s, through solo work and the success of Wings Paul McCartney is, and was, asked about whether The Beatles will be getting back together. Increasing millions are offered for them to perform just one song together on stage again, as they all continue with their own projects – especially Lennon and McCartney. In the case of the latter during this decade, the focus of Morgan Neville’s Man On The Run, moving on from this period of his life is a major point. He wants to explore different pursuits, although many will point to echoes of The Beatles within them.

Despite McCartney’s want to move on with both life and work, in looking at how he does this Neville seems to consistently refer back to The Beatles making it somewhat hard to look at Wings as its own thing with the overhanging past success. Yet, McCartney, interviewed by the director in multiple sessions forming the film’s narration, is open about his attitudes at the time to making music and spending time with his family. The struggles he went through in trying to pursue both amongst hassle from the press and fans.

There’s something of a whistle-stop nature to the film as it covers the decade and everything that was thrown at McCartney as part of it, and in turn he threw back at it. As someone largely only familiar with the hits around this time, and even some of those I’m still clueless about (I’d comfortably say I know more about The Frog Chorus than any of his 70s work), I still felt as if the film occasionally repeated itself or leaned back into familiar subjects rather than referring back to them with more depth. This, again, particularly feels the case with references to The Beatles and the Lennon-McCartney relationship, even if this does produce the more emotional side of the film’s subject in the later stages when talking about the pair making up.

When looking at McCartney going out and simply performing, doing what he wants to do, and letting that work almost speak for itself the film is at its best. Whether deciding to release his take on Mary Had A Little Lamb, strange TV specials in the early 70s or going out and performing while everyone demands or expects his former bandmates to appear on stage when admiring the artist and his work over talking about success the film is largely at its best. Especially when backed by McCartney talking about his drive, connection with band, family and music and wanting to do well with all of them. I just wish that things didn’t feel as if they had to unnecessarily refer back so much to The Beatles.

When looking at McCartney’s views on his work and relationships, in the many forms each takes, his drive boosts the footage of his various performances. However, Man On The Run, like the star in the view of many in the 70s, lives in the shadow of The Beatles with a few too many references to the band.

Release Date – 6th March 2026, Cert – U, Run-time – 1 hour 44 minutes, Director – Daniel Chong

19-year-old Mabel (Piper Curda) wants to protect a peaceful glade from a highway construction, when her mind is put into a beaver’s body she leads the animals to rebel, but could be creating more problems for humans.

It hasn’t been that long since the likes of Soul and Turning Red, or even Inside Out 2, but when a studio as notable as Pixar has just one stumble (I was not the biggest fan of Elio’s overstretched busyness) it can sometimes feel a while since a film of theirs hit, especially an original one. Hoppers feels like the studio simply having fun with an idea, and making a rather entertaining film whilst doing so.

Much of this comes from the sparkiness of rebellious 19-year-old Mabel (Piper Curda), intent on protecting the peaceful glade where she spent much of her childhood with her grandmother (Karen Huie) from becoming a construction site for a new highway, led by popular city mayor Jerry (Jon Hamm). The glade has been a place of calm for Mabel for many years, having become almost therapeutic to observe the wildlife there when stressed or angry – the opening scene sees young Mabel (Lila Liu) trying to save class pets in her backpack and causing chaos when trying to escape from teachers. She’s an energetic character, and even more so when she discovers technology her university professor (Kathy Najimy) has created which allows her consciousness to be put into a robot beaver.

From here she excitedly explores the animal world, guided by beaver King George (Bobby Moynihan), and tries to get them to return to the glade to prevent construction. However, her efforts quickly lead to grown tensions between humans and animals, with the formers lives at risk. There’s plenty of fun to be had when this latter point develops – including a wonderfully silly moment involving a shark – helping to see things through as they start to feel like they’re trying to find their way towards an ending rather than knowing fully what that route is.

It means that the film may feel about 10 minutes too long, with some ideas being dealt with separately rather than together, but there’s still a good number of chuckles to be found along the way. Generally, the humour of Hoppers is what helps to see it through, alongside those brief moments of emotion that remind us of Mabel’s relationship with her grandmother – highlight moments in the film, alongside the aforementioned shark which strikes a very different tone. Much of this humour comes from the supporting characters and the ways in which they play into the narrative. An animal council with figures representing the likes of mammals, serpents, birds, insects (Meryl Streep making an appearance), fish, etc feels less thrown in and notably formulaic than in Elio and while not the strongest element of Hoppers manages to have enough backing behind it to create a handful more antagonists for Mabel, George and co to face.

It’s around the introduction of these characters that things start to gradually develop in a more step-by-step way, but they’re at least given a push by the narrative that leads to a number of likable sequences which makes the most of both the animal world, and the technology that put Mabel into this situation in the first place. You can feel the creatives having fun with the ideas at hand which boosts the entertainment factor and makes for a simply enjoyable film that believes in its characters. One that might not have as much of a rebellious attitude as its lead character, but matches her energy on first taking on beaver form and continuing that until the end. This may not quite be the studio at their strongest, but it’s another slice of entertaining animation that they still manage to do rather well indeed.

While it might start to deal with its matters in a very step-by-step way there’s plenty of spark within Hoppers to see it through, helped by a good dose of successful humour from the world and supporting characters around the likably propulsive lead.

Cert – 18, Run-time – 1 hour 54 minutes, Director – Kevin Williamson

Ghostface (Roger L .Jackson) comes back, taking on faces from the past, to once again attack Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), by also targeting her teenage daughter (Isabel May).

My views on Scream VI were that it suffered from a rushed production. It was a film that needed more than a year from greenlighting to release. Scream 7 has had a much more tumultuous production. With multiple re-writes and directors dropping out, following the firing of new franchise faces Melissa Barrera, and quitting of Jenna Ortega, following comments made by Barrera in support of Palestine, causing it to take three years to get to the screen; with Neve Campbell returning to the role of Sidney Prescott (now Sidney Evans) having not been in the previous instalment when the pay offered to her didn’t match what she believed she was worth. Also returning is original Scream (and Scream 2 and 4) writer Kevin Williamson, taking on directing duties as well as co-writing with Guy Busick who created the story with James Vanderbilt.

With Ghostface (again voiced by Roger L. Jackson) taunting Sidney and her teenage daughter, Tatum (Isabel May), with faces from her, and the killer’s, past there’s a slight feeling of this seventh instalment clinging to that whilst being significantly less self-aware. The kills are more intense and at times in the first few instances almost feel as if they border on sadistic with how much they linger on gory details. Two early examples in particular feel as if they could be tonally better suited to Saw than Scream; as if trying to rival recent, non-franchise-threatening, slashers such as Terrifier or In A Violent Nature. Yet, it’s these sequences where Williamson feels most engaged as a director, leaning into the loudness of the moment as opposed to the soap opera-esque stylings of more dialogue-centric scenes.

As for his cast, however, whether new faces, newer faces, faces who have been with the series for the last 30 years or just Ghostfaces, there’s a consistent feeling throughout that most people we see on-screen would rather be elsewhere. It simply feels as if a number of key cast-members’ hearts aren’t in this particular film and that lack of energy comes through and dampens a film that’s already struggling to get beyond a weak script. One lacking in proper engaging actions for its characters, leaving them to feel stuck in the same rotation of scream-led chases and attacks. Amongst all of this I found myself sat simply bored, the film not pointing out its own clichés as it became focused on referencing the past with more old faces cropping up in supporting roles more than cameos.

There’s less a feeling of multiple re-writes or a story that’s changed hands and more one that’s purely weak. One that isn’t completely bought into by those on screen – the reveal of who’s behind the Ghostface mask this time leads to suddenly hammier acting than ever – and subsequently those watching. Maybe an unnecessarily troubled production led to a sense of weariness from those involved. But, there seems little attempt to cover that up on screen as actors limply fight off another, unthrillingly bloodier, Ghostface.

With ill-fitting focus on the severity of attacks and a soap opera style outside of them, Scream 7 is a weak story that it seems very few involved buy into. There’s an unengaging lack of energy on screen and an overall weariness to much that happens.