Koldrian

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is a stylish and enjoyable sequel, even if it repeats too much from the original. The cast is excellent, the fashion looks fantastic, and the Runway atmosphere is still there. Unfortunately, Miranda feels too softened, Nigel is underused, and several romantic subplots add very little. Reheated, but still surprisingly tasty.

Tenet is an ambitious, visually impressive and brilliantly scored film that I admired more than I emotionally connected with. Nolan’s direction, action scenes and use of sound are excellent, and Robert Pattinson is easily the strongest part of the **** inverted-time concept is fascinating, but the film often becomes so focused on its own rules that it creates distance instead of tension. I spent too much time trying to understand the mechanics and too little time caring about most of the characters.A good film, but not close to Inception or Interstellar for me.6.5/10

Elize: Shadows of a Woman is a competent but unremarkable true-crime drama. Its slow four-act structure builds some tension and successfully explains Elize’s fears, past and need for **** problem is that the film goes beyond understanding her and starts justifying the murder. Marcos is presented so negatively that he barely feels like a victim, while Elize’s actions are framed as panic and almost her only option. That is difficult to accept, especially when her calculated behavior after the killing does not fit the image of a helpless woman acting purely in a moment of **** performances are solid and the story remains coherent, but the pacing can drag and the film manipulates the audience too heavily toward one conclusion. Decent, occasionally thought-provoking, but not particularly memorable.6/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Some movies live better in your memory than they do in a full rewatch. That is exactly what happened to me with Father of the Bride. I knew this film for years, but mostly in pieces. A scene here, a scene there, random TV reruns when I was younger. So I finally sat down and watched the whole thing from beginning to end. And yes, it is still a sweet family classic. Just not one that completely won me over. A father losing his place The story is simple. George Banks, played by Steve Martin, is a middle-aged father who suddenly has to accept that his daughter Annie is no longer a little girl. She comes back from Europe, tells her parents she met Bryan, and announces that she is getting married. For George, this is not just wedding news. It is the moment when he realizes that his role as the most important man in his daughter’s life is changing. I do not have children myself, but I understand the emotional idea behind it. Thinking about a situation like that, I can imagine a lot of men quietly laughing at George and then realizing they would probably lose their minds a little too. The wedding panic is the best part The movie works best when George is completely overwhelmed by the wedding machine: meeting the future son-in-law, meeting his family, watching the costs explode, and trying to process the fact that everything is moving faster than he is ready for. Steve Martin carries most of the comedy through facial expressions, disbelief, inner monologues, and that constant “how much is this going to cost me?” energy. It is not a loud, laugh-out-loud comedy. It is more **** family comedy that makes you smile rather than burst out laughing. That also means his style can feel a little tiring today. I like Steve Martin, but there are moments where the amount of face acting becomes a bit much. A very expensive kind of family chaos There is also something funny about watching this movie in 2026 from a Polish perspective. Even today, weddings can be painfully expensive, but this is a wedding between a fairly wealthy family and an even wealthier one. The level of money being spent feels almost abstract. For most Polish families, a wedding like this would be completely out of reach. Half a million zloty for a wedding? For that kind of money, several families here could probably reorganize their entire lives. Of course, the general idea still translates. The bride’s family often takes on a big part of organizing the celebration, and wedding coordinators do exist, especially among wealthier people. But the scale here feels very American, very glossy, and very far from ordinary reality. Warm, but calmer than I remembered Diane Keaton is excellent as Nina Banks. She brings warmth, patience, and balance to the film. She is the calm center opposite George’s emotional spiral. Martin Short as Franck Eggelhoffer is also great, bringing a more exaggerated, theatrical energy that the movie really needs. The problem is that once George calms down and starts becoming a more understanding father, the film also starts losing some of its spark. Everyone becomes more reasonable, the chaos softens, and the second half becomes a little too polite for me. That is probably why I remembered this movie better in fragments than I experienced it as one full viewing. Still a good classic, just not magic Father of the Bride is a warm, gentle, very safe family comedy about a father learning to let his daughter go into a new stage of life. It is based on a simple idea, and it does not try to be anything more than that. It did not move me deeply, and I was not laughing all the time. But I understand the emotion behind it. I understand George’s panic, his fear, and that strange sadness hidden under all the wedding jokes. It is a sympathetic classic without a huge “wow” effect. 6/10

Ready or Not is supposedly a horror-comedy slasher. And maybe that is already part of the problem for me, because I do not really watch horror. When I was younger, I was scared of it, and even now I do not enjoy watching something just to feel fear, tension or anxiety. If those emotions appear naturally in a film, fine. But sitting down specifically to be trapped in that mood has never been my thing. Still, I can understand slashers and splatter films a bit more than classic horror. Their brutality can become so absurd that it starts working with comedy. In theory, Ready or Not should be that kind of film. For me, it was not. The film opens with a twisted version of hide and seek. Years later, Alex marries Grace, and at midnight she has to take part in his family’s strange tradition. Unfortunately for her, she draws hide and seek, turning the night into a deadly game inside a huge old mansion. On paper, I get the appeal. In practice, I was bored. The film is violent, sometimes in an accidental, slapstick way, sometimes more directly brutal. That did not bother me. I do not have a problem with gore when it has rhythm, tension or a point. The problem is that the film seems to think brutality is already funny. It is not. There are situational jokes, character-based jokes, awkward accidents, exaggerated reactions and this whole absurd family dynamic, but almost none of it landed for me. I think I laughed once, maybe. The rest felt like the film was constantly nudging me and saying, “See? This is crazy.” Yes, I see it. I just do not think it is funny. The family is full of types rather than people: the leader, the drunk, the addict, the idiot, the cold rich relatives. Everyone has a function, everyone plays their part, but very few of them actually feel interesting. Adam Brody’s Daniel was easily the best part of the film for me. He is the only character who feels like he has an actual internal conflict. He hates this family, he hates the ritual, and he understands how rotten the whole thing is, but he is still trapped between his love for his brother and the world he came from. Grace, however, did not win me over. I know Samara Weaving’s Grace is probably the reason many people love this movie. For me, she did not work. I understand that she is terrified and wants to survive at any cost, but after a while, all I remembered from her was screaming. Instead of rooting for her more and more, I started getting irritated. At some point I was not emotionally invested in her survival anymore. I just wanted the noise to stop. Harsh, but that was genuinely my reaction. Alex is another major problem. His shift in the story completely failed for me. The film tries to explain it a little through dialogue, but it never gave me a believable emotional reason to accept it. It felt less like a tragic turn and more like the script suddenly needed him to be somewhere else mentally. The screenplay kept throwing me out of the movie too. The butler/servant character feels like pure screenplay convenience. He finds Grace out of nowhere, starts a car that was supposedly blocked, survives things that should have killed him, and when he finally stops being useful, the film just moves on to another convenient moment. Then, near the end, the head of the family appears exactly when needed, again in a way that felt like the script dragging the victim back into place. I can suspend disbelief, but this film kept poking holes in that suspension. Too many moments felt less like absurd horror-comedy logic and more like lazy mechanics. The best thing in Ready or Not is the house. The mansion genuinely has atmosphere. It looks like an old dynasty, a family empire, a place with history, rot, wealth and ritual buried in the walls. Visually, that part works. The setting sells the idea better than many of the characters do. But a good location is not enough. The film has style, blood, a strong setting and one character I actually cared about. What it did not have, at least for me, was humor that worked, characters I wanted to follow, or a script that held together. And no, I do not think this is only because “the genre is not for me.” I am not a big slasher or splatter fan, but even films like The Hills Have Eyes or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre worked better for me than this, and I do not even consider them masterpieces. Ready or Not simply did not justify the praise I often see around it. The final comedic payoff did not save it either. For me, it was awkward, not funny, and kind of embarrassing. I was bored, the screenplay kept pulling me out of the film, and I never bought the key emotional turns. 4/10.

Project Hail Mary is a fairy tale for adults. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. In fact, I think that is exactly why it works so **** film follows Ryland Grace, a scientist and teacher who wakes up on a spacecraft with no memory of how he got there. Slowly, we learn the bigger picture: Earth is not dying immediately, but the Sun is. Something is feeding on its energy, and if nothing changes, humanity may face a catastrophic drop in temperature within a few decades. Grace is sent on a desperate cosmic Hail Mary. The beginning is quite scientific, sometimes even a little dry, but I do not really see that as a flaw. The film needs that setup. It needs to show who Grace was before the mission: a funny, nervous, slightly cowardly teacher who often ran away from hard things. That matters, because the story later becomes about what happens when someone like that is forced to become brave. For me, the real soul of the film is not just the mission to save Earth. It is Grace’s relationship with Rocky. At first, I had that simple reaction: “An alien rock? Really?” But after a while, I just went with it, because the film earns it. Rocky is not just a cute alien sidekick. The way his species understands the universe, and especially the things they cannot understand, becomes a meaningful part of the story. It explains why he is alone, why some things went wrong, and why communication between him and Grace matters so much. And that communication is fantastic. Their friendship is simple, almost fairy-tale-like, but it never feels stupid. It has humor, fear, trust, frustration, curiosity, and that beautiful feeling of two completely different beings slowly building a language together. At some point, I genuinely started thinking: forget Earth for a second, save Erid. Save Rocky’s world too. That is when the film had me completely. Project Hail Mary knows exactly when to make the viewer laugh, when to make us worry, and when to hit us with something genuinely moving. Grace’s humor is important here. It is not just “funny guy in space” humor. A lot of it feels like nervous laughter, like a survival mechanism. He jokes because the alternative is panic. The film also creates tension without becoming too cold or too technical. You feel the stakes, but you also feel the friendship. You feel the danger, but you believe in these characters. There were moments where I caught myself thinking: “They have to make it. They just have to.” Ryan Gosling is excellent here. I really think he is going through a new acting renaissance. He looks like he is having fun with the character, and this nervous, funny, emotionally open version of Gosling fits him much better now than another melancholic sad boy role. Project Hail Mary uses that energy perfectly. When I tried to compare the film to something, Interstellar was the obvious first thought. But it is not exactly that. Interstellar plays on family, time, memory, and the pain of leaving someone behind. Grace does not really have that same thing waiting for him on Earth. Then there is The Martian, also an obvious comparison, especially because of the science, survival, problem-solving, and Andy Weir connection. But Project Hail Mary feels warmer, more emotional, and less like a solo survival puzzle. Strangely enough, the closest comparison for me may be Passengers, even though I know that film did not work for many people. Project Hail Mary has some of that same loneliness and relationship-building in space, but combines it with the mission-to-save-humanity scale of Interstellar and adds much more humor. The result is something more accessible, open, and inviting. I think even people who are not usually into sci-fi could enjoy this. I think even my grandma might like it, although she would absolutely look at Rocky and say: “Oh dear, what an ugly little creature.” The ending worked for me. It connects beautifully to Grace’s own story. It is funny, touching, and a little strange in the best possible way. I also laughed at the thought that Grace basically becomes a monkey in an Eridian zoo. A very respected monkey, sure, but still. The ending leaves the door slightly open, but I hope this stays as one complete story. Not everything needs a sequel. Sometimes a beautiful cosmic fairy tale should just end, let us sit with it, and not explain every possible future. Project Hail Mary gave me joy, fear, emotion, laughter, tension, and that childlike feeling of watching a big adventure for the first time. It reminded me of how it feels to watch something like The Lion King as a kid: you start to understand courage, loss, sacrifice, friendship, and fear, but the experience itself still feels exciting rather than heavy. That is what I mean when I call it a fairy tale for adults. 9/10.

Enola Holmes 3 is not really a detective movie anymore. It is a family adventure romance that occasionally remembers it is supposed to pretend there is a mystery. And somehow, it is still better than the second film. After the first Enola Holmes, which I saw as a light but enjoyable 6/10 adventure, the second one was a big step down for me. It made Enola feel less independent, handled the romance poorly, let Sherlock overshadow her too much, and dragged its ending for far too long. Enola Holmes 3 fixes some of that, but not enough This time the story moves to Malta. Moriarty escapes, Enola is supposed to marry Lord Tewkesbury, but on the way to the altar she learns that her brother has disappeared. Instead of showing up at her own wedding, she starts searching for him. The setup is fine. It gives the film movement and urgency. The problem is that the mystery itself is weak. One thing I did appreciate: Enola feels more like the solid, independent heroine of her own story again. The film clearly tries to correct one of the biggest problems of the second movie. She is more active, more decisive, and more central to the plot. But the fix also feels rushed, as if the writers knew there was a problem and simply patched it without fully rebuilding the character work around it. The relationship between Enola and Tewkesbury is probably the most polished part of the film. Not the best, but the most complete. Their closeness, comfort, and romantic attachment finally feel visible. Some of those scenes are genuinely nice. The issue is that this arrives two films too late. It could have been a beautiful payoff if the previous movies had built the relationship better. I also like the idea of Sherlock not stealing Enola’s story. He should be a supporting character here, not the person solving everything. But there is a difference between pushing Sherlock into the background and making him look strangely helpless. At times, it feels less like Sherlock is being restrained by the story and more like he is being weakened because the script needs him out of the way. The treasure plot gave me strong The Sign of Four vibes. I may be wrong, but I felt some inspiration there, and I do not think that is a bad thing. A Holmes spin-off can absolutely borrow from or wink at classic Holmes stories. The real problem is that the mystery barely feels like a mystery. When I think “Holmes,” I think deduction, clues, details, and the feeling that maybe I missed something. Here, there is not much to miss, because the movie keeps showing us what matters almost directly. Moriarty was also disappointing. She is supposed to be brilliant, rational, cold, and terrifying, but she felt shallow. The film presents her as a mastermind, yet her motivation seems driven mostly by hatred and anger. That contradiction could have been interesting, but the movie does not really explore it. The first major Moriarty vs Enola fight is where the film really started to lose me. Enola should lose, or at least suffer consequences, but the scene twists itself into nonsense. She suddenly wins, then runs away as if she lost. Yes, I know it is supposed to be part of Moriarty’s plan, but it still feels broken. And then the movie once again drags Enola’s mother into the story as a mentor figure in the clumsiest way possible. **** this. That really frustrated me. It felt forced, unnecessary, and absurdly placed. Even worse, the film keeps interrupting urgent action with romantic beats at bizarre moments. I like the romance. I think it belongs here. But when your brother and mother are in danger, pausing the story for relationship material feels completely wrong. That is not emotional depth. That is tonal whiplash. The finale is also full of holes. Moriarty escapes too many times, gets knocked out and simply gets back up, and both she and Enola make stupid decisions despite being presented as extremely intelligent. For a story about two brilliant women trying to outsmart each other, the final act contains a shocking amount of stupidity. So yes, Enola Holmes 3 is better than Enola Holmes 2. It gives Enola back some independence, handles her relationship with Tewkesbury better, keeps Sherlock from taking over the film, and uses Malta well enough to give the story a different flavor. But the mystery is weak, Moriarty is shallow, the action is full of holes, and the emotional beats often land in the wrong places. It is not terrible. It is just frustrating, because you can see a better movie inside it. For me, the ranking is simple: Enola Holmes 1 is still the best, Enola Holmes 3 is better than the second, and Enola Holmes 2 remains the weakest. 4.5/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Ella McCay is one of those films that creates a strange internal conflict while you watch it. On one hand, it is not bad. On the other, it is hard to call it good. You are slightly bored, but you also keep watching. There is something pleasant about it, something warm, something familiar, yet the film never really becomes memorable. The story follows Ella McCay, a brilliant and highly driven woman whose childhood is shaped by family trauma. Her father’s betrayal leaves a mark, and her mother’s attempt to make peace with it is not easy for Ella to accept. Later, after her parents move to California and Ella stays with her aunt Helen, that family fracture becomes part of who she is. Years pass, her mother is gone, and Ella is deep into her political career, just as she is about to take the governor’s seat. Emma Mackey is easily one of the best parts of the film. I think she really knows how to bring charm and control to a role. Ella is extremely rational, emotionally restrained, intelligent and effective. She is the kind of ambitious person who has one clear goal in life and pushes toward it with everything she has. The difference is that dreamers are usually emotional. Ella is not. She is practical, capable and a little strange because so much of her life is built around control, competence and suppressing emotion. That makes her interesting. You want to like her, even when the character feels slightly odd. Jamie Lee Curtis also works very well as Helen, Ella’s aunt. She often plays strong, decisive women, but there is usually a different flavor to each of them. Here she has that slightly weird-aunt energy, but she is also warm and deeply involved in Ella’s life. Their relationship works because Helen is basically the person who replaces Ella’s mother. And let’s be honest, parents who move away, even for the final year of their child’s school life, are not just “fixing their marriage.” They are leaving their child behind. That emotional bond between Ella and Helen makes sense. Julie Kavner as Estelle, Ella’s secretary and narrator, is also a highlight. She brings humor and personality to the film, and she is one of the side characters who actually leaves an impression. Visually, I liked the film. The shots have this soft, slightly old-fashioned feeling, almost like something shot on older film stock from the 90s or early 2000s. It gave me a bit of nostalgia. There is also a small-town American atmosphere to it, almost like a bigger Smallville without superheroes. The problem is the script. The film has too many side stories that do not really change anything. If some of them disappeared completely, Ella’s story would remain almost the same. Her brother’s subplot could barely exist and nothing would break. Her father’s storyline is used a little, mostly through her husband, but even that feels underdeveloped. The husband’s role mostly exists to damage her career, but the film could have reached that same point in many stronger ways. Maybe Ella could have repeated her father’s pattern. Maybe she could have been caught in a situation that looked like betrayal, even if nothing actually happened. Maybe the family trauma and political scandal could have been connected in a more meaningful way. Instead, many threads feel like they are there because the script needed more movement. The father had an affair, so someone mentions it later. That is technically a connection, but it is not a satisfying one. It feels weak. That is the biggest issue with Ella McCay. It has good actors, a pleasant visual tone and a main character who could have carried a stronger film. But as a story, it feels unfocused and oddly harmless. It starts with family drama, has moments that seem like comedy, touches politics, adds scattered personal subplots, and somehow ends up feeling more like an average family film than a sharp comedy-drama. The ending did not change much for me either. It was more of an “okay, so that happened” ending than something that made the whole film click. Ella McCay feels like the kind of movie you can put on during a Sunday family dinner and let it play in the background. If you do that ten times, randomly catching different parts each time, you will probably understand the whole plot eventually. It has charm, but not enough force. It has performances, but not enough story. It has mood, but not enough purpose. 5/10.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Sheep Detectives is a crime/detective story aimed mostly at younger viewers, but it surprised me more than I expected. At first, I was not really convinced. The whole opening, the introduction, the exaggerated innocence of the sheep, and the quick setup of the murder mystery made me think: okay, this probably is not for me. It felt like a hyper-realistic fairy tale with CGI sheep, and for a moment I was ready to mentally check out. I was wrong. The further the film goes, the better it gets. Apart from the introduction, which I think could have been polished a bit more, the story is actually arranged quite well. There is a clear mystery, a set of potential suspects, and a simple but effective way of guiding the viewer through the investigation. The crime plot is not impossible to figure out. You can probably guess who may be involved and how. But the film does a good job of showing who can be ruled out, who is still suspicious, and what small details may have slipped past us. And even though the investigation is technically led by a sheep, I can easily imagine this encouraging kids to play detective themselves, or maybe even to read more detective stories. I also liked that the film has a few moral points that actually make sense for children. There is something here about social exclusion, being treated differently, difficult emotions, and whether painful memories are worth keeping. It is not heavy or complicated, but it gives you a few things to talk about after watching. Visually, the sheep are obviously CGI, and I noticed that a lot at the beginning. But once I started getting into the film, that artificial feeling slowly faded into the background. That is a plus, because some children’s movies push their effects so hard that you can only focus on the CGI, not the story. Here, after a while, it works. As for the cast, this is mostly about the voice acting. The real actors appear enough to serve their roles, although I do wish we had seen more of Hugh Jackman. Still, I liked the idea of him as this watchful father/pastor figure. And when you look at the names attached to the film, it is clear that Amazon MGM invested well. Was such a strong cast absolutely necessary? Maybe not. But does every character sound good? Yes. Sometimes it is simply fun to suddenly think: “Wait, where do I know that voice from? Oh, Roy Kent.” So yes, I recommend The Sheep Detectives. It is childish, but in the right way. A simple, warm, family-friendly detective story that gets better as it goes on. And if you let yourself enter its world and suspend your disbelief, the ending can even be gently moving. 8/10.

The Fall Guy is not a perfect movie, but it gave me exactly the kind of movie joy I sometimes miss. Ryan Gosling plays Colt Seavers, a stuntman whose career falls apart after a serious accident. Eighteen months later, he is pulled back onto a film set to help Jody Moreno, his ex and a camera operator turned director, played by Emily Blunt. Somewhere in the middle of that, a missing movie star, Tom Ryder, turns the whole thing into a mix of action comedy, romance, Hollywood satire and stuntman love letter. I have seen some people complain that Gosling is not the same anymore now that he keeps doing lighter, more comedic roles. My only real complaint is that he should probably leave his face alone and stop fighting time with Botox. Other than that, he absolutely works here. He has that weird mix of charm, sadness, awkwardness and movie-star presence that reminded me a little of Drive, especially in the more romantic and music-driven moments. He was supposed to be the star of this film, and he is the star. But it is not only him. Emily Blunt gives Jody the right kind of energy: normal, warm, sharp, and then suddenly fully professional when she has to take control of the set. The romance between Colt and Jody works because it does not feel like one of those painfully sugary screen romances. It feels more like two people who already know each other’s rhythm. Two kindred spirits who have the same vibe, the same language, the same private joke. In a script like this, that kind of romance was necessary. If it had been more melodramatic or forced, it could have easily broken the film. The Fall Guy is also packed with movie references, easter eggs and little winks at the audience. Since it is a film about filmmaking, it constantly plays with cinema, actors, stunt work, green screen, VFX and the absurdity of Hollywood. I am sure I missed some references, but a few of them gave me that Leonardo DiCaprio pointing-at-the-TV meme reaction. “Oh, I know this one.” The practical stunt work and old-school effects are probably the best part of the whole thing. The film openly makes fun of green screen and digital shortcuts, while reminding you how much fun physical action can be when it has weight, danger and personality. You can feel that this movie actually likes stunt performers. It is not just using them as background labor for explosions. There are problems, though. The pacing is uneven. The film gets moving, the energy rises, something fun starts happening, and then it suddenly slows down too much. Then it builds up again and drops again. It does not ruin the movie, but it does break the rhythm. There were moments where I genuinely thought: “Oh no, it was just getting good.” The script itself is also not especially strong. The actors, chemistry, stunts and general mood are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Without Gosling, Blunt and the whole stunt-centered personality of the film, this could have been a much flatter action comedy. But even with those issues, I had a really good time. Not because it is some flawless masterpiece, and not only because it is a comedy. I simply felt happy watching it. It reminded me that a movie can be messy, uneven and still leave you with a smile because the energy is right. 8/10.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I did not expect Ladies First to be this good. A comedy about a sexist corporate guy waking up in a reversed gender-role world could have gone wrong very easily. It could have been lazy, preachy, repetitive or built around one joke stretched for the whole movie. But honestly? It works. Damien Sachs, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, is the kind of man you understand immediately. Confident, arrogant, convinced he is handsome, charming mostly when young women are around, and basically a complete jerk. He is the director of Atlas, on his way to becoming CEO, until an argument with Alex Fox, played by Rosamund Pike, leads to him hitting a pole, losing consciousness and waking up in an alternate world where the roles are reversed. And this is where the movie becomes genuinely funny. Ladies First is satire in a distorted mirror. It takes stereotypical male behavior, flips the perspective, and lets women take over the same patterns. The result is exaggerated, sometimes absurd, but very effective. The comedy is broad, but it does not feel forced just for the sake of having jokes every few seconds. The film understands its own concept and keeps finding new ways to use it. What surprised me most is how well-designed the whole world feels. Even smaller details work. “Mad World,” a song many people probably associate with Gary Jules, is performed here by Jasmine Thompson in the reversed world. That kind of choice matters. It shows that the film is not just throwing random jokes at the screen. It actually thinks about how this alternate reality should feel. The pacing is also very solid. The story moves through familiar corporate and social stereotypes one by one: ambition, promotion, power games, charm, status, appearance, double standards. Almost every step has a purpose and most of them are funny. And yes, the film does leave some room for reflection. Not in a deep philosophical way, and I do not think it needs to. For me, the message is simple: treat people fairly regardless of gender. And honestly, you can extend that further, to race, religion or orientation too. If people have the same competence, put in the same effort and fight for a better life, they should not be pushed down because of who they are. At the same time, I do not read this film as saying: “let’s just reverse the system and everything will be fine.” That would not be equality either. The point is not that one group should now get everything for free. The point is that power, arrogance and unfair treatment look ugly no matter who holds them. Sacha Baron Cohen is very good here. Damien’s change could have felt fake, rushed or written only because the story needed a moral ending. But it actually lands. His humiliation, confusion, frustration and eventual internal shift feel natural enough for this kind of comedy. I also like that this is another recent comedy made for Netflix that actually surprised me in a positive way. It is not a Netflix original production in the strictest sense, but it still feels like the kind of streaming comedy I would usually approach with caution. This time, I was wrong to be cautious. Also, I only found out later that Ladies First is loosely based on the French film I Am Not an Easy Man. I might actually check the original one day, because if the idea worked this well here, I am curious how it played in the earlier version. 8/10. A very good comedy. Funny, sharp, well acted and much more carefully built than I expected.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Fackham Hall is one of those comedies that will either annoy you after ten minutes or completely win you over. It is a parody of films and shows built around English aristocracy, grand estates, murder mysteries, servants, family secrets and all that beautifully stiff British drama. Think Downton Abbey, some Knives Out energy, and a style of humor closer to The Naked Gun, with a bit of that deliberately stupid parody spirit. And honestly, I had a really good time with it. This is absolutely not a comedy for everyone. If you do not like absurd humor, wordplay, visual jokes happening in the background, silly misunderstandings, lowbrow gags and jokes hiding behind the main action, this will probably be exhausting. But if that kind of humor works for you, Fackham Hall gives you a lot to catch. ritish.What I liked most is that the movie understands timing. A lot of the humor is primitive or intentionally dumb, but it is often placed exactly where it needs to be. It has that old-school rhythm where the joke is not only in the dialogue, but also in the movement, the background, the pause, the reaction, or some stupid detail you almost missed. In that sense, it reminded me a little of the Benny Hill kind of momentum: fast, ridiculous, knowingly silly and very British. The wordplay works well, the situational absurdity lands more often than not, and the film clearly enjoys making fun of both English aristocracy and modern viewing trends: costume dramas, murder mysteries, elegant estates, class tension, servants, scandals, inheritance, secrets. It does not try to be moralistic or deep. It just points at all of it and laughs. The cast is good. I would not say anyone completely steals the film, but I also do not think that was the point. Everyone plays the material correctly, keeps the rhythm, delivers the gags and understands the tone. In this kind of parody, that is probably exactly what you need. Is Fackham Hall some brilliant comedy classic? No. Not really. Some jokes are dumb, some are very obvious, and some will probably make people roll their eyes. But the movie never pretends to be anything more than what it is: a silly, fast, very British parody of period dramas and murder mysteries. And sometimes that is enough. I had fun. I laughed. I would recommend it if you are in the mood for something light, stupid and knowingly ridiculous. 7/10.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Over Your Dead Body should have been exactly my kind of messy fun: a dark action comedy about a married couple who no longer love each other and secretly plan to kill one another. The setup is simple, mean, absurd and full of potential. The problem is that the film keeps escalating, but rarely becomes genuinely funny. There is a lot happening here. People appear, plans fall apart, violence gets bigger, situations become more ridiculous, and scene after scene tries to push the absurdity further. On paper, that sounds like a good black comedy. In practice, I often felt like I was watching cinematic doomscrolling. Something was always happening, but almost nothing really interested me. The biggest issue is the central relationship. Dan and Lisa are supposed to feel like a couple exhausted by each other, two people who have reached such a toxic dead end that murder somehow becomes the next logical step. But I never felt that history, chemistry or believable resentment between them. Even their hatred feels artificial. It does not feel like two adults trapped in a dead marriage. It feels more like two children trying to get rid of friends who touched their toys. Jason Segel is easily the person I enjoyed watching the most, though I admit that may partly be because I simply like him as an actor. His face, body language and comic timing usually work for me. He has that physical comedy quality where he can make a scene funnier just by existing in it. Not on Jim Carrey’s level, of course, but somewhere in that world of actors who know how to perform with more than dialogue. Still, even he cannot carry the entire film when the writing keeps running in circles. Samara Weaving did not really work for me here. I do not know whether the problem is the performance, the character, or the lack of chemistry with Segel, but Lisa never pulled me in. Even the anger felt strangely flat. Timothy Olyphant’s Pete also confused me more than entertained me. He is presented as this dangerous brain behind the prison escape, but then the film keeps making him seem weirdly stupid, to the point where I started wondering how the escape even worked in the first place. Keith Jardine’s Todd probably made me laugh the most, in the simplest possible way. He is basically the classic dumb muscle character, a brute and a clown, and while the film still was not especially funny, his kind of primitive stupidity landed more than most of the other jokes. The violence is also a mixed bag. I understand the idea: make it exaggerated, nasty and absurd enough that it becomes part of the joke. But for me, it often felt unnecessary rather than funny. Gore alone is not a punchline. Absurdity alone is not comedy. At some point, the film seemed to think that if it kept adding another body, another injury, another insane turn, the humor would appear by itself. It did not. And that is probably my main problem with Over Your Dead Body. It is busy, loud and constantly moving, but not especially clever, not especially tense and not especially enjoyable. I was not bored because nothing was happening. I was bored because everything was happening and almost none of it mattered. There is a much better version of this idea in something like Mr. & Mrs. Smith. That film had chemistry, tension, charm, action and characters you actually wanted to watch. Over Your Dead Body has the basic idea of a toxic couple trying to destroy each other, but it lacks the spark that would make that premise satisfying. By the end, my biggest feeling was not shock, laughter or tension. It was relief that the film was finally over. Honestly, if it had ended earlier, around the pier, I probably would have liked the ending more. Instead, it kept going, and by that point I was already done. A dark comedy can be cruel. It can be stupid. It can be bloody. It can be ridiculous. But it still has to be funny. For me, this one mostly wasn’t. 3/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Thursday Murder Club is exactly the kind of film that works best when you do not expect too much from it. The premise is simple and charming: a group of elderly residents living in an elite English retirement community spend their time solving old, unfinished police cases. Then, at some point, a real case lands in their hands, one that is not only about murder, but also about the future of the place they call home. The strongest part of the film is obviously the cast. Helen Mirren, Pierce Brosnan, Ben Kingsley, Celia Imrie, Jonathan Pryce, David Tennant, Tom Ellis, Geoff Bell and others. That is a genuinely impressive line-up, and from an acting perspective, there is very little to complain about. Everyone knows what kind of film they are in, and they carry it with a lot of charm. My problem is that the characters themselves feel a bit too thin. The film focuses mostly on Elizabeth, played by Helen Mirren, and while she is naturally great, the rest of the club often feels more like a set of pleasant supporting figures than fully developed characters. They are important to the story, but at times I had the feeling that if some of them were replaced by random side characters, the effect would not change that much. Maybe they simply needed more time, but the result is that the group never feels as strong as the cast suggests it should. As a crime story, it is solid. I do not think a cozy crime comedy needs to be some impossible Sherlock Holmes-level puzzle. It does not have to be insanely complicated. The investigation, the elimination of suspects and the road to the finale are all handled correctly. I guessed most of the ending, but more by intuition than by actually piecing everything together. And that is where I have a small issue. A really good mystery should give you enough clues to feel that you could have solved it yourself, either earlier or with one final missing piece. Here, that final clue technically appears, but it feels a little too convenient. Not terrible, just slightly unsatisfying. As a comedy, it is more “pleasant” than genuinely funny. I laughed a few times, and the humor has a certain charm, but I often felt there was not enough space for it. The crime plot dominates, and the comedy does not always land as strongly as it probably should. There is also the classic character of the police officer who is mostly there to learn everything last, so the amateur detectives can look smarter. That can work, but here it did not really do much for me. Compared to Knives Out or the first two seasons of Only Murders in the Building, this is definitely weaker. Those stories had sharper writing, stronger character dynamics and a better balance between comedy and mystery. The Thursday Murder Club is lighter, softer and safer. Still, I cannot say I had a bad time with it. If you are not tired of murder mysteries, true crime podcasts and cozy whodunits, this is a perfectly fine evening watch. It is not a film you need to rush to see immediately, but if you want something light, charming and easy to watch, it does the job. A pleasant cast-driven mystery comedy, carried mostly by its actors. 6/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Office Romance surprised me more than I expected.I went into it thinking this would probably be another average Netflix rom-com. The kind of film where I would enjoy maybe a few scenes, roll my eyes a few times, and forget most of it by the next day. Instead, I had a genuinely good time with it. Jennifer Lopez is, in a way, still playing Jennifer Lopez here. She looks great, carries herself incredibly well, and has that very specific screen presence the film clearly knows how to use. I do not really have a problem with that, because it fits the role. Brett Goldstein also plays a very familiar kind of British character. There is definitely a bit of Roy Kent from Ted Lasso in him, but honestly, that works in his favor. The roughness, the dry delivery, the slightly brutal British language, the emotional withdrawal, all of it fits him extremely well here. With every role, I like him more. At the same time, I do hope someone eventually gives him a role that lets him break out a little more. Apart from Shrinking, I sometimes feel like his characters are starting to feel a bit too similar. I do not mean that as a major criticism. It is more that I think he has more range than he is usually allowed to show. Someone should let him use it. As a comedy, this is honestly a 9/10 for me. The jokes worked. I laughed a lot. When the film wanted me to laugh, or at least smile, it usually got that reaction from me. The wordplay, situational comedy, awkward office energy, and even the classic comedy bits after the credits all landed much better than I expected. I simply had fun. As a romance, though, I would put it closer to a 6/10. The film has the classic structure: attraction, curiosity, crossing boundaries, a relationship, the inevitable separation, and the eventual return. There are a few nice moments of tension between the leads, but some of them feel almost teenage, like the attempt to touch fingers while standing next to each other. To be fair, both characters are adults who clearly have not had real intimacy in a long time, so that awkwardness makes sense. Still, there is much more comedy here than actual romantic atmosphere. I could have used more emotional tension, more tenderness, and more scenes that made the relationship feel deeper. It is closer to everyday awkwardness than grand romance, unless we reduce romance to sex. The story itself is pure rom-com formula. Two people should not be together because the company forbids it, but they are drawn to each other anyway. Their relationship could cost them everything, and there is a background scheme that makes hiding it even more important. Is it familiar? Absolutely. But it is good formula. The film is written, paced, and performed well enough that the predictability does not really hurt it. The middle-to-late part maybe gets a little too long, or maybe not connected as smoothly as it could have been, but that is my main structural complaint. I also liked the supporting characters. The second and third-plan roles do not feel useless. They appear at the right moments, serve the right jokes, and help the film feel more alive. My only small issue is with the boardroom / management side of the story. I understood that Jackie Cruz could lose something, but I never really felt the threat as strongly as I probably should have. In the end, Office Romance is not a perfect romance, but it is a very good light comedy. And honestly, that was enough for me. I expected a Netflix mid-tier rom-com and got something much more entertaining. Easy recommendation for an evening when you just want to chill, relax, and laugh a little. Comedy: 9/10 Romance: 6/10 Overall: 8/10

Hoppers is a pleasant Pixar movie, but for me it lands more in the "nice enough, but probably forgettable" category. It has a good heart, a few solid gags, and a fairly clear environmental message built around protecting one specific place, which helps the story feel at least thematically focused. One thing I really liked was the way the movie presents the animals' perspective. When we see the world through them, their eyes have whites, they become expressive, readable, and easier to emotionally connect with. But from the human point of view, they go back to looking like black-eyed, misunderstood creatures. It is a simple visual idea, but it works very well and might be the most memorable creative choice in the film. The problem is that the movie tries to carry a bit too much at once. We have Mabel's grief after losing her grandmother, her anger issues, her love for animals, the threat of a bypass being built over the lake, the idea of cooperation between species, and then eventually a second antagonist. None of these ideas are terrible on their own, but together they make the story feel less clean than it should be. Mabel herself is also a mixed character for me. She is supposed to be 19, but very often she behaves much younger, sometimes almost like a child. That can make her frustrating, especially when the film wants her emotional arc to feel mature. Her relationship with her grandmother is clearly important, and the movie keeps returning to it, but that is also part of the issue - it sometimes feels like the film has to remind us of that emotional weight because it does not always naturally stay in the story. The environmental message is a little exaggerated, but I can accept that because it fits the type of movie this is. The bigger issue is the second antagonist, who weakens both the pacing and the moral idea that everyone has some good in them. The film seems to want a gentle, hopeful message, but then complicates it in a way that does not fully work. Visually, I am also not completely sold. It has that very modern animated look, which is polished, but not really my favorite style. I still prefer the older feel of films like Shrek, Toy Story, Tangled, Cars, or even WALL-E, where the designs felt more memorable and full of character. Here, some of the human designs were a little frustrating to me, especially with Mabel looking much younger than her actual age. Still, I did have a decent time. There are funny moments, the lizard is probably the standout comedy character, and the Polish line "zlo bobrem zwyciezaj" is catchy, even if I doubt it will stay in my head for long. The ending is predictable, but it closes the story in a reasonably satisfying way. So overall: not a bad Pixar movie, just not a great one. It has charm, some clever ideas, and a good heart, but it lacks the deeper emotional spark - that older Pixar soul - that made the studio's best films stay with you long after watching.

I expected more from Mickey 17. The basic idea is genuinely interesting: a cloned human being treated as a disposable resource, used for dangerous tests, suicide missions and everything no "normal" person would want to do. That concept could have opened the door to a stronger story about identity, morality, personhood and the line between a human being and a tool. Unfortunately, the film quickly flattens its own potential. Instead of seriously exploring the dilemma, it seems to push one obvious answer: cloning is wrong because the people who control it objectify human life. That can be a valid theme, but here it never feels deeply examined. The film feels more interested in stating its point than actually wrestling with it. My biggest problem is the political caricature. The main antagonist and his wife feel like a very blunt parody of conservative-religious power: stupid, cruel, morally evil and almost totalitarian. Instead of sharp satire, it often feels like the film is simply hitting you over the head with the message. I had a similar issue with some of the side plots. The relationship between the two women is not the problem by itself, but here it feels like something added mainly to reinforce the film's thesis and create contrast with the "bad conservatives." It does not feel as naturally integrated into the story as it should. The biggest strength is Robert Pattinson. Honestly, he practically carries the whole film. Mickey himself is not a very interesting character, he is naive, foolish and mostly defined by the situation he falls into, but Pattinson gives him more personality and depth than the script does. Whenever the film moves away from Mickey, it becomes noticeably weaker. The sci-fi world also did not impress me much. An icy hostile planet, space colonization, strange alien creatures that humans fear and misunderstand, most of it feels very familiar. The most interesting idea was how cloning could affect the development of a new colony, but the film barely follows that after the landing. The humor completely missed me. I did not laugh or even smile once. The pacing is uneven too: some parts drag, while other elements that deserved more attention are rushed or skipped. The Creepers were fine, though. I like creatures like that, especially when they turn out to be more intelligent and less purely murderous than humans assume. The ending left me with no real satisfaction. It is predictable: good wins, cloning is immoral, end of story. Meh. It is not a disaster, but it feels like a film that wanted to be smarter than it actually is. Pattinson makes it watchable, but for me Mickey 17 remains an uneven, disappointing average film.

The Naked Gun is exactly the kind of comedy I expected: wordplay, dry jokes, absurd gags and very specific “stupid humor.” It will not work for everyone, but I had a really good time with it. You do not need to know the original movies to enjoy this one, although fans will definitely catch more callbacks, references and little jokes. Liam Neeson works surprisingly well as Frank Drebin Jr. He is not just parodying himself; he tries to capture the spirit of Leslie Nielsen’s character, sometimes more successfully than other times, but overall it fits. Pamela Anderson is also a big part of why the movie works. Her chemistry with Neeson is genuinely strong and at moments reminded me of the dynamic from the original films. The jokes come very fast, sometimes almost too fast, but the further the movie goes, the easier it is to get into its rhythm. Some gags are predictable, but the old-school spoof energy is there. I would gladly watch a sequel, especially with more Ed Hocken Jr.