How to Make a Killing was one of my most anticipated new movies of 2026. Unfortunately I was left feeling underwhelmed by A24's latest venture, which doesn't stand up against a catalog of greats.
Remakes are risky enough as it is, but Kind Hearts and Coronets is an especially tough act to follow. The iconic 40s movie brought something new to the table, with Alec Guinness especially stealing the show as he played eight members of the same wealthy family.
It was a solid black comedy that even stands up today, making How to Make a Killing feel unnecessary and sadly, boring. Unlike its predecessor, the 2026 movie offers nothing new, aside from a fresh cast of modern day actors that do their best. But it really is difficult not to compare it to the source material, and that's where the disappointment lies.
Had this been an original thriller movie, perhaps my opinion would've differed. But unfortunately, How to Make a Killing feels very soulless and it doesn't have the charm of the movie that inspired it.
Even Glen Powell, who has previously delivered great performances in Twisters and Chad Powers, can't really save this movie. His leading role as Becket Redfellow shouldn't feel boring, especially as he's a serial killer with an intriguing motivation.
Director John Patton Ford impressed audiences with Emily The Criminal, which has a 93% Rotten Tomatoes score. So it's disappointing that How to Make a Killing has fallen flat, when we know he's capable of creating a really great movie.
Considering this is a movie about a man who murders his wealthy family as an act of revenge, it is disappointing that it ended up being as boring as it is. Becket's mother was exiled after she became pregnant as a teenager, and on her deathbed, told a young Becket that he should fight for the life he "deserves" to have. He does, but it's not all that exciting to watch.
There are some positives to be found in this movie, though. Margaret Qualley always delivers a great performance, no matter what she's in. She blew me away as Sue in The Substance, which I called the best body horror of 2024.
She's entertaining to watch here, too, as Julia Steinway, Becket’s childhood friend and crush, whom he hopes to win the heart of. Scenes involving them are perhaps my favorite part of the movie, and I did like some of the humor, but ultimately, this is a disappointment for A24, a studio I usually have a lot of love for.
If you're in the mood for a run-of-the-mill dark comedy with a few laughs and some notable names, you might want to see this now that it's out in theaters, or perhaps wait to see if it arrives on any of the best streaming services.
Disappointingly, it's one of those forgettable movies that you'll likely watch just once. But perhaps it will do its job of keeping you entertained for a couple of hours.
How to Make a Killing is in theaters worldwide now.
Project Hail Mary (PHM) is a movie I've been itching to see for some time. The second book penned by sci-fi author Andy Weir to be adapted for the big screen — the first being 2015's extremely well-received The Martian — PHM has all of the ingredients necessary to similarly be critical and commercially successful.Sometimes, though, said components — the cast and crew, production, and translating a story from page to screen, to name just three — don't gel as well as they should. Color me relieved and delighted, then, that Amazon's latest silver screen vehicle is not only an emotionally resonant and eye-popping visual experience, but also a near-perfect masterpiece that's a shoo-in for 2026's best movies list.
Save our stars
Ryan Gosling stars as Ryland Grace, an unassuming teacher sent on a mission to save our Sun (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
A direct retelling of the nonlinear narrative in Weir's 2021 hard sci-fi novel namesake, Project Hail Mary introduces us to Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling), a junior high school teacher and infamous former molecular biologist.Waking from a coma, a disoriented and amnesiac — and, after surveying his surroundings, understandably panic-stricken — Grace finds himself aboard a spaceship 12 light-years from Earth.
Project Hail Mary's overarching narrative is one built on hope, optimism, collaboration, and companionship
Eventually, Grace remembers why he's here: the Sun is dying. In fact, all but one of the galaxy's known stars — Tau Ceti — are waning at an incredibly rapid rate. Consequently, Grace has seemingly been sent on a one-way mission to discover the root cause of this cosmic phenomenon, learn why Tau Ceti isn't affected by it, and — potentially — find a cure. Fail, and the catastrophic ice age will engulf our world in approximately 30 Earth years. No pressure, then.
Grace is hired by European Space Agency head Eva Stratt (Sandra Huller, right) for the titular mission (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
At a time when the real world seems bleak, PHM's dystopian premise might be the last thing we need right now — and yet, its overarching narrative is one built on hope, optimism, collaboration, and companionship.Sure, its first act doesn't indicate that'll be the case. Indeed, it plays out like a survival thriller as Grace resigns himself to his fate — that being, getting drunk and living out his days until his supplies run out — rather than embrace his status as Earth's unlikely hero.Expository flashbacks, which shed more light on the cosmic mystery at large, as well as Grace's personality, backstory, and role in trying to solve said enigma, also paint a vivid picture ofPHM's disaster movie sensibilities, and the supposedly insurmountable task facing our overwhelmed and lonesome protagonist.
With no prior astronaut experience, Grace essentially spends the first act lost in space (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
As I alluded to, however, one of 2026's most exciting new movies isn't an emotionally cold or haunting sci-fi tale like Moon or another Gosling-led film in Blade Runner 2049, but rather a surprisingly funny one, especially once Project Hail Mary becomes a buddy adventure (more on this later). The integration of humor won't surprise fans of Weir's works and/or anyone who's seen The Martian, which is similarly multi-genre to PHM in its make-up. The same can be said of directing duo Phil Lord and Chris Miller's previous works (The LEGO Movie, 21 Jump Street), which have surprising emotional depth amid their riotously funny moments.
Gosling is given ample opportunity to showcase his aptitude for comedy
Still, Project Hail Mary highlights Gosling's impeccable comedic timing — a talent that, until his performances in recent flicks including 2024 megahit Barbie and 2025 action-comedy The Fall Guy, was severely underutilized. Thankfully, Gosling is given ample opportunity to showcase his aptitude for comedy in chucklesome scenes laced with physical, deadpan, situational, and miscommunication-based humor. Needless to say, Gosling is as much a tour de force in PHM's quieter and dramatic moments as its amusing and action-oriented ones. Films of this emotional magnitude and multi-tonality require a certain caliber of actor to anchor them — without one, movies can easily fall apart. But, with its lead star firing on all cylinders, Project Hail Mary has enough emotional thrust to catapult it into the stratosphere.
A Rocky road trip
Rocky is the newest addition to the throng of adorable aliens we've seen on the big screen (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
As any experienced vehicle operator will say, though, you can never have enough fuel in the tank — and, from an emotive perspective, that's where Gosling's adorable alien co-star comes into play.Indeed, as Project Hail Mary's first trailer and subsequent teasers showed, Grace soon learns he isn't the only one trying to crack the case. Indeed, Rocky (voiced by puppet designer/performer James Ortiz), an eyeless, arachnid-like extraterrestrial, is on the same mission to save the star that its home world, Erid, orbits.
Rocky helps to bring out the best in his new human companion (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
Rocky doesn't appear until the start of the film's second act. Once he does, though, PHM's story subtly shifts from an introspective solo flick to an intimate two-hander as an unlikely yet deeply warm friendship — one that unmistakably becomes the film's emotional core — forms between Grace and his instantaneously lovable new bestie.
Grace and Rocky's bromance is one that evokes the very best on-screen human-alien friendships
A far cry from the uninspiring bond between Jakub Procházka and Hanuš in Netflix's 2024 sci-fi flick Spaceman, Grace and Rocky's bromance is one that evokes the very best on-screen human-alien friendships. Think E.T. and Elliot in E.T: The Extraterrestrial, Han Solo and Chewbacca in Star Wars, and Lilo & Stitch in their eponymous animated and live-action films, and you'll get a sense of how integral Grace and Rocky's dynamic is to Project Hail Mary's entertaining yet perilous plot.
Project Hail Mary is a feast for the eyes (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
And fraught with danger it most certainly is. Eye-bulgingly beautiful and electrifyingly euphonious as PHM is — believe me, you'll want to see this in IMAX or on the biggest Dolby Atmos-supported screen you can — our unlikely heroes' quest is terrifyingly treacherous.
There won't be many films this year that'll restore your faith in humanity like Project Hail Mary will
Nowhere is this more apparent in Project Hail Mary's tentpole set-piece, which sees Grace and Rocky embark on a high-stakes and life-threatening mission that'll go a long way to solving their celestial conundrum. It's an intense, nail-biting action sequence that, combined with Greig Fraser's (Dune, The Batman) visually powerful cinematography and Daniel Pemberton's (the Spider-Verse movies) heart-pounding, otherworldly score, gripped me from start to finish. I'm not afraid to admit that the final 45 minutes, which include the aforementioned extended scene, had me choked up on more than one occasion, too. No spoilers, but if you welled up or cried watching poignant sci-fi movies like Interstellar and The Iron Giant, or even feel-good genre fare like The Martian, I'd bring some tissues with you.
My verdict
It's the sign of a spectacular movie when you never glance at your watch, so it won't shock you that I consider Project Hail Mary to not only be a spellbinding genre epic, but also a contender — even at this early stage — to be one of the best films of the year.Okay, the story occasionally strays into predictable territory, but that's the only fault I found with what I expect to be the latest addition to the sci-fi movie pantheon. An edge-of-your-seat, spacefaring comedy-drama that'll resonate through its 'ordinary individuals doing extraordinary things' narrative lens, there won't be many films this year that'll restore your faith in humanity like PHM will. In the words of Rocky himself, go see this "amaze, amaze, amaze" movie as soon as you can.
Project Hail Mary arrives in theaters on March 19 (UK and Australia) and March 20 (US and everywhere else).
It's rare that I don't know where to start when it comes to writing a movie review, but there's a first time for everything. I'll just give the bad news to you straight: like a vet's trip to get your old pet put down,"Wuthering Heights" is about as spicy as a plain meal at Nando's, and as basic as the restaurant choice.
But we knew this going into it, didn't we? We've had the collective debate about the death of modern literacy, the outrage about the casting choices and Emerald Fennell's outright refusal to include the Emily Brontë novel's original themes of race and colonialism. They're all necessary conversations and causes for concern, and I agree with them.
On the other hand, I also agree with freedom of interpretation and creative license. I'm a huge fan of Promising Young Woman and Saltburn, so it made sense that Fennell was the director who could reinvent a classic into something jaw-dropping, pushing the boundaries of how we interpret a classic tale.
Alas, we've actually ended up with something superficial that can be commercially marketed, inspiring 10-second TikToks instead of critical thinking. Add two and two together, and you get boring... the most mortal sin in cinema.
From the impeccable first trailer with Charli XCX's Everything is Romantic remixed into it (as it's better than the entire movie, I'll link it below for you to enjoy), "Wuthering Heights" sold itself as lustful yearning confirmed to get you hot under the collar. I thought this would make it messy and overbearing – but I never expected it to be as dull as dishwater.
From teaser to feature, something's gone wrong
If I'm completely honest, I so badly wanted to fall head over heels for "Wuthering Heights" just so I could spite the masses who hate it. Perhaps I'm as petty as Fennell's version of Cathy (Margot Robbie). But that dream wasn't to be, so let's dig deeper into what didn't work.
Here's the infuriating part – you can completely buy the chemistry and sense of longing happening onscreen, even the unhinged behavior that makes up being driven made with selfish desire. But you'll struggle to care about any of it.
Working with deeply unlikeable characters needs a master at the helm, and I wonder if Fennell is too focused on translated her own personal experience of reading the book as a young girl. In essence, what's happening in the movie might mean a lot to her, but not to anybody else.
A friend of mine described "Wuthering Heights" as a two-hour Taylor Swift music video, and I think she's nailed it. We're looking at something that could easily have been featured on The Life of a Showgirl, laced with vibrant colors and ostentatious production design shaped by period drama Instagram.
While the costuming is easily the star of the show, production often reveals Yorkshire to actually be on a soundstage, with props so 2D you'd fear squashing them into cardboard mulch if you got too close.
Charli XCX's tailor-made album for the film is in scant supply too. The orchestrated soundtrack is hauntingly melodic, but I was promised some electro-pop bangers in between this snoozefest, and I only counted three.
Everything isn't always romantic. (Image credit: Warner Bros.)
Then there's the wayward casting. Perhaps somebody like Mia Goth, Mia Wasikowska or Elle Fanning might have been a better fit for Cathy than Robbie, who can never truly shift that beautiful Gold Coast glow. Her performance is solid and she's clearly done the groundwork for it, but full suspension of belief doesn't follow.
I've got a lot more time for Jacob Elordi's Heathcliff, especially after his riveting role of The Creature in Frankenstein. He sells the hard done by Yorkshire grafter better than anybody else, but the press tour had helped solidify our yearning for him. Holding Robbie's dress, making sure she doesn't get soaked in the rain and taking the time to answer every endless press question thrown his way... yeah, that's a man raised right.
While Hong Chau's Nelly Dean remains constantly stone-faced and Shazad Latif's Edgar Linton looks like he doesn't even know he's in a movie, I'm bowled over by Martin Clunes' Mr. Earnshaw. It's hilarious for a Brit to see the Doc Martin star scold Elordi and crawl on a dirty floor for coins, but God does he pull it off. Both cruel and captivating, we definitely don't spend enough time with him during "Wuthering Heights'" 132-minute runtime.
Owen Cooper and Charlotte Mellington are the exceptional ace up Fennell's sleeve though. Matured and emotional beyond their years, they reel us in during the movie's opening 20 minutes with such vulnerable honesty that I almost had a tear in my eye. Thank you Netflix and Adolescence for giving us a star being born in Cooper.
But surely it's erotic... right?
Get ready to see this sort of pose a LOT. (Image credit: Warner Bros.)
Where "Wuthering Heights" removes the socio-political context of Brontë's novel, it fills out with a 50 Shades of Grey approach to what's left. Again, this leaves a bland taste. Aside from one truly erotic scene – Fennell seems to pull her lust off best when she stops just shy of sex – nothing is sexy, shocking, or particularly inviting. If you want sexual scandal, try Rivals on Disney+.
As I said in the headline, if this film was a spice, it would be flour. You can't market something solely on the promise of hedonistic lusting and then deliver something you'd actually feel comfortable watching with your parents. I doubt it would even have made ripples 20 or 30 years ago. But sure, Elordi will get some cheers when he takes his top off.
Will I be watching "Wuthering Heights" again? No. Do I remain a Saltburn truther? Yes. Will Fennell's latest make a shed-ton of money at the box office despite being widely panned? Absolutely. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Fennell kicks into full gear with original stories, so don't count me out of her work completely.
Chris Hemsworth can't seem to catch a break away from the MCU.
Best known for playing Thor in Marvel's cinematic juggernaut, his CV largely reads like a list of critical darlings that underperformed at the box office (Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, Rush) and critically-panned flops (Spiderhead, Men In Black: International, and 2017's Ghostbusters). Sure, there have been successes, such as Netflix's Extraction franchise, but even those are considered to be unoriginal overachievers by plenty of people. Not exactly the consistent hitmaker some might have expected him to have become, then.
And so comes the turn of Crime 101, an action-heist thriller fronted by Hemsworth. At first glance, it looks like the kind of gritty and pulsating film that'll go down well with fans and critics alike, and be the big, non-superhero box office success that the Aussie actor needs. Enjoyable for what it is, though, Crime 101 commits too many offences to be a must-see film and/or an immediate genre classic.
To catch a thief
Chris Hemsworth plays Mike Davis, a careful but effective jewellery thief (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios/Sony Pictures)
Written and directed by BAFTA-winning crime genre fanatic Bart Layton (The Impostor, American Animals) and based on Don Winslow's short story namesake, Crime 101 introduces us to Mike Davis (Hemsworth).
An extremely meticulous and seemingly untraceable crook, Davis' penchant for committing armed robberies – often of the jewellery variety – along the Hollywood Freeway puts him in the crosshairs of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).
Davis is a walking contradiction in every sense of the word – and, by proxy, an incredibly interesting individual
When a routine diamond heist goes awry, Davis soon finds Detective Lou Lubesnick (Mark Ruffalo), who's hunted him for an extended period of time, hot on his trail once more. The only way to evade capture and set himself up for life, it seems, is to successfully carry out one last money-spinning crime. And, for that, Davis will need to employ the services of Sharon Colvin (Halle Berry), a disillusioned insurance broker who holds the key to his $11 million plan.
Detective Tillman (left) joins Mark Ruffalo's Lou Lubesnick in pursuing Davis throughout the film (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios/Sony Pictures)
There's no question that Hemsworth has the charisma and acting qualities to be a leading man, which he's demonstrated as Marvel's heroic God of Thunder and Furiosa's the love-to-hate villain Dementus. It'll come as no surprise to learn, then, that he turns a potentially one-dimensional character in Davis into a fully rounded individual with real emotional depth and complexity
Okay, given his line of work, Davis has learned to become a enigma whose vulnerabilities only surface with people he's close to. Once the soul-shuddering moment that spooks him during the near-botched diamond robbery occurs, though, a window is opened into Davis' life and mysterious backstory that suggests he's not the run-of-the-mill thief you might expect.
Neither a master of his craft nor a perfect executor of a plan, and armed with an unexpectedly strict moral code that juxtaposes the criminal world he operates in, Davis is a walking contradiction in every sense of the word – and, by proxy, an incredibly interesting individual to accompany as Crime 101's story unfolds.
Davis enlists the help of Berry's Sharon Colvin (right) to land his next – and potentially last – score (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios/Sony Pictures)
It's the journeys that Davis and his fellow alienated individuals in Lubesnick and Colvin embark on, plus the broken systems they operate in, that makes Crime 101 shine as a character-led crime drama.
Crime 101 shines as a character-led crime drama
Whether it's Davis' faith being shaken by his near-death experience, Lubesnick's hands being tied by red tape and lacking the support of his law enforcing counterparts, or Colvin being overlooked by her peers due to her gender and age, Crime 101's core trio are all pushed to their breaking point.
Watching these individuals grapple with their conscience and fully transform into morally ambiguous individuals, especially once their worlds collide, is arguably the Amazon and Sony flick's best feature. My only criticism? That these engrossing interactions, which I was fully invested in alongside their individual arcs from the outset, aren't revisited as often as I'd have liked.
Under pressure
Crime 101's romance-laced subplot between Maya and Davis is trite (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios/Sony Pictures)
Outside of these character interactions, Crime 101's story is as disappointingly derivative as they come.
Its action, while slick, kinetic, and at-times edge-of-your-seat viewing, is pretty par for the course. When you consider the Mount Rushmore of genre movies that Layton says Crime 101 was influenced by, especially from an action spectacle standpoint, I expected more from its rubber-burning set-pieces and gun-toting stand-offs.
I expected more from Crime 101's rubber-burning set-pieces and gun-toting stand-offs
The same can be said of Crime 101's romantic sub-narrative, which sees Davis fall for, and later date, Maya (Monica Barbaro) after they're involved in a car accident during its first act. Hemsworth and Barbaro have a mostly natural chemistry that bubbles with sexual anticipation, and its inclusion certainly adds some amorous spice that's missing from Winslow's original tale. Contextually, though, it's a storytelling addition that's hokey at best and, at worst, is an unnecessary distraction from the primary plot.
Despite Barry Keoghan's best efforts, Ormon isn't a villain who'll live long in the memory (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios/Sony Pictures)
Even Ormon, a belligerent, overeager, and violent criminal portrayed by the ever-excellent Barry Keoghan, lacks originality. A one-note pantomime villain, his inclusion is nothing more than simply being a deeply unlikeable, antagonistic foil to the multifaceted Davis, and play a vital role in Crime 101's nail-biting albeit formulaic final showdown.
Crime 101 feels like a throwback to movies that aren't made anymore – but maybe that's the point
And that's a pity, because Crime 101 could've saved face if said confrontation had built upon the suspense-riddled foundations that it had done a largely good job of laying throughout.
Sure, it's not the worst face-off in movie history, and it would be remiss of me not to mention that the Amazon MGM Studios and Sony Pictures venture dispenses with the usually grim endings that the crime genre is renowned for. Spoilers notwithstanding, I respect that it wraps up many of its characters' individual stories in a satisfying manner.
Nevertheless, the slow but purposeful ratcheting up of the tension throughout its two hour and 20 minutes runtime doesn't get the payoff it deserves once things come to what should be a thrilling, high-stakes head.
My verdict
Crime 101 is a serviceable albeit puzzling film. There's a fair amount to admire about the first feature that Layton has directed that's based on a work of fiction rather than a real-life crime. That's especially true from a character-first perspective, with the action-thriller anchored by many strong performances.
Still, while it's commendable that it's a largely authentic retelling of Winslow's original tale, Crime 101 just isn't ground-breaking or genre-bending enough as it needs to be to stand out.
It's honorable that one of this year's new movies tries to evoke films of its ilk of yesteryear, and feels like a throwback to movies that aren't made anymore – but maybe that's the point. Filmmaking and storytelling has moved on so much since the crime movie genre's heyday of the late '80s and early '90s. Such big-screen offerings need to do or say something fresh and exciting to drive the genre forward. Put simply, Crime 101 doesn't.
Crime 101 arrives in theaters worldwide on Friday, February 13.
I need everyone in the movie industry to listen up and repeat the following pact: "I solemnly swear to never make a film told through the lens of social media ever again. Never will I sit my main character in front of a screen, digesting the rest of the storyline through open internet tabs, Instagram feeds and MacBook files. I will only include digital elements if it effectively serves the plot."
Agreed? Great, because Chris Pratt's new AI sci-fi thriller Mercy is the latest victim of this heinous crime. With a 101 minute runtime, Pratt spends 90 of those sitting in the same chair, wrongly accused of a murder he didn't commit. Instead of being given a defense lawyer like a normal society would, he has to face off against an AI-generated judge in a 'mercy' courtroom (who conveniently looks exactly like Rebecca Ferguson).
If he can't prove his innocence past a certain percentage, he'll be fried on the spot. Override the algorithm sufficiently, and he'll walk free. Cue an entire movie of sifting through ring cam footage, facetiming witnesses and finding crucial evidence on his daughter's private Finsta account.
After about 15 minutes of this, the gimmick wears off pretty quickly. Pratt himself is clearly loving it (possibly due to the ease of his character also being called Chris) but unsurprisingly, this doesn't translate offscreen. Mercy is mundane in its own unique way, but there are few surprises – it'll hit you over the head with its ambivalent AI messaging.
Mercy refuses to call AI a hero or a villain, and that's a missed opportunity
"Maybe humans and AI both make mistakes" is a line of dialogue in Mercy that I've only slightly paraphrased, and it sums up the movie's moral vagueness in one nifty sentence. Sure, we've just spent an hour and 40 minutes watching an AI-generated court judge nearly kill Chris over a wrongful conviction, but we all make mistakes, right?
This was Amazon MGM Studios' chance to lay down the AI line by deciding what side of the industry argument they're on. Instead, they've chosen to sit on the fence, and that transforms any vim and vigor Mercy did have into pure monotony. If we're not using storytelling to send home a powerful message, especially about something so ever-changing, then what's the point?
Of course, the point is to make a bit of money at the box office by seeming to touch on a topical subject. It's the same way that a social media influencer might look like they're supporting a social campaign, but are actually doing the surface-level bare minimum to help it. Mercy could have been an industry-changing heavyweight piece of art, but no – let's play around with some CGI graphics instead.
For a big-budget studio, these graphics feel incredibly cheap. This is where the most obvious connection to Prime Video's take on War of the Worlds, starring Ice Cube, comes into play. Both have the same function and aesthetic look – almost as if Amazon is ashamed that is uninspired slop is all it's got to offer.
Rebecca Ferguson is our AI judge. (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
Almost no movie (perhaps with the exception of 2023 thriller Missing) can use tech, screens and social media as its sole method of storytelling to its advantage – the concept is as lame as lame comes. But our AI-fashioned Rebecca Ferguson is the jewel in our crown of criminal offenses.
Even as a non-human entity, Ferguson shines. She's far from a voice of reason, but seeing the cracks in her generated facade is easily the most satisfying payoff in this otherwise faltering farce. She's also the only source of continuity when Mercy decides to finally let Chris out of his chair for an unhinged 15-minute duration, abandoning all of its narrative mechanics without warning.
You get where I'm coming from here. ChatGPT could probably have written a much stronger script and overarching plot, while watching any other takes on AI or the digital world would be a more shrewd use of your time. Our best case scenario is hoping Mercy is popular enough to finance more Guardians of the Galaxy or Star-Lord content, and then never speak of it again.
January 2026 is going to be the Tom Hiddleston takeover month, with the much-anticipated The Night Manager season 2 hitting BBC from January 1 and Prime Video from January 11. After 10 years, shrewd and aloof spy Johnathan Pine returns... or does he?
Technically speaking, Hiddleston assumes a myriad of identities in the new season, but for the sake of UK security, I won't be revealing what they are. When we pick up with him a decade later, he's still working with the Night Owls. But when he spots a henchman of deceased villain Richard Roper (Hugh Laurie), all hell breaks loose.
The fact there's been a ten-year wait probably plays to The Night Manager season 2's advantage, but these new episodes blow season 1 straight out of the water. They feel sharper, more self-assured yet dares to creatively play in ways that more stringent, straight-up crime dramas in the 2010s didn't dare to.
Hiddleston is just as in control too. In the time that The Night Manager has been away, he's shot to international fame in the MCU. There's something cathartic about bringing him back to his roots, able to play with an outrageous situation (being an MI6 spy) with a sense of grounding (i.e., he's not a superhero).
The drama takes to the global stage in an entirely new way this time around, and it's a refreshing change. Instead of the war zones of the 2011 Egypt revolution, we're heading to the hushed-up drug trades of Colombia. But if you think the two scenarios aren't directly linked, think again.
Tom Hiddleston breathes fresh air into a creatively liberated The Night Manager season 2
If you've ever watched a John le Carré adaptation before, you'll know that second seasons aren't really a thing. However, with Carré's approval before he died in 2020 (according to son and producer Simon Cornwell), a new creative concept has been born. Therefore, The Night Manager season 2 finds itself in an unusual sweet spot – stick to a pre-constructed foundation while taking as many dramatic liberties as it wants to.
Luckily for us, this works incredibly well. The BBC is well-known for its high-stakes, high-quality crime dramas, but in the last few years, the pedal has well and truly been put to the metal. Their output is confident, daring, inviting you to be challenged in a way that you didn't think you would be. When it comes to Jonathan Pine's ever-shifting identity, the challenge remains heightened at all times.
I don't need to spell out the fact the Hiddleston is bloody good as his job, and no matter how difficult or complex the action gets, we're being steered along with safe hands (even if Pine himself isn't making the smartest decisions). He's joined by a smorgasbord of new faces in season 2, with the irresistibly sexy Diego Calva playing opposite as calculated and cool-headed antagonist Teddy dos Santos.
Plop a romantic entanglement between the pair – in the form of smart yet seductive Roxana, played by Camila Morrone – and things only get spicier by the second. I can't quite believe that the BBC has essentially recreated the viral Challengers scene at a pool party in Medellín (you can see a sneak preview in the above trailer), but hey, everyone's throwing caution to the wind these days... and it's hot.
For all the flourish, the basics haven't been lost
See? Challengers, eat your heart out. (Image credit: BBC)
We don't get much in the way of frivolous fun when it comes to The Night Manager – you'll need to tune into Death in Paradise or Black Ops in iPlayer for that. But playing it straight is exactly what's needed, and in a way plays against the genre stereotype all the best streaming services have come to cultivate. For Pine, his business never rests.
Frankly, that's great news. Sure, he might risk his life in the name of fictional entertainment every two seconds, but the payoff is colossal. Not only is Olivia Colman back for more scenes in season 2 (and not just in a half-hearted cameo way, either), but the MI6 is now under the control of Indira Varma's head of operations. She's a slippery one, so watch out for her... that's all I'll say for now.
It's Hayley Squires I want to give the biggest kudos to, though. Ever since her breakout performance in I, Daniel Blake, she's somehow fallen off the radar when it comes to exceptional British acting talent. If Pine is the show-stopper, Squires' character Sally is a true glue that holds the operation together. Without her, nothing would be effectively achieved, and I think that's just as true of The Night Manager season 2 itself.
Basically, we're kicking 2026 off in the most alluring, intricate, and devilishly thrilling way possible. Good things come to those who wait, and we're certainly being rewarded.
The director's outlandish comedic vision hasn't been without its hiccups over the years, but I don't think it sits in cohesion with The Housemaid. Adapted from the hit novel of the same name by Freida McFadden, the film follows enigmatic Millie (Sydney Sweeney) who has just taken a live-in nanny job at the wealthy Winchester's house. While husband Andrew (Brandon Sklenar) seems like a breath of fresh air, off-the-rails Nina (Amanda Seyfriend) is much harder to manage.
As more time passes, Nina's behavior gets increasingly more erratic, with plenty of family secrets bubbling up to the surface. Sadly, you can guess what the deepest of those secrets is at around the halfway mark.
It's never a good sign when you can immediately tell that the screenplay hasn't been adapted by the book's author, and for besotted book fans, the film has a more-than-healthy dose of creative licence. Key changes to the novel become more apparent the more you watch, and they make the overarching storyline a lot more violent.
The Housemaid is no longer an accessible crime thriller you want to devour as quickly as possible, but a soft body-horror movie with disturbing undertones and ridiculous B-plots. When the action isn't gory, it's laughable.
How The Housemaid turned from an acclaimed mystery into a cinematic mess
As I've touched on, the biggest problem in The Housemaid is the story itself – or more specifically, how the original tale has been interpreted. The casting wildly contrasts with how characters are painted in the book (Millie is more demure and innocent than Sweeney's version is, for example), and there's a much bigger emphasis on shock factor.
In short, we lose the beautiful subtleties of an unfolding whodunnit in favor of big-impact twists and turns that don't always pay off. If you're not a fan of blood, you'll need to bring a pillow to hide behind. By the time The Housemaid draws to a close, it rivals The Substance in terms of bloodshed and body horror, only in a much softer environment.
Largely, the movie hits the same beats as the novel, only there's another problem even when it's behaving. Scenes that should be serious and reflective become so farcical, you're stifling giggles so the people you're watching with don't think you're sociopathic.
While that isn't going to please everyone, I was thrilled to loudly witch cackle at the most preposterous things. From dialogue (Sweeney has a 30-second monologue about a manky Troll doll that she delivers with all the sincerity of being on her metaphorical death bed) to physical movement (some of Andrew's scenes are a unique laugh, let's put it that way), there is something to inappropriately chuckle at every few minutes.
It almost becomes a game: can you and your friends try not to laugh first while Amanda Seyfried is hurling priceless plates around her kitchen?
The performances are standard for a mediocre movie, but entertainment value varies.
Just two average frenemies here, nothing to see. (Image credit: Lionsgate)
I've been an Amanda Seyfried truther since Mamma Mia!, and she's consistently turned out dazzling performances across the two decades since. Frankly, she's earned the right to have fun making a far-from-serious movie where she can be a pantomime villain.
If you think of The Housemaid like this, Seyfried does the least amount of damage. Brandon Sklenar, however, is in his acting element. In the last two years alone, we've seen him in equally questionable movies such as Drop and It Ends With Us, and he fleshes out morally bankrupt husband Andrew with next to no effort. The man knows the landscape, and he isn't afraid to deliver genuinely terrible script with a completely deadpan expression.
I hate to say it, but Sweeney is the biggest problem I have with the cast. At no point do I buy her double-edged persona as a housemaid and stowaway criminal, and her romantic chemistry with Sklenar is non-existent. Where her natural style works in Euphoria and Anyone But You, it doesn't here.
Millie is a character you could root for, but it's frustrating work. In real-life, you'd have told Nina to stick her stupid housemaid job where the sun doesn't shine, walk out of her minimalist mansion and maybe hit a few objets d'art over on the way. I know why Millie rides her unhealthy situation out, but she's not making the best decisions.
If you're choosing to watch The Housemaid this Christmas, let it be known that a) it's not a Christmas movie, and b) it's perhaps the most painful present you could give yourself. Stay for the unintentional laughs, but brace yourself for anything in between.
The director's outlandish comedic vision hasn't been without its hiccups over the years, but I don't think it sits in cohesion with The Housemaid. Adapted from the hit novel of the same name by Freida McFadden, the film follows enigmatic Millie (Sydney Sweeney) who has just taken a live-in nanny job at the wealthy Winchester's house. While husband Andrew (Brandon Sklenar) seems like a breath of fresh air, off-the-rails Nina (Amanda Seyfriend) is much harder to manage.
As more time passes, Nina's behavior gets increasingly more erratic, with plenty of family secrets bubbling up to the surface. Sadly, you can guess what the deepest of those secrets is at around the halfway mark.
It's never a good sign when you can immediately tell that the screenplay hasn't been adapted by the book's author, and for besotted book fans, the film has a more-than-healthy dose of creative licence. Key changes to the novel become more apparent the more you watch, and they make the overarching storyline a lot more violent.
The Housemaid is no longer an accessible crime thriller you want to devour as quickly as possible, but a soft body-horror movie with disturbing undertones and ridiculous B-plots. When the action isn't gory, it's laughable.
How The Housemaid turned from an acclaimed mystery into a cinematic mess
As I've touched on, the biggest problem in The Housemaid is the story itself – or more specifically, how the original tale has been interpreted. The casting wildly contrasts with how characters are painted in the book (Millie is more demure and innocent than Sweeney's version is, for example), and there's a much bigger emphasis on shock factor.
In short, we lose the beautiful subtleties of an unfolding whodunnit in favor of big-impact twists and turns that don't always pay off. If you're not a fan of blood, you'll need to bring a pillow to hide behind. By the time The Housemaid draws to a close, it rivals The Substance in terms of bloodshed and body horror, only in a much softer environment.
Largely, the movie hits the same beats as the novel, only there's another problem even when it's behaving. Scenes that should be serious and reflective become so farcical, you're stifling giggles so the people you're watching with don't think you're sociopathic.
While that isn't going to please everyone, I was thrilled to loudly witch cackle at the most preposterous things. From dialogue (Sweeney has a 30-second monologue about a manky Troll doll that she delivers with all the sincerity of being on her metaphorical death bed) to physical movement (some of Andrew's scenes are a unique laugh, let's put it that way), there is something to inappropriately chuckle at every few minutes.
It almost becomes a game: can you and your friends try not to laugh first while Amanda Seyfried is hurling priceless plates around her kitchen?
The performances are standard for a mediocre movie, but entertainment value varies.
Just two average frenemies here, nothing to see. (Image credit: Lionsgate)
I've been an Amanda Seyfried truther since Mamma Mia!, and she's consistently turned out dazzling performances across the two decades since. Frankly, she's earned the right to have fun making a far-from-serious movie where she can be a pantomime villain.
If you think of The Housemaid like this, Seyfried does the least amount of damage. Brandon Sklenar, however, is in his acting element. In the last two years alone, we've seen him in equally questionable movies such as Drop and It Ends With Us, and he fleshes out morally bankrupt husband Andrew with next to no effort. The man knows the landscape, and he isn't afraid to deliver genuinely terrible script with a completely deadpan expression.
I hate to say it, but Sweeney is the biggest problem I have with the cast. At no point do I buy her double-edged persona as a housemaid and stowaway criminal, and her romantic chemistry with Sklenar is non-existent. Where her natural style works in Euphoria and Anyone But You, it doesn't here.
Millie is a character you could root for, but it's frustrating work. In real-life, you'd have told Nina to stick her stupid housemaid job where the sun doesn't shine, walk out of her minimalist mansion and maybe hit a few objets d'art over on the way. I know why Millie rides her unhealthy situation out, but she's not making the best decisions.
If you're choosing to watch The Housemaid this Christmas, let it be known that a) it's not a Christmas movie, and b) it's perhaps the most painful present you could give yourself. Stay for the unintentional laughs, but brace yourself for anything in between.
Don't start a flame war with me just yet, James Cameron fans. Avatar: Fire and Ashis a movie that I genuinely enjoyed, but its cinematic baggage is a huge problem.
By 'baggage,' I of course mean the two previous Avatar films. When the original was released back in 2009, I quickly assumed (as did the rest of the world, I think) it would be a historical, record-breaking standalone. Now that the sequels have started landing, however, I think the concept has lost its shine.
The most straightforward way of describing Fire and Ash is that it's exactly the same movie asThe Way of Water. For about 90% of its arduously long runtime (wear comfy clothes and book a recliner seat, if possible) the only difference is which natural element has stepped into the spotlight.
I'm even convinced that a pivotal scene has been cut and pasted in from the second film, so strong was the sense of déjà vu I experienced while watching it. There's the same inciting incident, the same challenges, and the same conclusion, for the third outing in a row.
However, if we look at Fire and Ash in isolation, I think that it's the strongest film of the bunch. It has the tightest pacing, the most impressive payoff, and Cameron's overall vision for Pandora gets more spellbinding as time goes on.
It's such a shame that it's brought down by context, much as a young person might be blighted by their family history before they've started to make their way in the world. We can't ignore that our third movie functions as a cog in the overarching Avatar machine... and that machine can only tell one, now fairly grating, tale.
Avatar: Fire and Ash's beauty tricks us into thinking that it's interesting
Usually, when I tell people that I find the Avatar movies boring, they look at me as if I've just kicked their dog. But I stand by my overriding IP argument – we are being hoodwinked into believing that what we're watching is interesting because it's so visually transcendent. In other words, beautiful cancels out boring.
I would give 35 stars, rather than 3.5, to how Avatar: Fire and Ash looks alone if the conventions of reviewing let me. I wanted to reach out and touch the Na'avi, marvelling at the detailed wrinkles, blemishes and intricate patterns being beamed across the big screen (in 3D, no less). I felt grateful to have hours witnessing it with my own eyeballs, worshipping at the altar of a kind of filmmaking that has yet to be matched or replicated.
Now imagine we took all of that away ,and the same story was acted out by humans or fully animated characters (let's hypothetically say in a Pixar movie style). What we're left with is a fairly run-of-the-mill sci-fi story comprised of fighting, disagreements, and themes of discovering your own identity and power. That could be applied to pretty much any movie in this genre, and others do it infinitely better (Aliens and The Abyss are Cameron's best work as it is).
Instead, Avatar is heralded as untouchable because of its astonishing visuals, regardless of the fact that The Way of Water and Fire and Ash are telling the same story, even though Fire and Ash does it more successfully. There are virtually no differences between them, especially if it's been a while since you've seen the second movie. How many times can you recycle the same ideas and get away with it, even if you're James Cameron?
Is everything else brilliant or oddly strange? I can't decide
Fire queen Varang in Avatar: Fire and Ash. (Image credit: 20th Century Studios)
As I've said, Fire and Ash is easily the strongest Avatar entry in isolation. Our fire Na'avi, led by Varang (Oona Chaplin) are an invigorating addition to Pandora's worldbuilding, giving both Jake (Sam Worthington) and Quaritch (Stephen Lang) a run for their money.
We surprisingly get much more whale time than in The Way of Water, and that's sensational news if you're a Payakan fan like me. There are a couple of aquatic creatures introduced that I'd like to have seen more of (there are some strange-but-cute-looking otters), and it remains the most remarkable biome in Pandora. It's also the place where the younger cast members can be the most themselves, and they're collectively the strongest performance in our Na'avi ensemble.
This doesn't include Sigourney Weaver, though. Kiri is a major player in Fire and Ash, and in the full pomp of her "this is what I'm capable of" journey. However, I think it's blindingly obvious that a 76-year-old woman is playing a 14-year-old. The giveaway is in the way Kiri moves, which is clearly the one downside of Cameron's maverick filming approach.
The main detail that bothers me, though – in the sense that I can't decide if it's satisfying or dreadful – is the conclusion. Without giving away what actually happens, there's narratively no need for any further movies. We get complete answers to any loose threads that may have been hanging over the franchise, so what does this mean for Avatar 4 and 5?
My guess is that they will each be a huge departure from what we've seen before, and while I should be grateful for that fact (given my biggest complaint here), that's also a concern. Our trilogy currently feels nicely rounded off, and any future sequels could feel gratuitous... or dare I say, like cash grabs.
But that's a problem for 2029, when Avatar 4 is set to arrive. In the meantime I'll remain conflicted about my enjoyment of Fire and Ash, even though I ultimately feel that it's monotonous. Still, at least you can watch essentially the same movie on Disney+ globally right now if you don't want to see Fire and Ash in theaters or wait for it to arrive on streaming – Avatar and Avatar: The Way of Water are already on there, and Fire and Ash will likely join them in 2026.
A few days before I started watching Amadeus, an influx of young people flooded my TikTok For You Page, playing various Bach pieces on different orchestral instruments while remixing each song with modern music. It was all thanks to a passing trend, but it did briefly make me wonder if classical musical was making a resurgence in digital pop culture.
If those same kids watch the new five-episode Sky TV series, I think they'd be astounded. Amadeus goes far beyond a musical education for the uninitiated, delving further into the supposed rivalry between composers Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri than previous accounts, including Miloš Forman's 1984 film.
Summing this rivalry up in one word would be easy: unhinged. The pair go far beyond the stereotypical boundaries of 'frenemies,' leaving their desperate acts of reconciliation until it's too late. I would never have paired Will Sharpe (Mozart) and Paul Bettany (Salieri) up to portray this, but their chemistry is undeniable.
What's more difficult to explain are the complexities behind this rivalry. To me, the duo's battles put me in mind of a 1700s version of Peggy Mitchell and Pat Butcher, from UK soap opera Eastenders. I'm in danger of losing non-UK readers at this point, but theirs was a connection that spanned decades, ranging from heartfelt consolation to vindictive plotting and literal fist fights. You never knew where you stood with them, and that was a big part of what made them so watchable.
It's not the best analogy I've ever come up with, but the atmosphere of palpable tension punctuated with violent outbursts means you never fully catch your breath. But, while Amadeus is narratively sound, it's visually questionable.
Sky has saved its best show of 2025 until last with Amadeus
If you look at the YouTube comments on the above video, fans of the 1979 stage play by Peter Shaffer, which he adapted for the subsequent movie, aren't pleased that the same tale is about to be retold. However, while it sometimes feels like we can hardly move for TV and film adaptations that cover familiar ground while not bringing much that's new to the party, I don't think Amadeus can be tarnished with the same brush.
Even if both those earlier versions had been flawless (and the three-hour long film is far from structurally sound, in my opinion), another adaptation would be worthwhile if it added a fresh perspective. Luckily for us, that's exactly what Amadeus does.
Without giving too much away, in addition to the story itself the TV series features Shaffer's own journey to writing his play, with the final scene of episode 5 breaking the fourth wall in a way I'm not sure I've ever seen attempted in television. Sky's creative risk-taking has flown under the radar, and the rest of the series is just as ambitious.
Sharpe effortlessly captures Mozart's supposed fiery temperament, and it's the foundation for the rest of the story's chaos. No one episode can contain the multitudes of emotions on show, with either Mozart of Salieri (or sometimes both) crumbling, celebrating, or threatening to jump out of a window (that's our unintentionally hilarious opening, so keep your eye out).
Amadeus throws everything and the kitchen sink at its storytelling, and the charged atmosphere is almost a character in itself.
Some of our cast have 'iPhone face', and that's a problem
Paul Bettany as Antonio Salieri in Amadeus. (Image credit: Sky)
As for the actual characters, both Sharpe and Bettany give the performance of their careers. I do wonder whether Bettany is going extra hard to distance himself from upcoming Marvel series VisionQuest, but perhaps that's just me being a franchise cynic.
Gabrielle Creevy (Constanze Mozart) also hits the right note (sorry) as the long-suffering go-between for the musical rivals, but there's something about the cast that bothers me. To me, the younger members (and by that, I mean under the age of about 40) look as though they have 'iPhone face'. What I mean by this is that, looking at them, you can escape the sense that they've seen an iPhone in their lifetime.
The makeup and costumes in Amadeus are beautiful, but they don't hide the fact that some of the cast just feel too modern. Even so, Sharpe particularly surprised me with his raucous, obscene and ridiculously arrogant take on Mozart.
The five-episode run does suffer from the classic issue of narrative lag between episodes 3 and 4, but when everything else has such a frenetic energy to it, this isn't hard to overlook. This of course includes the music, which Sharpe learned to play (rather than just flailing his hands about while the camera is carefully positioned to conceal that fact that he's not really playing).
As captivating as the scandal, drama and intricacies of Viennese society in the 18th century are, it all comes back to the music. It helps us to understand the world, Mozart and Salieri's struggles and ourselves in the process, and it's pushed me to make some conscious additions to my usual Spotify playlists. Their work is what both tortured composers ultimately wanted to be remembered for, and Amadeus certainly does them justice.
Stream Amadeus from December 21 in the UK using the below deals. Streaming platforms and release dates for other regions are yet to be confirmed.
Sky 'Essential TV' package: from £15 per month at Sky This is the cheapest Sky TV package available. It includes a Sky Stream device as well as access to 'Sky Atlantic', which airs Sky and HBO Originals through the Sky Stream streaming service, Netflix (its 'Standard with ads' tier), Discovery+ and over 100 free to air channels, such as BBC, ITV and Channel 4. This price is for a 24 month rolling contract but you can get it for £18 on a 31 day rolling contract too. Just note that the price will convert to £21 a month after the 24 months. View Deal
Sky 'Ultimate TV' package: from £22 per month at Sky While it's a bit more expensive, you definitely get a lot more content for the extra £7 compared to the 'Essential TV' package. On top of 'Sky Atlantic', Netflix and Discovery+, Sky Stream and 90 free to air channels, this deal throws in 35 extra channels, such as 'Sky Comedy', 'Sky Crime', National Geographic and MTV. This monthly fee is for a 24 month rolling contract that will go up to £35 a month after the period, but you can also get it for £25 on a 31 day rolling contract. View Deal
