Don't tell Amazon, but my heart sank when I first heard that yet another Robin Hood adaptation was coming to MGM+. But after watching it, I've mostly been won over. As it turns out, you can teach an old dog new tricks.

I've always been of the firm belief that the 2010 Robin Hood movie starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett is the best we've had (I didn't grow up watching the animated Disney movie from 1973, so I'm discounting that). However, newcomer Jack Patten in the titular role and Lauren McQueen as Marian are a breath of fresh air.

Straight off the bat, the new series has taken a huge risk by putting two unknown actors in its lead roles, and this is a large part of why I think the 10-episode series is so successful. They're perfectly counterbalanced by heavyweights Sean Bean (Sheriff of Nottingham) and Connie Nielsen (Eleanor of Aquitaine), though for me it's Nielsen who has the most to offer us (more on this later).

That's not all that's working, though. Creators Jonathan English and John Glenn have fleshed our the Robin Hood origin story to great effect, turning an elusive urban legend into Rob, a boy who wants to do right by the people he loves. This fantastic sense of basic narrative structure also means we have some epic cliffhangers... but there are issues in Sherwood Forest, too.

Robin Hood is the perfect example of good storytelling done well with unknown faces

Instead of a distant rogue who takes from the rich and gives to the poor (though we do see this a little bit as the series progresses), the notion of who we know Robin Hood to be is instantly called into question. This version of Rob has a nickname, complicated relationships with his home and family and a lot of love for their way of living that is constantly being threatened.

Our opening episodes deftly use their time to flesh Rob out into the 3D character he's never truly been before, and this is our starting point for seeing his story in a completely new light. Though he maintains an intimately close bond with Marian (Patten and McQueen's chemistry feels as natural as breathing), it's never explicit, and we're nurturing a beautiful Romeo and Juliet-style connection right along with them.

I can't give all the credit to our leads for the narrative satisfaction, though. It's incredible how many movies and TV shows these days don't get the basics right – I'm aware I sound about 87 saying this, but as a trained scriptwriter, it annoys me endlessly.

English and Glenn know exactly what they're doing here, and uprooting the story of Robin Hood from its very beginnings allows the overall plot to stay tight and on message. Yes, there are definitely episodes that are more boring than others (there's a lot of Rob and his 'merry men' sitting around despairing in the woods), but each episode cliffhanger is an absolute blinder.

Without fail, a curveball is swiftly delivered in each episode's last 30 seconds, turning what we've learned so far on its head. This means you can't do anything else with your time other than immediately watch next episode, and I love the feeling of investment those moments give me. Frankly, I'd say it's the best part of the whole series.

Amazingly, we don't need to see every time somebody gets it on

While physical scenes between Rob and Marian are wholesome and harmless, I couldn't believe my eyes at how unnecessarily explicit the rest of Robin Hood is. This falls particularly on Priscilla of Nottingham (Lydia Peckham), who gets back at her dad by trying to hold physical power of the chief of the guards.

Add Rob's mates getting it on in the serving chambers of Eleanor's castle, and it all feels a bit icky. Entire scenes of dialogue are acted out in questionable positions, and you already know that the women are near naked while the men remain mostly clothed.

It's 2025, and we can get across the point that women are using their 'feminine wiles' as power without including graphic sex scenes that don't serve to drive the plot forward. It's certainly not a feminist move by any stretch of the imagination – even though there will be an intimacy coordinator on set, these are creative decisions being made by men, at the end of the day.

These scenes also weirdly undermine Connie Nielsen's Eleanor of Aquitaine, who is undoubtedly the best written character in the entirety of Robin Hood. Every word that leaves Nielsen's mouth is a piece of sage wisdom, using her own wiles to coordinate attacks and alliances through international correspondence.

It's a masterclass in the continued underestimation of women throughout history, having their stories rewritten while in fact making their own in a man's world. Clearly, Nielsen has cornered the market for playing royalty, taking everything we love about Lucilla in Gladiator and expanding it in all the best ways. If Amazon gave us a spinoff focussed entirely on her, I wouldn't be mad about it.

I might be nitpicking here, but overall, I'm impressed. I won't be lobbying for more takes on the Robin Hood legend any time soon, but MGM+ has proved what is possible in the tired-out realm of adaptations.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

The stubborn part of me was convinced I would always consider Pan's Labyrinth to be the finest Guillermo del Toro movie. Then the new Netflix movie Frankenstein was unleashed, and it changed everything.

When someone as great as del Toro can outdo himself, it makes me even more hopeful for his future as a filmmaker. Once again, he made me cry with a sympathetic, tense, and utterly beautiful movie, the kind of offering that makes me remember why I fell in love with film in the first place.

Yes, it really is that good. Literature lovers among us may be concerned that it doesn't retell Shelley's story to the letter, but you needn't be, as del Toro's version offers a different perspective and does it very well.

Indeed, he even spoke about this in an Empire interview where he said, "The best moments in my mind of Frankenstein, of the novel, are yet to be filmed". So he set out to tell said best moments, resulting in this beautiful movie.

I really do mean it when I say beautiful, both in terms of its story and how it looks visually. I'm used to del Toro's movies being well-crafted, and he was right to partner with cinematographer Dan Laustsen, who he worked with on the Oscar-winning The Shape of Water.

Alexandre Desplat has composed many of my favorite scores, such as The Grand Budapest Hotel and again, The Shape of Water, so there's some familiar names here, and this makes for a beautiful collaboration. A movie like this shines when there's a great score alongside it, and trust me, you'll get that here.

That's not the only similarity Frankenstein shares with The Shape of Water, either, as both made me cry a lot. I do tend to cry at many movies, admittedly, but no one tugs at my heartstrings quite like this guy. I will always be obsessed with del Toro's sympathetic lens and how he crafts his characters.

Jacob Elordi's The Creature is as captivating to watch as it is heartbreaking. We see the world through his eyes, a technique I always love, which was done wonderfully in Leigh Whannell's Wolf Man, too. Forcing us to see things from a seemingly impossible perspective, a place we will never be, is jarring and makes for an excellent narrative device.

It's not all doom and gloom, though, as his signature brand of wonder does shine brightly at times. Amid the horrors, there's hope and innocence, something that brings me back to his movies over and over. We get to see as much light as we do darkness, taking us on a rollercoaster of ups and downs. While it is a bleak story, of course, it's balanced with this overarching feeling of empathy that stays with you long after you leave the theater.

Frankenstein is best seen on the biggest screen possible

Victor Frankenstein is played equally as brilliantly by Oscar Isaac, embodying the spirit of a man who is ostracized but refuses to give up, a complicated man who has long been the subject of many literary debates. He's a traumatized, obsessed man, rich in complexities. This comes across brilliantly in Isaac's performance.

The entire ensemble is excellent, with huge names like Mia Goth (she really is a star, like her iconic horror character Pearl professes), Charles Dance, Ralph Ineson, and Christoph Waltz rounding out the cast. Nobody is wasted here; I was impressed by every role.

This is only elevated by beautiful costumes and set design, which have transportive powers at the best of times, but I couldn't believe that 2 hours and 30 minutes had passed. It really does fly by, and I can't wait to watch it all over again.

I urge people to go and see Frankenstein as soon as possible. Its arrival on Netflix does mean more people will get to see it, but it's best experienced in theaters if you can. It's a cinematic feast for the eyes and should be seen on the biggest, loudest screen possible.

When it does arrive on Netflix, I highly recommend checking out del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities, too, to further satisfy your grisly cravings. What better way to celebrate Halloween than that?

You might also like

• 8 new horror movies on Prime Video, Shudder, HBO Max and more in October 2025
• Weapons and Together are good, but 3 other horror movies of 2025 top my charts – here's where to stream them
• Ballad of a Small Player is the new Netflix movie you haven’t heard of that needs to be streamed on the biggest screen possible

Zach Cregger burst onto the horror scene in 2022 with what looked to be a simple tale about a double booked Airbnb in the movie Barbarian. With the film praised so highly by horror fans, how could he possibly outdo himself?

Enter Weapons, a new movie that I genuinely believe is even better than Barbarian due to its wonderful cocktail of horror, dark comedy and mystery that keeps you guessing throughout.

Weapons has had some of the best viral marketing I’ve ever seen for a horror movie. Indeed, it's not all hype and no substance, as after watching the movie I can report that it lives up to all the scary videos and the real looking website you've seen online.

Weapons follows a shocking mystery that shocks a small town. At 2:17am, all but one child mysteriously vanishes from the same class, leaving a sea of worried parents and baffled police officials behind to pick up the pieces.

Fingers are soon pointed towards Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) after the town realizes that it was only the teacher's class impacted by this terrifying phenomenon. CCTV footage shows the children all running, arms outstretched, their destination unknown, and Gandy becomes ostracized as a result.

She's just one of the main characters we follow in the movie, though. The others are Archer Graff (Josh Brolin), a worried father, Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a police officer, and Andrew Marcus (Benedict Wong), the school principal.

The less I say about this movie, the better because it's good to know as little as possible before watching Weapons. But just know that this mystery leaves the entire community stumped and soon puts them in danger too.

This is a movie that doesn't let up. Often with horror movies we feel safer when there's scenes set in the daytime, but Weapons has you constantly on edge from the ominous intro all the way to the final credits. It's terrifying and anxiety inducing – everything you could want from a Barbarian follow-up.

Cregger told me during an interview that "if you liked Barbarian, this is more – and in a good way" – and he's absolutely right. It does dial the horror up to 100, and left my jaw on the floor for a lot of it. Some of Weapons scariest moments happen when you least expect it as you find yourself absorbed in the investigation.

This is a very character driven movie. As a result, we do spend a lot of time getting to know the members of the town, often when they're alone. There's some excellent scenes that give us insight into how they're feeling while at their homes, or during nightmare sequences.

It's easy to feel sympathy for the characters but also frustration as well. Each character feels very well-rounded. This troubled town is full of very different personalities and they all shine through here.

The town of Maybrook becomes scarier thanks to the eerie score, composed by Cregger alongside his two friends, brothers Ryan and Hays Holladay. This was Cregger's first time composing for one of his own movie's and he's done a brilliant job.

For me, Weapons is a masterpiece but I know some fans might not like the non-linear pacing, as it can feel slow at times when the tension is building. But if you like character-driven horrors that build to a shocking reveal, you're going to love this.

In the trailer, the child narrator teases that “a lot of people die in a lot of weird ways in this story" and that's very true. To find out how, exactly, you'll have to be brave and go and watch it when it arrives in theaters on August 8 in the US and UK, and August 7 in Australia.

You might also like

• 7 new horror movies on Prime Video, Shudder, HBO Max, and more in August 2025
• I watched the first six episodes of Alien: Earth, and it's the Peter Pan-inspired sci-fi horror show I didn't know I needed on Disney+
• I hit pause on my Prime Video subscription the moment I saw Hulu’s new TV show lineup for August 2025

Light spoilers follow for The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

It's not an exaggeration to say The Fantastic Four have been represented poorly on the big screen. 20th Century Fox's two attempts to launch live-action franchises starring Marvel's First Family in the early and mid-2000s were at best average, and at worst utterly abysmal.

A well-made film that captures the spirit of the iconic quartet's comic-book adventures is long overdue, then – and The Fantastic Four: First Steps duly delivers. It falls short of being, well, fantastic but, considering what's come before it's easily the eponymous team's best live-action adventure to date.

Space oddity

Set in a parallel universe – one designated Earth-828 – to Earth-616, i.e., the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), First Steps reintroduces audiences to the titular team. For those who don't know, the individuals who comprise this group are Reed Richards/Mister Fantastic (Pedro Pascal), Sue Storm/Invisible Woman (Vanessa Kirby), Johnny Storm/Human Torch (Joseph Quinn), and Ben Grimm/The Thing (Ebon Moss-Bachrach).

The only heroes who exist in this retro-futuristic alternate dimension, these superpowered scientists-cum-celebrities have not only created a utopia built upon ground-breaking technological advancements, but also keep their planet safe from those who wish to destroy it.

That's until Galactus (Ralph Ineson), an immortal, world-consuming cosmic entity, and his surfboard-riding lieutenant The Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) come calling, anyway. With the duo marking the group's planet for death unless they hand over Reed and Sue's newborn son Franklin for reasons I won't spoil, The Fantastic Four face their biggest obstacle yet as they try to stop a seemingly unstoppable space god from tearing their family – and their world – apart.

Thanks to the rich, vibrant, and fully independent alternate dimension that Marvel's new-look Fantastic Four inhabits, you don't need to do any MCU homework before you watch First Steps.

Sure, there are Easter eggs and references to the group's various villains in the comics. Those include Doctor Doom, who wasn't considered as First Steps' main villain before Galactus and who'll be played by returning MCU superstar Robert Downey Jr in Avengers: Doomsday. Still, given it's devoid of ties to the increasingly complex MCU, First Steps is the most accessible Marvel project – for first-time viewers and fans who've fallen off the cinematic juggernaut's bandwagon – since 2008's Iron Man movie.

But this isn't your typical origins story. With two prior film adaptations covering the team's backstory, First Steps takes a leaf out of Tom Holland's debut as Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War, plus his standalone MCU film trilogy, by introducing heroes who already possess their cosmic radiation-sourced superpowers. As the film tells us, Richards and company have been operating as superheroes for four years by the time it begins.

Its breezy opening takes a similar approach to another of 2025's most exciting new movies and fellow superhero film in James Gunn's Superman.

Like the most recent entry of a long-running comic book series you've just picked up off the shelf, both films drop you right into the thick of things and expect you to figure things out as you absorb their story. It's a refreshing change of pace for a Marvel project and its DC Universe (DCU) counterpart, and helps to quickly establish these pre-existing universes without prolonging their first acts via another superfluous re-tread of their origins.

That doesn't mean this movie's first 30 minutes aren't without fault. In fact, its opening act is one of the most tonally jarring I can remember in any movie.

Indeed, the Marvel Phase 6 flick is all too keen to flit between melodrama, comedy, and the occasional splash of horror between scenes, and sometimes within the same sequence. These narrative jolts make for an emotionally polarizing first act and detract from the grave, existential threat posed by the omnipotent and seemingly unkillable space tyrant (i.e. Galactus) at crucial moments.

Imagine how Avengers: Infinity War's incredibly shocking ending would've been emotionally undercut if one of the surviving heroes made an unnecessary joke amid the heart-shattering silence that follows. That's what First Steps does all too often in its first act and its narrative suffers as a result.

Heavy lies the crown

Thankfully, The Fantastic Four's latest big-screen reboot becomes a much stronger movie once its opening act ends.

Part of that is down to the lack of hard cuts between scenes, which aid the natural flow of its unfolding story. However, the film's narrative improvement also owes much to a greater focus being placed on the four primary members of The Fantastic Four: First Steps' cast and the unwavering mutual bond that exists between them.

Much was made of Pascal, Kirby, Quinn, and Moss-Bachrach's hirings when Marvel confirmed they'd be playing The Fantastic Four in February 2024, with some observers questioning whether they were the right fit and/or if they'd gel as a collective.

First Steps proves those naysayers wrong. Arguably the movie's biggest strength, their chemistry is on point from the outset, with quips and witty insults aplenty, plus their collective resolve amid individual and group disagreements, highlighting the easy rapport that exists between the actors and the characters they portray.

Individually, Moss-Bachrach does a great job of capturing Grimm's long-standing position as the heart and soul of the team. Pascal is similarly stellar as the group's incredibly intelligent yet oft-times emotionally awkward de-factor leader.

However, the Storms are the real standouts. Kirby and Quinn steal the show as the superpowered siblings who, throughout The Fantastic Four's early comic book runs, were simply depicted as the team's tokenistic female/damsel in distress and stereotypical cocksure ladies' main.

As they have in more recent comic book stories, though, the pair's representation on the screen have undergone highly satisfying evolutions akin to how they're not portrayed on the page. Indeed, Sue is positioned as the group's strongest member from emotional and superpower perspectives. Meanwhile, Johnny is a fully-formed, three-dimensional character with his own intellectual intuition that ties into a intriguing subplot that makes full use of his multifaceted persona.

If there's a criticism I can level at First Steps from a cast viewpoint, I wish there were more scenes showcasing their collective camaraderie and quieter moments between each pairing.

Some scenes used in TV spots or one of its three main teasers, including First Steps' official trailer and the final trailer Marvel released for its new Fantastic Four movie, are absent from the final cut. Given the movie's sub-two hour runtime, though, there was certainly scope for their inclusion, and I wouldn't have scoffed at seeing more humorous, heartfelt, and dramatically heavy interactions that would've further sold me on these all-important dynamics.

The same is true of the film's villains. I've been eager to see Ineson's take on Galactus since his hiring last May and Garner's version of the Big Bad's Herald following her casting a month earlier, especially given the Shakespearean tragedy elements that define their antagonistic sensibilities.

Sadly, both characters are underused. Garner gets more to do than Ineson and , after looming large as a terrifying off-screen presence for much of the film, the latter's humanoid monstrosity gets his due in First Steps' intense final act. Nevertheless, the pair weren't lying when they told me they never filmed a single scene together for First Steps, which is abundantly clear in the final edit. Their characters aren't given the requisite screentime to really dig into their motivations, nor does the flick lean into the cosmic horror they could've delivered individually and collectively.

My verdict

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is an entertaining, distinct, and at-times emotional Marvel film that MCU diehards and newcomers will equally enjoy. Still, while I applaud its brave storytelling and unique selling points, it could've benefitted from some narrative refinement to enhance its primary themes and multi-genre formula.

Those frustrations aside, this is still the most authentic representation of the superteam outside of Marvel literature. Considering what's come before, it wasn't a particularly high bar to clear, but I commend Shakman and company for giving us a Fantastic Four film that won't make me shudder at the thought of rewatching it. For that reason alone, it's not a small step forward, but rather a giant leap in the right direction for Marvel's First Family on the silver screen.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps launches in theaters on Thursday, July 24 (UK) and Friday, July 25 (internationally). The group's three other film adaptations are available now on Disney+.

Jurassic World Rebirth is the latest entry into the beloved dinosaur film franchise, following its revival in 2015 where we were introduced to Jurassic World for the first time. The first movie was great and I loved being back, but since then, it's definitely gone downhill.

By far the worst installment to date is Jurassic World Dominion, which has so far received a very low Rotten Tomatoes score of 29% from the critics, making it the lowest rated film in the franchise.

With audiences left frustrated by the direction that movie went in, there was a lot of pressure on filmmakers to restore it to its former glory, ironically, not unlike their efforts to revive a jurassic theme park as seen in the movies, following the collapse of the original.

It may be reassuring for me to begin by saying Jurassic World Rebirth is nowhere near as bad as Jurassic World Dominion, and is a much better made movie, even though I'm not sure if it really adds much to the story, as it seems to go off doing its own thing once again.

I'm likely not alone in missing the original Jurassic World cast, even though the stars in Jurassic World Rebirth were very strong. With so many big names attached to the project like Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali and Jonathan Bailey, if you're after star power, you're definitely going to get it here. They give it their all, even with a script that doesn't have much substance.

Having said that, it does feel strange not following the characters we're used to seeing in the Jurassic franchise and with no returning faces from older movies, this may come as a disappointment for fans wanting to see some familiar names.

An entirely new cast was a gamble I'm not sure was worth taking, though there's likely going to be some division here from fans. Some may argue that it's nice to see a fresh set of characters, but they didn't grip me the way Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas-Howard did when they dominated the screen in the very first Jurassic World movie.

Still, if you're looking for a fast-paced, loud, exciting trip to the cinema you'll definitely get it here. The action set pieces, when they happen, are great and make good use of a cinema sound system. The sound design is epic as are the visuals, so it's a real bit of escapism.

One thing that disappointed me was that the dinosaurs felt underused. Audiences are flocking to a movie called Jurassic World to be thrilled by the dinosaurs, so it's frustrating when we don't get to see a lot of them. I've had similar criticisms of monster movies like Godzilla v Kong, which took entirely too long for the big monsters to start punching each other. While I'm not asking for a movie devoid of any plot, it's sad when the dinosaurs do seem to take a back seat, when they should be front and center of a movie like this.

The best action movies are ones that don't hold back. These movies don't lull in the middle, whereas I did struggle with some of the pacing issues throughout Jurassic World Rebirth. The script felt weak in places and it's a real shame – I suppose trying to fix the mistakes of Jurassic World Dominion was no easy task, I'm sure.

It's certainly not the worst in the franchise, but for me, even something like Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which received divisive reviews, entertained me more than Jurassic World Rebirth.

I liked the way Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom leaned into darker topics and borrowed from the horror genre, for example, and there was nothing quite that memorable here, save for one stand out scene involving a T-Rex and a raft, but even then they could've done so much more.

There are worse ways to spend an afternoon at the movies, though, and this one will help you switch off and escape into some beautiful visuals and a good score, but it does make me worried for whether or not this franchise has a future, or if its at rapid risk of extinction just like its subject matter.

You might also like

• New movies: the most exciting films coming to theaters in June 2025 and beyond
• New Netflix movies: every original film you can watch on the best streaming service in June 2025
• 3 new A24 movies are coming to HBO Max in July – this is the order you should watch them in, based on their Rotten Tomatoes scores

28 Years Later reunites Alex Garland and Danny Boyle, and it’s everything you could hope for from this genius writing and directing duo.

It’s been more than two decades since we saw Cillian Murphy wandering around an abandoned London in the opening scene of 2002's 28 Days Later, and the impact of that movie on the post-apocalyptic horror genre can still be seen to this day.

At the time, that movie stood out for its pioneering take on the horror staple that is the zombie, imbuing the 'infected' with an especially terrifying trait: they were able to run. Before this, films like Dawn of the Dead had portrayed zombies as slow-moving, imbecilic creatures, which made the idea of sprinting monsters even more petrifying.

The first sequel, 2007's 28 Weeks Later, wasn't made by the original filmmakers and is not now regarded as canonical, so does not factor into the plot of the new movie 28 Years Later. Instead of the infected reaching Europe, as we saw at the end of 28 Weeks Later, in this telling the 'rage' virus, which escaped from an animal testing lab, has been contained by quarantining Britain from the rest of the world.

28 Years Later has a more folk-horror feel compared to the original, centering on a community of survivors who've made a home for themselves on Lindisfarne, an island separated from the coast of northern England, and from the infected, by a gated causeway.

It's here where we meet Alfie Williams' (His Dark Materials) character Spike, a young boy who's about to make what seems to be a rite of passage to manhood by accompanying his father Jamie, played by Aaron Taylor-Jonson (Kick-Ass), to the mainland for his first kill, the quarry being the infected.

Before they leave, the pair are reminded that the rules of their society mean they won't be rescued if they don't return. This adds a foreboding note to their journey, setting us up for our first encounter with the now-evolved infected, which have morphed into new variants that feel inspired by The Last Of Us.

The new infected include fat, crawling bloaters, pack-like families that can still sprint, and ripped 'alphas' that have evolved to be much smarter and bigger than the rest – and these new leaders aren't as easy to kill, even if Spike, like his father, is already a skilled archer.

The movie soon shifts from a father and son's fight for survival to an equally fraught mission. When Spike sees a opportunity to save his sick mother Isla, who's played by the incredible Jodie Comer (Killing Eve), mother and son set off in search of a reclusive doctor who's rumored to live on the mainland.

Queue perhaps of the best performance of the movie, as we meet Ralph Fiennes' (Schindler's List; The Grand Budapest Hotel) Dr Kelson, surrounded by skulls and bones in one of the most elaborate graveyard shrines I've ever seen. The introduction of Fiennes' multi-layered character marks a turning point for the film, setting up events that will likely play a central role in the next film – 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple – that's set to be released in January 2026.

In a lot of ways 28 Years Later is a coming-of-age story that grapples with themes of loss, grief, and survival, making it a lot different to the societal breakdown that was the focus of 28 Days Later. The themes running through both films, though, are underpinned by Garland's unsparing exploration of what makes us human.

Despite the time between the two films, 28 Years Later pays homage to the original by including the same lingering wide shots, and by featuring the iconic and unsettling track In the House – In a Heartbeat by John Murphy, while also setting the scene for the next chapter.

The opening scene of 28 Years Later, which shows a group of children watching Teletubbies before they have to flee an attack by the infected, may seem disconnected from the rest of the film, but it all makes sense when Spike unknowingly encounters Jack O'Connell's (Eden Lake) character, who wears the same cross we saw one of the children being given, in the closing scene.

This sets up the film series to go forward on a much more larger scale, as it introduces us to different strands of survivors that will no doubt be a big part of the next two movies. As the first of this new trilogy, 28 Years Later is a captivating watch with multi-layered filmmaking, phenomenal performances, and a story that hits closer to home than it might, initially appear.

28 Years Later is available to watch in cinemas around the world from June 19. We don't yet know which of the best streaming services it will be added to, or when.

You might also like

• Heading to see 28 Years Later this weekend? Here are 6 crucial things...
• I saw a sneak peek of the new 28 Years Later movie, making me doubly...
• 8 new horror movies on Netflix, Shudder, HBO Max, and more in June 2025

Ballerina is a real litmus-test moment for the John Wick universe.

The Continental, the franchise's first TV project, was a risky prequel series that lacked Keanu Reeves' star power and, by proxy, indicated that Lionsgate's billion dollar-spinning enterprise couldn't flourish without Reeves' iconic hitman being front and center in its various productions.

Ballerina appears to suggest otherwise. The fifth film in the series – and the first that doesn't feature Reeves as its lead – is a typically thrilling franchise entry that shows 'The World of Wick' could have a bright future without Reeves at the helm. Well, that is as long as future Wick-Verse movies and shows don't fall into the same hackneyed traps that Ballerina occasionally does.

When you think of me, you should think of fire

Set between John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum and John Wick Chapter 4 (learn more about the franchise's timeline in my guide on how to watch the John Wick movies in order), Ballerina stars Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro.

The child of an assassin who was gunned down for apparently betraying the criminal organization he was a member of, the orphaned Eve is taken in by the Ruska Roma, the crime syndicate that also raised and trained Wick.

Years later, the now-adult Eve carries out covert missions for the Ruska Roma. However, when she realizes her latest target has ties to the enigmatic gang that murdered her father, Eve ignores the orders of her surrogate family's matriarch in The Director (Angelica Huston) to let things lie. Cue Eve going rogue as she embarks on a one-woman quest to track down her father's killers and seek vengeance.

With its classic tale-of-revenge format, it's easy to draw comparisons between Ballerina – or, to type out its full title, From the World of John Wick: Ballerina – and the first John Wick movie.

Sure, there are subtle differences between their plots. 2014's John Wick sees Reeves' retired hitman punish those who stole his beloved Mustang and killed the puppy that his deceased wife posthumously gifted Wick to help him through the process of grieving her loss.

Here, Eve seeks retribution for her dad's murder, and in the process she unearths some big secrets about her past that, as plot twists go, are so derivative I spotted them from the get-go. Those narrative distinctions aside, though, the basic plot structure and themes explored in both films are the same, which is why parallels will inevitably be drawn between them.

That said, the narrative disparity between this duo is felt most keenly in how Ballerina sets up its tale. Act one is an origin story in all but name, with the film's first 45 minutes establishing Eve's backstory and events that led to her joining the Ruska Roma before transitioning to the modern day. In that sense, Ballerina's opening act isn't unlike that of Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, whose five-act plot plays out in a similar manner.

Interesting as it to witness Eve's transition from traumatized child to skilled assassin, Ballerina's first act feels drawn out. For a movie that clocks in at two hours, the fact that it takes 45 minutes to get to the meat of the story is a disproportionate amount of time to spend on narrative set-up. Sure, it's fun to see Eve's competency in the field improve – she makes plenty of mistakes along the way, mind you – as the first act progresses, but Ballerina could've reached its critical storytelling juncture far earlier than it does.

Enemy of my enemy

Once its actual story gets going, Ballerina becomes an exercise in hasty plot exposition and world-building, and typically breathless and violent action.

Where the former is concerned, Ballerina's intriguing expansion of the John Wick universe further proves that it's not just a world where assassin guilds are commonplace.

Previous Wick-Verse films have tentatively spotlighted other criminal gangs that inhabit this franchise. However, Ballerina, which shouldn't be called a John Wick spin-off, according to director Len Wiseman, confidently embellishes the seedy, complicated nature of this fictional world by revealing that the High Table isn't the sole establishment that governs the criminal underworld's various factions. Spoilers notwithstanding, I'm eager to see how future films and TV shows will expand on the splinter organizations introduced in this movie and establish others with their own mythos.

As for its physically demanding set-pieces, Ballerina's will draw "oohs" and the odd expletive-laden comment from audiences. Like John Wick, Eve is a quick-thinker who uses everyday items to gain the upper hand in combat and take out the foes she faces in her big-screen debut. The flamethrower-centric action sequence, which featured heavily in Ballerina's official trailer, is likely to be many viewers' most-loved set-piece in this film, but separate fights involving a stack of plates and a pair of ice skates were my particular favorites.

Entertained as I was by Ballerina's action, some moments felt a little amateurish. Indeed, there are a couple of set-pieces in act two where there's a notable delay between actors – or their stunt doubles – taking hits and reacting to said body blows, which temporarily pulled me out of the moment. They're not the worst situations I've seen in an action thriller flick, but they reduce the believability of the duels on show.

Rules and consequences

Those occasional moments may be missteps, but the manner in which Ballerina handles Wick's small but significant appearance isn't.

Fans have known that Reeves' legendary gun-for-hire would turn up since Ballerina's first trailer was released last September. Thankfully, his role in proceedings – I didn't time it, but I'd say Reeves' screentime is around 10 minutes – is not only a natural fit for the story Ballerina tells, but also ensures Reeves doesn't upstage de Armas in her own movie.

Don't worry, though, Wick fans, he gets his own incredibly satisfying action sequence – one that takes place after the suspense-filled confrontation he has with Eve –that'll satiate your desire to see him take names and kick ass.

The supplemental appearance from Reeves' beloved hitman aside, if I had to be hyper-critical of Ballerina, it doesn't do much with the rest of its starry ensemble.

Yes, Huston's The Director earns more screentime here than she has in prior John Wick films. Ian McShane's Winston and the late Lance Reddick's Charon earn their stripes in their respective minor and cameo roles, too. Given Ballerina's sharper focus on the Ruska Roma, plus Winston's active role in shaping Eve's life, though, I expected them to feature more than they did.

The same goes for Norman Reedus' Daniel, a mysterious individual with ties to those who killed Eve's father who, aside from inadvertently complicating Eve's quest for revenge, is criminally underused. Considering Ballerina's release was delayed so additional photography could take place to include scenes that were initially removed from the script, I'm baffled over the lack of airtime afforded to Reedus and some of his contemporaries.

My verdict

Ballerina is an entertaining, largely self-contained story whose typically high-octane nature will appease John Wick devotees and offers a soft narrative reset that makes it accessible to franchise newcomers. With de Armas' likable badass at the helm, it's an entry that could spawn its own film series within the wider John Wick universe, and it's one I certainly think is worth exploring.

That said, Lionsgate and Wick's chief creative team can't rely on the shock value of its violence, nor copy and paste its revenge tale formula into stories starring other characters, forever. Whether it's the very-early-in-development John Wick Chapter 5, the forthcoming flick starring Donnie Yen's Cain, or the franchise's anime-style TV show, fans will demand something far more creative or fresh in the future.

If Ballerina is popular and financially successful to warrant a sequel, and if said follow-up cracks the originality code, we could look back on this de Armas-fronted film as the one that proved the Wick-Verse is in safe hands without Reeves steering the ship. Fail to do so and, to paraphrase Marvel anti-hero Wade Wilson from Deadpool and Wolverine: "Lionsgate will make Reeves do this until he's 90!".

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina opens in theaters worldwide on Friday, June 6.