If you're just coming here for the first time, uh... you're late. The site is no longer updated daily (see HERE for the story). But it's still kicking a few times a month, and it's better late than never! Most reviews nowadays are labeled "FTP:" and you should read THIS PRIMER to understand why. Also, while they're marked nowadays, many of the site's older reviews (i.e. 2010 or older) do contain unannounced spoilers, so tread carefully! Thanks for coming by and be sure to leave comments, play nice, and as always, watch Cathy's Curse.
PLEASE, GO ON...
Send Help (2026)
FEBRUARY 1, 2026
GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
HMAD has been here for almost 20 years now, and in that entire time there's only been two Sam Raimi movies that qualified for review here. The first was Drag Me To Hell, which I loved so much I hosted a "repertory" screening of it not even five years later, and the second is Send Help (which I'd love to host someday!). In between we got a godawful Oz movie that I don't even want to remember, and his Doctor Strange sequel (which had some solid scary stuff in it too, for the record, but it was first and foremost a Marvel movie that was following up a TV show and also a Spider-Man movie, while also setting up more multiverse stuff, so it's not fully HIS). Basically it's nice to have him back, but it'd be nicer if he didn't leave at all, you know?
The plot set up is simple but genius: "What if Cast Away but also Misery?" Rachel McAdams (she will only make a genre movie if a plane is involved, I guess) plays Linda, a frumpy, awkward woman who is also the most competent employee of a finance company. The president of the company has promised her a big promotion, but unfortunately he dies (all we see of him is a painted portrait, which you should definitely pay attention to) before it goes into effect. And now his son Bradley (Dylan O'Brien) has taken over and given the promotion to his frat buddy. This part of the setup isn't all that unique, and could have been a routine office thriller where she gets her revenge, but instead, the one employee there who sees her worth insists she join O'Brien and his bros on a private flight to Bangkok to oversee a merger. During the flight the engine explodes and the plane crashes into the water just offshore of a deserted island. Only Linda and Bradley survive, and the latter only thanks to the efforts of the former, who-as we learn via her homelife and as well as Bradley's ridicule-is also a survival expert hooked on Survivor.
So the tables turn; he's an alpha male in the office but can barely tie two sticks together on his own, whereas she only needs a day to have a fire, shelter, food, and water for them (it took Tom Hanks like a week!). At first he's still berating her and dismissing her, but ultimately he realizes he has to depend on her... just as she starts realizing that she is happier here and doesn't want to leave. To say more would be spoiler-y, but I will say that part of the fun of the movie is that we are constantly shifting our sympathies. No one in their right mind would be on Bradley's side for the first 45 minutes or so (maybe longer;? the office section feels a bit longer than necessary, but this might just be some "We know it's an island movie so GET TO THE ISLAND!" type impatience on my part), but once Linda does something that almost certainly delays their chances of being rescued, and Bradley admits he was abused by BOTH of his parents as a child, we get into more of a gray area. Right down to the end of the movie, I wasn't quite sure who would be the victor, as they were both villains in a way.
Naturally, their increasing antagonism is what gives us the Raimi splatter we hoped for once it was announced that the film would have an R rating. To be fair it's mostly for the language - honestly, the PG-13 Drag Me To Hell had far more violence, but the handful of moments that unleash his goo-happy tendencies are top notch, and it was great to see such things on the big screen again. I mean, it's not really a spoiler to say that these people who are on a deserted island eventually have to hunt an animal for food, but while we've seen this sort of thing in any number of island-set movies/shows, only Raimi would do it THIS way, which had me cackling and - yes! - even jumping a bit from a well-executed scare.
But it mostly plays out as a psychological thriller, meaning it's closer in tone to his movies like The Gift and Simple Plan, dipping into "Sam Raimi, the director of Evil Dead" territory at key moments almost as a diversion. Not saying this is a bad thing, to be clear, but I think the fans of those aforementioned grounded films will be more satisfied than those going in expecting Rachel McAdams to be the new Ash Williams. There are even a few moments of bodily damage that are played off-screen, something that would be unthinkable in an Evil Dead.
Honestly though, I didn't even think much of these omissions. The real draw was seeing McAdams and O'Brien having a blast playing against their type and playing mind games with the other. It was also interesting to have a dynamic where the female was older than the male; again, the "unappreciated female goes after her asshole male boss" scenario has been done a lot, so flipping the sexes but retaining the usual age gap made for an interesting pairing. I've been a fan of McAdams for decades now, but after Saturday Night I started really appreciating O'Brien's talents (say what you will about the movie itself, but he was SPOT ON as Dan Aykroyd) and he continues that streak here, finding humanity in what could have been a generic "bro" role. And both of them go for broke when it comes to the splattery stuff, particularly a scene where... well, again, no spoilers. But it comes after a raft breaks, that's all I'll give away.
Apparently this is in DBox, and converted to 3D as well... I'm sure it's fun for a few key moments, but I had a blast at a normal 2D screening, and rarely felt I was missing out on anything (the plane crash probably would have been fun in that capacity). I have yet to be convinced that 3D conversions can look as good as the real thing, so I never bother unless I have to (most recent attempt was another island movie in fact: Jurassic World Rebirth, and I forgot it was even in 3D half the time, if that gives you any impression), but Raimi seems tailor-made for the silliness that a good DBox presentation provides, so if you're not as picky about 3D as I am then by all means add to your enjoyment. But I just want to be clear: this movie would have worked even without the moments that were clearly designed for/by its director. The most anonymous filmmaker alive could have made a good movie out of watching Rachel McAdams go psycho on a desert island - Raimi just added some very sweet gravy to it, and the world is the better for it.
What say you?
PLEASE, GO ON...28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)
JANUARY 16, 2026
GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
Despite not loving 28 Years Later, I worked my morning schedule around making sure I could see its sequel, simply titled The Bone Temple on screen, on opening day. It's a busy month for the genre, with a new wide release every week, and since I can only get to one movie a weekend (at most!), this one would get lost in the shuffle if I wasn't proactive. Plus the word of mouth was strong, with many even naming it their favorite of the franchise, so I was quite curious to see how it played for me, someone whose favorite entry is the one most people don't even remember at all, let alone laud.
Anyway, Bone Temple is an improvement on its predecessor, thanks to a more focused narrative and better use of the key assets of the previous film, namely Ralph Fiennes' doctor Ian Kelson and his excellent taste in music. In a move that would make "Dr Frankenstein" proud, Kelson figures out a way to communicate with one of the zombies (and yes, the Z-word is used again) and perhaps even reverse the infection, which allows him to bond with Samson, the oft-naked "Alpha" we met in the last movie. Their scenes are the best in the film, and honestly I could happily just watch the two of them form their strange, wonderful friendship over the course of these two (and maybe three) films.
But we spend the other half of the runtime with the "Jimmies", a group of thugs led by Sir Jimmy Crystal, played by Jack O'Connell. We met them at the end of Years, and now Spike (the young protagonist of the previous film) is, through happenstance, part of their gang, though he certainly isn't fond of the predicament. These scenes, alas, grew tiresome for me - there's never any sense that Spike is being corrupted by Sir Jimmy or even in any serious danger from the other "Jimmies", and as with the last movie, it feels like this stuff would play best to someone who hadn't seen a single zombie movie since the original 28 Days in 2002. I mean, if seeing yet another evil human use the ongoing zombie threat as an excuse to invade someone's home before killing them for their supplies is still somehow novel to you, enjoy! But I've seen this sort of thing too many times, and considering how engaging the Kelson material was to me, every time it cut back to this group I found myself losing interest.
As with the last one, the last reel or so is where the movie really shines, because that's when Spike's two would-be father figures finally come face to face (his actual dad, played by Aaron Taylor Johnson, isn't seen this time around). It's a bit unfortunate that Kelson doesn't realize Spike is among their number until the very last moments of their encounter, but it's more than made up for with how Kelson introduces himself to the group. I won't spoil the particulars (though social media posts with a song attached have almost certainly clued you in to one aspect), but it's an electrifying sequence on par with the musical interlude in Sinners (which also co-starred Jack O'Connell, incidentally).
Oh, it reprises John Murphy's iconic "In The House" during the credits, so that made me happy as it was absent from Years.
It's also a better LOOKING movie, so that was a relief. I couldn't stand the iPhone photography (I cannot use the word "CINEMAtography" in that context without feeling some of my soul die) in Years, but this was thankfully shot with normal (digital) cameras, allowing the striking production design of its titular setting to shine through. And yes, this means you get better looks at the dongs on display - it's not just Samson that bares all for the audience this time around! (I know Samson's is a prosthetic, but semantics aside: what was the last major studio movie to offer lengthy shots of TWO male penises? In a movie with no female nudity of any sort, to boot? Like some alt-Bechdel test up in here.) There isn't a lot of action, but at least when there is, it's easier to follow thanks to the improved imagery it offers.
I also liked that it was hopeful. This genre, more than any other in horror, is often used as a subtle (or not subtle) commentary on what's going on in the world, and given the state of things now, it'd be easy to make something truly nihilistic and grim. But no; Kelson keeps hope alive for the good in the world (thanks in part to his music collection; the man has good taste) and the final line is worth cheering for, not just because it's a good character moment for the person saying it, but also because it's an attitude we need more of in the real world, where innocent people are being murdered by a fake police force for merely trying to stand up for their neighbors.
Basically, it's a really good movie that is burdened mainly by being a direct followup to one that I felt was uneven (and ugly!), leaving me less enticed about returning to its world. Even the ho-hum Jimmy stuff isn't BAD, per se - it just lacks the compelling and less common nature of the scenes with Samson and Ian, because even a casual fan could probably tell you how it will end up. Perhaps if Spike was able to convince his fellow "Jimmies" to rise up against their tyrannical (and full of crap) leader, there would be more gravy to these scenes, but Spike mostly just silently follows them around for most of his scenes, only becoming (slightly) proactive near the very end. O'Connell is great, but there's only so much that good acting can do with such an overused character archetype in this sort of thing.
As for the promised third part of this trilogy, I am curious what it will be like. Without spoiling things, it seems that the next entry will be a bit of an outlier for a trilogy closer, as a few of the plot threads from these two are pretty much tied up at the end of this one, and the setup for the next movie seems like it will be more tied into the very first film than these two. And then Bone Temple didn't open all that well, so with stiff genre competition over the next few weeks (Silent Hill, Send Help, The Bride!, etc.) there's no guarantee it'll be made anyway. If Sony decides not to pursue it any further, at least the setup isn't exactly a major cliffhanger; we've certainly been left hanging in worse situations (the Divergent series, perhaps even the last Fast & Furious, not to mention all the go-nowhere plot threads of the Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Texas Chain Saw franchises). But it'd be a shame for them not to see it through. Even though neither of them were exactly my favorite films of the year (well, I HOPE this doesn't end up being one of them for 2026), there's certainly enough good in both to warrant seeing how it all turns out.
What say you?
PLEASE, GO ON...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)