The Reel World

Watching a production as high-caliber as The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025) naturally comes with a lot of hype, with its Hollywood budget and immense popularity. It is refreshing to see a Hollywood horror film treated with real seriousness, the kind that draws both genre diehards and casual viewers, and my theater was packed as evidence of that. Within its shared universe there are nine, debatably ten, entries you can binge, including Annabelle (2014-2019) and The Nun (2018-2023) with their sequels. The debated tenth, The Curse of La Llorona (2019), is only loosely connected through Father Perez from the Annabelle films. As the title suggests, The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025) positions itself as the capstone to this first phase, and it is wrapped with a cathartic finality. I think one of the main reasons for its success is the fact that these movies are based on real events and experiences from the perspective of the Warrens. While you are watching something horrifying and seemingly fictional, you keep in mind that these are lived experiences as recounted by Ed and Lorraine Warren. It is haunting to think such paranormal events happened, and to imagine the bravery it takes for the Warrens to dedicate their lives to helping others confront such phenomena. Whether you believe in the paranormal or not, the cases in these movies are drawn from reported events, and the claims from the families they helped are well documented. For me, I err on the side of phenomenology, accepting these experiences as truth while accounting for the mind’s power to shape perceived reality, even amid skepticism and the possibility of fabrication.

In the film, The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025) is loosely based on the Smurl haunting, which took place in West Pittston, Pennsylvania in the 1980s, where the story is also set. Although the Warrens lived in Connecticut, they decided to help the Smurl family after their daughter, Judy Warren, was drawn there through supernatural forces she could not explain. Shortly after, they discovered a previously unknown connection to the house through a mirror the Warrens had encountered before Judy’s birth. The writers took creative liberties suited to the big screen, deviating from real accounts in ways that still felt tasteful and respectful to the family involved.

"It takes a heavy sack to sign up for this contest. I'm not gonna go through the whole rule book, but it boils down to this. If you fall below the speed of three miles per hour, you get your ticket. Walk until there's only one of you left."

Stephen King has been America's most renowned writer for about 50 years. That's a long time to stay on top. He does it by giving audiences something they want but are not always willing to admit that they want. Of course, he's the master of horror, but he doesn't always write specifically about horror. The reason King is able to scare us so well is because he understands the human condition. He has an innate ability to touch our emotions. The truth is that the best of his film adaptations have tended to be the films less related to horror. The Shawshank Redemption remains the best Stephen King film ever made. He returns to the subject of prisons and punishment in The Green Mile. Stand By Me, based on his story The Body, isn't really a horror story at all. It's a coming-of-age story. Still, when we thing of King, we think of horror, and that is part of the reason that several decades ago he decided to write a few stories under the pen name Richard Bachman. I'm not sure we were fooled for very long, and when I got the four-story Richard Bachman collection, I already knew who had written them. I'm not sure if it made a difference, but The Long Walk remains to this day my favorite King tale, and I've read it many times more than any of the other stories he's written.

Some people may think I’m crazy, but as a lifelong horror fan, I feel right now we are in the Golden Age of horror cinema. When you look at the box office this year and last, horror has simply been a dominate force, and I’m loving it. What’s even better is that it is new material that is raking in the money rather than seeing tired retreads of IPs that have been exhausted over and over again. Sinners, though it wasn’t my cup of tea, dominated the box office, and even though I’m not the film’s biggest fan, I still like seeing horror rake in the money. I’m loving that we’re getting all kinds of horror lately, where an indie slasher like Terrifier is going to be featured at Halloween Horror Nights, and we’re getting all sorts of experimental horror. For instance, later this year we’ll get Goodboy, a paranormal story told through the perspective of a dog. (Sure, it sounds silly, but I’m all for it.) This brings me to Barbarian. For me this has been my favorite horror film in the past five years, and that’s saying a lot, because there has been A LOT of good horror lately. From the moment I heard about Zach Cregger’s next film, Weapons, it immediately shot to the top of my list of most anticipated films. Now that the film has finally come out, is it worth the wait and the hype that surrounds it?

The setup is relatively simple. One night at 2:17 am, 17 students got out of their beds and ran out of their homes and disappeared. The next morning when the teacher went to her class, only one of her students showed. So what happened to these 17 kids?

I originally watched Predator: Killer of Killers (2025) as suggested by my boyfriend, which was released on Hulu in June. To be candid, I stopped following the Predator franchise after its cultural peak with the iconic crossover Aliens versus Predator (2004) and its respective sequel in 2007. Once franchises start to feel more like money grabs, like with the Jurassic World franchise (2015-2025), the magic becomes evanescent, and the cinematic experience is severely diminished for me. That said, this movie is so creatively gory, with such a stellar story, you can’t help but be impressed! This film acts as a standalone animated anthology, which serves as the eighth installment for the franchise, released after Prey (2022) and preceding Badlands (Nov 2025). Both the style of animation and the creative use of vantage points distinguished this production from the rest in the franchise and amazingly keeps you invested in the story, despite it initially seeming disconnected.

The point of the anthology clearly was to connect more warmly with the respective characters, and what they’ve endured to reach the point of rendezvous. Despite its grotesque fight scenes and generally horrific outcomes, you grow to feel compassion for each character, understand their interactions with greater insight, and feel hope for them in moments of despair. Additionally, I loved the nuances in historical timelines featured in each story, with the first set during Viking-era Scandinavia, the second exploring feudal Japan, and the third unfolding during World War II.

The simplest way I can think to sum up this movie is as such: If you saw the first film (Freaky Friday), then you have essentially already seen the second film already, Freakier Friday. This is due to there being very little difference between the two films beyond the passage of time. Yes, Lindsay Lohan now finds herself in the adult role, but the film’s themes are very much the same. In the interest of fairness, I will admit that there is very little room for deviation given the film’s premise. This is a “walk a mile in another person’s shoes” type movie, and the film delivers on that, so when push comes to shove, the film delivered on what it was supposed to. However, I feel like this kind of movie was the reason that Disney created Disney+ for. As nice as it was to see Lohan return to the silver screen, this film marks Lindsay Lohan's first theatrically released leading role in 18 years. However, it just felt like the film would have been better suited on the streaming service. I will give this legacy sequel credit for its continuity, as it found a way to bring back nearly every character from the first film, which was something that I did not expect.

And when I say nearly every character, I mean nearly every character. Obviously, Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay had to return. It wouldn’t have been much of sequel without both of their participation. It was reportedly Jamie Lee Curtis who persuaded Lindsay Lohan to return to Disney again, as the two became close friends after the 2003 film. However, what was also interesting was the return of characters such as Chad Michael Murray (Jake), Mark Harmon (Ryan), Stephen Tobolowsky (Mr. Bates), Rosalind Chao (Pei-Pei), Lucille Soong (Pei-Pei's mom), Christina Vidal (Maddie), and Haley Hudson (Peg). Murray’s role offered some comic relief, as his character still carries a bit of a torch for Curtis’s character, but I think the return I was most surprised to see was Harmon, as this marked his first non-NCIS related work in 13 years. In addition to returning characters, the film also featured some returning music. If you will recall, Lohan’s character was in a band, and to the film’s credit, it found a way to incorporate some of those popular songs (Ultimate and Take Me Away) as well as a couple of original songs as well.

The Naked Gun (2025) is a beautifully absurd film that had me and everyone in the theater laughing in tears. It is both a continuation and reboot to the original franchise that introduces a new generation of characters, which still honors the classic formula of deadpan delivery, absurd plotlines, and visual gags that gave the original its significance. It was like a breath of fresh air in a lackluster era of Hollywood which felt seriously rich in soul. I can’t even joke; my face was hurting from laughing and smiling throughout the entire movie! Initially, I was apprehensive about the movie because it starred faces I’ve honestly grown tired of seeing in Hollywood, notably Neeson and Huston. It is a star-studded cast with Liam Neeson as Lt. Frank Drebin, Jr. and Pamela Anderson as Beth Davenport. Additionally, Seth MacFarlane is part of the production with Fuzzy Door Productions in partnership with Paramount Pictures. Even though I didn’t care for Neeson having the main role, his acting wasn’t washed up at all and was far better seeing him in a comedy—same with Huston. The production was ripe with cameos with Busta Rhymes as a bank robber, “Weird Al” Yankovic as himself, Cody Rhodes as a bartender, even ring announcer Bruce Buffer, and so many more. To me, this is what genuinely gave this movie its soul, with its cultural relevancy and space for diverse interests.

Even as a gay man, I have to say that Pamela Anderson was absolutely gorgeous and so sexy in this film! I say that because that is exactly how she set out to present herself as the femme fatale in this movie, and she nailed it! Even though her talks with the media around aging gracefully are viral, it felt she authentically elevated the Hollywood beauty standard that she so virtuously chooses to be buoyed by. She completely sold the dumb blonde trope, and the movie wouldn’t have had its charm without her!

I have to admit it is hard to believe that Happy Gilmore came out nearly 30 yeas ago. It’s a hard pill to swallow, because I remember seeing it in the theater with my friends, and, well, that pretty much reminds me that I’m getting old. I’ve been a fan of Adam Sandler since his time on SNL, and it’s been interesting seeing how his career has grown. For me, I’ve remained a loyal fan not because I feel his films are great; honestly, he’s had quite a few duds along the way, but it’s because he seems to be one of the few guys in Hollywood who hasn’t changed with fame. You never hear about scandals. He just seems like a down-to-earth guy who really isn’t so different from his fans. When it comes to Happy Gilmore 2, this film has been something fans have been wanting for a while, though many of us just really didn’t think it was going to happen. After 30 years, was it worth the wait? Well, I’ll say this much: this film was certainly made for the fans.

Ever since Happy (Adam Sandler) won that gold jacket, he went on to have a successful career on the pro circuit. He ended up marrying Virginia (Julie Bowen), and they had five kids together. Everything seemed to be going great; that is, until an unfortunate accident occurred and Virginia was killedd and this sent Happy spiraling and becoming an alcoholic and giving up the sport. Oh, and grandma’s house that he fought so hard for in the first film -- he ends up losing that as well. It’s fair to say things are a bit darker for Happy this time around as we see him as a single dad struggling, and the one thing that seems to get him motivated is getting money together to send his daughter to a dance academy in France. As for Happy’s rival in the first film, Shooter McGavin, (Christopher McDonald), he’s been locked away in a mental institution since his breakdown after losing to Happy all those years ago. Another familiar face that returns is Hal (Ben Stiller); he’s no longer at the nursing home, but is in charge of Happy’s AA group. Honestly, this aspect was one of the weaker parts of the film, but Stiller still makes it work.

"I'm not giving up. We will face this together. We will fight it together... as a family."

In November of 1961 I wasn't quite five months old when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the first team of superheroes. Long before a Justice League or Avengers team was created, The Fantastic Four delivered a family of superheroes, and while it would be a few years before I would read my first issue, they created an impression along with Spider-Man, that has given me the love of comics and this kind of entertainment for the remainder of my life. The team first found themselves on film via a cheap Roger Corman film that was never released but found itself on the sci-fi convention circuit for decades. It was bad. Fox only made it so that they could keep the film rights a little longer, and they eventually made a  couple of films, the first of which I consider underrated. We won't talk about the more recent film that became an historic bomb and cost its director a Star Wars film. Now Disney owns Fox, and it's time to bring The Fantastic Four and The X-Men into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Fantastic Four: First Steps kicks off the first film in Phase 6 of that MCU. I found the trailers a bit disturbing but went into the film with an open mind. This was, of course, the First Family of comics, and I very much want them to thrive.

When it comes to video game adaptations, I learned a long time ago to not get my hopes up. Sure, there have been a few films that manage to do the source material justice, but for the most part the films tend to just fail in spectacular fashion. Until Dawn is honestly a game I never expected to see turn into a film or TV show, mostly because the game play is basically like a “choose your own adventure” style, and it just didn’t seem like something that could work. The approach the film takes  is something different and takes the story into a Groundhog Day direction, only every time the characters re-spawn  it becomes a different sub-genre of horror film. While I feel this is a terrible videogame adaptation, this actually turned out to be a fun premise for a film. So how does the film stand on its own? Well, a lot better than I had anticipated.

A group of friends have decided to tag along with Clover (Ella Rubin). She is on a trip to find out what happened to her missing sister. Along for the ride is her ex, Max (Michael Cimino) who still pines for her, her best friend, Nina (Odessa A’zion), and her boyfriend/ psychology major, Abe (Belmont Cameli). And then there is the oddball, fifth-wheel, Megan (Ji-young Yoo) who believes she has psychic abilities. The group has some decent chemistry, which helps this film a lot, because for the most part the film doesn’t waste time jumping into the creepy horror element. When the group stops off at a gas station, Clover encounters the gas station attendant (played by Peter Stormare) who drops some hints about people who have gone missing nearby. The gang follows up on this lead, and they find themselves at a unique little house that has a strange hourglass that mysteriously turns itself over and a guestbook that has Clover’s missing sister’s name scrawled inside.

I have to admit that when I heard about Heads of State being a buddy action film with John Cena as the President of the United States and Idris Elba as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I was totally on board. Then when I saw that this was heading directly to Amazon Prime, my excitement fizzled. When you have an action film with those two on the marquee, it just seems like the perfect summer film, and with the director of Nobody and Hardcore Henry at the helm, it just adds to the expectation of pure dumb popcorn bliss. Only Amazon Studios can find a way to mess this up. Still, I tried to go into this with an open mind, but the end result is an action comedy that underwhelmed in such spectacular fashion that I’m somewhat impressed at how mediocre this film turned out despite all its opportunities to impress.

Will Derringer (Cena) was a Hollywood action star before becoming president, and he uses his Hollywood image as a big-screen action star to bolster his image with the public. Then there is Sam Clarke (Elba), who actually has military training. Though he never saw combat, he kind of sees Derringer as an actor just playing the part of the president, and the two are constantly butting heads. It’s when they are together on Air Force One and they plane is attacked that they really have to begin to work together as they narrowly escape their plane crashing and they parachute alone into Eastern Europe. Thankfully this pair has onscreen chemistry together, or this film would have been in worse trouble, but the problem I saw early on is that this film just couldn’t decide on the right balance of action and comedy. Having a PG-13 rating really neutered the film, because it very clearly wants to be in the same league as Lethal Weapon, but it just doesn’t have the laughs, the violence, or the grit to make a difference.