What Ive Been Watching

Last One Laughing UK Season 2
UK comedians are just the best. There is something about them that knows how to make you laugh. In Season 2 you have Alan Carr, Sam Campbell, Diane Morgan, Mel Giedroyc, David Mitchell, and even returning Season 1 champion Bob Mortimer among others, and it is just the best time. David's joker (if you've seen it you'll know what I mean) is stuck in my head. It's just so bloody funny! The Season Finale is now streaming, and no spoilers, but wow. Hands down amazing and perfect.

Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat
I have to admit it's not as good as the first season, and maybe that's the problem. They caught lightning in a bottle and tried to recreate it. It definitely isn't bad, it's just very different. The cast is amazing, the suspect is so good. It has some standout hilarious moments, but also some that you're just meh about. It's definitely one I would watch, but it's just different, not necessarily in a bad way. The final three episodes are now streaming and I really loved the finale, where they actually showed how they pulled it all off.

The Pitt Season 2
If you haven't been watching The Pitt, you're missing out. It's so amazing. Each episode is an hour of a 15-hour ER shift, so Episode 1 starts at 7am, Episode 2 is 8am, and Episode 15 is 9pm. It's such an interesting concept, and it continues to be so medically accurate. This season takes place on the Fourth of July, and things happen. It's just so well written. I cannot talk about this one enough!

Shrinking Season 3
I was late to this one. I watched Seasons 1 and 2 late last year, but Season 3 came out at the end of February and I was finally on time for it. This show airs weekly on Wednesdays on Apple TV, which you can get through a subscription on Prime. It's such a wholesome show, and the Season 3 finale airs next Wednesday the 8th of April. I'm really interested in how they wrap it up. It really feels like a series finale, but we know a fourth season is coming.

The Comeback Season 1
I started watching The Comeback because Season 3 is airing, but is it supposed to be this cringy? Yes, it's funny at times, but a lot of the time I feel sorry for Valerie and it's just so uncomfortable to watch. Maybe Season 2 will be better?

Once Upon A Time
Believe it or not, I’ve never seen OUAT. It started when I was 10 and ended when I was 17. I actually watched Season 7 when it first aired, which was a reboot of sorts, and if you really think about it that’s a weird place to start. Anyway, I always look for a series to be a kind of long-term commitment while I watch other stuff, and OUAT has always been one that fascinated me. I like the fairy tales and the whole premise of the show, so this week I dived in. I’m about halfway through Season 1 and thoroughly enjoying it so far. I love the way it turns everyday fairy tales on their head.

Now, because it’s the start of the month, I thought I would also drop some dates for series coming or ending this month!

Series Coming in April

• Your Friends and Neighbours (Apple TV, April 3)

• Star Wars: Maul — Shadow Lord (Disney+ April 6)

• The Boys (Prime Video, final season, April 8)

  

• The Testaments (Disney+, three episodes) April 8

• Hacks The Final Season (HBO MAX, April 9)

• Big Mistakes (Netflix, April 9)

• The Miniature Wife (TVNZ+ April 10)

• Malcolm in the Middle: Life’s Still Unfair (Disney+, April 10)

  

• Euphoria (Neon, April 13)

• Twenty Twenty Six (TVNZ+, April 13)

• Margo’s Got Money Troubles (Apple TV, three-episode premiere, April 15)

  

• Beef Season 2 (Netflix, April 16)

• Kevin (Prime Video, all episodes, April 20)

• Stranger Things: Tales From ‘85 (Netflix, April 23)

• Half Man (TVNZ+, April 24)

• Running Point (Netflix, April 23)

• Abbott Elementary ALL Season 5 episodes (Disney+ April 25)

• South Park Seasons 5,6 and 17 (Neon April 16)

• New Zealand Spy (TVNZ+, April 29)

• Celebrity Treasure Island - (TVNZ in April)

  

Season finales in April

• Jury Duty Presents Company Retreat (Prime Video, April 3)

• Memory of a Killer (Neon, April 6)

• St Denis Medical Season 2 Finale (TVNZ+ April 7)

• Best Medicine (Fox, April 7)

• High Potential (Disney+ April 8)

• Shrinking season 3 finale (Apple TV, April 8)

• DTF St. Louis” limited series finale (Neon April 13)

• Doc (TVNZ+, April 15)

• Scrubs Revival (Disney+ April 16)

• The Pitt Season 2 finale (Neon, April 17)

• Animal Control (Fox, April 23)

  ---

  Thanks for checking out the Watch-list come back every Sunday for recaps of shows i watched throughout the week!
  

  The Long Take Media is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  
  
  
  
  

Grey’s Anatomy Loses Two Long-Time Stars

Grey’s Anatomy is bidding farewell to two of its longest-serving cast members. Kim Raver and Kevin McKidd—who play Teddy Altman and Owen Hunt—will exit the show in the season 22 finale, airing in early May.

Raver first joined in season six, departed in season eight, then returned in season fourteen and has remained ever since. McKidd has been a fixture since season five. The news comes alongside confirmation that ABC has renewed the medical drama for a twenty-third season.

Savannah Guthrie Confirms Today Show Return

NBC’s Savannah Guthrie has been off-air since early February following her mother Nancy’s disappearance. In a sit-down with Hoda Kotb, she confirmed she’ll return to the Today show on April 6th.

“It’s hard to imagine doing it because it’s such a place of joy and lightness, and I can’t come back and try to be something that I’m not. But I can’t not come back, because it’s my family.”

She added that her joy will be her “protest” and her “answer”—and when it’s not there, she’ll say so. Nancy Guthrie remains missing.

Taylor Swift Drops Surprise Elizabeth Taylor Video

Taylor Swift closed out Women’s History Month with a surprise music video for her upcoming single Elizabeth Taylor. In an unusual move, Swift doesn’t appear in the video at all. Instead, it’s a tribute piece edited from archival clips of Elizabeth Taylor’s films and documentaries—a celebration of the Hollywood legend’s legacy. Royalties from the music video will go to Elizabeth Taylor’s Aids Foundation.

Celine Dion Announces Paris Comeback

Celine Dion is returning to the stage. On her 58th birthday, she announced a 10-show Paris residency at La Défense Arena, running September 12 through October 14. These will be her first headlining concerts since 2020.

Via Instagram, Dion called it “the best gift of my life,” sharing that she’s feeling “good” and “strong” and has started singing and dancing again as she continues managing her stiff person syndrome diagnosis.

The Summer I Turned Pretty Film Begins Shooting

Production on The Summer I Turned Pretty farewell film officially kicks off April 27th. The movie will wrap up the story following season three’s conclusion last September. No release date yet, but a summer 2027 debut seems likely if they’re aiming for a seasonal launch.

James Tolkan Dies at 94

James Tolkan, best known for playing Principal Strickland in the Back to the Future trilogy, has died at 94. He also appeared in Top Gun and numerous other films across a decades-long career.

Taylor Frankie Paul’s Bachelorette Season Pulled

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives star Taylor Frankie Paul has had her season of The Bachelorette axed by ABC after video surfaced appearing to show her attacking her ex-husband and throwing a chair at him. Her season was set to begin this week.

Production on season five of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives has also been halted, with several of her co-stars publicly condemning her actions.

Scream 8 Officially in Development

Following Scream 7’s box office success, an eighth installment is officially happening. Lilla and Nora Zuckerman (best known for Poker Face) have signed on to write the script. Director Kevin Williamson, who helmed the seventh film, has confirmed he won’t return for this one. No director has been announced yet.

Taylor Swift Faces Trademark Lawsuit Over Album Title

Las Vegas performer Maren Wade has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Taylor Swift in federal court, claiming Swift’s album The Life of a Showgirl is too similar to Wade’s trademarked brand “Confessions of a Showgirl”—a column she began writing for Las Vegas Weekly in 2014 that became a touring live show.

The US Patent and Trademark Office had previously declined Taylor Swift’s trademark application for “Life of a Showgirl” over potential confusion, but her team proceeded anyway. Wade is seeking an injunction and monetary damages.

Scott Mills Axed from BBC Radio 2

BBC Radio 2 presenter Scott Mills was removed from his position on March 30th, with the BBC citing “personal conduct.” Mills had only taken over the flagship Radio 2 Breakfast Show in January 2025.

In a statement, Mills confirmed that an allegation of a historic sexual offence was made against him in 2016, which police investigated. He said he cooperated fully, and the Crown Prosecution Service closed the case in 2019 without charges. The BBC acknowledged knowing about the 2016 investigation but says Mills was sacked after “new information” of his conduct emerged this week, though they haven’t clarified what that means.

Rebecca Gibney Reveals Autism and ADHD Diagnosis

Australian actress Rebecca Gibney has shared that she’s been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. The diagnosis came after she was approached to host a documentary about ADHD and went through the assessment process herself. Her therapist quickly identified both conditions, since confirmed by three psychiatrists across Australia and New Zealand.

Gibney says the diagnosis has finally explained 35 years of panic attacks previously attributed to anxiety. She described the process as “hard” and “very emotional,” but said it’s answered a lot of long-standing questions.

Harry Potter Series Gets Christmas 2026 Premiere

HBO’s Harry Potter series has jumped forward on the calendar. Originally set for 2027, the platform has now confirmed the series will debut Christmas 2026. They’ve also clarified that due to the scope of the production, the show won’t follow an annual release schedule as previously planned.

Bridgerton Season 5 To Feature Same Sex Relationship

Netflix has confirmed that Bridgerton season five is now in production, centring on Francesca Bridgerton (Hannah Dodd) and Michaela Stirling (Masali Baduza)—the show’s first same-sex lead romance. Michaela is a gender-swapped version of Michael Stirling from Julia Quinn’s novels.

Showrunner Jess Brownell has said it will be “a season about queer joy” rather than queer trauma, with the central tension being whether Francesca follows practical plans or pursues her feelings. Expect a late 2027 or early 2028 release.

Sabrina Carpenter Teases New Music Video

Sabrina Carpenter is keeping the momentum going from her hit album Man’s Best Friend. She’s confirmed that House Tour will get the music video treatment, dropping Monday, April 6th (Tuesday the 7th in New Zealand). Teaser’s on her Instagram.

@sabrinacarpenter

Sabrina Carpenter on Instagram: "no joke…
house tour video thi…

Masked Singer Season 14 Winner Revealed

A massive season of some crazy reveals but the fourteenth season of The Masked Singer finally concluded this week with Galaxy Girl taking home the trophy and was revealed to be Ashlee Simpson.

The final standings:

1. Galaxy Girl — Ashlee Simpson

2. Pugcasso — Phillip Phillips

3. Cat Witch — Kylie Cantrall

4. Crane — Normani

   ---

That’s the wrap for this week. See you next Friday.

Picture this.

It’s 2019. Every weekend, studios are printing money. Avengers: Endgame just crossed a billion dollars in its opening weekend alone. The global box office is heading toward eleven billion dollars for the year. Hollywood is untouchable.

Then 2020 happens. And everything stops. Cinemas become ghost towns. Movies are delayed, cancelled, or pushed to streaming.

Today, for our very first episode of The Breakdown, we’re tackling a question the entire industry has been obsessing over for five years:

Is 2026 finally the year cinema bounces back?

Not just recovers. Not just stabilises. But actually, genuinely bounces back to something resembling what it was before the world changed.

To answer that, we’re going through the 2026 slate category by category: blockbusters, animation, legacy sequels, prestige wildcards. We’re building a real picture of what this year could mean for the future of movies.

But before we get into what’s coming, we need to understand where we’ve been.

PART ONE: THE NUMBERS

Let’s start with some context, because the story the data tells is more complicated than most people realise.

In the United States, a domestic box office total of around nine billion dollars is generally considered a healthy year for cinema. It’s the number studios, exhibitors, and analysts use as a rough benchmark for industry stability.

Here’s how the last few years have actually stacked up.

2022, the first full year back after the pandemic, brought in about 7.5 billion dollars. That sounds okay until you remember that Hollywood was operating with limited capacity, ongoing mask mandates in some regions, and a global audience still deeply uncertain about sitting in an enclosed space with strangers.

2023 brought some genuine optimism. The domestic total climbed to roughly nine billion dollars, and it was carried almost entirely by a cultural phenomenon you’ve definitely heard of: Barbie and Oppenheimer. Throw in The Super Mario Bros. Movie and a few other solid performers and suddenly the industry looked healthier than it had in years.

2024 told a more complicated story. The total dipped slightly to around 8.7 billion, even with some notable performers. The hits were there, but they were unevenly distributed, and the number of mainstream blockbusters that quietly underperformed started to become a concern.

2025 is still being tallied, but projections have it landing somewhere between 8.6 and 8.9 billion dollars. Consistent. Stable. But stubbornly short of what the industry actually wants.

Here’s why that matters.

Pre-pandemic, the domestic box office didn’t just clear nine billion. It cleared it comfortably and kept going. 2018 brought in 11.9 billion dollars. 2019 brought in 11.4 billion.

That’s not just a gap. That’s roughly two and a half billion dollars the industry has failed to recover. Every single year.

And this is the context in which we need to evaluate 2026, a year that is being positioned, quite deliberately, as a potential turning point.

So let’s be honest about what we’re really asking.

Nine billion dollars would mean cinema is healthy. That’s the floor. Eleven billion would mean cinema is genuinely back. That’s the ceiling.

Today, we’re going to ask whether 2026 can realistically reach either number, and what would need to go right, or wrong, for it to get there.

PART TWO: THE BLOCKBUSTERS

Every year has films that are expected to carry the weight. The infrastructure movies. The ones studios build release calendars around.

In 2026, there are four that define the top of the slate. Avengers: Doomsday. Spider-Man: Brand New Day. The Odyssey. And Dune: Part Three.

Let’s start with the Marvel films, because they represent the most fascinating and most complicated story in Hollywood right now.

Avengers: Doomsday arrives with enormous expectations and a question mark hanging over it. The MCU has been in a strange place since Endgame. Not dead, but uneven. Films like Shang-Chi and Spider-Man: No Way Home proved the audience was still there. But Phase Four struggled to land a cohesive narrative, and films like Eternals and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania underperformed against expectations.

There’s also a more specific question about Doomsday: how does Marvel make a massive event film work when its central character situation has changed so significantly? The approach they appear to be taking is one we’ll discuss in depth in a future episode, leaning heavily on nostalgia, returning faces, and the emotional weight of legacy. Whether that’s the right creative call or a symptom of a deeper challenge is genuinely debatable. But commercially, a returning Avengers title with Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans back in the fold will almost certainly open huge. The question is legs, whether it holds or drops sharply in week two.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is perhaps the safer bet. No Way Home made 1.9 billion dollars globally. The character has arguably the most loyal fanbase in Marvel’s roster. If the story delivers, this could be one of the year’s biggest earners. The trailer dropped last week and became the fastest film trailer to cross a billion views in just four days. That’s not just a number. That’s evidence of an audience that is ready and waiting.

The Odyssey is Christopher Nolan’s most ambitious project yet, an adaptation of Homer’s epic poem with a cast that reportedly reads like a who’s who of the best working actors alive. Nolan hasn’t made a film that underperformed since The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, and even that made over a billion dollars. Oppenheimer proved the audience for intelligent, demanding cinema is still there when a filmmaker of his calibre delivers. The one interesting variable is cultural reach. The Odyssey is foundational reading in American schools, but it doesn’t carry the same weight in every international market. Whether the film can translate that into global box office legs will be one of the more interesting stories of the summer.

And then there’s Dune: Part Three. Here’s where it gets a little chaotic.

As of now, Dune: Part Three is scheduled for December 18th. So is Avengers: Doomsday. Two of the most anticipated films of the year are pointing directly at each other on the same weekend. That’s not a scheduling quirk. That’s a game of chicken between two major studios, and one of them is going to blink.

The complication is that Dune: Part Three will be occupying most of the premium large-format and IMAX screens, which Marvel will not be happy about. So the question isn’t just whether they’ll collide, but whether one of them ends up pushed entirely out of 2026. A Doomsday or Dune delay into 2027 would dramatically reshape the year’s commercial picture. Watch that date carefully.

PART THREE: THE ANIMATION ENGINE

Now I want to talk about something that rarely gets the credit it deserves in these conversations.

Animation has quietly become the most reliable engine in the entire film industry. Not the flashiest. Not the most discussed. But the most consistently profitable, and the most audience-proof.

Consider the recent record. The Super Mario Bros. Movie crossed 1.3 billion dollars globally in 2023. Inside Out 2 crossed 1.6 billion in 2024, making it the highest-grossing animated film of all time at the time of its release. Moana 2 and Zootopia 2 both crossed the billion-dollar mark in the same year. Animation was, without question, what kept 2024 commercially viable when live-action was struggling.

In 2026, studios have clearly read the data and are doubling down.

Toy Story 5 arrives in a franchise where the third and fourth films both crossed a billion dollars. The third is widely considered one of the best films, not just animated films, of the 21st century. The audience trust in this franchise is profound. If the story earns it, this could be the year’s single biggest animated earner.

Super Mario Galaxy builds directly on an already proven audience. The first film’s success wasn’t a fluke. It demonstrated that video game adaptations can work at a massive scale when the material is treated with care. A sequel has an even stronger launching pad.

Minions 3 continues one of the most reliably global animated brands in existence. It may not be anyone’s critical favourite, but it has a worldwide audience that consistently shows up.

Then there are the potential surprises. The Cat in the Hat taps into one of the most recognisable pieces of children’s IP in the world. Animal Farm, based on the George Orwell novel, brings a stacked voice cast and a story with genuine thematic weight. Both could be something special if they get the tone right.

Animation probably won’t carry the entire year on its own. But in a year where blockbusters are unpredictable and legacy sequels are a gamble, animation provides something the industry desperately needs: stability.

PART FOUR: THE LEGACY SEQUEL MACHINE

If there’s a defining trend in 2026 beyond the franchise tentpoles, it’s this: the legacy sequel is back, and it’s everywhere.

These are films built not on new ideas but on existing emotional connections, follow-ups to films people already love, arriving to offer something familiar in a world that feels increasingly uncertain.

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is perhaps the most intriguing of the lot. The original is genuinely beloved, a perfect film of its kind, and having Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Emily Blunt all return creates real excitement. But legacy sequels to standalone films are tricky. Unlike franchises, The Devil Wears Prada wasn’t built as a serialised story. A sequel has to justify its existence creatively, not just commercially. Word of mouth will determine whether this is a hit or a disappointment.

Scream 7 is a more concrete story, and we’ll come back to it in Part Six, because its early performance is already one of the more encouraging data points of the year.

Jumanji 3, Meet the Fockers 4, Practical Magic 2. Each of these has a built-in audience and real questions about whether the creative case for their existence is strong enough to bring casual viewers along.

And then there’s the one that feels most consequential: a new Star Wars film centred on The Mandalorian and Grogu. This would be the first theatrical Star Wars release since The Rise of Skywalker in 2019, a film that, let’s be honest, left the franchise in a complicated place. Whether a Mandalorian film is the right vehicle for recalibration, and whether audiences will respond after years of Disney+ content, could be one of the most important stories of the entire year.

The honest reality of the legacy sequel boom is that it’s not really about creativity. It’s about risk management. In an industry still rebuilding audience trust and ticket-buying habits, familiarity is a powerful commercial tool. The risk is that too many of them clustering in the same year creates a kind of creative inertia, a calendar that looks more like a catalogue of past hits than a slate of new ideas. That’s a long-term concern even if the short-term logic is sound.

PART FIVE: THE WILDCARDS

Every great year at the box office has films that nobody predicted, the ones that arrive without the weight of franchise expectations and somehow become the conversation.

2026 has several candidates.

Project Hail Mary is the adaptation of Andy Weir’s beloved science fiction novel, starring Ryan Gosling. It has everything working for it: genuinely brilliant source material, one of the most commercially appealing actors alive, and directors who understand how to make intelligent science fiction feel cinematic. The challenge is that serious, standalone science fiction is a genuinely difficult sell at the scale needed to move the box office needle. The Martian pulled it off. Interstellar pulled it off. Project Hail Mary has the pedigree to join that list, but it has to earn it. More on how it’s already faring in Part Six.

Greta Gerwig’s Narnia is possibly the most intriguing film in the entire 2026 slate. Barbie proved Gerwig can work at blockbuster scale while maintaining a distinctive voice. The Chronicles of Narnia is a beloved literary universe that has never received a truly great film adaptation. If Gerwig brings what she brought to Barbie, genuine thematic ambition wrapped inside a commercially appealing package, this could be the unexpected cultural moment of the year. The one caveat worth watching is how quickly the film reaches Netflix after its theatrical run. If audiences sense a short window, some may choose to wait. That streaming proximity could take a real bite out of its theatrical ceiling.

Then there’s The Drama, an intriguing and genuinely unusual proposition. Hollywood heavyweights Zendaya and Robert Pattinson lead a film whose plot is being kept entirely secret until audiences actually see it. The mystery is the marketing. It’s a bold swing, and it could work. Intrigue can drive opening weekends. But with no genre hook and no plot to sell, converting curiosity into sustained ticket sales will be the challenge. One to watch when it arrives in April.

And finally, the one that nobody knows quite what to make of yet. Disclosure Day, Steven Spielberg’s alien film. Details are scarce. What we know is that it’s Spielberg, it involves extraterrestrial life, and that’s essentially it. But consider the weight of that name. E.T. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Spielberg has made some of the most commercially successful and culturally resonant alien films in history. A new entry in that conversation, shrouded in mystery, directed by one of the greatest filmmakers who has ever lived, is a wildcard with genuinely limitless upside.

If this film is what Spielberg at his best can be, it could be the single most important film of 2026. The unexpected cultural moment that pushes the year toward that eleven-billion ceiling.

Or it could be a quiet, personal film that critics love and general audiences approach cautiously.

We genuinely don’t know yet. And that’s exciting.

PART SIX: THE YEAR SO FAR

We’re not just speculating about 2026 anymore. We’re three months in, and the early data is already telling a story.

The headline number first: ticket sales are currently 21% above the same point in 2025. That’s a meaningful signal that audiences are showing up in a way they haven’t in recent years. The caveat, and it’s an important one, is that revenues remain roughly 20% behind the pre-pandemic average. The gap to pre-pandemic norms is still very real. But the direction of travel is encouraging.

January was steady rather than spectacular. The month was largely sustained by late-2025 holdovers and modest genre performers, with horror and mid-budget thrillers proving reliable draws. Iron Lung, an original horror film, opened to $17.8 million, a genuine over-performance for a new IP. The stumble of the month was Bone Temple, Danny Boyle’s middle entry in the 28 Years Later trilogy, which opened more than $17 million below its predecessor. A reminder that even strong IP doesn’t guarantee strong results if audiences sense diminishing returns.

February was where the year started to take shape. Animation, period drama, action, horror, and romantic comedy all had their moment, with Wuthering Heights, GOAT, Send Help, and Scream 7 among the top earners of the month.

Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights turned out to be the month’s defining story. It opened to $34.8 million and crossed $67 million across February alone. For a prestige period drama with no franchise safety net, just two charismatic leads, a bold director, and one of the most recognisable stories in English literature, that’s a remarkable result. By late March, the film has crossed $83 million domestically and over $234 million globally, making it one of the true early successes of 2026 and a genuine argument for the ongoing power of original cinema.

Scream 7 delivered on the presale momentum we discussed earlier. The film opened to $63.6 million domestically, a franchise record, comfortably ahead of any previous entry in the series. It has since crossed $193.8 million at the US box office, becoming the highest-grossing film in the horror franchise’s history. That’s a meaningful data point for the legacy sequel conversation: when the creative execution is there, the audience absolutely responds.

Then there was The Bride, which had been flagged as a prestige wildcard. The results were brutal. The film lost nearly 2,600 theatres by late March and fell nearly 87% in a single week, one of two films this year with a budget over $90 million to survive only two weeks in the top ten. It underscores an uncomfortable truth: financial muscle cannot substitute for audience appetite. A big budget without a clear emotional proposition is not a strategy. It’s a gamble, and 2026 has already seen that gamble lose.

March belonged to one film above all others.

Project Hail Mary rocketed to $140.9 million at the global box office in its opening weekend, including $80.5 million domestically and $60.4 million from 82 international markets. That’s the largest debut of the year, the biggest opening ever for Amazon MGM, and a result that validated every piece of optimism surrounding the film. Analyst David A. Gross put it simply: “What makes the story work is the balance of science fiction and humanity. The Martian had similar heart, and it’s working again.”

The film earned a 95% score on Rotten Tomatoes and an A CinemaScore, the best wide-release score of 2026. Films with that combination of critical approval, audience enthusiasm, and an opening in that range have historically gone on to gross at least $250 million domestically. Project Hail Mary looks well on its way.

Ryan Gosling said something during the press tour that stuck with me. It’s not audiences’ job to keep cinemas open, he said. It’s Hollywood’s job to make things that are worth coming out for. What the first three months of 2026 suggest, from Wuthering Heights to Project Hail Mary to Scream 7, is that when studios make things worth coming out for, audiences still come.

The second half of the year is where the bigger hitters arrive. Spider-Man, Dune, The Odyssey, Doomsday, Toy Story, Minions. The early returns have set a strong foundation. Whether the back half can build on it is the only question that matters now.

PART SEVEN: SO WILL CINEMA BOUNCE BACK?

Let me give you my actual verdict. Not a hedge, not a “wait and see.” A real answer.

Nine billion dollars? Yes. I think 2026 gets there. The slate is deep enough, diverse enough, and commercially supported enough that a healthy year is the most likely outcome. Animation alone could contribute two to three billion dollars. The blockbusters, even if not all of them hit, will collectively move enormous numbers. The legacy sequels have built-in audiences. There are enough pieces in place for a genuinely solid year.

Eleven billion? I don’t think so. Not this year.

To reach pre-pandemic highs, 2026 would need multiple genuine cultural moments, films that people feel compelled to see in cinemas, that generate conversation, that pull in audiences who wouldn’t otherwise go. Barbenheimer was one of those moments. Inside Out 2 was one of those moments. The early results from Wuthering Heights and Project Hail Mary suggest this year has candidates capable of filling that role. But candidates aren’t guarantees.

There’s also a warning sign the industry cannot afford to ignore.

In 2025, for the first time since 2008, not a single superhero film crossed the billion-dollar mark globally. That’s not a blip. That’s a pattern. A major superhero line-up including Superman, Fantastic Four, and Captain America: Brave New World collectively failed to produce a single billion-dollar earner.

If that trend continues into 2026, if Doomsday and Spider-Man underperform against their enormous expectations, then 2026 won’t just be a disappointment. It will be a signal that something structural has changed in audience behaviour, and the industry will need to fundamentally rethink what comes next.

That’s the real stakes of 2026. Not: does Hollywood have a good year? But: does Hollywood prove that the model still works?

And we’ll all be watching to find out.

That’s our first episode of The Breakdown. We covered the numbers, the blockbusters, the animation slate, the legacy sequel boom, the wildcards, and three months of real data that’s already starting to answer some of our questions.

Coming up in future episodes: a dedicated look at the Avengers: Doomsday question, the rise of nostalgia as a commercial strategy, and the slow-motion story of what has gone wrong at Pixar.

Do you think 2026 can hit eleven billion? Drop your prediction in the comments. I’ll be revisiting them at the end of the year.

5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ out of 5

Dare I say a perfect film?

Earlier this year I wrote a Substack about the most anticipated films of 2026. I had watched countless lists, top fives, top tens, all of it. Project Hail Mary barely featured on any of them. If you had read Andy Weir’s novel you were probably already excited, but most regular cinema goers, myself included, had not. I knew it was sci-fi so I planned to see it anyway, but I went in with no real expectations. What I did not expect was to leave the cinema feeling genuine hope for the future of movies.

In a time when sequels and remakes dominate everything, it is genuinely difficult for something original to cut through the noise. Yes, it is based on a book, but you know what I mean. Project Hail Mary cut through. Box office numbers already have it as the biggest opening of the year, and having seen it, I completely understand why. This is the first film since Endgame where I walked out of the cinema with pure, uncomplicated joy. It went straight onto my four favourites on Letterboxd, which I almost never change.

I was told by a friend to go in knowing nothing. No trailer, no research, just show up. I did exactly that, and I cannot overstate how much it helped. I had seen a few five star ratings floating around and thought, sure, it probably will not actually be five stars, because I find it hard to give a film five stars if I think anything could have been improved. I can tell you now it deserved every single one of them.

The film is directed and produced by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, with a screenplay by Drew Goddard, based on Andy Weir’s 2021 novel. This is Weir’s second book to be adapted for the screen, his first being The Martian, which tells you something about the calibre of storytelling involved.

Here is all the plot you need: science teacher Ryland Grace wakes up on a spaceship with no memory of who he is or how he got there. As the pieces slowly come back to him, he realises he has been sent on a mission to solve the mystery behind a strange substance that is causing the sun to die out. That is genuinely all I will give you. The less you know, the better.

That sounds bleak, and if you are a sci-fi fan you will be immediately hooked, but even if you are not, I still highly recommend it. Because at its core this is a deeply human film. It is funny, it is warm, and it never once made me feel like I was just waiting for it to end, which is remarkable for a runtime of two hours and forty-one minutes. Not a single minute felt unnecessary.

Ryan Gosling carries this film and he is a powerhouse. He is funny when the film calls for it and serious when it needs to be, and you completely believe he is Ryland Grace. There is something almost playful about the way he works through problems on screen, a scientist thinking out loud, occasionally delighted by his own brain, and it keeps the film alive in a way that a lesser performance simply could not.

The visuals are out of this world, pun intended. Genuinely some of the most gorgeous cinematography I have seen. The sound design is phenomenal, and the music choices are where the film really shows its confidence. There is a scene where Harry Styles’ Sign of the Times is used, and it might be the best that song has ever been deployed in a film, hauntingly beautiful in a way I did not see coming. But the real standout, especially if you are a Kiwi, is the use of a 1976 recording of the traditional Maori waiata “Po Atarau,” performed by the Turakina Maori Girls’ College Choir, during a pivotal emotional farewell scene near the end. They could have used any song. A sweeping orchestral score, something huge and recognisable. Instead they chose something intimate and real, and it made the scene pack an emotional punch I was completely unprepared for. It was both a shock and an absolute delight.

One more thing. Rocky is a treat. And before you think that is a spoiler, it is a sci-fi film. Of course there were going to be an alien. What I will say is that there are moments in this film where you genuinely appreciate what it means to be human, and Rocky is a big part of that.

I did not plan to review this film for this series. But I have not been able to stop thinking about it, so here we are.

Go in clean. No trailer, no expectations. Just trust it.

It was perfect.

Come back every Monday for a review of a film for The Film Reel.

The pair were constantly number one in the radio ratings, and in 2023, ARN (Australian Radio Network) announced a landmark deal worth $100 million — a ten-year contract that would expand their reach from their Sydney base into Melbourne.

But then it all came crashing down.

It began with an on-air fight. Kyle questioned Jackie's work ethic, telling her: "Your fixation on this has made you almost unworkable." He was accusing her of being "off with the fairies" after she looked up the astrology birth chart for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who had hours earlier been arrested in the UK on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

He claimed her recent interest in horoscopes and star signs had led to a noticeable shift in her work.

“You’re not doing the rest of the job and everyone in this building has mentioned it to me,” he declared, dismissing Henderson’s request for examples.

She defended herself, calling his claims “mean and nasty” and a “total attack.”

“I would never do something like that to you on air,” she said through tears, adding that if he was unhappy with her performance, he should “get someone else.”

Here is the full clip of what happened:

Jackie then took a week of leave, which many immediately assumed was a publicity stunt for ratings. But an ARN statement confirmed something more serious: Jackie said she "cannot continue to work" with Kyle.

As a result, Kyle was suspended for two weeks for "serious misconduct."

But the fallout got even crazier when Jackie clarified that she had not quit or resigned from the show, and that she was "deeply saddened" by the possibility of it ending.

“I am deeply saddened by the events of the past week and the possibility of the show ending,” she said. “This has come as a shock to me, as it has to everyone else.”

Her statement appeared to contradict the explanation given earlier in the week by ARN, which had said Henderson "cannot continue to work with Mr Kyle Sandilands" and that her contract had been terminated.

Then the hammer dropped. ARN fired Kyle, and the $100 million contract and the 25 year partnership was over.

Kyle, being the shock jock he is, came out swinging.

In a statement saying;

“ARN has just announced that they’ve terminated my contract. I don’t accept it.

“My lawyers told them last week this would be invalid. And guess what? It is.

“Let me tell you what actually happened here. Jackie and I had a blue on air. That’s it. The kind of thing we’ve done a hundred times in 25 years. And ARN took the situation and decided to try and burn the place down.

“They sacked Jackie. They suspended me. They wouldn’t even let me pick up the phone to call her or anyone else on the show.

“Then – and this is the bit that gets me – once they’d made it impossible for the show to go on, they turn around and say, ‘You didn’t fix it. You’re fired!’

“I said sorry to Jackie the night of our blow-up. And when I said I was sorry to Jackie, I meant it. I still mean it. But it doesn’t mean I will stand by while I am separated from the people who’ve listened to me every morning for 25 years.

“Before they suspended me, ARN said, ‘Let us handle it’ and I listened.

“In the two weeks since, I’ve done everything ARN asked. I said, put me back on air. I’ll work with Jackie. I’ll work with someone else. Whatever you need. Every single time – ‘no’.

“They weren’t interested. They didn’t want to fix this. They thought they saw a chance to get out of the contract they signed with me a year ago, and they ran with it.

“ARN knew exactly what they were getting when they signed my deal. They’ve worked with me for over a decade.

“They knew how I work, they knew the show and they were happy to pay for it – because I delivered number-one ratings. Year after year. Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for their business.

“I held up my end. I always have.

“So, you tell me – why would ARN prefer to breach a contract and pay the legal consequences rather than honour the contract and pay me to do what I do best? That’s the bit that doesn’t make sense.

“I’ve got a contract until 2034. I’ve got rights under that contract. And ARN hasn’t honoured the contract. So it’s over to my lawyers.

“To the people who tune in every morning – you lot are the reason I’ve done this for 25 years. You didn’t get a say in this. Neither did I. But my lawyers will.

“I’m not done. Not by a long way.”

That raises an important question: did Kyle and Jackie O give ARN the fuel they needed to exit a very lengthy contract?

Kyle himself suggested as much, and veteran Australian broadcaster Steve Price also believed the bust-up was a convenient way for ARN to try to terminate the deal. The Melbourne expansion had not gone as well as expected, and in 2025 ARN reported that its metro radio revenue dropped 16.1%, with the company posting a net profit of just $6.1 million.

And yet the ratings told a different story. In their final round of numbers, Kyle and Jackie O finished with a 12.7% audience share — miles ahead of their nearest competitor, Smooth FM’s Bogart Torelli, who recorded 10.1%.

That means the ARN just lost their biggest and winning asset.

Craig Bruce, host of the Game Changers Radio podcast, told news.com.au recently.

“There’s been no other radio show like Kyle and Jackie O,” he said. “They have been the benchmark, and if you’ve been listening to them for 20 years, the alternatives are weak sauce.”

“If hundreds of thousands of people were to give up on radio in favour of podcasts, streaming or audiobooks, it could have a devastating impact on the industry’s ad rates and revenue.”

So what’s next for the once biggest duo in Australian radio?

For Kyle, a lengthy legal battle appears inevitable. He looks set to take ARN to court for breaching his ten-year contract, and Jackie’s contradictory statement about her own departure suggests she may also be heading to court.

Technically the pair could move to another station, but that would depend on what restraint of trade clauses exist in their current contracts.

There is also a regulatory wrinkle: the Australian Communications and Media Authority has imposed additional licence conditions. Those conditions apply specifically to any show either Kyle or Jackie hosts or appears on, alone or together, for the next five years, meaning the explicit content that had been a staple of their show for years would no longer be permitted.

Commentators believe that while the pair could resurface together or separately at new stations, that outcome is unlikely. The more widely held view is that Kyle may pivot to a podcast, YouTube, or live shows, where he can monetise his own audience on his own terms. As for Jackie, many believe she would step away from media for a few years.

But ultimately, it is a wait and see situation, including whether Kyle and Jackie take ARN to court, or quietly settle behind closed doors.

The Long Take Schedule:

Mondays: The Film Reel
Every week, we will be discussing a film and what i thought about it, sort of a review but not super serious, the films could be from any year, older films, newer films, cult classics, less known ones, you name it.

Wednesdays: The Breakdown
Each week will be discuss a topic, from rankings, to essays, to looks into the industry or even actor, director or franchise deep dives.

Fridays: The Weekly Wrap
Each Week we will recap the biggest news in pop culture and entertainment.

Sundays: The Watch-list
Each week, I will discuss very loosely what i’ve been watching!

Extra Content: There will be additional content such as reviews of new films and some other content as seen fit.

Thanks for following!

I am not a film critic. I am a regular filmgoer who happened to watch most of the Best Picture nominees this year as part of a personal challenge, so I have some opinions based on that.

So here are my predictions. Not the consensus picks, not what the pundits are saying, just what I think is going to happen based on what I have watched, what I have heard, and what the season has been telling us.

Best Actress: Jessie Buckley A lock. She has won every precursor award leading into today and her performance in Hamnet is extraordinary. I cannot see anyone taking this from her.

Best Supporting Actress: Amy Madigan, Weapons I have not seen Weapons but her name has been everywhere this season and the precursor wins back it up. Sometimes you trust the momentum.

Best Supporting Actor: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another He was absolutely incredible in that film. The caveat is Stellan Skarsgard, who I could genuinely see stealing this one. Penn is my pick but I am holding it loosely.

Best Picture: One Battle After Another This feels like the frontrunner and I think it holds. Sinners could narrowly sneak in and I would not be shocked, but One Battle feels like the film the Academy wants to crown this year.

Best Animated Film: K-pop Demon Hunters That film was everywhere and it is not hard to see why. This feels like a straightforward win.

Best Original Song: Golden, K-pop Demon Hunters Still in the top ten. That kind of cultural staying power is hard to argue with.

Best Director: Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another Locked. The film is a directorial statement and the season has reflected that.

Best Actor: Timothee Chalamet, Marty Supreme The one I am most torn on. Chalamet was incredible in that film and despite some controversy around the Ballet and Opera statements, I think he takes it. That said, if Michael B. Jordan wins I would not be surprised and I would not be mad either. This is the category to watch today.

Come back after the ceremony and we will see how badly I got this wrong.

I expected to love some and endure others. What I did not expect was to genuinely love every single one of them. Here is where they all landed.

9. Train Dreams (3.5 stars)
A film I would never have watched without this series, and a genuinely brilliant one. Quiet and patient in a way that makes you feel the human experience.

8. F1 (4 stars)
Car films are not my thing, and this one won me over anyway. The sound design alone is worth the price of admission.

7. Frankenstein (4 stars)
Beautifully shot and visually extraordinary. I watched it shortly after finishing the novel and I think that timing shaped everything.

6. Marty Supreme (4.5 stars)
An exceptional cast and a great film let down by lighting that genuinely pulled me out of the story. It still earns every half star.

5. Sentimental Value (4.5 stars)
I do not usually watch subtitled films, and within the first act I had completely forgotten I was reading. The cast hooked me and never let go.

4. One Battle After Another (4.5 stars)
The hype made me nervous but the film won me over. The cast, the cinematography, all of it delivered.

3. Sinners (4.5 stars)
It starts slow and it earns every second of that slow start. The cast is phenomenal and the musical sequences are some of the best things I saw in a cinema this year.

2. Bugonia (5 stars)
Completely batshit crazy and I mean that as the highest possible compliment. The film I have told the most people about since watching it.

1. Hamnet (5 stars)
A masterpiece in grief, which spoke to me.

Honestly? After watching it, I can see why.

The film opens with a striking, immediately gripping sequence that pulls you straight into its world. From the first few minutes you can tell this is going to be something visually special. The cinematography throughout is stellar, and the film constantly finds ways to make its moments feel huge and cinematic.

Michael B. Jordan plays twin brothers, and pulling off a dual performance like this is no small task. He absolutely nails it. There is even a fight scene between the twins that is so well executed it almost makes you forget you are watching the same actor twice. After seeing this, I completely understand why Jordan is being talked about as a serious Best Actor contender alongside Timothée Chalamet.

Sinners is not just a horror story either. It is a love letter to blues music and Black culture, and the history behind both. There is a musical sequence about halfway through that not only drives the story forward but celebrates that culture in a way that feels genuinely powerful. It is one of the best scenes in any film I watched across this entire series.

The film does start slow. It takes its time setting up the world before the action kicks in, and I felt that in the first act. But having seen the full picture, that slower build makes complete sense. The groundwork laid early allows the finale to hit so much harder. And when it does hit, it really hits.

The tension in the second half is extraordinary. When the vampires finally breach the barn the aspect ratio shifts, the frame opens up wider, and you just feel it. Okay, it is on. The ending that follows is spectacular.

The supporting cast helps hold everything together emotionally. Hailee Steinfeld, Delroy Lindo, and Miles Caton as Sammie all deliver, with Caton especially impressive given this is his film debut.

Yes, it gets gruesome. But it earns those moments. They add to the chaos rather than feeling like shock value.

Sinners is tense, visually stunning, musically rich, and deeply cinematic. By the time the credits rolled I understood exactly why it picked up 16 nominations. A fitting finale to this Best Picture series.

The story follows Marty Mauser, a young table tennis hustler in 1950s New York, loosely based on real-life ping pong legend Marty Reisman. His goal is simple: be recognised as the best in the world. The film is really about obsession and the hunger to be seen, and that idea lands because it is genuinely relatable, even when everything around it is completely deranged.

Timothée Chalamet carries nearly every scene and commands the screen in a way that makes it easy to understand why he is a frontrunner for Best Actor. Marty is not a likeable person. He is selfish, chaotic, and difficult to root for in any conventional sense. But Chalamet makes him magnetic anyway, and that is a harder trick to pull off than it sounds.

The supporting cast is one of the film’s real pleasures. Fran Drescher brings enormous personality to the role of Marty’s mother and is responsible for some of the film’s best moments. Gwyneth Paltrow is excellent in a role that could easily have been throwaway. Tyler, the Creator and Odessa Young both bring something genuinely interesting to their scenes. And then there is Kevin O’Leary, who I was not expecting to stand out and who ends up being one of the more memorable presences in the whole film. There is a scene where his character paddles Marty with a ping pong paddle that is completely outrageous and comes completely out of nowhere. The film has a few moments like that.

The music is fantastic. Songs like Forever Young and Everybody Wants to Rule the World are used brilliantly and fit the tone of the film in ways that feel both surprising and completely right. There is also a bathtub scene that is genuinely insane and lodges in your memory immediately.

My one real reservation is the visual style. The film is very dark, and at times the lighting made it genuinely difficult to fully appreciate what was happening on screen. It is a deliberate stylistic choice, but it did not always work for me and occasionally pulled me out of the experience.

The ending also left me with a few unanswered questions. I know the story is loosely based on a real person, and I respect that the film does not try to tie everything up neatly. But I came away wanting just a little more resolution than I got.

Marty Supreme is strange, funny, and sometimes genuinely deranged, and Chalamet proves here that he is the real thing. It did not fully land for me in every way, but it is a film that stays with you, and there is no question it earns its place in this year’s Best Picture field.

Chloé Zhao, who won the Academy Award for Nomadland, directs this with a quiet and devastating precision. It is not a film built around spectacle. It is built around feeling, and it does not let you keep your distance from it.

I will admit this one hit differently for me. A few years ago I lost my cousin, and watching this film meant sitting with those feelings again in a very real way. Seeing a family shattered by the loss of a child brought back grief I thought I had processed. That is not a criticism of the film. If anything, it speaks to how powerfully it does its job.

The story centres on Agnes and William Shakespeare, played by Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal. Their chemistry is immediate and completely convincing. You believe in this relationship from the first scene, which matters enormously, because the film is ultimately about what grief does to two people who love each other. William buries himself in work and tries to push the pain aside. Agnes is consumed by it. The contrast between the two is painful to watch and painfully authentic. When Agnes blames William for not being there, it is one of the most honest depictions of how loss fractures families that I have seen on screen. Sadly, that kind of fracture is not fiction for a lot of people.

Jessie Buckley is extraordinary. The performance is difficult to describe without running out of words. There is a scene where Agnes pleads with her dying son, followed by a scream of grief, that is almost unbearable to watch. When she says “I’ve lost my son,” it lands with a weight that is impossible to shake. Buckley has been considered a near-certainty for Best Actress, and watching this film it is easy to understand why. The performance is not just good. It is the kind you remember years later.

Paul Mescal is just as real, in a quieter register. He carries the weight of Will’s guilt and distance without ever over-explaining it, and his work in the film’s final act is quietly devastating.

Then there is Jacobi Jupe as Hamnet. He is a young performer, and he is extraordinary. There is a small moment where his character says “I’ll be brave” that hit me harder than almost anything else in the film. It is three words, and it lands like a punch. The casting of his real-life older brother Noah Jupe as the actor playing Hamlet in the play within the film is a brilliant touch, one of those decisions that feels almost unbearably poignant once you understand what it means.

Joe Alwyn does excellent work in limited screen time, and Emily Watson delivers a speech that is one of the most memorable scenes in the film. The supporting cast across the board earns their place.

There are two lines of dialogue that have stayed with me since the credits rolled.

“What is given may be taken away at any time.”

“Never take for granted that our children’s hearts beat, that they draw breath, that they walk and speak and smile and argue and play.”

Those lines are not just beautiful writing. They are true. And hearing them in a theatre, having lost someone I loved, made them feel like they were written directly at me.

The final scene of the film is remarkable. I will not describe it, but it is the kind of ending that earns everything the film has put you through.

Out of all the Best Picture nominees I have watched so far in this series, Hamnet is the only one I have given five stars. It is a masterpiece about grief and the strange, painful, human need to turn that grief into something lasting. I am not sure I will watch it again for a while. But I am certain I will think about it for a very long time.

I will be upfront: historical American western stories are not naturally my territory. This is the kind of film I would likely scroll past on Netflix on a normal evening. That is precisely why this Best Picture series exists. It pushes me toward films I would otherwise miss, and Train Dreams is a good reminder of what I would be passing up.

The film follows Robert Grainier, a logger and railroad worker whose life unfolds across decades of early twentieth century America. It is not a film built around plot or spectacle. It is built around feeling, around the slow accumulation of a life lived through loss, resilience, and quiet endurance. Death and grief run through the whole thing, but so does something harder to name, a sense that beauty and devastation can occupy the same space at the same time.

Joel Edgerton holds the film together almost entirely on his own. His performance is understated in the best way, the kind of acting that works through restraint rather than declaration. The quiet moments carry real weight because of him, and there are a lot of quiet moments. William H. Macy was a genuine surprise. I had no idea he was in the film going in, and he turns what could have been a minor role into one of the most memorable parts of the whole story.

At just under two hours, it is one of the shorter nominees in this year’s field, but the runtime never feels slight. The film earns its emotional punch. There is a moment near the end where you find yourself re-evaluating things, not just what has happened on screen but in a broader sense. That kind of impact is rare.

Train Dreams is currently streaming on Netflix, which makes it one of the most accessible films in this year’s Best Picture lineup. If you are on the fence, that low barrier to entry is a good reason to give it a chance.

It is not a film I would have found on my own, and I am glad the nominees list found it for me.

The setup is simple on the surface. A pharmaceutical CEO is kidnapped by two men who are convinced she is an alien sent to destroy the Earth. Within the first thirty minutes she has been taken, and from that point the film locks in and does not let go. The pacing is relentless. The tension builds in layers, and it never quite releases. You spend the whole film slightly on edge, unsure who to root for, unsure what is real, unsure what is coming next. That uncertainty is the point, and Lanthimos leans into it with everything he has.

But none of it would land without Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons, and these two are extraordinary. Stone shaved her head for the role, and that detail matters. There is an intensity to her performance that feels physical and total. She plays the CEO with a controlled menace that is deeply unsettling to watch, calm in a way that makes you nervous. Plemons matches her every step of the way, all grief and conviction and barely contained chaos. When the two of them finally face off directly, it is genuinely one of the most electric scenes I have seen this year. Two of the best actors in the world, going head to head, and neither of them blinks.

The film is also genuinely disturbing. There are moments involving a gun and a shovel that are shocking in the best way, the kind of scenes that lodge in your memory and stay there. The sound design does a lot of the heavy lifting throughout, raising tension in key moments, pulling you deeper into an atmosphere that already feels uneasy and strange.

Then come the twists. I will not say what happens, but the film does something near the end that made me stop and think, is this actually going where I think it is going? And then it goes there. And then it goes somewhere even further. The final impression the film leaves is grim, gruesome, and strangely funny. Lanthimos wraps the whole thing in a kind of bleak comedy that makes the disturbing elements land even harder.

Bugonia is not a film for everyone. It is strange, it is violent, it is uncompromising. But it is also thrillingly made, brilliantly acted, and impossible to shake. For a regular filmgoer who just loves cinema, this is exactly the kind of film that reminds you what the medium is capable of.

A big plus for this film is how accessible it is compared to some of the other nominees. It’s streaming on Apple TV+, which makes it an easy one to track down and watch.

Now, this is probably the nominee with the least chance of actually winning Best Picture, but I do think it has a real shot in the sound category. The sound design is incredible. You genuinely feel like you’re sitting trackside watching a real Formula 1 race.

That crash scene where the car launches into the air and bursts into flames is chilling. The sound suddenly drops out, leaving this eerie silence as you watch the characters stand there speechless, exactly how you feel in that moment.

The film does a fantastic job of putting you inside the world of Formula One. At times it genuinely feels like you’re right there in the pits or on the track. The camera work is particularly impressive, capturing the speed and intensity of the racing in a way that makes the whole experience feel immersive.

The film is also packed with real world details from the sport. There’s a lot of product placement from brands associated with Formula 1, and while you definitely notice it, it does help the world feel authentic. There are also plenty of cameos from people within the F1 world, which adds to that realism, though you can’t help but feel a significant chunk of the budget went into making those moments happen.

Ultimately, the film is a spectacle that Formula 1 and racing fans will likely love. At the same time, the story itself is very simple. Some viewers may find it too straightforward, and the similarities to the plot of Cars 3 might even turn some people off. But I don’t think this film is trying to be a complex, heavy drama. It’s trying to tell a racing story set in the world of Formula 1, and in that respect, it absolutely succeeds.

Like I mentioned at the beginning, I’m not really a racing fan, so this isn’t the kind of film I would normally gravitate toward outside of this series. But I have to admit, I really enjoyed it. I found myself getting genuinely pumped during the races, rooting for Sonny, and even sitting there speechless during some of the crash scenes.

Is this a Best Picture winner? Probably not. But it’s an entertaining ride, the kind of film you can easily get invested in and have a great time watching.

I was hooked within minutes.

The film is primarily Norwegian, with a little English woven in, and at its core it’s a family drama. But that description sells it short. It operates with such quiet precision, such restraint, that every scene carries a weight you don’t see coming. The silences say as much as the dialogue. It doesn’t shout at you. It pulls you in.

There’s a fascinating meta layer running through the film. Stellan Skarsgård plays a film director who is actively making a movie within the movie, and that detail adds a texture that deepens as the story unfolds. Beneath all of that, what you’re really watching is the fractured relationship between a father and his daughter, Nora.

They clearly want to be there for each other. They clearly care. But honesty keeps getting in the way—or rather, the inability to be honest does. It’s the kind of dynamic that feels painfully real.

Skarsgård is an absolute powerhouse. His Best Supporting Actor nomination is entirely deserved, and you’ll understand why the moment he appears on screen. There’s a gravity to his performance that anchors the entire film.

Renate Reinsve, who plays Nora, is extraordinary. She carries the emotional centre of the film with a subtlety that’s genuinely breathtaking. The push and pull between her and Skarsgård becomes the beating heart of the story, and watching two performers this good navigate that dynamic is a real privilege.

There’s a reveal near the end connected to the film-within-the-film that I won’t spoil here. What I will say is that it lands with a weight that reframes everything you’ve just watched. It’s the kind of moment that earns its emotional impact because the film has been quietly building toward it the whole time.

And a proper shout-out to Elle Fanning, the only fully English-speaking character in the film. She doesn’t just hold her own. She’s a fantastic performer who fits seamlessly into the world of the film, no seams showing.

Sentimental Value has heart. It’s emotional and gripping in equal measure. I went in with zero expectations and came out having watched something I’d call remarkable.

If, like me, subtitles have always felt like a barrier, let this be the film that changes your mind.

The latest adaptation of Frankenstein comes from Guillermo del Toro. The film stars Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein and Jacob Elordi as the Creature.

You can really tell that del Toro loves this story. He’s created a beautiful and mostly faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novel.

There are some notable changes. One of the biggest is Victor’s childhood. In the novel, his upbringing is largely pleasant, but the film reimagines it as much darker, giving Victor’s motivations more emotional weight.

Elizabeth’s arc is also significantly different. In the book, she is engaged to Victor, but in the film she’s instead in a relationship with his younger brother William, who is portrayed as an adult here rather than a child. Her role is expanded even further by giving her a connection to the Creature. In the film, she ultimately dies protecting him. This is a major departure from the novel, where Elizabeth doesn’t encounter the Creature until the night he murders her on her wedding day.

Another key difference is the Creature himself. In Shelley’s novel, he goes on a killing spree, but the film softens that aspect, creating a more sympathetic portrayal of the character.

Despite these changes, the film still feels very faithful to the spirit of the book. Frankenstein has been adapted countless times and will undoubtedly be adapted again, but this version clearly comes from a place of love. The changes feel thoughtful and meaningful rather than unnecessary. If a film adaptation follows a book 100% beat-for-beat, it can feel a little pointless. Updating elements and making creative changes for a modern audience helps justify why the film exists, and del Toro understands that instinctively.

One thing I really appreciated was how the film mirrors the book’s narrative structure. The novel famously shifts perspectives, and the film captures that by allowing both Victor and the Creature to tell parts of the story from their own point of view. It’s an excellent way to make the narrative work on screen.

Visually, del Toro delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience. From the gothic architecture to the Creature wandering through snow-covered landscapes, the world feels rich and atmospheric. The Creature’s design is extraordinary, the colours, textures, and emotional expressiveness all working in harmony to make you forget you’re watching a performance beneath layers of makeup.

And that’s a credit to Jacob Elordi too, who is remarkable in the role. There are moments where you genuinely lose track of where the makeup ends and the performance begins.

There are also some brutally intense sequences, most memorably a wolf attack where the violence is savage but shot with such precision and contrast against the white landscape that it becomes almost beautiful to watch.

I read Frankenstein around Halloween last year, so watching this adaptation shortly after felt like the perfect follow-up. And honestly, I can absolutely see why it ended up being nominated for Best Picture. Del Toro has made Frankenstein for people who love the novel and for people who have never read a word of it, and that’s no small achievement.

Stay Tuned for the next best picture nominee review: Sentimental Value…

Wow.
I can understand why its the frontrunner.

Leonardo DiCaprio is incredible, but at this point that almost goes without saying. What really surprised me was Sean Penn. His villainous, almost lock-jaw (pun intended) intensity is chilling and unforgettable. His character’s walk is phenomenal, immediately communicating power, menace, and confidence without needing dialogue.

Teyana Taylor, Chase Infiniti, and Regina Hall are compelling as well, each bringing something distinct to the film.

This is also Chase Infiniti’s debut film appearance, and wow, you would never know. She is phenomenal in every single one of her scenes, delivering a performance that feels completely natural and assured.

Benicio del Toro is another highlight. It’s very clear why he received a nomination, delivering a performance that adds both weight and presence to the film’s ensemble.

Despite the film dealing with some heavy themes, DiCaprio also provides some genuinely hilarious moments. One of the funniest running gags is his character’s utter failure to remember the codes. There’s also a scene where Leo (aka Bob) is arguing with a man over the phone about what time it is, tense and thrilling, but also absurd and funny. The fact that he’s conducting all of this while wearing a dressing gown only adds to it.

Even small production details stand out. The cars in the film look incredible, almost like another subtle way the film builds its sense of style and period authenticity. The car chase scene is absolutely incredible and the setting for it is stunning.

The film is electrifying. It’s genuinely thrilling and keeps you tense throughout, with cinematography that gives the story a huge, immersive sense of scale.

At 2 hours and 41 minutes, it’s definitely long, but it’s paced well enough that it never feels like a slog.

It’s also a very American film, especially in the way it touches on immigration and identity, exploring how people carry those things with them and what it costs them when the world tries to strip both away. Those themes feel incredibly timely right now and give the story an emotional weight that lingers long after it ends.

The film also sets up the possibility of a sequel, or even a companion piece exploring where Teyana Taylor’s character was for the last 16 years. Taylor herself has said she would love to explore that story further, and given how much life that character clearly has, it’s a story worth telling.

I can see why it’s the frontrunner. I haven’t watched the other nominees yet (aside from Frankenstein), but this one has a clear message, outstanding acting, and confident direction. Paul Thomas Anderson has made something that feels genuinely alive, urgent, funny, and emotionally devastating in equal measure.

Stay Tuned for the other Best picture nominee reviews coming over the next week!

Lizzie McGuire started in 2001, the year I was born, and ended in 2004, when I was three.

So when I heard Hilary Duff was releasing her first album in over a decade, I was intrigued, just not in a nostalgic way.

I had seen her in Cheaper by the Dozen. I watched her years later in How I Met Your Father. I knew This Is What Dreams Are Made Of because it is basically impossible not to. I had heard Come Clean, Wake Up, even Sparks at some point along the way.

But I had never been an avid fan. I was not counting down to the release or revisiting old albums. Hilary Duff was always someone I recognised, not someone I grew up with.

Then she released the first single, Mature, and I was not prepared for how much I loved it. It felt confident and self-aware in a way I wasn’t expecting. Not a throwback. Not a reinvention. Just grown.

Then she started teasing Roommates, dropping the chorus online before the full track arrived. I remember thinking, okay, this sounds like a banger too. And when it finally came out, it delivered. It wasn’t just catchy, it had something to say.

When the full album dropped, I had that familiar worry: what if the singles are the only good parts? You know how sometimes the pre-release tracks don’t really represent the rest of the record.

This is not one of those times.

The album opens with Weather for Tennis, and it instantly lodged itself in my brain. The lyrics:

Keep the peace
’Cause I’m a kid of divorce
And you’re the starter of wars
And there’s no winning in yours

That hook just stayed with me. It’s sharp and vulnerable at the same time.

The rest of the album holds up too. A personal favourite is The Optimist. It’s slower, almost lullaby-like, but the lyrics cut deep. When she sings, “I wish I could sleep on planes / And that my father would really love me,” it lands. It feels honest in a way that is almost uncomfortable, but in a good way.

It’s only eleven tracks, which is short, especially when you’ve already heard Mature and Roommates. So technically you are getting nine completely new songs. But honestly, it works. Nothing feels like filler.

We Don’t Talk stands out as well. It’s about her sister, who she doesn’t speak to because of their different political beliefs. Even without knowing every detail of Hilary’s life, the theme resonates. A lot of people have experienced that kind of fracture in families over the past few years.

On Holiday Party, she leans into something heavier. She sings about the anxiety she has, the nightmares about her husband cheating or finding someone “better.” It is an uncomfortable thing to admit out loud, especially in a long-term marriage. But that is what makes it work. If you have ever been in a serious relationship, you know that fear can creep in, even when nothing is actually wrong. She puts words to it in a way that feels honest rather than dramatic.

Growing Up has an interpolation of Blink-182’s Dammit, which instantly gives it that early-2000s ache. But lyrically, it is very present. She talks about how sometimes you cannot rely on your blood family, how growing older means realising that love does not automatically equal support. In the current climate, where politics and personal beliefs have fractured so many families, that sentiment hits harder than it might have years ago.

Then there is Adult Size Medium, the closer. It is hauntingly beautiful. She reflects on aging, on time passing, on looking back at who she used to be. There is something very full-circle about it. By the end, when she weaves in the album’s title, it feels intentional, like she has taken you through every stage of who she was and who she is now.

It does not end with a big pop moment. It ends with reflection. And that feels exactly right.

And maybe that’s the thing. I didn’t grow up with Hilary Duff. I don’t have the childhood attachment that might make this album hit harder for some people. But it still hits. I still understood what she was trying to say. The references make sense. The lyrics connect.

She is not trying to be Taylor Swift, who she openly calls a lyrical genius. She is not chasing whatever the 2026 pop landscape demands. She is just being herself.

And somehow, that is exactly why it works.

It just shows maybe you don’t need nostalgia to connect with an artist.
Maybe you just need them to be their honest authentic raw self.

My Track Ranking

1. The Optimist
   This one is just my jam. It’s gentle and almost lullaby-like, but the lyrics hit harder the more you listen.

2. Weather for Tennis

3. Adult Size Medium
   This one has grown on me massively since the first listen.

4. Roommates

5. Mature

6. Growing Up
   Ironically, this started as my least favourite, but the Blink-182 interpolation and lyrics about family hit harder with each listen.

7. We Don’t Talk

8. You, From the Honeymoon

9. Future Tripping

10. Holiday Party

11. Tell Me That Won’t Happen
    Last place, but still a banger. I’ve just connected with the other songs more.

I went into the revival skeptical. Legacy sequels are a gamble. Sometimes they recapture lightning in a bottle, but more often they expose just how much time has passed.

How does a 2000s hospital comedy function in 2026? After a pandemic. After burnout became a headline. After the healthcare system and our relationship to it fundamentally shifted. J.D., Elliot, Turk and Dr. Cox cannot simply be the same people they were in 2010.

The surprise is that the show knows this. And in its first two episodes, it quietly proves it.

What makes the revival click is that it does not pretend nothing has changed.

J.D. has not been at Sacred Heart for years, and that absence becomes the show’s smartest narrative device. His return is not just nostalgia. It gives the audience a way back in. We are re-entering this world with him. He is not frozen in 2010. He is someone who left, lived, and is now confronting what that time away has done to both him and the hospital.

Turk’s burnout feels especially grounded. In 2026, a surgeon being exhausted, disillusioned and quietly overwhelmed is not a punchline. It is reality. The show lets that weight sit there. Tying that burnout to missing J.D. gives their friendship renewed emotional stakes rather than simply recycling old jokes.

Dr. Cox represents the clearest example of how much has changed. In the first episode, he quits after realising he can no longer teach the new generation of doctors the way he used to. The hyper aggressive, unfiltered mentor of the 2000s simply does not fit into this workplace anymore. His inability to adapt becomes the emotional crux of the episode, and in handing his role to J.D., the show symbolically passes the torch.

It is a bold move. Dr. Cox stepping back forces J.D. into leadership in a way that feels earned rather than nostalgic. It also raises an interesting question about how Dr. Cox will function in future episodes. Will he become a recurring presence offering reluctant guidance from the sidelines, or will the show allow him to exist in this new world without softening what made him great? How the revival handles his reappearances will say a lot about whether it is truly evolving or simply rearranging the past.

Then there is J.D. and Elliot. On paper, divorcing them sounds like a betrayal of the original arc. Dramatically, it works. It restores tension and gives them that will they, will they not energy again, this time with history and regret behind it. Their dynamic feels adult and complicated rather than tidy. In a revival about time passing, that choice makes thematic sense.

The revival also understands that it cannot survive on returning faces alone. The new characters are given perspective and agency. Dr. Park works particularly well as a subtle rival to J.D., challenging his authority and ego in a way that feels fresh. Blake’s storyline, realising he could have done more for a patient, taps into the moral anxiety that made early Scrubs resonate.

Not every newcomer is fully fleshed out yet, but that is understandable two episodes in. The groundwork is there. The show seems aware that this is not just a reunion tour. It is a handover.

The cameos from Todd and Hooch are used sparingly enough to feel like bonuses rather than crutches. They are reminders of the show’s DNA without overwhelming the present.

But the series has some flaws as it finds it’s footing.

The first episode leans heavily on nostalgia. Some of that is expected. A revival has to reorient its audience. At times, though, it feels like the show is reassuring us it is still Scrubs rather than proving it.

There are moments where the humour feels like it reaching toward Gen Z internet cadence instead of trusting its own voice. The original series had a very specific comedic rhythm. When the revival chases newer trends, it briefly feels unsure of itself.

Some absences are noticeable. The Janitor and Jordan leave a gap in the show’s chaos and bite. Elliot also feels slightly underdeveloped so far. With her divorce from J.D. and Clara’s absence, she has not yet been given a defining storyline of her own. Episode two in particular leans heavily on J.D. and Turk, which makes the missing ensemble presence more obvious.

Still, most of these issues feel like growing pains rather than fatal flaws. Two episodes in, the revival feels like it is finding its footing, and importantly, it seems willing to evolve rather than replicate.

There is also something quietly poetic about how the revival was made. The original Scrubs was famously shot inside a real abandoned hospital in Los Angeles. When the series ended, the building was eventually torn down. For the revival, the production rebuilt Sacred Heart from scratch inside a warehouse in Vancouver, recreating the layout and look of the original almost exactly.

It is nostalgia in physical form. A hospital that no longer exists, reconstructed piece by piece so the story could continue.

That detail mirrors what the show itself is trying to do. It is not pretending the old building still stands. It is rebuilding it. Carefully. Intentionally. A replica, yes, but one that knows it exists in a different time.

Overall, it is not a bad revival, but it is still settling into itself. With nine episodes in the season, there is time for the world to expand. If characters like Carla, Jordan and the Janitor appear later on, it will be interesting to see whether their presence feels organic or simply nostalgic. The balance will matter. This version of Scrubs cannot just slot old chaos back in without asking whether it still fits.

It will also be worth watching how the new cast develops. Two episodes in, there is promise. The foundation is there. Now the show has to build on it.

What makes the opener strong is its willingness to acknowledge reality. Burnout is not a punchline anymore. Authority looks different in 2026. Healthcare in America is shaped by insurance battles, systemic pressure and the aftershocks of a pandemic. Scrubs could not have returned without confronting those issues, and to its credit, it does not avoid them.

It is not trying to be 2010 again. That is why it works.

There is potential here. Whether the rest of the season fully realises it remains to be seen. But for the first time in a long time, Sacred Heart feels alive again.

I’ve never been a horror person. In fact, I once broke my nose during a horror film, which felt like a sign to avoid the genre altogether.

But in 2023, I finally decided to work my way through the Scream franchise. Unexpectedly, I fell in love with it.

What makes Scream different is its self-awareness. Its obsession with legacy. Its understanding of the “final girl” as both trope and trauma. So when Scream VI felt slightly lackluster without Sidney Prescott at its centre, I couldn’t help but feel something was missing.

So when I heard a seventh instalment would bring Sidney back, this time with a daughter the same age she was in the original, I was already sold. On paper, it’s a brilliant idea. A legacy sequel that quite literally confronts its own legacy.

Legacy can be a dangerous thing. Rely too heavily on the past and a franchise can start to feel stuck, trapped in nostalgia rather than evolving beyond it.

But rather than feeling stuck, Scream 7 uses its history as a narrative tool. The 30-year anniversary framing, the return of Sidney Prescott, and even the A.I.-assisted recreations of legacy characters are not gimmicks. They are extensions of what this franchise has always done best, commenting on itself.

Watching Neve Campbell’s Sidney as a mother forced to confront the trauma she has spent decades surviving gives the franchise emotional weight it hasn’t always had. Sidney has always been the “final girl,” but here she is something more complicated. She is a parent trying to shield her daughter from a history soaked in blood.

Her daughter, played by Isabel May, is named Tatum, a loaded choice that immediately ties the film back to the original. What’s compelling is not just the reference but the tension. Sidney refuses to share her past, believing silence equals protection. The film smartly interrogates that instinct. Trauma buried is not trauma resolved, and in trying to protect Tatum, Sidney risks isolating her instead.

May is phenomenal. She does not feel like a placeholder for legacy. She feels like evolution. If the franchise continues, she has the presence to become its next great final girl.

The film’s use of legacy extends beyond character. The return to Stu Macher’s house, and its eventual destruction, feels symbolic. It is a direct callback to the original, but it also feels like a deliberate closing of that chapter. Burning it down is not just spectacle. It is a statement.

And then there are the kills. They are brutal. Arguably some of the most graphic and inventive in the franchise. For a series now seven films deep, that level of intensity is impressive.

Meanwhile, Courteney Cox continues to prove why Gale Weathers remains one of horror’s most enduring characters. She is sharp, fearless, and given some genuinely iconic lines. Her friendship with Sidney carries history, warmth, and battle scars. It is one of the film’s strongest emotional anchors.

The idea of reviving the long-running theory that Stu Macher survived is genuinely clever. The problem is not the concept but the execution. The reveal comes early and with little ambiguity, which makes it feel unusually obvious for a franchise built on misdirection. When Stu ultimately appears only via phone, the moment lands less as a shocking twist and more as confirmation of what the audience has already pieced together.

The A.I. deepfake sequences are similarly intriguing. They fit the franchise’s fascination with media manipulation and resurrection. Their placement, however, feels slightly underwhelming. If reserved for a climactic finale, the impact might have been far more unsettling.

The late-film appearances of Dewey Riley and Roman Bridger should have been seismic. Instead, because their involvement had already been announced, the moments land softly. You are not blindsided by their arrival. You are waiting for it.

In a franchise built on shock reveals, surprise is everything. By contrast, Laurie Metcalf’s return as Nancy Loomis in Scream 7 was kept tightly under wraps, allowing her appearance to feel genuinely shocking. That secrecy made the twist land.

Perhaps revealing Stu, Dewey, and Roman ahead of release was an attempt to get in front of production leaks. That is understandable in the age of online speculation. But had those returns been preserved as true surprises, their impact would have been far more powerful.

The bigger issue lies with the Ghostface reveal. As someone who loves murder mysteries, I found myself clocking Anna Camp’s character early, particularly during her coffee shop scene with Sidney Prescott.

For me, it felt telegraphed. The film plants seeds for suspicion around the boyfriend and the creepy supporting characters, but those choices felt almost too obvious.

Others I saw the film with were genuinely surprised, which raises an interesting question: is the reveal predictable, or am I simply too familiar with the genre’s rhythms?

Even setting predictability aside, the motive feels muddled. The franchise thrives when its killers have personal stakes, whether obsession, resentment, or jealousy. Here, the motivation feels scattered rather than singular. A cleaner emotional throughline, perhaps jealousy rooted in her son idolising Sidney more than his own mother, might have tied the legacy theme back into something painfully human.

Then there is the question of legitimacy.

Chad Meeks-Martin once again looks unquestionably doomed, only to emerge mostly fine. At this point, it almost feels like a running gag. But if death scenes are this graphic yet ultimately reversible, does the tension begin to evaporate?

The same applies to Mark Evans, played by Joel McHale. His death is vicious and convincingly final, until it is not. Repeated fake-outs risk undercutting emotional stakes.

Are these reversals part of the franchise’s self-aware charm? Or do they chip away at the danger that makes Ghostface threatening?

Overall, I really loved Scream 7. It is not flawless, but it understands what makes this franchise endure. I appreciated how Sidney’s absence in Scream VI is woven back into the narrative. Her decision not to go to New York becomes part of the emotional fuel for this chapter.

Anna Camp’s character Jessica believing Sidney is no longer necessary as the “final girl” is thematically sharp. It is also quietly meta. How long can Neve Campbell’s Sidney realistically hold that title? The film interrogates legacy not just as nostalgia but as burden and competition.

But the lingering question is where we go next.

Neve Campbell has hinted that an eighth film may already be in development, and financially the numbers suggest the franchise still has life. On paper, it makes sense. Narratively, that is harder to see.

Scream 7 works because of its nostalgia, the anniversary framing, a daughter mirroring Sidney’s origin, and the deliberate confrontation of its own past. It feels like a closing of a circle.

An eighth film would need more than legacy. It would need reinvention.

And for a franchise built on rewriting the rules, perhaps that is the most fitting challenge of all.