Rush Hour 3 (4½ Stars)

I watched "Rush Hour" and "Rush Hour 2" back to back in 2022, but I waited four years to watch the third film. It was a mistake to wait so long, but maybe it was wise to have a gap. The first two films are masterpieces. The third film is good, I'd say very good, but in a direct comparison with the first two films it falls short.

Instead of building on the strengths of its predecessors, "Rush Hour 3" settles for repeating the formula with less energy, fewer laughs and lower stakes. It's still watchable thanks to its stars, but it's easily the weakest entry in the trilogy.

Success Rate:  + 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Housemaid (4 Stars)

Before it was even released, "The Housemaid" had all the ingredients of a guilty pleasure thriller. A bestselling novel, an attractive cast and a premise built around secrets, lies and shifting loyalties promised something in the vein of "Gone Girl". The result is an entertaining psychological thriller that delivers plenty of tension, even if it doesn't quite reach the heights it could have.

Amanda Seyfried gives the film its strongest performance. She walks a fine line between elegance, vulnerability and menace, constantly making you question her true intentions. It's a layered performance that keeps the audience guessing from beginning to end. Sydney Sweeney is equally compelling as Millie, bringing warmth and determination to a character who could easily have been reduced to a typical thriller heroine. Her chemistry with Seyfried gives the film much of its dramatic power.

Where "The Housemaid" falls short is in its screenplay. Some of the twists are telegraphed too early, while others arrive so quickly that they don't have enough time to breathe. The final act is exciting, but a little more restraint and psychological ambiguity would have made the revelations more satisfying. The supporting characters are also somewhat underdeveloped, making them feel more like plot devices than fully realised people. Would the film have lost anything without the gardener Enzo?

Even so, the film remains an absorbing watch. The stylish direction, strong atmosphere and committed performances ensure that the suspense rarely fades. It may not become a classic of the genre, but thanks to Amanda Seyfried and Sydney Sweeney, "The Housemaid" is a polished, entertaining thriller that keeps you invested until its final twist.

Success Rate:  + 9.4

Fantastic Four: First Steps (5 Stars)

Marvel's "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" is easily one of the MCU's strongest films in years. Instead of relying on endless cameos and multiverse chaos, it tells a confident, self contained story with genuine heart. The retro futuristic 1960's setting gives the film its own identity, Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Joseph Quinn and Ebon Moss-Bachrach make an instantly believable family and Galactus finally feels like the cosmic threat fans have waited decades to see.

So why wasn't it a box office sensation? The biggest problem wasn't the film itself. Years of uneven Marvel releases have eroded audience trust, making many viewers wait for streaming instead of rushing to cinemas. Superhero fatigue has also become a real factor, and the Fantastic Four have never had the mainstream popularity of Spider-Man or the Avengers. By the time "First Steps" arrived, it was trying to win back audiences who'd already stopped paying attention.

Ironically, one of Marvel's best recent films became a victim of the franchise's weaker years. "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" proves the MCU can still produce exciting, character driven blockbusters. It just arrived after too much damage had already been done.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Thunderbolts (4 Stars)

B-O-B.

Spell it backwards. What does it say?

The same motherfucking shit.

Success Rate:  + 0.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dragons Forever (4 Stars)

There's an irony in the film's title that might not be obvious to modern viewers. It's not just an exciting name for an action film. In reality, it's a tribute to Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao, the legendary "Three Dragons" of Hong Kong cinema. Having trained together at the China Drama Academy under Master Yu Jim-yuen, the trio spent years redefining martial arts films with their unique blend of breath-taking stunts, comedy and flawless fight choreography. The title suggests that the Three Dragons would make films together forever.

However, "Dragons Forever" was the last film to feature all three stars together in leading roles. Although they continued to collaborate in different combinations, this was the end of an extraordinary partnership that had dominated Hong Kong action cinema throughout the 1980s.

The film cleverly avoids making its heroes instant friends. Jackie plays a charming lawyer working for a corrupt chemical company, Sammo is a scruffy private investigator, and Yuen is an eccentric inventor whose bizarre gadgets rarely behave as intended. Their conflicting personalities create plenty of comedy before circumstances force them to unite against a common enemy.

As always, each Dragon brings something different. Jackie supplies his effortless charisma and fearless stunt work, Sammo provides both the comic timing and the emotional heart of the story, while Yuen reminds audiences why he's one of the greatest physical performers the genre has ever produced. Together, they create a chemistry that no other trio has ever matched.

The plot, involving industrial pollution and corporate corruption, is stronger than many Hong Kong action comedies of the period, but it's really just a framework for spectacular action. The unforgettable finale, culminating in Jackie's ferocious showdown with Benny Urquidez, ranks among the finest fight sequences ever filmed.

Looking back, "Dragons Forever" feels like a fitting farewell. Its title turned out to be prophetic. The Three Dragons may never have headlined another film together, but their influence has never disappeared. Their films continue to inspire filmmakers and thrill audiences around the world. In that sense, the dragons really are forever.

Toy Story (3 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #30

I've rarely felt so ashamed to give a film a low rating. While watching "Toy Story" with my granddaughter Evelyn I could objectively accept that it's a good film, but it didn't excite me. Usually when I watch children's films I try to see them through a child's eyes, but this time I couldn't. I've made an effort to write a fair review, but my three star rating will will remain unchanged.

Evelyn laughed out loud while the film ran. What did she see that I didn't? She saw a world where her greatest wish is true: her toys really are alive.

To a young child, Woody isn't just a cowboy doll and Buzz Lightyear isn't just a plastic spaceman. They're friends with their own hopes, fears and adventures, carrying on secret lives whenever grown ups aren't looking. It's an irresistible idea that encourages children to see their own bedrooms as places of endless possibility.

The story is simple enough for young viewers to follow, yet exciting enough to keep them on the edge of their seats. There are funny characters, colourful settings and just enough danger to make Woody and Buzz's journey thrilling without becoming frightening.

Most importantly, the film celebrates imagination. After the credits roll, children don't just remember the story, they return to their own toys and continue it themselves. That's the real magic of "Toy Story". It doesn't end when the television is switched off; it inspires hours of make believe long afterwards. Few films understand childhood quite so well.

Success Rate:  + 11.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic Park III (3 Stars)

"Jurassic Park III" proves one thing beyond any doubt: Steven Spielberg was the real star of the franchise. Strip away his direction and you're left with a noisy monster movie that completely misunderstands what made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

Joe Johnston throws dinosaurs at the screen almost non-stop, confusing relentless action with genuine suspense. Spielberg made audiences hold their breath before unleashing his creatures. Here, every five minutes there's another chase, another roar and another narrow escape until the dinosaurs become little more than oversized theme park attractions. The magic has vanished.

Sam Neill returns as Alan Grant and remains effortlessly likeable, but even he can't rescue a script that reduces him to escorting one of the most irritating families ever to stumble onto Isla Sorna. The emotional intelligence, memorable characters and sense of discovery that defined the first film have all but disappeared.

The introduction of the Spinosaurus perfectly sums up everything that's wrong with the sequel. Instead of creating a memorable new predator, the film simply has it defeat the Tyrannosaurus  Rex in a desperate attempt to convince audiences that bigger means better. It's an empty gimmick that feels less like storytelling and more like marketing.

To be fair, "Jurassic Park III" isn't boring. The aviary sequence is genuinely thrilling and the special effects remain excellent. But impressive effects can't disguise the fact that this is the moment the series stopped being intelligent science fiction and became a generic dinosaur action franchise. Without Spielberg's eye for wonder and suspense, "Jurassic Park III" is little more than a loud reminder that anyone can film dinosaurs, but only Spielberg knew how to make you believe in them.

If anything, "Jurassic Park III" is the franchise's first warning sign. The dinosaurs survived, but the soul of "Jurassic Park" didn't.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic Park: The Lost World (5 Stars)

Steven Spielberg faced an impossible task with "The Lost World" (shortening the title). How do you follow one of the greatest blockbusters ever made? Instead of trying to recreate the magic, he made a darker, nastier and more chaotic film. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it reminds you exactly why the original is untouchable.

The biggest difference is the tone. "Jurassic Park" was full of awe and wonder. Every dinosaur reveal felt magical, and even the terrifying moments were balanced by humour and a sense of adventure. "The Lost World" strips most of that away. Isla Sorna is a much harsher place, where humans aren't simply trying to survive but are exploiting the dinosaurs for profit. The film feels less like an adventure and more like a survival thriller.

Jeff Goldblum steps into the lead role as Ian Malcolm, and he carries the film with his trademark sarcasm and nervous energy. Malcolm is a very different hero from Sam Neill's Alan Grant. Grant gradually became brave because he had to. Malcolm spends most of the film desperately trying to convince everyone else that they're making a terrible mistake. Goldblum is entertaining throughout, but Grant remains the more satisfying protagonist.

The dinosaurs are even more convincing than before. Advances in CGI and animatronics make the creatures feel heavier, faster and more dangerous. Spielberg stages several unforgettable set pieces, especially the trailer hanging over the cliff and the attack through the long grass. These scenes rank alongside anything in the first film for pure suspense.

Where "The Lost World" struggles is its characters. Too many exist simply to become dinosaur food, and few leave much of an impression. The first film gave us characters we genuinely cared about, making every close encounter more suspenseful. Here, the spectacle often takes priority over emotional investment.

The final act remains the film's most controversial decision. Bringing a Tyrannosaurus Rex to San Diego turns the film into a giant monster movie, echoing King Kong and classic creature features. It's undeniably entertaining, but it also feels disconnected from everything that came before. Personally, I love its audacity, though I'm aware that others think differently.

Ultimately, "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" is bigger, louder and more action-packed than its predecessor. The dinosaurs are better, the action scenes are more elaborate and the danger feels more relentless. Yet it loses the sense of discovery, believable characters and perfect balance that made "Jurassic Park" a masterpiece.

It's an excellent sequel that dares to be different instead of repeating the original. That's admirable. But while it delivers some of the series' greatest action sequences, it never captures the wonder that made us fall in love with dinosaurs in the first place.

Success Rate:  + 6.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic Park (5 Stars)

As most of you know, Sam Neill passed away this morning. I've decided to watch two of his films to remember him, "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III". He doesn't appear in the second film, but I'll watch it anyway. It's in my top 20 films, meaning it's a film which deserves to be watched repeatedly.

If there's one performance that defines Sam Neill's career, it's Dr Alan Grant in "Jurassic Park". Neill had already built an impressive filmography before Steven Spielberg's dinosaur epic, but this is the role that made him a cinematic icon. Decades later, it's still impossible to think of Sam Neill without picturing the moment he removes his sunglasses in stunned disbelief as dinosaurs once again walk the Earth.

Neill is the emotional anchor that keeps "Jurassic Park" grounded. Grant begins as a brilliant but emotionally distant palaeontologist who'd rather spend his life digging up fossils than dealing with children. Over the course of the film, Neill subtly transforms him into a reluctant protector, and every stage of that journey feels completely natural. Whether he's awestruck by the sight of a living Brachiosaurus, desperately outrunning a Tyrannosaurus Rex or quietly comforting two terrified children, Neill never lets the spectacle overwhelm the humanity of the character.

Spielberg's ground-breaking visual effects still hold up remarkably well, but they only work because the cast reacts with absolute conviction. Neill's expressions of wonder, fear and determination make the impossible believable. His chemistry with Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum gives the film warmth and humour, while his fatherly bond with Lex and Tim provides its emotional heart.

"Jurassic Park" remains one of the greatest blockbusters ever made because it balances breath-taking action with unforgettable characters. At the centre of it all is Sam Neill, delivering the performance of a lifetime. He's enjoyed a long and distinguished career, but this is the role that made him immortal. For generations of film fans, Alan Grant isn't just Sam Neill's greatest character; it's the performance that will always define his legacy.

Sam Neill
14 September 1947 – 13 July 2026

Success Rate:  + 14.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de