REVIEW: “Pressure” (2026)

June 5, 2026 by Keith Garlington

In the early part of June 1944, the Allied forces were in the preparation stage for what would be the largest and most consequential seaborne invasion in military history. D-Day saw nearly 160,000 soldiers cross the English Channel and land on the beaches of Nazi-occupied Normandy. The costly yet successful assault was a crucial moment in liberating Western Europe and turning the tide of the war. And much of the operation’s success hinged on the weather.

In the new film “Pressure”, director Anthony Maras concentrates on the roughly 72 hours before the D-Day assault. Based on the 2014 stage production of the same name by playwright David Haig, the film adaptation unfolds like a high-stakes thriller where the action takes place behind closed doors rather than on the battlefield. And where the tension simmers between meteorologists and military leaders rather than infantrymen and pilots.

Co-written by Haig and Maras, “Pressure” tells the true story of James Stagg (Andrew Scott), an esteemed Scottish meteorologist summoned by Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) at the recommendation of Winston Churchill. Stagg is assigned the position of Chief Meteorological Officer whose responsibility is supplying Eisenhower and his team of Allied leaders a definitive forecast for the planned D-Day invasion.

Stagg reluctantly leaves his pregnant wife and reports for duty at the remote and heavily fortified Allied headquarters. There he learns he must present a preferably favorable forecast for the assault which is set to take place in 72 hours. But the serious-minded and businesslike Stagg quickly finds himself at odds with a number of people including Colonel Krick (Chris Messina), Eisenhower’s own longtime weather forecaster. Krick predicts a clear and sunny invasion day. But Stagg warns of severe storms, much to the chagrin of the military men.

As time becomes more of a factor, the character-centered story sees the tension move from a simmer to a boil. Key players factor in a variety of ways starting with Stagg. Scott’s captivating performance combines remarkable restraint with uncompromising conviction, portraying Stagg as a man of inspiring fortitude amid heart-wrenching personal incertitude. And while he becomes unpopular among the British and American contingents, he finds an ally in Lt. Kay Summersby (a wonderful Kerry Condon), Eisenhower’s personal secretary and advisor.

Fraser’s portrait of Eisenhower is equally compelling. He reveals Ike to be a deeply committed yet burdened commander who is still haunted by the costly failure of Operation Tiger – an attempted rehearsal for D-Day that went terribly wrong. The decision to launch rests solely with him, and the weight of that choice is taking its toll. If he delays, he runs the risk of tipping off the Germans and losing the element of surprise. If he goes ahead with the invasion and Stagg’s forecast is right, the results for the Allies could be catastrophic.

True to its name, this riveting chamber piece is built around a pressure cooker scenario, with history itself reminding us that the stakes couldn’t be higher. Maras draws us in and keeps us engaged through a host of interesting personalities and dynamics. And whether they are sparring over conflicting data or realizing the staggering consequences if they get this wrong, the story is pulsing with authenticity and urgency.

“Pressure” isn’t your prototypical World War II movie. It sits behind the grander scenes, telling the true story of an unsung hero who dared to stick by his convictions and a noted leader willing to make the tough choice with everything on the line. And while the bulk of the film’s combat doesn’t take place on the battlefield, it is every bit as gripping thanks to stellar performances, an intelligent script, and focused direction. It’s one of the nicest surprises of the 2026 movie year so far.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Kraken” (2026)

June 3, 2026 by Keith Garlington

With a title like “Kraken” there’s not much left to the imagination. But hats off to director Pål Øie who fully embraces our expectations while both exceeding and subtly subverting them as well. In many ways the approach he takes is similar to his last film, the 2019 disaster thriller “The Tunnel”. Obviously with a name like “Kraken”, Øie is diving into slightly more fantastical waters. Be he retains his interests in large-scale suspense, the beauty and resilience of nature, and the melding of humanity with spectacle.

“Kraken” is very much a creature-feature about an ancient tentacled monster from the deep. But its eco-sensitive themes give the story some unexpected weight. It doesn’t make the most profound cinematic statement you’ll hear from a movie this year. But it adds a handful of creative and compelling layers to “Kraken” while making several thoughtful points, some metaphorically and others that are a bit more on-the-nose.

**Image Courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films**

Johanne (Sara Khorami) is a dedicated marine biologist working for the Institute of Marine Research. After suspicions arise over a salmon farm in the small village of Vangsnes, Johanne is sent to inspect the facility. Vangsnes is a scenic town built along the crystal-blue Sognefjord, the largest and deepest fjord in all of Norway. The high-tech fish farm is owned by a corporate suit named Jostein (Øyvind Brandtzæg) who is more focused on entertaining potential investors from Japan than addressing the distress his new tech may be having on the local ecosystem.

We learn Johanne once lived in Vangsnes where she worked with fellow researcher Erik (Mikkel Bratt Silset) on a prototype to keep parasites off the salmon. Johanne left before their project was finished, leaving Erik to do the rest of the work. Now she’s back to see if their invention is harming the fish and the fjord. Unlike his boss, Erik is an upright man who takes Johanne’s concerns seriously. Together they begin running a series of tests while Jostein repeatedly brushes off their discoveries, not wanting to threaten his lucrative investment deal.

Johanne and Erik learn that the tech is not only having an adverse impact on the salmon, but there’s a ripple effect across the fjord. Schools of fish are suddenly flopping to the shore. Casts of crabs are leaving the water in droves. But the biggest consequence lies deep at the bottom of the fjord, where an agitated sea creature resembling the legendary Kraken emerges, wreaking havoc on the normally quiet community.

While “Kraken” is a creature-feature at its core, it could also be categorized as a disaster movie. And like most good disaster movies, “Kraken” introduces us to a number of characters who will at some point inevitably find themself in the monster’s path. Aside from Johanne, Erik, and Jostein, there is a wise and seasoned sea captain named Olav (Hans Morten Hansen). There’s the research facility’s technician, Georg (Jon Erik Myre). There’s also Henriette (Ingvild Holthe Bygones), a police officer whoi is also Jostein’s wife. And there’s Jostein’s rebellious daughter Maria (Jenny Evensen) and her two moody friends, Cato (Steinar Klouman Hallert) and Hallvard (Filip Bargee Ramberg).

The slow-building story gives most of the characters plenty of time to establish themselves in Øie’s world although some could use more depth. Surrounding them is a truly breathtaking display of natural beauty, captured through an array of stunning drone shots and gorgeous on-location filming. As for the eponymous creature, it is kept out of sight for much of the movie. We’re only given brief glimpses until the angry cephalopod fully rises from the depths to unleash its final-act retribution. But even then, Øie doesn’t overplay the spectacle. Instead he retains the mystery behind the menace.

Following a solid slow-simmering buildup, “Kraken” finally delivers an exciting payoff that tips its hat to a number of classic films including “Alien” and “The Blob”. Honestly, the ending doesn’t completely make sense. And there is a feeling that it could have been more spectacular without going full Roland Emmerich. But that aside, Øie keenly serves up a engaging mix of mystery and mayhem, using all the classic disaster movie and creature-feature ingredients, and seasoning them with his own stylistic flavor. The results are gorgeous, terrifying, and thoroughly entertaining.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Chum” (2026)

June 2, 2026 by Keith Garlington

“Chum” may be the most hilariously obvious title for a movie you’ll see all year, especially when you consider it’s a sharksploitation movie. Mixing bloody horror with thriller elements, sharksploitation has quickly developed into a genre all its own. Unfortunately the quality of the films being churned out as of late makes you wonder how long this genre will stay afloat. That is especially true for the astonishingly bad “Chum”.

Director and co-writer Jonathan Zuck takes a handful of well-worn ideas and a noticeably small budget to create “Chum”. Making a movie independently with very few resources is always impressive and admirable. Unfortunately “Chum” is a mess of a movie that struggles to function in its filmmaking and storytelling. And no matter how hard it tries (and to its credit, it really does try), the film delivers nothing in the way of legitimate thrills.

**Image Courtesy of Independent Film Company**

We meet Tina (Alice Eve) and Tom (Eric Michael Cole) at their lavish wedding reception in Malta. The two may have just exchanged their vows, but there is clearly a tension between them. We later find out why. Tina has been offered partner at her law firm. And she’ll be fast-tracked if she secures drilling leases in Alaska for a major oil company. Tom is an investment banker turned environmental crusader who is vehemently against her working on behalf of her client.

But for some reason they get married anyway, despite both being miserable. Even more, they reluctantly go out on a three-hour catamaran excursion planned and paid for by Tom’s best man, Rick (Johnny Gaffney). Joining the unhappy couple and Rick are their friends, Rachinda (Sarah Siadat) and Brittany (Lisa Yard), along with Tina’s moody and unsupportive younger sister, Sadie (Elle Haymond). Aside from their marriage woes, Tina is hesitant to go due to reports of an increase in shark attacks. But the Captain reassures her with a kiss of death – “There’s never been a shark attack in these waters.”

Sure enough, a ferocious man-eating shark attacks leading to a hilarious string of mishaps that leaves the Captain seriously injured and the boat on the verge of sinking. Thankfully they’re spotted by a fisherman named Roy (Jim Klock) who gets them to his boat as the digitalized shark circles them all in search of his next computer-generated meal. But as it turns out, Roy has a painful history with this particular shark. And the frightened friends quickly learn that Roy will do anything to get revenge for what the shark took from him.

Zuck and his co-writer Joe Leone throw us a twist that might be more effective if we hadn’t seen a variation of it in another shark movie just last year. But that aside, the film’s other problems mount fast. The performances are unconvincing at best as the cast tries to make something out of the clunky material. Their characters often sound like they’re reading off a page and their actions can be utterly baffling. And it doesn’t help that it all has the emotional impact of a cinder block. Nothing feels authentic or investment worthy.

Technically, it’s not much better. The ‘action’ scenes are littered with jarring cuts and odd uses of slow-motion. And the digital shark never looks real enough to be menacing. To cap it all off, the film ends with some awkwardly on-the-nose messaging that sinks any part of the movie that was left afloat. It’s a shame because a lot of effort went into getting the film made in spite of an obviously small amount of resources. But sadly nothing really works in this baffling misfire, which makes a lot of bad shark movies suddenly look better.

VERDICT – 1 STAR

First Glance: “The End of Oak Street”

June 1, 2026 by Keith Garlington

I’ve been wildly curious about “The End of Oak Street” since its brief teaser dropped a couple of months back. Now Warner Bros. Pictures have released the first full trailer and I’m even more intrigued. This science-fiction survivor thriller comes from writer-director David Robert Mitchell, who gained a lot of attention for his 2014 horror film “It Follows” (a sequel is currently in the works with NEON producing and distributing). “The End of Oak Street” looks to be a MUCH different animal in size, scope, and scale.

Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor play Denise and Greg Platt, a husband and wife raising their two children in a quiet suburban neighborhood during the 1980s. But their unremarkable middle-class life is turned upside-down after a crazy cosmic event uproots Oak street and transports the neighborhood to someplace prehistoric. It’s a bonkers concept custom-made for the movies and it should be a lot of fun. The new trailer looks like an entertaining mix of “Jurassic Park” and “The Twilight Zone” with a strong family dynamic at its core. Sign me up.

“The End of Oak Street” arrives in theaters on August 14th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Passenger” (2026)

June 1, 2026 by Keith Garlington

“Passenger” is the latest feature from Norwegian filmmaker André Øvredal. It’s the follow-up to his criminally underrated 2023 film “The Last Voyage of the Demeter”, which was a narratively crafty and visually stunning adaptation of “The Captain’s Log”, a chapter from Bram Stoker’s 1987 classic novel “Dracula”. Without question, “Passenger” is a much different movie, yet it shows some of the same verve that made “Demeter” such a gem. If only it all came together as intended.

“Passenger” is a road-trip horror movie about a young couple who are pursued by a terrorizing supernatural entity. Written by Zachary Donohue and T.W. Burgess, the story follows the newly engaged Tyler (Jacon Scipio) and Maddie (Lou Llobell), who sell their Brooklyn apartment and leave the city for a life on the road. Six weeks into traveling the country and living out of their decked out van is everything Tyler had hoped it would be. But for Maddie, adjusting has been difficult.

**Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures**

While driving down a dark rural road in Colorado (I think it was Colorado), they pull over to help a stranger who has crashed his car into a tree. But little do they know, by stopping they attract a malevolent entity that latches onto them. The first sign that something is amiss are the three parallel scratches carved deep into the side of their van – the same scratches that Maddie saw on the crash victim’s car. But this is a horror movie, so scratches are minor compared to what’s to come.

Maddie is first to begin seeing visions of a creepy old man with thin stringy hair, white pasty skin, and black hollowed eyes. But before long, so does Tyler. They learn the figure is an entity known as The Passenger, and it has stalked, haunted, and murdered a number of unfortunate travelers who dared to stop on the road at night. After surviving the demonic being’s first few attacks, Tyler and Maddie will need to find a way to kill it, before it adds them to its long list of victims.

Despite its feeling of familiarity, the story sets itself up nicely. The van-life angle is interesting, as is the clever way Øvredal, Donohue, and Burgess incorporate The Hobo Code into their tale of terrified travelers. Visually, Øvredal pulls off a number of cool tricks that I’m not sure I’ve seen before. One involves a rotating camera in a genuinely chilling parking lot sequence. Another makes wicked use of light from an outdoor movie projector.

At the same time, the movie hits a wall past the midway point. It’s where the clichés begin to mount and the over-reliance on jump scares becomes too much. Melissa Leo is underused playing a kindly yet mysterious older woman who warns Tyler and Maddie to stay off “the quieter roads” after it’s too late. She vanishes as quickly as she came, only to briefly appear near the end of the movie to steer the desperate young couple towards a finish that just doesn’t generate the kind of tension or terror it needs to.

Ultimately “The Passenger” is a competently made and at times visually inspired horror film that simply runs out of original ideas before the final credits roll. Sharp direction and solid performances keeps us riding along with the film’s promising start. But over time we begin to feel the miles, as the journey we’re on runs out of interesting sites to see. There’s some good craftsmanship on display and a couple of gnarly scenes to enjoy. But in the end, “The Passenger” needs more to set itself apart.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Backrooms” (2026)

May 30, 2026 by Keith Garlington

I’ve learned a lot since I started researching for this review. I learned there is something called “creepypasta” which are horror-centric urban legends or short stories created and then spread virally across the internet. Then I learned that the new film “Backrooms” was originally a YouTube anthological video series that was based on a creepypasta of the same name. I don’t pretend to fully understand how all of that works, but it does nonetheless.

The YouTube creator behind “Backrooms” is 20-year-old Kane Parsons. The success of his online creation has now blossomed into a feature film adaptation which he directs. It’s quite an accomplishment for a young man not even old enough to buy liquor here in the states. But don’t let his age fool you. Parsons proves to be a savvy young filmmaker with keen instincts and surprising courage, even if not everything in his debut feature fully clicks.

“Backrooms” is backed by several notable producers including James Wan, Shawn Levy, and Osgood Perkins. Parsons does the rest, carving out his audacious vision with the help of screenwriter Will Soodik and two fantastic leads in Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve. He uses every bit of his modest budget to shrewdly build upon his original online premise, expanding his claustrophobic and atmospheric world while adding in new layers of lore.

Ejiofor plays Clark, a failed architect who owns a struggling Santa Clara Valley furniture store called Cap’n Clark’s Ottoman Empire. While Clark’s professional failures have left him bitter and frustrated, his biggest difficulty is with his recent divorce which has left him alone, living in his store. When he’s not drowning himself in liquor, Clark attends sessions with his therapist Mary (Reinsve). But he doesn’t find much comfort in them. Meanwhile Mary has buried trauma of her own that can be traced back to her troubled childhood.

While in his store’s basement, Clark makes an astonishing discovery. He notices a glimmer of light shining through a long vertical crack in the wall. While investigating it, Clark phases through the wall, coming out in what resembles an empty office space bathed in an overwhelming yellow tint. As he explores further he finds what seems to be an endless maze of connected liminal spaces, many with slight distortions such as upside down stairways or furniture clipping through the floor.

Clark escapes back through the extradimensional door and rushes to tell Mary about the “backrooms”. But she doesn’t believe him. So Clark recruits his assistant manager Kat (Lukita Maxwell) and her videographer boyfriend Bobby (Finn Bennett) to follow him through the portal and record their findings as proof of its existence. But as the trio pushes deeper into the backrooms, they encounter something terrifying. Later, after receiving a concerning voice message from Clark, Mary goes to the store to check on him. She finds the portal door and unknowingly enters into the nightmare.

Despite how it may sound, the premise is an unnerving one, specifically once Clark discovers the backrooms. The top-notch production design routinely takes minimalistic spaces and creates something eerily compelling for us to set our eyes on. And the sheer mystery of it all, especially for those like me who are unfamiliar with the online material, keeps us engaged and on the look out for any clues. Also, the sheer commitment of both Ejiofor and Reinsve proves to be crucial in selling us on the story.

Unfortunately some of Parsons’ early choices bog things down during what should be key moments. Clark’s first encounter with the backrooms starts with a chilling sense of dread but turns into a lengthy time-muncher as we watch him slow-walk around rooms, down halls, through doors, and into more rooms. Later, during what is arguably the film’s most harrowing sequence, Parsons suddenly turns to a prolonged found-footage approach, even though it doesn’t make sense in the moment. I get that it’s a nod to the web series, but it shortchanges what could have been truly terrifying.

But part of what makes Parsons so impressive is that he never seems stuck in one mode. He’s consistently throwing in something new and unexpected. This is especially true in the film’s wickedly entertaining second half. It takes a truly gonzo turn as Parsons takes some wild swings that land with an impact somewhere between horrifying and hilarious. The intensity also ratchets up, culminating in a big final twist that turns everything on its head in a mostly satisfying way. In the final few minutes I was glued to every word, every hint, and every suggestion.

From all indications “Backrooms” is doing massive opening week numbers and that’s great to see. This sci-fi and psychological horror hybrid is the kind of highly original material that can energize moviegoers, and that certainly appears to be the case. It also ushers in a fresh, bold, and young new voice in Kane Parsons, who displays the kind of striking vision and go-for-broke confidence that leaves you eager to see what he delivers next. As for his debut, “Backrooms” is enthralling, aggravating, mysterious, and confounding. And after much deliberation, I can say with confidence that I pretty much loved it.