Mortal Kombat II (2026)

I don't remember much about the original Mortal Kombat film, other than there wasn't, well, a mortal combat. This one does. It also brings in beloved characters such as Johnny Cage (Karl Urban), Kitana (Adeline Rudolph) and Shao Khan (Martyn Ford) as they battle for the Earth realm.

It's for the fans! The plot is weak and the character development nonexistent, but there are plenty of fatalities and Easter eggs to keep the fans happy. The fights are cool as are iconic lines such as Scorpion's "Get over here!". Eventually though the fights start to get tiring. I found it to be a slog.

The film opens as Mortal Kombat is days away from beginning. Having lost nine times previously, the Earth realm must win this one or they will be taken over by the Outworld. Shao Khan will do anything to ensure he gains control. Lord Raiden (Tadanobou Asano) is a god who has been training some of the chosen warriors, but after Kung Lao's death in the first film he needs a replacement.

This is how Johnny Cage finds himself fighting along Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee), Cole Young (Lewis Tan), Liu Kang (Ludi Lin), and Jax Briggs (Mehcad Brooks). There are a total of five fights and whoever has the last fighter standing is the winner. 

Kung Lao (Max Huang) is resurrected and made to fight for the Outworld while Kano (Josh Lawson) is resurrected to provide Shao Khan with an amulet that makes him immortal. Bi-Han/Subzero and Scorpion also make an appearance to fight each other again in pure fan service.

I grew up playing Mortal Kombat, but I am not a hardcore fan. Even when I play now, I only do the duels and don't play in story mode. There is a lot of backstory I don't know. Even keeping that in mind, I can appreciate the rivalry between Scorpion and Sub-zero. I can appreciate the fatalities. There could have been more to make casual fans be into the story as well.

There was also a lot left to be desired on a plot and character standpoint. The plot is weak and the characters don't develop. They do in the sense that we're told they do, but those moments feel unearned because they characters shift perspectives without actually doing the work to grow into their new mindset.

I admit it's easy to dismiss my opinion. However, I love the Mortal Kombat film that came out in the 90s. That's the one I grew up watching. It's also an arguably bad film and it's highly sanitized in terms of blood and gore, but it knew what it was and embraced it. It's fun and campy. The plot is surface level, but when all you're expecting is people fighting for their lives then it delivers. The characters grow throughout that silly film. So, it's definitely possible!

I'll probably the inevitable third film whenever it comes out because of Orlando, but I'm not expecting to be anymore entertained as the tournament is officially over. As for me, I'll stick to fun/comfort watching the 90s Mortal Kombat and having a great time doing so.

Books vs. Movies: The Lord of the Rings

I revisited J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings with the classic “book vs movie” question in mind, then compared it to Peter Jackson’s early 2000s Lord of the Rings trilogy using the theatrical cuts. One immediate takeaway is how much context changes when you learn Tolkien intended the story as one massive book, later split by publishers into The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. That publishing history quietly explains why the film trilogy structure feels natural, even when the novels sometimes shift focus in bigger blocks and linger on travel, lore, and “telling” rather than cinematic “showing.”  

The Fellowship of the Ring is where the adaptation choices start to stand out in clean, teachable ways. The films name and reveal Gollum earlier, compress years into days, and visually follow Gandalf’s off-page research so audiences understand stakes without monologues. Some swaps are purely pragmatic, like cutting Tom Bombadil, while others reshape character presence, like giving Arwen major agency that Glorfindel has in the book. Even smaller changes, such as who solves the riddle of Moria or how the hobbits meet Strider in Bree, highlight the constant pressure of adaptation differences: make it faster, make it visual, make it emotionally legible for viewers who have never read Tolkien.  

The Two Towers is where “faithful adaptation” debates get spicy. Tolkien’s structure separates the fellowship’s war storyline from Frodo and Sam’s journey, while the film interweaves them for momentum and clarity. That intercutting helps casual viewers, but it also invites bigger inventions, including a clunky love triangle vibe around Aragorn, Arwen, and Eowyn, plus added Arwen material that is barely present in the novels. The movie also changes Faramir’s moral strength by detouring Frodo and Sam toward Osgiliath, largely to synchronize battles and keep suspense high. Add in the shifting of key Gollum beats and you get the feeling many fans recognize: the film is thrilling, but the book’s character logic is often cleaner.  

The Return of the King brings emotional payoff and the biggest “why did they add this?” question: tying Arwen’s life directly to the fate of the Ring. The film also amplifies the Frodo-Sam rupture by sending Sam away, which many readers reject because it undercuts their core loyalty. Tolkien’s ending goes further than the movie, too, with the Scouring of the Shire, Saruman’s grim final turn, and Sam’s role in restoring home. Most haunting is Frodo’s long-term trauma and PTSD, inspired by real war experiences Tolkien knew firsthand, which reframes “victory” as complicated rather than purely triumphant. By the end, you can still admire Jackson’s craft, casting, and spectacle while saying, with specificity, why the Lord of the Rings book remains richer than the movies.

The Devil Wears Prada 2 (2026)

The Devil Wears Prada 2 opens up with lead Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) as she receives a prestigious journalism award. She's moved on since the ending of the original film where she leaves her toxic boss Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) behind. This is a sequel so there needs to be a way to reunite the two. That reunion comes in the form of Andy and her coworkers all being fired at the same time during the awards ceremony.

The film then tries to make a lot of points about the possible death of journalism. It tries to prove that journalism is an art that should continue to exist and the value should come from the truth and not online engagements.

It makes a valiant effort, but it still ends up ringing hollow at the end.

There are cameos galore, but only Lady Gaga's is worth it. Anyway, after all these years Priestly remains editor in chief of Runway Magazine and Andy is rehired by the magazine after her acceptance speech goes viral.

This is a more optimistic film than the original. To an unbelievable degree at times, but it pleases the fans.

If you liked the first one, there's a chance you'll enjoy this one.

The sequel is fine. It's just not as fun as the original.

Meryl Streep continues to be great, Stanley Tucci continues to be the guy we want in our corner and Anne Hathaway's Andy Sachs entering a new era of confidence is satisfying.

The film is a little too long and there is in an underwhelming amount of Emily Blunt to be found.

The situations are highly implausible and the fashion gorgeous. So this is definitely fan service more than anything.

The original director and writer set this story in 2026's changing media landscape.

Print media is quickly disappearing. Budgets are shrinking and success is measured through online engagement.

Andy is rehired by Runway to fix their reputation after it takes a hit due to an article full of misinformation.

The film rolls along to an incredibly happy ending that's tied in a perfect bow.

Along the way there is surface level political commentary. Oh, and nepo babies in the form of BJ Novak who are set to take over a media empire they have no interest in running.

If you are a fan of the first one, there is plenty to like about this one.

Miranda Priestly is still an intimidating presence albeit having difficulties adjusting to an era where workplace abuse is no longer tolerated.

This film is not as memorable as the first one. That's okay because there are plenty of callbacks to the original to keep you entertained.

Though I did miss lines like the ones that made the first one so iconic.

This is a film for the fans. I don't think it will grow to be the cultural moment that the original one did.

It'll worm its way into the hearts of hardcore fans.

It's not memorable, but it's sufficient. Sometimes that's all a sequel needs to be.

Music Tames the Wolfe

A fresh werewolf story doesn’t start with gore. It starts with identity. On Books Versus Movies, we talk with author Rick London about The Dancing Wolfeman, a paranormal romantasy adventure thriller set in Northern California. His lead, Titus Wolfe, is a high school music teacher by day and a DJ by night, and that detail isn’t flavor text, it’s the mechanism that reshapes the entire werewolf myth. Instead of a familiar arc where the bitten man becomes a killer, gets hunted, and dies, this story treats transformation as a battle for self control, with music as the anchor that keeps Titus human. For readers searching for werewolf fiction, paranormal romance, or a modern monster story with heart, the hook is simple and original: sound becomes survival, and the Bay Area setting adds a grounded, cinematic backdrop for an adaptation.  

We dig into where the central idea comes from and why it works. London describes staring at his son’s trombone case during the outlining process, then realizing music could be more than a character trait, it could be the trigger that restores consciousness during a shift. That premise connects to something many listeners recognize, the way music can unlock memory, emotion, and clarity even in people facing dementia. In the book, Titus hears a jogger’s headphones during his first transformation, and the rhythm pulls him back from primal instincts. That choice turns a would be victim into a love interest and flips the werewolf narrative from predator to protector. The episode explores how a “gimmick” becomes theme, and why a supernatural thriller can still be hopeful without losing tension.  

The conversation also moves into adaptation choices, the practical side of turning a novel into a movie. London shares a specific casting vision for Titus, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and argues for a lead who isn’t overly famous, with A-list supporting roles to draw audiences while still introducing new talent. We also talk about author involvement, not necessarily writing the screenplay, but being present as a consultant to protect the story’s arc and key beats while staying flexible to the realities of focus groups, budgets, and studio notes. One standout set piece he’s most excited to see on screen is the third transformation confrontation with rancher Everett King: a cliff fall, a near killing, and a deliberate act of mercy that converts an apparent antagonist into an ally.  

Finally, London highlights the writing influences that shaped his pacing and suspense. He’s an avid reader of hard boiled detective novels, mystery thrillers, and series-driven storytelling, referencing authors like Michael Connelly, Jonathan Kellerman, and Lee Child. That detective fiction DNA matters for SEO minded readers looking for “werewolf thriller” or “paranormal mystery” because it signals structure: clues, misdirection, and villains who can hide in plain sight. The episode ends with clear ways to follow and buy the book, plus a note about Amazon purchasing quirks for Prime accounts, making his author website the easiest hub. If you love cryptids, modern werewolf lore, and stories where the monster chooses mercy, this conversation makes a strong case for why The Dancing Wolf Man could be a compelling book to film adaptation.

Follow Rick London: Website | Facebook | X

Kiss the Ground (2020)

 

Kiss the Ground is a fascinating documentary narrated by Woody Harrelson. It gives a look into one of the simplest things we can do to combat climate change: regenerative agriculture. 

The way farming currently works, farmers till the soil in order to be able to plant crops. Tilling the soil year after year leads to desertification. Regenerative agriculture allows for crops to grow year round without ruining the soil which in turn causes carbon dioxide to be absorbed. If enough farmers around the world switch to this, not only will it benefit them more in the long run, it can actually reverse the effects of climate change.

We are shown different farmers who have made this change and scientists who show us the benefits of regenerative agriculture. It requires farmers to make changes to how farming has been done for centuries, but the benefits outweigh anything else.

This is a fascinating film and one filled with hope. The solution is so simple and attainable.

Ready or Not 2: Here I Come (2026)

 

Seven years later, the sequel to "Ready or Not" has arrived.

"Ready or Not 2: Here I Come" picks up exactly where the original left off. Grace McCauley sits on the steps on her in laws home smoking a cigarette after surviving her new husband and his family's intent on sacrificing her.

To quickly recap: Grace marries into a family where it is tradition to play a game on a wedding night. Grace drew hide and seek which means she must hide from the family until dawn or she will be killed.

As the family are Satanists, failure to sacrifice her means they must die as punishment.

Grace coming out of the game alive should mean that she can move on with her life. Unfortunately, her former in laws were one of six families in this particular cult and now the other families get to hunt her down in an effort to win the power to rule over everything.

Premise wise it is exactly like the prequel. So, if you're looking for a fun repeat of the first one then this is the sequel for you.

What the sequel does have is two stand out characters. Elijah Wood plays a lawyer who is there to ensure that the remaining families follow all the rules and Kathryn Newton plays Grace's younger sister Faith who is dragged into this round of the hunt.

Samara Weaving and Kathryn Newton play off of each other very well. The rest of the cast bring great elements, but Sarah Michelle Geller and Shawn Hatosy as the Danforth twins bring a fun dynamic as the ones who want to ensure their family stays in power.

There is blood. There is gore. There is a whole lot of fun. To see how it all plays out, check it out for yourself.

Wake Up Dead Man (2025)

 I'm a sucker for Rian Johnson's Knives Out series. I have enjoyed every single installment. The latest one is no exception. This one takes place in the sleepy town of Chimney Rock, a fictional town in upstate New York.

The film begins at a seminary. Father Jud Duplencity (Josh O'Conner) punches another priest and as a former boxer, knocks him out. An incident that happened during his boxing career has left Father Jud feeling guilty. This guilt has led him to God and is determined to bring Christ's love to his flock.

After this incident, he is assigned to Our Lady of Perpetual Fortitude where he will assist Monsignor Jefferson Wicks (Josh Brolin). He represents everything a priest should not be. Despite this, Monsignor Wicks has a devoted following. He is unhappy that Father Jud has been assigned to his church. He tries to make Father Jud as uncomfortable possible in any way he can including during his weekly confessions.

Martha Delacroix (Glenn Close) is the church's - and therefore Monsignor's - most devoted follower. She is involved in everything the church does and does everything for the church. Monsignor Wicks' grandfather was like father to Martha and she has been devoted ever since she was a child.

The other devoted members of the church are groundskeeper Samson (Thomas Hayden Church), author Lee Ross (Andrew Scott), cellist Simone Vivane (Cailee Spaeny), doctor Nat Sharp (Jeremy Renner), attorney Vera Draven (Kerry Washington) and her son Cy (Daryl McCormack). It should be noted that Cy is not actually her son. Vera's father previously worked as Monsignor Wick's attorney and showed up one day with a 10-year-old boy and told Vera she was now in charge of raising him. 

This cast of characters are all going to be suspects in the murder. The mystery begins when the victim is murdered in the storage closet found next to the pulpit with no seemingly possible way for the murder to have occurred. The town's sheriff (Mila Kunis) brings in detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) to help solve the murder.

As usual this is a fun mystery and the resolution is as satisfying as it was in Knives Out.

The film is witty. Josh O'Conner is fantastic as the guilt ridden priest looking to turn his life around and make a positive impact on his community. Daniel Craig continues to impress with his deep southern dialect. My only complaint is that so many great actors are underused. I was happy to see Jeffrey Wright make an appearance, but was disappointed to see he only appears in the beginning and the end. Kerry Washington and Cailee Spaeny are also underused. While they are official suspects and an audience member, you never really suspect them. Still I had fun watching this one and as long as they continue to be this engaging, I will continue to enjoy them.