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.