Culture Representation: Taking place in India’s state of Punjab, in the 1960s, the dramatic film “Bambukat 2” (a sequel to the 2016 movie “Bambukat”) features an all-Asian cast of characters representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.
Culture Clash: A former palace employee and his arrogant brother-in-law put aside their differences to be in a car race against a ruthless business mogul.
Culture Audience: “Bambukat 2” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and don’t mind watching movie sequels that are inferior to the original movie.
Karamjit Anmol in “Bambukat 2” (Photo courtesy of Rhythm Boyz and 100 Films)
“Bambukat 2” is a sloppily made comedy sequel with awkward acting and horrendous dialogue. It repeats 2016’s “Bambukat” story about social class wars reduced to a motor vehicle showdown. This 173-minute movie is entirely too long for all the idiocy on display. “Bambukat” has a motorcycle for the movie’s big showdown. “Bambukat 2” makes the vehicle showdown a racing car competition.
“Bambukat 2” was directed by Pankaj Batra and written by Jass Grewal, who had the same roles for “Bambukat.” Many of the same cast members from “Bambukat” are in this sequel, which also takes place in the 1960s, in India’s state of Punjab. “Bambukat 2” was filmed in the Indian cities of Bihar and Assam.
In “Bambukat 2,” protagonist Channan Singh (played by Ammy Virk) is now married to his sweetheart Parminder “Pakko” Kaur (played by Simi Chahal), who is pregnant and gives birth to their first child: a boy. This plot development is already revealed in the “Bambukat 2” trailer. Resham had a prominent role in “Bambkuat,” but in “Bambukat 2,” Resham is mostly sidelined and in a “cheerleader” type of role, where her only purpose is to support and cheer on Channan.
In the beginning of “Bambukat 2,” Channan has what many people think is a prestigious job working at the royal palace. When Channan’s unnamed parents (played by Anita Devgan and Malkeet Rauni) arrive from out of town to visit him at the palace, they’re shocked to find out that Channan has quit his job. Channan tells his parents that he could no longer work there because he “earned his money through disgrace” and alludes to quitting because he could no longer tolerate the corruption.
Channan and Pakko move back to the small rural village that is their hometown, where she gives birth to their son. In “Bambukat 2,” Karamjit Anmol reprises his “Bambukat” role as Channan’s sidekick friend. This friend doesn’t add much to the plot and is just there to be a little bit of comic relief.
Much of “Bambukat 2” is about Channan being unemployed and his rival brother-in-law Binnu Dhillon (played by Resham Singh) gloating about it. Just like in “Bambukat,” Channan and Binnu (who works as a police station master) are very competitive with each other. A great deal of the plot in “Bambukat” was about Channan feeling insecure because he thinks Pakko’s family shows more respect to Binnu than Channan.
One day, a small private plane crashes in a village field. The plane explodes, and the resulting fire destroys many of the town’s crops. The pilot is able to escape before this explosion happens. An investigation determines that the pilot had been temporarily blinded by a hand-held mirror that was taken out by a villager on the ground.
The owner of the plane is ruthless business mogul Kunwar Mahendra Pratap, nicknamed KMP (played by Gurpreet Ghuggi), who demands to know who the “guilty” person is who had the mirror. KMP has a public hearing at an outside gathering place in the village. It’s not exactly a fair hearing, since KMP is acting like a judge and jury.
Eventually, a nervous young woman admits she has the mirror. When KMP orders her to say who sold her the mirror, she is reluctant and gives vague answers. KMP demands that the woman pay the costs for the destroyed plane, even though KMP knows she doesn’t have the money.
Channan steps in to defend her and to tell KMP that KMP should reimburse the villlage for the crops that were destroyed by the plane explosion. KMP then turns his wrath on Channan and tells Channan that Channan has to pay the costs for the destroyed plane. Channan doesn’t have the money either.
It’s really the movie’s contrivance for Channan to enter a car race to win the money that he needs. As if to put an emphasis on Channan being an “underdog” with the odds stacked against him, Channan’s race car is a Volkswagen Beetle. Seriously.
Channan gets an unlikely partner in this race: Resham. KMP happens to be married to Resham’s sister. KMP and his wife are parents to fraternal twin sons And Resham has a reason for revenge against KMP because KMP humiliated Resham in front of KMP’s wife and sons.
You’d think a 10-year gap between the original “Bambukat” movie and a sequel would be enough time for the filmmakers to come up with clever and inventive ideas for the sequel. But that’s not the case here. In fact, it seems like the filmmakers couldn’t come up with anything that would fit into the theme of “bambukat” (which means “motorcycle” in Punjabi) and came up with a flimsy plot about racing cars instead.
“Bambukat 2” drags on and on before the actual racing begins. The movie’s dialogue, editing and overall direction are mostly subpar. The acting performances are mediocre at best, with Dhillon overacting to the point of being very irritating. Everything in “Bambukat 2” is unimaginative and formulaic, with all of it made worse by the movie’s unnecessarily bloated running time. “Bambukat 2” ends with a “To be continued …” caption. Based on the worsening quality of the “Bambukat” movie series, don’t expect “Bambukat 3” to be an improvement.
Rhythm Boyz and 100 Films released “Bambukat 2” in select U.S. cinemas and in India on February 20, 2026.
Pictured from left to right: Sudharshan (in back), Shivani Nagaram, Suhas and Vennela Kishore in “Hey Bhagawan” (Photo courtesy of Trishul Visionary Studios)
Culture Representation: Taking place in the Indian cities of Guntur and Hyderabad, the comedy/drama film “Hey Bhagawan” features an all-Asian cast of characters representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.
Culture Clash: A man finds out that his widower father has been covering up the fact that the father has owned and operated a brothel for many years.
Culture Audience: “Hey Bhagawan” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and terrible comedies about prostitution, pimps and how society reacts to people who are involved in the sex worker business.
Naresh and Annapurna in “Hey Bhagawan” (Photo courtesy of Trishul Visionary Studios)
“Hey Bhagawan” (also titled “Hey Balwanth”) is an incredibly tone-deaf comedy/drama that tries to make a pimp look like a hero. It’s also a very cowardly film that is afraid to use the word “brothel,” even though that’s the type of business at the center of this odious and badly acted movie. The movie thinks it’s being cute when it plays coy about the prostitution that is being used as the basis for all the idiotic jokes in this grossly sexist story. It’s not cute. It’s trashy exploitation.
Written and directed by Gopi Atchara, “Hey Bhagawan” takes place and was filmed primarily on location in the Indian cities of Guntur and Hyderabad. In India, the movie’s title was changed to “Hey Balwanth” by India’s Central Board of Film Certification, in order to avoid religious controversy because “bhagawan” is a Sanskrit-derived term meaning “lord” “god” or “blessed one.” Bhagawan is the last name of main family in the movie, but in India, these characters’ last name was also changed to Balwanth. Because this review is based on the movie’s release in the United States, the original title “Hey Bhagawan” is used in this review.
“Hey Bhagawan” has an uneven tone of being a wacky comedy for the first two-thirds of the story, and then the last third of the movie turns into semi-weepy melodramatic mush, where men with hero complexes think they can “save” the female sex workers from their lives of “sinful degradation.” Regardless of what people think about sex work/prostitution, there’s no doubt that the sex workers in this movie’s brothel are stuck in a dead-end job. That’s why it’s an insult to viewers’ intelligence when “Hey Bhagawan” tries to reframe this live-in brothel as a “hotel for happy hookers” while also putting forth the story that these sex workers need to be pitied and can have better lives if charitable men come along to rescue them. It’s also so repulsively misogynistic.
When people are so desperate for money that they do things that most people won’t do (such as being paid to have sex with people whom they wouldn’t have sex with if they weren’t be paid for it), they’re usually not happy about what they have to do for this money. And it’s why sex workers (who are almost always desperate for money) are vulnerable to being exploited. There is no way to get around the fact that pimps are part of this exploitation.
But “Hey Bhagawan” heinously glosses over these harsh realities by having the pimp in this story look like an overworked widower father who is just doing what he can so he can afford to send his son to elite schools. In the beginning of “Hey Bhagawan,” the pimp in question is Ram Bhagawan (played by Naresh), who is raising his son Krishna Bhagawan to believe that Ram is a successful and respected businessman. However, Ram is vague with his family about what type of business he does, and Ram won’t let his family visit him at his job.
Ram and Krishna live in Guntur with Ram’s widowed mother (played by Annapurna), who believes everything that Ram tells her. Ram has told his family that he has a “cottage industry” business. As a child, Krishna feels neglected by Ram, who spends more time at work than he does at home. Krishna grows up believing that his father Ram must have a job that’s very important. And so, Krishna spends his childhood thinking he should be a successful businessman, just like he thinks his father is.
When Krishna is about 12 or 13 years old, he begins to ask more questions about the job that Ram does. And what does Ram do? He sends Krishna away to live at a boarding school in Hyderabad. “Hey Bhagawan” tries to make it look like Ram is sending Krishna to get a good education, but it’s already shown in the beginning of the movie that Ram is a neglectful parent. That’s why Ram sending Krishna to a boarding school actually looks like a parent who doesn’t want to deal with raising a kid who’s starting to ask too many questions that Ram doesn’t want to answer.
At his boarding school, adolescent Ram brags about his father to everyone in his classrooms. His bragging reaches a point when one of Krishna’s teachers calls Ram. The teacher tells Ram about Krishna’s bragging.
And then, the teacher reveals the real reason why she called: She tells Ram that her teacher salary is “pathetic,” and she wants to know if Ram has any job openings at his business because she’s interested in working there. Ram says he can’t help her. Is this supposed to be funny? It’s not.
The movie then fast-fowards to 20 years later. Krishna (played by Suhas), who received his university education in Hyderabad, is a recent MBA graduate who has returned to Guntur to follow in his father’s footsteps as a “successful businessman.” To the dismay of Krishna, Ram vehemently tells Krishna that Krishna cannot work with Ram and cannot visit Ram at Ram’s job.
Krishna has a talkative and annoying sidekick friend named Banka (played by Sudharshan), who has some serious co-dependency issues because he rarely lives Krishna’s side. Banka accompanies Krishna to a job interview to work at a non-profit company called Mithra Foundation, which is looking for a business consultant. Banka is such a “joined at the hip” pal that he insists on sitting down next to Krishna for this interview. In fact, during the first part of the interview, Banka answers questions that Krishna is supposed to answer.
The interviewer is the company founder Mithra (played by Shivani Nagaram), a wealthy young philanthropist who’s about the same age as Krishna. Krishna is instantly smitten by Mithra and gets bashful during the interview, which is why Banka overcompensates by being a motormouth. Eventually, Krishna speaks for himself in the interview. He’s apparently so desperate for the job, he tells Mithra that he is willing to work for free. Krishna gets the job.
“Hey Bhagawan” is so poorly structured, it takes entirely too long (about half of this 135-minute movie) before Krishna finds out the truth about what Ram does as a job. Ram’s live-in brothel is called the Bhagawan Lodge, which has a big sign out front with the business name. For someone who’s trying to keep his brothel business a secret from his family, it’s incredibly stupid that Ram has his family surname as part of the business. But expecting an illogical movie like “Hey Bhagawan” to have any logic is like expecting a brothel to not have any sex workers.
And so, there’s a long stretch of “Hey Bhagawan” where Krishna desperately tries to keep “good girl” Mithra from finding out the truth about what Krishna’s father does for a living. Krishna is horrified and embarrassed and wants to find a way to shut down the brothel. Krishna’s father Ram refuses and doesn’t show much remorse for lying to Krishna, who is devastated by this lie. In fact, Ram tries to make Krishna feel guilty for being “ungrateful” for the money that Ram spent to give Krishna the best education possible.
And what a “coincidence”: Around the same time that Krishna finds out about the brothel that he wants to shut down, Ram ends up in a hospital because he had a stress-related health crisis. Ram is under medical orders to take a month-long leave of absence from his job. And so, Ram tells Krishna to temporarily take over for Ram in overseeing the brothel. The manager of the brothel is Ranjith (played by Vennela Kishore), a weird taskmaster who handles the day-to-day operations of scheduling and arranging the worker/client meetups.
“Hey Bhagawan” doesn’t actually show any sex. It’s another way that movie wants to use the “edgy” topic of sex work for tacky comedy purposes, without showing any sex work. There’s a scene where someone accidentally opens the door of a bedroom where one of the brothel’s sex workers is with a client. All that’s shown is a woman in lingerie in a playful pillow fight with a fully clothed client, as if they’re at a slumber party.
Even if “Hey Bhagawan” wants to be tame by not showing any sex, the movie doesn’t care to depict the brothel’s sex workers as anything but money-hungry, horny and/or in need of charity help from men. The only sex worker who is featured enough to have a story arc is a “happy hooker” named Champa (played by Shivani Nagaram), who begs Krishna not to shut down the brothel because she says she likes her job and she doesn’t want to be homeless. It’s later revealed that Ranjith has a crush on Champa, who has previously rejected his marriage proposals.
“Hey Bhagawan” goes off on clumsily placed tangents with a subplot about a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) named Durga Rao (played by Ajay Ghosh), who is trying to help his disgraced and ailing elderly politician father get back into the good graces of their political party. Mithra has a connection to this political family that is exactly what you think it might be. Also very predictable: Durga’s father has a scandal that certain people try to cover up. The movie takes a turn into unfunny morbid territory with a subplot about a corpse in the brothel and people pretending that the dead person is still alive.
“Hey Bhagawan” is off-putting enough with the movie’s horrible acting performances, irksome sitcom music/sound effects and moronic dialogue. But the movie becomes increasingly repugnant when trying to have it both ways in contradictory and muddled messaging about sex workers and the people who hire sex workers. The movie tries to make Ram’s sex workers look like they’re happy and “empowered” sex workers because Ram is a “good” pimp, even though Ram is actively exploiting them for his own financial gain. But then, the movie turns around and depicts these women sex workers as pitiful people who need help from men who have the money and intelligence to help them stop being sex workers and become “respectable” members of society. It all adds up to a garbage movie that’s not worth anyone’s time or money.
Trishul Visionary Studios released “Hey Bhagawan” in select U.S. cinemas and in India on February 20, 2026.
Culture Representation: Taking place in the fictional cities of Pine Grove, Indiana (and briefly in Woodsboro, California), the horror film “Scream 7” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some African Americans and Latin people) representing the working-class and middle-class.
Culture Clash: Sidney Prescott, the “final girl” in 1996’s “Scream” movie, is now married to a police chief and is the mother of a 17-year-old daughter, who feels overshadowed by Sidney’s fame as a rare survivor of the Ghostface Killer, as Sidney’s family and others become the targets of another Ghostface Killer murder spree.
Culture Audience: “Scream 7” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the “Scream” franchise and horror movie sequels that make several references to its preceding movies.
Mckenna Grace, Celeste O’Connor and Isabel May in “Scream 7” (Photo courtesy of Paramount Pictures)
The “Scream” horror movie franchise built its reputation on poking fun at itself and other slasher movies. With “Scream 7,” this franchise invites ridicule, but in a way where people are more likely to groan than laugh. The welcome return of the Sidney Prescott character is surrounded by a bunch of recycled ideas and plot holes. The good news: Unlike some other previous “Scream” sequels, viewers who are new to the franchise won’t feel too lost if they haven’t seen any of the previous “Scream” movies. The bad news: The reason why is because “Scream 7” gets bogged down in so many horror clichés, the movie becomes redundant and utterly predictable.
Directed by Kevin Williamson (who co-wrote the “Scream 7” screenplay with Guy Busick), “Scream 7” reunites Williamson with Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox, two of the stars of the first movie in the “Scream” franchise: 1996’s “Scream.” Williamson also wrote 1996’s “Scream,” 1997’s “Scream 2,” 2000’s “Scream 3” and 2011’s “Scream 4,” which were all directed by Wes Craven, who died in 2015. Williamson has spent most of his career on TV series, with writer/executive producer credits for series such as “Dawson’s Creek” and “The Vampire Diaries.”
The “Scream” franchise had a reboot with 2022’s “Scream” and 2024’s “Scream VI,” from co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett and co-writers James Vanderbilt and Busick, the filmmaking team that ramped up the satirical comedy in both movies. “Scream 7” goes back to basics in a way that makes the movie a little too basic. Even though “Scream 7” has modern technology references, such as the use of artificial intelligence for deepfake videos, everything in “Scream 7” is an inferior and outdated rehash of other “Scream” movies.
By now, most people who watch a “Scream” movie already know that Sidney Prescott (played by Campbell) was the sole survivor of the Ghostface Killer serial murders in her hometown of Woodsboro, California. In the world of “Scream,” this murder spree got a lot of media coverage and was the basis of a popular horror movie series called “Stab.” It’s also common knowledge that each “Scream” movie has a different Ghostface Killer, who wears a ghost face mask and who could be one or more people.
In “Scream 7,” Sidney (whose last name is now Evans) is now living in Pine Grove, Indiana, where she owns a small business called the Little Latte Coffee Shop. (“Scream 7” was actually filmed in the Atlanta area.) Sidney’s loving and supportive husband Mark Evans (played by Joel McHale) is the police chief of Pine Grove. Sidney and Mark have a 17-year-old daughter named Tatum Evans (played by Isabel May), who wants more independence from overprotective Sidney. Sidney and Mark have kindergarten-aged twin daughters named Emma Evans (played by Maggie Toomey) and Rebecca Evans (played by Annabelle Toomey), but the twins are not part of the main story in “Scream 7” because the twins are spending time with Mark’s mother.
“Scream 7” begins with a 15-minute sequence of a couple named Scott (played by Jimmy Tatro) and Madison (played by Michelle Randolph), who are in their late 20s to early 30s, in Woodsboro. Scott and Madison have signed up for a Monster House Experience to stay overnight at a replica of the house where Sidney lived in the first “Scream” movie. It’s nighttime when Scott and Madison have arrived at the house. Unrealistically, there are no employees in sight.
Inside the house is a lot of “Stab” memorabilia, including a life-sized animatronic robot of the Ghostface Killer. Scott is the horror aficionado in this couple, while Madison is jittery and doesn’t really want to be there. This entire sequence is just an elaborate “jump scare” setup to let viewers know that the Ghostface Killer murder spree is about to begin again. Unfortunately, this long sequence didn’t need to be in “Scream 7” at all, based on what happens in the rest of movie.
All the new characters in “Scream 7” are quite bland and generic. Tatum, who wants to be an actress, is insecure because she’s living in the shadow of Sidney’s notorious fame. Sidney doesn’t trust Tatum’s boyfriend Ben Brown (played by Sam Rechner), a classmate of Tatum’s, who is first seen sneaking into Tatum’s bedroom at night. Ben is a stereotypical good-looking teenage guy who excels in sports and academics. He is very skilled in computer technology and is respectful to Tatum and her family. And that’s all that viewers will learn about Ben in “Scream 7.”
Tatum’s closest female friends are classmates Hannah Thurman (played by Mckenna Grace) and Chloe Parker (played by Celeste O’Connor), who are part of a school play with Tatum and other students. Hannah has diva-like ways, while Chloe has a down-to-earth personality. The play’s theater director George Williams (played by Tim Simons) rudely critiques Tatum’s acting skills and her personality, by telling Tatum that she’s not as confident and brave as her mother Sidney.
Another classmate of Tatum’s is true crime fanatic Lucas Bowden (played by Asa Germann), who wants to interview Sidney for a true crime podcast that he plans to start. Lucas and his divorced mother Jessica Bowden (played by Anna Camp) live next door to the Evans family. Jessica is embarrassed that Lucas is star-struck by Sidney, who is polite but emotionally closed-off when Lucas asks Sidney about her Ghostface Killer experiences. Lucas’ father is not involved in his life. Jessica bitterly tells Sidney that Jessica’s ex-husband/Lucas’ father is a deadbeat dad who abandoned the family.
The “Scream 7” terror begins for Sidney and others when one of these teenagers gets murdered by a Ghostface Killer. Sidney also starts getting video phone calls from someone who claims to be Stu Macher (played by Matthew Lillard), one of the Ghostface Killers who died in the first “Scream” movie. Whoever is calling has put Sidney on notice that Sidney, her family members and other people in Pine Grove are going to be the next murder victims.
Sidney and other people suspect that someone is using deepfake technology to impersonate Stu. However, certain things happen that make Sidney wonder if Stu could really be alive. Sidney does some investigating at a place called Fallbrook Psychiatric Hospital, where a hospital orderly named Marco (played by Ethan Embry) gives her some information.
Whenever the Ghostface Killer murder spree starts again, ambitious TV news journalist Gale Weathers (played by Cox) is on the scene to report what happens. Gale has made a career out of Ghostface Killer reporting, including writing a best-selling book about the Ghostface Killer murder spree that happened in Woodsboro. In “Scream 7,” Gale has gone back to being a freelance reporter, after her high-profile TV talk show was canceled. Her current job is considered a “step down” for Gale in her career.
In “Scream 7,” Gale has arrived in Pine Grove from New York City. She is accompanied by often-bickering twins Chad Meeks-Martin (played by Mason Gooding) and Mindy Meeks-Martin (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown), who first appeared in “Scream VI” as New York City college students who experienced Ghostface Killer violence. Chad and Mindy are now Gale’s interns. The uncle of Mindy and Chad was Randy Meeks (played by Jamie Kennedy), whose fate is shown in “Scream 2.” A local Pine Grove TV reporter named Robbie Rivers (played by Mark Consuelos) gets competitive with Gale over the Ghostface Killer story in Pine Grove.
“Scream 7” has a sufficient amount of suspense in its chase scenes and kill scenes. The best of these scenes is when Sidney and Tatum are trying to escape in between a house’s walls while the Ghostface Killer is stabbing through the walls. However, “Scream 7” has some plot holes and disjointed scenes that are too big to ignore. And pity the residents of Pine Grove, which has one of the most incompetent police departments you could ever see in a slasher horror movie. When “Scream 7” reveals the killer or killers toward the end of the movie, it’s underwhelming and nonsensical.
In order for the “Scream” franchise to thrive, it needs to have above-average stories and new characters who seem authentic and interesting. Sidney, Chad and Mindy are the only characters in “Scream 7” who are written fairly well. Gale in “Scream 7” is a lesser version of her famously acerbic self. “Scream 7” will satisfy horror fans who want a formulaic slasher flick, but the movie wastes a lot of potential to be clever and genuinely self-deprecating, which are characteristics of the best “Scream” movies.
Paramount Pictures will release “Scream 7” in U.S. cinemas on February 27, 2026.
Culture Representation: Taking place in the Los Angeles area, the horror comedy “Night Patrol” features a predominantly African American and white cast of characters (with some Latin people) representing the working-class and middle-class.
Culture Clash: Members of the Crips gang and the Bloods gang are targets of white racist cops, who are vampires trying to get the Crips and Bloods to kill each other.
Culture Audience: “Night Patrol” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and horror comedies that aren’t scary or funny when making social commentaries about racism and violence from gangs and cops.
RJ Cyler in “Night Patrol” (Photo courtesy of RLJE Films and Shudder)
The truly awful horror comedy “Night Patrol” is as horribly racist as the racism it’s trying to lampoon, in this wretched story about gang members versus white supremacist cops. The movie is filled with atrocious dialogue, cringeworthy acting and a weak plot with more gore than scares. The movie’s social satire falls flat in every single way.
Directed by Ryan Prows, “Night Patrol” was written by Prows, Tim Cairo, Jake Gibson and Shaye Ogbonna. The movie had its world premiere at the 2025 edition of Fantastic Fest and subsequently screened at the 2025 edition of Beyond Fest. “Night Patrol” takes place in the Los Angeles area, where the movie was filmed on location.
Normally, it’s not necessary in movie reviews to mention the racial demographics of the movies’ directors and screenwriters. However, regarding this terrible “Night Patrol” movie about white supremacist racism against African Americans, it’s important to mention that Prows, Cairo and Gibson are white, and Ogbonna is African American. “Night Patrol” is extremely tone-deaf when it comes to racism and how the movie depicts African Americans.
“Night Patrol” also has the outdated tone of a subpar 1990s gangbanger movie. The trailer for “Night Patrol” already gives away about 80% of the movie’s flimsy plot. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) patrol officers Xavier Carr (played by Jermaine Fowler) and Ethan Hawkins (played by Justin Long) work in a tough, crime-ridden area of the city. Unbeknownst to Xavier, Ethan wants to join a secret sect of the LAPD: white supremacist cops who are vampires. Xavier eventually finds out Ethan’s secret.
These vampires are led by Ethan’s deceased/undead father Sarge (played by Dermot Mulroney), who was a “legend” in the LAPD. Sarge’s chief henchman, who does most of the dirty work on the streets, is an unnamed deputy (played by Phil Brooks, also known as CM Punk), who is a stereotypical menacing thug. Ethan has to go through an initiation process, in order to be accepted into this secret sect of racist vampire cops. The racist vampire cops want to blame their murders on the gangs, so the rival gangs can kill each other in revenge murders.
In the beginning of the movie, this sadistic deputy and his cohorts (who all work at night) stop and question a young African American couple in a car that’s parked in a remote area. The man’s name is Wazi (played by RJ Cyler), the woman’s name is Primo (played by Zuri Reed), and they are having a forbidden romance because Wazi is a member of the Crips gang, while Primo is affiliated with the rival Bloods gang. Before the cops arrived, Wazi has proposed marriage to Primo, who declined the offer because of this gang rivalry. When the vampire cops arrive, they murder Primo, while a terrified Wazi escapes and runs away.
Wazi also happens to be the younger brother of Xavier, who used to be in the Crips, but Xavier turned his life around and became a cop. It doesn’t take long for the gang members to find out about the vampire cops and fight back. The gang-affiliated people who get involved include Wazi; Ayanda (played by Nicki Micheaux), the mother of Wazi and Xavier; Primo’s older brother Bornelius (played by Freddie Gibbs), the leader of this faction of the Bloods; and Bloods members Three Deuce (played by Flying Lotus) and Tripp (played by Keenon Dequan Ray Jackson, also known as rapper YG).
The rest of “Night Patrol” is just a series of violent chase scenes, sloppily staged fights and shootouts, bad jokes and an over-use of the “n” word racial slur. The visual effects are not impressive and often look tacky. And the movie’s ending looks very lazy and unfinished. “Night Patrol” misses the mark on every single level. Worst of all, the movie’s social satire wrapped in a vampire horror comedy doesn’t have any bite. It just has the stink of a rotting corpse.
RLJE Films and Shudder released “Night Patrol” in U.S. cinemas on January 16, 2026. The movie was released on digital and VOD on February 10, 2026.
Directed by Salomão Abdala and André Abdala (also known as the Abdala Brothers)
Some language in Portuguese with subtitles
Culture Representation: The sports documentary film “2Die4” features Brazilian race car driver Felipe Nasr competing in the 93rd edition of 24 Hours of Le Mans in Le Mans, France, on June 14 and June 15, 2025.
Culture Clash: Nasr and his Team Penske colleagues experience various setbacks during the race.
Culture Audience: “2Die4” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of Formula 1 racing, but this tedious documentary doesn’t reveal anything new or interesting.
Felipe Nasr in “2Die4” (Photo courtesy of Abramorama)
Dull and very superficial, the documentary “2Die4” comes across as a semi-scripted infomercial for Formula 1 racer Felipe Nasr during his experience competing in 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2025. Formula 1 fans who follow 24 Hours of Le Mans news will find no suspense or surprises in this documentary. People who don’t know the outcome of this race before seeing this documentary might also be bored because Nasr gives robotic narration from a very cliché-ridden script.
“2Die4” is the feature-film directorial debut of Salomão Abdala and André Abdala (also known as the Abdala Brothers), who seem to think the movie’s racing cinematography alone should make this a good documentary. It doesn’t. With “2Die4” being released less than a year after the release of the 2025 blockbuster Formula 1 action flick “F1” (starring Brad Pitt), the time would seem right to have a documentary that is a counterpoint to the slick, manufactured aspects of “F1.”
Unfortunately, “2Die4” (whose total run time is 60 minutes) falls short in almost every aspect of sports documentary filmmaking. You won’t learn anything about behind-the-scenes dynamics at Team Penske, the team that Nasr joined in 2022. (The team drove Porsche 963s for the Le Mans race in 2025.) You won’t learn anything about the toughest location obstacles in 24 Hours of Le Mans. You won’t learn anything about Nasr, except how he looks during this racing period, how he reacts to setbacks, and how his narration sounds like it’s coming from a soulless drone. Some of the setbacks that Team Penske experiences during this Le Mans race include heavy rain and winds; at least one Team Penske car crash; and a malfunctioning windshield wiper.
At least the fictional racers in “F1” had appealing and entertaining personalities. Nasr comes across as monotonous and self-absorbed, with the personality of a toilet. When two unnamed fan boys (who are about 9 to 11 years old) approach Nasr together to ask Nasr for selfie photos, Nasr says yes to the boy who looks younger, but no to the older boy. Nasr’s excuse is that he has to leave, but it wouldn’t have been that difficult for Nasr to pause for an extra three to five seconds to take a selfie with the other fan.
Viewers of “2Die4” have to sit through voiceovers of Nasr giving himself generic pep talks, such as: “Breathe. You got this. It’s any time now. Stay confident.” When Nasr manages to utter any sentence that is more than six words, it all sounds so fake and contrived. In one of these comments, he says: “In order to transform myself into the wild creative that I am in the car, I have to tame myself to the outside world.” It’s all utter tripe.
British driver Nick Tandy and French driver Mathieu Jaminet are the other Team Penske drivers in this race. “2Die4” has some footage showing interior car camera views while Tandy and Jaminet are driving during the race. The documentary never actually shows Tandy and Jaminet on camera. And therefore, don’t expect any insights from Tandy or Jaminet in this one-sided documentary, which makes the movie all about Nasr.
When Nasr is on a break from the race, all the scenes of him are mind-numbingly bland. There’s a scene where Nasr has lunch with his father. This scene just has more boring, shallow and forgettable talk. In another scene, Nasr meditates after taking an approximately hour-long nap. The only time he seems to show any honest emotion (and it’s not a good look) is a brief moment that cuts off quickly in the documentary, when he is heard smashing something in anger in his hotel room after experiencing a major setback.
In the documentary, Nasr repeats (to the point of being irritating) how much he wants to win the race. Well, guess what? So does everyone else in the race. How is this supposed to be insightful? It’s not. And neither is this flimsy excuse for non-fiction filmmaking.
Abramorama released “2Die4” in New York City on February 20, 2026, with an expanded release in other U.S. cities over subsequent weeks.
Culture Representation: The two-episode documentary series “Murder in Glitterball City” (based on the true crime book “A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City: Murder Secrets and Scandal in Old Louisville”) features a predominantly white group of people (with a few African Americans) who talk about the Kentucky city of Louisville and the case of gay lovers/Louisville residents Joseph “Joey” Banis and Jeffrey “Jase” Mundt, who separately went on trial for the 2009 murder of 37-year-old James “Jamie” Carroll, who was the couple’s drug dealer and sex partner in a three-way sexual relationship.
Culture Clash: Banis (a repeat convicted felon) and Mundt (a technology consultant who had no prior criminal convictions) blamed each other for the murder, which happened in the couple’s house, and they both admitted the murder happened when they were in the midst of a methamphetamine binge.
Culture Audience: “Murder in Glitterball City” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries that are about sex, drugs, murder and gay culture.
David Dominé in “Murder in Glitterball City” (Photo courtesy of World of Wonder Productions/HBO)
“Murder in Glitterball City” is a mixed-bag true crime documentary whose eagerness to have a variety of people interviewed results in some irrelevant interviews, for the sake of showing quirky personalities. The 2009 murder of Jamie Carroll almost gets overshadowed by Louisville lore. Despite the flaws in this two-part docuseries, “Murder in Glitterball City” tells a riveting story and a cautionary tale about a notorious murder case where many people believe justice was not fully served.
Directed by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, “Murder in Glitterball City” is based on David Dominé’s 2021 true crime book “A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City: Murder, Secrets, and Scandal in Old Louisville.” Dominé, who also works as a Louisville tour guide, is one of the people interviewed in the documentary. According to Dominé, Glitter Ball City is a little-known nickname for Louisville, which was known for being one of the top cities to make glitter balls.
It seems like Bailey and Barbato’s intent is for “Murder in Glitterball City” to be like a documentary version of Dominé’s book about this murder case. However, some elements that might work just fine in a book format don’t work as well in this documentary, such as dramatic descriptions of local members of the community who weren’t involved in the story’s central crime case, a history of the city’s real-estate developments, and tales of paranormal sightings by the local residents. It’s fine for a documentary to give some context and information about the city or community where a crime takes place, but “Murder in Glitterball City” goes overboard with this concept in several parts of the documentary.
“A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City: Murder, Secrets, and Scandal in Old Louisville” has been described as trying to imitate the style of John Berendt’s 1994 book “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” which mixes true crime and fictional embellishments about the case of Savannah, Georgia-based antiques dealer Jim Williams and his multiple trials for the murder of male prostitute Danny Hansford. “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” has so many fictional additions to the story, the book is often listed as a novel. One of the characteristics of both books is how the authors tried to make the cities in which the crimes took place to be almost like another story character, with each city filled with eccentric personalities.
“Murder in Glitterball City” is so intent on emulating the storytelling style of “A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City: Murder, Secrets, and Scandal in Old Louisville,” several of the documentary’s interviewees read aloud excerpts from the book, especially if they’re reading a passage from the book that describes themselves. In addition, “Murder in Glitterball City” has a narrator (actor Mick Wingert) reading excerpts in off-camera voiceover narration.
Barbato and Bailey are not new to documentary filmmaking. Among the numerous previous documentaries that they co-directed include 2000’s “The Eyes of Tammy Faye” (about Tammy Faye Bakker), 2016’s “Mapplethorpe: Look at the Pictures” (about artist/photographer Robert Mapplethorpe) and 2021’s “Catch and Kill: The Podcast Tapes” (about Ronan Farrow’s investigation of disgraced entertainment mogul Harvey Weinstein). However, Barbato and Baily (who are co-founders of the production company World of Wonder) are best known for their work in reality TV, with the Emmy-winning franchise of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” as their biggest success. At times, “Murder in Glitterball City” is filmed and edited like a reality show.
Part 1 of “Murder in Glitterball City” gives background information about the case against repeat convicted felon Joseph “Joey” Banis and technology consultant Jeffrey “Jase” Mundt, who separately went on trial for the December 2009 murder of 37-year-old James “Jamie” Carroll, who was stabbed and shot to death in the 8,000-square-foot Louisville house of gay couple Banis and Mundt. Banis and Mundt were 38 at the time of the murder. Part 2 of “Murder in Glitterball City” chronicles the high-profile 2013 trials of Banis and Mundt and each trial’s outcome. Part 2 also includes some previously unreleased recordings that Banis and Mundt did in the weeks before they were arrested.
Because this murder case received an enormous amount of media coverage, it’s already a well-known fact that Banis was found guilty of the murder of Carroll and was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole. Mundt was found not guilty of murder, but he was found guilty of evidence tampering and theft. Mundt received an eight-year prison sentence, he was released after serving four years of that sentence, and he has dropped off the public radar.
The documentary includes audio clips of phone interviews that Banis did from prison with the “Murder in Glitterball City” documentarians in 2022 and 2024. Banis still maintains that he was a bystander who watched Mundt murder Carroll. In the 2024 interview, Banis adds another detail that was not brought up in either trial. Banis now says he was tied up like a captive while Mundt murdered Carroll. Because Banis can’t prove it, it’s highly unlikely this statement will help Banis get a new trial. All of Banis’ appeals for a new trial have been denied so far.
The end of the documentary says that Mundt could not be reached for comment. Mundt’s current whereabouts have been publicly unknown for years, although Ted Shouse, one of his former attorneys who’s interviewed in the documentary, seems to know where Mundt is but won’t say what he knows about Mundt’s whereabouts. The documentary includes a short archival audio interview with Mundt, although the documentary does not mention the year that this interview took place.
No one from the families of Carroll, Mundt and Banis are interviewed in the documentary. However, some of the friends and former work associates of Carroll, Mundt and Banis are interviewed. In addition, the documentary has interviews with several people who were involved in the investigation and the trials, such as Louisville police officials, the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
“Murder in Glitterball City” lays out the basic facts of the case in a roundabout way. Viewers will have to wade through a lot of extraneous stories from Louisville locals who aren’t directly related to this murder case. After a while, these stories become a little irritating and distracting, but not so distracting for “Murder in Glitterball City” to go completely off the rails.
Mundt, a Louisville native, lived for a number of years in Chicago as an adult. In 2009, after a breakup with a boyfriend who is not named in this documentary, Mundt relocated from Chicago and moved back to Louisville. He worked as a technology consultant for the University of Louisville. Mundt bought a fixer-upper 8,000-square-foot Victorian house in Louisville’s historical St. James-Belgravia District (specifcally in the Belgravia Court area), with plans to turn the house into a bed-and-breakfast inn.
And so, the documentary has lengthy descriptions of the history of Belgravia Court and how it became an attractive residential location for gay men who renovated many of the old houses there. Interviewees giving this type of commentary include residential real estate agent Deborah Stewart, architectural historian Debra Richards Harlan, Louisville tour guide Angelique X Stacy, singer Maria Eckerle, preservation architect Kurtis Hord, and openly gay Louisville residents Bill Gilbert and Dale Strange.
Carroll was openly gay and had a drag queen alter ego named Ronica Reed. And so, there are long segments about the drag queen/gay nightclub scene in Louisville. Interviewees include drag queens Mykul Valentine and Hurricane Summers; Casey Leek, a former manager of gay nightclub Starbase Q; Banis’ ex-boyfriend Kevin Asher; and Banis’ friend Daniel Cissel, who says he had a fling with Mundt.
Cissel says he always felt uneasy about Mundt and decided to no longer be his sex partner. Cissel also mentions that before Cissell knew that Carroll had been murdered, Mundt tried to give some of Carroll’s clothes to Cissell, but Cissell declined the offer because the clothes were too big for Cissell. In the documentary, Cissell says it still upsets him to think about how cold-blooded Mundt must have been to want to give Cissell the clothes of a man whom Mundt knew was murdered and buried in the basement of Mundt’s house.
Cissel and other people in the documentary describe Banis (who often wore his hair styled in a Mohawk) as heavily addicted to meth and having a “bad boy” persona. Banis had mood swings where he would be quiet and introverted, but he would become an aggressive loudmouth when under the influence of meth. He also had a charismatic side that persuaded people to enable him.
Banis was a Starbase Q bartender sometime between 2004 to 2006. Leek describes Banis as having a dual personality and being a “compulsive cleaner,” which Leek says was probably due to Banis’ meth addiction. Leek says Banis was probably the thief who “cleaned out” the club, by stealing liquor, stereo speakers, cash from the club’s ATM, valuables from a safe and other items from Starbase Q around the same time that Banis quit the job. In the documentary, Summers confirms seeing Banis stealing liquor from the club, and Banis admitted to Summers that he was stealing the liquor to use it for another club.
After quitting Starbase Q, Banis had a short-lived gay/lesbian nightclub called Glow, which opened in December 2006. Leek comments that he saw Starbase Q’s stolen speakers at Glow. Leek says his Starbase Q boss reported the theft to police, who said that police were investigating but waiting to catch Banis on drug-related crimes and other thefts. Cissel says he worked for a time at Glow and remembers Banis as a “nice boss” who was very generous with sharing drugs but wasn’t great about paying employees on time.
In the documentary, Leek wonders how Banis was able to get a liquor license for Glow when convicted felons aren’t allowed liquor licenses in Kentucky. The documentary doesn’t answer that question. However, it’s mentioned in the documentary that Banis’ father is a prominent surgeon, and Banis grew up in a fairly affluent family in Louisville.
Banis’ ex-boyfriend Asher says that he and Banis dated each other for a number of years, beginning in their teens, when they both still lived with their respective parents. Asher and Banis eventually moved in together. Asher mentions that Banis told him about having a criminal record, but Asher was willing to look past it because he thought Banis was willing to stay out of trouble.
Asher said he broke up with Banis after a violent incident when they took LSD together. Banis got into an argument with Asher, slashed Asher’s arm with cut glass, and said, “See what you made me do.” Banis was arrested for this assault, but the documentary doesn’t mention what the legal outcome of the arrest was. Asher gets visibly upset and emotional when he makes this comment about Banis and the aftermath of the arrest: “I get him kicked out [of their shared home], and that fucker moved in next door. It was scary.”
In October 2009, Banis met Mundt on the gay dating website Adam4Adam and moved in with Mundt within a few weeks after they met. Banis says he was surprised that Mundt wanted to get involved with Banis, who was up front in telling Mundt about Banis being HIV+ and a convicted felon. By the time this toxic couple met, Banis had several felony convictions for drug possession, theft and other crimes. By contrast, Mundt did not have a criminal record and was known to have a “preppy” clean-cut image. Mundt says in the documentary’s archival interview that he was attracted to Banis because Banis was the opposite of him.
However, Mundt wasn’t as “clean-cut” as he appeared to be. Two of his former friends whom he knew in Chicago—Linda Krauth and Megan Albritton—talk about noticing him being erratic and often sniffling, which are two telltale signs that someone might have a drug problem. Krauth and Albritton say that Mundt cut off contact with them not long after he got out of prison, and they have no idea where he is.
Becky Shaw—who worked with Mundt when he was her supervisor as a Northwestern University project director—also saw a suspicious side to Mundt. Shaw says that Mundt spoke with a fake British accent because he told her that sounding British would get him more respect. Shaw describes him as very nitpicky and someone who always thought he was the smartest person in the room.
Shaw also remembers an incident when she accidentally locked her laptop in a desk, and Mundt told her he knew how to fix the problem. He took her to a store that sold bolt cutters and told her he had experience using bolt cutters because he used to steal bicycles when he was a student at Northwestern. Later, Mundt suggested but didn’t tell Shaw directly that she should get work reimbursement for the bolt cutters by pretending it was something else on her expense report.
Mundt’s habit of dishonesty also seemed to extend to what he told Banis, who says that Mundt repeatedly told stories about being formerly employed by the National Security Agency and still having connections to U.S. intelligence services. In one of Mundt’s meth-fueled ramblings that’s heard as an audio recording in the documentary, he mentions having an injury from his government security work in Bratislava, Slovakia. There has never been any proof that Mundt used to do this type of work.
Whatever Mundt’s drug habits were before he met Banis, there’s no doubt that they were both addicted to meth when they were a couple. They also obsessively documented their relationship through video and audio recordings. One of these videos became key evidence in the murder case. According to the documentary, there are hundreds of thousands of digital files of these recordings that were not processed by the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department because, at the time, the police department only had Windows PC computers, and the files were only compatible on Mac computers.
Carroll was also addicted to meth and had an addiction to crack cocaine, according to Carroll’s friends Erika Hart, Mick Bryant and Bryant’s mother Michelle Schiffer, who are all interviewed in the documentary and say that they were Carroll’s drug buddies. Bryant is the only one of these three who says in the documentary that he’s now clean and sober. They all describe Carroll as being very open and proud about being gay and a drag queen.
Hart says of Carroll: “Jamie did whatever the hell suited him. He would wear high heels to the grocery store in Pineville [a small city in Kentucky]. You just don’t do that. It’s country [rural and conservative]. Have you been? Don’t go when the banjos get louder.”
Carroll was also a drug dealer and sex partner for Mundt and Banis, who were heavily into BDSM, an acronym for bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism. The “d” in BDSM can also mean dominance, and the “s” can also mean submission. Carroll met Banis through an online website for gay male hookups and started a casual sex relationship with him. After Banis and Mundt became a couple, Carroll was invited to have three-way sex with Banis and Mundt.
The documentary includes details of Mundt placing BDSM ads for sex partners in threesomes or other group sex scenarios. In these ads, Mundt described himself as obsessed with rubber clothes and role-playing violent scenarios (including asphyxiation) as a dominant. By all accounts, the three-way sexual relationship between Banis, Mundt and Carroll was consensual.
Carroll also had a history of several arrests (mostly for drug-related crimes), but the documentary doesn’t discuss those crimes at length, perhaps because the documentarians did not want to make it look like they are shaming the victim. Instead, the documentary has a brief flash of Carroll’s arrest rap sheet. Carroll’s friends and acquaintances describe him as a bubbly and friendly person whose life went downhill when he became addicted to drugs.
Jodi Ritchie was Carroll’s childhood friend in their hometown of Martin, Kentucky, an economically depressed small town. She says she had an adolescent crush on Caroll, and she remembers that Carroll taught her how to French kiss, even though she found out later that he was openly gay. Ritchie says that for a while, teenage Carroll lived at their high school because he was kicked out of his home for being gay. She also describes hearing about teenage Carroll being in a hospital because Carroll’s father had almost beaten him to death.
Diana Owens Shaggs was Carroll’s instructor at the Carl Perkins Beauty School in Paintsville, Kentucky, in 1995. Owens Shaggs remembers Carroll as having a passion for hairstyling and being enthusiastic about opening his own beauty salon. Carroll fulfilled that ambition and owned a beauty salon called Illusions. But by the time Carroll got involved Mundt and Banis, Carroll had already lost his business and his home because of Carroll’s drug addiction.
The story of why Mundt and Banis got arrested for Carroll’s murder is bizarre and one of the reasons why this murder case got a lot of publicity. In the early-morning hours of June 17, 2010, Mundt frantically called 911 to report that Banis (whom he described as his “ex-boyfriend”) was breaking into the house and was intent on attacking Mundt. Police quickly arrived and arrested Banis.
Banis and Mundt were taken to the Louisville Metro Police Department for questioning. Banis denied the break-in and claimed he was being set up by Mundt because Mundt wanted Banis out of the house. By sheer coincidence, this interrogation was being filmed for the reality/documentary TV series “The First 48,” a true crime show that films police investigators at work. Mundt offered to take a polygraph test, while Banis refused.
Banis then dropped a bombshell when he made this confession during the police interrogation: According to Banis, Mundt murdered Carroll in December 2009, and Carroll’s body was buried in the basement of the house. Police obtained a search warrant to dig in the basement. Later that day, police found the body of Carroll in a plastic storage bin that was buried about five feet below the basement floor. Banis and Mundt were arrested and charged with first-degree murder, theft and tampering with evidence.
From the start, Banis and Mundt blamed each other for being the “real murderer,” but both admitted to participating in covering up the crime, under threat of being killed by the “real murderer.” Banis and Mundt accused each other of being the mastermind/controller in the relationship. Banis and Mundt both claimed in their statements to law enforcement that the murder of Carroll was not pre-meditated.
When they went on trial, Banis and Mundt testified against each other. Banis (whose trial took place before Mundt’s trial) did not testify in his own defense. The documentary includes courtroom footage from the trials and does a good job of showing through split screens how this former couple’s testimony against each other is eerily similar.
However, the documentary points out one big discrepancy in the courtroom testimony: Mundt said that Banis slashed Carroll’s throat, but the medical examiner’s report showed that Carroll was actually stabbed in the neck several times, which matches Banis’ description of Mundt murdering Carroll. Even if Banis is telling the truth about the fatal neck wounds on Carroll, it still doesn’t exclude Banis from being a participant in the stabbing and/or shooting of Carroll.
The most controversial evidence in the case is a “confession” video where Banis claimed to be suicidal, Banis said he “killed someone,” and he was holding Mundt hostage. Banis turned the camera to show a seemingly unconscious Mundt on a bed behind Banis. However, a few minutes before this “confession,” Mundt is shown writing the “confession” script on a laptop and coaching Banis on what to say.
To show further proof that Mundt was the mastermind/controlling person in the relationship, the prosecution submitted a BDSM sex video as evidence during Mundt’s trial. In the self-made video (which Mundt and Banis recorded after the murder), Mundt and Banis are having sex, with Mundt being the dominant partner giving the orders. The video was considered the tawdriest part of the trial.
Prosecutors say that Banis and Mundt both participated in Carroll’s murder, and the motive for the murder was Banis and Mundt wanted to get a thrill from killing a human being. However, the jury in Mundt’s trial disagreed and found him not guilty of murder. Several people in the documentary say they believe that Mundt got away with murder.
The editing for “Murder in Glitterball City” jumps around a lot in the story’s timeline. It isn’t until toward the end of the Part 2 episode, after the trial outcomes are discussed, that the documentary mentions that two months before Banis and Mundt were arrested for murder in Louisville, they had been arrested in Chicago for other crimes. Mundt had lost his job, and the couple had been counterfeiting money and were arrested for it. This information should’ve been mentioned earlier in the documentary.
This Chicago arrest occurred in April 2010, when Mundt and Banis were caught leaving a counterfeit $100 bill as a tip for a hotel employee. Chicago police soon found Mundt and Banis in possession of $50,000 in counterfeit American cash, as well as weapons and fake IDs. In a prison interview, Banis says that he and Mundt were desperate for money and had planned to use the counterfeit cash to “get real money.” They chose Chicago for this scam because of Mundt’s familiarity with the city.
In one of his interviews from prison, Banis says that he and Mundt decided that Banis would take the blame for all these arrest charges in Chicago, because Mundt would be the more likely person to get the $20,000 that was needed to bail Banis out of jail. The plan worked, because the charges were dropped against Mundt, who got the bail money for Banis. Banis was out on bail for these Chicago arrest charges when he and Mundt were arrested in Louisville for Carroll’s murder.
The most time-wasting parts of the documentary are when certain Louisville residents are shown doing shameless self-promotion that has nothing to do with this murder case. A flamboyant married couple named John Tan and Missy Tan, who own a Louisville jewelry store called Little John’s Derby Jewelry (or Little John’s for short), are featured for too much screen time in this documentary, as they talk about their jewelry business, show the guns they keep in the shop, and brag about how popular their TV ads are. The spouses are also shown filming one of these commercials, with Missy as the director. Even the security guard for Little John’s (an off-duty police officer named Greg Terry) is interviewed in the documentary.
Why are the Tans and their jewelry store business in so much of this documentary? Because “A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City” author Dominé says that he was watching a Little John’s ad on TV when he saw the breaking news about Banis and Mundt being arrested. Dominé also claims that he had a brief non-verbal encounter with Mundt about 18 months before the arrest, when Mundt abruptly brushed past him during a realtor tour of the house that Mundt ended up buying. Dominé says he remembers that Mundt didn’t say, “Excuse me,” after making this unwanted body contact. It’s certainly debatable if those stories are true.
“Murder in Glitterball City” also goes on a tacky tangent when the documentary shows people babbling on about what they believe are haunted houses in Louisville, including the house where Carroll was murdered. Louisville paranormal tour guide Stacy is shown doing one of her tours with customers. It leads to another segment showing Stacy, who lives across the street from this house, talking about being certain that she’s seen the ghost of Carroll walking in the house several times from her bathroom window. Another segment in “Murder in Glitterball City” shows Dominé participating in his annual Victorian Ghost Walk event in Louisville. “Murder in Glitterball City” viewers might be wondering at this point: “Is this a true crime documentary or a paranormal reality show?”
Fortunately, “Murder in Glitterball City” comes back to the facts of this case in the documentary’s interviews with the law enforcement officials who were involved in this case. These interviewees include Louisville Metro Police Department head of homicide Donny Burbrink, Louisville Metro Police Department detective Collin King and Jefferson County sheriff deputy Michael Brown. Louisville Metro Police Department detective Jon Lesher, who died in 2018, can be heard in an archival audio interview.
Also interviewed are prosecutors Ryane Conroy and Josh Schneider; Banis’ defense attorneys Justin Brown and Darren Wolff; and Mundt’s defense attorneys Steve Romines and Shouse. In the documentary, Wolff does a lot more talking than Brown, while Romines is more talkative than Shouse. Other people interviewed in the documentary are Staci Huber, who was a juror in Banis’ murder trial; WLKY-TV reporter Marissa Alter; Courier Journal reporter Jason Riley; writer Kim Crum; mitigation specialist LeTonia Jones, who testified for the defense in Mundt’s trial; and contractor Kenny Robertson.
Robertson says Banis that contacted him sometime before June 2010 to get an estimate on what it would cost to cover the house’s first floor with concrete. Robertson he got a weird feeling about this consultation because the basement smelled horrible, and Banis refused to go in the room. Ultimately, Robertson decided not to do the job. Banis and Mundt were arrested not long after this consultation.
“Murder in Glitterball City” has some unanswered questions about Mundt and why he was acquitted of murder. But without insights from any jurors from that trial, the documentary does not answer those questions. Banis’ murder trial juror Huber describes herself as a “true crime junkie” who followed this case closely, and she says she’s still shocked and outraged that Mundt was acquitted of murder. If another documentary is made about this case, maybe it will focus more on getting answers to unanswered questions about the case instead of cluttering up the documentary with off-topic commentary from people who weren’t involved in the case.
HBO premiered “Murder in Glitterball City” on February 19, 2026.
Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed city in China, the action film “Scare Out” features a predominantly Asian cast of characters (with some white people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.
Culture Clash: An elite national security team has its operations turned upside down when a traitor is suspected to be on the team, and in internal investigation tests the trust of the team members.
Culture Audience: “Scare Out” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and stylist spy thrillers that have twists and turns.
Song Jia in “Scare Out” (Photo courtesy of CMC Pictures)
“Scare Out” uses a lot of familiar plot developments in this thriller about government security agency experiencing an internal investigation to expose a traitor. The engaging acting performances outweigh the movie’s flaws. The first 20 minutes of “Scare Out” zip around at such a frenetic pace, it’s almost like getting cinematic whiplash. This movie gets better once it slows down a little and takes the time to delve into the story’s political intrigue and the personal dynamics of the main characters.
Directed by Zhang Yimou and written by Liang Chen, “Scare Out” takes place in an unnamed city in China. The movie was actually filmed in Shenzhen, China. There is some technology in the movie that could be considered science fiction, because the technology did not exist in 2026, when “Scare Out” was released. However, “Scare Out” is meant to depict a near-future world where this technology will probably exist sometime after 2026.
“Scare Out” begins with a suspenseful but somewhat jumbled chase scene, where the National Security team is tracking down a suspected spy who is doing an exchange of a valuable. The team has operatives doing a foot chase on the ground. Meanwhile, the chase is being monitored by other National Security team members in a control room with several video monitors.
National Security members dress all in black when they’re on the job. Their headquarters are located in a sleek, high-rise office building. “Scare Out” is a very stylish-looking, futuristic movie. Expect to see a lot of scenes with aqua blue lighting and shiny silver objects.
The suspect being chased is a middle-aged American named Nathan (played by Nathaniel Boyd), who has been seen getting a delivery on the street. Nathan has in his possession a small metal box that is believed to have classified information that could threaten the national security of China.
Several team members are on the ground in their efforts to apprehend Nathan. A senior-level member of the team is Huang Kai (played by Yilong Zhu), a married man in his late 30s. Kai works closely with Yan Di (played by Jackson Yee), a bachelor in his mid-20s. Kai and Di have a brotherly relationship and have a great deal of respect for each other. Another team member on the ground is a young man named Su Bin (played Du Yusen), whose personality is as generic as generic can be.
Inside the building is their colleague Chen Li (played by Lin Boyang), who is in charge of operating a drone that is tracking the suspect. The top supervisors in the building are Director Liu (played by Chen Minghao) and Deputy Director Wang (played by Zhang Yi), who know what’s going on with this manhunt. Video surveillance from cameras on the streets and the team’s body cams allow the personnel in the control room to see what’s going on.
A tragedy happens on the streets when a sniper named Pin Shan (played by Jiang Qilin), using a crossbow and arrows, hits a National Security team member named Little Li in the neck. Little Li dies. An arrow from the sniper also hits Kai in Kai’s back shoulder, as he jumped in front of Di to shield him from the arrow. Kai is wounded at treated at a local hospital and gets discharged within 24 hours. It’s not the first time that Kai has put himself in harm’s way for Di, who is grateful to have Kai looking out for Di.
After an intense chase, Nathan is apprehended. But an explosive attached his abdomen detonates right before he is arrested, leaving Nathan severely injured with mostly second-degree burns. In his hospital bed, Nathan is questioned by National Security. Nathan denies that he’s involved in espionage and insists he was just paid to pick up the box without knowing what was inside the box.
Meanwhile, back at National Security headquarters, Li is reprimanded because the drone she was operating chased the sniper Shan onto a tall building, where he fell to his death, taking his many secrets with him. The National Security team wanted to capture the sniper alive, so he could possibly tell information that the team needs. The National Security team bosses think that the sniper is part of a larger spy network that the team wants to take down.
Li was a close friend of deceased Little Li, so she is questioned about whether or not she deliberately used the drone to cause the sniper’s death. Li denies that she did anything wrong, but she comes under suspicion by her superiors as someone who could be undermining the team’s work. This suspicion becomes even more problematic when a new supervisor joins the team.
Soon after Kai gets out of the hospital and returns to work, Deputy Director Wang makes an announcement to the subordinate team members that they have a new supervisor. Her name is Zhao Hong (played by Song Jia), who is a no-nonsense task master. She expertise is in internal affairs investigations.
Shortly after joining the group, Hong has a private meeting with Kai and Di to let them know that there’s a mole traitor on the team. And because they Kai and Di have high level of security clearances, Kai and Di are on the suspect list. Kai and Di undergo interrogations by Hong and Director Liu, who ask them intrusive questions about their personal lives. Li also undergoes a similar interrogation, which leaves her in tears when she goes back to her desk.
Hong has given a name for this mission to find out and punish the mole: Operation Scare Out. The rest of the movie chronicles four days of this internal investigation that causes tensions on the team, which is still expected to continue the tasks assigned to them before the internal investigation began. Operation Scare Out begins to erode the trust that Kai and Di had in each other, as the investigation singles them out as the two most likely suspects.
Other characters who have crucial roles in this twist-filled story are Bai Fan (played by Yang Mi), Kai’s seductive mistress; Xiao Yu (played by Liu Shishi), Kai’s wife, whose pregnancy affects the way Kai thinks about his future; and a scientific researcher named Li Nan (played by Lei Jiayin), who is a witness to something that could get one of the traitor suspects fired. “Scare Out” has such a frenetic pace, some of the movie’s characters are rushed into the story with more information revealed about them later in the movie.
“Scare Out” doesn’t become overstuffed with supporting characters. What the story really comes down to is if Kai or Di is the traitor. And if so, how and why does that traitor get caught? Could there be more than one traitor? Could there be someone else who’s the traitor who isn’t Kai or Di? The movie answers all those questions. The action scenes are suspenseful, but some of the movie’s visual effects needed improvement.
“Scare Out” cannot be recommended to people who get easily confused by movies about espionage intrigue and the layers of identities that spies often have for themselves. Thanks to the dynamic performances of Yee as Di and Yilong as Kai, “Scare Out” is a riveting movie that is more than about finding a traitor spy. The friendship between Di and Kai is believable, which makes this investigation a very personal matter and the stakes higher. The end of “Scare Out” is an unsettling reminder that trusting someone is very tricky in espionage and can often be a fatal mistake.
CMC Pictures released “Scare Out” in select U.S. cinemas and in China on February 17, 2026.
Culture Representation: Taking place in Amsterdam and in Glasgow (with a brief flashback in Belfast, Northern Ireland), the dramatic film “Midwinter Break” (based on the novel of the same name) features an all-white cast of characters representing the working-class and middle-class.
Culture Clash: A husband and a wife, who live in Glasgow and are in their late 60s to early 70s, take a trip to Amsterdam, where they have conflicts over some long-ignored problems, and their marriage reaches a turning point.
Culture Audience: “Midwinter Break” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and dull movies about crumbling marriages.
Lesley Manville and Ciarán Hinds in “Midwinter Break” (Photo by Mark de Blok/Focus Features)
“Midwinter Break” should be titled “Midwinter Boredom.” The admirably talented Lesley Manville and Ciarán Hinds are stuck in this lethargic drama about a married U.K. couple confronting their relationship problems during a trip to Amsterdam. This 90-minute movie (which feels like longer than 90 minutes) has only about two or three scenes with some spark and insight into the main characters’ personalities. The rest of “Midwinter Break” is just a bland and tedious dud.
Directed by Polly Findlay, “Midwinter Break” was co-written by Bernard MacLaverty and Nick Payne. The movie is based on MacLaverty’s novel of the same name. Findlay has a theater background in directing live performances of stage shows. “Midwinter Break” is the first movie that she’s directed that is not a theater performance.
“Midwinter Break” takes place mainly in Amsterdam, but there are a few scenes that take place in Glasgow and in Belfast. The movie was filmed on location in the Netherlands and in Scotland. The gorgeous locations in the movie are among the few highlights of “Midwinter Break.”
“Midwinter Break” begins with the voice of Stella Gilbert (played by Manville) saying in narration: “We never speak about what happened in Belfast. Perhaps because beforehand, we were so full of hope. But a single day can change the course of any life.”
The movie then flashes to back sometime in the 1980s, in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It’s during the Troubles era (the late 1960s to 1998), when political turmoil and violence erupted over whether Northern Ireland should be part of Ireland or part of the United Kingdom. A married pregnant woman, who is later revealed to be Stella (played Julie Lamberton), is shot on the street, where she goes into emergency labor.
The movie eventually reveals that Stella gave birth that day to a son named Michael, who becomes the only child of Stella and her husband Gerry Gilbert (played by Ed Sayer), who works as an architect. Conversations in the movie reveal that a few years after Michael was born, Gerry and Stella left Belfast to escape from the Troubles violence and relocated to Glasgow, Scotland, where they have been living ever since.
In the present day, Gerry (played by Hinds) and Stella have been married about 40 years and are both retired from their jobs. Stella says in a voiceover that she feels like she’s been in exile from Belfast. “And now,” she says of her marriage, “we seem to have become exiled from each other.”
For the moment, Stella wants things to be as “normal” as possible. It’s the Christmas holiday season. Stella is brightening up their home with Christmas decorations. And for Christmas, she surprises Gerry with this gift: a trip for both of them to go to Amsterdam. Gerry is delighted. They go to Amsterdam sometime after the new year begins.
The rest of “Midwinter Break” is about this Amsterdam trip, which becomes a reckoning for Gerry and Stella to deal with a lot of the issues they’ve had for a long time in their marriage, but they have mostly avoided confronting those issues directly. Stella is feeling increasingly distant from Gerry because she wants to become more devout in her Christianity. Gerry isn’t very religious and is more interested in spending a lot of his time drinking alcohol. Stella thinks Gerry is being disrespectful to her needs and desires. Gerry thinks Stella is being neurotic and uptight.
Stella has become so determined to prove her religious re-awakening, she wants to seek out a women-only religious studies group that she heard about in Amsterdam. The group is called the Sisterhood, which has members of the group living in a commune type of home. The Sisterhood doesn’t just have Dutch members but also has members who are from other countries.
There’s a reason for Stella’s fixation on becoming a more devout Christian. Stella eventually discloses her reason when she meets the leader of the Sisterhood: a woman named Kathy (played by Niamh Cusack), who gives Stella an update on what the Sisterhood is currently all about and the purpose of the group. This meeting is a turning point in the story and for Stella.
However, this meeting doesn’t happen until the last third of the film. Most of “Midwinter Break” shows Gerry and Stella doing a lot of mundane tourist things in Amsterdam, such as visiting landmarks and museums, going to local pubs, or hanging out in their hotel room. When Gerry and Stella go to pubs, they tend to observe people and don’t really initiate conversations with other people in the pub, although Gerry is the more likely person in this monotonous couple to be friendly to strangers.
Gerry and Stella also have a lot of very boring conversations with each other. It’s no wonder this couple’s marriage is in trouble. Stella and Gerry are dreadfully dull for viewers who have to watch this plodding couple in a 90-minute movie that will test the patience of anyone. Imagine being trapped in this humdrum marriage for decades.
Gerry likes to get drunk and is talkative and friendly to the locals. During this Amsterdam trip, he seems to enjoy the company of strangers more than being with increasingly mopey Stella. When Gerry is drunk or tipsy, he’s jovial, but he tends to talk about himself a lot.
Stella is more reserved and seems to be constantly thinking of ways to tell Gerry what she eventually wants to say to him. She’s also a study in contradictions: At times, Stella seems very prim and almost prudish. And at other times, she complains that she’s not having enough fun on this trip.
The couple’s bickering starts over trivial things, and then it escalates into a big confrontation, where long-simmering resentments and insecurities come to the surface. Stella keeps dropping hints about what’s been bothering her for a very long time. Gerry is often oblivious to these hints. And if he sees these hints, Gerry is choosing to ignore them, because he’s got his own inner turmoil.
Gerry and Stella occasionally show affection to each other, but it’s enough to say that “Midwinter Break” is not the movie to see if you want a story about retired spouses who reignite their marital passion during a romantic trip to Amsterdam. There’s a scene where Stella and Gerry are at a pub, and she spontaneously kisses him. Based on Gerry’s surprised reaction, Stella rarely shows public displays of affection.
The movie repeats (to the point of being annoying about it) that Stella is very religious. She nags at Gerry because she thinks he’s not religious enough. That’s why it’s a bit surprising that when Stella suggests to Gerry that they go out and have some fun, it’s her idea for them to go to one of Amsterdam’s notorious Red Light Districts, which put on full display Netherland’s legal allowance of prostitution and sales of drugs that are illegal in most other countries.
However, Gerry and Stella’s stroll through an Amsterdam Red Light District is also very uninteresting because nothing happens except Gerry and Stella talking and walking down a street. Amsterdam’s Red Light Districts are known for sex workers advertising themselves by posing in windows that face the streets. Stella comments on these sex workers (who are not shown in the movie) as she and Gerry pass by.
“I feel so sorry for them,” Stella says to Gerry, before explaining why: “The lighting is horrible.” It’s probably the only line in the movie that could be considered funny, but it might be unintentionally funny. Gerry says the red lights remind him of the red lights that butchers use in slaughterhouse rooms. Thanks but no thanks for your “deep thoughts,” Gerry.
In another scene in the movie, Gerry and Stella are in a dark alley at night, when they randomly see two horses standing outside a building. Stella and Gerry go over to pet the horses. Yawn. It’s a sweet-natured scene, but even the horses look bored with Gerry and Stella.
“Midwinter Break” is ultimately filled with such time-wasting and lackluster fluff, it really would’ve been better as a short film. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the acting performances in the movie. However, the shallow screenplay and inert directing bring “Midwinter Break” down to drab levels from which this movie cannot recover.
Focus Features released “Midwinter Break” in U.S. cinemas on February 20, 2026.
Culture Representation: The music documentary film “Man on the Run” features singer/songwriter Paul McCartney and a predominantly white group of people (with one biracial person) discussing what happened in his life and career from 1970 to 1981.
Culture Clash: By his own admission, McCartney was depressed and had an identity crisis after the 1970 breakup of his former band The Beatles, but he was able to reclaim his place as an influential icon in music, by becoming a solo artist and a member of the band Wings, with a mixed bag of big hit singles, a few critically panned albums, successful tours and widely praised releases.
Culture Audience: “Man on the Run” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of McCartney and celebrity documentaries that explore but don’t delve too deeply into the down sides of fame.
A 1971 photo of the original Wings lineup in “Man on the Run.” Pictured from left to right: Denny Laine, Denny Seiwell, Linda McCartney and Paul McCartney. (Photo courtesy of Amazon Content Services)
“Man on the Run” is a comprehensive but not groundbreaking documentary about Paul McCartney’s life and career from 1970 to 1981. Knowledgeable fans of McCartney won’t learn anything new, but the movie is a crowd-pleasing delight. The people interviewed for the documentary (including McCartney) are not seen on camera for these interviews, which are heard only as audio voiceovers. Other than these interviews, the documentary’s new content includes some previously unreleased film/video footage of rehearsals and touring.
Directed by Morgan Neville, “Man on the Run” had its world premiere at the 2025 Telluride Film Festival. People who’ve seen other authorized McCartney documentaries (especially the 2001 documentary “Wingspan”) will see a lot of the same familiar footage in “Man on the Run.” People who’ve read most or all of the biographies (authorized or unauthorized) on McCartney will hear a lot of the same familiar stories. One of those biographies is McCartney’s 2025 memoir “Wings: The Story of a Band on the Run,” which can be considered a companion book to this “Man on the Run” documentary.
However, “Man on the Run” has its unique charms, including some whimsical animation to enhance the archival footage. The documentary’s sound editing and film editing are also excellent. The movie makes a good (but not great) effort to not be a completely white-washed biography, by giving a fair and balanced perspective of the criticism that McCartney received during this period of time in his life.
But make no mistake: Neville’s direction has the tone of being a fan first, which means “Man on the Run” doesn’t really pry too close to topics that could possibly alienate McCartney because of how unflattering the information would be. It’s a characteristic of almost all authorized documentaries or biographies of celebrities: Access to the celebrity and rare archival material comes with a literal or figurative agreement to not do an exposé of the celebrity’s deepest, darkest secrets.
McCartney was born on June 18, 1942, in Liverpool, England. “Man on the Run” is told in chronological order, beginning with the well-known tale of how, in early 1970, McCartney was at a crossroads in his life after the breakup of the Beatles, the band that he co-founded in 1960, with singer/rhythm guitarist John Lennon and singer/lead guitarist George Harrison in their hometown of Liverpool. The last member to join the Beatles was drummer Ringo Starr. McCartney sang and played bass guitar (and occasionally played piano/keyboards) in the band.
The Beatles began as a nightclub band and steadily built a fan base through live performances, including a stint in Hamburg, Germany. The Beatles were famously rejected by every major record company, until EMI Records reversed an initial rejection and signed the Beatles. (In the United States, the Beatles were signed to EMI-owned Capitol Records.) The Beatles’ first single (“Love Me Do”) was released in 1962, and it was the first of numerous hit singles for the band. The Beatles had unprecedented success and are still considered by many to be the greatest and most influential rock band of all time, with the songwriting partnership of Lennon and McCartney as the driving force of this influence.
By the beginning of 1970, the Beatles had disbanded, but the breakup wouldn’t be officially announced until months later. McCartney had become a recluse at a remote farm in Scotland with his wife Linda McCartney, whom he married in 1969; her daughter Heather from Linda’s previous marriage; and Paul and Linda’s biological daughter Mary, who was born in 1969. Heather, who was born in 1962, would eventually be adopted by Paul. Mary was named after Paul’s mother Mary, who died of cancer when he was 14.
For business and publicity reasons, Paul says in the documentary (as he already said in other interviews), the Beatles were told to publicly deny the Beatles’ breakup for several months until they could no longer deny it. Paul officially announced the breakup when he released a written self-interview in April 1970. The world didn’t know it at the time, but it was revealed many years later that the reason why the Beatles had broken up was because (according to Paul), Lennon had quit the group. A great deal of “Man on the Run” discusses the rivalry and on-again/off-again brotherly friendship that Paul had with Lennon, who had known each other since they were teenagers.
Because Paul was the first in the band to announce the Beatles’ breakup, he was perceived as the Beatles member who most wanted the band to break up. Paul says the reality was the opposite: Paul says he wanted to keep the Beatles going for as long as possible. He knew the band had problems, but he says in this documentary and in other interviews that his preference was to have the Beatles take a hiatus instead of completely breaking up.
“Man on the Run” completely ignores the fact that Lennon’s second wife Yoko Ono got much harsher blame and worse criticism than Paul for being the main person who supposedly broke up the Beatles. It’s an example of how “Man on the Run” tends to go with what Paul says without taking into complete account the entire well-documented history of the Beatles’ breakup and its aftermath. By most reliable accounts, Ono was unfairly blamed for breaking up the Beatles.
In the documentary, Paul discusses the widely known fact that was also kept from the public at the time of the breakup: Paul disagreed with the other members of the band on who would manage the Beatles. After the 1967 drug-overdose death of the Beatles’ original manager Brian Epstein (at age 32), the Beatles managed themselves. Paul had always been the most business-minded member of the Beatles, so he became the de facto business leader of the group.
By 1969, while the Beatles were recording their last studio albums “Let It Be” and “Abbey Road,” Lennon was pushing to have Allen Klein become the Beatles’ manager because Klein (who also managed the Rolling Stones at the time) had promised to get better music royalty deals for the Beatles, just like Klein did with the Rolling Stones. Harrison and Starr agreed with Lennon. Paul wanted his father-in-law Lee Eastman (who was also Paul’s attorney) to become the Beatles’ next manager. The other Beatles members disagreed because they believed Paul would have an unfair advantage if the Beatles’ manager was also Paul’s father-in-law/attorney.
Klein briefly managed the Beatles and the Beatles company Apple Corps before the band broke up. “Man on the Run” presents this business dispute as Paul being correct all along about Klein being an untrustworthy snake. While it’s true that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones regretted doing business with Klein (who awarded himself the copyrights to many of these bands’ songs), we’ll never know how things would’ve gone for the Beatles if Eastman had become the Beatles’ manager.
Based on how McCartney and others have described the Beatles in 1969, the band breakup was inevitable because Lennon and Harrison wanted to leave the band for solo careers. The personal turmoil and legal conflicts over the Beatles’ business partnership continued until the Beatles’ business partnership was officially dissolved in 1974. Paul sued to dissolve the partnership. He says in the documentary he was unfairly depicted as the villain, especially for people who held out hope that he, Lennon, Harrison and Starr would reunite to make music or perform as the Beatles. That hoped-for Beatles reunion never happened.
During the reclusive period of time in McCartney’s life in 1970, he was drinking a lot of alcohol, by his own admission (this story about his alcohol abuse has been known for decades), but he also embraced family life and reconnected with what it meant to be a person without the usual celebrity comforts. During this time on the farm, the McCartney family did not have cooks, nannies or housemaids. They lived on a self-sufficient farm.
McCartney never stopped making music, but the music he made from 1970 to 1972 got mixed reactions from fans and critics. The albums weren’t sales flops, but they were far from the blockbuster hitmaking that he had with the Beatles. His first solo album, 1970’s “McCartney,” was mostly critically panned. So was his 1971 album “Ram,” which had Linda McCartney sharing credit as the album’s artist.
Linda was known as a photographer, but she was also an animal rights activist who was one of the people who convinced Paul to become a vegetarian. Paul says it was his idea for Linda to make music with him. He describes her initially questioning the idea but saying yes in a casual and accepting way. She became a keyboardist and a backup vocalist for Paul during the 1970s and the early 1980s. Their band Wings existed from 1971 to 1981.
Linda also received co-songwriting credit on Wings songs, although it’s widely known that Paul was always the band’s chief songwriter. Did she contribute to some of the lyrics and melodies of Wings songs? Probably. However, Paul has always been the mastermind of all his albums that have been released since the Beatles broke up. Several biographies of Paul have noted that Linda getting Wings co-songwriting credit was probably for tax reasons, but that type of information wouldn’t be in this documentary, which doesn’t mention any songwriting that Linda might have done.
Paul has discussed in many interviews, including in “Man on the Run,” how Linda was the main person who helped him out of his depression after the Beatles broke up. Paul’s song “Maybe I’m Amazed” (from his 1970 “McCartney” album) was a love song for Linda and is widely considered to be his first great single released after the Beatles disbanded. Years later in their marriage, Linda (who is described as introverted and less comfortable with fame, compared to extroverted Paul) didn’t really want to tour anymore because she wanted to focus on raising their children.
Paul and Linda would have two other children together: Stella (born in 1971) and James (born in 1977). Mary and Stella are the only children of Paul who are interviewed in the documentary. Stella (who would go on to become a famous fashion designer as an adult) is fiercely defensive of Linda, who got a lot of criticism for her singing and fashion style, which can generously be called quirky and offbeat. Mary shares memories that describe how her childhood had of the contrasts of living a “normal” life on the family’s remote farm and experiencing the celebrity life with her parents on tour.
Linda died of breast cancer in 1998, but her death is not mentioned in the documentary. The documentary includes voiceovers of separate archival interviews of Linda; Wings co-founder/guitarist Denny Laine, who died from complications of interstitial lung disease in 2023; and guitarist Henry McCullough, who was in Wings from 1972 to 1973, and who died after a long illness in 2016. The deaths of Laine and McCullough are also not mentioned in the documentary.
By 1971, Paul was ready to be part of a new band. That band was Wings (often billed as Paul McCartney and Wings), a Grammy-winning group that released seven studio albums and had a string of hit songs until the band’s breakup in 1981. Hit songs from Wings included “My Love,” “Live and Let Die,” “Jet,” “Band on the Run,” “Let Me Roll It,” “Listen to What the Man Said,” “Silly Love Songs,” “Let ‘Em In,” “Mull of Kintyre,” “With a Little Luck” and “Goodnight Tonight.” All these Wings songs (as well as some solo Paul McCartney songs) are in the documentary, either in their recorded versions and/or as live performances. Wings’ 1979 album “Back to the Egg” (the band’s last studio album) is briefly mentioned in the documentary as the band’s only major flop.
Paul, Linda and Laine remained the core members of Wings, as the lineup changed through the years. “Man on the Run” has interviews with these former Wings members: drummer Denny Seiwell, who was in Wings from 1971 to 1973; drummer Joe English, who was in Wings from 1975 to 1978; and guitarist Laurence Juber and drummer Steve Holley, who were in Wings from 1978 to 1981.
Seiwell is candid about why he and McCollough quit Wings: They were getting paid a “meager” salary that was far below what backup musicians for a superstar like Paul McCartney should be making. McCullough and Seiwell abruptly leaving the band caused Paul, Linda and Laine to temporarily carry on with Wings as a trio.
The result was Wings’ most commercially successful and most critically acclaimed album: 1973’s “Band on the Run,” which was recorded under difficult circumstances in Lagos, Nigeria. The most harrowing incident was when Paul and other people in his entourage were robbed by street thieves, who stole demo recordings of the album. Paul says the way he deals with setbacks and disappointment is to get angry, and then get over it and do the best under the circumstances. In the documentary, Paul also mentions multiple times that when people doubt him, it often motivates him to prove his doubters wrong.
Although Seiwell and McCollough describe being grateful for the opportunity to work with Paul, Seiwell’s description of his Wings salary as “meager” and barely a living wage sounds like employee exploitation. Paul’s response in the documentary is flippant and doesn’t sound entirely honest. Paul says that he wasn’t aware of the band’s financial accounting at the time. That comment is hard to believe, considering Paul’s reputation for being very business-minded, and considering he was the one who signed off on how much money his band members were getting paid.
Paul also says that if any of his band members were dissatisfied with their salaries, they had the option to leave and write their own songs. This remark doesn’t take into account that (1) not every musician wants to be a songwriter and (2) not every songwriter has the extraordinary talent and fame that Paul McCartney has. Seiwell doesn’t sound bitter about his split from Wings, but he’s one of the few people interviewed in the documentary who has a criticism about his work experience with Paul.
The documentary also includes the expected high points of Wings’ successful tours. Paul went from refusing to performing any Beatles songs during the early years of Wings concerts to including Beatles songs in Wings’ later live performances. The documentary includes Paul performing the Beatles’ “Yesterday” during a concert from the Wings Over the World tour, which took place from 1975 to 1976. Paul says a concert low point for Wings was the band’s performance at the Hammersmith Odeon in London, on December 29, 1979, for the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea. Paul says in the documentary it was the worst live performance he ever did because he sang off-key and the sound engineering was subpar.
Paul also says in the documentary that the best Wings lineup was the Wings lineup from 1975 to 1977. American drummer English and Scottish guitarist James “Jimmy” McCulloch were in Wings during those years. At age 26, McCulloch died of a morphine overdose in 1979, two years after he quit Wings. Paul gives a brief comment on McCulloch in the documentary, by saying that McCulloch was very talented but lived dangerously.
“Man on the Run” gives some screen time to discuss the two drug busts for marijuana that Paul experienced during the time period covered in the movie. The first drug bust was in 1972, when Paul, Linda and drummer Seiwell were arrested for possession of marijuana plants, which they claimed were grown from seeds they received from a fan in the mail. They received a relatively small fine as a penalty.
Paul’s more serious drug bust was in 1980, when customs officials at Narita International Airport in Tokyo found 219 grams (7.7 ounces) of marijuana in a plastic bag inside Paul’s suitcase. Paul spent nine days in a Tokyo jail before being deported from Japan, which was a much lighter punishment than what a non-famous person would have received. Wings’ 1980 tour of Japan was canceled because of this arrest. Paul takes full responsibility for this drug bust and says that he didn’t heed warnings not to bring marijuana to Japan. “I was an idiot,” Paul says of getting caught with marijuana in Japan.
The year 1980 also marked the release of Paul’s solo album “McCartney II.” Just like on 1970’s “McCartney,” Paul wrote all the songs himself and played all the instruments on the album. “Coming Up” was the big hit single from “McCartney II.” Because Paul’s recording career as a solo artist had reignited, and because Linda had lost interest in touring, Wings officially disbanded. McCartney comments in the documentary about the decision to end Wings: “The enthusiasm had peaked.” Paul did not tour again until 1989.
John Lennon’s son Sean Ono Lennon (who was born in 1975) says of the feuding that his father and Paul had for most of the 1970s: “My father was tough, but so was Paul.” And even though John Lennon publicly insulted some of the music that Paul made after the Beatles’ breakup, Sean says that John often listened to Paul’s music in private. Sean describes the “Ram” album as a “masterpiece,” and says the John Lennon household had a “well-worn” vinyl copy of the album.
Paul says in the documentary that he believes Klein (who managed John Lennon’s early solo career) was an instigator of much of the feuding because Paul believes Klein planted divisive and negative ideas in John Lennon’s head. Paul gets emotional and a bit choked up when he says that one of the greatest blessings in his life is knowing that he and John had started to become friends again in the few years before John died. As most people already know, John was tragically murdered by a lone shooter in front of John’s New York City home on December 8, 1980. (John’s murderer was sentenced to life in prison.)
Paul’s reaction to John’s murder is also discussed in the documentary. Stella remembers the day that Paul heard the news and seeing his reaction. He was at home in London when he got the phone call. She doesn’t go into details, out of respect for her father, but the tone in her voice leaves no doubt it was a traumatic experience. The documentary includes the archival footage of Paul being interviewed by a British TV reporter on a street, not long after Paul heard the news that John had been murdered. Stella says that Paul got a lot of criticism for not being emotional enough in the interview, but she says Paul was still in shock.
Other people interviewed in the documentary are Rolling Stones lead singer Mick Jagger, Paul’s brother Michael “Mike” McCartney, The Pretenders lead singer Chrissie Hynde, author Peter Doggett, music producer Chris Thomas, journalist Chris Welch, singer Nick Lowe (who was an opening act for Wings), sound engineer Geoff Emerick, Paul’s longtime creative director Aubrey Powell, Paul’s touring/instrument manager John Hammel, and musician Jimmy McGeachy, who was only 15 when he played drums (as part of a Scottish pipe band) on the 1978 hit “Mull of Kintyre.”
A story mentioned in the beginning of the documentary is how McGeachy also took a photo of Paul angrily throwing a book at him because McGeachy invaded his privacy while Paul was being a recluse in Scotland in 1970. Paul then made a deal with McGeachy: In exchange for McGeachy giving the negative of the unflattering photo for Paul to keep, Paul agreed to pose for a few photos for McGeachy. Those photos ended up being sold and published as proof that Paul was still alive and well, during a time when Paul continued to be dogged by false stories that he secretly died.
“Man on the Run” also has an almost-comical montage of the frequent questions that Paul got during the 1970s about whether or not the Beatles would reunite. The former members of the Beatles received offers worth millions to reunite as the Beatles, but the former Beatles members had all clearly moved on to other interests. In the documentary, Paul repeats the famous story about how he was visiting John in New York City in 1976, when they briefly toyed with the idea of doing an impromptu reunion on “Saturday Night Live,” after “Saturday Night Live” creator Lorne Michaels went on the show that year for a comedy sketch to plead for a Beatles reunion. Paul and John ultimately decided that this semi-Beatles reunion would not be a benefit to themselves, so they chose not to do it.
The theatrical release of “Man on the Run” includes an approximately 10-minute featurette (shown after the movie) of director Neville talking with Paul in a room with some Wings-era memorabilia. Neville shows these items to Paul to get his reactions. These items include Robo the Robot, a small robot that Wings had on stage during a 1979 concert; some of Paul’s tour jackets, one of which Paul tries on at Neville’s suggestion, and it fits snugly on Paul; and the passport that Paul had during his 1980 marijuana bust in Japan.
Neville points out to Paul that the passport doesn’t have a Japanese customs stamp on it because Paul was arrested and jailed before he could pass through customs. Neville also comments that because Paul did not pass through customs on that trip to Japan, the Japanese government technically didn’t consider Paul’s trip as officially entering Japan. It was a loophole that allowed Paul to get a much lighter punishment for the marijuana bust than if government records had shown he had passed through Japan’s borders before the marijuana had been found. Paul chuckles and says it was a smart decision for the Japanese government to use this loophole.
Paul also plays a snippet of “All of You” on a piano in the room, at Neville’s request. It’s a nod to the documentary featuring rare early 1970s archival footage of Paul also playing “All of You” at home on his piano before he’s interrupted by a phone call. Neville seems a little star-struck by Paul during this “behind the scenes” conversation, which doesn’t have any meaningful discussion about the making of this documentary. This “bonus content” featurette is cute, but it’s not particularly enlightening.
Because so much has already been reported, examined, and dissected about the Beatles and former members of the Beatles, “Man on the Run” stands as an above-average but not outstanding documentary. The existence of the 2001 “Wingspan” documentary makes “Man on the Run” a bit redundant. “Man on the Run” is still a worthy time capsule of Paul in the 1970s. It will be very informative for those who are unfamiliar with this period of Paul’s life. For people who already know all the major details in the documentary, “Man on the Run” is an entertaining reminder in a well-edited package.
Amazon Studios and Trafalgar Releasing released “Man on the Run” in U.S. cinemas for a limited engagement on February 19 and February 22, 2026. Prime Video will premiere “Man on the Run” on February 27, 2026.
Culture Representation: Taking place in New York state and in New Jersey, the comedy/drama film “How to Make a Killing” (loosely based on the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets” and the novel “Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal”) features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few African Americans people and Asians) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.
Culture Clash: A death-row inmate, whose execution is scheduled within the next 24 hours, tells a priest the story of how he ended up becoming a murderer who wanted to kill off all of his direct family members, in order to inherit a $28 billion fortune.
Culture Audience: “How to Make a Killing” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and preposterous stories about pre-meditated murder.
Margaret Qualley in “How to Make a Killing” (Photo by Ilze Kitshoff/A24)
“How to Make a Killing” starts with a shaky concept and then crumbles under the weight of its own foolishness. This unimpressive comedy/drama (about a disowned man who murders his relatives for a $28 billion inheritance) never looks believable. The last 20 minutes of the movie are especially egregious in how it throws in plot twists that make the movie a lot worse than it could’ve been.
Written and directed John Patton Ford, “How to Make a Killing” is loosely based on the 1949 film “Kind Hearts and Coronets,” which was loosely inspired by Roy Horniman’s 1907 novel “Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal.” That’s probably why many of the scenarios presented in “How to Make a Killing” (which takes place in the mid-2020s) don’t ring true in this day age of the police investigations and media coverage being directly impacted by the Internet and modern technology. “How to Make a Killing” takes place in New York state and in New Jersey, but the movie was actually filmed in South Africa.
“How to Make a Killing” begins by showing a death-row inmate named Becket Redfellow (played by Glen Powell) having one of his last meals before his scheduled execution, which is supposed to take place within the next 24 hours. Becket, who is in his cell, is being visited by a priest named Father Morris (played by Adrian Lukis), who is there to counsel Becket and hear any last confessions.
“The real story of why I’m here is not true,” Becket tells the priest. “The real story is impressive.” Becket (who was born in 1993) has a very long confession, which takes up about 85% of the movie’s screen time. This confession is told in flashback scenes. Becket tells his life story in these scenes, which detail how he became a serial killer. The movie also shows whether or not Becket gets executed.
As these scenes play out, it becomes obvious the movie expects viewers to believe that Becket is either the luckiest serial killer to avoid arrest when he’s the prime suspect in these murders, and/or the law enforcement officials investigating him are the most incompetent law enforcement officials who could possibly investigate. Becket obviously gets arrested at some point, but it takes an awfully long time for it to happen when he’s on law enforcement’s radar for being a suspected serial killer of his relatives.
Becket explains to Father Morris that his motive to get all of his family’s $28 billion wealth is revenge for his mother being disowned from the family for being an unwed teenager when she got pregnant and gave birth to Becket. Becket’s mother Mary Estella Redfellow (played by Nell Williams) was 18 and living a privileged billionaire heiress life in Huntington, New York, when she got pregnant. At the time, the Redfellow family had a fortune worth $18 billion to $19 billion. By the end of the movie, the fortune is worth about $28 billion.
Becket’s father Gary (played by Damien Wantenaar) was about the same age as Mary. Gary was a cellist in a classical music group hired to perform at a Redfellow family party. Mary and Gary had a short-term fling, which resulted in her unplanned pregnancy. Gary died in a car crash shortly after Mary told her domineering father Whitelaw Redfellow (played by Ed Harris) about being pregnant with Gary’s child. It’s implied that Gary’s car crash was no accident.
Mary refused to have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption, so she was disowned from the family. However, all of the Redfellow family inheritance wills are required to have a clause mandating that the fortune of a deceased family member must be passed down to the closest living family members, regardless if the family members are estranged or not. It has to do with keeping the Redfellow family business (a financial services conglomerate) controlled by family members.
Mary raised boyhood Becket (played by Grady Wilson) in working-class Belleville, New Jersey. Mary has been open in telling Becket about her biological family and why she was disowned. Despite being cut off from her family’s fortune, Mary was determined to give Becket the type of education that he would’ve had if they were wealthy.
At 8 or 9 years old, Becket is seen attending an elite private school, where he meets Julia Steinway (played by Maggie Toomey), who will go on to become an influential person in Becket’s life. In childhood, Becket and Julia like each other from the start. However, Julia knows that Becket’s single mother is not wealthy, so this social-class difference causes a divide between Julia and Becket. Becket’s embarrassment about not being rich enough to impress Julia is a recurring theme whenever he interacts with Julia, even in adulthood.
Shortly after Becket and Julia meet as childhood students, Becket’s mother dies of an unnamed terminal illness. On her deathbed, Mary tells Becket: “Promise you won’t quit until you have the right kind of life, the life you deserve.” Becket was put into the foster care system until he was 18 years old. The movie doesn’t show him as a foster child or when he was in his teens and 20s.
The movie’s flashbacks fast-forward to Becket in his mid-30s. He’s working as a clerk in an upscale New York City tailor shop called David Sinclair when Julia (played by Margaret Qualley) walks into the shop. Becket and Julia haven’t seen each other since they were children, but Julia immediately remembers Becket, who still feels some embarrassment about not being rich enough to impress Julia.
However, there’s an attraction between them, so Becket asks Julia out for a drink. Julia politely declines because she says she’s engaged to be married. Becket feels even more embarrassed because he didn’t notice Julia’s engagement ring until she showed him.
Based on the type of diamond ring it is, it looks like Julia’s soon-to-be husband can afford to give Julia the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed. Julia is engaged to a businessman named Lyle Archdale (played by James Frecheville), who was a classmate student at the same school that Becket and Julia attended when Becket and Julia met. Julia tells Becket that after spending some time living overseas, she’s now settled down in Montclair, New Jersey.
After being rejected by Julia, Becket decides he’s going to fulfill his mother’s dying wish. However, his mother Mary never told Becket to kill off his remaining family members to inherit the family fortune. That was Becket’s own warped decision and his twisted way of getting “the right kind of life.”
The majority of “How to Make a Killing” shows how Becket plotted and schemed to murder his remaining direct family members. These are the relatives who are on Becket’s hit list:
Ted Redfellow (played by Raff Law), Becket’s youngest cousin, is a spoiled and hard-partying financial broker who works for the family’s company.
Warren Redfellow (played by Bill Camp), Becket’s second-oldest uncle/Ted’s father, seems to be the only ethical and kind person in the family.
Noah Redfellow (played by Zach Woods), Becket’s middle-oldest cousin, is a fame-hungry painter artist who markets himself on social media.
Steven Redfellow (played by Topher Grace), Becket’s oldest cousin, is an unscrupulous pastor leader of a megachurch.
Cassandra Redfellow (played by Bianca Amato), Becket’s aunt, is not in the movie long enough to show her personality, but she gives the impression of being shallow and vain.
McArthur Redfellow (played by Alexander Hanson), Becket’s oldest uncle, is also briefly seen in the movie as he shows off while flying his own small private plane.
Whitelaw Redfellow, Becket’s maternal grandfather, is the cruel patriarch responsible for exiling Mary from the family.
It’s not spoiler information to say that Becket commits murder because it’s established from the beginning of the film that Becket is on death row for being a murderer. However, this review won’t reveal how any of the Redfellow family members die and in which order. It’s enough to say that not all of the family members die by murder.
After his cousin Ted’s death, Becket introduces himself to Ted’s father Warren and reveals himself to be Mary’s child. Warren and Mary were siblings who used to be very close until she was exiled from the family. A grieving Warren is immediately accepting of Becket. Warren always hated the decision to disown Mary, so he gives Becket a job at the family’s company. Warren begins to treat Becket like a surrogate son.
Becket rises through the ranks at the company and becomes emotionally attached to Warren, the person in the family whom Becket is the most reluctant to kill. Becket eventually makes enough money at the company to become comfortably affluent, but that’s not enough for him. Becket still wants the entire family fortune for himself.
Becket also gets himself into an emotionally tricky situation when Noah’s girlfriend Ruth (played by Jessica Henwick) becomes romantically involved with Becket after Noah’s death. Becket is the one who pursued her after Noah died. Becket and Ruth had an instant attraction to each other when they met while Noah was still alive. Becket and Ruth bonded with each over their nerdy passion for literature. Dimwitted and superficial Noah scoffed at Ruth and Becket for being pretentious intellectuals.
At the time that Ruth and Becket met, Ruth was working for a denim company and going to school to become a literature teacher for high school students. The trailer for “How to Make a Killing” already reveals that Becket and Ruth become a couple. The movie shows what happens to their relationship and how Ruth handled Becket being convicted of murder and given a death sentence.
Meanwhile, married Julia pops in and out of Becket’s life and continues to flirt with him. She eventually reveals to Becket that her husband Lyle was dishonest with her about how much money he has. Lyle is actually finanically broke, but Julia (a socialite who doesn’t work) doesn’t want to divorce Lyle because she’s too proud to publicly admit she was conned and is in a dire financial situation. Julia’s greed and obsession with being wealthy are motives for what she does in the story.
With so many Redfellow family members dying in a relatively short period of time, it doesn’t take a genius to see who would benefit from inheriting the Redfellow family fortune. Becket also has the means and the opportunity (no alibi) for these murders, since he was in close proximity during all of the family member deaths that happened in the story. And yet, “How to Make a Killing” is quite pathetic in showing how Becket doesn’t get nearly the amount of scrutiny that he would in real life.
Only two FBI agents—Megan Pinfield (played by Phumi Tau) and Brad Matthews (played by Stevel Marc)—contact Becket to interview him and to let him know that he’s under investigation for these deaths in the Redfellow family. These two FBI agents are not seen again for long stretches of the movie before they show up again. There are no indications that Becket is under any type of surveillance. This lack of scrutiny emboldens Becket to plot more murders. Julia gets suspicious of Becket and has better investigative skills than the law enforcement in this movie.
“How to Make a Killing” also completely ignores the reality that all these deaths in an extremely wealthy family would get a lot of media attention. In this situation, Becket would definitely be the focus of that media attention, as the body count increases, but that type of media probe never happens in this brain-dead movie. A few of the deaths are made to look like accidents, but at least one death cannot be ruled as an accident and is definitely murder.
Even so, all these deaths in one very wealthy family would be enough for a large-scale investigation and intense media exposure. Becket shows no signs of physical aging in the parts of the story where he’s an adult, which is how you know that the murders happen within a relatively short period of time—four years or less. Two of the deaths happen so quickly, they’re shown in less than two minutes each in the movie.
Becket’s death-row execution timeline is also handled unrealistically. Even the most notorious serial killers on death row don’t get executed within a year or two after their prison sentencing, because most of these death-row prisoners use the appeals process to delay their executions. But there Becket is on death row, looking the same way that he did when he started becoming a serial killer.
In other words, “How to Make a Killing” is not only lazy and idiotic in crafting a story but also in the movie’s technical aspects. It wouldn’t have been difficult for the movie’s makeup and hairstyling departments to make Becket look older when he was on death row. The timeline for this story is so truncated, the plot twists that come in fast and loose toward the end of the movie look like something a child would fabricate when a child doesn’t know how to finish a story.
Powell has seemed to make a career out of playing smirking rebels and bad boys. “How to Make a Killing” is just more of the same typecasting for him. In the role of Julia, Qualley is portraying yet another seductress with her own agenda. There are fleeting moments that are genuinely funny, mostly in scenes with Woods as insecure attention-seeker Noah, and Grace as entitled jerk/con artist Steven. However, the rest of the movie’s supporting cast members play it straight with the very stereotyped characters that they’ve been given in this disappointing movie.
“How to Make a Killing” also has a condescending and off-putting message at the end, where Becket (in a voiceover) makes a preachy comment that viewers will probably be upset because the movie’s ending is not what most viewers are expecting because people have been programmed to think a certain way about crime, punishment and morality. It’s a comment made with a smug filmmaker tone that seems to be saying, “We’re smarter than the average viewer.” Actually, viewers usually don’t get upset by unconventional endings. Viewers get upset when they’ve wasted their time watching a cynical, dull and creatively barren movie like “How to Make a Killing.”
A24 released “How to Make a Killing” in U.S. cinemas on February 20, 2026. A sneak preview of the movie was shown in U.S. cinemas on February 17, 2026.
