Disney's live-action remake machine sails into its most personal test yet: a shot-for-shot retelling of a film most audiences saw for the first time only ten years ago, and again, animated, less than two years ago in Moana 2. Dwayne Johnson returns as Maui, newcomer Catherine Laga'aia takes over the title role from Auli'i Cravalho, and the reviews are... rough. Overview Moana (Catherine Laga'aia) answers the ocean's call and voyages beyond the reef of her home island of Motunui for the first time, teaming up with the once-mighty demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) to restore prosperity to her people. The story hits virtually every beat of the 2016 animated original, now performed by a live cast on location in Hawaii and Atlanta. ShowScorer Favs Catherine Laga'aia's Star-Making Turn The one thing nearly every review agrees on: Laga'aia is a find. The Australian newcomer, making her feature debut, carries the film's emotional weight and handles Lin-Manuel Miranda's songs like a seasoned pro, drawing comparisons to Cravalho's original performance while still making the role her own. “a winning turn in the title role” — The Hollywood Reporter Visually Stunning, Culturally Rooted Shot on location in Hawaii, the ocean sequences and island landscapes give the film a genuine sense of place the animated version couldn't offer, and multiple reviewers praised its deeper emphasis on Polynesian identity and ancestry. “a genuine commitment to honoring Polynesian culture” — Moviefone The Musical Numbers Still Land "How Far I'll Go" and "You're Welcome" both translate well to live performance, and Johnson visibly commits to the physical comedy of his signature number even when critics found his overall performance lacking elsewhere. “the best of these movies I've seen” — Variety ShowScorer Flops A Nearly Shot-for-Shot Remake The single biggest complaint across nearly every review: this isn't a reinterpretation, it's a recreation. Critics repeatedly point out that the film hits the same story beats, jokes, and even shot compositions as the 2016 original, offering little reason for its own existence beyond box office math. “barely a new movie” — Cosmic Book News Dwayne Johnson Feels Checked Out While Laga'aia is winning praise, several reviewers felt Johnson's energy as Maui has faded since the 2016 film, describing his performance as coasting rather than committed, a notable reversal from the character that once anchored the franchise. “he is checked out as Maui” — Rendy Reviews A Historically Rough Rotten Tomatoes Debut Moana opened in the low-to-mid 30s percent range on Rotten Tomatoes, making it the worst-reviewed live-action Disney remake in the studio's history, below even last year's widely panned Snow White. Reviewers cite flat, CGI-heavy visuals in the ocean sequences and the film's redundant timing, arriving barely 18 months after Moana 2, as the core issues. The Verdict: Moana This live-action Moana is carried almost entirely by Catherine Laga'aia, whose star-making performance and the film's genuine visual and cultural craftsmanship make it watchable, even enjoyable in stretches. But critics are largely right that it doesn't need to exist: released this close to both the original and Moana 2, it plays less like a reimagining and more like a cover version of a song you already know by heart. Rating: 2.5/5 Is Laga'aia's performance enough to make this Moana worth a theater trip, or has Disney's remake well finally run dry? Let us know in the comments and drop your own rating below! Sources Rotten Tomatoes — "Moana First Reviews: Unnecessary and Faithful to a Fault, but It Has Its Charms" The Hollywood Reporter — Moana review by David Rooney Variety — Moana review by Owen Gleiberman Moviefone — "Movie Review: 'Moana' (2026)" CGMagazine — Moana (2026) Review Forbes — Paul Tassi, "Moana's Record Rotten Tomatoes Score Should Give Disney Pause" SlashFilm — "Moana's Rotten Tomatoes Score Ranks Among The Worst Live-Action Disney Remakes" Cosmic Book News — "Moana Reviews: Rotten Tomatoes Score Is Franchise's Lowest Ever" Rendy Reviews — "'Moana' Review: Just Drown Me" South China Morning Post — Moana movie review

Millie Bobby Brown's detective saga trades London fog for Maltese sunshine in Enola Holmes 3, but does a change of scenery mean a change in quality? Netflix's YA mystery franchise returns with Sherlock (Henry Cavill) kidnapped, a wedding on hold, and Enola juggling romance with her toughest case yet. Overview Enola and Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) have arrived in Malta for their wedding, but Enola gets cold feet at the altar just as word arrives that Sherlock has been kidnapped. She abandons the ceremony to track him down, teaming up with Dr. Watson (Himesh Patel) and her chaotic mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) along the way, all while wrestling with whether she's ready to give up her independence for marriage. ShowScorer Favs Millie Bobby Brown & the Ensemble The cast remains the film's biggest asset. Brown continues to anchor the franchise with the same mix of warmth, wit, and fourth-wall mischief that made the first two films hits, and Partridge's Tewkesbury has matured alongside her into a genuine partner rather than a plot device. Critics broadly agree the chemistry hasn't faded. “the same high spirits as the earlier chapters” — RogerEbert.com The Malta Setting The Maltese setting is a real upgrade visually, swapping cobblestone London mystery for bright Mediterranean markets and coastline chase sequences, giving the film a fresher look than its predecessors. Reviewers also praised the film for using its new setting to explore colonialism and class more pointedly than the franchise's earlier, gentler takes on suffrage and labor rights. Himesh Patel's Dr. Watson Patel's expanded role as Dr. Watson is another highlight, giving the ensemble a steadier, more grounded presence to balance out Enola's chaos-prone extended family. ShowScorer Flops A Sidelined Mystery Where Enola Holmes 3 stumbles is the mystery itself. With Sherlock sidelined for much of the runtime and Enola distracted by wedding-day jitters, the central case feels thinner and slower to unfold than in the previous two entries. Several critics noted the plotting leans too heavily on flashbacks to recap earlier films rather than building new momentum. “starting to lose steam” — The Guardian Weakest Reviews of the Trilogy The villain and supporting mystery elements land as more functional than memorable, and the pacing, despite a runtime under two hours, drags in the middle stretch. It's telling that this installment has landed as the weakest-reviewed of the trilogy so far, sitting in the low-to-mid 70s percent range with critics on Rotten Tomatoes, and dipping into the low-to-mid 60s with general audiences. The Verdict: Enola Holmes 3 Enola Holmes 3 is a perfectly pleasant, star-powered watch for fans who've followed Enola from schoolgirl to newlywed, but it's the first film in the series to feel like it's coasting on goodwill rather than earning it outright. The chemistry, the setting, and the social commentary all work — the mystery itself just isn't as sharp as it used to be. Rating: 3/5 Did the Maltese mystery win you over, or are you ready for Enola to hang up her deerstalker for a while? Drop your thoughts in the comments and give your own rating below! Sources The Hollywood Reporter — "Enola Holmes 3 Reviews Are In" (netflix.com/tudum, hollywoodreporter.com) The Guardian — Enola Holmes 3 review by Benjamin Lee RogerEbert.com — Enola Holmes 3 review Inverse.com — Enola Holmes 3 review Forbes.com — "Enola Holmes 3 Review: Why We Need More Enola" ScreenRant.com — Rotten Tomatoes score coverage and streaming performance reporting Whats-On-Netflix.com — Enola Holmes 3 review Rotten Tomatoes — critic and audience score aggregation

Twenty-five years after Reese Witherspoon made bend-and-snap history, Prime Video is rewinding the clock. Elle, an eight-episode prequel series exploring Elle Woods' high school years, dropped its full first season on July 1 — and it's already one of the most talked-about (and most divisive) new shows of the summer. Overview Set in 1995, six years before the original film, Elle follows teenage Elle Woods (Lexi Minetree) after her family is forced to relocate from Bel-Air to grey, grunge-soaked Seattle following a scandal involving her plastic-surgeon father. Pink and popular back home, Elle has to rebuild her social standing from scratch at a high school where nobody else is blonde. ShowScorer Favs Lexi Minetree's Star Turn Newcomer Lexi Minetree is the reason to watch. Critics across the board singled out her performance as a genuine find, capturing Witherspoon's signature pep and comic timing without simply doing an impression. “quite comfortable working from its inspiration” — Variety 90s Nostalgia Done Right Her chemistry with the show's 1995 Seattle setting — all grunge flannel, corded phones, and Mariah Carey needle drops — gives the series a strong nostalgic hook for millennial and Gen X viewers alike. The fish-out-of-water premise also gives the show a cleaner identity than a straight remake would have, and callbacks to the original film, including an origin story for Bruiser the chihuahua, are a fun treat for longtime fans. ShowScorer Flops A Redundant Arc The bigger problem is structural: Elle's plot beats hew so closely to the original 1995 movie that it risks undercutting Elle Woods' actual growth arc in Legally Blonde itself. Several reviewers pointed out that giving teenage Elle the same lessons in confidence and self-worth she supposedly learns at Harvard makes her later journey feel redundant rather than earned. “dour, boring and tedious” — TheWrap Pacing & Mixed Scores Pacing is another sore spot — episodes run 45 to 60 minutes when the material feels built for a tighter half-hour comedy, and critic scores reflect the split reaction, landing anywhere from the high-30s to high-50s percent range on Rotten Tomatoes depending on the outlet. The Verdict: Elle Season 1 Elle is a show carried almost entirely by its lead performance and its nostalgia factor — if you grew up on the original film, there's real pleasure in watching Minetree channel that same sunny energy. Just don't go in expecting the sharp comic timing of the source material; this prequel plays it far safer than Elle Woods ever would. Rating: 2/5 Is Lexi Minetree's Elle Woods a worthy successor, or should this prequel have stayed unwritten? Let us know in the comments and drop your own rating below! Sources Variety.com — "Legally Blonde Prequel Series Elle Is Often Well-Executed, if Mostly a Rehash" TheWrap.com — "Elle Review: Amazon's Dull Legally Blonde Prequel Series" Nexafeed.com — Elle TV review and Rotten Tomatoes score coverage Refinery29.com — Elle review roundtable PureWow.com — "Elle Prime Video Review" The Spokesman-Review — Elle review HuffPost — "Elle Review: Legally Blonde Prequel Falls Flat" Rotten Tomatoes — critic score aggregation

A grieving woman. A psychopathic hunter. The unforgiving Australian wilderness. On paper, Apex has everything it needs to be a great Netflix thriller. With Charlize Theron at the top of her physical game and Taron Egerton sinking his teeth into one of the most unhinged villain roles of his career, the question isn't whether it's watchable, it absolutely is. The question is whether it truly reaches the heights it promises. Film's SPOILER Overview Apex opens with a jaw-dropping sequence. Rock-climbing couple Sasha (Theron) and Tommy (Eric Bana) are scaling the iconic Troll Wall in Norway when a brutal storm closes in. Tommy wants to call it — he's been hinting for a while that the endless thrill-seeking is taking its toll. But an avalanche takes the choice out of their hands: a rock smashes into Tommy's head, knocking him unconscious off the face. Hanging by a rope, Sasha is left with an impossible decision. She lets go. Five months later, a grief-hollowed Sasha drives alone into the fictional Wandarra National Park in Australia. A park ranger warns her about a string of disappearances in the area. She brushes it off — until she meets Ben (Egerton). Charming, fresh-faced, helpful. And secretly a serial killer who views Sasha as his next prey. What follows is a cat-and-mouse chase across crevasses, cliff faces, dense bushland and raging rapids, with Sasha drawing on every ounce of her adventurer's training to survive. The film's premise is simple and effective: Hunt or be hunted. ShowScorer Favs Charlize Theron's Performance Let's start where Apex is most undeniable: Charlize Theron. She is the engine that keeps this film running when the script falls short. As Sasha, she brings an almost wordless emotional intelligence — in the opening Norway sequence alone, you understand this woman's entire psychology within minutes. Her grief, her recklessness, her compulsive need to push to the limit. It's a physically and emotionally demanding role, and Theron makes it look like second nature. The Hollywood Reporter called the film a "taut nail-biter" that is "well-acted, crafted with skill and briskly paced." Theron worked with professional rock climber Beth Rodden to master Sasha's physicality, and it shows. The climbing sequences — particularly the opening Troll Wall scene — are viscerally real. "This is an action-adventure, psychological thriller. It's really a story about survival, not just physically but emotionally, and about finding out what you're made of." — Charlize Theron, speaking to Netflix The Australian Setting Filmed across Sydney and the Blue Mountains of New South Wales, Apex makes stunning use of its landscape. The Australian bush is practically a character unto itself — dense, disorienting, and strikingly beautiful. Kormákur has always had a strong relationship with extreme terrain, and he deploys it masterfully here. Rotten Tomatoes' critics consensus praised the film's "astonishing Australian locations," and rightly so. In its strongest passages, the geography tightens the tension — crevasses narrow, cliff faces loom, and the landscape seems to conspire against Sasha just as much as Ben does. Taron Egerton as Ben Egerton is clearly having a blast, and that energy is contagious in short bursts. Ben is a full-blown psychopath with a warped personal code — he genuinely sees himself as the hero of the story. Egerton told Netflix: "In my version of the story, Ben is the hero. Everything has to make sense for him. So part of my job is to craft a spiritual code for him." That self-righteous logic gives the character genuine menace. Collider noted that "Egerton is clearly having a blast here. It's fun to see him lean into another chaotic performance." The scenes where his mask slips are some of the film's most chilling moments. Taron Egerton as Ben — Apex (2026) - IMDB ShowScorer Flops A Thin, Underdeveloped Script Here's where Apex stumbles. Jeremy Robbins' screenplay tips its hand far too early and does almost nothing interesting with the premise beyond the basics of the chase. The opening tragedy — Tommy's death — is set up as Sasha's psychological wound. But once the actual hunt begins, that backstory is essentially abandoned. As In Session Film noted, the script "should have revealed what happened through flashbacks during the hunt to give Theron's Sasha some semblance of a character arc. There are long stretches where almost nothing happens beyond running, hiding, and occasionally getting caught — and the film lacks the slow-burn atmosphere needed to make those quieter moments land. "Apex is dull, boring, tedious, monotonous, repetitive... all of which appropriately describe this vapid thriller." — In Session Film Egerton's Villain Runs Out of Steam As entertaining as Egerton is in flashes, Ben is ultimately a one-note villain. The initial charm and menace fade quickly, replaced by increasingly repetitive sadism. Time Magazine observed that Ben's "twisted misogynist savagery is exhausting from the start." A more psychologically layered antagonist could have elevated this into something truly memorable. Eric Bana Is Wasted It's always good to see Eric Bana on screen, but his role as Tommy essentially ends before the opening credits roll. He functions entirely as a grief device — a motivation for Sasha rather than a character in his own right. Given Bana's calibre as a performer, and the film's Australian connection, this felt like a genuine missed opportunity. The Verdict: Apex Netflix 2026 Apex is a film that works best when it leans into its strengths — Charlize Theron's formidable screen presence, the jaw-dropping Australian landscape, and a handful of genuinely pulse-racing action sequences. It is, as The Hollywood Reporter put it, "the rare breed of streaming original that can safely be called a real movie." But it's also a film that never quite reaches the heights its premise promises. The script is thin, the villain runs out of juice, and the emotional core established in Norway gets abandoned once the chase begins. If you're after a perfectly serviceable Saturday night thriller with a great lead performance, Apex delivers. If you want something that lingers — a survival film with genuine psychological depth — you might walk away feeling like the summit was just out of reach. It's worth a watch for Theron alone. Just don't go in expecting a masterpiece. Rating: 3.5/5 Was Apex the survival thriller Netflix promised? Did Theron's performance save it — or did the thin script let the whole thing down? Drop your thoughts in the comments and give your rating below!

If you’re searching for a trending film that brings a fresh twist to the romantic comedy genre, “Materialists” (2025) is a must see. This rom com, directed by Celine Song, explores the world of luxury dating in New York City, blending humour, ambition, and the search for genuine connection. In this ShowScorer review, we’ll break down the plot, highlight the best and worst moments, and share why “Materialists” is making waves among movie fans and critics alike. Plot Summary “Materialists” follows Lucy Mason (Dakota Johnson), a talented matchmaker at the exclusive agency Adore. Her job is to help others find love, but her own romantic life is far from simple. Lucy is caught between her charming ex, John Pitts (Chris Evans), a struggling theatre actor and waiter, and Harry Castillo (Pedro Pascal), a wealthy new suitor who seems to offer everything she’s ever wanted—except certainty. The film’s story dives into the tension between authentic connection and the allure of material success, all set against the backdrop of New York’s glamorous dating scene. The supporting cast, including Zoë Winters as Sophie and Marin Ireland as Violet, adds humour and insight into the realities of modern dating. The witty dialogue and sharp observations about status, ambition, and vulnerability make “Materialists” more than just a standard rom com. The city itself is a character, with its bustling streets, high-end fashion, and luxury venues providing a visually stunning setting for the drama. ShowScorer Favs One of the best things about “Materialists” is the cast’s chemistry. Dakota Johnson delivers a standout performance as Lucy, balancing vulnerability and ambition in a way that makes her journey feel authentic. Pedro Pascal’s portrayal of Harry is both magnetic and mysterious, while Chris Evans adds emotional depth to John, making the love triangle believable and engaging. The supporting cast, including Zoë Winters and Marin Ireland, brings humor and complexity to the story. Their interactions with Lucy highlight the challenges and absurdities of dating in a city obsessed with status. The film’s direction by Celine Song is sharp, capturing the energy and anxiety of modern romance. The wardrobe and set design are not just stylish but reinforce the themes of materialism and aspiration, with fashion choices that make the world of “Materialists” feel both aspirational and grounded. Roger Ebert calls the film “brutally honest and bracingly contemporary” in its depiction of dating (Roger Ebert) . Chris Evans, in particular, is praised for bringing “depth beyond its genre trappings,” making his character more than just a typical rom com love interest. Empire highlights the film’s “sharp eye for modern romance,” noting how the visuals and social commentary set it apart from other romantic comedies (Empire Magazine, August 2025). Celine Song herself describes the film’s central theme: “Wealth is the most seductive thing; it is the greatest drug that is possible in modern society” (ABC) . This perspective is woven throughout the film, making the story’s exploration of materialism feel both timely and relevant. After devastating audiences with Past Lives, Celine Song has created another impossible love triangle in Materialists. (Supplied: Sony Pictures) ShowScorer Flops While “Materialists” is entertaining and visually appealing, it does have its flaws. The plot follows some familiar rom com beats, and a few supporting characters could have been developed more. Empire points out that “the story follows familiar rom-com beats, but the energy and anxiety of dating in a city obsessed with status is captured well.” At times, the film glosses over the more complex realities of materialism, leaving some themes less explored than they could be. Some critics have noted that the screenplay could have delved deeper into the darker side of ambition and the sacrifices people make for love and success. The film occasionally opts for a lighter touch, which, while enjoyable, may leave viewers wanting more emotional depth. The resolution of the love triangle, though satisfying, feels somewhat predictable, and certain storylines are left unresolved. Feature Image: Sony Pictures. The Verdict “Materialists” is a stylish, contemporary rom com that balances humour and heart. The film’s exploration of ambition, vulnerability, and the desire for connection resonates with anyone who’s ever navigated the complexities of modern relationships. What sets “Materialists” apart is its ability to capture the energy and anxiety of dating in a city where status and success are always in play. The film doesn’t reinvent the genre, but it offers a fresh take on familiar themes, thanks to its strong performances and sharp direction. The visual appeal, from the fashion to the cityscapes, adds another layer of enjoyment. Making it a trending film that’s perfect for fans of modern romance and city life. Rating: 4/5 What did you think of “Materialists”? Comment below and rate the movie with the stars at the bottom!

Lilo and Stitch live action remake - IMBD The long-awaited Lilo and Stitch live action remake has finally landed. But does it live up to the legacy of the 2002 cartoon classic? For many fans, this one’s been a long time coming, a chance to revisit the heartwarming story of family, belonging, and a chaotic little blue alien who stole everyone’s hearts. Visually updated and reimagined for a new generation, this version of Lilo and Stitch live action brings with it both excitement and a fair bit of curiosity. With modern effects, fresh and flawed performances, and a few changes along the way, there’s a lot to unpack. But as always with reboots, here’s the big question: was this remake really made with 'ohana in mind—or is it just another shiny nostalgia cash grab? Film’s SPOILER Overview The Lilo and Stitch live action plot sticks closely to the heart of the original, even with a few modern tweaks. Set on the lush island of Kaua‘i, the story follows Lilo, a quirky and lonely Hawaiian girl being raised by her older sister Nani after the tragic loss of their parents. When Lilo wishes for a friend, she ends up adopting what she believes is a dog—but it turns out to be Stitch, a genetically-engineered alien experiment who crash-landed on Earth while escaping capture. Chaos, laughs, and a surprising amount of emotional depth follow as the two outsiders form an unlikely bond. With alien agents, and Jumba being the new antagonist on Stitch’s tail and social workers watching Nani’s every move, the story becomes a heartfelt look at chosen family and unconditional love—all with that signature Lilo and Stitch  mix of humour, weirdness, and warmth. ShowScorer Favs Storyline Look, I get that some fans were disappointed. With copyright dramas around soundtrack licensing and a tighter budget, Disney had to adjust a fair chunk of the original story. That meant cutting or reshaping some scenes, and removing a few beloved Lilo and Stitch characters like Captain Gantu and Pleakley from the main spotlight. But you know what? Even with all that, they still managed to keep the heart of the story beating. The family bond, the weird but deep connection between Lilo and Stitch characters—that was all still there. And to be fair, they made an effort to keep the vibe of the original soundtrack too. They couldn’t get full rights to all the songs, but the opening scene especially felt musically close to the 2002 version, and I appreciated that nod. Honestly, I cried when I thought Stitch was about to die. That moment was still raw, and it reminded me of why this story hit so hard the first time around. Robert Ebert expressed that the producers are " careful about preserving the most beloved details of the original but making it more inclusive." and I have to agree. CGI Animation Speaking of Stitch—he looked amazing. The animation and CGI were genuinely impressive, especially for a film that clearly didn’t have the deepest pockets. Every eyebrow wiggle, every chaotic leap—it was spot-on. A huge part of that magic came from the fact that Chris Sanders , the original 2002 director and the voice of Stitch, returned for this version. That familiar voice brought so much authenticity. It felt like the old Stitch was right there again, just in a new setting.  Consequence wrote " Compared to the blank faces of the lions in Jon Favreau’s The Lion King, the CGI Stitch is a massive improvement. It also helps that Camp and the effects team really do integrate him seamlessly, without ever crossing over into the uncanny valley. The result is that Stitch remains as he’s always been: A dangerous scamp who becomes easy to love, by the end ." Lilo & Stitch live action remake - IMBD Actress - Maia Kealoha (Lilo) And then there’s Lilo—what an absolute standout. For such a young actress, she completely nailed the character. Maia Kealoha , an upcoming 6 year old Hawaiian actress had all the weird, bold, emotional energy that made Lilo so unforgettable. I really believed her. Even when the rest of the film felt a bit patchy, she held it together with real heart. The Economic Times said it best: “the rising talent who’s giving new life to a Disney classic” ShowScorer Flaws Casting & Performance While the Lilo and Stitch live action had its heart in the right place, it definitely had some rough patches that can’t be ignored. Let’s start with Nani — her acting was a bit underwhelming. Sydney Agudong  lacked emotional range with no tears, no real movement (besides her surfing and singing skills), and a struggle to connect with the CGI characters which really hurts the immersion. The Guardian described “Nani in particular a more “correct”, entirely uninteresting ending .”If you’re a fan of the original Lilo and Stitch characters, this new Nani might not hit the mark.  Adding to the woes, Zach Galifianakis  — who plays one of the Lilo and Stitch characters (Jumba the new antagonist) — didn’t quite land the role. Critics felt it was a miscast that didn’t let him shine, which was a missed opportunity given his usual comedic chops. The Charlotte Observer referenced his interview conversation mentioning he actually wanted to play Pleakley but got requested to play Jumba, his response “Dean, I don’t care. Whatever you need me to do. What, I’m gonna get into, really, one of these characters more deeply? It doesn’t matter ”.  Pleakley and Jumba - IMBD Budget Cuts The film cut a lot of their screen time, likely due to budget cuts from Disney underestimating the impact of this classic film from their audiences. The film was granted $100 million which is considered significantly low  compared to Disney’s other live action remakes. For the film to be a success, it needs to achieve more than double for any future sequel Lilo and Stitch live action remakes…  Then there’s Jumba and Pleakley, beloved Lilo and Stitch characters who got severely sidelined. The Guardian highlighted how their “funny walks”  and attempts at humour just don’t come together, with actors seemingly performing into a void. It’s a big drop from the original cartoon.  And budget cuts were obvious in the absence of Captain Gantu, one of the iconic Lilo and Stitch characters. His removal left the story feeling thinner and less dynamic. Cutting Captain Gantu was a baffling decision that robbed the film of some of its natural tension and humour. Some fans even called the producers of “ boycotting the upcoming remake ” The Daily Mail UK The Verdict: Lilo and Stitch Live Action So, where does the Lilo and Stitch live action  film land overall? For all its flaws—like shaky casting choices, budget-driven cuts, and a few disappointing omissions—it still manages to hold onto that core emotional spark. The bond between Lilo and Stitch, the gorgeous Hawaiian backdrop, and the surprisingly solid CGI make it a film worth watching, even if it’s not quite the triumph fans were hoping for. There’s heart here, no doubt about it. It just feels like half the story got told, and the other half got caught in licensing red tape and budget spreadsheets. If you're a fan of the original Lilo and Stitch characters, you might find yourself torn. It’s charming, emotional, and visually impressive in parts—but still leaves you wishing Disney had trusted it with more. Rating: 3/5 Was the storyline better than the original? Did the Lilo and Stitch live action  live up to its full potential—or did it fall short of the magic? Drop your thoughts below and let me know your own star rating!

Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick in Another Simple Favour (2025) - IMBD Some sequels raise the bar—others just ride the wave. Another Simple Favor falls into the second camp. Directed by Paul Feig,  this 2025 mystery-comedy reunites Blake Lively  and Anna Kendrick  as it tries to recapture the original’s quirky charm and bold style. And while the fashion, fun settings, and snappy banter are all there, the story feels like it's just coasting along. Another Simple Favor is a stylish, globe-trotting adventure set against the stunning backdrop of Capri. With Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick, and Michele Morrone bringing plenty of charm, there’s no shortage of star power. But with a plot that feels like an afterthought, you start to wonder—does all that sparkle make up for what’s missing? Film SPOILER Overview In Another Simple Favour, it’s been five years since Stephanie (Anna Kendrick) got tangled up in the chaos that is Emily (Blake Lively). Stephanie is now a true crime vlogger. When Emily gets out of prison, she ropes Stephanie into being her maid of honour for a lavish wedding in Capri. Naturally, things go off the rails. A few murders later, it turns out Emily has a secret triplet sister - Charity (shocker)! Who’s been posing as her to take over a mafia-connected family empire. Charity ends up in cuffs, Emily vanishes (again), and Stephanie’s left caring for Emily’s kid. And just when you think it’s all over... the film hints there’s more madness still to come. ShowScorer Favs Casting & Performance Reuniting the iconic love-hate duo of Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick is easily the best thing about Another Simple Favour. Their chemistry is as sharp and entertaining as ever, and it’s what keeps the whole film on its feet. Blake’s unapologetically crude one-liners are bold and hilarious. Her mix of charm and sociopathic edge is oddly captivating. Opposite her, Anna Kendrick brings that bubbly, relatable energy we know and love. She grounds all the madness with just enough heart to keep it believable (well, almost). The sequel also ups the ante with a star-studded supporting cast, including Michele Morrone, Henry Golding, and Oscar-winner Allison Janney. Allison absolutely owns her role as a ruthless, unhinged wildcard, adding some real bite to the mystery. Altogether, it’s a stylish, tongue-in-cheek thriller that leans into its own absurdity—and somehow makes it work. Another Simple Favor Cast (2025) - IMBD Destination Cinema Choosing Capri as the setting for Another Simple Favour was a brilliant call. The stunning views, grand villas, and old-world charm of the Amalfi Coast gives the film a serious visual boost. It’s the kind of place that makes you want to book a holiday straight after the credits roll. Director Paul Feig made great use of real locations like the Grand Hotel Quisisana and Villa Jovis, which add a touch of luxury and history to the whole film. Critics have pointed out that Capri isn’t just a pretty backdrop—it’s almost a character itself. Empire Online called the film “frothy, sun-drenched fun,”  saying the glamorous setting fits perfectly with the wild wedding drama. SpicyPulp described it as “an intoxicating mix of murder, martinis, and mayhem,”  and honestly, that sums it up pretty well. The use of Italian language, architecture, and local customs adds another layer to the experience. It makes the world feel richer and more immersive. Personally, I found it pulled me in even more. The visuals alone are so strong, I could watch it again on mute and still enjoy the vibe. Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick in Capri - IMBD ShowScorer Flops Storyline The storyline in Another Simple Favour never really finds its footing. The film sets up an intriguing premise, then loses the plot—literally. The mystery is serviceable, but it lacks the twists that made the first film pop. It honestly feels like the plot was reverse-engineered just to justify the glamorous Capri setting, rather than letting the story lead. While Another Simple Favour has the charm of Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick and a stunning backdrop, the story plays it safe. The plot is recycling familiar family drama instead of offering something new. The film centres around Emily’s long-lost triplet sister, Charity, which feels like a stretch. This sequel had so much potential to evolve the story and characters, but instead, it falls back on the same tired family drama. Rather than rehashing what we’ve already seen, it could’ve pushed the plot in a bold new direction, building on the original in a more exciting way. Critics have picked up on this too. The Washington Post described the film as " so dreadful that it’s a mystery why actors of any credibility would have signed on " pointing to its weak plotting and lacklustre script. Likewise, RogerEbert.com noted that "the plotting and pacing have a habit of sagging when the film needs to build,"  making the mystery feel underdeveloped and slow to land. The choice to focus the entire plot on Emily’s family history, especially the triplet twist, feels like a copy and paste. It stretches credibility and takes away the chance to explore something new and exciting. As Bleeding Cool put it, the sequel "wants to be just as captivating as the first film, but it feels like the younger sister who is desperately trying to emulate the effortless grace of her older sister." Yes, the Capri setting is gorgeous. And yes, Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick still have fantastic chemistry. But in the end, it’s not enough to save a story that feels forced and unoriginal. By recycling plot points instead of taking the story forward, Another Simple Favour misses a real opportunity to expand the universe in a more meaningful way. Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick & 'Another Simple Favor' Cast Take a Friendship Test | Glamour The Verdict: Another Simple Favor If you loved A Simple Favor for its sharp wit, killer wardrobe, and genre-blending weirdness, you’ll likely enjoy Another Simple Favor—just don’t expect to be wowed by the mystery. This film is a vacation: easy, breezy, and a little shallow. Rating: 2.5/5 What did you think of Another Simple Favor? Did it live up to the style of the original or fall short in substance? Give your star rating of the film and drop your thoughts in the comments below.