top of page
DEEP RED
PERFECT BLUE
🩸HORROR, GENRE FILMS
+ ALL THINGS SPOOKY 👻
NEW PODCAST OUT NOW!
Because my three favorite things are horror, yapping and making music, I decided to combine all of them into this new spooky passion...
1 min read
Summer of Sin
Check out all the upcoming summer horror, from highly anticipated sequels and wild reboots to fresh ideas and exciting adaptations! Image...
1 min read
FEATURED REVIEWS
The Long Walk (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
THE LONG WALK is as bleak as it gets. Based on one of Stephen King’s earliest novels, this dystopian horror follows fifty teenage boys who have entered a high-stakes contest: walk or die. Those who break pace or stop are executed. There is only one winner, and there is no finish line. The only thing more harrowing than the story itself is its unfortunate relevance.
It’s hard to imagine such a depressing, tedious idea for a story on the big screen, but miraculously, it works. This adaptation does absolutely everything it can to save itself from the inherent monotony of its premise, not least of which is having a cast with chemistry, led by a compelling performance from David Jonsson. If you weren’t already convinced by his subtle, affecting turn as Andy in ALIEN: ROMULUS, you’ll know after seeing Jonsson as Peter that you are witnessing the rise of a generational talent. Opposite him is Cooper Hoffman as Ray, earnest, stoic, and carrying a bit of pain behind his eyes (not unlike his late father). Their dynamic becomes the emotional backbone of the film, and also the setup for a subversive, unexpected ending.
The script is dialogue-heavy, but it’s careful not to become too clunky or overly expositional. Through the dialogue, we learn a lot about these characters’ lives back home and why they chose to “volunteer.” But it’s through their final actions that we learn more about their internal lives. The psychological component of the film is deeply distressing: each of these boys shows up with the same nervous, desperate hope, with winning as the only conceivable option, only to have to face the brutal, unthinkable reality of their existence coming to an end. A few moments pushed me over the edge into existential free fall, watching these characters experience the suffocating panic of facing death and, worse, the realization that they barely got the chance to live.
As an adaptation, I can’t compare THE LONG WALK to its source material as I haven’t read it. What I can say is I find it disturbing and remarkable that a dystopian novel written in the late 1960s by a then 19-year-old would be so relevant today. That casual acceptance of cruelty shouldn’t feel so familiar. Neither should lives cut short, books banned, grinding poverty, the rebranding of totalitarian measures as hopeful opportunity, the selling of pointless death as noble or inspiring, and televised violence. In fact, the violence here is so unflinching that I quite literally flinched almost every time a gun went off in the film. That is not a common experience for me as a moviegoer, and neither is crying well after the movie is over. What can I say? Maybe a sign of the times.
THE LONG WALK is as bleak as it gets. Based on one of Stephen King’s earliest novels, this dystopian horror follows fifty teenage boys who have entered a high-stakes contest: walk or die. Those who break pace or stop are executed. There is only one winner, and there is no finish line. The only thing more harrowing than the story itself is its unfortunate relevance.
It’s hard to imagine such a depressing, tedious idea for a story on the big screen, but miraculously, it works. This adaptation does absolutely everything it can to save itself from the inherent monotony of its premise, not least of which is having a cast with chemistry, led by a compelling performance from David Jonsson. If you weren’t already convinced by his subtle, affecting turn as Andy in ALIEN: ROMULUS, you’ll know after seeing Jonsson as Peter that you are witnessing the rise of a generational talent. Opposite him is Cooper Hoffman as Ray, earnest, stoic, and carrying a bit of pain behind his eyes (not unlike his late father). Their dynamic becomes the emotional backbone of the film, and also the setup for a subversive, unexpected ending.
The script is dialogue-heavy, but it’s careful not to become too clunky or overly expositional. Through the dialogue, we learn a lot about these characters’ lives back home and why they chose to “volunteer.” But it’s through their final actions that we learn more about their internal lives. The psychological component of the film is deeply distressing: each of these boys shows up with the same nervous, desperate hope, with winning as the only conceivable option, only to have to face the brutal, unthinkable reality of their existence coming to an end. A few moments pushed me over the edge into existential free fall, watching these characters experience the suffocating panic of facing death and, worse, the realization that they barely got the chance to live.
As an adaptation, I can’t compare THE LONG WALK to its source material as I haven’t read it. What I can say is I find it disturbing and remarkable that a dystopian novel written in the late 1960s by a then 19-year-old would be so relevant today. That casual acceptance of cruelty shouldn’t feel so familiar. Neither should lives cut short, books banned, grinding poverty, the rebranding of totalitarian measures as hopeful opportunity, the selling of pointless death as noble or inspiring, and televised violence. In fact, the violence here is so unflinching that I quite literally flinched almost every time a gun went off in the film. That is not a common experience for me as a moviegoer, and neither is crying well after the movie is over. What can I say? Maybe a sign of the times.
The Toxic Avenger (2023)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
The new TOXIC AVENGER is tasteless, violent, uninhibited schlock. I loved every minute of it.
This reboot drops us right back in
Tromaville, rebranded as St. Roma's Village, with the same rancid vibes but more gloss.
Pharma mega-corp BTH covers every inch of town with the stench of corruption and highly corrosive toxic waste. Janitor Winston Gooze (Peter Dinklage) gets some bad news from his doctor and worse news from his shitty BTH-provided insurance plan, the cherry on top of a terrible year after losing his wife to cancer and being thrust into single stepfatherhood. His day goes from bad to biohazardous when a Hail Mary robbery ends with a bullet to the face and a dip in chemical waste. Then, rising from the ooze with new superhuman powers and a glowing mop, Gooze emerges as Toxie. And Toxie is the hero we need right now.
What follows is a scrappy, madcap mission to take down BTH and CEO Bob Garbinger (Kevin Bacon having the time of his life), complete with blood, guts, toxic piss, and killer posse/rap supergroup The Killer Nutz.
This Toxie is unabashedly weird, unserious, but at the same time, strangely sincere.
Peter Dinklage is perfect casting; though we lose him in the flesh when his character transforms (and stunt performer Luisa Guerreiro steps in), he has already grounded this character emotionally. His voice and essence are still there, and it is so natural to root for him. He and Jacob Tremblay really sell the stepdad-and-son arc. The rest of the cast is strong as well, from Taylour Paige's investigative reporter (who holds more weight than the average sidekick character) to Elijah Wood as Fritz Garbinger (who's somewhere between Riff Raff and The Penguin).
Though its use of CGI is a little
disappointing, this reboot mostly does the original proud with its blend of raunchiness and pluck. It's a little more sleek, but it's stilli for the freaks. It represents Troma Entertainment at its best: visually repulsive, offensive, and full of heart, with a perpetual middle finger to the mainstream, forever disrupting the media and more disgustingly relevant today than ever.
Go see this underdog in theaters if you can!
If you need more of a reason to buy a ticket, know that Cineverse and Bloody Disgusting took the $5 million intended for marketing and donated it to Undue Medical Debt, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping regular people with crushing medical debt, and now, for every million the movie makes at the box office, they'll donate another million to the same cause. It may seem like one small sandbag vs. the ever-rising tide of greed that defines U.S. healthcare, but in the words of Toxie, "sometimes, you have to do something."
The new TOXIC AVENGER is tasteless, violent, uninhibited schlock. I loved every minute of it.
This reboot drops us right back in
Tromaville, rebranded as St. Roma's Village, with the same rancid vibes but more gloss.
Pharma mega-corp BTH covers every inch of town with the stench of corruption and highly corrosive toxic waste. Janitor Winston Gooze (Peter Dinklage) gets some bad news from his doctor and worse news from his shitty BTH-provided insurance plan, the cherry on top of a terrible year after losing his wife to cancer and being thrust into single stepfatherhood. His day goes from bad to biohazardous when a Hail Mary robbery ends with a bullet to the face and a dip in chemical waste. Then, rising from the ooze with new superhuman powers and a glowing mop, Gooze emerges as Toxie. And Toxie is the hero we need right now.
What follows is a scrappy, madcap mission to take down BTH and CEO Bob Garbinger (Kevin Bacon having the time of his life), complete with blood, guts, toxic piss, and killer posse/rap supergroup The Killer Nutz.
This Toxie is unabashedly weird, unserious, but at the same time, strangely sincere.
Peter Dinklage is perfect casting; though we lose him in the flesh when his character transforms (and stunt performer Luisa Guerreiro steps in), he has already grounded this character emotionally. His voice and essence are still there, and it is so natural to root for him. He and Jacob Tremblay really sell the stepdad-and-son arc. The rest of the cast is strong as well, from Taylour Paige's investigative reporter (who holds more weight than the average sidekick character) to Elijah Wood as Fritz Garbinger (who's somewhere between Riff Raff and The Penguin).
Though its use of CGI is a little
disappointing, this reboot mostly does the original proud with its blend of raunchiness and pluck. It's a little more sleek, but it's stilli for the freaks. It represents Troma Entertainment at its best: visually repulsive, offensive, and full of heart, with a perpetual middle finger to the mainstream, forever disrupting the media and more disgustingly relevant today than ever.
Go see this underdog in theaters if you can!
If you need more of a reason to buy a ticket, know that Cineverse and Bloody Disgusting took the $5 million intended for marketing and donated it to Undue Medical Debt, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping regular people with crushing medical debt, and now, for every million the movie makes at the box office, they'll donate another million to the same cause. It may seem like one small sandbag vs. the ever-rising tide of greed that defines U.S. healthcare, but in the words of Toxie, "sometimes, you have to do something."
Weapons (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
WEAPONS is a pulse-pounding, wickedly funny, and totally sick ride that pricks holes in the fabric of suburbia and lets all the underlying dread seep out. It grabs you with its unsettling, creepypasta-esque hook: one night, at 2:17 AM in the small town of Maybrook, every child from Mrs. Gandy’s class wakes up, gets out of bed, goes downstairs, opens the front door, and runs off into the dark. And did you see HOW they run?!
LIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD.
Zach Cregger’s WEAPONS takes after MAGNOLIA (1999) with its multi-perspective structure and intersecting narratives. Jumping from one character to the next does run the risk of feeling disjointed or fractured, but here, this approach works really well to untangle the central mystery and to unpack the town’s collective trauma response to this unexplainable, terrifying event. It also keeps you guessing, constantly priming you for surprises out of left field while making sure you have no idea where the fuck left even is.
When every kid in Mrs. Gandy’s class runs out the door at 2:17 AM—except a little boy named Alex—she is immediately thrown under suspicion. What exactly happened in that classroom? Why her classroom, why only hers? The answer is stranger than you could imagine, and the journey to get there is even stranger, littered with all sorts of unhingeable parts: forks, triangles, stick rituals, the “Weapons kid” run, badly drawn lipstick, red microbangs, a potted tree, a hot dog lunch, and soup. So. Much. Soup. These parts will undoubtedly give the film its cult status (and inspire many memes and Halloween costumes), but WEAPONS has substance, too. The sustained sense of dread, bone-chilling scares, three-dimensional characters, and supernatural metaphors make WEAPONS an absolutely thrilling, top-tier, instant classic.
Justine Gandy (a sublime Julia Garner) is just one standout in this ensemble of well-drawn characters. To some, she’s an empathetic teacher, to others, a home wrecker, and, to the distraught parents of her class (like Josh Brolin’s Archer Graff), she must be some kind of WITCH. Of course, little do they know what kind of witchery they’re actually up against, and the way Archer lashes out at Mrs. Gandy is reminiscent of the way people make scapegoats when faced with inexplicable evil. Justine, Archer, and the rest of the characters are sympathetic, fallible, and deeply human (with one red-headed, villainous, dare I say fabulous exception).
Another standout character is the remaining student, Alex (an impressive Cary Christopher). His story is the final piece of the puzzle. Beyond the fact that he carries much of the film’s emotional weight, Alex is the key to understanding what the film is really about. When evil moves into his home, Alex has to carry on like everything is normal when his home has become a scary place. This is the devastating truth for so many children, whether it be abuse, addiction, bullying, or a death in the family: it’s finding out way too early in life that the world is a dark, unsafe place. It’s the loss of innocence. It’s the gut-wrenching awareness that anyone or anything can be weaponized and/or hurt. George Harrison warns us in the opening sequence to “Beware of Darkness” while we watch these children run, with arms out like the “Napalm Girl” in the infamous Vietnam War photo, straight into the dark.
WEAPONS deals with disturbing subject matter but still finds room to be absurd AND funhouse scary. It’s a remarkable balance of tones that Cregger has proven capable of striking not once, but twice now. He can wring all the terror out of one scene and make you cackle with sick delight at the next. One of the best things about WEAPONS is that despite being over-the-top, it has underlying themes that are heavy yet subtly rendered.
The more concrete theory that this film is about a school shooting is an interesting one, but it falls apart with the wild (and extremely satisfying) final act. Then again, there is certainly a lot of imagery in WEAPONS that evokes such an event: a memorial of stuffed animals, flowers, balloons, and handmade signs covers an outer wall of the school, its bright colors dulled by dark implication. An empty classroom. An assembly of distraught parents. The floating assault rifle in Archer’s dream. It’s monstrous, alien, and wrong. There is so much potential significance here, but the less literal you are in your viewing, the more you can enjoy WEAPONS for the thrill ride it is, and then the more you’ll have to unpack when it follows you home.
WEAPONS is a pulse-pounding, wickedly funny, and totally sick ride that pricks holes in the fabric of suburbia and lets all the underlying dread seep out. It grabs you with its unsettling, creepypasta-esque hook: one night, at 2:17 AM in the small town of Maybrook, every child from Mrs. Gandy’s class wakes up, gets out of bed, goes downstairs, opens the front door, and runs off into the dark. And did you see HOW they run?!
LIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD.
Zach Cregger’s WEAPONS takes after MAGNOLIA (1999) with its multi-perspective structure and intersecting narratives. Jumping from one character to the next does run the risk of feeling disjointed or fractured, but here, this approach works really well to untangle the central mystery and to unpack the town’s collective trauma response to this unexplainable, terrifying event. It also keeps you guessing, constantly priming you for surprises out of left field while making sure you have no idea where the fuck left even is.
When every kid in Mrs. Gandy’s class runs out the door at 2:17 AM—except a little boy named Alex—she is immediately thrown under suspicion. What exactly happened in that classroom? Why her classroom, why only hers? The answer is stranger than you could imagine, and the journey to get there is even stranger, littered with all sorts of unhingeable parts: forks, triangles, stick rituals, the “Weapons kid” run, badly drawn lipstick, red microbangs, a potted tree, a hot dog lunch, and soup. So. Much. Soup. These parts will undoubtedly give the film its cult status (and inspire many memes and Halloween costumes), but WEAPONS has substance, too. The sustained sense of dread, bone-chilling scares, three-dimensional characters, and supernatural metaphors make WEAPONS an absolutely thrilling, top-tier, instant classic.
Justine Gandy (a sublime Julia Garner) is just one standout in this ensemble of well-drawn characters. To some, she’s an empathetic teacher, to others, a home wrecker, and, to the distraught parents of her class (like Josh Brolin’s Archer Graff), she must be some kind of WITCH. Of course, little do they know what kind of witchery they’re actually up against, and the way Archer lashes out at Mrs. Gandy is reminiscent of the way people make scapegoats when faced with inexplicable evil. Justine, Archer, and the rest of the characters are sympathetic, fallible, and deeply human (with one red-headed, villainous, dare I say fabulous exception).
Another standout character is the remaining student, Alex (an impressive Cary Christopher). His story is the final piece of the puzzle. Beyond the fact that he carries much of the film’s emotional weight, Alex is the key to understanding what the film is really about. When evil moves into his home, Alex has to carry on like everything is normal when his home has become a scary place. This is the devastating truth for so many children, whether it be abuse, addiction, bullying, or a death in the family: it’s finding out way too early in life that the world is a dark, unsafe place. It’s the loss of innocence. It’s the gut-wrenching awareness that anyone or anything can be weaponized and/or hurt. George Harrison warns us in the opening sequence to “Beware of Darkness” while we watch these children run, with arms out like the “Napalm Girl” in the infamous Vietnam War photo, straight into the dark.
WEAPONS deals with disturbing subject matter but still finds room to be absurd AND funhouse scary. It’s a remarkable balance of tones that Cregger has proven capable of striking not once, but twice now. He can wring all the terror out of one scene and make you cackle with sick delight at the next. One of the best things about WEAPONS is that despite being over-the-top, it has underlying themes that are heavy yet subtly rendered.
The more concrete theory that this film is about a school shooting is an interesting one, but it falls apart with the wild (and extremely satisfying) final act. Then again, there is certainly a lot of imagery in WEAPONS that evokes such an event: a memorial of stuffed animals, flowers, balloons, and handmade signs covers an outer wall of the school, its bright colors dulled by dark implication. An empty classroom. An assembly of distraught parents. The floating assault rifle in Archer’s dream. It’s monstrous, alien, and wrong. There is so much potential significance here, but the less literal you are in your viewing, the more you can enjoy WEAPONS for the thrill ride it is, and then the more you’ll have to unpack when it follows you home.
Together (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
TOGETHER (2025) is like next-gen Cronenberg for the romantically fucked. This high-concept body horror takes on themes of codependency and isn’t afraid to get uncomfortable and gross. It’s the gnarly FX that stick, but it’s the cosmic undertones, surprisingly funny script, and all-out performances from real-life couple Dave Franco and Alison Brie that set TOGETHER apart.
Franco and Brie have natural chemistry as Tim and Millie, a couple who’ve been together forever, and they’re starting to feel it. When they move out to the countryside to take their relationship to the next phase, a supernatural encounter in the woods causes them to merge…in more ways than one. The film takes a minute to find its rhythm, but if you can get through the clunky exposition and suspend your disbelief at the first-act curtain, you’ll be in for a wicked fun time.
TOGETHER draws inspiration from S-tier horror like THE FLY, THE THING, SOCIETY and even POSSESSION (1981) while still bringing something new and refreshingly weird to the table. Some of it feels a little too real, perhaps especially for viewers in long-term relationships, and a lot of that comes from the obvious personal touches in the script. Despite its otherworldly horror, this film can be painfully relatable for anyone who has ever experienced relationship insecurity or lost their sense of self. But like all great body horror, it’s the blend of relevant metaphor and gruesome thrills that make TOGETHER a worthwhile entry in the modern horror canon.
TOGETHER (2025) is like next-gen Cronenberg for the romantically fucked. This high-concept body horror takes on themes of codependency and isn’t afraid to get uncomfortable and gross. It’s the gnarly FX that stick, but it’s the cosmic undertones, surprisingly funny script, and all-out performances from real-life couple Dave Franco and Alison Brie that set TOGETHER apart.
Franco and Brie have natural chemistry as Tim and Millie, a couple who’ve been together forever, and they’re starting to feel it. When they move out to the countryside to take their relationship to the next phase, a supernatural encounter in the woods causes them to merge…in more ways than one. The film takes a minute to find its rhythm, but if you can get through the clunky exposition and suspend your disbelief at the first-act curtain, you’ll be in for a wicked fun time.
TOGETHER draws inspiration from S-tier horror like THE FLY, THE THING, SOCIETY and even POSSESSION (1981) while still bringing something new and refreshingly weird to the table. Some of it feels a little too real, perhaps especially for viewers in long-term relationships, and a lot of that comes from the obvious personal touches in the script. Despite its otherworldly horror, this film can be painfully relatable for anyone who has ever experienced relationship insecurity or lost their sense of self. But like all great body horror, it’s the blend of relevant metaphor and gruesome thrills that make TOGETHER a worthwhile entry in the modern horror canon.
Eddington (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
EDDINGTON wants you to know that “YOUR BEING MANIPULATED”. Dubbed a “COVID western”, Ari Aster’s EDDINGTON seems on its surface to be an exercise in misery, a cinematic doom scroll back through the last five years to the powder-keg paradigm shift that was mid-2020. It’s a satire in an age where reality feels like satire, which is not untrue but still sounds smug to say when human rights protections are in free fall. Cue the groans from exhausted Americans across the socio-political spectrum calling the film “unnecessary”. But while this fresh hell is, well, fresh, it stands to reason there should be a film that attempts to capture the obscenity of America in its chronically-online era. We are not ready for this film. But still, I think we might need it.
In the film, Eddington, NM is a fictional, politically purple small town bordering tribal land. It looks and feels like it’s been hollowed out. The construction of a giant resource-sucking AI data center looms in the background. Simply put, Eddington is a microcosm of America. Joaquin Phoenix stars as Joe Cross, the town sheriff who mourns the lack of community and insists “those problems don’t exist here”, referring to everything from the COVID-19 virus to racial violence. Joe lives with a wife who refuses to be touched (there’s more to that story) and a mother-in-law who lives in a constant state of conspiracy fever. What begins as an impulsive run for mayor on an anti-masking platform escalates into a full-on feud with the town’s establishment liberal mayor (Pedro Pascal) before descending into a paranoid, Pynchon-esque nightmare that puts the town of Eddington seemingly at the center of all these problems.
Despite its assumed lack of appeal and its 2.5 hour runtime, EDDINGTON is edge-of-your-seat entertainment. It’s filled with stellar performances, shocking turns, dark humor and a visual language that is just as horror-coded as it is rooted in the iconography of Westerns. Still, the film is not an easy watch. In a way, EDDINGTON feels like life on the Internet: a barrage of screens, conspiracy thinking, virtue signaling, brain rot, detachment, manipulation and anger. It’s dense and messy, attempting to pull as many voices from the cacophony as possible. The characters are not presented as uniformly good or bad (though some end up doing REALLY bad things).
Many are calling the film “irresponsible” in its perceived centrism, which Ari sees as disingenuous, and I agree. Do we really need some ham-fisted dialogue to outright condemn Trump/MAGA? It’s right there in every frame of the film. Does any form of criticism aimed at the Left automatically translate as “both sides are equally bad”? Perhaps some viewers will feel called out by the (certain White characters’) performative anti-racism in the film. And perhaps there are those who won’t be able to see the wild third-act twist as the farce it’s intended to be. I suppose it’s problematic for a film like EDDINGTON to be put out when media literacy is at an all-time low. Like I said, the world is not ready.
I think Ari Aster fully expects the reception of this film to be divided. Those eager to call him a pretentious edgelord will claim that this film has no point. But I disagree. The (potentially heated) discourse it will spark is part of the point. Humanity has lost its way, America is a violent circus, it all feels so futile. But is it really better if we refuse to acknowledge it? At least this film has the balls to hold up a mirror to America in decline. But Americans don’t want to look in the mirror. We don’t want to look at each other. We want to keep scrolling.
EDDINGTON wants you to know that “YOUR BEING MANIPULATED”. Dubbed a “COVID western”, Ari Aster’s EDDINGTON seems on its surface to be an exercise in misery, a cinematic doom scroll back through the last five years to the powder-keg paradigm shift that was mid-2020. It’s a satire in an age where reality feels like satire, which is not untrue but still sounds smug to say when human rights protections are in free fall. Cue the groans from exhausted Americans across the socio-political spectrum calling the film “unnecessary”. But while this fresh hell is, well, fresh, it stands to reason there should be a film that attempts to capture the obscenity of America in its chronically-online era. We are not ready for this film. But still, I think we might need it.
In the film, Eddington, NM is a fictional, politically purple small town bordering tribal land. It looks and feels like it’s been hollowed out. The construction of a giant resource-sucking AI data center looms in the background. Simply put, Eddington is a microcosm of America. Joaquin Phoenix stars as Joe Cross, the town sheriff who mourns the lack of community and insists “those problems don’t exist here”, referring to everything from the COVID-19 virus to racial violence. Joe lives with a wife who refuses to be touched (there’s more to that story) and a mother-in-law who lives in a constant state of conspiracy fever. What begins as an impulsive run for mayor on an anti-masking platform escalates into a full-on feud with the town’s establishment liberal mayor (Pedro Pascal) before descending into a paranoid, Pynchon-esque nightmare that puts the town of Eddington seemingly at the center of all these problems.
Despite its assumed lack of appeal and its 2.5 hour runtime, EDDINGTON is edge-of-your-seat entertainment. It’s filled with stellar performances, shocking turns, dark humor and a visual language that is just as horror-coded as it is rooted in the iconography of Westerns. Still, the film is not an easy watch. In a way, EDDINGTON feels like life on the Internet: a barrage of screens, conspiracy thinking, virtue signaling, brain rot, detachment, manipulation and anger. It’s dense and messy, attempting to pull as many voices from the cacophony as possible. The characters are not presented as uniformly good or bad (though some end up doing REALLY bad things).
Many are calling the film “irresponsible” in its perceived centrism, which Ari sees as disingenuous, and I agree. Do we really need some ham-fisted dialogue to outright condemn Trump/MAGA? It’s right there in every frame of the film. Does any form of criticism aimed at the Left automatically translate as “both sides are equally bad”? Perhaps some viewers will feel called out by the (certain White characters’) performative anti-racism in the film. And perhaps there are those who won’t be able to see the wild third-act twist as the farce it’s intended to be. I suppose it’s problematic for a film like EDDINGTON to be put out when media literacy is at an all-time low. Like I said, the world is not ready.
I think Ari Aster fully expects the reception of this film to be divided. Those eager to call him a pretentious edgelord will claim that this film has no point. But I disagree. The (potentially heated) discourse it will spark is part of the point. Humanity has lost its way, America is a violent circus, it all feels so futile. But is it really better if we refuse to acknowledge it? At least this film has the balls to hold up a mirror to America in decline. But Americans don’t want to look in the mirror. We don’t want to look at each other. We want to keep scrolling.
28 Years Later (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
28 YEARS LATER (2025) is flawed, uneven, and definitely oversold by its trailer, but it’s also one of the most unconventional and audacious films of the year. And it has way more in common with the first film in the series than some are willing to admit.
Set in the Scottish Highlands 28 years after the Rage virus outbreak, the film focuses on a small protected island and the discoveries made when a young boy and his father venture into the dark heart of the mainland. Trading the camcorder used to capture the original for iPhones (the handheld video device of today), this new installment is aggressively shot and edited to give the action a raw feel and heightened intensity. Like the original, YEARS has its moments of intense violence, but it is also meandering and pensive. It covers similar themes—human nature, the fragility of civilization, love, death, and the will to survive—while focusing sharply on the indoctrination of young men into violence and militarized ideals. This installment also tackles the fractured family and coming-of-age themes, led by a stellar performance from 14-year-old Alfie Williams. The story needed serious work, the pacing of the last two-thirds is rough, and the tone swings wildly throughout (!!), BUT there’s enough there, thematically and stylistically, to warrant a trilogy (yes, this is the first film in a new trilogy).
Honestly, it’s exciting to have a mainstream film elicit such a variety of responses. I typically go to films by myself, but I went to see 28 YEARS LATER with six family members, all of whom had very different (and some very passionate) reactions to the film. For example, one sequence that my husband and I found unintentionally funny made my sister-in-law cry, but she walked out hating the film overall and he walked out loving it. Wild.
Finally, that ending everyone seems to hate—I dig! It’s so ridiculous and provocative that it’s actually kind of rad (and satisfying, as I’d been wondering when/if we would see a certain character again). Go see 28 YEARS LATER and decide for yourself!
28 YEARS LATER (2025) is flawed, uneven, and definitely oversold by its trailer, but it’s also one of the most unconventional and audacious films of the year. And it has way more in common with the first film in the series than some are willing to admit.
Set in the Scottish Highlands 28 years after the Rage virus outbreak, the film focuses on a small protected island and the discoveries made when a young boy and his father venture into the dark heart of the mainland. Trading the camcorder used to capture the original for iPhones (the handheld video device of today), this new installment is aggressively shot and edited to give the action a raw feel and heightened intensity. Like the original, YEARS has its moments of intense violence, but it is also meandering and pensive. It covers similar themes—human nature, the fragility of civilization, love, death, and the will to survive—while focusing sharply on the indoctrination of young men into violence and militarized ideals. This installment also tackles the fractured family and coming-of-age themes, led by a stellar performance from 14-year-old Alfie Williams. The story needed serious work, the pacing of the last two-thirds is rough, and the tone swings wildly throughout (!!), BUT there’s enough there, thematically and stylistically, to warrant a trilogy (yes, this is the first film in a new trilogy).
Honestly, it’s exciting to have a mainstream film elicit such a variety of responses. I typically go to films by myself, but I went to see 28 YEARS LATER with six family members, all of whom had very different (and some very passionate) reactions to the film. For example, one sequence that my husband and I found unintentionally funny made my sister-in-law cry, but she walked out hating the film overall and he walked out loving it. Wild.
Finally, that ending everyone seems to hate—I dig! It’s so ridiculous and provocative that it’s actually kind of rad (and satisfying, as I’d been wondering when/if we would see a certain character again). Go see 28 YEARS LATER and decide for yourself!
Bring Her Back (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
BRING HER BACK (2025) is a slow but steady descent into the muddy pit of grief—one that leaves you clawing your own way out long after the credits roll.
No sophomore slump here—the Philippou Brothers swing for the fences again after the massive success of their terrifying feature debut TALK TO ME (2022). Fans of their first film can expect some similarities between the two: themes of grief, gnarly FX, and shocking violence from which no one is safe—not even children. However, BRING HER BACK is more of a character-driven drama that gives over to pure terror, with supernatural elements and real-life horror working in tandem to get under your skin.
⚠️ Ultra-light spoilers/plot description below.
Following the unexpected death of their father, siblings Andy and Piper are placed under the care of a foster mother named Laura (Sally Hawkins). When they are introduced to their new sibling Oliver, a strangely withdrawn child who is “selectively mute”, it becomes evident that there is something very wrong in this house. The horror of their situation is heightened by the fact that Piper is legally blind, which adds weight to Andy’s sense of responsibility for his sister and creates opportunity for Laura to manipulate them in deeply upsetting ways. Over the course of the film, Andy uncovers Laura’s terrifying secret, a journey that is equally soul-rattling and stomach-churning.
Sally Hawkins delivers a staggering performance on par with Toni Collette’s in HEREDITARY (2018), and the young actors rise to the occasion with equally powerful turns. The film is on a level with some of the best Korean or Japanese horror in the sense of how far it is willing to go, and the entire cast is up for the challenge. If you’re up for the challenge, go be traumatized by BRING HER BACK in theaters this weekend!
BRING HER BACK (2025) is a slow but steady descent into the muddy pit of grief—one that leaves you clawing your own way out long after the credits roll.
No sophomore slump here—the Philippou Brothers swing for the fences again after the massive success of their terrifying feature debut TALK TO ME (2022). Fans of their first film can expect some similarities between the two: themes of grief, gnarly FX, and shocking violence from which no one is safe—not even children. However, BRING HER BACK is more of a character-driven drama that gives over to pure terror, with supernatural elements and real-life horror working in tandem to get under your skin.
⚠️ Ultra-light spoilers/plot description below.
Following the unexpected death of their father, siblings Andy and Piper are placed under the care of a foster mother named Laura (Sally Hawkins). When they are introduced to their new sibling Oliver, a strangely withdrawn child who is “selectively mute”, it becomes evident that there is something very wrong in this house. The horror of their situation is heightened by the fact that Piper is legally blind, which adds weight to Andy’s sense of responsibility for his sister and creates opportunity for Laura to manipulate them in deeply upsetting ways. Over the course of the film, Andy uncovers Laura’s terrifying secret, a journey that is equally soul-rattling and stomach-churning.
Sally Hawkins delivers a staggering performance on par with Toni Collette’s in HEREDITARY (2018), and the young actors rise to the occasion with equally powerful turns. The film is on a level with some of the best Korean or Japanese horror in the sense of how far it is willing to go, and the entire cast is up for the challenge. If you’re up for the challenge, go be traumatized by BRING HER BACK in theaters this weekend!
Final Destination: Bloodlines (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
After a 14 year hiatus, Death returns in FINAL DESTINATION: BLOODLINES (2025), a reboot that understands everything an audience could possibly want from this franchise. It serves a deadly lineup of new irrational fears and a fresh take on the FD formula that will satisfy long-time fans and give new fans generational trauma.
BLOODLINES is the most self-aware film in the franchise, but it doesn’t get too caught up in making fun of itself. This strain of camp elevates the film above the previous entries without feeling “elevated” or losing hold of the absurd humor that makes these films what they are. As expected, the deaths are gnarly and creative, with at least one that shot right to the top of my personal favorites. The setups, with all their red herrings and clever twists, are as fun and stressful as ever. Having watched BLOODLINES in IMAX feels like having survived a turbulent storm or a sick amusement park ride; never have I ever experienced vertigo in the movie theater—until the opening sequence of this film.
And never have I ever cried in a FINAL DESTINATION movie, but here we are. The true highlight of BLOODLINES is legend Tony Todd’s return as the enigmatic mortician William Bludworth. His presence, as always, reverberates beyond the screen, with a layered performance that acknowledges the absurdity of death and the preciousness of life, bypassing the script to speak to his audience directly. His poignant cameo recognizes why so many of us love this silly gorefest franchise, and horror in general.
So, in honor of Mr. Todd, be grateful for every moment of this wild, fleeting existence. And go see FINAL DESTINATION: BLOODLINES (2025) on the biggest screen you can find!
After a 14 year hiatus, Death returns in FINAL DESTINATION: BLOODLINES (2025), a reboot that understands everything an audience could possibly want from this franchise. It serves a deadly lineup of new irrational fears and a fresh take on the FD formula that will satisfy long-time fans and give new fans generational trauma.
BLOODLINES is the most self-aware film in the franchise, but it doesn’t get too caught up in making fun of itself. This strain of camp elevates the film above the previous entries without feeling “elevated” or losing hold of the absurd humor that makes these films what they are. As expected, the deaths are gnarly and creative, with at least one that shot right to the top of my personal favorites. The setups, with all their red herrings and clever twists, are as fun and stressful as ever. Having watched BLOODLINES in IMAX feels like having survived a turbulent storm or a sick amusement park ride; never have I ever experienced vertigo in the movie theater—until the opening sequence of this film.
And never have I ever cried in a FINAL DESTINATION movie, but here we are. The true highlight of BLOODLINES is legend Tony Todd’s return as the enigmatic mortician William Bludworth. His presence, as always, reverberates beyond the screen, with a layered performance that acknowledges the absurdity of death and the preciousness of life, bypassing the script to speak to his audience directly. His poignant cameo recognizes why so many of us love this silly gorefest franchise, and horror in general.
So, in honor of Mr. Todd, be grateful for every moment of this wild, fleeting existence. And go see FINAL DESTINATION: BLOODLINES (2025) on the biggest screen you can find!
A Desert (2024)
⭐⭐⭐1/2
A DESERT (2024) is a shocking, filthy, feel-bad trip to hell through the crumbling wasteland of the American Southwest. The only thing that thrives in this desert is pure nihilism.
In this disturbing horror noir, a photographer takes a mid-life crisis road trip through the Southwest to shoot old, decrepit buildings and “begin again”. The desert appears to him, and to us, as an otherworldly heaven, with its sublime, bizarre landscapes and hopeful horizons. But when the winds blow and sands shift, a darkness is uncovered. Before long, he finds himself thrust into the underbelly of this place, his search for inspiration spiraling into a sick nightmare. This movie rides off the rails and over a cliff, and it doesn’t hold your hand on the way down; it pushes you headfirst.
The film’s influences are obvious: it has notes of LOST HIGHWAY (“ya like jazz?”) and borrows the blueprint of another very famous film that I won’t mention here as it would spoil one of the many scenes that’ll have your jaw on the floor. Comparisons to indie horror TWENTYNINE PALMS and even PARIS, TEXAS are warranted. But despite all this borrowing, A DESERT is a singular beast, its own thing, impossible to pin down. It honors both the creative and destructive potential of captured images as record of all the beauty and depravity in this world. As lofty as that sounds, be warned that A DESERT is truly feral stuff, with a villain so convincing, you would cross the street if you saw this actor coming. It will stay with you long after the credits roll. You might think about it every time you see an empty cinema screen.
A DESERT (2024) is a shocking, filthy, feel-bad trip to hell through the crumbling wasteland of the American Southwest. The only thing that thrives in this desert is pure nihilism.
In this disturbing horror noir, a photographer takes a mid-life crisis road trip through the Southwest to shoot old, decrepit buildings and “begin again”. The desert appears to him, and to us, as an otherworldly heaven, with its sublime, bizarre landscapes and hopeful horizons. But when the winds blow and sands shift, a darkness is uncovered. Before long, he finds himself thrust into the underbelly of this place, his search for inspiration spiraling into a sick nightmare. This movie rides off the rails and over a cliff, and it doesn’t hold your hand on the way down; it pushes you headfirst.
The film’s influences are obvious: it has notes of LOST HIGHWAY (“ya like jazz?”) and borrows the blueprint of another very famous film that I won’t mention here as it would spoil one of the many scenes that’ll have your jaw on the floor. Comparisons to indie horror TWENTYNINE PALMS and even PARIS, TEXAS are warranted. But despite all this borrowing, A DESERT is a singular beast, its own thing, impossible to pin down. It honors both the creative and destructive potential of captured images as record of all the beauty and depravity in this world. As lofty as that sounds, be warned that A DESERT is truly feral stuff, with a villain so convincing, you would cross the street if you saw this actor coming. It will stay with you long after the credits roll. You might think about it every time you see an empty cinema screen.
Sinners (2025)
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
What really happened when Robert Johnson met the Devil down at the crossroads? Some say he sold his soul to be able to play like that. SINNERS (2025) tells a different story. And just like the Blues when it migrated north, this movie goes absolutely electric.
It’s rare that I see a movie in theaters and immediately want to go see it again. But with SINNERS, Ryan Coogler has given us a purely cinematic experience, one worth having again and again. It’s filled with blood, music, magic, sex, fire, heart and soul, as tense as it is intoxicating. It checks every box of Nicole Kidman’s AMC preamble. But more importantly, it brings Black history to the screen in a way that hasn’t quite been done before. And using vampirism as a metaphor for assimilation, the dilution of soul, of color, of pain, of history? Brilliant.
Making a musical movie is no easy task. Try making a musical movie that is also scary. SINNERS arranges the continuum of American music into a composition that balances horror, action, drama and even comedy, and miraculously, it works. The music is what carries the story deeper, and it's what makes the scares all the more terrifying. There is one musical sequence so rapturous, it had my jaw on the floor, and another that was so chilling, it made my hair stand on end.
But the vision isn’t only realized here through music and sound; every artist on and offscreen is firing on all cylinders. It all harmonizes, from the stunning cinematography, to the deft editing, to the resonant performances, particularly that of Michael B. Jordan in a dual role as twin brothers Smoke and Stack, as well as impressive newcomer Miles Caton. Furthermore, SINNERS takes time to develop its characters without feeling slow or losing tension. Coogler knows we can only be scared when we are made to care. His film manages the tonal feat of bridging horrors both fantastic and real, acknowledging the threat of racial violence while managing to be an entertaining blast from start to finish.
SINNERS is the best movie of 2025 thus far. Experience it in theaters and STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS.
What really happened when Robert Johnson met the Devil down at the crossroads? Some say he sold his soul to be able to play like that. SINNERS (2025) tells a different story. And just like the Blues when it migrated north, this movie goes absolutely electric.
It’s rare that I see a movie in theaters and immediately want to go see it again. But with SINNERS, Ryan Coogler has given us a purely cinematic experience, one worth having again and again. It’s filled with blood, music, magic, sex, fire, heart and soul, as tense as it is intoxicating. It checks every box of Nicole Kidman’s AMC preamble. But more importantly, it brings Black history to the screen in a way that hasn’t quite been done before. And using vampirism as a metaphor for assimilation, the dilution of soul, of color, of pain, of history? Brilliant.
Making a musical movie is no easy task. Try making a musical movie that is also scary. SINNERS arranges the continuum of American music into a composition that balances horror, action, drama and even comedy, and miraculously, it works. The music is what carries the story deeper, and it's what makes the scares all the more terrifying. There is one musical sequence so rapturous, it had my jaw on the floor, and another that was so chilling, it made my hair stand on end.
But the vision isn’t only realized here through music and sound; every artist on and offscreen is firing on all cylinders. It all harmonizes, from the stunning cinematography, to the deft editing, to the resonant performances, particularly that of Michael B. Jordan in a dual role as twin brothers Smoke and Stack, as well as impressive newcomer Miles Caton. Furthermore, SINNERS takes time to develop its characters without feeling slow or losing tension. Coogler knows we can only be scared when we are made to care. His film manages the tonal feat of bridging horrors both fantastic and real, acknowledging the threat of racial violence while managing to be an entertaining blast from start to finish.
SINNERS is the best movie of 2025 thus far. Experience it in theaters and STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS.
Ash (2025)
⭐⭐⭐
ASH (2025) is Lovecraft meets Adult Swim meets Cyberpunk meets God (on DMT). AKA what FlyLo sees when he closes his eyes.
On a distant planet, an astronaut named Riya (Eiza González) wakes up to find the entire crew of her space station has been killed. With little memory of herself, her crew, their mission, or what went south, Riya must decide if she can trust the only other survivor (Aaron Paul) whom she supposedly knows. This cosmic voyage is the latest effort from multi-hyphenate Flying Lotus, and it’s an impressive display of unfettered creativity. ASH has the spark of originality while also sharing DNA with many of the sci-fi/horror classics. It’s an audio-visual treat, with mind-melting music, sound, colors, and textures. That said, the film is so out there in its own dimension that it occasionally loses touch with its audience, suffering from pacing issues, flat characters, and some predictable “unreliable narrator” tropes.
Every time ASH almost lost me, it pulled me back in with some truly wild shit, coming in waves like a trip. And much like being on a trip, my ability to connect with the film fluctuated greatly while watching. Overall, I’d say ASH is a strange and slightly underwhelming experience, but it’s a fun ride for those who go in with an open mind. FlyLo shows promise as a director, and ASH is best enjoyed as an extraterrestrial exhibit of his many talents and psychedelic sensibilities.
ASH (2025) is Lovecraft meets Adult Swim meets Cyberpunk meets God (on DMT). AKA what FlyLo sees when he closes his eyes.
On a distant planet, an astronaut named Riya (Eiza González) wakes up to find the entire crew of her space station has been killed. With little memory of herself, her crew, their mission, or what went south, Riya must decide if she can trust the only other survivor (Aaron Paul) whom she supposedly knows. This cosmic voyage is the latest effort from multi-hyphenate Flying Lotus, and it’s an impressive display of unfettered creativity. ASH has the spark of originality while also sharing DNA with many of the sci-fi/horror classics. It’s an audio-visual treat, with mind-melting music, sound, colors, and textures. That said, the film is so out there in its own dimension that it occasionally loses touch with its audience, suffering from pacing issues, flat characters, and some predictable “unreliable narrator” tropes.
Every time ASH almost lost me, it pulled me back in with some truly wild shit, coming in waves like a trip. And much like being on a trip, my ability to connect with the film fluctuated greatly while watching. Overall, I’d say ASH is a strange and slightly underwhelming experience, but it’s a fun ride for those who go in with an open mind. FlyLo shows promise as a director, and ASH is best enjoyed as an extraterrestrial exhibit of his many talents and psychedelic sensibilities.
The Monkey (2025)
⭐⭐⭐1/2
Think Stephen King meets Final Destination meets the Looney Tunes, and you've got THE MONKEY (2025). It's the latest Stephen King adaptation from LONGLEGS director Oz Perkins, and it is, well, bananas. Absurd and gruesome as hell, the movie is full of creative kills that will have you laughing and gasping in equal measure. It finds every beat of dark humor in death's inevitability and bangs it like that monkey bangs its drum. THE MONKEY doesn't take itself too seriously, so you shouldn't either. If you’re a fan of fun, you’re gonna get a kick out of this one!
Think Stephen King meets Final Destination meets the Looney Tunes, and you've got THE MONKEY (2025). It's the latest Stephen King adaptation from LONGLEGS director Oz Perkins, and it is, well, bananas. Absurd and gruesome as hell, the movie is full of creative kills that will have you laughing and gasping in equal measure. It finds every beat of dark humor in death's inevitability and bangs it like that monkey bangs its drum. THE MONKEY doesn't take itself too seriously, so you shouldn't either. If you’re a fan of fun, you’re gonna get a kick out of this one!
Companion (2025)
⭐⭐⭐1/2
COMPANION (2025) is the first great movie of the year: horror, sci-fi, thriller, or otherwise. It’s programmed for those who like their socially conscious horror heavily spiked with fun. And while much of the fun rides on a twist that was spoiled by an overzealous marketing team, COMPANION still has so much to offer.
That said, ⚠️ SPOILERS AHEAD. Haven’t seen it yet? Save this post and come back later!
COMPANION presents very clever commentary on gender roles, control, and what mediocre men “deserve”. Set in a not-so distant future where fully customizable robot girlfriends exist (available for purchase or for rent), COMPANION also opens up conversations about our relationship with technology. What roles can or should be taken by AI, and how might our moral limits be tested when it comes to sentient tech? The film asks these questions, but without ever forgetting to entertain. The cast is pitch perfect, led by Sophie Thatcher in absolute peak form and by a very punchable Jack Quaid (who is very much leaning into this typecasting). The characters are well written, even (or perhaps especially) those whose consciousness is limited by their lack of humanity. And the true inhumanity, of course, is found within the characters who allow themselves to be governed by the weakest of human emotions, from insecurity to bitterness to greed.
COMPANION feels so confident in her own skin, it’s hard to believe that she’s writer and director Drew Hancock’s debut! She is witty, bloody, sexy and thrilling. She makes every genre shot she takes, from sci-fi thriller to horror to comedy. What can’t she do? (Besides lie…) Find out whether COMPANION is made just for you: available on digital starting tomorrow!
COMPANION (2025) is the first great movie of the year: horror, sci-fi, thriller, or otherwise. It’s programmed for those who like their socially conscious horror heavily spiked with fun. And while much of the fun rides on a twist that was spoiled by an overzealous marketing team, COMPANION still has so much to offer.
That said, ⚠️ SPOILERS AHEAD. Haven’t seen it yet? Save this post and come back later!
COMPANION presents very clever commentary on gender roles, control, and what mediocre men “deserve”. Set in a not-so distant future where fully customizable robot girlfriends exist (available for purchase or for rent), COMPANION also opens up conversations about our relationship with technology. What roles can or should be taken by AI, and how might our moral limits be tested when it comes to sentient tech? The film asks these questions, but without ever forgetting to entertain. The cast is pitch perfect, led by Sophie Thatcher in absolute peak form and by a very punchable Jack Quaid (who is very much leaning into this typecasting). The characters are well written, even (or perhaps especially) those whose consciousness is limited by their lack of humanity. And the true inhumanity, of course, is found within the characters who allow themselves to be governed by the weakest of human emotions, from insecurity to bitterness to greed.
COMPANION feels so confident in her own skin, it’s hard to believe that she’s writer and director Drew Hancock’s debut! She is witty, bloody, sexy and thrilling. She makes every genre shot she takes, from sci-fi thriller to horror to comedy. What can’t she do? (Besides lie…) Find out whether COMPANION is made just for you: available on digital starting tomorrow!
Presence (2024)
⭐⭐⭐1/2
PRESENCE (2024) is chilling and subtle, the kind of film that requires the viewer to be, well, present. It’s shot entirely from the perspective of the ghost haunting a family who’s just moved into their new suburban home. This floaty surveillance style gives an eerie feel to what might be better described as a supernatural drama rather than a horror film. Blink and you’ll miss the small details that make this ghost story truly haunting, and not in the way that you expect.
Steven Soderbergh has one of the most eclectic filmographies of any modern director. He has crafted powerful Oscar winners and launched glossy blockbuster franchises. He’s tackled almost every genre and niche there is, from heist movies to arthouse dramas. In the 2010s, he shot two indie projects on an iPhone and released a “choose your own adventure” murder mystery film in the form of an interactive app. He often edits or shoots his own work under pseudonyms. It’s hard to know what to expect from a filmmaker so prolific, but that unpredictability is precisely what makes Soderbergh worth watching. Though the results of his experiments vary, it’s his commitment to evolving that makes his work so exciting.
In the case of PRESENCE, his experiment works. The POV style is a bit tedious to begin with, and it’s a while before the film finds its rhythm. However, patient viewers will be pulled into its eerie atmosphere and then rewarded with emotional turns and a carefully unraveled mystery. The film is built around typical, if not overplayed elements of modern ghost stories, such as grief, trauma and strained family relationships, but it distinguishes itself not only through its unique form, but how that form is utilized to develop the story and the characters. The ghost POV is more than just a cool idea, it’s a purposeful mechanism which allows you to get to know the characters, even from a spectral distance. Soderbergh is intent on subverting expectations here, but in a muted way. He demands, quietly, that you pay attention. In an era where streaming content is designed to be “half-watched”, easily digestible and optimized for distraction, he’s asking you to actively watch.
PRESENCE (2024) is chilling and subtle, the kind of film that requires the viewer to be, well, present. It’s shot entirely from the perspective of the ghost haunting a family who’s just moved into their new suburban home. This floaty surveillance style gives an eerie feel to what might be better described as a supernatural drama rather than a horror film. Blink and you’ll miss the small details that make this ghost story truly haunting, and not in the way that you expect.
Steven Soderbergh has one of the most eclectic filmographies of any modern director. He has crafted powerful Oscar winners and launched glossy blockbuster franchises. He’s tackled almost every genre and niche there is, from heist movies to arthouse dramas. In the 2010s, he shot two indie projects on an iPhone and released a “choose your own adventure” murder mystery film in the form of an interactive app. He often edits or shoots his own work under pseudonyms. It’s hard to know what to expect from a filmmaker so prolific, but that unpredictability is precisely what makes Soderbergh worth watching. Though the results of his experiments vary, it’s his commitment to evolving that makes his work so exciting.
In the case of PRESENCE, his experiment works. The POV style is a bit tedious to begin with, and it’s a while before the film finds its rhythm. However, patient viewers will be pulled into its eerie atmosphere and then rewarded with emotional turns and a carefully unraveled mystery. The film is built around typical, if not overplayed elements of modern ghost stories, such as grief, trauma and strained family relationships, but it distinguishes itself not only through its unique form, but how that form is utilized to develop the story and the characters. The ghost POV is more than just a cool idea, it’s a purposeful mechanism which allows you to get to know the characters, even from a spectral distance. Soderbergh is intent on subverting expectations here, but in a muted way. He demands, quietly, that you pay attention. In an era where streaming content is designed to be “half-watched”, easily digestible and optimized for distraction, he’s asking you to actively watch.
Wolfman (2025)
⭐⭐⭐
WOLF MAN (2025) is an emotional, modern take on the werewolf. As far as reboots go, it’s a mixed bag.
⚠️ Ultra-light spoilers.
WOLF MAN stars Christopher Abbott as Blake, a San Francisco family man who inherits his remote childhood home after his estranged father vanishes and is presumed dead. He convinces his wife Charlotte (Julia Garner) and young daughter to come visit the property with him in an effort to heal the strain in his marriage. When Blake and his family are attacked by an unseen animal, the night takes a devastating turn as Blake begins to behave strangely, transforming into something unrecognizable and dangerous.
This version trades the gothic European backdrop of the 1941 OG for an American farm, but it preserves underlying themes from the original, including aggression, the drives of the id, and toxic father-son relationships. WOLF MAN is not a typical werewolf movie, which works mostly to its benefit but somewhat to its detriment. Though its release was timed with this year’s wolf moon, the movie’s plot disregards the moon and other werewolf “rules” in favor of a modern take on lycanthropy akin to a spreadable, degenerative disease. From tone to makeup/FX to character arcs, WOLF MAN owes more to Cronenberg’s THE FLY than it does to its source material.
The most inventive choice in the film is the depiction of Blake’s transformation that immerses the audience in both Blake’s perspective and Charlotte’s through sound design, camera work, lighting and VFX. While this approach somewhat relieves the film of the towering expectations set by Rick Baker’s work in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON or Jack P. Pierce’s work in the original, it also incorporates VFX that in my opinion undercut an otherwise gorgeously made film.
Overall, WOLF MAN feels more like a virus movie than a werewolf movie. And unfortunately, it is predictable to a fault and lacks subtlety in its approach to thematic elements (the parent-child dialogue is a bit too on-the-nose). That said, it features heart-pounding action (the truck sequence is awesome) and emotional lead performances from two of the best emerging actors. Bring tissues.
WOLF MAN (2025) is an emotional, modern take on the werewolf. As far as reboots go, it’s a mixed bag.
⚠️ Ultra-light spoilers.
WOLF MAN stars Christopher Abbott as Blake, a San Francisco family man who inherits his remote childhood home after his estranged father vanishes and is presumed dead. He convinces his wife Charlotte (Julia Garner) and young daughter to come visit the property with him in an effort to heal the strain in his marriage. When Blake and his family are attacked by an unseen animal, the night takes a devastating turn as Blake begins to behave strangely, transforming into something unrecognizable and dangerous.
This version trades the gothic European backdrop of the 1941 OG for an American farm, but it preserves underlying themes from the original, including aggression, the drives of the id, and toxic father-son relationships. WOLF MAN is not a typical werewolf movie, which works mostly to its benefit but somewhat to its detriment. Though its release was timed with this year’s wolf moon, the movie’s plot disregards the moon and other werewolf “rules” in favor of a modern take on lycanthropy akin to a spreadable, degenerative disease. From tone to makeup/FX to character arcs, WOLF MAN owes more to Cronenberg’s THE FLY than it does to its source material.
The most inventive choice in the film is the depiction of Blake’s transformation that immerses the audience in both Blake’s perspective and Charlotte’s through sound design, camera work, lighting and VFX. While this approach somewhat relieves the film of the towering expectations set by Rick Baker’s work in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON or Jack P. Pierce’s work in the original, it also incorporates VFX that in my opinion undercut an otherwise gorgeously made film.
Overall, WOLF MAN feels more like a virus movie than a werewolf movie. And unfortunately, it is predictable to a fault and lacks subtlety in its approach to thematic elements (the parent-child dialogue is a bit too on-the-nose). That said, it features heart-pounding action (the truck sequence is awesome) and emotional lead performances from two of the best emerging actors. Bring tissues.
Nosferatu (2024)
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
NOSFERATU is a psychosexual nightmare that pulls you into the darkest corners of desire. Not only does it prove itself a worthy entry in one of horror’s greatest legacies, it is the kind of cinematic achievement that gives horror fans renewed pride in the genre.
“She’ll rave all night!”
“Then rave she must.”
A major strength of Eggers’ NOSFERATU is his choice to center the Ellen character (an analogue for Mina from the Dracula novel). Those who know the original story know that while Ellen is the ultimate hero, her journey up until the final act is left mostly in the margins. However, in this new version, Ellen’s mystical connection with Count Orlok is the lifeblood of the entire film. She succumbs to visions of his curse that send her into violent, orgasmic fits, her body and soul fighting somewhere in the abyss between pure terror and sheer pleasure. But though she’s afraid, and despite the male efforts to sedate her “hysteria”, Ellen is ready to feel it all. And the audience can practically feel it all, too, courtesy of a physically demanding and altogether astounding performance from Lily-Rose Depp.
Most of the other actors pull their weight. Nicolas Hoult shows emotional depth and believable fear, Willem Dafoe is delightfully over-the-top, and Bill Skarsgård disappears completely inside Count Orlok. His performance is otherworldly yet strangely human, filled with menace and tinged with loneliness. His sepulchral voice fills every corner. When it comes to his look, which is mostly inspired by vampires of early folklore, there are at least two things you are not expecting to see.
This film is a gothic vision fully realized by artists on- and offscreen who are at the top of their game. Every detail of the makeup, costumes, sets and FX is stunning. Jarin Blaschke’s cinematography is breathtaking. The score and sound design are tremendous. Nosferatu is daunting source material given its impact on the genre, but director Robert Eggers proves he’s up for the task of remaking it for a modern audience. Beautiful, macabre, and obsessively detailed, NOSFERATU (2024) remains true to its source material(s) but casts a looming shadow all its own.
NOSFERATU is a psychosexual nightmare that pulls you into the darkest corners of desire. Not only does it prove itself a worthy entry in one of horror’s greatest legacies, it is the kind of cinematic achievement that gives horror fans renewed pride in the genre.
“She’ll rave all night!”
“Then rave she must.”
A major strength of Eggers’ NOSFERATU is his choice to center the Ellen character (an analogue for Mina from the Dracula novel). Those who know the original story know that while Ellen is the ultimate hero, her journey up until the final act is left mostly in the margins. However, in this new version, Ellen’s mystical connection with Count Orlok is the lifeblood of the entire film. She succumbs to visions of his curse that send her into violent, orgasmic fits, her body and soul fighting somewhere in the abyss between pure terror and sheer pleasure. But though she’s afraid, and despite the male efforts to sedate her “hysteria”, Ellen is ready to feel it all. And the audience can practically feel it all, too, courtesy of a physically demanding and altogether astounding performance from Lily-Rose Depp.
Most of the other actors pull their weight. Nicolas Hoult shows emotional depth and believable fear, Willem Dafoe is delightfully over-the-top, and Bill Skarsgård disappears completely inside Count Orlok. His performance is otherworldly yet strangely human, filled with menace and tinged with loneliness. His sepulchral voice fills every corner. When it comes to his look, which is mostly inspired by vampires of early folklore, there are at least two things you are not expecting to see.
This film is a gothic vision fully realized by artists on- and offscreen who are at the top of their game. Every detail of the makeup, costumes, sets and FX is stunning. Jarin Blaschke’s cinematography is breathtaking. The score and sound design are tremendous. Nosferatu is daunting source material given its impact on the genre, but director Robert Eggers proves he’s up for the task of remaking it for a modern audience. Beautiful, macabre, and obsessively detailed, NOSFERATU (2024) remains true to its source material(s) but casts a looming shadow all its own.
Heretic (2024)
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
Two LDS missionaries knock on the door of Mr. Reed and find themselves trapped in a game of theological wits in HERETIC (2024). A tightly-scripted, well-acted, cerebral slow burn with some truly diabolical surprises, HERETIC is the movie equivalent of attending the world’s most twisted religion class.
BELIEF. DISBELIEF. Which door would you choose, based on your faith?
⚠️ ULTRA-LIGHT SPOILERS.
BELIEF: The thing I admire most about this film is its script, which dismantles dogmatic thinking while still promoting a sense of spiritual curiosity as Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant) and the young missionaries engage in a theological debate with deadly stakes. The writing never belittles Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) by equating their faith to naivety. Quite the opposite. Their characters break stereotypes by going toe-to-toe with Mr. Reed and are consistently smart, scrappy and resourceful in their efforts to beat him at his own sick game. As the tense, dialogue-heavy first half gives way to shocking revelations in the second, the tone of the film shifts a bit but does not abandon all the setup that occurred. Every detail matters. With respect to its content, the film strikes a balance between answering its own questions and leaving its audience with enough to ponder.
DISBELIEF: I had my doubts, before and during the film, about Hugh Grant’s capacity to play a true villain. While his innate charm is essential to the role of Mr. Reed, there are moments when fearing him feels somewhat of a stretch. However, I was mostly sold by the end. When his true intentions are revealed, Mr. Reed doesn’t become some cartoon. He carries himself with the same charisma he’s displayed from the beginning, and it’s the dissonance between his aura and his actions that makes him an effective villain.
Fans of slow-burn psychological fare will be entranced and then perhaps a bit thrown by the shocks in the second half, while less patient viewers might be itching for action until these moments arrive. But overall, HERETIC is equally thought-provoking and fun, and it will delight viewers by honoring their intelligence while still managing to scare and disturb.
Two LDS missionaries knock on the door of Mr. Reed and find themselves trapped in a game of theological wits in HERETIC (2024). A tightly-scripted, well-acted, cerebral slow burn with some truly diabolical surprises, HERETIC is the movie equivalent of attending the world’s most twisted religion class.
BELIEF. DISBELIEF. Which door would you choose, based on your faith?
⚠️ ULTRA-LIGHT SPOILERS.
BELIEF: The thing I admire most about this film is its script, which dismantles dogmatic thinking while still promoting a sense of spiritual curiosity as Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant) and the young missionaries engage in a theological debate with deadly stakes. The writing never belittles Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) by equating their faith to naivety. Quite the opposite. Their characters break stereotypes by going toe-to-toe with Mr. Reed and are consistently smart, scrappy and resourceful in their efforts to beat him at his own sick game. As the tense, dialogue-heavy first half gives way to shocking revelations in the second, the tone of the film shifts a bit but does not abandon all the setup that occurred. Every detail matters. With respect to its content, the film strikes a balance between answering its own questions and leaving its audience with enough to ponder.
DISBELIEF: I had my doubts, before and during the film, about Hugh Grant’s capacity to play a true villain. While his innate charm is essential to the role of Mr. Reed, there are moments when fearing him feels somewhat of a stretch. However, I was mostly sold by the end. When his true intentions are revealed, Mr. Reed doesn’t become some cartoon. He carries himself with the same charisma he’s displayed from the beginning, and it’s the dissonance between his aura and his actions that makes him an effective villain.
Fans of slow-burn psychological fare will be entranced and then perhaps a bit thrown by the shocks in the second half, while less patient viewers might be itching for action until these moments arrive. But overall, HERETIC is equally thought-provoking and fun, and it will delight viewers by honoring their intelligence while still managing to scare and disturb.
The Substance (2024)
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
THE SUBSTANCE (2024) is a brick to the face of ridiculous beauty standards. Liberating in its grotesqueness and uncompromising in its vision, it is the best horror movie of the year.
⚠️ ULTRA-LIGHT SPOILERS.
Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore in the role of a lifetime) is a fading celebrity who learns on her 50th birthday that she is being dropped by her network and replaced by someone younger. When she ends up in a hospital later that day, she is slipped a jumpdrive containing information about The Substance, a black market drug that promises to unlock her DNA in order to release a “younger, prettier, better version” of herself. Desperate and bereft at her situation, Elisabeth places an order for the drug, sending herself down a rabbit hole of self-loathing and squirm-worthy transformation. The experience requires meticulous and painful procedures to ensure its success, demanding great physical and mental sacrifices on behalf of the user. When there’s a slight misuse of The Substance, Elisabeth succumbs to a transformation so hellish and grotesque, it gives Cronenberg a run for his money. Without exaggeration, not one frame could be added to the final act of this film that would make it go any harder than it does. It is disgusting, explosive and utterly satisfying. It’s radical self-acceptance, emphasis on radical.
The film presents a hyper-stylized, warped version of reality, and yet it is completely on target in representing the insidious, dystopian nature of beauty standards and the lengths some women will go to in order to fit the impossible mold. Director Coralie Fargeat understands this system intimately, and with the help of a dynamite FX team and insane performances from Demi Moore, Margaret Qualley, and a truly demented Dennis Quaid, she realizes her vision with needle precision. In an age where TikTok has become an endless feed of nauseating ads for products to fix your “tiny upper lip problem”, where starting Botox at 29 is considered “better late than never”, and where 9-year-old girls have full skin care routines, THE SUBSTANCE feels absolutely necessary. It's scorching, raging, orgasmic and timely, and it rips in every sense of the word.
THE SUBSTANCE (2024) is a brick to the face of ridiculous beauty standards. Liberating in its grotesqueness and uncompromising in its vision, it is the best horror movie of the year.
⚠️ ULTRA-LIGHT SPOILERS.
Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore in the role of a lifetime) is a fading celebrity who learns on her 50th birthday that she is being dropped by her network and replaced by someone younger. When she ends up in a hospital later that day, she is slipped a jumpdrive containing information about The Substance, a black market drug that promises to unlock her DNA in order to release a “younger, prettier, better version” of herself. Desperate and bereft at her situation, Elisabeth places an order for the drug, sending herself down a rabbit hole of self-loathing and squirm-worthy transformation. The experience requires meticulous and painful procedures to ensure its success, demanding great physical and mental sacrifices on behalf of the user. When there’s a slight misuse of The Substance, Elisabeth succumbs to a transformation so hellish and grotesque, it gives Cronenberg a run for his money. Without exaggeration, not one frame could be added to the final act of this film that would make it go any harder than it does. It is disgusting, explosive and utterly satisfying. It’s radical self-acceptance, emphasis on radical.
The film presents a hyper-stylized, warped version of reality, and yet it is completely on target in representing the insidious, dystopian nature of beauty standards and the lengths some women will go to in order to fit the impossible mold. Director Coralie Fargeat understands this system intimately, and with the help of a dynamite FX team and insane performances from Demi Moore, Margaret Qualley, and a truly demented Dennis Quaid, she realizes her vision with needle precision. In an age where TikTok has become an endless feed of nauseating ads for products to fix your “tiny upper lip problem”, where starting Botox at 29 is considered “better late than never”, and where 9-year-old girls have full skin care routines, THE SUBSTANCE feels absolutely necessary. It's scorching, raging, orgasmic and timely, and it rips in every sense of the word.
Speak No Evil (2024)
⭐⭐⭐
When I heard they were remaking SPEAK NO EVIL (2022), like many of you, my first question was why. Deep down, we all know the answer ($), so I suppose a better question would be “for who?”. Who would be the audience for a glossy, Hollywoodized remake of one of the bleakest, most horrifying and most misunderstood horror films of the decade?
⚠️ SPOILERS.
The setup of both films is the same: Family A is charmed by Family B on a European vacation, and they accept an invitation to hang out at Family B’s remote farmhouse. What begins as an idyllic weekend slowly starts unraveling, as Family A tries to stay polite in the face of increasing unpleasantness. Many did not understand that the original was a hyperbolized look at Scandinavian social awkwardness. Those who criticized the first film for “dumb character decisions” missed the point, though it is understandably hard to root for people failing to protect themselves and their own child at every turn. In the original, Family A was Danish (like the director) and Family B was Dutch. They spoke different languages and had to meet in the middle with English. This language barrier built tension and allowed the couples to hide their intentions from each other, adding a dimension that is missing in the remake. This time around, Family A is American and Family B is British, a significant change.
Despite appointing James Watkins (EDEN LAKE) as director, I had a feeling they would fundamentally change the film, with a Family A that was smarter and more willing to fight back. Sure enough, justice is served with a Hollywood ending that will satisfy American audiences but won’t stick the way the original did. And still, many of the same dumb decisions are made in Act I & II, beat for beat.
On its own, SPEAK NO EVIL (2024) is a tight thriller with a chilling performance from James McAvoy and with a female character who takes charge (that, for one, is an improvement). If you watched it without having seen the original and somehow having avoided the spoiler-filled trailer, I imagine you’d enjoy it. But context matters here. Was it a vast improvement on the first film like some are claiming? No. Did it need to be remade? No.
When I heard they were remaking SPEAK NO EVIL (2022), like many of you, my first question was why. Deep down, we all know the answer ($), so I suppose a better question would be “for who?”. Who would be the audience for a glossy, Hollywoodized remake of one of the bleakest, most horrifying and most misunderstood horror films of the decade?
⚠️ SPOILERS.
The setup of both films is the same: Family A is charmed by Family B on a European vacation, and they accept an invitation to hang out at Family B’s remote farmhouse. What begins as an idyllic weekend slowly starts unraveling, as Family A tries to stay polite in the face of increasing unpleasantness. Many did not understand that the original was a hyperbolized look at Scandinavian social awkwardness. Those who criticized the first film for “dumb character decisions” missed the point, though it is understandably hard to root for people failing to protect themselves and their own child at every turn. In the original, Family A was Danish (like the director) and Family B was Dutch. They spoke different languages and had to meet in the middle with English. This language barrier built tension and allowed the couples to hide their intentions from each other, adding a dimension that is missing in the remake. This time around, Family A is American and Family B is British, a significant change.
Despite appointing James Watkins (EDEN LAKE) as director, I had a feeling they would fundamentally change the film, with a Family A that was smarter and more willing to fight back. Sure enough, justice is served with a Hollywood ending that will satisfy American audiences but won’t stick the way the original did. And still, many of the same dumb decisions are made in Act I & II, beat for beat.
On its own, SPEAK NO EVIL (2024) is a tight thriller with a chilling performance from James McAvoy and with a female character who takes charge (that, for one, is an improvement). If you watched it without having seen the original and somehow having avoided the spoiler-filled trailer, I imagine you’d enjoy it. But context matters here. Was it a vast improvement on the first film like some are claiming? No. Did it need to be remade? No.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Beetlejuice is back, and so are SILLY MOVIES!
Every year, I hunt for the perfect Halloween movie I haven’t seen. I often end up scraping the bottom of the barrel and, ultimately, returning to the old spooky favorites. But in 2024 A.D., that movie has fallen right into my lap. BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE is a mega-fun return to form by Tim Burton, who proves he has not lost his touch after all.
In addition to being a perfect Halloween movie, this film is a perfect, if not miraculous, sequel. We get to reunite with original characters/cast members, including goth queen Winona Ryder, the inimitable Catherine O’Hara, and a pitch-perfect Michael Keaton as Mr. Juice himself. We get a new story with emotional depth missing from the first film. We even get backstory on the titular Ghost With The Most. We get a great lineup of new characters played by Jenna Ortega, Willem Dafoe, Monica Bellucci, and Justin Theroux (plus a highly amusing Danny Devito cameo). We get truly inspired world-building and the chance to learn more about the in and outs of the Afterlife. We get autumnal small-town vibes. We get intricate sets, costumes, FX and VFX, with everything rendered in kooky, maximalist fashion. We get spectacular animated sequences, dream sequences and musical numbers. We get an insane soundtrack, including a whole Soul Train bit. We get Mario Bava sendups. Sure, the pacing is ridiculous, with so many moving parts and overlapping character arcs. Even with so much story to tell, the movie can feel like an endless string of gags, but are we not here to have fun?!
A 36-year wait does nothing to help manage expectations. I entered the theater almost expecting to be let down, but I left grinning from ear to ear. This movie could’ve been nothing more than a cash grab (believe me, they ARE grabbing that cash), but it was evidently made with love and respect for fans. It’s all of the things that made the first movie a spooky classic and more. It’s a sequel that acknowledges its audience has grown up while also embracing a new generation of fans. It’s a welcome addition to the Halloween movie canon. Between BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE and LISA FRANKENSTEIN, camp is thriving in 2024.
Beetlejuice is back, and so are SILLY MOVIES!
Every year, I hunt for the perfect Halloween movie I haven’t seen. I often end up scraping the bottom of the barrel and, ultimately, returning to the old spooky favorites. But in 2024 A.D., that movie has fallen right into my lap. BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE is a mega-fun return to form by Tim Burton, who proves he has not lost his touch after all.
In addition to being a perfect Halloween movie, this film is a perfect, if not miraculous, sequel. We get to reunite with original characters/cast members, including goth queen Winona Ryder, the inimitable Catherine O’Hara, and a pitch-perfect Michael Keaton as Mr. Juice himself. We get a new story with emotional depth missing from the first film. We even get backstory on the titular Ghost With The Most. We get a great lineup of new characters played by Jenna Ortega, Willem Dafoe, Monica Bellucci, and Justin Theroux (plus a highly amusing Danny Devito cameo). We get truly inspired world-building and the chance to learn more about the in and outs of the Afterlife. We get autumnal small-town vibes. We get intricate sets, costumes, FX and VFX, with everything rendered in kooky, maximalist fashion. We get spectacular animated sequences, dream sequences and musical numbers. We get an insane soundtrack, including a whole Soul Train bit. We get Mario Bava sendups. Sure, the pacing is ridiculous, with so many moving parts and overlapping character arcs. Even with so much story to tell, the movie can feel like an endless string of gags, but are we not here to have fun?!
A 36-year wait does nothing to help manage expectations. I entered the theater almost expecting to be let down, but I left grinning from ear to ear. This movie could’ve been nothing more than a cash grab (believe me, they ARE grabbing that cash), but it was evidently made with love and respect for fans. It’s all of the things that made the first movie a spooky classic and more. It’s a sequel that acknowledges its audience has grown up while also embracing a new generation of fans. It’s a welcome addition to the Halloween movie canon. Between BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE and LISA FRANKENSTEIN, camp is thriving in 2024.
SOCIAL MEDIA
bottom of page