Horror – We Are Movie Geeks

BACKROOMS – Review

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Clark, in BACKROOMS. Credit: Courtesy of A24

– by Cate Marquis –

What if you went into the lower level of a business and found a doorway into hidden unused rooms? Sometimes old buildings can hold such secrets, unused forgotten rooms or sub-basements, and the temptation to explore is ingrained in human nature, but the backrooms in this film hold other secrets and mysteries, and even dangers.

That hidden rooms are part of the story in director Kane Parsons’ unsettling sci-fi horror drama BACKROOMS is no spoiler, as it is right there in the title. The script by Will Soodik is based on an internet phenomenon, a series of stories about what is in the hidden office rooms hidden under a building, set very specifically in 1990, but you do not really have to have seen any of the internet stories (this writer had not) to appreciate this tale, as it draws on common human experiences of dreams and curiosity. The backrooms look like ordinary 1990s empty offices, although they are not always completely empty, and the way into them is no ordinary doorway. As you travel though them they become less ordinary and rational, containing objects that seem to hold some mysterious meaning.

After opening with a tense, mysterious sequence featuring an unseen explorer in the hidden backrooms, separated from his team, and desperately signally to his home base for rescue and aware of some threat, the film switches to a story set in southern California, about Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the owner of a cheap furniture warehouse store in an old strip mall. Clark’s life is crumbling, a frustrated architect running a failing furniture store, dubbed Captain Clark’s Ottoman Empire, where he is sometimes called on to dress up like a pirate for cheesy TV ads to promote the store. Clark is trapped in an unfulfilling career path, newly separated from his wife, and now seeking help from a therapist, Mary Kline (Renate Reinsve). Mary sells tapes for mediation and does counseling for lost souls seeking a different path in life but she is also haunted by childhood memories of life with her mentally-ill mother.

Kicked out of the house by his wife, Clark sleeps in the furniture showroom, but the store has been dogged by an electrical issue, which causes the lights and power in the store flickers in unpredictable ways after the store is closed for the night. One such power issue sends groggy, grouchy Clark down to the lower level to try to figure it out. There he accidentally discovers a doorway, leading to hidden rooms. The backrooms are painted a shade of yellow that screams 1990s office, and filled with scattered or sometimes piled office furniture of the same era. Clark is both frightened and intrigued by the discovery. Besides the furniture, there are other more mysterious, unsettling things in the backrooms, including things linked to the character we saw at the start of the film.

The film eventually circles back to that unfortunate explorer at the beginning, and his research team exploring the backrooms, led by Phil (Mark Duplass). Two young people, Clark’s assistant manager Kat (Lukita Maxwell) and her film-school boyfriend (Finn Bennett), become part of the story as Clark explores the hidden world under/behind his store.

If you are a fan of the series, all this is catnip but even if you are completely unfamiliar with the internet phenomenon, the backrooms premise can intrigue. Having dreams about finding hidden rooms is a common experience, and in dreams, as in this film, the rooms become more odd and symbolic as you get lost in them.

The strong cast and moving, emotional performances are a main strength of the film, primarily Ejiofor’s emotional portrayal of Clark, a man in pain and haunted by bad choices but prone to blame others. Clark moves back and forth between charming and sympathetic to selfish and unpredictable. Reinsve’s therapist Mary is more emotionally cool, but we see streams of hidden feelings underneath through flashbacks to childhood experiences.

Another strength of the film is it’s eerie, techno-ish soundtrack, which adds to the mounting tensions as the various people find themselves in the backrooms.

The film explores a story-line and both the store owner’s and therapist’s emotional journeys. Those personal stories are set in an unsettling, sad world of lost people and unfulfilled dreams in California, historically a land of dreams, including the dream factory of Hollywood.

The American Dream, and loss of that idea, is a theme running under the storytelling, mostly represented in images in the hidden rooms. Dreams, in the literal and symbolic sense, suffuse everything, and reference to sci-fi and fantasy movies (with a shout-out to NEVERENDING STORY in one scene), misremembered memories, people whose lives are caught in loops, and mental illness and delusion also add an unsettling aspect.

BACKROOMS is tense and unsettling but it is not all mystery and puzzles, as there are dangers in the backrooms, as they explorers discover. There is scary and bloody stuff in this film as well as angst and loss.

Symbolism abounds in BACKROOMS and whether you find that, and all the little puzzles and hints scattered around every half-lit corner, intriguing or tiring will depend on you taste for mysteries and puzzle-solving, and your experience with the internet world the film is based on.

You can appreciate this film even without knowing anything about the online stuff, as is the case with this writer, who only knew that there was an internet series behind it. The story is still accessible to most audiences, at least until the ending, which leaves a few too many unanswered questions for the uninitiated. Those who know the internet stories will be less puzzled, of course, and will find the movie more satisfying.

BACKROOMS opens in theaters on Friday, May 29, 2026.

RATING: 2.5 out of 4 stars

IS GOD IS – Review

– By Cate Marquis –

Revenge is the theme of director/writer Aleshea Harris’ IS GOD IS but there is a lot more going on here than payback and violence, although there is certainly that, in this film that has been called a vengeance action/thriller that has been described as a combination of Afropunk and Spaghetti Western, along with a dose of dark humor and a bit of epic quest, with some deeper questions to ponder.

Aleshea Harris makes her directorial debut with this film, which she adapted from her award-winning play, which deals with the trauma and abuse endured by Black women. It is told as a mythic quest by twin sisters, a tale rooted firmly both in the present and in ancient Greek theater and myths. The written version of the play resembles poetry, with different fonts and text that is sometimes upside down, and there is visual poetry here too, along with the violence.

Black twin sisters Anaia (Mallori Johnson) and Racine (Kara Young) were burned and scarred in childhood, when their father set fire to their mother. Raised in foster homes, where they learned to depend only on each other, the now 21-year-old twins are close but very different. They dress similar and have the same long blonde braided hair, but they are not identical and they differ in personality and temperament too. Racine is the bold one, the twin who takes action, fiercely defending her sister as well as herself against any slight or attack. Anaia is the quiet one, who keeps her head down and tries to blend into the background, but she is also the one who thinks and considers before deciding on an action, instead of just jumping in as Racine does.

The twins share a tiny, shabby apartment in the “Northeast,” where they have created their own insular life while getting by working low-wage service industry jobs. They are shocked when they get a letter from the mother they thought was dead, Ruby (), who is asking them to come to her because she has a request before she dies. Leaving their jobs and the Northeast, they drive their beat-up 1985 car to what they call the “Dirty South,” to meet the woman who claims to be their mother.

They find Ruby (Vivica A. Fox) in bed, covered in scars and attended by female helpers, as if she is a queen, even though she is living in a shack. Her request is simple but horrifying: she wants her long-lost daughters to find and kill their father, the man who burned they all.

Racine agrees readily but Anaia balks at this request, coming from a woman they hardly know and asking them to do something at great risk to themselves. What are the consequence for the two of them to commit this act of violence? Why did their mother wait until now to contact them? Eventually, Anaia agrees when Racine assures her she will do all the violence, and Anaia will take no part, but must come along because Racine can’t do it without her.

The first thing is to find their long-vanished daddy.

Thus the sisters set out on a quest that takes them through a South that is both very real yet mythic. It is both classic myth, ancient Greek theater, and classic Spaghetti Western, mixed with drive-in movie fare. They embark on their quest for vengeance, both grounded in the real and stylized, a quest filled with movie reference, theatrical ones, and some surprising, even darkly comic ones. The people they encounter change the twins, particularly Anaia. The story is firmly grounded in the contemporary, as well as myth – of the South, of tales of vengeance, of quests, of the experiences of Black women and the long history of what Black women have endured.

Harris shows a natural gift as a film director, handling horror and action scenes masterfully, and the quieter scenes of conversations between the girls, where they contemplate what they are doing, with the right, gentle touch.

The story begins a horrifying one, a flashback of the girls’ shared trauma, in black and white and narrated by their mother. In this chilling sequence, we see their mother’s unease before their abusive father, barred by court order, breaks in, sets their mother on fire and the girls catch fire as well, while their father casually strolls away. Scenes of childhood bullying and others of the girls innocently playing before the horrific event also recur throughout the film.

The meaning of the title is unclear, although it put me in mind of that old blues song “Is you is or is you ain’t my baby.” It is both a question and a statement, made in Black vernacular. The twins call their mother “God,” because, as Racine puts it, “she made us,” and at one point, Anaia tells someone “We’re on a mission from God.” The Blues Brothers reference is both a touch of dark humor and one of several movie references this stylized revenge epic. The twins themselves have a mythic quality, being opposites of a sort but completely tied, even complementary, to each other. They aren’t the only twins in the story, but the others who are less loving versions of this dichotomy.

The acting is superb, with both charismatic fireball Kara Young and quiet Mallori Johnson turning in strong performances. The supporting cast is excellent, including Vivica A. Fox and Janelle Monae, as with a startling performance by Sterling K. Brown, as you have never seen him before.

Besides the top-notch acting and strong direction, the film features fine photography, with wide-open vista, iconic images, and locations and sets that are spot on perfect. Nothing stage-y about this big screen adaptation.

This is a film with something to say and gives thinking audiences plenty to ponder, but director/writer Harris wraps it in an action/horror/adventure package so that audiences who just want that ride can just do that. Be warned that the violence is plentiful and gripping, but the psychological depth is there too, with plenty going on beneath the surface between the twins. There is much to intrigue the thinking viewer.

IS GOD IS opens in theaters on Friday, May 15, 2026.

RATING: 3.5 out of 4 stars

OBSESSION (2026) – Review

Hey, I know we were just there last month with LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY, but don’t you feel like making another visit to the “guys and ghouls” that reside at that creepy ole’ “Blumhouse”? Now, I’m not referring to an actual piece of decrepit real estate, but rather a movie production company that’s known mainly for cinematic terror tales, much like Hammer and Amicus over in the UK so long ago. This time out, they’re dipping into a bag of magical “thingamabobs” for a cautionary tale with a sardonic and very black sense of humor. So forget that dusty monkey’s paw and toss out the Arabian lamp, because this “deliverer of all desires” just may become your new OBSESSION. But, as the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for”. Very, very careful…

In the opening scene, we meet the story’s main protagonist, the morose, brooding “Bear” (Michael Johnston). He’s on a most precarious mission, not a big heist or a quest for treasures. No, he’s desperate to escape the “friend zone” in order to start a serious romantic relationship with his music store co-worker Nikki (Inde Navarrette). Bear just has to find the perfect moment to make his case. Perhaps it will be tonight after some bar trivia with two other “retail slaves”, Ian (Cooper Tomlinson) and Sarah (Megan Lawless). Oh, but a “pet emergency” has him backing out when he talks to Nikki on the phone. Bear hears some racket on her end, and Nikki says that she just accidentally dropped her crystal necklace down a drain. Ah ha! This could provide an “in.” Bear runs down to the “new age” trinket store for a replacement. But something else catches his eye. It’s a weird “Tchoksy” called “One Wish Willow”. This “old timey” toy guarantees that your wish will be granted after breaking it in two (it’s a wand-like wooden stick). At the end of the trivia night, Bear gives Nikki a lift home from the pub. And he botches his “pitch”. After an awkward goodnight, she heads toward her door. His frustration pushes Bear into giving this “new-old” toy a try (a “break”, really). He wants her complete and consuming love… and Nikki stops in her tracks and returns to his car. From then on, they’re a nearly inseparable couple. But Ian and Sarah think they’re also insufferable. Nikki begins to undergo a huge personality change, lying about her family and exhibiting even more extremely disturbing behavior (some odd culinary creations, for one thing). Yes, she is obsessing over him, hence the title. A desperate Bear calls the 800 number on the OWW box. The odd fella at the call center tells him that there are no “take-backs.” The only way to break the “wish” is for the “wisher” to die! Talk about an unbearable dilemma (sorry ’bout that)!

I suppose the main focus of the story is the “audience surrogate” Bear, played with a twitchy awkwardness by the energetic Johnston. He’s something of an “everyman”, full of yearning, but little confidence. It takes Bear a while to realize the full impact and awful consequences of his actions, but when it “kicks in,” Johnston is a sweaty ball of pure panic. But the film’s real “breakout” star is the amazing Ms. Navarrette, who impressed me for the last few years as Lana Lang’s daughter Sarah on the CW’s “Superman and Lois”. Oh, she has made the leap to the big screen with a gonzo, “go for broke” tour de force performance as the bewitched Nikki, a “dreamgirl” who suddenly becomes a nightmare. The switch in vocal intensity and her incredible physical contortions (and those rubbery facial expressions) earn her a spot in the loopy ladies of terror “hall of fame”, right next to Glen Close as Alex of FATAL ATTRACTION and Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Hedy in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. Yet, somehow, Ms. N conveys Nikki’s tragic fate behind the frozen smiles (best shown during a nocturnal plea). To think she was the “sweetheart of Smallville”. Much of the standard comic relief is provided by Tomlinson as the party “bro” who is not quite the supportive “wing man” that he projects. Lawless exudes a tenderness behind the tough-talking punk chic stylings of the concerned and sympathetic Sarah. One of the more pleasant surprises is the supporting turn by a beloved TV comedy icon as the quartet’s befuddled boss (IMDB lists him, but I just can’t bring myself to spoil it).

It’s tough to believe that this is only the second feature from writer/director Curry Barker, as this is one terror tale brimming with confidence and a wonky style. And, perhaps due to his stand-up comedy past, a wicked sense of humor, from snarky satire to silly slapstick. Sure, we’ve gotten many variations of the “wish fulfilled” themes of regret, but Barker’s put a fresh spin in them, while harkening back to the “can men and women be friends” issues of WHEN HARRY MET SALLY (miss ya’ Rob) and even ALADDIN (Robin’s Genie can’t zap Jasmine into loving that “strett rat”). Barker also captures the intense “forced bonding” that occurs with “workmates”, especially those in their early 20’s. It’s a snarky sneer at old romcom cliches, even down to the “falling in love” montage (love the eyeroll from Sarah). Although the marketing gurus give away too much in the ads, this off-kilter, creepy romp still has lots of surprises and delivers on the scares with a sense of hopelessness and dread from one selfish little act. It’s just a shame that the film doesn’t quite “stick the landing” as the last act feels too rushed and the ending denouncement falls a bit flat (I want to stay with the duo for a few more minutes). Even with that caveat, those horror fans who have missed the mirth in the macabre may or may not be obsessed, but they should be entertained by OBSESSION. I wonder if they tried to get the rights to that old Jiminy Cricket tune?

3 Out of 4

OBSESSION opens in theatres everywhere on May 15, 2026

UNDERTONE – Review

UNDERTONE (stylized as “undertone,” all lower case) is an atmospheric horror film that uses innovative sound for much of its effect. It focuses on a young woman, Evy Babic (Nina Kiri) caring alone for her dying mother (Michele Duquet) in the mother’s home, presumably the house where the young woman grew up. The mother is in the finally stages of dying, having stopped eating or drinking and appears to sleep continually. Evy’s major contact with the outside world right now is through a podcast that she and a friend, Justin (Adam DiMarco), co-host together, a podcast about the paranormal called “undertone,” in which the pair of them examine supernatural phenomenon, with him playing the role of the believer and her playing the skeptic.

For most the film, we see only Nina Kiri as Evy, and occasionally the unconcious mother. Justin contributes to the podcast remotely, as he lives in another city. Apart from a couple of brief scenes, everything takes place in the mother’s home, giving the film a claustrophic feel.

UNDERTONE (“undertone”) won the Audience Award at Montreal’s Fantasia International Film Festival and then went on to play the 2026 Sundance Film Festival as part of the Midnight program.

Caring for her mother alone is Evy’s choice, and she gentle turns down her podcast co-host Justin’s offer to flying out to visit her, as well as his suggestion she ask for help from her brother, who in the small town were their mother lives. Evy’s mother is religious and the house is filled with crucifixes, framed religious art and little figurines, but we sense Evy is not. The daughter gently cares for her unconcious mother, checking on her, tending to her needs, talking to her in a gentle voice, and singing the nursery rhyme “Ba Ba Black Sheep” to soothe her.

Downstairs in the dining room, Evy communicates with Justin over her laptop, as she sets up to record their podcast for its weekly release. Justin thinks he has found an intriguing mystery for this podcast, a series of ten audio recordings sent to him by email, from a mysterious, unknown address, and with little explanation about them in the email. Tossing aside any fear of viruses in the the files, he clicked on the first one and listened, hearing a man talking about his wife is saying stranging things in her sleep and that he has decided to record her (with her permission) as she sleeps, to trying to understand them. What Justin hears is bizarre, including some snippets of nursery rhymes, played fast or too slow or backwards, and Evy agrees to use them for the podcast, without hearing them, so she can listen as they record the podcast. They start to listen to them in sequence, discussing each as it ends.

The film is built around what happens as they listen to those audio recordings. Eventually, they learn that they are a married couple and the woman is pregnant, which feeds into some of what heard in the later podcasts. There are tidbitst about dark, hidden stories behind innocent-seeming nursery rhymes (which is true, many do have dark stories behind them) and there something about an evil spirit menances babies.

Most of the film takes place in the house where the woman is caring for her mother, apart from a few hours when she reluctantly agrees to meet her boyfriend at a party for a few hours and when she visits a doctor. Mostly, we just see her and her mother, although there is a scene, perhaps a flashback, where a hospice nurse tells her that once her mother stopped eating, they are near the final phase, which she will recognize by a change in her breathing, but there is no way to know how long that will take.

The looming death and the uncertainty about when the end comes, the eerie recordings Evy listens to alone in a darkened room for the podcast, and references in those recordings to sinister meanings behind some nursery rhymes all combine to create a powerrful sense of unease. That feeling is boosted by the innovative use of sound in the film. Evy hears the recordings and their disturbing sounds through her headphones, but we are never sure those sounds aren’t also echoing through the dark, nearly empty house. The brilliant effect raises the hairs on the back of the neck, and is the most striking aspect of the film.

Additionally, the acting is well done, with Nina Kiri very effective in carrying most of the film alone. The half-lit photography adds well to the unsettling atmosphere and the sets are exactly as they should be for a haunting tale. It always seems to be 3 o’clock but in the darkened home, we are never sure if it is 3am or 3pm.

Everything comes together perfectly to set the stage for horror. And then writer-director Ian Tuasin does not follow through on all that promise. While all those elements are very unnerving and the film has created enormous tension, the film does not give us a full story to make use of all this great material. Things go bump in the night perfectly – but that is never tied into a narrative or an explanation. There is basically no story here beyond the set-up of a woman alone in a house with her dying mother, a woman is maybe feeling some guilt for the past, and the creepy audio recordings for the podcast. There are hints about a true story behind the mysterious recordings, and also hints that Evy may be losing touch with reality in the finally sequence, but it is all very vague and incomplete. There isn’t even enough there to make up an explanation for oneself.

Which is a shame. The film does such a good job setting up the story, setting the tone of dread and fear through it’s masterful use of sound, that the audience is primed to be terrified, But then the film just fails to give the audience any story, any plot to hang all that dread on, which is a waste and so disappointing.

UNDERTONE opens in select theaters on Friday, Mar. 13, 2026.

RATING: 2 out of 4 stars

THE BRIDE! – Review

If you love classic movies, THE BRIDE! is pure delight, fun with a brain that is a treat deluxe for those who love both classic movies and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s original book “Frankenstein.” That description fits this writer and the novel is having a moment now, with Guillermo del Toro’s FRANKENSTEIN and now this film. But in this wild, smart and inventive film, director Maggie Gyllenhaal not only pays homage to the book, but the Frankenstein and particularly Bride of Frankenstein movies, along with a host of 1930s and 1940s films and genres, ranging from film noir to black-and-white musicals and gangster flicks, with a little more modern films like BONNIE AND CLYDE and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN tossed in. Even author Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley herself, the brilliant teenager who wrote the original 1818 novel, appears as a character in the film.

All that plus a fabulous cast, led by Christian Bale and Jessie Buckley, featuring Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz. The film sports a generous sprinkling of movie and even literary references, in dialog or visually, which adds a great deal of fun. And it is all done with an off-beat slight feminist twist that puts the spotlight on the The Bride.

Plus the ghost of author Mary Shelley possesses a gangster’s moll and a woman is the mad scientist in this tale. What more could you possibly want?

THE BRIDE is both clever and a very cinematic film. THE BRIDE! actually opens with the author Mary Shelley (played in a entertainingly crazy way by Jesse Buckley) speaking to us as a spirit from the grave. We see only Buckley’s face, in an oval and in black-and-white, like an antique photo in a locket, while the author spits rapid-fire vocabulary about her biography and literature. The author introduces our story, and then returns as occasional narrator or disruptive spirit. This begins when Shelley possesses, like a demon, a young blonde gangster’s moll named Ida (also Buckley) in 1930s Chicago. The possessed moll, when the author is in charge, spouts poetry and literary references, particularly mentioning Herman Melville’s character Bartleby, who sows chaos by refusing to do things, saying “I prefer not to,” a phrase that pops up continually.

After our (ultimately violent) intro to the woman who will become the Bride, we meet Frankenstein’s monster, played winningly by Christian Bale. A man in a hat pulled low to hide his face and with a scarf covering his lower face (a la Claude Rains in THE INVISIBLE MAN) shows up at a 1930s Chicago medical research facility, looking to speak to a particular scientist, a Dr. Euphronious. He’s turned away at first, but finally a woman comes out to talk to him. She reveals herself to be Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening), as he removes his coverings and introduces himself as a Mr. Frankenstein (Bale). This lonely creation of a mad scientist (and an author) long ago asks the scientist for her help – to build a bride for him. She refuses at first but, good mad scientist that she is, Dr. Euphronious eventually agrees.

Thus launches the tale of the Bride and her Frankenstein, a far more complete story of the Bride than in James Whale’s classic film, including this Bride’s quest for a name, an identity, beyond just that one. The pair embark on an adventure and a journey that sends them out into the 1930s world, against the wishes of Dr. Euphonious, where they sample jazz clubs and movie houses, among other things, and then go on the run as outlaws, “Bonnie and Clyde”-style, after some people turn up dead.

Frank, as the Bride calls him, is movie-obsessed and particularly a fan of one dancing star (Jake Gyllenhaal) of movie musicals, which reveals that the “monster” is a bit of a romantic. When he’s feeling low, at trip to the movies to see his favorite star in one of his dance-filled musical romances or comedies lifts his spirits.

Their adventure is unpredictable, often violent and sometimes bloody, but it is also a monster of a love story. The Bride’s journey of self-discovery is a big part of this film but not the whole story. It is also a wild, entertaining ride, that also involved a pair of noir-ish detectives, played by Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz, on their trail, as well as gangster kingpins, corrupt officials, fancy parties with movie stars, and more. There is singing and dancing scenes, movie-going and movie houses, characters who find themselves in the movie (a la Buster Keaton), and a score that includes “Putting on the Ritz” (thank you, Mel Brooks) and Monster Mash.

The cast is great. Christian Bale is a marvelous Frankenstein, sweetly polite, even shy, but determined and endlessly resourceful. He is also a hopeless romantic when it comes to his Bride and to the movies he loves. Bale plays this movie-loving monster with such charm and grace, he is irresistible, and turns on extra magic in the dance sequences. Jessie Buckley is electrifying in her two-part role, as the wild, fast-talking and brainy author, who periodically possesses the Bride and as the sweet but confused newly-created Bride, who does not even know her name, much less who she is, or should be. The couple waver between love and her desire to be her own person. And along the way, her rule-breaking launches a social movement of women who want to break free of their restraints in this sexist time, women who show their colors by staining their mouths with ink, to look like hers.

Annette Bening is a charmer as well as the crusty, off-beat doctor, who we suspect has secrets and a history that goes unspoken. As the noir detectives, Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz also are wonderful, with Sarsgaard playing a world-weary soul with some hidden pain, and Cruz an ambitious detective who is the real brains of the team but who has to pose as her partner’s secretary rather than his protege due to the sexism of the era.

THE BRIDE! is entertaining, smart, thought-provoking, twisting, and a cleverly constructed creation of borrowed parts (much like Frankenstein) from countless classic films, film history, literature and even a little echo of the “Me Too” movement. THE BRIDE! is a wow of a piece of cinema, and certainly a must-see for any fan of either classic movies or Mary Shelley’s classic Gothic horror novel. Just great fun.

THE BRIDE! opens in theaters on Friday, Mar. 6, 2026.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

MOTHER OF FLIES – Review

MOTHER OF FLIES is a low-budget horror flick that plays out as a sordid endurance test for both the cast and audience, as it straddles the fence between the psychological and supernatural, without delivering on either. It’s a product of the Adams family, written and directed by John, daughter Zelda and wife Toby Poser; starring that trio, plus their other daughter, Lulu. They are not to be confused in any way with the more familiar, and noticeably superior, Addams family. The missing “d” seemingly makes quite a difference.

The plot follows a grieving woman who retreats into isolation after a personal loss, taking refuge in a decaying rural house that quickly becomes less a sanctuary than a cauldron. As her mental state deteriorates, the environment reflects it: rot creeps into every corner; flies proliferate; her own body becomes another site of infestation. That dangled suspense of insanity vs. the supernatural remains vague – presumably by design.

What could have been a marketable premise turns out confusing and dull. Scenes stretch on forever, not because they’re tense or meaningful, but because no one apparently was objective enough to do some editing. No member of the clan could snip another’s dialog or screen time without offending the rest of the household, and ruining the next Thanksgiving. The camera lingers with more familial pride than dramatic purpose. Grotesque images feel inserted or exaggerated for shock value, more than narrative enhancement.

In terms of the performances, the cast is trapped in monotones. There’s no escalation, no modulation—just suffering, presented as a moral achievement. Dialogue is mercifully sparse, but the visuals between talky bits are nothing special. They rely on tropes – rot as metaphor, insects as symbolism, silence as seriousness, etc.

By the time MOTHER OF FLIES slogs its way to the finish line, it brings more relief than enlightenment, leaving us a package that’s less disturbing than exhausting. This one’s unfortunately short on both the sizzle and the steak. All of which is really a shame. This is the family’s fourth collaboration. I haven’t seen the previous three, but note they earned favorable ratings on IMDb, which supports my belief that they have more to offer than this one displays. Enough so that I plan to check out the others.

MOTHER OF FLIES is available streaming on Shudder starting Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.

RATING: 1 out of 4 stars

THE PLAGUE – Review

Everett Blunck as Ben, in THE PLAGUE. Courtesy of IFC

THE PLAGUE is one of those horror films that taps into familiar childhood, in this case, early adolescence and the bullying that frequently comes with that, and uses this familiarity to create the horror. THE PLAGUE opens with on-screen text giving a very specific time, Summer 2003, the second session of Tom Lerner Water Polo Camp. The camp is supposed to instill a sense of camaraderie in the 12 to 13-year-old boys, but instead something sinister is going on. What develops is a kind of “Lord of the Flies” in the suburbs. The very specific date and setting suggests that personal experience, from first-time director/writer Charlie Polinger, lies behind this chilling mix of psychological and a bit of body horror.

Most of the boys at the camp already know each other from the first session but Ben (Everett Blunck) is new. He sits down at their lunch table and, after a little teasing about a faint Boston accent, seems to be accepted. When another boy sits down at the table, he gets a very different reaction: everyone gets up and moves to another table. After a few minutes, Ben joins them. The boys’ leader, Jake (Kayo Martin), later tells newbie Ben that the boy, Eli (Kenny Rasmussen), has “the plague” and is to be avoided, because it is contagious. Eli does have a skin rash, which might be contagious, but he is also an odd duck, maybe on the spectrum. Anyway, he is the target of the boys’ group, their outcast, who they describe as having leprosy, whose body parts might fall off, and who is degenerating mentally and physically. Touching Eli, even being too close to him, can give you “the plague.”

That bullying of the outcast is something everyone will remember from growing up. Another thing that is familiar is how this tale mirrors “The Lord of the Flies.” Even though adults are present in this tale, they might as well not be, for all they notice they take of what is going on, and of their ineffectiveness. Actually, the only adult we really see is Joel Edgerton’s stone-faced coach, who is billed as “Daddy Wags,” who varies between oblivious and ineffective. The campers are all boys, ages 12 to 13, who are attending this sleep-way camp, meaning parents are out of the picture. Edgerton’s coach is either unaware of the bullying or unwilling to step in. When he does, at a few moments, he is remarkably unhelpful, with the kid being bullied paying the price.

Later, Jake admits they made those gruesome details and “the plague” isn’t real, although Eli really does have a rash that might be contagious. And Eli does himself no favors, with a strange sense of humor, a “Lord of the Rings” obsession plus a good Gollum impersonation, and a willingness to just be weird. Ben is a kindhearted kid, and someone going through his own problems, with his parents’ divorce, and eventually, also becomes a target for Jake’s bullying.

The acting is overall impressive in this film, with standouts being Everett Blunck as Ben, who is desperate to fit in and worried he won’t, Kayo Martin as bully Jake, alternating between charming and a sharp, intelligent cunning when he spots weakness, and Kenny Rasmussen as Eli, strange but smart, and with an unsettling self-destructive side. All the young actors explore the depths of their characters, with hints of why, while Edgerton’s adult is ineffective and uninspiring, in a chilling way.

However, that rash is one of several odd things about this summer camp. If the rash is contagious, why is he at a water polo camp? It seems most camps would exclude anyone who is contagious. Also, the camp seems to be at a high school, or at least the pool is, but the kids are sleeping in bunks rather than going home. We only see the one coach/camp counselor, Joel Edgerton’s character, although we see other adults in the background and at a distance, running their own water programs at the pool. Late in the film, there is a kind of school dance mixer, with girls from a synchronize swimming camp at the same pool, who we see late in the film.

Director Charlie Polinger builds a great deal of the tension and dread in this chilling film by tapping into memories we all likely have of the time period in our own lives. He also uses a technique to create tension that I personally dislike, which is soft whispered dialog in close up, half-lit scenes, followed by very loud, jarring music or screeching sounds. The shift makes one jump but it seems like a gimmicky, unpleasant way to build tension.

Polinger does better on the visual side. Many of the pool scenes are shot from below the surface, a nice visual metaphor but also a way to create an intriguing visual landscape. In some scenes, the director even flips the camera over, so we are disoriented as to what is up and what is down. He also does a nice job of creating mood with dark and shadowy scenes for the boys discussion, or confined ones in the communal showers with boys in team swim suits, and alternating those with brightly-lit scenes of the angular pool and school hallways.

At 98 minutes, THE PLAGUE is mercifully short but it packs a great deal of horror in that time. I say mercifully, because it is not a pleasant time to revisit. It is an impressive debut feature from the scary side, although the ending makes less sense than it should and the puzzling, unanswered practical questions raised above are distracting. It is a clear way to find the horror in the ordinary, and people’s universal experiences.

THE PLAGUE opens nationally in theaters on Friday, Jan. 2, 2026.

RATING: 2.5 out of 4 stars

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT – Review

Are you feeling a bit of déjà vu from seeing the title SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT? That’s probably because there have been a morgueful of sequels and derivatives from the original 1984 Christ-X-mas splatter-fest of the same name. Besides its five sequels, and a 2012 remake (just called SILENT NIGHT), plus a slew of other Seasonal slasher sprees like SANTA’S SLAY (my favorite title), NIGHTMARE ON 34TH ST., SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT, and AXEMAS, to name a few. The juxtaposition of innocent holiday cheer and gruesome gore makes for a proven formula.

So, this one is a reboot of the original, with eight-year-old Billy horrified by the sight of his parents being slain by a psycho in a Santa suit (I wonder if Bruce Wayne would have turned into a serial killer instead of Batman if his parents’ murderer had been similarly attired? Discuss among yourselves.) Flash-forward to adult Billy (Rohan Campbell) doing a mashup between the original plot and “Dexter.” He’s been traveling around for years, guided by a voice in his head (Mark Acheson) like Dexter’s “dark passenger” who teaches him to recognize the bad people they’ll target for their December sprees, plus mentoring on how to do it without getting caught. That detection is like a Spidey Sense, but for a significantly different purpose. Bullies, corrupt officials, cheating spouses and others belonging on the Naughty List, including the occasional supremely bratty kid, are all fair game for Billy’s Santa suit and his axe or other weapon of “mess” destruction.

In this current December, he arrives in a small Wisconsin town and is quickly drawn to a babe named Pamela (Ruby Modine; yes, Matthew’s daughter). He starts working with her in her dad’s Christmas shop. Billy has an Advent Calendar to keep track of his killing regimen by putting a drop of each victim’s blood under the flap for the day, much like Dexter’s collection of blood drops on microscope slides. He’s also got a full closet of Santa suits and beards, because each gets soaked in more blood than anyone could clean before the next visit. Or ever.

The killings are plentiful and grisly, with some darkly comic aspects running throughout, so no gore-fest fan will be disappointed. There are a couple of highlights, including a murder montage and a group scene on top of the standard one-on-ones. But if you’re hoping for nudity in the titillation mix, look elsewhere – like the 2012 remake, which featured flashes of boobage.

Campbell looks like a young Tom Berenger, playing his character close to the vest. He’s devoted to his “calling”, but starting to chafe at the rootless lifestyle, especially when his interest in Pamela starts appearing to be mutual. His killings come from a righteous determination to remove the scumbags from each year’s venue, rather than sadistic glee. Ms. Modine plays a much more interesting role. She reminds me of a young Juliette Lewis, simultaneously sweet, sexy and borderline crazy, with the latter two mostly bubbling under the surface – all in one petite package.

So, if you’re seeking respite from the ubiquitous holiday music and décor providing a backdrop for miles and miles of mindless smiles, here’s a quick fix that oughta do the trick.

SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT opens in theaters on Friday, Dec. 12, 2025.

RATING: 3 out of 4 stars

BUGONIA – Review

Jesse Plemons stars as Teddy in director Yorgos Lanthimos’ BUGONIA, a Focus Features release.
Credit: Courtesy of Focus Features © 2025 All Rights Reserved.

Jesse Plemons gives a jaw-dropping performance as conspiracy-obsessed young man who convinces his pliant cousin to help him kidnap the high-powered woman CEO, played by Emma Stone, of a Big Pharma/agra-chemical company, driven by the belief that she is an alien from another planet who is set on destroying the world, in BUGONIA, Yorgos Lanthimos’ darkly comic, oft horrifying but ultimately humanly touching social commentary on our crazy modern world. Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos is known for his award-winning, imaginative films with a dark world view, such as THE LOBSTER, THE FAVOURITE, and POOR THINGS. BUGONIA is actually a loose re-make of a South Korean film, SAVE THE GREEN PLANET, and the pair of young men plan to force the CEO alien to contact her emperor and call off the destruction of Earth. Basically, it comes down to a face-off between the obsessed conspiracy-theorist and the heartless corporate CEO, in a battle of the wills filled with twists and enough unexpected turns to spin your head around.

The strange title actually comes from an ancient Greek ritual in which a bull is sacrificed in such a way that it was believed that the carcass would produce bees. This plan to have the alien CEO contact her space alien emperor seems as likely to succeed.

While this premise seems ripe for comedy, audiences should be warned that the film has plenty of violence, and a horror aspect, not just talking in the basement where the two are holding her.

What really makes this film is Jesse Plemons’ startling performance. Plemons gives an Oscar-worthy performance unlike anything you have ever seen from him, as a young beekeeper and environmentalist in a fading small town, who has been driven mad by terrible events in his life and too much time spent on the conspiracy-theory drenched internet. He lives in the crumbling old house outside of town where he grew up with his mother, along with his neurodivergent cousin.

Beyond saving the planet, Jesse Plemon’s character has more personal issues with Emma Stone’s CEO. One of his issues with her company is linked to colony collapse disorder, which the beekeeper links to certain chemicals, and the other has to do with his mother’s experimental treatment for drug addiction, which had devastating results.

While Plemon’s character is a lost soul with a tragic history, Emma Stone’s CEO is a soul less, hard-driven executive in spike heels who works out with martial arts and seems to have little feeling for people. In one of her first scenes, the CEO is recording a diversity message for her employees, when she flubs a line saying “diversity” too many times, with an expression that makes it clear she’d rather not say it at all. She walks down a hall, reminding her employees they now can leave work at 5:30pm. adding “Your call!” but then “unless you have work to finish,” undercutting the whole work-life balance initiative she is launching. “Your call!” she repeats.

Plemon’s character Teddy’s partner in crime is his pliant cousin Don, played well by fuzzy-haired newcomer Aidan Delbis, who lives with Teddy because he has no one else. Don adores his smart, slightly older cousin, who apparently is the only one in town who treats him with kindness and a level of respect. Plemon’s Teddy is clearly smart but absorbed in his elaborate tin-hat theories, which the pliant cousin listens to and accepts – partly because he feels he has no choice.

Teddy wants to kidnap alien CEO Michelle to force to contact her Emperor and call of the attack on Earth. The kidnapping doesn’t go smoothly but the pair do get her back to Teddy’s basement. However, he does not want her to contact her Mothership for rescue, so he cuts off her hair – which is how she sends messages to other aliens.

At first our sympathies are more with the broken, lost Teddy, but that turns rather quickly. And turn back again, and again, with a series of shockers and twists that continue to the end.

None of these characters are simple or black-and-white. The film gives all the characters depth and complexity, which adds an unexpected layer of humanity and heart to the tale, despite the sometimes awful events than unfold.

Whether it is aliens or just alienation, BUGONIA delivers a punch, but primarily through the outstanding performances, especially by Jesse Plemons, one that should win him an Oscar nod at a minimum.

BUGONIA opens Friday, Oct. 31, in theaters.

RATING: 3 out of 4 stars

FRANKENSTEIN – Review

Director Guillermo del Toro’s FRANKENSTEIN does a startling thing: it goes back to the original Gothic novel written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley in 1818, “Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus.” While there have been seeming endless numbers of screen versions of the Frankenstein story, generally in some form all are based in James Whale’s classic 1931 film and its sequel, THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Whale’s film has thrilled countless film fans and inspired many future filmmakers, including Guillermo del Toro. but the story the 1931 movie tells departs greatly from Mary Shelley’s terrifying but more philosophical novel about the hubris of a man playing God.

Now, to be clear, del Toro’s FRANKENSTEIN is not a faithful screen adaptation of the novel, but something more based on it. or in parts even, “inspired by” it. In truth, the director of Oscar-winning films PAN’S LABYRINTH and THE SHAPE OF WATER makes this story his own, stamping it with his own unique signature style, using the parts of the original novel that suit his purpose in building his own creation. That creation includes plenty of references to various Frankenstein versions.

Still, this return to Shelley’s Gothic tale makes the film much more strikingly unusual, in a gripping way that other Frankensteins iterations have not. And the director takes full advantage of that fresh approach to what could otherwise be overly familiar.

Like the book, the film starts at the end of the story, with Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) in an Arctic wasteland. He tells his tale, in this case, to the captain of a ship searching for the North Pole. How the doctor got there and why is part of his story. But del Toro then does something else startling in this film: after we see and hear Dr. Frankenstein’s story, the director turns things around and allows the Creature (Jacob Elordi) to tell his version. Yes, the Creature in this one, like the original novel, is intelligent and articulate, although not at first.

FRANKENSTEIN is Guillermo del Toro’s dream project, long planned. The film has the director’s distinct style and many of the same themes that run through other del Toro films, such as man as the real monster, sympathy for the creature, father and son issues, and good versus evil. Visually, the film is very much in the director’s bold style, color-drenched, creepy, and filled with striking cinematic images. The dramatic creation moment, when the creature comes to life, takes place in a huge, strange, foreboding building, one that looks like it was built as some kind of waterworks or water-driven factory, but with echoes of James Whale’s 1931 film. The reference to the link between water and life is inescapable, while the imposing structure itself, visually, is dramatically gothic.

Instead of the frenetic Dr. Frankenstein of James Whale’s classic, Oscar Isaac plays the doctor obsessed with building a man as a brooding, cold, dark, and even heartless fellow, with a huge ego and few ethics constrains. The social commentary on unlimited ambition and power is there.

Mia Goth plays Elizabeth, but in this telling she is not the fiancee of Victor but his younger, sunnier brother William (Felix Kammerer). Elizabeth is both beautiful and intelligent, with a keen interest in science and nature. She is very close to her wealthy uncle (Christoph Waltz), who offers to fund Victor’s experiments in reanimating dead tissue with the aim of creating life. The uncle gives no reason for this decision but hints that he does have an agenda in mind.

Although inspired by the novel, del Toro still references various versions of the the Frankenstein story, in movies and even comics. including the 1931 classic film that so riveted the director as a young child. Those references are sprinkled throughout the film, and it even has a glancing reference to ROCKY HORROR, a kind of Frankenstein tale, in the early appearance of the Creature himself but without the camp.

The cast all turn in fine performances, although the story and its vivid telling is the really strength of the film. Oscar Isaac plays Dr. Frankenstein as a very dark, hard character, an unlikable person who becomes less appealing as we see what he does. The story begins with his childhood to help us understand the character, in a brooding, gothic tale in a world of with funeral black and winter white, splashed with dramatic touches of blood red. The doctor makes himself the hero of his own story but we will hear another version next. The Creature is like a newborn in a grown body at first but grows up quickly, with his innocence turning to resentment and more toward his “father.”

The director caused some uproar by casting handsome Jacob Elordi as the Frankenstein;s creation, but it is worth noting that in the original novel the creation has more the appearance of a man, albeit a large one, than Karloff’s monster. Del Toro doesn’t quite do that, as the creature is a patchwork of sewn-together skin but, like in the book and others versions, of monstrous strength, if not size.

Speaking of monsters, director del Toro makes it clear at the very start of the film who the “monster” is, and it is not the creature. The creation here has more the enormous strength than size, which allows us to see him as a young man, even a big child at the start, the son of the doctor who built him.

Art direction is one of the real stars of this film. The visual side is eye-popping and very effective in creating a sense of awe and terror. The set, costumes and visual effects are all bold, often color-drenched and sometimes massive, a Gothic look on steroids which feels perfect for this film.

One of the most striking sequences is the one where the Creature is brought to life, a process that involves lightning like the 1931 classic film, but taking place in a weird, water-themed building of tile and smooth spouts, ducts, and channels, set on the edge of a cliff plunging into the sea.

Although Guillermo del Toro’s FRANKENSTEIN is not a faithful adaptation of the original novel, going back to that groundbreaking book, and some of its themes, does open the door for some other filmmaker to do that full adaptation. Hopefully that will happen, but until then we have this wonderfully creative new retelling of Mary Shelley’s classic novel.

FRANKENSTEIN opens Friday, Oct. 24, in theaters.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: