They Will Kill You (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Asia Reaves (Zazie Beetz) infiltrates a high-rise building in New York in an attempt to find her sister.

As anybody who has played The Executive – Movie Industry Tycoon can attest, release dates can drastically affect how a movie is received. Some are simple: don’t release Christmas movies in April, for example. But some are more unpredictable: can you imagine how badly an anti-military film would have been received after opening weekend if it were released on September 7, 2001? It’s not quite that unlucky, but my view of They Will Kill You (TWKY, pronounced Twick-ey) has certainly been negatively affected by its release date. 7 days. That’s the difference; if I had watched it 7 days earlier, I’d have liked it more. So what happened in those 7 days? Did I also get a job in a shady building to save my sister, only to find out that the building is full of immortal satanists that pray to a pig’s head? No, nothing like that (the ones I had to kill prayed to a hippo). What happened was I watched Ready Or Not 2. In some ways, there are no similarities at all. This doesn’t involve a game of hide and seek, the villains don’t rule the world, and the racial component of TWKY does add another layer to the satire. But there are spiritual similarities.

When you compare the two, TWKY is found lacking. The characters aren’t as compelling, the satire isn’t as sharp, and it doesn’t look anywhere near as good. The action sequences are fun, with some great fight scenes. But it’s when people get hurt that it doesn’t impress. Limbs are sliced off far too easily; there’s almost no impact to dismemberments and decapitations. It all feels a bit too rubbery for my taste. It’s not helped by not having any memorable music, so the scenes aren’t quite as good as they should be: to be perfectly honest, some of them feel unfinished.

I don’t think it realises how good some of the ideas it introduces are. A character says that each floor is tailored to a different vice, then only shows us two floors. It doesn’t even do the most with the floors it gives us. I remember Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, which had a fantastic action scene that incorporated sex toys; despite having a floor based around sex, this doesn’t attempt anything similar. It also seems to waste the emotional potential of that being the floor where Asia finds her younger sister. I don’t think every female character in fiction has to have sexual assault as a backstory, but if you find a young woman working on a floor dedicated to sex, that question does have to be asked. But again, think of all the fun they could have had with Asia working through multiple floors all dedicated to different vices: her fighting a group of drugged up psychopaths, against people who are much larger than they should be because they spend their entire days eating. To be honest, with the satanic themes, it could have been very unsubtle and have floor be a deadly sin. I’m not sure how you could have action scenes based on Envy, maybe a hall of mirrors, or people focused on destroying the face? I dunno.

It’s a shame, as this could have been great. It’s really just a mix of bad timing in terms of release date, and too low a budget (or a director who doesn’t know how to utilise the budget). On its own, it is pretty fun. Asia is a great character. It’s nice to see Paterson Joseph on the big screen. It is odd that Tom Felton is in a film based around satanists sacrificing people, and it’s still not the most evil franchise he’s been involved in. There’s not a single weak link in the case, and the characters they portray all make sense and are entertaining.

In summary: a solid 6.5/10, that had the misfortune to follow an 8. The scene where Asia sets an axe on fire and attacks a room full of people in the dark is fantastic, and if it kept that energy and invention up, it would have been a 9/10.

Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: After surviving a deadly game of hide-and-seek, Grace is forced into a repeat, this time with her sister.

Sadly, I missed out on the first movie. Not because I didn’t want to see it, but because every year, no matter how many films I watch, I always get a bit burnt out in Autumn, so I end up missing stuff I otherwise would have seen. I am aware of what happened in the first film due to watching the trailer and the Kill Count. Truth be told, I’m not sure you NEED to have seen the first one for this to make sense: it does a pretty good job of catching you up on the essentials, and the stuff it doesn’t tell you is stuff you can figure out yourself. I’m sure there is stuff that I missed or didn’t appreciate fully because I hadn’t seen the first one, but I was never lost, and that’s what you want from a sequel.

But how is it as a film? I loved it. Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come (RON2: HIC, pronounced Ron-two-hick) is ridiculous, but it leans into it so you never sit there thinking “well that’s not realistic”. It’s also much more fun than mass death should be. Everybody is clearly having a blast. Samara Weaving is quickly becoming an icon of modern horror, and she’s joined by someone else who is gaining a similar reputation: Kathryn Newton. The two work well together, but it would be nice if their characters had a few more differences in their personalities. They’re joined by Sarah Michelle Gellar, who seems more comfortable lately going back to horror, and she’s always welcome, especially when she’s chewing the scenery as gleefully as she is here. The weirdest casting choice is David Cronenberg: he’s known for directing incredibly bleak fare like Maps To The Stars, Scanners, and Eastern Promises. So it’s strange he’d be in something as fun as this.

Cronenberg has stated in the past that he views all art as inherently political, and it’s easy to see RON2: HIC as political, it’s not even subtle about it: a group of rich people control the world and kill poor people to increase their power? Too believable. It’s notable that the rich dickheads are forbidden from killing each other, only targeting unwitting players in their game. They’re all deeply unlikeable, but on the bright side, they suffer. The deaths and injuries are brutal. Much like Jaws made people afraid of going in the water, Psycho made people afraid of showers, and 2024’s The Crow made people afraid of watching movies, RON2: HIC could keep you afraid of washing machines: at least that’s what I’m using as an excuse anyway.

It’s not just the deaths; the fights are great too. A lot of films lately are using Bonnie Tyler songs to score action sequences, to the point where it’s almost becoming a cliche. As someone who has openly declared how much he wants to see a car cash set to Total Eclipse Of The Heart, it’s a cliche I very much welcome. The other thing that’s notable about that particular scene is that both characters are blinded for a large portion of it. I love how this film does things like that, adding creative twists to scenes that render them different from what we’ve seen before.

Now for the negative: the split between the two sisters feels fake. The longer the film goes on, the less their relationship feels real. Their relationship with each other isn’t consistent; if it were The Sims, then their relationship meter would be going from 20 to 70 and back again on a whim.

That’s a minor complaint. RON2: HIC is a highly enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. It’s funny, fun, with a great soundtrack. It also features one of my favourite endings in a long time for pure batshit insanity. It could have slightly more memorable needle drops, and it does feel a bit more like the second in a trilogy rather than a finished narrative.

Final note: this will sound weird, but Samara Weaving and Kathryn Newton suit the blood-soaked look.

Scream 7 (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: When a new Ghostface killer emerges in the quiet town where Sidney has built a new life, her darkest fears are realised as her daughter becomes the next target.

Thoughts going in: I’m assuming Stu will be back. Curious how this will work, though.

Scream is an anomaly among horror franchises. For one, it’s protagonist-centred. Most horror movies are focused on the villain, whereas Scream has always been about Sidney Prescott (except for the sixth one, but even that featured characters we’d met before, some from the first movie). It has also remained relatively well-received. By this point, Friday the 13th had reached lows twice (the third and fifth movie), Saw had basically imploded, Child’s Play had gone past Seed, and Halloween had suffered The Curse Of Michael Myers. The low point for this franchise has been the third, and even that has its defenders. Personally, I think the sixth was the lowest because of the lack of Sidney and the unremarkable killers.

Sadly, Scream VII has more in common with the sixth than the others. Characters who should be here are missing due to studio bullshit (Neve Campbell for 6 because she knows her worth, Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega from this one due to the studio being anti-Palestine and pro killing children), characters survive what should kill them, and most of all, most annoyingly, incredibly weak killer reveals. Much like the sixth one, the reveal of the killers negated most of the goodwill the rest of the movie built up. It reminds me of Sherlock, the Benedict Cumberbatch TV series. The second series ended with Sherlock faking his death; to say fans were excited to see how it was done would be an understatement. The internet was full of fan theories and suggestions. Everyone was eagerly looking forward to the first episode of the third series, explaining it. Then the third series started, and the explanation was………not there. I think it’s fair to say that enthusiasm for the series has cooled down significantly, and it’s hard to think that the way the show handled this wasn’t a small part of it. That’s what Steven Moffat did, though; he would do tremendous setups, but they were only tremendous because the audience had a belief that things would pay off, but the resolutions were never satisfying.

For two-thirds of Scream 7, I was into it. Every time I thought I had the answers, they changed the questions. I was enthralled, making mental notes of everything that could be a clue or foreshadowing. Sure, there was a guy who worked at the hospital who was weird, but surely he is too obvious and is placed there as a red herring? I had faith that it would wrap together in a neat little package.

Did it fuck. The red herring turned out to not be one; it wasn’t a subversion, it was just bad writing. The other killer isn’t much better, being someone we’ve barely spent any time with. It’s like the script spent so long saying “this person isn’t the killer” that it forgot to write for the people who turn out to be the killers. I’d estimate that before the reveal, the killers have a total of 5 minutes of screen time, and even that feels generous.

Like I said, it’s a shame the reveal is so shit, because if it nailed that, then this would be among the best. I do appreciate that they turned Neve Campbell’s absence from the sixth one into a plot point/motivation. The kills are sadistic and brutal as hell. There’s no art to these deaths, just pure sadism and cruelty. Sidney’s daughter being named Tatum (after her friend in the first movie) is incredibly sweet. Gale’s entrance is pure brilliance. And the way the final killer is disposed of will make you feel like cheering.

Really, it’s all about the next step. If Scream 8 is a misfire, then seven will be seen as the place where the rot is solidified; if it’s an improvement, it will be seen as a set-up. It’s hard to see where they can go from here, though. Rumours have been circulating for years that Stu is still alive, which is why it was somewhat believable that he was the killer here. But now that the franchise itself has addressed that possibility, it makes it VERY hard for it to be true in the next film without it coming off as weak. I’d say they’re cut off from “person from an earlier movie who we thought was dead is now the killer” reveals for at least 2 movies now. Maybe by the time the next one comes out, the whole cast will be there, and it won’t feel like something is missing. It is hard to see where the next one will go, because when Scream has been successful, it’s been when it’s been satirising current horror tropes and trends. I’d like to see the Stab franchise matter again, maybe in-universe it can be rebooted, and the next film looks at that, mixed with overly gimmicky horror films. Essentially, the Scream series needs to remember to be ABOUT horror tropes, not be full of them. This series is at its best when it’s treating the horror genre as the set text that the audience is to study. Scream 7 treats its own franchise as the text instead. It’s not about horror movies, it’s about the Scream movies, and nothing more.

Cold Storage (2026) Review

Quick synopsis: Two employees of a self-storage facility have to deal with an escaping parasitic fungus. Shit gets wild.

Thoughts going in: I get the feeling Liam Neeson is going to die very early on. This was incorrect, by the way.

You don’t get enough films like Cold Storage. Films which are dumb fun without being stupid. Yes, there is a difference. Dumb means its just fun, not intended to have a deeper meaning or be too interested in plot twists and wrongfooting the audience. Stupid is when characters change personalities based solely on what the story needs; there’s no consistency in villain weakness, or everything is just too convenient. Cold storage is firmly in the “fun” category. It does occasionally get close to stupid, but the general tone allows it to do things I’d insult other films for.

The best example comes in the opening scene. There’s a character called Dr Hero. Most films, I’d insult that, but for this, it kind of works. The tone is so tongue-in-cheek you can swear it’s searching for an ulcer. It’s helped by the music. Lots of high-tempo songs to get the blood pumping, from Blondie, all the way through to a cover of Don’t Fear The Reaper. The performances are good too. Obviously, Liam Neeson, Vanessa Redgrave, and Leslie Manville are good performers; that’s not a shock to anybody. It’s been said before, but Neeson is great at comedy. Leslie Manville has done comedy before, but it’s usually been sitcoms or farce; this is a completely different ballgame, and she nails it. Georgina Campbell is the best performer throughout, but she is responsible for the worst line delivery of the movie. When she realises Neeson’s character set off the bomb before handing it to them, her “he set the bomb off” delivery sounds flatter than a freshly ironed shirt. It brings to mind someone saying, “My landlord, and my plumber are both here. And I don’t have the money to pay them”, in a low-budget porn. I get the feeling it was ADR’d, it certainly sounds like it, and it’s a weird blemish on an otherwise sensational performance.

I also wasn’t happy with the way this movie ended. What’s worse is I could sense it coming. I knew we’d get the “there’s still an infected creature out there” opening, and I knew it would end up with something either jumping at the screen, or exploding, or something similar, where it’s a split-second THING before credits. It’s a trend in modern horror movies, and I hate it. You wouldn’t write an atmospheric horror novel, have an incredibly well-crafted conclusion, then have the final line be “Emily sat down in peace, drifting into a peaceful slumber. AND THEN A SHREK ATE HER!” It would ruin the atmosphere, destroy the story you were telling, and get you sued by DreamWorks.

Those are minor complaints, though. Cold Storage is one of the most outright fun films of the year. It’s incredibly funny at times, a lot slicker than its budget would suggest, and has a script full of likeable and believable characters. It reminds me of Shaun Of The Dead, mixed with slight Kingsman energy. It’s only Johnny Campbell’s second film as a director, his first being Alien Autopsy. He’s most known for his TV work, directing two episodes of Doctor Who that could not be more different from each other: The Vampires Of Venice, and whatever the Van Gogh one was called. This has more in common with the vampire episode than it does the Van Gogh one, with emphasis on scares (with a small “S”) and shlock than emotion. That’s for the best, as emotion has no place in a film like this. If anything, it would just slow things down.

Which brings me onto the pacing. Cold Storage is efficient as hell; setting up the fungus very quickly. The opening scene could be a short film on its own. Fun fact: the part about a parasite that takes over an animals brain and makes it climb high so that the parasite can be released over a wider area? That’s accurate, and is why I’m deeply suspicious of mountain climbers. It feels longer than 99 minutes, but that’s only because of how much it gets done in such a short space of time. It juggles so many characters, so even characters with only a few minutes screentime have clear motivations and character arcs.

I won’t say this is among the best films of 2026, but it is one of the least flawed. Yes, it never reaches greatness, but it also doesn’t make too many mistakes. In the buffet of cinema, this is a lasagne. Not going to be the best meal you’ve eaten, but you’ll enjoy it more than you would most.

Whistle (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Terror strikes when a group of misfit high-school students discovers an ancient death whistle.

Thoughts going in: Saw this the same day I watched Cold Storage, and Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die. I knew this would be the one I enjoyed least.

It may not seem like it, but I do genuinely love horror movies. I’m getting that out of the way now, because I did not like this. It had too many moments which annoyed me. The most obvious one was the use of music. Horror movies have a long history of music use, probably more than any other genre as a whole. But it has to be done a certain way. During the early 2000’s, it was standard for horror soundtracks to consist of nu metal tracks, whether it suited it or not. This resulted in a weirdly high number of deaths set to the songs of Ill Nino or Spineshank, which tonally didn’t work as there was no atmosphere. This does something similar; there are at least two deaths which are accompanied by what sounds like the start of a metal/hip hop song. This makes it seem like the deaths are supposed to be “cool”. The songs don’t even lead anywhere, so it’s not as though they build into the next scene where we find characters listening to the song. It also felt weird to have a character who was portrayed as a dark, brooding gothic teen, and have her accompanied by an Olivia Rodrigo track. That’s not a slight against the big O, I love her stuff, but it doesn’t suit the character as much as the movie thinks it does.

It’s a shame that one of the deaths is so badly soundtracked, as that death is otherwise pretty good. The deaths are unique here, with the characters being killed by what would have killed them later. Kind of. Some, the ones which are disease/age-based have the disease rapidly develop, so it is that which still kills them. Then there are some where it just injures the body in the same way; so a car crash victim is thrown into the air by an invisible force. The disease death happens almost instantly, whereas the accident deaths seem to happen in real-time. So there’s a kind of inconsistency which harms the internal logic.

Speaking of logic: a scene in a hospital establishes that a teenager who died was identified by the coroner as being in his late 40s. So the coroner was handed a body of someone who died in mysterious and unexplained circumstances (he burst into flames in the shower), you’ve been told that the deceased was a 17-year-old athlete, yet in your analysis, you discover that the body in front of you actually belongs to a man in his late 40s. Would that not be a big deal? Would that not get reported? At the very least, there’d be a conspiracy theory about it. Yes, you could make the argument that the town covered it up. But if that’s the case, the coroner wouldn’t note the age in his report; he’d list the body as 17. Also, the staff at the school haven’t taken a vow of silence about it, because the teacher has zero idea either, being equally confused at the death whistle.

The way the town reacts is weird: it doesn’t. A star basketball player dies mysteriously, and the school barely acknowledges it. They don’t even clean out his locker. You could say “but the whistle magically transported itself back into his locker”. 1) That’s lazy writing. 2) Why did it wait six months? Why not transport to another locker straight away? 3) Unless it also packed lunch and schoolwork, that’s demonstrably false.

I looked at the user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and saw some which called it “agenda-driven propaganda”. Which made me think I watched the wrong movie. Then I remembered the main character is a gay woman who ends up in a relationship with another girl. It’s weird to hate this film for that, considering there are many other reasons to hate it. Plus, that relationship provided some of the best parts. Dafne Keen and Sophie Nelisse have a naturally sapphic chemistry when they share the screen. It’s badly written, though. They fall in love far too quickly, and it means Chrys seem kind of callous when she appears to be unbothered by the death of her cousin, but completely crushed by the harm potentially coming to a girl she’s known for roughly two days. You can’t deny their chemistry, though, and I’d love to see the two of them work together again in a standard romantic drama/comedy.

Anything else positive? It constantly flirts with good concepts, but then turns away from them. Characters hitting future versions of themselves, which causes physical harm to their current self? Smart. Those same people continuing to fire a gun at future versions of themselves, even after they’re aware of what’s happening? Less smart. Death skipping you if you die, then come back to life? Smart, albeit a rehash of Final Destination. Being able to “pass death” onto someone else if they touch your blood? Also smart (but the way it’s done in this is done in a way that absolves them of responsibility, because you can’t have morally complex characters). Using BOTH of these at the end? Feels like overkill.

In summary, some good ideas, but the script is nowhere near good enough to make the most of those ideas. Also, can we call for an end to horror movies doing the “creepy character crawling unnaturally” thing? It’s overused to the point of annoyance. The image at the top of the screen may make it seem like an 80’s throwback, but this is very much a film of the 2020’s, for better or worse.

Primate (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Monkey goes mad

Thoughts Going In: Could be dumb fun. Also, I went to grab lunch before this movie, intending to order a small cocktail, I instead ordered a pitcher, which I had to drink by myself in 10 minutes. So this entire review should be read under the knowledge that I was pretty drunk, and based on a conversation I had before the film started, I was trying to think of how Snickers could possibly be a euphemism for lesbianism. and Mars chocolate bars refer to men. No, I won’t provide context.

In 1971, Daniel Mann released the horror film Willard, about a man who befriends an army of killer rats. This was followed by a sequel the following year, called Ben. The theme song (called simply, Ben) for this film was performed by Michael Jackson, and is genuinely very sweet. The rabid chimpanzee in this movie? Ben. The lyrics are surprisingly apt for this film, which meant I couldn’t unhear the song every time they said his name.

So besides my own weird shit, how is Primate? It’s okay. As an early-year blood-filled popcorn horror, it’s good. It does what it needs to, and doesn’t overstay its welcome. There are moments where it’s a bit too dumb to be enjoyable. Characters state that rabies doesn’t exist in Hawaii, then doesn’t bother to provide an explanation as to how it does now. Some of the stupid decisions only happen so that the plot can advance, with multiple people doing things that nobody would do. I can’t tell you that much about the characterisation, because there didn’t really seem to be any. Characters don’t really develop, and only occasionally dip into their personality traits. When I write, I like to do a draft where I cover up the characters’ names, and see if I can tell who’s talking based solely on the dialogue; it’s mainly a test to see if each character has an individual voice rather than just me doing a narrative ventriloquist act. I struggle to think you’d be able to do that with this.

None of that is meant as an insult to the cast; all of whom do their job well. Most of them are relative unknowns, but you wouldn’t know that by the performances. I like that they actually cast a deaf actor in Troy Kotsur, a disappointingly high number of films wouldn’t.

Now onto the best part; the kills. This film is bloodier than the firstborn daughter of Henry VIII. Primate doesn’t shy away from not just the blood; but the pain. When characters get their jaws ripped off, it’s not quick and painless, you can tell they are suffering. I’m quickly beginning to like the work of Johannes Roberts. With this, and the two 47 Meters Down movies, he’s finding a niche as a talented creator of animal-based horror movies. I’m not saying he should be given billions to remake Jaws, but he’d be a decent choice if you wanted to remake The Swarm and make it actually good.

In summary: exactly what it needs to be, but never anything more.

Silent Night, Deadly Night (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Billy is traumatised by the death of his parents, so every December he kills 24 people in the build-up to Christmas, as you do.

There are a lot of iconic horror franchises; I haven’t watched them all. Silent Night, Deadly Night (or SN, DN, pronounced Seen Deen) is one of those I have no history with. I’ve seen the Kill Count videos on them, so I’m aware of them, their memes, characters, and kills. Basically, I have no personal stake in this movie. I’m not going to be personally offended at the changes, but equally, I’m not going to geek out over references beyond just going “I recognise that reference”. The last movie I was in that situation with was Black Christmas, back in 2019. That was the second remake of a Christmas-themed horror franchise that featured a killer named Billy that originated in a realistic 70’s movie, but for the second remake, it decided to make it supernatural and weird. Silent Night, Deadly Night is completely different; it’s based on an 80’s movie.

I am aware of the changes made to the lore, and it would be weird to not comment on them. Basically, the main character in this only kills people because if he doesn’t, a random person will die. So he decides to only kill bad people. Essentially, it’s Dexter Claus. I can see why they did it, and it does lead to a roomfull of nazi’s being brutally murdered in a scene I’m sure we can all hope to see recreated. But it does mean that this becomes the kind of horror film I don’t particularly like: bad things happening to bad people, where we’re supposed to cheer the murderer and think of how cool he is. At no point in this are you scared for any character’s well-being. At no point are you disgusted by the brutal killings. How can you be? If you witness someone go into a room of Nazi’s carrying a weapon, then you’re not going to sit there like “noooooo. Get out of their nazi’s! He’s going to kill you”. It also leads to my other problems; how many fucking killers are in this small town? It’s the kind of horror film which falls apart if you think about it too long. How does nobody notice people being killed? Compare it to Heart Eyes, where we saw news anchors talk about the horror of the killer striking every Valentine’s Day. There’s nothing like that in here. There’s no “every year, a random town in America is struck by a killer in a Santa costume”. It’s almost as if it doesn’t happen. This is most evident in the Nazi scene. A LOT of people die in that; the building is set on fire. It’s NEVER referenced again. There are no “wow, a lot of people didn’t turn up to work today” comments. No news reports about the Nazi paraphernalia that turns out to belong to beloved town figures. It has no impact. Also, if he has the power to see people who are evil, why was it he had no idea there were A LOT of nazi’s in that town? Does the person possessing him not see “being a racist POS who calls for the death of all non-whites” as evil? That’s fucked up.

I am fully aware I’m missing the point of this. This is not meant to be taken seriously. But everyone is allowed personal opinion, and this is not the kind of horror film I’m into. For the kind of people who like that kind of thing, that’s the kind of thing that those people like. But it’s not for me. It’s too dark to be fun, and too ridiculous to be scary. Also, I didn’t buy the romantic part; I saw no reason for her to be into him. Very minor complaint: he gets a job at her shop. It’s a Christmas-themed shop, selling ornaments and baubles etc. He starts there on 20th December. Forget the “he’s haunted by a ghost that tells him who’s naughty, and warns him of danger (unless it’s plot convenient)”, forget the “almost 100 people died in one night, and nobody notices”, him starting a Christmas job that late in December is the most unrealistic part of the whole darn thing.

The performances are okay. Rohan Campbell is fine, but not spectacular. I liked Ruby Modine; she has a weird likability, even when she’s displaying ultraviolence. On the subject of violence, the kills are good. If you like brutal deaths, then you’ll love this. Many of the deaths contain references to the original movie. Fans might not be so pleased with the supernatural elements, and I have a feeling some of them REALLY won’t be pleased with the ending. I can almost hear the “it’s gone woke!” complaints from here. On the plus side, it means that if there is a sequel, it will be guaranteed to be very different.

I kind of hope there is a sequel, as there’s potential. And once the writers stop trying so hard to make it different from the original and instead focus on just telling a coherent story, they could be onto a winner. Because the lore and characters have been established, the next step should be a lot cleaner to execute. So in summary, I really was not a fan of this. It was an overstuffed mess that lacked any sense of identity and was too focused on unlikeable characters. But I’ll still watch a sequel if it comes up. I probably wasn’t helped by the fact that I saw it in an almost empty room, so there wasn’t much audience reaction, which it feels like this film was made for.

Keeper (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Terrifying visions plague a free-spirited artist when she travels to a secluded cabin with the doctor she’s been dating for one year.

I went into this surprisingly blind for someone who has seen the trailer at least 11 times at the local cinema. It gave nothing away. So I expected it to be mysterious and creepy. Turns out it didn’t give anything away because there’s not that much to give away, at least not until the ending. It’s not a sequential escalation of events; it’s just stuff happens, then similar stuff happens, with no explanation.

Imagine you go to a restaurant expecting chocolate cake. It’s a 60-minute time limit, but for 50 minutes, all you have access to is bread. You’re confused, trying to figure out what is going on, wondering if you’re even going to get any cake. Then, just when you’ve given up hope, the cake arrives, and it is good; it somehow explains the bread. In that scenario, are you going to tell people “the cake was really good”, or are you going to talk about how you spent most of the time eating bread? That’s my experience with this movie (the bread is nonsensical weirdness, the cake is logic and storytelling, obviously). Most of the 99-minute runtime is spent with incomprehensible weirdness instead of scares. I have similar issues with it that I had with Osgood’s 2024 movie Longlegs; it looks pretty, the performances are good, but nothing happens, and then it continues to happen. It’s demonstrably dull. Part of that is the weirdness; it overplays the “something spooky, but it was possibly a dream” moments, so nothing lands. Every time you see something, you’re never sure if it’s real, so you assume it’s not, which means nothing has meaning.

The performances are great, that has to be said. By which I mean, of the three characters we spend the most time with, one is spectacular, and is luckily the one who is onscreen most of the time. On the downside, I have recently watched Broad City, so it did take a while to move past Tatiana Maslany’s resemblance to Ilana Glazer. If it wasn’t for Maslany, I’d have HATED this movie. Her performance is incredible, which is handy as most of the time she doesn’t really have anyone to bounce off.

Perkins has injected the film with an atmosphere that’s very low-key, incredibly naturalistic. Which makes it all the more disappointing when he keeps going back to hackneyed horror tropes when we see the creatures/visions. Those visions don’t seem to increase in levels; they stay consistent throughout, so they seem more repetitive than my complaints about them.

To be honest, this is a difficult review to write as it’s difficult to resist the urge not to just repeat a lot of the sentences from the Die My Love review, maybe mixed in with my Longlegs review too. There’s a filmmaking rule: Show, Don’t Tell. Essentially, if you want to tell the audience that a character is in pain, it’s best to do that by having them wince when they move, etc, rather than have them come in and say “I am in pain”. Films like Keeper take that advice too literally, showing us random things with no explanation. Short flashbacks and spooky shit do not count as foreshadowing; it’s just annoying.

In summary, I think it’s a style issue. I just don’t like Perkins’ style as a filmmaker. Except for The Monkey, I loved that. If this were a short, I’d have loved it. But because it spent sooooo long getting to the f*cking point, I was too bored to care by the time it got interesting.

Shelby Oaks (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: Mia is haunted by the disappearance of her sister Riley 12 years ago. She’s given up all hope, then a stranger hands her a videotape of Riley’s final moments.

I’ve seen this movie described as a mix of Blair Witch and Hereditary, which is remarkably accurate. It has the lore and world-building of Hereditary, and the reality-based found footage of Blair Witch. It’s been overused since then, so people forget just how exciting The Blair Witch Project was when it came out. What made that movie work was how real the footage itself felt; the people in it didn’t like actors, so it genuinely felt like we were watching something hidden. It also wasn’t overly edited and full of jump scares, which is a trap its weaker imitators have fallen into. In that regard, Shelby Oaks continues that tradition, with the found-footage sections being incredible to watch.

It’s when it steps away from the found-footage premise that it becomes less interesting. The moment it happens is brilliant, and feels like a genuinely “holy shit” moment, the likes of which I haven’t seen since the Ghostface deaths in the opening of Scream 6. It can’t keep that momentum up, though. Once that moment has gone, the film doesn’t come close to matching it. You’re still invested in the story and the mystery, but a little bit of that “wow” factor has gone; there’s not as much to separate it from every other horror movie. I think part of the annoyance with it is that the mystery is intriguing, but you never really feel like you’re getting close to solving it until the film tells you what’s happening; there are no clues for the audience to figure out. If you’re watching this with friends, there will be no discussion about your theories or guesses. It gives you a puzzle, then makes you watch someone else solve it, so after a while, your brain can’t help but wander. Without that “I want to solve the mystery”, you’re just left with a spooky story, albeit a very competent one.

It’s clear that Chris Stuckmann has a lot of talent as a director; he’s an expert at crafting scares out of seemingly nothing. He’s helped by a brilliant performance from Camille Sullivan. I was also fond of Sarah Durn’s performance as Riley, especially towards the end when we see her perform not as a video host, but as a traumatised victim. She looks haunted. Nobody else really lasts long enough to have an impact, but it is always nice to see Keith David. There’s also some great audiowork, which is an underrated part of crafting tension.

When it is tense, it’s on “edge-of-your-seat” levels. Shelby Oaks is the kind of film that nail-biting was invented for. I watched it in the cinema, which is a great way to watch a film like this; sitting in a dark room with lots of space around you, letting everything overwhelm you. The only way the experience could be better is if you had to listen to it on those massive over-ear headphones.

What surprised me about Shelby Oaks is just how nostalgic it made me feel. The videos genuinely feel like they’re from the early days of YouTube, where it was weird people making art as opposed to corporations making “content”. There’s a sort of innocence to the videos the Paranormal Paranoids make, which makes what happens to them all the more frightening.

I wish I could play this as a video game, or watch it as a series of YouTube shorts played off as real. As a feature film, it runs out of ideas in the final third (but the ending is pretty shocking), which really does a disservice to the art created beforehand. In summary, quite frustrating, but the work of people who clearly know what they’re doing. One day, Stuckmann could make the greatest horror movie of modern times, but he’s not quite there yet.

Black Phone 2 (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Gwen and her brother Finn are haunted by bad dreams and PTSD, leading them to a Christian youth camp where they’re forced to face their fears, and their pasts.

As a stand-alone film, I have some issues with Black Phone 2, but it’s pretty good. As a sequel to The Black Phone, however? It’s a mess. I haven’t seen a sequel shift like this since Brahms: The Boy II, which was seemingly written by someone who only saw the trailer for the first movie, and was writing based on what they thought that movie was.

The original Black Phone was semi-realistic. The Grabber wasn’t a demon or person with special powers; he was just a serial killer who focused on children (possibly in a creepy way). Yes, the eponymous phone was mystical and supernatural, but the narrative itself was fairly grounded. The fears that the characters dealt with were realistic; a child has been taken and is desperate to survive. It’s no more supernatural than the tales World War 2 pilots would tell of a deceased officer seemingly leading them to safety when all hope seemed lost. Black Phone 2 would be like if those same pilots said that the clouds gained sentience and started breathing fire on the enemy, then winking at the survivors as if to say, “I got this”. I’m not sure where I expected a sequel to The Black Phone to go, but I didn’t expect it to basically turn into A Nightmare On Elm Street, but more ridiculous.

Two things are very clear from this movie: 1) Ethan Hawke is damn good at what he does. 2) Scott Derrickson LOVES creepy VHS-style vignettes. He uses that style to indicate what scenes take place in dreams; so it’s actually a really handy visual cue, I kind of love it. Yes, it makes no diegetic sense unless we believe these kids are dreaming in Super 8, but as a shorthand for “this is a dream”? I dig it.

I mentioned Ethan Hawke’s performance just now; his performance is less camp and theatrical than it was in the original, but much more menacing. Part of that is because he’s not actually in it that much; the biggest mistake a third movie can (or, I predict, will) make is having more of him. It is kind of helped by the other performances being only okay. It’s weird, I’ve seen every performer in this do well, so it’s not a talent issue, but there are moments where performances seem so hammy that the film should come with a label saying it’s non-kosher (alternative joke; so wooden I’m going to use them to mend my fence). None more so than Anna Lore in the opening scene. She redeems herself in later scenes, but her making the initial phone call feels off, performance-wise.

Loved the music; it’s suitably creepy and weird; reminds me of the work of Trent Reznor, and it perfectly suits the visuals Derrickson is going for. Although on the subject of music, everytime a character loudly exclaimed “Gwen!” my brain started singing this. I’m not holding that against the film, that would be stupid. I just wanted to make sure everyone who reads this is equally cursed, like when I tell people that the opening to Breakfast In America by Supertramp is very similar to Don’t Speak by No Doubt.

It is a weird sequel, but I do appreciate how realistic it is that the characters are haunted by the events of the first film. They’re both clearly suffering from PTSD. My first thought was, “a bit unrealistic, someone would have clearly given Finn therapy and counselling”, then I remembered this is set in 1982, and therapy was seen as unmanly (and to some stupid people, still is), so depressingly, his having to self-medicate his trauma with drugs is accurate.

Overall, a pretty solid experience, but one of the few sequels that is actually made worse by having watched the original. There are some stupid character moments (when trying to stop Gwen from being slowly dragged into an oven, nobody thinks to close the oven door), but also some smart ones. I appreciated how they tried to wake her up by throwing cold water in her face. Despite the moments of stupidity, it’s still a fun watch, albeit not one you’ll be dying (horror pun!) to do twice.