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.

Good Boy (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A haunted house story from the POV of a dog.

Sometimes it can be difficult to sell a film just by explaining the plot. How can you sell someone on Knives Out if you just sell it as “a murder mystery drama about a rich guy”? Then there’s Good Boy. “A horror movie told from the POV of a dog”. That’s all you need. Once you hear that, you don’t need to know the director, any of the performers, or even to see a trailer. That concept is simple enough and strong enough to draw you in. For that, this has to be commended. It doesn’t fail to live up to that premise either. If you like the concept, you will love this film.

Gimmick films can be tricky because they need to be worth watching even once the novelty of the gimmick wears off. “From a different perspective” is a fun gimmick to use, especially in horror, but it has been done a lot lately. We’ve had films from the perspective of a ghost (Presence), films from the perspective of the killer (In A Violent Nature), and films from the perspective of a group of fucking idiots (Truth Or Dare). From the POV of a dog is interesting, and I can’t think of any others like it. The closest I can think of comes from video games. It adds a unique twist to a somewhat tired genre; everything is more terrifying when it’s towering over you. What will be a downside to a lot of people is that, because the main character is a dog, there’s no vocal way to convey a lot of information. You REALLY have to pay attention to enjoy this film; there’s no way you will enjoy this if you’re not 100% in. Which is a rather long-winded way of saying that this is a terrible film to watch on the same day you get your flu jab as instead of paying attention to it, you’ll sit there trying to remember the final line in the Postman Pat theme song (“he puts all the letters in his van”, by the way). Don’t worry, I have seen it again, so this review isn’t coming from a place of tired haze.

If you pay attention and give this film what it deserves, you will be rewarded. It’s fascinating. I am slightly disappointed that it does firmly place its foot in the “this house is haunted” box; there is definitely a haunting here, no doubt about it. It may have been more interesting if it were ambiguous, where we realise that what we’re seeing isn’t a haunting, it’s just something the dog doesn’t understand. Maybe a scene where it looks like his owner is possessed, but with further context clues, it turns out he’s just drunk. A fearsome creature turns out to be an animal that the dog isn’t familiar with, that kind of thing. For a definite horror movie, this does its job well, though. It helps that we care about the characters, despite there only really being two of them (and one of them being a dog). The ending is heartbreaking (don’t worry, the dog doesn’t die), and it is the best way this story could end. The heart shown in that moment encapsulates why Good Boy stands out in a crowded genre; it’s genuinely sweet at times. It helps that they picked the right kind of horror movie. It’s not needlessly violent and disgusting, or full of jump scares. Instead, it’s an exercise in creeping dread. Instead of smashing you in the face with violence, it creates an atmosphere and uncertainty which lingers over the run-time.

On the subject of run-time, it’s only 72 minutes. I admire that, I much prefer that to a longer one. Mainly because longer films sometimes overstuff the narrative to try to justify their length. A shorter film says, “yup, we know the limits of this story”. It’s difficult to see how this could be longer and still maintain the elements that make it work.

In summary, this may not be your cup of tea, but it’s a film that I’m very glad was made, purely because of its originality. I wish there were more films like this, even though I don’t really feel I need to see it again. If I’m with someone who wants to watch it, I’ll watch it. But I can’t see myself going out of my way to see it again. That’s nothing against it, it’s a fine film, but it’s never quite great.

Him (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: An up-and-coming quarterback undergoes a rigorous training regimen at the home of his idol. Weird shit happens

There are some stories which need to be told, which capture the zeitgeist perfectly. In 2006, Christopher Nowinski authored Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis, which theorised (and demonstrated) how maybe having grown adults smash into each other at sprinting speed could cause damage to the brain. Yes, sports needed a book to be told that brains are important. With the exception of 2015’s Concussion, it hasn’t really made a dent in cinema, which is a shame as it’s an interesting story to look into; the lengths people have to go to so they can succeed; the physical damage that is not only expected, but demanded. Sports (particularly American Football) is ripe for a film about the sacrifices needed to succeed; it needs its own Whiplash (insert your own spinal injury joke). And there are moments where Him (and we can’t brush past how bad a title that is) showcases that, when it’s absolutely brutal and forces upon you the knowledge that these players are risking their health and lives every time they step onto the field. This is best demonstrated when Cam (played by Tyriq Withers) runs into someone, skull crushing against skull. The other person is left a quivering wreck on the floor, spasming uncontrollably as the team members ignore him, cheering Cam for his violence. In a film rife with horror imagery, I found that the most disturbing.

That’s my rather clumsy segue into what I didn’t like about Him: the horror aspects. It spends its entire runtime with one foot in the stirrup of sports drama, and the other in supernatural horror, and they’re spread apart as far as you can get. Every time Him looked like it was getting interesting, it was then ruined by silly supernatural bullshit. The horror aspects actually make it less scary. It turns it from something realistic and genuinely harrowing into something incredibly generic. Also, it’s underdeveloped. It’s revealed that great players get their greatness from a ritual blood transfusion. This is actually foreshadowed very well, so I won’t fault it for that; it doesn’t exactly come out of nowhere. But it doesn’t explain why. Why does (presumably) Satan care so much about American Football? If it’s the blood that causes greatness, couldn’t they put it in anybody instead of trying to convince someone who’s already great? Also, considering he was likely to sign for the Saviours anyway, they didn’t actually need to orchestrate him being injured. All they needed to do was say, “Want to sign for this time? Come to your heroes’ training camp for a few days”.

Also, it REALLY overplays the “spooky thing happens. Cut back to normal so it was possibly a hallucination” thing. It doesn’t leave you scared; it leaves you annoyed, like it’s intentionally trying to wrongfoot you constantly, then mocking you for being confused. This is especially noticeable towards the end, where a scene set in a club is shot and edited in a manner that’s almost incomprehensible. That could have been an iconic scene, showing his final descent into being corrupted. Instead, it’s just a messy blur that uses editing techniques to not show you anything that you actually want to see.

In summary, a complete car crash, if it weren’t a horror movie, would be a lot better. But then, I suppose it wouldn’t have a gimmick. I can see what they were going for, but neither the script nor the directing is good enough for it. I’m also somewhat put off by Marlon Wayans’ response to negative reviews, saying, “Some movies are ahead of the curve. Innovation is not always embraced”. This isn’t ahead of the curve, it’s Suspiria mixed with Whiplash, but if Suspiria was made by a first-year film student.

Weapons (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: When all but one child from the same classroom mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance

There’s a fine line between comedy and horror. Something that some see as comedic will be seen by others as utterly horrific: clowns, that scene from IT: Chapter 2 where black sludge was vomited over a kid, my face. I’m saying that now because there were moments during Weapons where I wasn’t entirely sure whether their comedic nature was intentional or not. I’m going to give writer and director Zach Cregger the benefit of the doubt and say it was. I think Creggar will one day create an all-time classic horror comedy. He has a history of comedy, and his horror movies have been very well-received, but he seems to be toning down the comedic elements, which means the moments which are there stand out more and seem out of place.

That’s all very negative, I know. I did like Weapons. I watched it in the worst possible way; in a cinema screen with only two other people in, both of whom talked a lot and laughed randomly. The fact that Weapons had that work against it, and still came out with me having a favourable opinion of it, says a lot. Is it going to end up being among my top films of the year? Probably not. To me, it was a solid 8/10. If it wasn’t for Sinners, it would be the best horror film of the year.

So why didn’t I like it? I’m not entirely sure. I just never fully bought into the premise. Aside from the meeting, it didn’t feel like a town that was in shock. I know, life goes on, etc. But there would be some change in behaviour; increased police presence, parents putting locks on the inside of their doors which their kids can’t open. A classroom of kids goes missing, and at no point does the question of “what if this happens again?” get raised. They’re angry towards Justine, but that’s only specific characters. Shop staff still serve her as usual, she doesn’t even change her routine and get her shopping done online. She drinks at a bar, and nobody accosts her. Compare this to the recent Halloween trilogy, which slid into shitness in the final one, but otherwise did a fantastic job of portraying a town haunted by events. Individually, people do seem paranoid and worried. But as a town? Not so much. It’s almost like they don’t care that much. Which would explain the ending, actually, when an old woman is being chased by a group of feral kids, breaking through windows, going through people’s houses, etc, and not a single adult reacts or tries to stop it.

Yes, I am aware I’m being overly picky. But that’s only because if it wasn’t for that, Weapons could be an all-time great. It’s tense, doesn’t shy away from gore when it needs to, but doesn’t depend on it. It has characters you empathise with, and a narrative that draws you in. The music is incredible, as are the performances. Julia Garner is fast becoming one of my favourite performers to see on screen in horror movies. She has a great “trembling face on the edge of tears but not quite crying” facial acting. It turns out Benedict Wong can be f*cking terrifying when he needs to be. He’s come a long way from 15 Storey’s High, which, if you’ve seen it, you’d have never guessed he’d become a star. The real star is Amy Madigan, who is brilliant.

In summary, very, very good. The more distance I have from it, the more its themes and ideals have stayed in my head, and I’ve come to appreciate them. But it could be so much better.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Five friends cause a death and decide to lie about it.

For whatever reason, this is the only ’90s teen slasher franchise I have no history with. I’ve even watched the first two Urban Legends, and I’m fairly certain that more people are in those films than have actually watched them. I’m aware of what happens, so I wasn’t lost when watching IKWYDLS (eye-cue-ya-doo-les), I got the references and recurring characters. Some of the references were so heavily signposted that I’m pretty sure babies born during the pre-movie trailers would understand they were callbacks. The “what are you waiting for?” callback is particularly obvious; the character would not say that at that moment, and only does so because it was accidentally iconic in the original. The fact that she repeats it here makes it seem like she actually says it all the time, and it just happened that one of those times was during the events of the first movie.

Wow. I thought I’d hold out longer before saying how much I disliked this movie. If it came out in 2017, I might have enjoyed it more. But the release of the new Scream and Halloween movies means this suffers by comparison. They are the most unfortunate franchises to be compared to, because they both excelled at what this movie fails at: displaying societal trauma. They both did a great job at showing how towns cope with being the site of a horrific event.

IKWYDLS tries to excuse that by saying “rich person covered it up” (which turns into a motive for one of the killers), but that doesn’t wash, for multiple reasons. One, there’s a podcast about the murders, so it’s not THAT covered up. Two, and it’s the same problem I had with Five Nights At Freddy’s; if a group of people were murdered horrifically by a serial killer, the town would not forget about it. If someone said, “Don’t talk about those murders”, people would assume the person saying it had something to do with it. Legends aren’t fire, they don’t die without the oxygen of publicity; they grow. They’d be new falsehoods attached to it “I heard the killer came back years later as a zombie, and for some reason, despite being a fisherman, killed people in a completely landlocked state”. Fuck, that third movie was so stupid.

It’s not just on an “if you think about it for a while” level that the script has issues. There are some serious tonal issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in the final scene. Two of the surviving characters talk about how one of the killers is still alive. But they do it in such a casual way that it has no impact. I think that may have been because the writers were attempting to make the teen characters cool and quippy, but it just makes them seem like they’re not taking the situation seriously. The characters are far, far too quippy, unnaturally so. The comments don’t even make sense. “None of this would have happened if men went to therapy” is an especially stupid line in a movie where one of the killers is female. Did the writers forget the villain reveal?

Maybe I’d be more forgiving of the quippy nature of the script if the characters weren’t so, so, soooooo annoying. It’s not even “learn to despise these characters”, they’re instantly annoying. They come off as the type of people who would respond to a global pandemic by singing a John Lennon cover, and while I’m somewhat glad to end that joke there, I don’t think Gal Gadot’s lawyers would be, as my planned next sentence would have been an easy libel win for them.

The thing is, I’m fairly sure we’re supposed to like this group of characters. The inciting incident is a lot less blameless than the original. There’s no chance of them being legally culpable; it’s built up to make them as innocent as possible. Although now I’ve just realised something. One of the killers is someone who was very close to the person who died in the original accident. Would the gang not have noticed that in any of the newspaper pictures after the event? Damn, this movie gets dumber the longer I think about it.

It’s not all negative; there are some fun kills. The death of Wyatt is brutal and brilliant. The character arc of Teddy is pretty interesting, and they really could have done more with it. Sarah Pidgeon gives a truly great and sympathetic performance. The use of Julie James from the first two is the perfect use of her. The way they use Ray is……inconsistent. I don’t hate the character, I’m not a Ray-cist, but his character does feel wasted at times.

In summary, actually, do I need to summarise? You can tell I didn’t like this movie. It’s not among the worst 5 films of the year, but it’s possibly in the worst 10. Still, it’s better than the third one (no, haven’t seen it, but I’m still aware of its shitness).

Bring Her Back (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A brother and sister are placed with a new foster mother; she’s a bit weird.

Sally Hawkins can do anything, can’t she? At no point during Bring Her Back do you think she’s English; she slips into her performance perfectly. The supporting cast also gives performances beyond their years, especially Billy Barratt, who gives a near-perfect performance of someone haunted by trauma but trying to stay strong. It’s also clear that the Philippou brothers are tremendous directors, with a real flair for understanding what makes certain visuals work.

I thought I’d start with that so I could move onto the negatives, as I really didn’t like this film. It’s not that I actively hated it; I just wasn’t impressed with it, at all. It tries so hard to matter, to be important, to deal with themes of grief and guilt, but does so far too unsubtly to the point of repetitiveness. It makes its points, then a few minutes later says the exact same thing again (a bit like I just did with the previous two sentences).

It is possible I just don’t like their stories, as I also wasn’t fond of their previous film, Talk To Me. Reading that review again (posted here), I have many of the same issues; it didn’t live up to its potential, a lot of scenes were needless, and it was a few tweaks away from being great.

BHB (pronounced Bah-haaab) isn’t sure whether its audience is comprised of geniuses or idiots. So it veers between “now to just make sure, we’re going to have this character explain this again” and “because f*ck you! that’s why that happened”. So watching it is akin to trying to do a kids crossword and a cryptic crossword on the same board.

As much as I love how the brothers create horror, I think BHB may have been better if it weren’t a horror movie. If they instead focused on the themes of grief and loss. Keep the possession angles, just dial down the “scares” back a bit. The cult interludes feel forced, and like they are just there to get creepy moments in. That’s a shame, as if we didn’t see those moments, then when we see her attempt to do it later, it would have more of an impact. At the moment, the cult videos are more disturbing than the main product. To put it in wrestling terms, it would be like starting a card with a match full of barbed wire baseball bats to the face, and then having the main event end with a single baseball bat to the back, and the person is knocked out for 10 minutes and taken to the hospital. If you’ve already seen something more devastating, it dilutes the payoff you’re looking for.

Cutting down on the horror would mean leaving out some of the deaths, but that’s no great loss, as the moment where two characters die has all the impact of a single raindrop on a swimming pool. They feel particularly mean-spirited and pointless. If you cut them from the script entirely, it would only require a 20-second scene to fix the hole that’s left. The deaths don’t cause any lasting trauma to the characters, don’t drive the story forward, and are pretty inconsequential. So either delete them, or make them have a purpose.

In summary, I’m going to end this with the exact quote I ended my review of Talk To Me.

It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. 

Y2K (2024) Review

Quick Review: Remember that Simpsons Halloween episode where all electrical appliances start killing people because of the Y2K bug? Yeah, that.

Streaming services, even with the movies they acquire rather than what they make, tend to have a certain connective vibe. Taskmaster would be weird on Disney+, just wouldn’t work, whereas something like Miranda would slip in perfectly. I’m just clearing that up before I summarise my thoughts on this in one sentence: This feels like a Netflix movie.

I mean that in a good and a bad way. It’s slick, well-produced, and with a killer soundtrack. But it’s also forgettable. It feels tailor-made to have ridiculous AI-generated adverts running through it. It’s not all bad; the opening gives so much nostalgia. Although that’s part of the problem. It feels like it’s designed to appeal to 90’s kids, but hasn’t realised that people who grew up in the 90s are now adults, and realise that a lot of stuff from the 90s was fucking stupid and terrible. It’s a brave move for a film to have a target audience of “people who have been in a coma for 25 years”, and judging by the reviews, it hasn’t paid off.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have a soft spot for dumb, stupid things (except myself), but Y2K is pushing it. It’s a little “too” dumb. How exactly does a VHS player eject a tape at such high speed that it kills someone? How did the blender end up on someones dick? It’s cartoon physics in the real world, so it’s hard to actually feel scared at any point.

I also have a problem with the script. Eli’s friend dies WAY too early. Which means he doesn’t have anyone to bounce off. We have no grounding for what he’s like as a person, as once his friend dies, we only see him in a “nervous around his crush” state. On the subject of Eli, he also feels from the 90s, and not in a good way; there are major “nice guy” vibes. In a different movie, his character would turn out to be a date rapist who is angry that the female lead wouldn’t give him a handjob to thank him for holding the door open for him.

On the plus side, it is better than the other “robots vs. humans” film of the year, The Electric State (as reviewed here). Mainly because there are moments where Y2K is an enjoyable movie, with glimpses of the 90s throwback it could have been. They are just glimpses, though; shooting stars in the night sky of stupidity that is Y2K. The Fred Durst cameo is entertaining and actually contributes to the story.

The performances are mostly fine, but it’s difficult to tell under the script. I will always like Rachel Zegler in things; she’s a great talent to watch. Mason Gooding brings the dramatic chops when the film needs it. Other than that? Mostly okay but not outstanding.

In summary: a good idea, let down by a piss-poor execution.

Fear Street: Prom Queen (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Shadyside High’s 1988 prom queen election becomes deadly for underdog Lori as candidates are targeted.

A few years ago, I changed the focus of this site from “write an article twice a week, which will sometimes consist of reviews” to “review every film I see that’s a new release”. Despite that new policy, I didn’t review the Fear Street trilogy. I’ve reviewed Netflix exclusives before, so that wasn’t the reason. It was because I couldn’t figure out whether to review them as separate entities or count them as one. If there was a bigger break between them, I would have done them separately, because I would have watched them separately. But the way they were released almost made it seem like they wanted you to binge-watch all three. So they felt too interconnected for me to treat them as separate entities.

If I had, I would have been kinder than I am towards Fear Street: Prom Queen (FS: PQ, Fish Pee-queue). I have issues with the original trilogy, but it felt better than this. Prom Queen’s biggest problem is one of horror identity. It doesn’t seem to know whether it’s dumb fun, where you’re supposed to watch and cheer the chaos, or if its supposed to scare and shock you. So it ties itself up in knots trying to serve both.

It’s not necessarily a bad film; it’s just incredibly forgettable. I watched it three days ago, and I’ve already forgotten every character’s name. I remember being incredibly 80s. In fact, it’s so 80s that it’s trying to ban the promotion of homosexuality in British schools using the EXACT same methods that people in the 2020s would use to spread hate against trans people.

The main negatives lie with the script. Most of the events happen over the course of one night, but part of the charm comes from the juxtaposition between the violent deaths and the joyful prom. Which means the prom characters need to be ignorant of the deaths. The script needs to be clever to do it, and Prom Queen isn’t smart enough. Characters split up from the prom scenes just so they can be killed off, and it doesn’t feel natural the way they do it.

On the upside, when it decides to let loose, it’s spectacular. The massacre in the actual prom is wonderfully violent and slick. It’s pure chaos and bloodshed. It’s here where the movie soars, when we see it at its best. It’s bloody, funny, and bloody funny. It also leads into the final scene at the house, which had one of my favourite deaths I’ve seen in a horror movie in a while. I’ll try to keep it vague to avoid spoilers; a character hits the villain over the head with a statue. They don’t die instantly; they don’t even die in that scene. There is no overabundance of blood or screaming. There’s just a character speaking in such a way that you can tell that their brain is fucked, and even if they don’t die, they won’t be able to live unassisted ever again. That moment is too good for a film like this.

Now, onto the three-hundred-pound question: do you need to watch the original trilogy for this to make sense? Thankfully, no. It’s stand stand-alone. It is a richer movie if you remember the others, I assume, the other films were just as forgettable as this one, so whilst I recognised there were some references, such as names, I couldn’t remember the significance of them. There’s a mid-credits scene that’s much more explicit in its reference, but feels more tacked on than the connections in the last Cloverfield movie.

From my few memories of the previous films, this does feel the weakest. That’s a shame as the performances are the best. I’ve long spoken of my love for Katherine Waterston; she’s not always in good films, but she’s always good in whatever she acts in. India Fowler leads the cast admirably, especially when you consider that she’s performing in an accent that’s not her natural one. Actually, all of the performances are good, and I’d have loved to have seen what these performers could do with a better script.

I probably will end up live-blogging the franchise at some point. But I don’t really have any love for the franchise. It exists, and I’ve watched them, that’s as far as my love for it goes. On the plus side; it is probably the best film I’ve seen on Netflix this year, but that says more about the lacklustre offerings they’ve had in 2025.