Tag: Horror

Passenger (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A travelling couple are haunted by what’s essentially a hitchhiking demon.

The last André Øvredal film I reviewed was Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark back in 2019. I thoroughly enjoyed that, although I was surprised by it because I assumed it would be more kid-friendly/my first horror. I’ve also heard very good things about The Autopsy Of Jane Doe, The Last Voyage Of The Demeter, and Trollhunter, with all three of them being on my list to watch. I didn’t love Passenger, but it didn’t dampen my enthusiasm for his work. The most interesting things about Passenger are the things he brings to it. It’s far more visually interesting than similar films; at times, it’s close to art. Disappointingly, it does dip into the “random face jumps at the camera” scares, which are cliché to the point of boredom. Weirdly, there are times when I think it does a bit too much. Some scares are heavily signposted, and maybe it would have been better if they were a bit more subtle. The perfect example of this is a scene where Maddie (played by Lou Llobell) is trying to get to the van. She hears a noise and turns to look at the source, then turns back, and the van is further away. There are dramatic scare chords accompanying this happening. Personally, I would have liked it to be a bit more subtle, so the audience had to pay attention, putting them in the same place as the character: wondering if it is actually further away, or if her mind is playing tricks on her.

I didn’t know that much about Passenger. I saw the trailer months ago, but for some reason, the trailer wasn’t available online at the time, so I haven’t watched it again. I mainly remember it focusing on someone driving and seeing the same figure again and again by the side of the road. That kind of intrigued me, but I was curious as to how that could extend to a feature-length film. I mean, how can you get 90 minutes of someone driving and NOT picking up a hitchhiker? So I was doubtful it would have enough meat on its narrative bones. Good news, that’s not what the film is about. Bad news, it still doesn’t have enough meat. The main characters are cursed because they decide to stop their car (which kind of seems like this film is saying that stopping to help people is a bad thing and should be avoided, but what do I know?). So it’s somewhat ironic that the film itself keeps stopping. Weirdly, those are the parts of the film I think worked best. There’s an incredible scene where the two are watching Roman Holiday on a projector in the woods. It’s very sweet, the scares are subtle enough that they gradually build, and there’s actual tension. But then they get back into the van, and it turns into visual noise.

In contrast, the dumbest part is when they’re in the van and time suddenly skips forward to night. The set-up for this is that the entity is powerful at night and weakened during the day, so the characters think they’re safe in the day, but that safety is disrupted by the time skip. I would argue that manipulating time in such a manner requires immense supernatural power, much more than it would take to, say, loosen a wheel and cause a car crash. Or did he just make them fall asleep for that long? If that’s the case, why not kill or hurt them then? Also, why wake them up? They’re heading to the church of Saint Christopher, patron saint of travellers and the only place where someone would stand a chance of killing the entity. The characters don’t know where it is, so they have to look out for symbols and clues to try and find it. The characters appear to have travelled in the missing time. Here’s my issue: the demon wakes them up BEFORE they get a sign with a symbol on that tells them where the church is. If he can only timeskip a certain number of hours, why not wait until they’ve travelled a few more hours, THEN jump ahead so that they unknowingly drive past the only clue that’s visible from the roadside? They might have even taken the wrong exit and ended up avoiding it entirely. If anything, he got them closer towards it. He’s a video game boss who just happens to have the only weapon that defeats him in the hallway outside his dungeon.

On the upside, the lore is fantastic. It FEELS like a genuine urban legend. Specifically, an American one. It appears to be based on a few different ones rather than a single one. But when you watch it, it feels real, like the kind of thing travellers will tell each other. I’d have loved to have seen this as part of another movie, where we see new urban legends get told. But as a full movie? There’s just not enough to it to justify it. It says a lot that the best scares and most memorable scenes were all ones that could have come from any movie, not many that are unique to a road trip horror.

Obsession (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: Baron (nicknamed Bear, maybe so he gets an ego boost by seeing women online say they’ll choose him?) is deeply in love with his friend Nikki. He decides to win her over by improving himself, gaining confidence, and being a dateable candidate. Sorry, he does none of that, he makes a wish so that she’ll fall in love with him. It ends badly.

I’m a big fan of “be careful what you wish for” movies. Where someone gets what they want, but it’s twisted to be negative. But it’s one of those subgenres that fails more than it succeeds. Okay, maybe “fail” is the wrong word, but they’re very rarely what I want them to be. A lot of them (thinking mainly of Fantasy Island at the moment, but there are others) have the same issue: the negative consequence is too stupid. If the consequence is so unrealistic and stupid, then it doesn’t work as a warning. If someone says, “I wish I won the lottery”, and that wish comes true but leads to betrayal and paranoia, that makes sense. If it leads to them going on holiday, antagonising the locals, and it leads to a world war, that makes slightly less sense, but if it’s well written, sure, why not? But if it turns out that the characters’ dead relatives all come back to life to claim the money, then it turns into a zombie movie? That’s f*cking stupid.

That’s my main problem with Obsession (by Calvin Klein). There’s an interesting story to tell about how someone being creepily into you can cause problems: how it costs you your independence and sense of self-worth, how they control your life, making you lose your friends because they’re jealous, make you lose your job so you’re dependent on them, etc. All in all, there’s a very realistic way to tell this story. Obsession does not do that. The obsession doesn’t feel real or sensical. There’s no “be careful what you wish for” because the end result doesn’t feel like a natural progression of the want and desire.

That being said, Inde Navarrette plays her part perfectly. She goes from sweet and innocent to psychopathic weirdo with just a change of posture. Michael Johnston didn’t quite work for me. He reminded me of Matthew Baynton, but not as accomplished. He’s fine with some of it, but when he has to show terror or any ounce of vulnerability, you’re very much reminded that he is an actor playing a character, rather than an actual person.

There’s no doubt that Curry Baker is one hell of a director. The fact that he pulled this movie off on such a small budget is something to be commended. If Blumhouse want to make a Conjuring spin-off that’s actually worth watching, then Baker would be a great choice to direct. He crafts scares without ever being cliche or cheap. There are a few jump scares, but they’re well-crafted. Think “end of Carrie” rather than “random video a friend shows you to see your reaction”. Actually, screw a Conjuring spin-off, I think Baker could pull off a Carrie remake.

I’d want someone else doing the script, though. Really, that’s the part of Obsession I didn’t like. There are no characters to root for. The main character is an incel douchbag who feels entitled to affection and sex. His friend is a slight douche. We don’t really see enough of Nikki to get a gauge on her actual character, but there are hints that she’s kind of a bitch. Obsession ever needed to make Baron seem sympathetic and then gradually descend into darkness, or do it from Nikki’s point of view and make Baron an out-and-out villain so the movie becomes about her being aware of what’s happening but unable to stop it (kind of like Get Out).

Their friend Ian is involved in one of the dumbest scenes of 2026. Baron takes another One Wish Willow to Ian and tries to get him to wish that Nikki is no longer obsessed. Instead, Ian wishes for a billion dollars, which starts raining from the ceiling (it’s at this point I realise the director severely underestimated how big a billion is). Baron is frustrated that his one chance at happiness is over, so he runs back home. So, Ian is aware that the wishes come true, and he’s aware that Nikki is now borderline sociopathic (whether he believes what Baron said or not, he’s seen enough evidence that should make him careful). The only other person on the planet who knows about Ian’s new wealth is Baron. So why would Ian then go to Baron’s house to celebrate? The two are no longer particularly close, and it’s shown at the party scene that he has other friends. So I’m really struggling to think of a reason the character would do that, outside of “the film needs Nikki to kill him”. That scene also makes it seem like Baron and Nikki are the main characters of the universe. Ian only dies because of those two. The wishes are supposed to backfire, but really his only backfired because of the main characters. Would it not have made more sense for him to actually be crushed to death by the falling cash? It would tie into the “be careful what you wish for” concept, would make his death mean something, would mean that Baron is left completely alone, and it would be kind of comedic in an Osgood Perkins way.

So in summary, a very well-made horror movie. It’s not my type of movie, but it was damn close.

Hokum (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Ohm Bauman (Adam Scott) is a horror author struggling to find an ending for his book. He travels to a hotel in Ireland to scatter his parents’ ashes, but finds himself struggling with the buildings history and its present.

I’ll fully admit that I was somewhat sceptical about Hokum. It looked like it would go one of two ways:

  1. Spooky witch stuff, which means half of what the audience sees isn’t real, and when we finally see the villain, it does that weird crawl/walk that every modern horror movie uses.
  2. No story or character movement, a film based entirely on “vibes”. A film which throws spooky shit at the screen and doesn’t bother to explain any of it.

It’s actually none of those, whilst occasionally showcasing the worst aspects of both. At its heart, Hokum is a fine spooky story/murder mystery. Damian McCarthy knows how to write and direct terror. Not “oh, that’s scary” passing fear. I mean genuine, “keep you awake at night”, terror. The kind that makes you jump at shadows long after you leave the universe of the film. The plotting doesn’t quite match it, though. The story of a missing woman, her ghost seeming to help Ohm solve her murder, is interesting. The idea of a hotel being haunted by a witch is also fascinating. But it doesn’t merge the two together well enough. The story comes from the missing woman, the scares come from the witch. So the witch is narratively underdeveloped, with her intentions muddled and unclear. She’s not really treated like the legend the film wants us to think she is. Not enough attention is paid to her. There’s not really an in-depth analysis of her, saying “legend says that centuries ago, yada yada yada”. She’s treated more like a narrative handwave than anything else.

That’s my main issue with Hokum, and it’s a pretty big one. But it doesn’t take away from what does work. The character work is miles ahead of similar movies. Ohm is deeply flawed, but when you find out his backstory, it’s easy to see why he is what he is. His actions are mostly understandable, with the possible exception of most of his interactions with Alby, whom he seems to be uncharacteristically cruel to. On the plus side, that does lead to a revelation at the end of the movie, which provides a possible explanation for the film’s events. But it does feel like that’s the only reason it’s there. Mostly, he’s a smart and capable character who makes rational decisions to ensure his survival. The way he makes sure he can get back from the basement is particularly smart.

When Hokum is unsettling, it is unbeatable. There’s one scene in particular that stands out; a fake kids’ TV show. Makes me think that maybe McCarthy would be a pretty good shout for a gritty horror reboot of Barney the Dinosaur. He also somehow made a bell one of the most terrifying noises in cinema.

It’s not just fear: like all good horror movies, it’s about something more. It’s about human nature. It’s about grief. It’s about guilt. It’s here where the film is at its most interesting, when it’s examining the characters. Whether it’s the main character who is struggling from writer’s block (very Stephen King), the sympathetic bartender, or a man who had to mercy kill his soulmate and be maligned by society because of it. All of the human characters are instantly understandable without being caricatures.

In a year where horror has been stupid (Whistle), underwhelming (Scream 7), or fun (Ready Or Not), it’s a nice change of pace for one to be scary and smart. Hokum is a perfect mix of accessible and elevated horror. You can easily see people watching it on Halloween while drunk, but you can also easily imagine it being discussed academically. I’m still not sure if it’s my favourite of the year (Ready Or Not 2 probably has that), but it’s definitely the best from a pure horror perspective. Mother of Flies is more impressive when you take into account the budget, etc. But Hokum is more impressive on its own merits. The main difference between the two is that Mother Of Flies will enhance the creators’ careers, and Hokum will inspire people to create their own stories.

It’s not quite up there with the true classics of the genre, but it’s definitely one that people should check out. If you like your horror movies “fun”, this is not for you, and that’s clearly what a lot of the negative reviews from audience members on Rotten Tomatoes are like. If, however, you’re one of those people who likes horror movies but hates gratuitous gore, this may be the best film you’ve seen in a long time.

Mother Of Flies (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: When a young woman faces a deadly diagnosis, she seeks dark magic from a witch in the woods; but every cure has its cost.

I have to say this first: I don’t think I’ve seen a film that perfectly encapsulates independent filmmaking like this. A real group effort by John Adams, Toby Poser, and Zelda Adams, the three of whom pretty much did everything. So at the very least, you have to admire what they did. There’s no doubt that this is low-budget. So I will be judging it based on that. There are some concessions you have to make with lower-budget films. You have to judge them based on what they had available to them. Think of the scenes in Captain Marvel where the backgrounds felt disconnected, so you never forgot you were watching a piece of fiction. If that happened in a low-budget independent, I’d have forgiven it. Weirdly, I felt the budget more in the conversational scenes. The background audio was too loud (almost distractingly so), and the lightning was off. I was genuinely considering cutting my losses and turning it off. Then there was a scene where Mickey (played by Zelda Adams, and she’s pretty great) hallucinates in a motel room. That moment brought me back in. The visual effects and the editing transition between night and day are expertly done. It comes after some incredibly trippy visuals, and just before a pretty fine song (“Murder” by H6llb6nd6r. I love the song almost as much as I hate that band name). On the subject of music: it’s REALLY good, especially in the opening section, which sounds a bit like if the Psycho theme were being played on a ship’s foghorn.

I should note: this is possibly not the best film to watch if you want to avoid an existential crisis. There’s lots of discussion about mortality and death. There’s a lot of talking about subjects that you may not be ready to handle. The conversations themselves are usually engaging enough. Containing some comedic lines, but it’s not Marvel-style quips; it’s a woman who is clearly scared and is using humour to deflect her fears. I like the woman who explained the history of the witch. She had great energy. Haven’t seen a one-scene “who’s that enigmatic woman” performance since Howard the Duck. Her story about teenagers getting drunk and throwing stones at the grave of a witch is incredibly realistic.

That makes it sound like Mother Of Flies (MOF, pronounced Mouth) is exposition-heavy, full of obvious dialogue that explains everything so you can still follow it if you’re scrolling your phone or playing Football Manager. Nope. There’s a lot of visual storytelling, especially with the flashbacks. MOF demands your attention and is talented enough to hold it.

MOF is not a traditional horror. It’s a slow burn, but the type that can destroy a building. There’s not really a villain. Even the person designated the villain has somewhat altruistic motives.

This has all been very positive and kind. To the point where you’d think this is the best film I’ve seen all year. It’s not. There are times when the budget does hurt it. Where the colours are washed out, or the performances are not quite where they should be. It also can’t decide whether it wants to be overly artsy and surreal or straightforward and easily digestible. The flashbacks to Solveig’s past don’t feel like they occurred centuries ago; they’re shot the same way as the scenes in the modern day, and there’s no attempt to use visual language to showcase the time differences. I have to be honest, I don’t think I need to watch it again.

MOF is definitely worth a watch, but you have to go in knowing what type of movie it is first.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A teenage girl who has been missing for 8 years is suddenly found. But she’s come back a bit more possessed and nonverbal than they remember.

It’s really hard to make a Mummy movie (and in the case of the 2017 version, it can be difficult to watch, too). I think it’s because, well, essentially, what do they do? Especially compared to other similar properties. Look at the intended movies in Universal’s attempted Dark Universe. Dracula. He can fly, bite people, slight hypnotic powers. Wolf Man, animalistically bites and mauls. Invisible Man? His powers are pretty much stated in his name. The Mummy? The powers there depend entirely on who’s writing them. Sometimes they control undead armies, sometimes they have magical powers, and sometimes they’re basically zombies with toilet paper. Also, they’re fairly localised. Vampires can travel, werewolves are usually attached to woods and villages, but there are a lot of them in the world. The mummified corpse of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh? They’re usually only found in Egypt or the British Museum. You’re highly unlikely to see one in Berwick-Upon-Tweed. To the general public, if asked to define a Mummy, they will go to the 1999 Stephen Sommers film. That’s kind of scary, but it’s mostly a fun adventure movie.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy (LCTM, pronounced Lick-toom) is DEFINITELY a horror, unashamedly so. But is it a mummy movie? I have no idea. It just feels like an Evil Dead movie with added sand. It’s absolutely disgusting, in the best possible way. There’s a sequence involving a toenail which still makes me wince when I think back to it. The body horror is off the charts and will make you feel uneasy. Cronin is great at making stuff seem like it actually hurts: the sound design, the make-up, etc., it’s all perfectly crafted for maximum efficiency.

The editing? Not so much. At times, it feels like the horror movie version of the Bourne shaky action cam. There’s a moment near the end which is near incomprehensible due to the way it’s edited. I know some people like that; they like the sense of unease that it creates, and how energetic and jumpy it is. I’m not a fan; I like to actually see what’s happening during scenes. Not in a “no, light everything like daylight so I can see the monster before it jumps out”, but if I can’t tell whether a character is on top during an action scene, am I supposed to be pleased the good person is winning, or scared because the villain is? We can’t tell. I had a similar issue with the Transformers movies, which often just felt like car parts rolling around.

It doesn’t feel like a Mummy movie, though. The moments which make it so feel incredibly tacked on. There’s a subplot involving a local expert that could be excised completely, as most of the information provided is given to us by someone else later on. I also felt the ending dragged. The closing moment has to be the shortest part of a film that’s ever dragged. I’d estimate it’s roughly 90 seconds long; it should be 10. I’m not saying every scene has to be quick, but there are so many moments which aren’t necessary, just dragging any momentum to a halt.

Lee Cronin is very good at making you disgusted and freaked out, but what he’s not so great at is giving those moments a reason. The powers are inconsistent, at times seeming only to exist to serve the plot. Characters are possessed, but only to call the teacher a cunt, not to do anything that would be useful. The grandmother’s wake is expertly crafted in terms of horror, but never followed up on. Did none of the people there feel the need to alert the authorities of a feral child bursting through a ceiling and biting a corpse? There’s not really any indication that the events of this movie affect the characters’ day-to-day lives. There’s no intense media pressure on the return of the child. Yes, the police in Egypt didn’t release that information, but SOMEONE would have noticed. Can you imagine if Madeline McCann turned up at her parents’ house? That news would be released VERY quickly, and the fact that the parents hadn’t announced it would then be seen as suspicious. There’s no way the events in this movie happen without some form of media intrusion. The dad works for the local news; you’d think that would be relevant to the plot at some point.

The parents act a bit weird in this. Leaving it WAY too long to attempt to get help or figure out what’s wrong. It wouldn’t take as long as it takes for the parents to question whether the child is possessed. I mean, they’re American, they’d call for an exorcist if their child is left-handed. The hospital staff are a bit weird, too. Sending her home WAY too early. And I’m not sure the police would SHOW parents a video of their child being tortured.

Personally, I don’t think the opening section of them in Egypt before she gets kidnapped was necessary. The kidnapping itself is brilliantly creepy. Okay, when I say “I don’t think it was necessary”, I mean the way it’s done. If it were the pre-credits scene, it would be great. It would also help sell the timeskip. We’re told it’s 8 years she’s been missing, but it never feels like it. Because we go straight from “she is missing” to “8 years later”, we don’t feel the torment and pain the family have gone through, because the audience has only just seen her, and the mother and father look exactly the same. If it were pre-credits, that pause would allow the time jump to sink in. The actual pre-credits scene is a scene of a family coming home and finding out their bird is dead, which leads to the dad dying. It adds NOTHING to the story and is seemingly only there under the misguided notion that every horror pre-credits scene must feature a death. Out of the 4 characters in the opening, only 2 of them are seen or referenced again, and one of them is completely different, so her inclusion in the opening didn’t influence how you saw her later. This also has the effect of making the unseen mummy the focus, when it should be the family. Imagine if The Shining opened with Charles Grady (the former caretaker) murdering his family. Think how that would change the audience’s reactions to Jack, Wendy and Danny.

In summary: a film I didn’t hate, because I respect that Lee Cronin was trying something. It just feels like a waste of an IP. That being said, if anybody ever makes an Eternal Darkness movie (and they should), Cronin is the person I’d want directing it. Also, the people complaining because it’s not the same movie as the 1999 one are stupid.

Crazy Old Lady a.k.a Vieja Loca (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A man is asked by his ex-girlfriend to care temporarily for her senile mother, Alicia. But Alicia won’t let him leave,

Okay, this is the second film I’ve reviewed in a row which starts with a male character running over a dog. I hope the next film I watch, “Man Runs Over Dog At The Start Of The Movie”, doesn’t start the same way. It’s not even a genre trope as the films have been two different genres. Not localised either, as from two different countries, continents, in fact.

Crazy Old Lady (COL) is a strange watch. For one, it doesn’t open like a horror movie. I love that. It means that people react believably, as real-life people, as opposed to characters in a horror movie. It contextualises actions and behaviours. As it goes on, it does become a more traditional horror movie, but that’s excused because it takes place at night, so of course it’s going to be dark. Otherwise, it is shot in a pretty standard way; there are no shaky-cam jump scares or weird walking towards the camera.

The downside to the traditional horror nature (when it becomes one), it’s sooooo dark. Not tonally (okay, slightly yes tonally), but visually. It makes it difficult to actually see anything. I don’t need to see clearly enough to make out the book titles in the background (I wouldn’t be able to read them anyway, what with them likely being in Spanish), but it would be good to be able to see characters facial expressions, or know where they are in relation to each other, rather than straining to work it out through the shadows.

Alicia is an interesting villain. You get the idea that she’s always been a little of a sociopathic monster; the things she says certainly allude to a past that’s darker than this movie’s visuals. There is always the question about whether her memory is accurate, though. So how much of her actions are due solely to her senility, and how much of it is just her senility leaving her unable to mask her true nature? It’s an interesting question which will leave audiences with their own opinions. The other interesting part is that it’s difficult to see how you personally would escape. Yes, she’s an old woman, so you could just punch her in the face. But she’s also an old woman suffering from senility, so it would be a bit weird to just punch her in the face without it feeling a bit weird. And even if you did, there’s not a Facebook group around that wouldn’t crucify you. The other nice thing about the villain is she’s so out of her mind with random non-sequiturs, blatant falsehoods, and overly sexual creepiness that I feel I don’t need to watch the Melania documentary now.

I respect Crazy Old Lady for having a sexual assault scene as skillfully done as it is, and for having a female-on-male one, which is very rare. The last one I remember is the first Black Christmas remake. This is certainly the first time I’ve seen it where it’s not a villain origin story, so kudos for that. Surprisingly, that’s not the most shocking moment. When Alicia stabs her daughter, it genuinely stuns you despite you somehow knowing it’s coming. It feels like she should have some sort of familial defence clause. “Yes, she’s stabbing this random man, but surely she’d recognise her daughter, and that will bring her back to normality?” Nope.

The performances are fine. Carmen Maura definitely gives a stronger performance. Daniel Hendler occasionally veers into comedic territory with how he portrays fear. It would have been nice to see footage of Alicia when she was a bit younger, maybe in family videos of BBQ’s and Christmases, etc., just to get a taste of what her actual personality is like.

Now for the negative. The ending feels lethargic. There’s a definite sense of “is that it?” It looks like it is intending to end with her getting deliberately hit by a train because she realises what she’s done. Nope, she just walks away as a train rolls nearby, leaving her Granddaughter alone in an unlocked car at night. It’s incredibly anticlimactic. It’s possibly the only moment where the fact it doesn’t feel like a horror movie lets it be down. Because it’s shot and feels like a drama, there’s no tension or fear in that scene. You don’t have that “is she going to now kill a child?” worry. It’s just, I dunno, nothing. It’s as if a rollercoaster ended with a slow, gradual descent into an empty room.

“Crazy Old Lady” is currently available for streaming on Shudder

They Will Kill You (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

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.

The Bride! (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: Frankenstein is fed up with being lonely, so he asks a doctor to give him a bride. A corpse that just so happens to be possessed by Mary Shelley is chosen.

I’m writing this review less than a week removed from Jessie Buckley winning best actress at the Academy Awards for her performance in Hamnet. Personally, I didn’t love that film as much as everybody else seemed to, but I’m glad to see she won because she’s one of my favourite performers at the moment. Her performance as the titular character in this is one of the highlights. Her manic energy is exhilarating and makes you want to see her let loose in films a bit more, rather than being restrained to emotional and high-art pieces; give her the villain role in a slasher movie, and she’ll kill it. Without her in this movie, it would be a lot worse, and that’s saying something.

I should have liked The Bride. I want to look at it and see something lovingly crafted, feminist as fuck, and batshit insane. It is all of those things, but it’s also messy. Not in a “blood and guts everywhere” way, In a “this needs to be better” way. It’s telling that the film it most reminds me of is Joker: Folie A Deux. But whilst that felt like a musical that didn’t want to be a musical, this feels like a film that wants to be a musical but isn’t. It’s horrifically anachronistic, and it feels deliberately so. A film set in 1930’s Chicago that features references to astronauts, and a club that plays modern techno music support the theory that it’s deliberate, but it’s also incredibly annoying as a viewer to have the story break like that in completely inconsequential ways. It would be like if the Starbucks cup in Game Of Thrones was a deliberate choice.

Let’s be honest, though, a lot of the film is inconsequential. The Bride inspires a feminist uprising, where women across the country mimic her style in a show of defiance. Guess how that plays into the plot? The women torture a mobster during the closing credits, or to put it another way, it doesn’t tie into the plot in an important way. It should have. How can you have a Frankenstein movie that involves an angry mob and NOT have a “villagers storming the castle by torchlight” scene? It should have been a big part. Frank and The Bride should have had an argument which led to her leading the group to his home. Maybe not that, but something. The Bride leading a group of women would be an incredibly powerful scene to witness, but we don’t get it.

The Bride! has so many good ideas contained within: the allusions to Old Hollywood, the isolation that the monster feels, a wronged woman seeking revenge against an uncaring society. All of them are perfect ideas for a story like this, yet it tries to do all three and has no idea how to connect the differing threads. So it doesn’t bother to try; instead, it just has the two characters lurch (lol, Addams Family reference) from one scene to the next like two characters in a video game.

The characters don’t even feel consistent. We’re never given a reason for The Bride to like Frank. At one point, she even decries the name Bride of Frankenstein, saying she just wants to be known as The Bride. She is her own person, she is independent, and she doesn’t need to be tied to a man for happiness and fulfilment. Then, a few minutes later, they’re portrayed as soulmates who will spend eternity together. No matter how cool the moments are on their own, there’s no cohesion between them.

Before seeing this, I had one of my friends tell me she thought it was “the worst film of the 2020’s”. Personally, I feel that that’s War Of The Worlds erasure. It’s not quite the worst film of the decade, it’s not even the worst of the year, but it’s probably the biggest gap between potential and result that I’ve seen in a long time. Like I said, it has some great moments, and the story being told is interesting, but it doesn’t make for a good final product. Ultimately, it’s like a really drunk person retelling Paddington 2 who keeps getting distracted by the football results: you can tell there’s a good story underneath the bullshit, but you don’t have a shovel big enough, and all you want to do is tell them to focus the fuck up.

The Good Boy (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A couple try to rehabilitate a teenage criminal, by kidnapping him.

Thoughts Going In/Expectations: None. I didn’t even know this film existed, and considering it was a secret screening I had no idea what type of film it was until at least 5 minutes in.

This could have been terrible. It could have ended up being overly Guardian Newspaper, either going “we just need to teach those ruffians good manners” or “these louts are too low class to fit in. They should be killed”, both of which would have been extremely annoying. In the end, the most annoying part of this movie is the title: released as “Heel” in some locations, “Good Boy” in others, and even more confusingly, being called “The Good Boy” in some publications. I’m just gonna go with “The Good Boy” as it sounds more like a title than Heels, and I already have a film called Good Boy from 2025 reviewed in the archives.

So that’s an entire paragraph about the title, how about the film itself? It’s fine. I don’t regret watching it, but I won’t rush out to see it again. It’s narratively and thematically ambitious. Stephen Graham continues to give a performance that isn’t Oscar-worthy, but you can easily imagine being used as justification for a studio casting him in something that would win him one. Andrea Riseborough is up there with Sally Hawkins as one of the most consistent British performers around. Fun fact, this isn’t the first time the two have played a married couple; appearing together in the film adaptation of the Matilda musical, which I haven’t seen, but I’m guessing is tonally very different from The Good Boy (TGB, pronounced Ta-goob). Without those two performers, TGB would be terrible. It’s anchored by those two, with both giving just enough layers to their performance to make the characters believable.

As I alluded to earlier, I had no idea what kind of film this would be when I sat down to watch it. The opening scene depicts Tommy. Tommy is a dickhead. He starts fights, pisses at bus stops, and is generally the kind of person everybody hates to see walk into a pub. I was concerned he was our lead, and we were going to spend the film watching his everyday life; I was not looking forward to it. I detested this guy, but it turns out that’s what the film wanted us to think: so that when he’s knocked out and chained in a basement, our first thoughts aren’t “oh, that’s terrible”, they’re “oh, he probably deserves this, it’s probably due to something he’s done in the past”. Those thoughts are fleeting because obviously they’re terrible things to think. But they are there, and the film wants those thoughts there. It wants us to be morally conflicted. We have a couple who have kidnapped someone, keeping them locked in their basement, and beating them whenever they feel he gets out of line. That’s all shitty, obviously. But the audience isn’t completely repulsed by them. It’s an incredibly fascinating, morally complex piece of viewing.

Until the closing section. The film hints at a disturbing past for the characters: a past which shapes their motivations. It feels like it’s building up to a revelation, something big that will recontextualise everything we’ve seen: constant mentions of someone called Charlie who used to live there. We see Tommy bullying a child, maybe that child was Charlie and he ended up killing himself. Maybe Tommy drunkenly caused a car accident that killed him. Maybe Charlie took a wrong turn and ended up overdosing, so the couple try to stop others walking that path. Or maybe he wasn’t even their child, but was another hostage who they’ve failed so is now dead to them. But subtle hints towards the past are all we get, and it’s too vague to be satisfying.

That’s not the other way TGB runs out of steam: the Macedonian housekeeper is dispatched with all the narrative efficiency of an Evri parcel. You could excise her subplot completely and it wouldn’t matter that much. The only impact she has is when she’s attacked at the end and Tommy stands up for her. That’s it. Might it have made more sense if it was one of Tommy’s friends, and the moment functioned as a clear divide between his past life and his future?

In summary, a feature film is possibly not the best way to tell this story. A book would have worked; each chapter from the POV of a different member of the household. A play would be intriguing, it already has a limited number of locations so would be easy to do. Even better: an episode of a TV show. Specifically, an episode of Inside Number 9. It does occasionally feel like an extended episode of that show, for better and worse.

TGB is one of the most fascinating and interesting films of the year, and if it sorted out the final 10 minutes it would have stayed as such.