Dangerous Animals (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: A surfer is trapped on a boat with a serial killer intent on feeding her to sharks.

It may seem counterproductive to say so, but sometimes it can be counterproductive for a sitcom to be given more episodes or a new season. Not all sitcoms, but there are some sitcoms which have a definitive endpoint (think How I Met Your Mother), or a story arc that the series is based around (Ted Lasso). These things are normally planned meticulously in terms of timing, so it can be weird to have new episodes jammed into the middle, it forces writers to unnaturally extend things. If it’s a sitcom based around a relationship, that usually involves knocking the relationship status back a bit. This can be frustrating as an audience member because it can make you feel like there’s no progress being made.

It may seem weird to start a review of a horror movie with a paragraph about sitcoms, but there’s a reason. That elastic nature of storytelling, pulling characters back to the same position again and again, is my biggest issue with Dangerous Animals. I’m going to tell you about a scene:

The character tries to escape.

They manage to get out of the restraints and make their way to freedom.

JUST before the final hurdle, they’re stopped, and they wake up tied to the bed again.

That happens multiple times. The majority of this film is that scene repeated. As good as it is at times, Dangerous Animals suffers from having no idea how to fill its runtime. To be honest, I’m not sure how you could do it either. Two characters on a boat, one trying to kill the other? There’s very little you can do with that to fill 98 minutes.

None of that is the fault of the performers. Hassie Harrison is as fun to watch as her name is to say. Jai Courtney is delightfully unhinged. When they’re together, it’s magic. Courtney’s maniacal terror meshes well with Harrison’s innocent yet determined nature. Their characters are fun to watch, especially when Zephyr is in full-on flirtation mode with Josh Heuston’s character. I liked the moments where she was safe; it really helped flesh her out and make her seem like an actual human. It could be argued that the two do fall in love too easily; maybe it would have been better if they were a couple at the start of the movie, or had at least started dating.

This is Sean Byrne’s third film as a director, but the first one he hasn’t written. Thankfully, there’s not a huge disconnect between the script and the directing. He makes the most of the setting, with the open sea providing some gorgeous shots, while also helping to emphasise the isolation. The script really should play up the isolation aspect more. The boat comes back to land far too often. It’s difficult to really FEEL the isolation Zephyr is going through when she’s constantly so close to land. Technically, you could argue that’s the point. That she’s always so close to freedom and society, but never quite able to reach it. If that was the aim, then it could just as well have all taken place in a basement or an abandoned factory. Part of the USP of Dangerous Animals is it takes place on a boat. So the terror comes from knowing that even if she escapes the room, getting off the boat wouldn’t help because she has no way of getting back to land.

It is probably not helped by the fact that it was released in the same year as Last Breath, which, while not a horror movie, was also a tense movie about someone out at sea, so used similar techniques to emphasise distance from civilisation.

This is all coming off very negatively, but it’s unintentional. I did enjoy Dangerous Animals. When it works, it’s tense as hell. The music choices are first class, and it’s a unique idea, I can’t do deny that. Also, a lot of it takes place in daylight, which I will always appreciate. It’s not overly bloody or gory, coming off as more of a tense thriller than a full-on horror. Compared to other recent shark-based movies, this is the best one I’ve seen since 47 Meters Down, 8 years ago. It does well with highlighting how, when sharks kill, it’s not based on anger or hatred, it’s food. It points out how sharks kill fewer people than mosquitoes, but are considered scarier (let’s face it, saying sharks aren’t that dangerous is a risky move in a film designed to make sharks an element of fear). It also points out how tourist boats that pour food into the ocean to attract sharks so people can swim with them lead to sharks associating those boats with food. It’s incredibly clever in how it approaches the creatures. It is a good movie, but I know it could have been great

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.

Final Destination Bloodlines (2025) Review

Synopsis: Have you seen any of the other Final Destination movies? It’s that.

The Final Destination series will always have a place in my heart. It’s the only horror franchise that I’ve been able to watch progress along with everybody else. The first Chucky movie I watched was Bride, so already needed to catch up on three of them, Nightmare On Elm Street had pretty much finished (except for Freddy Vs. Jason) by the time I got to it, Scream is the closest, but I didn’t see that until the second one was out. But Final Destination? I hired the first one from a local video shop, then was able to watch the rest as they came out, some on TV on the movie channels, some on DVDS. I am a genuine fan of them (as can be proven here) I hadn’t watched any at the cinema, though, until now. *overly dramatic music*

Genuinely disappointed with my cinema experience for this. I booked for a subtitled screening (I loves me some subtitles), but it was changed to a standard screening 2 hours before. So those who don’t like subtitles wouldn’t have booked because by the time it was no longer subtitled, it was too late, and those who like subtitles would have cancelled when they got the e-mail saying it’s no longer subtitled. So it was an almost empty screen. That’s a shame, as Final Destination Bloodlines (FDB, pronounced Thud-ob) deserves to be seen with a group of people. As I was watching it, I imagined friends and family nearby watching it with me, reacting to the tense moments and visual foreshadowing.

The deaths in this franchise have always been a mixed bag. Sometimes they’ve caused people to react with “well I can’t even get behind a log truck again”, and sometimes they’re so silly that they’re almost comical. Before you think that’s just me shitting on the sequels, the first movie had “death sucks the liquid back into the toilet”, which is still one of the dumbest moments in the franchise. I can’t think of any deaths in FDB which I’d count among the series lowlights (although the obligatory “final scene death” is shit, but that’s mainly because of the narrative of it, rather than the nature of the death itself), and there are a few which I’d count among the most gruesome (that’s one involving an MRI machine which is haunting).

The opening disaster is probably the best in the franchise and the longest. It sets the tone perfectly and features one of the funniest child deaths in cinema history (it’s fine, the kid deserved it). The deaths are unique and harrowing. On the downside, it takes up a huge stretch of the runtime, considering they’re not the main characters. Traditionally, the inciting incidents have involved the characters we’re going to spend the rest of the film with, so we get to spend time with them, learn their personalities and quirks. FDB has the disaster happen to a group of people we never see again. It does feature the main character’s grandmother, but we only really spend 5 minutes with her once the main story begins. That character is interesting, she’s one who’s spent her whole life writing notes on how to avoid death, decades of research and observation. She’s one of two people from the original incident who are still alive at the start (along with Bludworth, played by Tony Freaking Todd, explaining how his character has been so knowledgeable). It would have been interesting to see some more of those characters, even if it was just in quick cuts.

That’s my big issue with FDB, as good as it is (and it is very good), you can’t fight the feeling that there’s a much better movie hidden in the narrative floorboards. Decades of strange deaths, Iris compiling the book, whether THEY knew anything about the disasters. It would have been fascinating to see a movie like this set in the ’60s or ’70s. Imagine the amount of carnage you could have teased by setting a scene at Woodstock, a Sex Pistols gig, etc. It would have allowed us to see characters who didn’t have the internet to research anything, could have had flash forwards to the future, maybe of them giving birth to a character from the first film. Instead, the 60’s prologue is just that, a prologue.

Not that there’s anything wrong with the characters we have. They’re all likeable, so when they die, we actually feel sadness and terror instead of the desire to cheer. They are still entertaining, though. There’s one in particular (involving a football) which is darkly hilarious. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some returning characters (of which, let’s face it, there are very few). FDB comes off as a finale, the sky restaurant was the catalyst for the events of every movie, and now all the survivors (and their bloodlines, heeeeey, that’s why it’s called that) have been killed, so what’s left? The other thing that gives it an air of finality is the final appearance of Tony Todd, who sadly passed away in 2024 of stomach cancer. Watching Bloodlines, you can tell he’s not got long (he passed six months after filming), and he knows it. It’s genuinely heartbreaking to see, but I’m not sure he could have asked for a better farewell. He revealed his condition to the filmmakers, who allowed him to write his final lines.

I intend to enjoy… the time I have left. And I suggest you do the same. Life is precious. Enjoy every single second

I genuinely didn’t expect to cry during a Final Destination movie, but that part damn near got me. It’s clear that Todd meant that as a goodbye to his fans, and it speaks volumes to his character that he did so. He will be missed, but damn, what a way to go.

The Ugly Stepsister (2025) aka Den Stygge Stesøsteren Review

Quick synopsis: Cinderella, but from one of the stepsisters’ POV, and with added body horror.

“Dark versions of fairy tales” will always be intriguing. Although it’s a bit weird to think about because really, we’re not seeing dark versions of them; we’re seeing versions that are “more accurate to the original books than the Disney adaptations were”. Whether we like it or not, though, the Disney versions are the ones in the public consciousness. When people dress as Cinderella, they dress as the Disney version. So a film like The Ugly Stepsister will always be welcome. That being said, this is possibly the worst time to release it. The last few years have seen multiple copyrights expire, which has led to shit horror movies based on characters who are now in the public domain such as Winnie The Pooh and the original Mickey Mouse design. So you’d be forgiven for being a bit sceptical of a “horror reimagining of what most people see as a Disney property”.

TUS is better than those others, for a start, it focuses on the correct character, the titular stepsister. Secondly, it takes it seriously. It starts off like a normal costume drama. This is great as it allows you to adjust the universe. If a movie starts with blood and gore, you assume that’s normal for that universe, so later violence isn’t as shocking. Whereas if you start from a grounded position, the violence hits hard. There is a small hint of horror with the cruelty, which is then amped up when he coughs up blood. This interesting “not a costume drama but looks like one” approach is also represented in the opening credits, which are a weird mix of horror and regency.

When TUS gets brutal, it is horrific. The nose being broken by a chisel is horrendous. It’s not overly gory, there’s a tiny bit of blood, and no other visible damage. But the screaming? Oh my god the screaming, that sells it. I’m trying to think how to say this without coming off as creepy, but Lea Myren is one heck of a screamer. Her anguished howls of pain will reach deep inside you and claw at your guts.

I loved some of the music, but it doesn’t always work. I know that sounds contradictory but it is possible to recognise something as great but not appropriate. O Fortuna is a magnificent piece of music, but you wouldn’t use it to score a porno. There are so many music choices here which don’t work because the disconnect between the music and the visuals are too large to ignore.

In terms of visuals? It’s artfully shot, a bit too much at times. There are a few moments where a scene starts with a soft fade from someone’s face, and it would be lit in a somewhat “fuzzy” way, making you think it was a dream sequence. Nope, actual thing that happened, so halfway through the scene, you need to adjust your mindset. It’s a small thing, but it KEPT happening, to the point where there are a few shots of which I’m still not entirely sure if they were dream sequences or not.

That all may be a bit mean. Whilst TUS isn’t the best movie of the year, it is still interesting. You may not want to watch it again, but it won’t be one you regret. It’s the kind of movie that would have KILLED back in the days of VHS. The body horror aspects are PAINFUL! The tapeworm moment does look a bit ridiculous, but only towards the end, most of that scene works. The foot chopping scene is one of the most viscerally disgusting things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen Piers Morgan’s face. It’s a smart choice to not have the step-sisters be completely terrible people. They’re not necessarily nice, but the Cinderella expy isn’t nice either; she starts off snooty and condescending. Every character is relatable and believable (although the other step sister would have benefited from being on screen more), except for the step mother, who is fucking awful, in a cinematically appealing way.

What is clear is that Emilie Blichfeldt is one hell of a talent, and couldn’t ask for a better debut feature than this. The world is set up for her to place her name alongside the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. Now she just needs the opportunity, and a studio that trusts her vision.

The Rule Of Jenny Pen (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Recovering from a stroke at an assisted living facility, a judge encounters a psychopathic patient who uses a hand puppet to abuse fellow residents.

There are not many horror films focused on the elderly. On the rare occasions those films exist, they tend to come in the same two flavours. One, the elderly as the villains. These generally boil down to “ewwww, old people”. The others are with the elderly as a victim, these are usually more interesting (so are rarer, because Hollywood hates interesting), and show the elderly as trying to survive. At the same time, they struggle against not only the villain, but also their limitations brought on by age. The Rule of Jenny Pen (TROJP, trow-jop) attempts both.

It mostly manages it. The director is good at shock. The death of Howie is particularly shocking, especially since it happens so early on and occurs mostly in the background of a scene. I imagine it was mainly done that way so that we wouldn’t focus on it, so it would be easier to do the effects for as you wouldn’t notice it’s actually a model being set on fire. It helps the scene, though. It makes it seem shocking and realistic.

It’s not always realistic. There are a few moments which make you wonder if the staff have had any training whatsoever in terms of safeguarding. It would be acceptable for one or two of them to not notice things, but none of them? It’s not as if they appear overworked or like they don’t care. Most of the staff seem like they genuinely give a shit and want to do their best; so it’s baffling to try and figure out how they can miss signs of abuse.

The lack of realistic safeguarding is not my main issue; that would be the pacing. TROJP is fifteen minutes shy of 2 hours, and it only has enough story for about half of that runtime. I know the characters are physically slow, but that doesn’t mean the film has to be. I’m not asking for an exhilarating action film, but I don’t want the film to pause because it doesn’t have a clue what it’s supposed to do. This would be a fascinating short, there’s no doubt about it. It has ambition, creativity, and solid performances.

More than solid, actually. Lithgow is a tremendous actor, and I’m sure he’ll be a fantastic Dumbledore in a tv show that I will actively try to avoid. He’s positively unhinged in his role as Dave Crealy; utterly menacing and creepy. Geoffrey Rush is great going toe to toe with him. The best moments are when the two of them share a scene and try to outperform each other.

There is one thing I absolutely loved about TROJP. Whereas most films would approach a story like this with a “Is it really happening, or is he just mad?” Jenny Penn takes a “why not both?” strategy, which is much scarier. He isn’t in full control of his mental abilities, so he (and the audience) has trouble working out exactly what is real. But some of it IS real. That mixture is terrifying to think about and to watch unfold.

As I said, there are moments where TROJP isn’t a fascinating watch. But there are also times when it’s (and there’s no other way of saying this), fucking dull. And the dull moments are just not good enough to get you through the rest of it.

Until Dawn (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Clover is on a road trip to find out what happened to her missing sister, she finds out. Her and her friends get trapped in a repetitive nightmare.

I’ve never played Until Dawn, but I have played some games by the same studio, which follow the same principles and guidelines. I genuinely love them, not just because I’m a fan of story-based games, but also because they’re interesting and have great accessibility options. A key part of those games is the notion that choices have consequences. Something as simple as “look at this poster” could be the difference between life and death. Importantly, you, as a player, have to live with the consequences of your actions. So it’s baffling that the main gimmick of the movie is that choices don’t matter because once you die, you reset into your original position.

Annoyingly, it doesn’t even do anything entertaining with that premise. When this has been done before, the characters die because of their mistakes, and learn from them to help them survive. Here, it feels like they’re being controlled to die, and there’s nothing they can do. For example, at one point, a character gets picked up by an invisible force and dragged into a building. What’s the lesson there? What can a character learn from that to avoid it? Similarly, there’s one set of deaths which is essentially “don’t drink tap water, you’ll explode”, which feels ridiculously unfair to the characters.

It feels like the movie itself gets bored of its own premise halfway through, with the characters waking up and realising they’ve died multiple times and can’t remember a lot of them (conveniently, the characters all forget the exact same ones). Why? How does this serve the plot? It seems like they only did that as an excuse to watch videos of previous deaths on someones phone, and cram in horror movie moments.

Which is another issue; this isn’t a story, it’s a series of moments from other horror movies that the filmmakers wanted to put in. It doesn’t settle on a tone or style that’s consistent throughout. It reminded me of Cabin In The Woods, but badly written.

The characters? They’re funny, I’ll give them that. But there are so many moments where they feel like movie characters instead of actual people. Some sentences uttered are only uttered by characters who are written; nobody responds as an actual human would respond. There’s also a weird sense of detachment. The characters quickly get used to the idea of dying and coming back, despite not knowing when their last life will be, so really, they could die at any point. There’s a moment when a character disappears, and I thought they were going to announce that she had died died, which would lead to everybody becoming less flippant with death, but nope, she’s just elsewhere. I’m not exaggerating when I say the characters treat death flippantly, at times they seem to welcome it. “fuck, stubbed my toe, guess I’ll die”. At one point, one of the characters flat-out murders one of her friends. That murder is never brought up again. If a friend drove a pickax into my stomach, I would find it hard to forgive them. Plus, can you imagine what it would be like if THAT life was the person’s final life? So their friend properly killed them and has to live with that knowledge, whilst also learning that their lives are finite.

Until Dawn is not completely terrible, though. The performances are fine, although it is hard to get past the feeling that they are discount versions of other actors; specifically, Rachel Weisz, Jenny Slate, Johnny Depp, and James McAvoy. It is weird how the film has objectively lesser-known actors than the game. The game had Remi Malek and Hayden Panettiere. Okay, this was before Bo Rhap, so Malek wasn’t a big name then, but it’s still strange.

Some of the kills are fun, and as much as I hated the explosion scene for what it did to the narrative, out of context, it was entertaining. There is a basis for a good idea here. But it needed more thought than it was given. I was really looking forward to this, and I can’t feel anything except disappointed.

Sinners (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: From Dusk Till Dawn, but as a 30’s gangster movie with a black cast.

I went into this after seeing the trailer, but forgot what the trailer was like. I saw a post on Facebook saying it was a vampire horror movie. For about 40 minutes, I wondered if I had seen a post about a different movie. It wasn’t a horror movie, it wasn’t a vampire movie, it was a gangster flick about two brothers using money stolen from Chicago mobs to start up a bar. It had interesting character work, a lot of subtle references to the brothers’ past misdeeds, and how they acquired the money. It asked a lot of questions that the audience will want answered; the main one being what led to the opening scene, where Sammie (played by Miles Caton in his screen debut) stumbles into his father’s church, battered and bloody, desperate for comfort, only to see his father use him as an example in a sermon. Just when I began to doubt my own memory, the vampires made their first appearance. It’s a great genre switch, reminded me of From Dusk Till Dawn, only with less scenes of the writer sucking on an actresses toes to fulfil their own fetish.

I think I preferred this to Dusk; it’s much slower, and that glacial pace will be divisive, putting off a lot of people. It’s also not as bloody, but it does do something that the aforementioned Dawn never manages; it wowed me. There’s a scene in Sinners where Sammie plays his song at the bar. The song is so powerful that it connects across space and time, with spirits of the past and future joining in; electric guitars played Hendrix style join in with music from hundreds of years ago, and dances from different cultures, showing how music connects everybody. I’ve already written its nomination for best scene in the end-of-year awards. From a storytelling perspective, from a technical perspective (it’s a LOOOONG mostly unbroken shot), from a musical perspective, it’s all brilliant. I hate people who talk at the cinema, but I couldn’t help let out a gasp of “that was fucking cinema” when I saw it. I’m so glad it’s not just me. I’ve seen a lot of people online mention how much they loved that moment, and if you see it, it’s easy to see why. The mass sing-along to “Rocky Road Of Dublin” (which I always assumed Dropkick Murphys wrote, obviously not) is a few steps below it in terms of quality, but is just as powerful, and MUCH more terrifying.

Scenes like that, which show not only the power of music, but also the shared experiences between black and Irish immigrants (albeit, at two VASTLY different levels for most of American history) show just how smart Sinners is. The characters are just as smart. When a friend-turned-vampire starts asking for permission to enter the bar, the characters question why they suddenly need to ask permission. When they’re not sure who’s been bitten, they gather round and each eat a clove of garlic (in a scene very reminiscent of The Thing). The characters don’t die due to their own stupidity; they die because they’re overpowered, overmanned, and don’t know everything. Except for the klan members at the end, they die because they realised their blood can help the grass grow, and by dying they can actually provide some use for once in their pathetic fucking lives. I know, I’m anti-KKK, so controversial.

Sinners is not a perfect movie, but you have to be very picky to find those faults. It’s probably the best film I’ve seen this year. It’s not my favourite, but it is undoubtedly the most impressive, and the one closest to perfection. Cooglar is fantastic and cannot receive enough praise for the work he’s done, not just here, but throughout his whole career. Long may it continue.

The Woman In The Yard (2025) Review

Quick synopsis: Grieving (and injured) widow Ramona lives on a dilapidated old farm in the middle of nowhere. They’re struggling financially when things are made worse by everyone’s biggest fear: a person nearby.

Long-time readers will know that I love horror movies, but when I don’t it’s usually due to one of two things: 1) Unlikeable characters. 2) Terrible ending. Usually, it’s specifically the final scene, where we find out the demon/ghost/haunted sandwich is still alive because the writers sacrificed ending the film on a scare over the narrative. Usually, that’s not enough to completely sink a film, but it will make a bad film even worse. I’ve yet to have a case where the final third has completely sunk my opinion of a film the way it did The Woman In The Yard (TWITY, pronounced “twit-tea”).

It cannot be overstated how much the final third absolutely torpedos any goodwill the rest of the film provides. For two-thirds of its runtime, TWITY is a tense, atmospheric family story set against the backdrop of a silent ghost; a tale of grief and guilt manifesting itself in unexpected ways. A display of the toll that motherhood can take, how it can seem like it takes over your entire life and leaves you feeling like you don’t have your own identity. I liked that film. I found it “spooky” without being silly, emotional without being overbearingly depressing, and slow-paced without being boring. It’s the kind of film I want to see more of, original and creative. It was up there in the top 50% of films this year.

Then the final third happened. Then it becomes the worst of Blumhouse, a visual and narrative mess which confuses deliberate confusion for scares, rapid cuts instead of tension, and a final shot “reveal” that doesn’t actually reveal anything going by online discourse which gives it two different meanings. It feels like the writer isn’t sure he’s going to get another shot at writing a horror film so crammed as many horror tropes and conventions as he could, regardless of whether it worked for the story he was trying to tell.

If they figured out a way to fix it, TWITY could be a classic. It has some truly great cinematography. Most horror movies utilise darkness, TWITY goes the other way, using intense sunshine and brightness to create mood. The shot of the woman just sitting there silently is unsettling as hell, and is PERFECT for marketing purposes. The performances are also good, Danielle Deadwyler is believable as a grieving mother who is trying to balance her grief and being a responsible mother to home-schooled children. Estella Kahiha sometimes falters, but she’s a child so that’s forgivable. I was really surprised by how good Peyton Jackson was. Jackson gives the kind of performance that you can imagine being looked back on in 10 years time and saying “THAT’S how it started, look at all the awards and acclaim he has now”. He’s the audience’s “in”, the level-headed character who points out how crazy the other characters are behaving, while trying to look after his younger sister. As such, a lot of the emotional labour of the narrative has to go through him, and with a lesser performer it would have sunk; Jackson does SO much with what he’s given; handling the role with a maturity beyond his years.

There’s also a lot to like about how damn good the opening two-thirds is. It sets up so many small details that pay off later. The titular woman is treated like existing folklore in terms of her actions and appearance, it would be easy to believe that in this world, the tale of The Woman In The Yard is told by teens at slumber parties and summer camps, a way to scare kids into behaving. The characters are believable, even when they do possibly abusive things. The setup is good too; we’re shown that the family are isolated and with their electricity cut off, so it really feels like they’re cut off from the rest of civilisation.

In summary; I am so disappointed with this. I loved seeing the delicate narrative house of cards built up into a magnificent art piece, only to see it knocked over by a fart of flat writing.

Presence (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A family becomes convinced they are not alone after moving into their new home in the suburbs.

Full disclosure: I was originally going to post the review of Black Bag today and The Electric State on Friday (and spoilers for that, but “state” is an apt description). But then I watched Presence and realised I had the opportunity to review two films by the same director (Steven Soderbergh) in one week. I may never get that opportunity again, so I felt I had to take it.

Spoilers for the Black Bag review, but while I liked that more than Presence, I was more impressed with Presence. It was mismarketed though. The trailers etc made it feel a bit like a horror movie, when it’s more like a family drama. Yes, it involves ghosts, but that doesn’t make it a horror. Not in the traditional sense either. You won’t be scared of the ghost, you’ll be scared of one of the human characters definitely, especially since people like him are not only prevalent in society, but thrive.

At its heart, Presence is a tale of a family suffering. A mother who is doing *something* illegal, a husband who is worried he’ll be implicated and is slowly becoming disenfranchised with the relationship, a son who is so protected by his mother that he is doomed to fail, and a daughter who feels lost and alone while in mourning of her friends. None of these characters are perfect, all are DEEPLY flawed, the mother and son more than the others, she’s incredibly dismissive of her daughter while showering her son with praise, and he tricks girls into sending him nudes and then shares them with friends. All of them feel real. The performances are great (and Lucy Liu continues to prove that Bill Murray was wrong), and their chemistry is incredible. They all feel like family members, but family members with strained relationships.

Now, onto the ending. I’ll try not to say what happened, but those who do know will know what I’m talking about. I wasn’t a fan of the last scene where it explained what the presence was. Mainly because I feel it didn’t suit that narrative. I can buy that the ghost stayed to “fulfil its purpose”, which was killing someone. I can also buy that when it did that, it ceased to exist and floated outside the house into nothingness. What I have a little trouble with, was why it waited so long afterwards. It doesn’t disappear straight after doing what it was supposed to, it hangs around. And considering the characters are shown moving out, which doesn’t happen quickly, it’s obviously a while later. So why is the presence still there? Was part of its “mission” to hang around a bit until the characters realised who it was? I get WHY, it’s so that the audience understands what happened, but it felt like there could have been a better way of doing it. Even if it just involved the presence turning towards a mirror that was at the scene of the death, and we saw the reveal then. But at the moment? It’s too “there for the audience’s sake”. Unless, was it buffering? Is that a thing for ghosts that transcend? Obviously not, that’s stupid.

There were times when Presence didn’t feel like a movie, but like a video game. Not a Turok or GTA obviously, more like What Remains Of Edith Finch or Gone Home. You walk around and witness the environment, piecing together the story as you find objects, occasionally interacting with them, with occasional moments where people do a Darth Vader on Christmas impression and sense the Presence. To be honest, I feel that may have been a better medium to tell the story because as a film, there’s a disconnect between the film and the audience. It reminded me of Here, and not in a good way, although Presence is definitely a better watch. Presence is more emotional. I was always more touched by Presence, Here not so much.

Don’t get me wrong, Presence is an impressive feat, and it’s original, which I always appreciate. But if you strip away the fact it’s from a ghost POV, it’s not that interesting. I wish I could watch this on a virtual reality device, I get the feeling that I’d really get lost in it then. But on a standard television screen? Not so much. It feels more of a curiosity than a finished product. If it was a short? I’d have loved it.

Opus (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: A young writer travels to the remote compound of a legendary pop star who mysteriously disappeared 30 years ago. 

This is the debut feature of writer/director Mark Anthony Green, and I feel it has to be viewed through that lens. There are parts of Opus that could only be made by someone early on in their career, which I mean as a positive and a negative. There’s an ambition behind the work, an ambition and cockiness that would have been beaten down by experience. There are narrative and visual risks that can only come from a newcomer. On the downside; it doesn’t live up to its own ambitions. Green KNOWS what he wants to say, but he doesn’t quite know how to say it.

I will say this, Green is fantastic at setting up tense moments, he’s also good at all-out narrative chaos. What he’s not so great at is connecting the two. Narratively, it feels like a walk through creepy woods. Very slow, very deliberate, very unnerving. It then realises you’re never going to reach the end in time so pushes you down a hill. There’s a definitive cliff-pushing moment here, and the moment itself is brilliant. But it’s such a shift that it feels a bit weird. It seems like there could have been a few more scenes beforehand. I also wasn’t a fan of how it ended. I know what they were going for, and on paper, it’s a tremendous ending, truly some Twilight Zone/Outer Limits shit. But for some reason, it just didn’t work for me. I can’t even fully explain why. The ending made sense, it ties into the characters well, plays into the themes perfectly etc. It just……..I dunno, it didn’t quite land. It felt more like a concept of an ending, a casual conversation between people about “we should end like this” rather than an actual ending. It’s not helped by the fact that it’s dependent on everything going EXACTLY as they planned.

Not to say Opus isn’t a worthwhile watch. The music alone makes it a good experience. Green did a FANTASTIC job of setting the world up. It doesn’t punch you over the face with “This is how the world is different”. It sets up our reality, then slides into the Opus reality through aged footage and interviews with people the audience is familiar with. If you showed someone the montage parts of this, you could easily convince them that it’s reality. The locations feel real too. In particular, the compound feels vast and like you could actually walk around and explore it, with the film subtly providing enough clues that it’s probably possible to create a map. The music feels like real music too. Crucially, in regards to the pop star, it never feels like Malkovich is playing the part, it feels like he IS the part.

The other performers more than hold their own. Ayo Edebiri continues to be one of the most consistent young performers around, Juliette Lewis gives a performance worthy of the character, and Tony Hale has hair. Nobody gives a weak performance, even cult members who are only there for a single scene are spot on (as is Rosario Dawson as the puppet of Billie Holiday).

I love that Opus actually had something to say. The “cult of celebrity” aspect is not exactly subtle, but it is timely. I mean, America handed political power who named a department after a meme, and he was in that position because of his celebrity status (and bribery, possible bribery). People keep telling celebrities “stop talking about politics” (normally ONLY when they support a different political party than the person complaining), but political parties still court them, because they know the viewpoints of celebrities carry weight. The whole anti-vaxxer movement in the US entered mainstream political conversation because of celebrities, and for some reason, people view the medical opinions of Jim Carrey as having more worth than actual doctors. The cult of celebrity is ripe for satire and ridiculing, and that’s something Opus does fantastically. Yeah, it doesn’t quite know WHAT it wants to say about it, but I respect it for at least trying.

Green will make something superb once he finds his visual voice. At the moment, as impressive as it looks, it never looks unique. Even at its most tense, it feels like shots were designed with “now make this like a Jordan Peele film, now make this look like this Midsommar, now make this like The Menu” in mind. Opus is overly ambitious, but I would MUCH rather watch that than a film where the creators didn’t try. So it’s hard to dislike it too much, even if I didn’t like it that much as it went on.