Here is an example of why you can't always trust Rotten Tomatoes or entertainment press in general. Gavin Polone has produced some good movies, such as "8 mm," "Zombieland," and "Stir of Echoes." This is his debut as a director, and while this movie did not light up the box office, it deserves a second chance. Despite the 8 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes , this movie is a lot of fun. It does not, however, play by the rules of what Hollywood wants from horror movies these days. Despite it being about a female protagonist of color whose husband is killed by a serial killer.
It delivers a classic slasher feel. Though not a dumb, mindless killing machine, but someone who is driven by a purpose. Sure, he is part of a silly Satanic "cult" of sorts, whose leader is Malcom Mcdowell, and provides a parody many in occult circles who don't take themselves too seriously might find humorous. All of this is not laid out for you in the beginning, and rather, the killer's motives become clearer as the film unwinds. I suppose if it had any message, it is not an intentional one that picks a political side, though it is timely when you think about religious types who might be trying to trigger the apocalypse.
Not always the best acting, but not too stiff either, all the elements work enough to get the job done. It is a sad state of affairs when we are 4 months into the year, and this is the first horror movie I have felt inspired to write about. I did start watching the new "28 Years Later: The Bone Church," but it did not keep my interest. This movie did, in fact, I watched it in one sitting, which is a compliment in and of itself. If you are looking for a horror movie that makes some big social statement, then you should wander out into traffic, because that is not what horror is about. This movie might not indulge in graphic violence or gore, in fact, those things are handled rather tastefully, but it does offer the kind of slasher movie that I wish they made more of. It does not apologize for being what it is and that is what Hollywood press hates about it.
In 2025, it was a weird year for movies. Horror was the only genre that, in some ways, flourished, but like most things, the echo chamber that is social media believes its own hype, and a rip-off of "FromDusk Till Dawn" garnered the most attention. This is what happens when social Media is used to shape certainly shapes the way horror is marketed to us now. However, there was more buzz than hype for most of these movies. Most of the year's more hyped films, like "I Saw the TV Glow," were not horror or did not live up to the hype, thus not making the list. There was less word of mouth with these movies; some I never heard being brought up. The key to horror is that it has to somehow make me feel uneasy. Just gore is not enough. This year,r the things that went bump in the night included classics like zombies, ghosts, robots, and witches
These might not be the movies that got the best Rotten Tomatoes score, though they all did pretty decently, nor are they the most popular, as the most mass-marketed movies tend to be for the lower common denominator. If your favorite movie is not on the list, it is not because I did not see it, as I saw most horror movies that graced small screens and the inner webs this year; it is because, in some cases, your favorite movie was unimpressive or trying too hard, in others, well, it was not that scary. So, these are movies that proved to engage me in some way more than the other horror movies not on this list. Here are the top ten horror movies of 2024
10-Bring Her Back
Very disturbing but effective, some of the self-harm was unnerving, but I want horror movies to make me feel uncomfortable and have to sit in that discomfort, as it's a skill kids these days don't have, unless they are the kids in this movie, and then they went through all kinds of crazy shit.
9-Else
I am counting this bizarre French film as this year since it did not make it to the States until this year. A different take on the end of the world, but I am here for it.
8-Keeper
I enjoyed the surreal nature of this film and the way it wove what was in fact a ghost story of sorts mixed with some demeneted boyfriend drama. Great acting and mood set, so when things get haunting, they did not go in the expected fashion.
7-Together
Much like "The Human Centipede," the premise of this movie is more horrifying than what happens on screen. Horror is often a dark mirror reflection of what is going on in society, so it's clear that the rise in body horror has to do with questions of identity. In this movie sense of identity in relationships. This creates a relatable and very grounding premise that does not offer a great deal of "don't go in the basement" moments. In some ways, it's like "the Substance," and in others, John Carpenter's take on "the Thing".
Danny Boyle made the third film of this series with a different eye than he had approached the previous movies. I can appreciate this, though the post-apocalyptic settlement feels very much like something we have seen already in "The Walking Dead.". But how many ways can you spin the long-term effects of a zombie outbreak without getting to some of the same tropes? The stylistic changes and the use of color are the biggest differences here, and make the movie visually stimulating, though some of the cut scenes feel like they are window dressing and not serving the story.
The premise feels like something from a Brian Lumley novel. By the end, it feels more like something from a video game that mixes "Silent Hill" with "Call of Duty". The acting is really what sells it. Because this is an Apple Plus film, they have severely limited the impact, as it is better than most things I have seen in theaters recently. For Scott Derrickson, whose main movies have been horror aside from Doctor Strange, he is branching out and showing how much more he is capable of as a director.
I get that the marketing of this movie was to keep the premise more of a surprise, but it did not take long to figure out that it was about when good robots go wrong. But I suppose they did not want to draw comparisons to the MEGAN franchise, this script was not written by a Titokker so it has some brains and a great deal of heart that left you caring about the characters.
>
3-The Monkey
2025 seems to be the year we are finally flushing horror tropes down the toilet and getting more original movies than remakes. A low-key Stephen King short story adaptation does the trick. Not that this movie does not have some common ground with the Final Destination franchise. It is just done with more flair. The concept of this is easy to pick up on, even more so the trailer, a cursed toy monkey brings death with the crash of its drum. Director Oz Perkins, who has also brought us other smart horror films such as " Gretel and Hansel" along with last year's "Longlegs," has a blend of fresh cinematography that complements the storytelling to give this movie its charm
It was a close call between this and the number one pick, but it got edged out due to the terrible CGI wolves that pulled me out of the story. Del Toro stuck to the book and did not try to capture the magic of the Karloff classic, but created his own fantasy land for it, which is what he does well
This film, brought to you by Zach Creggar, who made the 2022 film "Barbarian," has a different shade of creepy for this one, which is still dark enough to kick off the Halloween season. The promotion of the film kept things vague, you know, kids go missing. Bigger-name actors flourish in this film to create an interesting character study that is woven together in a fashion not unlike something M Night Shyamalan might do, as there is a plot twist at the end, but it is the most well-done, mood-setting movie that weaves a wonderful, creepy fable.
This was going to be under a hard microscope for me as Frankenstein's Monster is my favorite literary character, yet more than the Hulk, so the expectations were high, however had faith in Del Toro, as his take on the Creature from the Black Lagoon was pretty solid except for the dance bit in the middle. The same could be said for this one if you replace the dance routine with CGI wolves that look like they came from a Lord of the Rings Video game.. It was odd because otherwise the film was emotionally stunning and pulled on all the right heartstrings. I admit by trepidation, going into it was mroe of the Netflix connection. Would they throw in diverse casting just for the sake of it? Nope, did not happen, stayed true to the setting. The costumes might have gone over the top at times, but they had flair.
The acting was great, everybody did well, and I believed everyone. It, of course, stuck closer to the book, though here comes the catch, as it took a few liberties, the end being a glaring one, but it had heart to it and proved the Doctor was really the monster. The Monster was almost more like Snow White as animals loved it, except for the wolves. The monster design owed more to Bernie Wrightson's designs, which was a good choice; the OG Boris Karloff monster will always be the GOAT. They did a good job with the Monster. I am glad he was super strong and not just a whiny baby. He learned the world was cruel and adapted to it.
If you are totally jsut about Universal Monsters and that is what you want, this is going to come closer to Hammer Horror. So I understand why people might not like some of the changes, but I am more invested in the book and accepted the fact that the book and the Karloff movie were different as a child, so it seemed cooler to be into the book, though I love the Karloff Frankenstein, sadly, this skill did not translate over into other things as I grew up But this movie was enjoyeable, and not just vapid eye candy but it drew you into the world he created,
Much like "The Human Centipede,"; the premise of this movie is more horrifying than what happens on screen. Horror is often a dark mirror reflection of what is going on in society, so it's clear that the rise in body horror has to do with questions of identity. In this movie sense of identity in relationships. This creates a relatable and very grounding premise that does not offer a great deal of "don't go in the basement" moments. In some ways, it's like "the Substance" and in others, John Carpenter's take on "the Thing". Mainly practical effects help this movie, which stars Allison Brie.
There is also a Lovecraftian theme to the story. A curse of a cult whose chapel sinks under the earth to create monsters. This helps them avoid several tropes, but it could have been something Stuart Gordon might have made, and that is a good thing. The antagonist is passive aggressive until they become known. Though there is no clear resolution with this character or really anyone, leaving you to think this might be a trans-allied film. But it is more complex than that. It's the horrors of this undead relationship that set the tone for something as skin-crawling as the morphing bodies shifting on screen.
In my mind I kept waiting for something more gruesome, and I think the restraint they should which was not shown by the ned of 'The Substance," makes it a more entertaining film, though not as visually stunning as that movie. They do not shy from the special effects, but they go easy on the gore, making the tension of violence work for them. I really enjoyed this movie and recommend it to horror fans that are looking for something different.
Danny Boyle made the third film of this series with a different eye than he had approached the previous movies. I can appreciate this, though the post-apocalyptic settlement feels very much like something we have seen already in "The Walking Dead.". But how many ways can you spin the long-term effects of a zombie outbreak without getting to some of the same tropes? The stylistic changes and the use of color are the biggest changes here, and make the movie visually stimulating, though some of the cut scenes feel like they are window dressing and not serving the story.
You also get lots of people making stupid mistakes, which I think a world of caution would be the rule in a more realistic situation. But such is the way of horror movies. The rage virus works the same, though the zombies seem a little smarter in this one, as well as the use of a large apex alpha zombie that is a presence that helps define this movie. It does stand apart from the other films rather than just being a sequel. The protagonist is a young boy trying to save his mother, which adds a more emotional element, as he learns the hard lesson that this kind of life would bring.
The wheel is not being re-invented here as the first movie is obviously going to be the most original, but I think I like this better than the second film, though it did drag some at the end, and the ridiculous ending with the Scandinavian acrobatic ninja was silly..It felt like it turned into "Kung Fu Hustle" all of a sudden. It was an odd choice. If you are a fan of zombie movies, you are not going to need me to sell you on this. I do not normally like zombie movies can name ten that are my favorites of this sub-genre, not sure if this one makes the list, but it is well made and entertaining.
This film, brought to you by Zach Creggar, who made the 2022 film "Barbarian," goes with a different shade of creepy for this one, that is still dark enough to kick off the Halloween season. The promotion of the film kept things vague, you know, kids go missing. Bigger-name actors flourish in this film to create an interesting character study that is woven together in a fashion not unlike something M Night Shyamalan might do, but it was not saved for the twist at the end.
The occult nature of the antagonist is very effective, with the villain falling somewhere between "Longlegs" and "Heredity" in scope of creepiness. The title in some ways fakes you out. The violence is well-paced, and don't go in the basement moments while plentiful are done in a manner that makes sense. The characters, even when supernatural flavors surface, are all very real-feeling. There is frame framework to magic which I can appreciate rather than just a magic can do anything plot hole.
The writing is the real star, the characters are a well-balanced mix of straights rather than 2-d stereotypes. None of the casting or personality of said characters seems forced; everything flows naturally. When shit hits the fan and gets chaotic, well, suspension of disbelief has already been established enough for it to not be a jarring left turn. So far it's one of the year's best horror movies, perhaps not the scariest but one of the most engaging stories to escape into.
Anyone who thinks this is an original movie has an odd view of what constitutes originality. Recycled must fit into this warped definition. I have heard this called a remake of 'From Dusk Till Dawn," and unless this means vampires really only show up for the second half of this movie, I disagree. Though this is not the "Odyssey," this movie was certainly influenced by "O Brother, Where Art Thou" by Fr, and certainly influenced by "From Dusk Till Dawn," But the vampires were not coming from within the building. I am not sure I would call this movie a horror movie. It was not scary. In fact, the preacher's kid was the only likeable character in the movie, so not sure how they intended you to become invested in any one.
The message that all black music came from the blues was heavy-handed in the surreal sequence where, all of a sudden, girls were twerking; they could have been more subtle and still gotten the point across. It needed a great deal of editing as the story dragged on the front end. I think Louisiana would have made more sense, but it is what it is. It was well made for what it was, but then the bar is pretty low when it comes to Hollywood; it certainly did not look like it was a Tyler Perry movie, so someone was doing something right along the way.
The violence and action scenes needed a great deal of work. The script could have used a major overhaul. I am sure you could go into this movie and think, well, it's just going to be fun, if you knew absolutely nothing about the basics or storytelling. People get dumber every day, the Fast and Furious movies are an example of this even though they keep putting butts in seat. As PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. It is high-brow Blaxplotation, less sexy than Foxy Brown, but looks better than Blacula. It will sell lots of popcorn to stupid people.
2025 seems to be the year we are finally flushing horror tropes down the toilet and getting more original movies than remakes. A low-key Stephen King short story adaptation does the trick. Not that this movie does not have some common ground with the Final Destination franchise. It is just done with more flair. The concept of this is easy to pick up on, even more the trailer, a cursed toy monkey brings death with the crash of its drum. Director Oz Perkins, who has also brought us other smart horror films such as " Gretel and Hansel" along with last year's "Longlegs," their a blend of fresh cinematography that complements the storytelling to give this movie its charm.
There is a "Wonder Years" gone wrong feel to the first half of the film. Then things flash forward to the protagonist dealing with life as a traumatized father, who is not going to win "Dad of the Year" by a long shot and is obsessed with keeping his son as far away as possible from the cursed monkey, even if that means emotionally pushing his son away. It is in this raw, gritty look at what life might be like with a cursed money toy that the real bleakness settles in with its emotional heaviness, which is another level of human dread.
The end product of this finds the deaths as the lighthearted entertainment that gives a reprieve from the real horrors of dealing with family. This is an interesting twist. The gore is over the top and almost cartoonish, but it captures a grimly surreal look at the fragile thing that is life, and when life is as ugly as it gets in this movie, then death is a welcome relief. Here is where the twist on the horror genre takes place, as any Stephen King adaptation could fit neatly into a box, but this is done better than most.
This movie flew under my radar despite all the awards it won. I liked Yorgos Lanthimos' previous films, "The Lobster" and "Killing the Sacred Deer," which were darker, more tense films. Even looking at some of the reviews of this film, I think they are missing a key point, that I was immediately clued in on...this is a remake of "Bride of Frankenstein".Much in the same way, "The Shape of Water" is a remake of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon".
Yes, I know there is a book this is based upon. Still, that book is also another telling of "Bride of Frankenstein" Mary Shelley, never delved into the Bride aspect, aside from the fact that the Monster demanded Victor Frankenstein make him a mate, a project he started on, but became repulsed by the idea and aborted the project, thus escalating the Monster's malice against him.
Though the film portrayals of this rarely use this part of the story, unless they dedicate an entire movie to it. This more whimsical take on the story does add its own detail, such as Emma Stone's character trying to kill herself while pregnant, and the unborn baby's brain is transplanted into her, rather than just being bodies cobbled together to create new life. Willem Dafoe's character is the Monster, whose creator, whom he refers to as his father, picked up the art of reanimation, as the entire estate is filled with experiments that add to the atmosphere of the film.
In the movie itself, you can feel the ambiance of a Terry Gilliam movie. Emma Stone's acting is great. The wardrobe department took inspiration from Poppy, as every outfit Stone wore made her look more like her. The only flaw of this movie is a common mistake when Hollywood tries too hard to push something like girl power, as the movie's message becomes, the best way for a woman to make her way in the world is to become a whore, as she can not possibly have any other qualities aside from using sex as their stock and trade. This is the lesson Emma Stone's character becomes empowered by, with her big moment being not someone's property. Thus, she turns the tables. However, this is a minor annoyance; the bulk of the movie was a feast for the eyes, and well acted to you are largely distracted by this.
Technically this is not a horror movie, though the premise feels like something from a Brian Lumley novel. By the end, it feels more like something from a video game that mixes "Silent Hill" with "Call of Duty". The acting is really what sells it. Because this is an Apple Plus film, they have severely limited the impact, as it is better than most things I have seen in theaters recently. For Scott Derrickson whose main movies have been horror aside from Doctor Stange, he is branching out and showing how much more he is capable of as a director.
What sells the movie is Anya Taylor Joy, as Miles Teller does his best Jeremy Renner impersonation. I guess Joy is the Black Widow to that, as this could have easily been a Hawkeye / Black Widow movie for Marvel. Miles is however good enough to develop chemistry with Joy. Not that how this develops is really a huge surprise, though how this all goes down displays enough creative sparks to keep the movie fun. I think less would be more even it comes to the monsters. When you learn their origins it has been foreshadowed enough for it to all click, but the strength of this movie is how the visuals unfold when they dive into the gorge, there are many scenes where it looks like the cover of a death metal album, which of course appeals to me.
There was more of a sense of adventure than dread, as the movie turned. The protagonists were always capable and never afraid of their powerlessness even when confronted by un-natural creatures, which sets the tone for an action movie not a horror movie, This might be seen as darker sci-fi as well since science plays heavily into what unfolds, at the end of the day it's story telling with a hear to it that these actors tapped into and suspended your disbelief to invest into these characters , as the world that was so well built;t for them lent itself to further suspending your disbelief which at the end of the day is what movies are supposed to be about.
The very premise of this movie, if you have been baffled by the trailers, is going to be a spoiler. If you can not figure out what is going on in the first 30 seconds of this movie then you are also stupid enough to believe the trailer's claim that this is the most terrifying movie you are going to see all year. The closest Steven Soderberg has gotten to a horror movie is the thriller 'Unsane". This is obviously a ghost story so it seems like an odd choice for him given the types of movies he normally makes. In some ways, it reminds me of "American Beauty" when it comes to the struggling teen dysfunction, which is almost the real horror of the movie.
Now to talk about what is both the movie's strengths and weaknesses. This is not the first ghost story told from the ghost's perspective. The Other's felt more like a horror movie in how it pulled this off. It feels more like Soderbergh flipped the "Paranormal Activity" franchise formula on its head and made it work thanks to its bigger budget, allowing him to hire better actors and effects that work for what the film is trying to do without going overboard. There is a subplot that lays itself out right before going into the third act. The actors sell out on it and this is a well-made movie for what it is.
The problem with what it is lies in the fact this is a ghost story that is not scary. Making the claims the trailer made feel that much more ridiculous. I enjoyed this movie, I watched it in a day, which is better than what I am going to say about "Wolf Man" when we get around to talking about that. This makes this movie the bar for what movie's need to be scarier than in order to be considered horror this year, it is rides the line, and almost relies on the sub ject matter to belong on this page.
In 2024 the Horror genre continues to prove that it's not defined by A24 or Blumhouse, Shudder brought some strong indie fare. Social Media certainly shapes the way horror is marketed to us now. However, there was more buzz than hype for most of these movies. Most of the years more hyped films like "I Saw the TV Glow" were not horror or live up to the hype, thus not making the list, There was less word of mouth with these movies, some I never hear being brought up. The key to horror is it has to somehow make me feel uneasy. Just gore is not enough, This year the things that went bump in the night included classics like vampires, werewolves, zombies, ghosts, and psycho killers.,
These might not be the movies that got the best Rotten Tomatoes score, though they all did pretty decent, nor are they the most popular as the most mass-marketed movies tend to be for the lower common denominator. If your favorite movie is not on the list, it is not because I did not see it as I saw most horror movies that graced small screens and the inner webs this year, it is because in some cases your favorite movie was unimpressive or trying too hard, in other's well it was not that scary. So, these are movies that proved to engage me in some way more than the other horror movies not on this list. Here are the top ten horror movies of 2024
10-Werewolves
This movie takes the Purge and combines it with werewolves. It reminds me of the late 80s, sometimes this works better than other times when the werewolves look too much like puppets, I had to pretend this movie was from the 80s, but it was fun, despite its faults.
9-Oddity
Ireland has been busting out some decent horror in recent years, and this one is another notch in its belt. The Lovecraftian vibes are what earn its place here. It's a slow burn but maintains its eerie mood. Sure there are some plot holes, but suspension of disbelief is easy to maintain.
8-Terrifier 3
With a bigger budget, comes a more fully fleshed-out story, that takes Art the Clown in a more Nightmare of Elm Street direction as supernatural elements continue to expand the mythos. It's entertaining and works off the hype of having to make each film more extreme, but it also wanders away from what made the first film a classic.
I really enjoyed the "If Friday the 13th was an art film" feel of this movie. The pacing is very deliberate and not for everyone. Some of the gore scenes felt like they were from the 80's with Terrifier levels of absurdity which was an odd choice in its contrast, thus keeping it out of the top 6.
I understand why this is a love-it-or-hate-it film. It really depends on how invested you are in the 1922 version. I think where they dropped the ball was not sticking to the classic Orlok look. Aside from that, the movie looked great, though Dafoe carries it when it comes to acting as Orlok keeps to the shadows. It is a feast for the eye, that entertained me.
I like this movie's take on Hollywood and the ugly face of it. The cinematography was perhaps the year's best, but the writing did not have as much behind it, and the movie fell apart by the end, it ranked this high because it's such a good-looking horror movie with cool practical effects.
If David Lynch had directed "Silence of the Labs" then the results might have been similar. It was creepy and carried a lingering bleakness, that might not have come across as scary as the movies that took the top three places, but its atmosphere solidified its place here.
This movie was a lot of fun. Sure it worked off a familiar trope, but it did deviate from your typical vampire fare. It looked good but was creepy and tense. This tension gave classic horror fans more of what they wanted than, movies that were pretty to look at or more atmospheric in nature.
2-Late Night With the Devil
Sure there were some campy elements when it came to some of the effects and overacting, but it did a great job capturing the stylistic mood it sought to capture, and carried a looming sense of dread., underneath the smile the host gave the camera. It beat out the other eight films on this list thanks to a more original concept, despite pulling from a few familiar horror motiffs.
This Netflix movie from the Philippines takes the zombie genre and all its tropes and shapes them into something very bleak. It's as much about generational trauma as it is a s commentary on the end of the world. Things never get better only worse. This is more effective than jump scares. It takes the building tension of a movie like the "Shining" and gives you nowhere to run. Well made and effective in the way to goes after your psyche. It took the number one spot as it had da better ending than the other movies, better effects, and acting that felt real.
Eggers remake of the 1922 silent film finds him keeping the mood of the original film and building off it to create his own gothic vampire story that like the original is another retelling of the Bram Stoker story, though where the original would depict Orlok as a different character from the Dracula we would later come to know from 1931 "Dracula" as a suave seductive gentleman to Orlok's creepier monster persona. The first elephant in the room is the fact I had seen promotional pictures from the movie that showed Bill Skarsgard in makeup much closer to the original portrayal of Orlok, than what would appear in this film. I can appreciate keeping him in the shadows, but this new persona made him a more shambling wreck of a creature, perhaps to create more of a contrast and make Deep's relationship with him more shameful. But I kept waiting for him to shed the mustache and emerge as the classic Orlock which did not happen.
The film's strength was in its visually striking cinematography and the world that Eggers created. There were few shots wasted and even less than were not stunning to look at. Eggers said that he did not want the film to be contaminated by other cinematic vampire portrayals. He succeeded in doing this , though he comes closest to Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula from 1992. Both stick close to Stoker's book, though Egger's takes the slant of Orlok's arrival bringing a plague to the city. Willem Dafoe and Raph Ineson give the film's two strongest performances, with Dafoe stretching himself the most, while Ineson pretty much does what he does, it just falls into place here. Skarsgard serves as a body for make-up to be applied to and pantomimes his way through the film. Considering the original was a silent film this might be for the best.
Deep looks good in the costumes and once again serves as a body holding the place of a character who is walking through life in a dream-like trance. Her experience as a model comes in handy, as she sells the look more than tapping into an emotional connection with the role, and does not have any chemistry with anyone, though Dafoe carries the scenes with her. But perhaps this is intentional, as she could not connect to anyone so called forth a spirit to be with her, which is the crux of the movie, though it feels more told than shown despite that is how the film opens, a little more interaction with Orlok might have sold this fact better, but it worked well enough. I can understand where fans of the original are going to complain, this movie is more of a art piece based on concepts from the original. I enjoyed the bleak miserable mood it creates, and the darkness that envelopes it. It's not a happy Hollywood ending, which I also value in horror movies. A great experience to look at even at the cost of the high expectations that come with the source material.
There is a lot to like about this movie. It is tense, as the characters fall down their spirals in what would be a tragic manner if it was not driven by the ego-driven madness that is Hollywood. Things take a turn for the aging fitness icon, so she turns to a shadow corporation to make her young again. This is where the twist in the film is as it goes in a more Jekyll and Hyde direction, though Hyde is not a distorted monster version of herself but a younger hotter one. It is sadly being hailed by some as a feminist masterpiece when it is about narcissism taken to gruesome extremes.
Being famous is a choice, and rather than being thankful she made it to where she did Moore's character shows where self-obsession will take you and how Hollywood is the perfect echo chamber to bring it to a boil. The cinematography is pretty breath taking, its artfully delicious, with vibrant colors paying homage to Stanely Kubrick. Hyde is not the only classic monster it gives a wink at as John Carpenter's Thing, can be seen in the way the body horror goes to twisted extremes. There is also influence from both "Carrie" and the Hunchback Of Norte Dame. But you are less sympathetic as the characters only suffer the consequences of their own actions making this a cautionary tale.
All the eye candy makes this a fun ride, but while you are being dazzled by it you forget this is not that original concept just many mashed together Dorian Gray being who this story lifts most liberally from. By the end, you can tell where it is going, and it all falls apart with blood splatter that is hardly justified as there is little actual violence in the film aside from a showdown of sorts between the older and younger self. Until the end, the gore works well, as mutations from breaking the rules set it. It is a dark movie despite the bright lights is find's itself which might be its best quality. The writing and dialogue are lackluster, but the distraction works until the very when it just settles for a stylistic wandering. It is still recommended as it is technically brilliant even if the script needs substance.
We might as well get the biggest elephant in the room here out of the way... this movie is NOT horror. There is nothing or unsettling about it, if you found the plot thread of the main character's 'friend" wanting him to go off to the TV world dimension scary, then you need to get your diapers changed and go back to watching Nick at Nite. There are those of you who also just want to support the movie because it's almost completely shot in bi-lighting, and that is great, but when it comes to what actually makes a movie worthwhile, key elements like acting and storytelling, it falls pretty flat with the acting being the worst offender here. I had a feeling they were trying to make the main character on the spectrum and that fell flat, aside from his uncertainty with social cues.
At the end of the day you never had a stake in the game they were boring perpetual adolescents who I could have cared less if anything happened to them, thus eliminating any tension that could have developed, if the story went anywhere, which it did not so we do not have to worry about that. Here is where the chorus of Why can't you just let people enjoy things comes in whenever people shatter the social bubble of what the narrative is supposed to be and excuse shoddy art. It is not gatekeeping horror by saying this is not horror, no more than it would be to complain at the fact someone put a box of Capt Crunch Cereal where the box of croutons is supposed to be at the grocery, they are both edible, but one you pour milk on and eat for breakfast, the other you put on a salad. In fact, it's just good marketing as this film might have had a bigger box office if it was marketed as an art house teen drama because people who do not like horror movies might go see this and like it since it is not a horror movie. Simple business.
Genres and labels exist to help the audience find the art. This art works better in theory than execution. I guess if you are super high out of your mind you might like it, and it has a solid message in questioning the nature of reality, they do not go as far as saying it's a simulation but introduces those concepts, not scary concepts they just are thoughts worth exploring. Directors like David Lynch and David Cronenberg explore this kind of surreal filmmaking but done with more depth and better execution, compared to those guys this is trash. It's also an hour and a half of my life I wish I invested differently, there are actual horror movies I could have been watching with that wasted time. The only worthwhile part was when King Woman was on stage.
It's great that a movie like "Terrifier" usurped "Joker 2 " giving Hollywood the middle finger it deserves. But the franchise is developing its own hype machine, trying to push this as extreme gore. Hoping to gain momentum by creating the urban myths about people walking out of the movie. To the point that the kids at the ticket booth felt the need to warn me about the gore. I was wearing a Slayer shirt at the time, so I don't know how that made me look like someone who is easily squeamish. Not only is this film a more accessible take on their proven formula, but it is not even the goriest movie I have seen this year, as both "In a Violent Nature" and "The Substance" can go toe to toe with the third film of this series.
Rather than comparing it to the first two movies, which is really a matter of budget and the actors settling into the characters, let's weigh it against other 2024 horror movies. "In a Violent Nature" is a slasher movie as well. At times it tries to create a more realistic point of view, white Terrifier goes for less realism and works off its own mood, which has more in common with the "Nightmare on Elm Street. Art the Clown is a big personality, much like Fredy Kriger, while the killer from "In a Violent Nature", was a 3-D killing machine.
If you compare it to a movie like "The Substance" it is clearly outmatched when it comes to writing and cinematography. But it does a good job of capturing what they are trying to do here, The writing has some holes in it, but the characters are more developed than the previous movies. They made some smart choices like a gender-flipped kill shot that replicates the more infamous moments of the first movie. The only thing I did not like was the off-screen kill of a major character that was implied. They leave the door open to explore the more supernatural story arc in this movie. Overall it delivers what you be expecting from the movie. It delivers most of the thing you want from it.
The first two films of this series are classics, one of the few cases where the sequel rivals the original. From there the results have been spotty. This film is supposed to take place just before the first film in the canon. It does not have the benefit of the quality of actors the previous films had as most of the budget went into special effects. Aside from "Prometheus" it might have the most CGI of any of the films but that is just where the industry is heading. With some slow-motion sequences looking like cut scenes from a video game. This leaves the writing and tone of the film as some of it stronger points, though one of these aspects does fall apart in the rushed ending.
Is the commentary of the movie more about the dangers of AI or how big corporations spit people out with little regard for their lives with the sub-text being the military-industrial complex, which Hollywood takes stabs at without realizing their side of the fence are the main enablers of this. While the face-huggers are the main monsters of the movie, things move fast enough for the audience to see a wider range of varied evolutions of creatures that want to pay homage to all of the movies. It stays true to HR Giger's designs and the almost Lovecraftian mythos behind the aliens.
It is entertaining when they first explore the abandoned space station it feels like wandering in a haunted house in space. It works off tension more than jump scares. The aliens are always lurking in the periphery. It was entertaining until the pace sped up into a rush cramming special effects and morphing of monsters that did not make sense. The suspension of disbelief was already taxed and they rushed things past the point of what works in the world they created. It was fun until it sped past you.
If the clever trailer had you looking forward to this movie you should not be disappointed as it deviates from the standard Hollywood horror formulas. The premise of a young female FBI agent is tracking a serial killer whose involvement in a series of murders spanning decades might seem like a riff off of "Silence of the Lambs' but aside from the investigative nature rather than being a slasher the similarities end there, and the movies has some twists and turn to keep it in it's own corner of the genre. It looks great, the acting is solid with Nicholas Cage being as bat-shit as the role calls for, and it's smart they kept him out of the trailer, as there is a mild similarity to Buffalo Bill. Though the makeup department has him almost unrecognizable makes him look more like a blond Marilyn Manson.
One of the film's strengths is the atmosphere it creates, right from the jump. There is a lingering eerie feeling of unease that shows the protagonist's awkwardness with her job. She is almost depicted as being autistic. The creepiness is stronger as this is not a movie that tries to use jump scares, chase scenes, or gore to put you in the uneasy emotional spot that horror movies should. There is a bleakness to this film that is tangible, rather than shocking you into submission, or keeping you at the edge of your seat, though you do become invested in the labyrinth they lead you into. Director Osgood Perkins is the son of Anthony Perkins of "Psycho" fame, so horror is in his blood. I really like 'Gretel and Hansel" and while this film is not devoid of supernatural elements, it's more grounded in reality than his take on the folk story.
I would not say Nic Cage steals the show, but he adds the perfect color of crazy this film needed, as well as immerses himself in the role in a way where you do not see him as Nic Cage, but as the character he portrays which might make this the best role of his career. But all of the acting his strong. Is this movie perfect, no but it is better than anything else that has come out this year so far, with "In a Violent Nature" being the next closest film in the running for the top spot. The more realistic manner of violence in this movie is what elevates it from 'In a Violent Nature" which was also visually interesting. If you are tired of Blumhouse dumbing things down to the younger audience they are aiming for, then this movie is refreshing, as it is a grim affair with an ending that leaves no one unscathed by darkness the ambiance casts around it.
If it has not been a reboot or remake of an already established legacy character, not much new blood has really been shed in the slasher genre of horror. There have been note-worthy serial killer films, but not slashers in the vein of Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The puritanical tone of Western Culture plays a part in this, as toxic masculinity is railed against in the court of public opinion, it makes the sensitive people pleasing souls of Hollywood capitulate. Canadian Film Maker Chris Nash, boldly leaves his thumbprint on the genre, with a different take that manages to be savage, yet introspective enough not to ruffle feathers.
Nash went about making the movie as if he was shooting a nature documentary. This film's title reflects how nature has nurtured the waking machine of violence that rises from the earth to go on the kind of rampage that is more familiar to horror fans. The pace at which this revenge is pursued is where it brings something new to the table. The scenery is often the focal point, and things come full circle to point to how the vast forest is scary in its own right with its isolating breadth. There is a hyper-realistic quality about the pacing and how everything is shot, the lack of tension built by a creepy score, yet when it gets time for violence, it's like they brought in the FX crew from "Terrifier". Some it I wish they had just read an anatomy book, rather than some of the absurd manner they try to contort a human body. This is not a deal breaker, but it keeps this from being a flawless master class in taking chance in horror to a very tasteful cult classic
At the halfway point of the year, this is likely the best horror movie so far, though there is not much competition with 'Late Night With the Devil" the only movie that comes close, and it is done in such a different manner the only thing the two films have in common is the fact they both fall within the horror genre. The movies with the biggest buzz like 'I Saw the TV Glow' just outright sucked, so much so I could not even bring myself to waste any more time thinking about it by reviewing it.. What this movie does right is doing something different that you can take seriously, and the willingness to indludge in sadism.
This homage to the 1970s and the tone of horror back then is appreciated even when the execution might be questionable. The camp factor and suspension of disbelief compensate for a great deal in terms of what the budget might have restricted them to. This is aided by the found footage nature of the movie. I think a big strength of the film is that it does not try to be another A24 or Millenial Teen Horror movie. It does not care about your feelings. Sure some of the concepts including the possessed girl might be well-worn horror tropes but they are approached from a fresh perspective.
The movie ie might not take itself seriously but never crosses over into comedy, which it's unsure if that is, in fact, its intention. The humor comes across as an awkward diversion to avoid feeling the tension. This might be the most realistic part of the film. You never really care about the characters that much to become invested in their impending demise. You also can not say this movie has a happy ending, which is another plus in my book, as I prefer horror to be as bleak as possible, with no hope, which is horrifying in the emotional sense. The movie plays with darker concepts, but never plunges you firmly into them, but still works for what they are going for.
The best thing about this movie is so far this year Hollywood, as leaned in on remakes and rehasing movies rather than offering the audience a choice of picking fresh new content. This feels like when it comes to horror this has been worse, as "Immaculate" and the Omen prequel were almost the same movie, I did not review both because it would have been redundant, at least this is not a remake, and feels like some creative chances were taken, I think the very fact they did so made this work perhaps even more than the reality of what was committed to film as I was relieved to at least have the option of something new even if it was winking in the direction of a particular era, making that easily forgivable.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jfif)
