And that film was Clerks, and it didn’t just launch his career, it launched a whole generation of slackers with dreams of being heard, but since then, Smith’s output has been everything from inspired to unwatchable, from cult classic to creative midlife crisis.

So here’s my ranking of every Kevin Smith film to date, from least favorite, to favorite.

*The only one missing here is KillRoy Was Here, as I haven’t seen it, so technically not every film, but still.

Cop Out (2010)

Let’s get the worst out of the way.

Kevin Smith didn’t write this one, which is probably the nicest thing I can say about it, as he was hired to direct a pretty generic buddy cop comedy starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, and on paper, that sounds fine, but in reality, it plays like a straight to Redbox disaster.

Smith himself has said directing Bruce Willis was a nightmare, and you can feel the contempt dripping off the screen, and this is the only movie in Smith’s filmography where his voice is completely absent.

A total misfire.

Yoga Hosers (2016)

Yoga Hosers is what happens when a filmmaker is given too much creative freedom and access to his kid’s high school drama class.

Tusk (2014)

Tusk is a film, I think, where you can practically hear Smith cackling behind the camera, like a mad scientist unleashing his weirdest idea onto the world, and it’s not for everyone – hell, it might not be for anyone - but it’s one of the few films in Smith’s career that genuinely challenges the audience.

Horrifying in places and accidentally hilarious in others, and a complete tonal mess too, but one that you won’t forget, which is why it has garnered quite the cult following.

Jay and Silent Bob Reboot (2019)

This one felt more like more of a reunion tour than a movie - all references, cameos, and callbacks strung together like an aging band that refuses to play new material - it’s not bad, but it’s not that good either.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

Quite a charming movie, but the problem I had with it was that it wants to be sweet and filthy at the same time, but that balancing act doesn’t always land well - but we get some moments of genuine humor and warmth paddled throughout.

Jersey Girl (2004)

I don’t actually think Jersey Girl is an awful film like many do, and I think it just came out at the exact wrong time where Ben Affleck was still radioactive - it’s a decent enough little father-daughter story with some real emotion - it’s basically Kevin Smith trying to grow up.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

This is where Smith just gave up on subtlety, and basically made a ridiculous and proudly juvenile cartoon in film format - every line is a punchline, every cameo a wink, and the whole thing feels like a stoner version of Looney Tunes.

Is it cinema? No.

Is it funny? If you’re 16 and/or extremely high - or are still a bit of a man child like I am.

Clerks III (2022)

Clerks III is basically the culmination of everything Smith has built, and it’s meta to the max – a movie about making a movie, while Smith grapples with his own near death experience.

There’s still plenty of humor, though and watchable, and if Clerks was the thesis, this is the elegy.

Red State (2011)

Red State is the film where Smith attempts to reinvent himself, and the results were surprisingly effective I thought, and while it doesn’t always know where it’s going, and the ending is a bit baffling, it’s a bold pivot for a guy best known for dick jokes and stoner wisdom, and I liked it overall.

The 4:30 Movie

Apparently drawing heavily from Smith’s own teenage years, itshows his affection for moviegoing and the magic of youth spent at the theater - I think it stands as one of Smith’s most sentimental works.

Clerks II (2006)

It doesn’t come close to topping the original, but it’s certainly a worthy continuation to the story.

Mallrats (1995)

Smith’s sophomore effort bombed on release but has since become somewhat of a cult classic that’s basically Clerks in color, but set in a mall - it brilliantly captures the spirit of the ’90s mall culture and wraps it in a warm blanket of nerdy references and juvenile humor.

Chasing Amy (1997)

Chasing Amy is certainly the most mature film in the early part of Smith’s career -he tackles love, sexuality and jealousy - it also isn’t a tidy bow kind of movie, but that’s exactly why it works so good.

Dogma (1999)

Dogma might be the most ambitious film Smith ever made, and oh, it also has a shit demon, but the satire is still sharp throughout though.

The questions it raises are surprisingly thoughtful too - if you only know Smith for his stoner comedies, Dogma will completely recalibrate your expectations.

Clerks (1994)

This is the origin point, he zero budget black-and-white masterpiece that launched a thousand beards, and is basically a mission statement that says “Yes, your crappy job matters. Yes, your endless pop culture arguments are worth listening to. Yes, your life, as unremarkable as it seems, is cinema.”

It’s raw, hilarious, and painfully real, and Dante and Randal are two of the most honest characters ever put to film.

It also has one of the best final lines in indie film history - Clerks is simply DIY filmmaking at its best.

Subscribe now

Share

Plot

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

Good Points

• Strong performances across the board

• Structure rewards attention

• Unsettling small-town atmosphere

• Balances horror, dark comedy, and satire effectively

• Confident direction

Bad Points

• Some imagery feels too abstract without payoff

• Tone won’t work for everyone

• Few pacing issues

My Thoughts on Weapons

It’s not about solving it - it’s about sitting in it

The first thing that stands out to me about Weapons is how quickly the film moves past the obvious setup, where kids disappear, and instead of turning into a clean investigation, it decides to just widens the lens and it becomes about the aftershock - how people react, how fear spreads, how stories get twisted before anyone understands what’s happening - and while the mystery is there, it almost feels secondary, as what matters is the fallout where you’re here to just sit in the uncertainty of it all.

You need to keep up

This is where the film will either work for you or it won’t.

It doesn’t explain itself in clean, convenient ways, because information comes in pieces here - sometimes obvious, and sometimes buried in scenes that don’t feel important until later, but then something clicks, and you realise it’s been building all along if you noticed.

That said, I definitely had moments where I felt like I was a bit lost, but just as I felt that, the film would drop something small that made it make sense - it’s all very controlled, like it knows exactly how far it can push before giving you something to hold onto again.

The cast is strong

Julia Garner puts in an excellent performance I though, and while she’s not even particularly likeable at times., even when she makes decisions I didn’t agree with, I understood them.

There’s a tension in how she moves through the film that keeps things anchored, especially when everything else starts to drift into stranger territory.

Josh Brolin on the other hand brings this heavy, worn-down energy, where uou can feel the grief sitting on him without it being spelled out, and it’s restrained, but constant, while Benedict Wong caught me off guard a bit - there’s a shift in his character that made me rethink everything I’d assumed earlier - it’s small, but it changes how you see him.

And then there’s Amy Madigan.

She starts off feeling slightly off - almost like she’s there to lighten things - then slowly, without any big moment announcing it, she becomes one of the most unsettling presences in the film, and if you have watched the film already, you will know what I mean.

And I am so glad she won the oscar, because she deserved it.

The tone never settles

This is probably the biggest dividing line with Weapons.

The film moves between horror, dark comedy, and small-town satire without warning - one scene is tense and grounded, the next leans into something strange or even slightly absurd - and personally I enjoyed that, but I can understand how some people found it frustrating, as it doesn’t stay in one lane long enough to feel comfortable.

But what I loved most was the constant undercurrent of paranoia the film has - rumours move faster than facts, people jump to conclusions, fill in gaps with whatever makes sense to them, and spread it like it’s truth - I am sure a lot of us have been part of social circles like that.

And that’s what makes it work, as strip away the central mystery, and you’d still have something interesting just in how the town reacts to it.

Pacing

The middle stretch does drag a bit, and there’s a section where it feels like it’s circling rather than moving forward, but I also get why it’s there - it builds connections, lays groundwork, and gives the later reveals something to land on.

You could cut it down, but you’d probably lose some of the structure that makes the ending work.

The film also leans into abstract ideas at times - dreamlike imagery, strange visual moments that feel like they should mean something.

Some of it lands, but some of it doesn’t, and whle I don’t mind ambiguity at all, there were points where it felt like it was reaching for something deeper without quite getting there, and never fully pulled through.

The Ending

With this kind of structure, it could’ve easily fallen apart, but for me it certainly doesn’t, although I know the ending is constantly being debated, but I thought it pulled things together in a way that actually felt earned - not overly neat, not fully explained - but enough that it worked.

And tonally, it somehow balances everything - horror, humour, brutality - without collapsing under it.

That’s not easy to do.

It doesn’t care if you’re on board

Weapons isn’t trying to win everyone over - if you want constant scares, it’s not that, and if you want a clean, structured mystery, it’s not that either.

It’s slower, messier, more interested in mood and structure than straightforward payoff, but if you’re willing to go with it, there’s a lot here - it just expects you to meet it halfway.

Final Verdict

Strange, controlled, and deliberately messy - it doesn’t spell things out - but it gives enough to hold onto.

Trailer

Directed by - Zach Cregger

Written by - Zach Cregger

Cast - Josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Cary Christopher, Benedict Wong and Amy Madigan

Cinematography - Larkin Seiple

Running time - 128 minutes

Subscribe now

Share

And don’t forget to subscribe to get this email each Monday.

Sniper: No Nation - April 7th (Digital)

Hunted by mercenaries, Brandon Beckett and his legendary father mount an impossible rescue mission.

Winter: Battleground - April 7th (Digital)

Hunted by an AI-controlled regime, a rogue soldier hiding in the forest must outfight elite assassins, cybernetic soldiers, and corrupted machines to stop an artificial intelligence from seizing total control of America.

Mermaid - April 8th (Limited Theaters)

A drug addicted Florida man finds a wounded mermaid at his lowest point, and when word spreads about his secret, he'll stop at nothing to protect her.

Faces of Death - April 10th (Theaters)

A woman, employed as a website content moderator, comes across a series of violent videos reproducing death scenes from a film.

You, Me & Tuscany - April 10th (Theaters)

When a woman crashes at an empty Italian villa, posing as the owner’s fiancée, she discovers an unexpected romance that may transform her life.

Beast - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

MMA legend Patton James, now a commercial fisherman, is pulled back into the cage when his brother is in danger, and reuniting with his old coach Sammy, he commits to one final fight in ONE Championship against its brutal champion Xavier Grau.

Outcome - April 10th (Apple TV)

Follows Hollywood star Reef as he is forced to confront his problems and atone for his past after being threatened by a bizarre video footage from his past.

The Yeti - April 10th (Limited Theaters/.Digital)

Members of a rescue team encounter an ancient creature while searching for two missing people in 1947 Alaska Territory.

The Whistler - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

Reeling from their daughter’s loss, Nicole and Sebastian come into possession of a secluded Venezuelan farm, unaware of the dark forces they’re about to face.

Newborn - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

After serving seven years in solitary confinement, Chris Newborn seeks to rebuild his life and reconnect with his family only to find that freedom has become a terrifying psychological battleground.

Infiltrate - April 10th (Digital)

A mysterious voice compels an ordinary woman to delve into the dark underbelly of organized crime, determined to rescue her kidnapped husband from its clutches.

Exit 8 - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

Strange events plague a young man as he searches for the exit in an endless subway tunnel.

Hamlet - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

Hamlet comes home for his father's funeral and finds his uncle Claudius marrying his widowed mother Gertrude. His father's ghost reveals Claudius murdered him, leading Hamlet toward revenge and introspection.

Thrash - April 10th (Netflix)

Amidst a catastrophic hurricane, a coastal town battles nature’s wrath and an onslaught of sharks.

The Christophers - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

The children of a once famous artist hire a forger to complete some unfinished, long ago abandoned canvases so they'll have an inheritance when he dies.

Hunting Matthew Nichols - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

Two decades after her brother mysteriously disappeared on Vancouver Island, a documentary filmmaker sets out to solve his missing person’s case.

Bunnylovr - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

A cam girl navigates a toxic client relationship while reconnecting with her estranged, dying father, exploring complex relationships and family dynamics.

California Schemin’ - April 10th (Limited Theaters)

Two Scottish lads from Dundee conned the music industry by pretending to be an established Californian rap duo, bagging a record deal and appearing on MTV until their scam unravelled.

Subscribe now

Share

But for the people whose job is literally to judge movies, they do sometimes get it spectacularly wrong - the kind of wrong where, years later, everyone just quietly pretends it didn’t happen.

What’s even better is that some of the films they dismissed didn’t just age well, they became some of the most respected, talked-about, and influential movies ever made, which makes me feel a bit better about my own bad takes.

Here are five films critics really didn’t get right the first time, and why that happened.

Blade Runner (1982)

Critics in 1982 called Blade Runner boring - “Oh, this is one of those movies.” Slow, quiet, a bit moody, and more interested in atmosphere than action - basically the exact opposite of what people expected in 1982, and ended up a commercial failure, which is kind of wild now, considering it basically defined the look and feel of cyberpunk for decades.

The problem wasn’t the movie though, it was the expectation, because people wanted another fast-paced sci-fi adventure, and what they got instead was a thoughtful, almost meditative story about identity, memory, and what it means to be human.

It’s one of those films where the pacing is the point - you’re supposed to sit in it, not rush through it - and once audiences caught up to that, everything clicked, and soon lost its title of Blade Crawler that some had nicknamed it.

The Thing (1982)

The Thing had the worst possible timing, as it came out the same year as E.T., which is basically the warmest, friendliest alien movie ever made, and then here comes The Thing, and critics were not in the mood, as they called it disgusting, too gory, and too bleak, with Roger Ebert giving it a fairly negative review, saying:

But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original “The Thing” and in “Alien,” there’s no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog.

Watching it now, it’s hard to imagine anyone thinking this wasn’t great.

Vertigo (1958)

Vertigo is now regularly listed as one of the greatest films ever made - not “pretty good,” not “underrated,” but near the top of the lists.

Back in 1958? Critics were kind of lukewarm, as they thought it was too long, too slow, a bit confusing, and also had an issue with James Stewart’s casting, and even Hitchock blamed him in part for the films failure, saying he looked too old to be convinving in his role.

The real issue though is that Vertigo isn’t about the mystery, it’s about obsession - it’s uncomfortable, it’s strange, and it doesn’t give you the kind of clean resolution people expect - and basically, critics went in expecting one type of movie and got something much darker and more psychological, and it just took a few decades for everyone to catch up.

Its reputation began to change though after it was re-released in the 1980s, following a period where it was largely removed from circulation.

Fight Club (1999)

This one is still misunderstood a bit by many, I think, but when it came out, a lot of critics reacted like the movie was endorsing the chaos it was showing, where they called it irresponsible, aggressive, even dangerous - which is kind of missing the point entirely.

The film is clearly satirical, and it’s making fun of the exact mindset it’s portraying, but because it presents that mindset in such a raw way, people got stuck on the surface level, even if it is a movie thats easy to misread - Tyler Durden is charismatic, the energy is addictive, and if you’re not paying attention, you can walk away thinking the movie agrees with him.

Entertainment Weekly gave it a D- as one example of the negative reaction from critics, and the movie also got booed at the Venice Film Festival, and ended up grossing only $11 million in its original run.

Over time, though, its became a cult classic - it didn’t change, we just got better at reading it.

The Shining (1980)

The Shining is now considered one of the greatest horror films ever made - it’s referenced constantly, studied endlessly, and generally treated like a masterpiece - when it first came out though, critics were not impressed.

Some thought it was cold, others didn’t like how much it changed from Stephen King’s book, and it even got Razzie nominations, which feels almost surreal now.

But that “coldness” people complained about is exactly what makes the movie so unsettling - it’s not warm or emotional in a traditional sense - it’s distant, controlled, and slowly suffocating.

Shelley Duvall was also critisized for her performance, even bny Stephen King himself, and a lot of people did not like how overly hysterical the character was at times.

Over time, people stopped expecting a faithful book adaptation and started appreciating the film on its own terms, and once that shift happened, its reputation completely flipped.

Looking at all five of these, there’s a pattern.

I think we have a pattern when looking at these five movies though, as it seems they were all ‘rejected’ simply because they didn’t fit expectations - too slow, too dark, too weird, too different from what people thought they were getting - and critics, like everyone else, watch movies through a lens of what they expect to see, so when a film breaks that expectation, especially in a big way, the first reaction is often resistance.

But time changes that.

Audiences revisit films without the same pressure, without the same comparisons, and suddenly the things that felt “wrong” start to feel intentional, even brilliant.

And that is one of my favorite things about movies - a film doesn’t live or die on its opening reviews, as sometimes it just waits, and then, years later, it gets the recognition it deserved all along.

Subscribe now

Share

The Drama cetainly doesn’t ease you in.

Plot

A happily engaged couple get put to the test when an unexpected revelation sends their wedding week off the rails.

Good Points

• Zendaya and Robert Pattinson

• Tense social dynamics

• Dark humor

• Sharp dialogue

• The tension

• The pacing

Bad Points

• Some conversations feel engineered

• Flashbacks occasionally over-explain

• Certain bit could have been explored further

It’s relentless

The tension is nonstop in The Drama - the “worst thing you’ve ever done” game starts funny, slightly embarrassing - but quickly exposes everyone’s baggage and reveals the fragile, messy humanity of these people.

It has a push-and-pull between empathy and disbelief that drives the movie throughout, where Zendaya, as Emma, tries to hold everything together while everything is seemingly crumbling around her, while Pattinson matches her too with nervous charm and some quiet panic, making Charlie feel both endearing and helpless, and they are both excellent with a chemistry that sells the tension effortlessly.

Borgli’s direction

Kristoffer Borgli attempts to not just show tension in the movie - he wants it to bleed into surreal moments - flashes of memory or imagined consequences make you question what’s real - but it doesn’t matter, as everything seem to carry some kind of weight without ever slowing anything down - the pacing is merciless in the best way - you don’t get a chance to breathe, but you’re too invested to really care.

The humor is as dark as it is funny

We get high school flashbacks, awkward confessions, and some ridiculous romantic gestures - they’re funny, but still always layered with that tension that shines throughout, especially when you realize the implications, and every joke, every quip, lands with a side of anxiety that uncomfortable, but sharp.

The humor though never undercuts the drama, because it amplifies it, where the characters constantly wrestle with morality, which also mirrors the viewers own grappling with empathy and judgment when the film asks - do you love someone for who they are, or for the version you choose to accept?

It’s a bit messy at times

Some conversations do feel a bit too engineered, some flashbacks heavy, and certain subplots thin, but the tension, performances, and direction carry it all anyway, where you become incredibly trapped in the group and invested in the fallout, because every character is flawed, every action has consequence, so the film is constantly challenging your moral compass.

The characters also feel like people you know, or have heard about, with a realism that makes the chaos sting harder, which is what makes the humor funny, and the betrayals hard - this is one of those films where you kind of feel like you’re standing in the room with them, watching everything collapse in slow motion.

By the end, I was drained, and after watching these characters navigate love, betrayal, and secrets, it kind of felt kind of like a heoric act on my part, and I think that’s what helps make it oh so satisfying, like I had survived a hurricane of secrets, lies, and confessions alongside the characters themselves.

Final Verdict

The Drama is darkly funny, and pretty relentless, and I don’t think it’s a movie you will forget watching.

I loved it, and I also didn’t realise Ari Aster produced it until after, which made some of it make a bit more sense.

Trailer

Directed by - Kristoffer Borgli

Written by - Kristoffer Borgli

Cinematography - Arseni Khachaturan

Running time - 105 minutes

Cast - Zendaya, Robert Pattinson, Alana Haim, Mamoudou Athie and Hailey Gates

Subscribe now

Share

Plot

Richard spots a man dumping a body, and decides to expose the man he thinks is the culprit with his friend Alex Cutter.

Good Points

• Jeff Bridges, John Heard, and Lisa Eichhorn are all excellent

• Strong atmosphere of disillusionment

• Naturalistic cinematography

• Sharp, character-driven dialogue

• Refuses to offer easy answers

Bad Points

• Some subplots get dropped

• Pacing drifts a bit in the middle end

Not a mystery - more like a slow unraveling

If you’re after plot satisfaction, this isn’t it - it has a crime, technically, and there are questions, suspicions, and things that should build into a clear answer - but the film doesn’t seem that interested in solving anything.

What it does do though is let you sit with the characters and watch them circle something they, or you, may never fully understand.

Jeff Bridges drifts through it

Jeff Bridges is great here, as he normally is, where as Bone he feels like someone that’s barely connected to anything, where he moves through conversations, relationships, and even danger, with this almost weightless energy to him.

There’s something about how little he pushes that makes everything feel more natural, and that passivity becomes part of the film’s rhythm.

John Heard is the storm

Then there’s John Heard as Cutter, and he’s the complete opposite.

Angry, bitter, stubborn - 3 words to descirbe John Heard as Cutter, someone constantly pushing against everything, where he’s not an easy character to like, but you kind of understand where he’s coming from, so you end up sympathizing with him too.

Lisa Eichhorn

Lisa Eichhorn is the quiet standout in the film though - no big speeches or dramatic moments - just space, silences, looks, and small reactions.

And she uses them well, and her performance fits perfectly with the film’s worn down tone.

It’s all in the atmosphere

A lot of the film is just these characters talking, drinking, arguing, drifting, so on paper, not much is happening.

But it also has this constant undercurrent of unease, and while it is not tension in the traditional sense, it’s more like a slow, creeping dread that something always feels off, even when absolutely nothing is happening.

And it’s that mood that carries the film more than the plot ever does, and the cinematography, handled by Jordan Cronenweth, leans into that feeling too - muted colours, natural light, and long takes that don’t try to dress anything up.

It all just fits.

The conversations as well also aren’t written in a usual polished way - it’s all messy, slightly off, like people talking past each other as much as to each other - Cutter’s rants, Bone’s detachment, Mo’s sarcasm, none of it sounds clever, and it doesn’t need to.

Little resolution

If you’re looking for a resolution, this probably won’t satisfy, because nothing neatly connects, where some things are introduced and then fade out, and there’s even a subplot that feels like it should matter more before it just disappears.

Cutter’s Way is certyainly a film that is more interested in feeling than structure, with stretches where it meanders, especially in the middle, and where conversations stretch out.

But that drift is also part of what defines it, as it gives the film that loose, aimless quality that matches the characters themselves.

Whether that works or not for you depends on what you’re expecting - this isn’t a clean film, but it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to be anything else, where it just presents these people, this world, and lets it sit there without dressing it up.

Final Verdict

Cutter’s Way is slow, and deliberately unresolve, but it’s all about atmosphere and character, and it’s a film that has stayed with me ever since the first time I watched it.

Trailer

Directed by - Ivan Passer

Screenplay by - Jeffrey Alan Fiskin

Based on - Cutter and Bone (1976 novel) by Newton Thornburg

Cast - Jeff Bridges, John Heard, Lisa Eichhorn

Running time - 109 minutes

Cinematography - Jordan Cronenweth

Subscribe now

Share

Plot

In a remote village, two brothers find a demon-infected man just about to "give birth" to evil itself. They decide to get rid of the body, only to end up unintentionally spreading chaos.

Good Points

• Ezequiel Rodríguez and Damián Salomón

• Possession treated as something physical

• Brutal, effective use of gore that actually serves the story

• Natural storytelling with no hand-holding

• Constant sense of unpredictability

Bad Points

• A few minor plot gaps if you overthink it

• Characters make some questionable decisions at times

Evil isn’t summoned - it’s already here

When Evil Lurks flips the usual possession formula you might expect to watch from a horror movie, as here, there’s no big ritual, and no dramatic buildup to something arriving - because it’s already there, and worse, it spreads.

The idea of possession as an infection is certainly a simple one, but it does change everything too, as it makes the threat feel so much more physical, where you can’t just pray it away or outsmart it.

Once it’s there, it’s there.

There’s also almost no/very little exposition, and you get no one explaining any the rules - the film just moves, and you have to just figure things out as it goes.

This style of storytelling makes everything feel that much more immediate and keeps you more on edge throughout, because you’re as in the dark as the characters, trying to piece things together while everything gets worse around you.

It’s the kind of approach, that while simple, that can also fall apart if it’s not handled carefully, but here it works incredibly well.

Performances that carry all the tension

Ezequiel Rodríguez as Pedro really portrays the already worn down before things even start feeling, and there’s this constant sense that he’s trying to outrun something - his past, his mistakes - and failing each time.

That weight is what carries through every decision he makes, so even when he gets things wrong, you can kind of relate to the frustration he is feeling.

While Damián Salomón works as a strong counterbalance to this, as he’s not necessarily a more capable character, he’s just more skeptical, more hesitant, and watching both of them unravel as things spiral is where a lot of the film’s impact comes from.

Violence that sticks

When this film gets brutal, it commits.

There are moments here that don’t just shock, and not because they’re trying to be edgy, but because they feel final - when something happens, it matters, so there’s never any easy reset to it all.

I won’t get into specifics, but there are a few scenes that are hard to shake once you’ve seen them, but as mentioned before, it still feels quite natural how everything feels, and for something this dark, it never drifts into exaggerated horror logic either.

Yes, there are decisions that make you question things, but I found myself thinking, would I actually do any better in that situation?

Probably not.

It’s not just about survival

Underneath everything though, the film also has a strong emotional core, as this isn’t just about escaping evil, it’s also about watching people fall apart while you can’t stop it, and that’s where the film really gets uncomfortable - not the violence, not the possession - the helplessness and sadness that is running throughout the film.

There are some small issues, where a few plot details don’t fully track if you stop and pick at them too much, and the pacing dips slightly in places, but the film has enough momentum - and enough impact - that those flaws don’t stick around for long.

Final Verdict

Bleak, brutal, and uncompromising - When Evil Lurks might not always be clean or easy to watch, but once you have watched it, I doubt you will ever forget it.

Trailer

Subscribe now

Share

But horror isn’t just one big lumbering monster - it’s a Frankenstein’s creature of sub genres, stitched together with blood, screams, and lots of questionable life choices.

Now, I get it, when most people think ‘horror’, they think of being ‘scared’ and more importantly, ‘jump scares’, but you have plenty of different ways to do horror, with a lot of horror films belonging in more than one horror genre, and even non-horror genres too, because as you know, films can be more than one genre….Shocker, right?

And ‘scary’ is incredibly subjective anyway, but I could go on about that for ages…

Slasher Horror – The Holy Grail of Dumb Teenagers and Sharp Objects

Where would horror be without a good ol’ masked psycho with a knife and zero chill?

Slashers really came into their own in the 1970s and ‘80s, with the likes of Halloween setting the gold standard for stab-happy cinema, and often inspired by giallo films from Italy, these films often feature a masked killer and high schoolers making terrible decisions.

Key Ingredients:

A killer with a grudge and a love for theatrical murder setups

Horny, clueless teens

A Final Girl who somehow develops survival instincts just in time

A complete lack of cell service or any adult supervision

Why It Works

It plays on our primal fears – being hunted, isolated, and punished for your sins (especially lust, because horror logic).

Notable Examples

Halloween, Friday the 13th, Scream, A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Psychological Horror – Where the Monster Is Probably Your Own Brain

From Repulsion to The Shining, psychological horror has always aimed higher – or at least deeper - influenced heavily by Gothic literature and the postwar existential dread of the mid-20th century, these films try and explore the human mind as a haunted house of its own.

Key Ingredients

Hallucinations

Repressed trauma

Is-it-real-or-is-it-in-your-head vibes

Sad piano music and a slow descent into madness

Why It Works

It’s horror that sits in your mind, and these films aim to unsettle you, gnawing at the our sense of reality and empathy.

They’re also a critical darling, proving horror can be “serious.”

Notable Examples

Rosemary’s Baby, Jacob’s Ladder, Psycho, The Shining.

Supernatural Horror – Ghosts, Demons, and Other Freeloading Entities

Tracing back to Gothic novels like The Turn of the Screw, supernatural horror is a genre that never really dies – much like its antagonists - from Victorian seances to The Warrens’ cursed object museum, this sub genre is probably the most popular sub genre of horror….I think?

Key Ingredients

Flickering lights

Something moving just offscreen

Religious symbols and rituals

Ghosts who can’t take a hint

Why It Works

The unknown is terrifying, and nothing’s more unknown than what happens after death.

Notable Examples

The Conjuring, Poltergeist, The Exorcist, A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Found Footage Horror – Why Are You Still Filming?

Spawned in earnest by Cannibal Holocaust and made mainstream popular by The Blair Witch Project, found footage turns horror into voyeurism - it was horror’s response to the digital age - grainy, intimate, and cheaper than therapy.

Key Ingredients

Shaky cam

Endless night vision shots

Poor decision making under duress

Heavy breathing

Why It Works

The DIY aesthetic makes the horror feel more authentic, like you stumbled onto something you shouldn’t have, and it’s perfect for viral marketing and low-budget film students.

Notable Examples

REC, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, Hell House LLC

Body Horror – My Flesh Is Betraying Me

Body horror oozed into cinematic consciousness in the 1980s, with directors like David Cronenberg leading the grotesque charge, focusing on our anxieties around disease, mutation, and technology.

Key Ingredients

Unwanted extra limbs

“What is happening to my body?!”

Cronenberg’s filmography

Why It Works

It’s about losing control over the one thing you should be able to trust - your body - where the horror here is both physical and existential.

Notable Examples

The Fly, Videodrome, Tetsuo: The Iron Man, Possessor

Creature Feature Horror – It Has Teeth and We Are Screwed

The creature feature has always mirrored society’s big fears with even bigger jaws, and it’s also a celebration of practical effects and monster makeup wizardry.

Key Ingredients

A thing with claws, teeth, tentacles, or all three

Scientists who definitely shouldn’t have done that

Destruction on a cinematic scale

Helicopters, always helicopters

Why It Works

There’s a primal thrill in watching humanity get humbled by nature – especially when that nature is the size of a small skyscraper.

Notable Examples

Jaws, The Descent, Tremors, The Host

Folk Horror – Cults, Corn, and Poor Life Choices

Folk horror crept out of the woods in the 1970s with the British “Unholy Trinity” (Witchfinder General, The Blood on Satan’s Claw, The Wicker Man), and it’s recently seen a resurgence thanks to A24 and your local occult Pinterest board.

Key Ingredients

Pagan rituals

People who say “you wouldn’t understand, outsider”

No cell towers

Nature being deeply unsettling

Why It Works

It’s all about the fear of the “Other” – the outsider walking into a community with very old, very weird rules - also, flower crowns, as they are somehow quite terrifying.

Notable Examples

Midsommar, Witchfinder General, A Field in England, The Wicker Man

Horror-Comedy – Laugh While You Scream

Comedy and horror have always been kissing cousins - from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein to Shaun of the Dead, horror-comedy aims to delight in meta-commentary and normally some outrageous gore.

Key Ingredients

Gore with a punchline

Meta references

Characters you actually like

Evil that’s somehow hilarious

Why It Works

The emotional whiplash between laughter and fear creates a unique tension – one minute you’re howling with laughter, the next you’re hiding under a blanket.

Notable Examples

Shaun of the Dead, Tucker & Dale vs Evil, The Cabin in the Woods, Evil Dead 2

Sci-Fi Horror – Space: The Final Place to Die Screaming

Sci-fi horror has been freaking people out since Frankenstein, which technically was the first science gone wrong tale, but it really exploded in the late 20th century, thanks to advancements in both science and our paranoia surrounding it all.

Key Ingredients

Aliens/Creatures of some sort

AI gone rogue

Science projects that should’ve stayed in the lab

Existential dread cranked to 11

Why It Works

It taps into fear of progress – that maybe our reach exceeds our grasp, where space is cold, empty, and just wants you dead.

Notable Examples

Alien, Event Horizon, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Splatter Horror – Why Are You Still Screaming?

Splatter is horror turned up to 11 and then drowned in gore, as it doesn’t want to scare you – it wants to assault you, and is the cinematic equivalent of a butcher shop explosion where it screams while ripping out its own intestines for emphasis.

Art? Maybe. Subtle? Never.

Key Ingredients

Buckets of blood (and I do mean buckets)

Exaggerated, cartoonishly graphic violence

Zero concern for realism

Exploding heads, severed limbs, and full-body meltdowns

Why It Works:

Splatter thrives on excess, where the gore is the point, and it’s all a playground for practical effects, where creativity is measured in entrails.

There’s a certain sick joy in watching filmmakers push bodily destruction to absurd limits – and the best ones do it with a wink, too.

Notable Examples

Dead Alive, Tokyo Gore Police, Tag, The Sadness

Survival Horror – Every Person for Themselves

Somewhere between horror and thrillers lies survival horror – a brutal, grounded cousin with no supernatural safety nets - think Deliverance, but with worse luck.

Key Ingredients

Isolation

No help coming

Nature, other humans, or both trying to kill you

One character who says, “We have to keep moving” way too much

Why It Works

It’s raw, primal, and often uncomfortably realistic, as the fear is rooted in situations anyone could fall into – especially with bad GPS.

Notable Examples

The Ritual, Backcountry, The Descent, A Quiet Place

Asian Horror – Ghosts, Guilt, and Grudges

Where Western ghosts whisper boo, Asian Horror spirits scream vengeance while sometimes crawling out of your TV- featuring folklore and urban legends, this sub genre specializes in ghosts, psychological dread, and curses that stick harder than super glue.

Key Ingredients

Vengeful spirits

Technology as a conduit for horror

Guilt-fueled curses

Slow and a nightmarish atmosphere

Why It Works

Asian horror doesn’t rely on jump scares so much as it gets under your skin, like the curse you forgot to forward to seven friends.

Notable Examples

Ringu, Ju-On: The Grudge, The Wailing, A Tale of Two Sisters

Giallo Horror – Blood, Glamour, and Italian Sleaze

Before slashers, there was Giallo – Italy’s neon-drenched cocktail of murder mysteries, black-gloved killers, and synth-heavy soundtracks - equal parts fashion show and stabbing spree, Giallo walked so Michael Myers could run. (Well, actually, he doesn’t run, but you know what I mean).

Key Ingredients

Elaborate murder set pieces

Stylized violence and vibrant color palettes

Mystery with a capital “what-the-hell?”

Screaming women in fabulous coats

Why It Works

Giallo is horror at its most stylish and surreal, as you’re not just scared – you’re confused, seduced, and possibly in love with the killer.

Notable Examples

Deep Red, Blood and Black Lace, Tenebrae, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage

Gothic Horror – Why Is the House Breathing?

Born from crumbling castles, fog-choked moors, and the pages of Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker, gothic horror is the brooding grandfather of the genre, where it’s all about the slow, creeping dread that wants to haunt your bloodline forever.

Where some horror screams, gothic horror whispers through candlelight under the weight of centuries of regret.

Key Ingredients

Decaying architecture with too many locked doors

Ghosts, curses, or both – usually tragic, sometimes vengeful

Flickering lights and suspicious drafts

Melancholy protagonists with very repressed trauma

Why It Works

Atmosphere is everything, because Gothic horror doesn’t need gore to unsettle – it thrives on mood, mystery, and the uncanny.

It’s beautiful and terrible at once, a haunted oil painting brought to life.

Notable Examples: The Others, Crimson Peak, Nosferatu, The Haunting

Eco-Horror – Nature Hates You and She’s Right

When the Earth gets fed up with our nonsense, eco-horror shows up with killer trees, mutant animals, and fungal nightmares, where it becomes environmental guilt with teeth.

Key Ingredients

Nature turning hostile

Warnings about human hubris

Creeping dread with a side of rot

No one recycles in time

Why It Works

Eco-horror taps into yet more real-world anxieties – climate change, pollution, invasive species — and then makes them literal.

Also: plants that eat people.

Notable Examples

The Ruins, Long Weekend, Annihilation, The Bay

Tech-Horror – You Shouldn’t Have Updated the App

When your gadgets go from glitchy to demonic, you’re in techno-horror - it’s a sub genre that screams, “what if Black Mirror was even worse?”

Key Ingredients

Evil apps, rogue AIs, cursed livestreams

Isolation in a hyperconnected world

Technology used exactly as intended… with horrifying results

The slow realization that you can’t log out

Why It Works

Our dependency on tech is terrifying enough, and tech-horror just hits “enhance” on your worst digital fears.

Notable Examples

Host, Companion, Pulse, The Den

Cosmic Horror – You Are Insignificant, and That’s the Problem

Cosmic horror is all about the terror of the unknowable, the incomprehensible, and the realization that humanity is basically an ant at a galaxy-sized picnic.

There are no villains here - just ancient entities, impossible geometry, and the slow unraveling of your sanity as you realize nothing makes sense and nothing ever will.

Key Ingredients

Ancient beings that do not care about you

Knowledge that immediately ruins your life

Characters staring into the abyss way too long

A strong sense that reality is glitching

Why It Works

It attacks our existential fear, a bit like psychological horror in the sense that it makes you feel like nothing matters and something beyond comprehension has already won.

Notable Examples

The Lighthouse, Annihilation, In the Mouth of Madness, Color Out of Space

Analog Horror – Your Childhood TV Is Trying to Kill You

Born on the internet (thanks, YouTube), this subgenre mimics old broadcasts, public service announcements, and glitchy recordings that slowly spiral into something unsettling.

Key Ingredients

Distorted audio and glitchy visuals

Creepy “normal” things that aren’t normal anymore

Vague, ominous warnings

The overwhelming urge to turn it off

Why It Works:

It feels like you’ve stumbled onto something you weren’t meant to see at 2am.

Notable Examples

The Mandela Catalogue, Local 58, Backrooms

Zombie Horror – Society Collapses, and So Do You

Whether they’re fast, slow, infected, or technically not zombies (looking at you, “28 Days Later”), this subgenre is all about how quickly society falls apart when things get bitey.

Spoiler: very quickly.

Key Ingredients

Infection spreading like wildfire

Survivors who are somehow worse than the zombies

Moral dilemmas

That one guy who gets bitten and lies about it

Why It Works

It’s survival horror with a social breakdown bonus, where the real danger is usually other people.

Notable Examples

28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Train to Busan, The Evil Dead

Vampire Horror – Immortality, But Make It a Problem

From ancient folklore to modern heartbreakers with perfect cheekbones, vampire horror has been seducing (and draining) audiences for centuries, and they’ve evolved a lot too - sometimes they’re monstrous predators lurking in castles, sometimes they’re tragic, brooding immortals questioning their life choices, and sometimes they sparkle, but we don’t talk about that.

Key Ingredients

• Fangs, obviously

• Blood as both snack and symbolism

• Immortality with a heavy side of existential dread

• Rules

Why It Works

Vampire horror blends fear with fascination temptation, power, and the idea of living forever, and realizing that might actually suck (pun absolutely intended).

Notable Examples:

Dracula, Nosferatu,Sinners, Let the Right One In

So, there’s Horror for Everyone (Yes, Even You)

Horror isn’t just one thing - it’s a thousand phobias with a production budget - from demon dolls to repressed grief monsters to that one guy who just won’t stay dead - the genre’s diversity is part of its power, and why I love the horror genre so much.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Which ones are on your radar to watch?

Leave a comment

Two Prosecutors - March 30th (Limited Theaters)

In the USSR in 1937, a newly appointed prosecutor discovers an undestroyed letter from a prisoner that reveals corruption in the secret police, the NKVD. His search for the truth becomes dangerous.

Scream 7 - March 31st (Digital/Video on Demand)

When a new Ghostface killer emerges in the town where Sidney Prescott has built a new life, her darkest fears are realized as her daughter becomes the next target.

Silver Star - March 31st (Digital/Video on Demand)

Billie, a young African American woman recently released from prison, kidnaps a pregnant teenager during a failed bank robbery. With nothing left to lose, they set off on a journey together.

Wuthering Heights - March 31st (Digital/Video on Demand)

A passionate and tumultuous love story set against the backdrop of the Yorkshire moors, exploring the intense and destructive relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw.

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie - April 1st -(Theaters)

Mario ventures into space, exploring cosmic worlds and tackling galactic challenges far from the familiar Mushroom Kingdom.

Touch Me - April 2nd (Digital/Video on Demand)

Two codependent best friends become addicted to the heroin-like touch of an alien narcissist who may or may not be trying to take over the world.

A Great Awakening - April 3rd (Theaters)

One of the most defining moments in American history is the story of an unlikely friendship between the Reverend George Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin.

Fantasy Life - April 3rd (Theaters)

An actress (Amanda Peet) falls for the anxious law school dropout (Matthew Shear) babysitting her kids in this smart, New York-set romantic comedy.

The Drama - April 3rd (Theaters)

A happily engaged couple is put to the test when an unexpected turn sends their wedding week off the rails.

A Love Like This - April 3rd (Limited Theaters)

Follows Paul and Leah in a tale of two lovers who rent a Malibu beach house for the weekend, but there is more to their relationship than it seems.

Pizza Movie - April 3rd (Hulu)

High college students face an unexpectedly epic journey when they must navigate two flights of stairs to retrieve their pizza delivery.

Gaijin - April 3rd (Digital/Video on Demand)

Traveling to a legendary temple in Japan to kill himself, an American grad student has his suicide attempt interrupted by the spirit of his dead twin who issues the challenge: Hang on till cherry blossom season.

The Stranger - April 3rd (Limited Theaters)

In 1930s Algeria, the daily life of an indifferent Frenchman is shaken by the death of his mother and a fateful encounter on a beach.

The Blue Trail - April 3rd (Limited Theaters)

To maximize economic productivity, the Brazilian government orders elderly people to move to remote housing colonies. A 77-year-old woman refuses and embarks on a journey through the Amazon that will change her destiny forever.

Premarital - April 3rd (Digital/Video on Demand)

Pastor Stewart Whitaker learns his daughter's fiancé isn't a believer just days before their wedding. His clumsy plan to convert him unravels into a funny, heartfelt clash of faith, family image, hypocrisy, and truth in small-town America.

That’s it for this week!

Plot

A woman answers a cryptic ad for a housekeeping job at a luxurious yet foreboding New York City high-rise. Upon arrival, she discovers residents have vanished without a trace for decades, fuelling whispers of a satanic cult lurking in the shadows.

Good Points

• Zazie Beetz

• Relentless, well-staged action

• Strong sense of momentum throughout

• The setting

Bad Points

• Thin writing that skips over some deeper ideas

• Emotion doesn’t land as hard as it should

You keep up or fall behind.

You won’t be bored while watching They Will Kill You, because this is the kind of film that will grab you early, with little pause to ease you into the mayhem - it just throws you into the first major sequence and from then on, it’s ready-set-go.

And this certainly works in the film’s favour, with a confidence to it that knows exactly what it wants to be and doesn’t feel the need to justify it.

You’re either in for the ride or you will turn it off quickly, which would be a mistake.

Zazie Beetz is the whole thing.

Everything hinges on Zazie Beetz in the movie, and she delivers, and there’s no way around it, if she doesn’t work, none of this works.

She doesn’t play it like an untouchable action lead either, as she looks tired, and stressed, and I think that makes a difference, because when she scrapes through something, it actually feels like she barely made it.

And yeah - she looks cool doing it, which helps.

The action is where the film really locks in though, and once it starts, it doesn’t stop - no polite breaks, and no long stretches of dialogue - just movement, and movement that is incredibly clear.

You can follow every hit, every shift in space, because it doesn’t hide behind quick cuts or messy editing, as it lets you see what’s happening - there’s a definite influence from Kill Bill in how it stages violence, but it also never felt like it was copying either.

It keeps switching things up.

One thing I definitely appreciated was that the fights don’t all feel the same, as some are tight and scrappy, others lean more stylised and exaggerated, and that variety matters in this kind of movie.

It stops the film from becoming repetitive, which is where a lot of action-heavy films start to lose momentum, but here, it keeps finding ways to stay fresh with a sense of humour running through all of it too.

When it leans into the absurd, it really leans in with no half-measures needed.

The supporting cast holds the edges together.

Patricia Arquette brings this calm, slightly off energy that makes every scene feel a bit uneasy, while Heather Graham adds to that in her own way, and Myha’la gives the film what little emotional grounding it has.

They don’t get as much room as they probably should, but they probably do enough to keep things from feeling one-note.

There’s more here than it lets you see.

This is where the film stumbles a bit, as while the writing isn’t bad - it just feels a bit thin.

There are ideas here that could have gone somewhere interesting - bits of backstory, hints at deeper relationships, fragments of something more - but the film doesn’t stick around long enough to explore them, because it introduces things and then moves on.

Now, a lot of people will say they don’t want anything deeper in this kind of film, which I totally get, and don’t disagree, but my point would be to not bring it to the table in the first place if you aren’t going to go a bit deeper into it.

Same would be said about the attempts at emotion.

The relationship between the sisters is clearly meant to be the anchor, but it doesn’t really land much, and while you understand the stakes, and you get what it’s aiming for, it doesn’t fully connect.

The performances do what they can, especially from Myha’la, but the script doesn’t give it enough space.

The setting

The building where it is set shapes how the film moves - each area feels distinct, with its own purpose in the action, and there’s always that sense that something could be waiting just out of view, which helps to keeps things unpredictable.

I did want a bit more from it - there’s clearly more going on in that space than we see - but what’s there works.

At a certain point though, it’s clear the film just cares more about energy than detail - It wants to keep moving, keep escalating, and keep throwing new situations at you.

And to be fair, it works, if that’s all you need from this kind of film, which for me, it is.

Final Verdict

They Will Kill You is completely committed to the mayhem, and while it skips over things it probably could have done a bit more with, it never loses momentum.

Like Ready or Not, it’s not deep - but it doesn’t need to be.

They Will Kill You Trailer

Subscribe now

Share

Plot

Science teacher Ryland Grace wakes up on a spaceship with no recollection of who he is or how he got there. As his memory slowly returns, he soon discovers he must solve the riddle behind a mysterious substance that's causing the sun to die out. As details of the mission unravel, he calls on his scientific training and sheer ingenuity - but he may not have to do it alone.

Good Points

• Ryan Gosling

• Good balance between humour and heavier emotional beats

• Rocky

• Visuals

• Patient pacing

Bad Points

• Final act feels slightly stretched

It probably shouldn’t work

Project Hail Mary is the kind of film that will live or dies on its lead, and thankfully Ryan Gosling delivers, again, featuring long stretches where it’s just him, reacting, thinking, and figuring things out, so if that performance slips, the whole thing collapses.

It never does though, as we watch him react like someone genuinely trying to solve problems in real time.

The film also smoothly the film shifts between humour and heavy weight flawlessly, where Gosling again is impressive - one minute he’s joking in a desperate manner, while the next he’s dealing with something heavier - none of it feels like a switch either, it just flows and works, and that balance is harder to get right than it looks.

A lot of films will either push too hard on the comedy or lean too heavily into the more heavier elements, and this one sits somewhere in the middle and stays there comfortably.

Rocky

Then we have Rocky.

On paper, it sounds rather ridiculous - a rock-like alien becoming the emotional core of the film - but it works, and it works quickly.

Part of that is how he’s presented, because he doesn’t feel like a weightless digital effect, as there’s a sense of physicality, something tangible for Gosling to interact with, and it makes a huge difference - just two completely different beings trying to understand each other.

I caught myself genuinely worrying about what might happen to Rocky, and that’s the moment the film really wins.

Simple, but not empty.

The story itself is straightforward, and I think that really helps, because it doesn’t get bogged down trying to overcomplicate things,and instead, it can focuse on character and interaction, with no constant barrage of twists or spectacle.

Simplicity can work incredibly well when done correctly, and here it is done correctly.

The visuals too do exactly what it needs to - space feels massive, sometimes intimidating, but also calm, with no obsession with making every frame more flashier than it needs to be.

There’s also a real patience to the film, because you won’t be getting constant action or noise to hold your attention - scenes are allowed to play out, and conversations take their time.

The ending goes on a bit.

I did start to feel the length as it moved into the final stretch, and there are a couple of points where it feels like it’s wrapping up - like the natural conclusion has been reached - and then it keeps going.

And then it does it again.

It’s not enough to ruin anything much, but that slight “we could’ve ended 15-20 minutes ago” feeling popped up more into my thoughts.

But there’s enough emotional grounding that those extra minutes don’t feel wasted, just slightly overextended.

You get pulled in

What sticks with you the most however is how it pulls you in, as it’s not pushing for big emotional reactions all the time, it builds through smaller moments - lines, reactions, pauses.

So by the end, I realised I’d been completely absorbed without really noticing when it happened - I cared about what was going on, and what was on screen.

And that’s definitely not something every sci-fi film manages, especially one this contained.

Final Verdict

Project Hail Mary is a simple, patient, and very effective film to watch, and a slightly overlong ending aside, it works so well because you really end up caring.

Subscribe now

Share

Lets start with the very best jump scare that got me good, before moving on to some others.

The Exorcist III (1990) – The Hospital Hallway

A long, static shot lulls you into full complacency, and then out of nowhere, a nurse and a pair of shears nearly kill your soul - expertly done.

The Haunting of Hill House (2018) – Car Scene

You’re watching two sisters argue, and then trauma jumps into the car window, where Mike Flanagan weaponizes emotional vulnerability.

The Conjuring (2013) – Clap Clap

This hide-and-clap scene goes from “wholesome mom stuff” to “paranormal nightmare” in a heartbeat, and ends up becoming a true exercise in negative space and sound design.

Insidious (2010) – Darth Maul Demon Reveal

Patrick Wilson is just having a nice conversation, and out of nowhere, a face demon - it’ isn’t that subtle, but it works.

Well, it worked on me.

Jaws (1975) – Head in the Boat

You’re watching for sharks, but Spielberg decides to throw a decomposing face at you, like a thesis on misdirection in horror, but with 1970s prosthetics.

Sinister (2012) – Lawnmower

Ethan Hawke finds some cursed home videos and watches them, and one of them starts with some calm footage of lawn care…

The Descent (2005) – Night Vision

Claustrophobia is already doing 80% of the work in this film, with the last 20% being a pale humanoid nightmare shrieking in night vision.

It (2017) – Projector Scene

Pennywise hacks a slideshow like some sort of demonic TED Talk, then grows to Kaiju size and lunges out of the frame.

Absolutely no reason this needed to go that hard, right?

What Lies Beneath (2000) – Bathtub Ghost

This is a scream therapy moment that Robert Zemeckis had no business pulling off this well.

Lake Mungo (2008) – Phone Footage

An underrated gem with slow dread throughout, but when you see what’s in that still photo, it’s pure “rewind and pause and stare and regret” energy.

It Follows (2014) – Giant Man at the Door

This film plays quite slow and eerie for most of its runtime, and then suddenly throws a 7-foot man with dead eyes straight at you.

Any particular favorite jump scares you have?

Subscribe now

Share

For anyone who doesn’t know,, although I am sure you all do, Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost are just a comedy dream team, and I really hope we get another film at some point with these 3.

I have watched these 3 films many times, and never get bored of them, and don’t think I ever will.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

I can still remember the first time I watched Shaun of the Dead, and I think I laughed harder than I’ve ever laughed at a film.

Shaun (Pegg), is just a regular guy stuck in a rut, whose life is basically a series of bad decisions and TV marathons, and then, of course, the zombies show up, and that’s when it becomes pure, glorious mayhem.

But the movie isn’t just screaming and running from zombies, as it’s also very clever, where the humor is everywhere, and it sneaks up on you, and one minute you’re watching Shaun try to get to the corner store for a pint, and the next, you’re noticing some tiny visual gag in the background that makes you rewind and watch it again just to make sure you saw it right.

And I did, as I catch new jokes every single time, where every viewing felt like discovering a hidden treasure, from the timing of the punchlines to the little awkward moments between Shaun and Liz.

The zombie sequences are fantastic too, because they manage to be both gory and hilarious – the way the zombies move, the little physical comedy bits, they’re all ridiculous, but that’s exactly the point, as this movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, but it’s not dumb either.

It’s smart in that subtle way that makes you laugh harder when you realize you’re laughing at things you didn’t even know were jokes, and Shaun of the Dead is just one of those horror comedy films that hits every single note perfectly – funny, clever, and touching - it’s one of those films where if someone asks, “What’s your favorite movie?” I pause and think, “Well, Shaun of the Dead is an option.”

Every single thing about it just works, and it’s a perfect storm of comedy genius.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

If Shaun of the Dead was the love letter to zombie movies, then Hot Fuzz is a love letter to buddy cop films and absurd action flicks, where Wright, Pegg, and Frost manage to match the brilliance of Shaun of the Dead in a totally different way.

This time Pegg plays Nicholas Angel, who is your classic overachieving cop, and he’s the kind of guy who follows the rules so obsessively that he’s basically terrifying, and then he gets sent to this sleepy village, where everyone is way too friendly and nothing is as peaceful as it seems, with another cop, Danny (Frost) there to balance him out.

The banter between the two is a thing of beauty, though the movie starts a little slowly, as you’re wandering through this quiet village, getting to know the characters, but once the movie gets going, it is non-stop ridiculousness.

The action sequences are absurd, over-the-top, and hilarious, and in Hot Fuzz, every punch, every gunshot, every chase sequence is perfectly timed for comedy, and t’s ridiculous and brilliant all at once, and compared to Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz is more in-your-face and more absurd, which is still funny, don’t get me wrong.

Nicholas Angel is also a fantastic character – he’s heroic, funny, and sometimes painfully serious – and while Shaun had this relatability, the kind of guy you could root for in your own life, Nicholas Angel on the other hand is a little too perfect to ever feel like your friend, even though you are still rooting for him.

Still, Hot Fuzz is another brilliant watch - the pacing, the comedy, the action, the satire is all on point, and like Shaun of the Dead, it’s one of those films that you can watch over and over, and still find yourself laughing at new things.

The World’s End (2013)

The World’s End is different from the other two films, for starters, it’s not really a spoof of any particular genre, and mostly it’s just weird, but it’s also original, which is both exciting and slightly jarring when you have gotten used to the familiar formula.

Gary King (Pegg) is not like Shaun or Nicholas Angel either, as he’s a washed-up drunk who’s still obsessed with high school glory days, and he drags his friends along on a pub crawl that they tried and failed years ago.

And when I say “drags,” I mean it literally, as this guy is selfish, immature, annoying and somehow, by the end, you’re rooting for him anyway.

The first half of the movie is basically character development, and it’s a lot slower than the previous 2, as you watch old friends bicker, reminisce, and try to relive their youth, but then it explodes.

As mentioned, Shaun and Nicholas Angel are easy characters to root for in the previous movies, but Gary really isn’t - he’s selfish and makes questionable decisions, but part of the point of the movie is that these characters are flawed, and watching them stumble through this bizarre apocalypse is very satisfying.

The ending is also quite different than the other two movies as well, but it still balances the humor and emotion in a way that feels like a true fit for the trilogy, even if it’s not quite as brilliant as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz.

Final Thoughts

When you watch all three in a row, it really reminds you how good this trio is.

The comedy, the visual gags, the clever writing, the little nods to other films and genres - it all comes together in a way that feels effortless, where you just end up having a great time, as that’s what these movies are about.

And if I had to rank them, I’d go with the order they were released.

Subscribe now

Share

Bring Her Back will drag you slowly and deliberately into something quite uncomfortable .

Are you ready for that?

Plot

A brother and sister uncover a terrifying ritual at the secluded home of their new foster mother.

Good Points

• Sally Hawkins

• Billy Barratt

• Sibling dynamic

• Sound design

• Trauma handled with seriousness

Bad Points

• Slow first act

• Oliver is too underexplored

• Final act piles on twists unevenly

My Thoughts

It earns its discomfort.

The first half hour of Bring Her Back tested me a lot with how painfully slow it was, as it lulls you into thinking this is just another grief heavy horror with familiar beats we have seen so many times, before something shifts, and then it all starts to feel a bit off .

It goes from passive to full attention mode activiated, without you even realizing it has happened.

Sally Hawkins

She’s fantastic, and it is one of the best perfoormances in a horror movie I have seen since Toni Collette in Hereditary, where she manages to turn Laura into something that is difficult to pin down - she’s fractured, and held together by grief and ritual, convincing herself she’s doing the right thing - and sometimes that’s exactly what makes something unsettling, as you are watching her and trying to figure out where the line is - before realizing there isn’t one.

Billy Barratt is also excellent as Andy, where we witness a mix of anger and fear where he’s trying to hold things together, and you can see it all slipping before your eyes.

The horror isn’t external.

The fear in Bring Her Back doesn’t come from monsters or even the cult itself, as it’s in the manipulation - watching kids get emotionally cornered by someone who genuinely believes they’re helping - that’s where the tension sits here.

When the film does get violent, it all t feels inevitable, like everything was heading there the entire time.

Sound that irritates on purpose.

The sound design deserves real credit here too, because it doesn’t just support what is happening on screen, it actively works against your comfort - mouth sounds, static, little textures that shouldn’t matter but do, and you might catch yourself reacting to the audio more than visuals at times.

And speaking of the visuals, we get moments where the film shifts how it shows the world, especially through Piper’s perspective - it’s disorienting without being too much, and I liked that it adds to the unease without pulling focus.

The ending

I wasn’t a huge fan of the last 20 minutes ot so, as I felt the final stretch is where things wobbled a bit, where the film starts stacking twists, and not all of them feel necessary, and it shifts tone slightly, like it’s trying to do more than it needs to.

I didn’t hate it, but I noticed it, as what was controlled suddenly felt a bit too crowded.

Ambiguity works - until it doesn’t.

The ritual elements are intentionally vague om the movie - chalk circles, implied rules, fragments of something larger - which works brilliantly for atmosphere, but I personaly wanted a bit more clarity.

Same with Oliver - he’s interesting, but underexplored, and I found myself waiting for something that never quite came.

Slow, but deliberate.

The pacing will be a problem for some people, and I felt it too, but once it settles, that slowness starts to feel like part of the design, and by the end I though it built the tension in a way that faster films don’t really bother with anymore.

But what I really like most is that the film doesn’t treat grief like a gimmick like so many horror films of recent years do - it’s central, but everything grows out of it -Laura’s actions, as extreme as they are, make a kind of internal sense, for example.

Final Verdict

Bring Her Back is slow, uncomfortable, and occasionally frustrating, but it’s an interesting watch once it gets going with enough strong unsettling moments to carry it through its weaker moments.

Trailer

Subscribe now

Share

Now some of them had festival releases in 2023, but wide theatrical releases in 2024, so I am counting them!

Ghostlight

I dare you to stay emotionally neutral during this one.

It’s about a grieving man who stumbles into community theater, and somewhere between the lighting cues and the amateur Shakespeare, he finds himself again. This movie gave me real feelings – like, journal-worthy ones.

The Outrun

Adapted from Amy Liptrot’s memoir, this is one of the most emotional depictions of addiction and recovery I’ve seen in years, where Saoirse Ronan retreats to the Orkney Islands, and what follows is like a spiritual reboot, which is quiet, raw, and beautifully unsanitized.

Wicked Little Letters

I live for Olivia Colman weaponizing passive aggression, and this movie delivers that in spades.

It’s a scandal comedy set in a tiny English village where anonymous vulgar letters start appearing, and the social order unravels in the funniest way - it’s like Broadchurch had a drink and decided to loosen up.

Handling the Undead

If you thought you were tired of zombie films, think again, as this Norwegian horror-drama doesn’t care about brains or apocalypse tropes.

It’s a film about grief and what we’d do to see our dead loved ones again - it’s slow, cold, and heartbreaking.

Good One

A deceptively small film about a teen girl going on a wilderness trip with her dad and his friends, and it absolutely cracked me open.

It’s awkward, it’s tense, and it understands the weird nuances of trying to navigate masculinity as an outsider.

Quiet, smart, and real.

The Sweet East

Imagine Alice in Wonderland filtered through indie-political satire, and you’re close. It’s a fever dream road trip across a fragmented America, and it never stops evolving. Bizarre, brilliant, and oddly hypnotic.

A24 would’ve killed to release this first.

Black Dog

A tender, rugged Chinese drama that had me hooked from the first frame, about a man returning home to round up stray dogs.

It has some sparse dialogue, stark landscapes, and so much unspoken pain, and is a film that trusts your intelligence.

Animalia

If you like your sci-fi weird and metaphor-heavy, this Moroccan gem is for you - its got aliens, but also faith, identity, and some really disorienting dream logic.

Crossing

A beautifully crafted Georgian film about an aunt searching for her trans niece across Europe, where it’s sensitive without being preachy, and its compassion is as powerful as its cinematography.

Bring tissues.

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person

Yes, that’s the title. Yes, it’s really good. This French-Canadian film is goth-girl cinema at its finest.

A coming-of-age story where a vampire tries to live ethically and finds an unlikely bond with a depressed boy - dark, funny, and more touching than you’d expect.

Any underrated movies from 2024 you can recommend?

Subscribe now

Share

I always worry when watching sequels, as some try just way too hard when they don’t really need to, as sometimes, you just want more of the same, and Ready or Not 2: Here I Come delivers just that.

Good Points

• Samara Weaving

• Sharp, darkly funny humor that lands consistently

• Ensemble cast

• The action and horror sequences

• Absurd world-building that feels internally consistent

Bad Points

• Certain subplots feel unnecessary

It has a rhythm.

If you liked the first film, I suspect you are going to enjoy this one too, and while most over-the-top horror-comedies feel like they just pile on absurdity until it collapses, in Ready or Not 2, every kill, chase, and stunt has choreography.

You get multiple characters, simultaneous events, and over-the-top visuals, which all flow brilliantly, and even as the absurdity escalates, you fully understand that is what makes it exhilarating.

The humor lands again

The first film is darkly funny, and of course you are going to expect more laughs here, but this movie surprised me too, as some moments are laugh-out-loud ridiculous, others darkly unsettling, and a few are just pure cringe comedy.

The comedy also never undercuts anyting, either, as even in the most absurd moments, something could still go horribly wrong, and normally does.

It’s a lot of fun.

Samara Weaving and supporting cast

I really do love Samara Weaving, I think she’s brilliant, and she makes this absurd world feel quite coherent, and her performance is again excellent, anchoring all the total madness happening around her.

Kathryn Newton adds so much energy too, and her chemistry with Weaving is brilliant, whichhelps to bring some small, human beats to the movie and it works.

Then we have Elijah Wood who steals scenes with calm, David Cronenberg is brief but good, bringing aristocratic creepiness that’s both funny and unsettling.

The cast’s joy in the all the chaos is quite contagious at watching everyone committing fully to this world.

Controlled insanity.

The action is messy, as you would expect, where the pacing and timing are precise - you see when to push, when to linger, and when to step back - even the bloodiest, loudest stunts never feel out of control.

The cinematography also supports this perfectly - every action is readable, every frame communicates stakes, and the absurdity feels tangible - locations, sets, and stunts make the world feel vast and much bigger than the original without slowing anything down.

The world makes sense.

Despite the madness of what is going on, the film’s universe has rules, too, where each character, each ritual, each family behaves with internal logic., and while it’s ridiculous, it makes sense, with an attention to detail you shouldn’t really expect from this kind of film.

Even the quieter moments work well, which offer breathing room between everythin, and this is what makes it so satisfying, because instead of trying something new, the movie just commits fully to being louder, more ridiculous, and a more over-the-top sequel - and that’s what I wanted from a movie that didn’t really need a sequel, but I am glad they did one.

Final Thoughts

Ready or Not 2: Here I Come is a sequel that improves on the original in many ways, and as said, if you liked the original, I will be surprised if you don’t like this one - it’s ridiculous, confident, and exactly the kind of movie I wanted it to be.

Subscribe now

Share

Some returns feel necessary, but this one feels negotiated - sixteen years is a long gap, and The Godfather Part III never lets you forget it.

After the genius of the first two movies, we get the 3rd, which a lot of Godfather fans don’t even like to talk about, because not only is it a bad Godfather movie, it’s also just a bad movie full stop.

Good Points

• Al Pacino brings a more worn, human version of Michael

• Strong scenes between Michael and Kay

• Andy García

• A few grounded, character-focused moments that actually work

Bad Points

• Overcomplicated plot

• Weakly developed supporting characters

• The Vatican storyline

• Tonal inconsistency

• Sofia you know who.

Is it an ending or a continuation?

That’s the main issue I have with this movie, as it never really resolves, because the film is constantly pulling in two directions - part of it wants to close the story, strip things down, and focus on consequence, while the other part keeps expanding outward with new characters, new conflicts, and new layers of conspiracy.

It never chooses which way it truly wants to go.

Michael still works

This is where the film is strongest, as Al Pacino doesn’t play Michael the same way this time, and I don’t have a problem with that, because if anything, it makes sense.

He’s not the controlled, unreadable figure anymore, - there’s strain now, effort, where you can see the weight of everything sitting on him, and that shift in his character is the best part about the movie, and Al Pacino obviously plays it superbly, too.

The moments with Kay are where it all feels most really focused, where there’s history that doesn’t need explaining, and those scenes slow everything down in the correct way much like in the first two.

Unfortunately the rest of the film does not.

Vincent

I like Vincent, and Andy García is one of the few additions that actually works, and he isn’t just a copy of Michael either - he’s rougher, more impulsive, but not careless - and there’s at least some attempt to show conflict under the surface with him, and because of that he is somewhat interesting, where some of his scenes are the clearest in the film - they’re direct, easy to follow, and don’t get buried under layers of plot.

Which makes it more frustrating when the film complicates him unnecessarily, because the romance subplot doesn’t work., it’s distracting, and raises questions the film doesn’t bother answering, and pulls attention away from what already works.

The film gets louder, but not better.

The helicopter sequence is where things start to slip for me.

I understand what it’s trying to do - show a shift in how violence operates, something more aggressive and public - and that idea works in theory.

In practice, it feels out of place though.

It’s too big, too loud, and it doesn’t match the tone the film had been building, and breaks all tension, where suddenly the focus shifts from character to spectacle, and the film never quite recovers from that.

It’s not a terrible scene, it just doesn’t belong here.

Too many moving parts

This is where the film really struggles.

The Vatican storyline should have been brilliant, as there’s real potential in tying organized crime into institutional corruption on that scale, but it never fully connects.

We have key characters that come and go without leaving much of an impression, so as a result, the stakes never feel concrete. and nothing really pieces together like it should.

When the film reaches its later stages, it starts resolving plotlines that never actually fully landed in the first place - the impact just isn’t there, and without impact, what do you have?

And speaking of impact, Mary is a good example, too.

It’s easy to focus on the performance, but the bigger issue is the writing, because the character isn’t well-defined at all, so when the film leans on her for emotional weight, it doesn’t land the way it should, maybe if they have laid some groundwork it might have, but they don’t.

It spells things out

The first 2 films did not really do this, but the 3rd does, and the ending is where this becomes most obvious.

The film makes its point very clearly - too clearly - there’s no ambiguity, no room to interpret, and it just underlines everything in a way the earlier films never did.

Those earlier films trusted silence, while this one explains.

And that difference matters a lot.

It works best when it’s small.

There are moments where the film almost finds its footing though - Michael alone with his thoughts, conversations that aren’t dramatic, small decisions that carry weight without needing to be announced.

Those moments should define the film, but they’re surrounded by a story that keeps stretching outward, adding more instead of focusing on what’s already there.

It’s a mess of a film really, both as a Godfather film and a standalone, and incredibly unfocused.

Final Thoughts

There’s a stronger, simpler film buried inside the mess, and you can see it in the quieter moments, and in the restraint it occasionally shows.

But it reaches outward and inward at the same time - and ends up stuck in between.

Subscribe now

Share

So, yesterday I gave some thoughts on The Godfather - one of the best films ever.

Today, let’s take a look at The Godfather Part 2 - not only one of the best sequels ever, but it’s even better than the first one, in my view.

It has a lot in common with the first, as you would expect, but it also goes that extra mile…

Good Points

• Al Pacino and Robert De Niro

• Coppola’s direction

• Story

• Dark, deliberate cinematography and restrained music

• Tension and emotion build naturally

Bad Points

• The pacing at times.

It’s a world, not a movie.

Godfather 2 is all about cold precision, featuring Michael’s rise, a person who is both captivating and horrifying at the same time., but he is also someone you admire from afar.

Pacino carries decades of wear beneath calm surfaces, then quietly bursts when betrayal hits, and as you watch him, you keep thinking about acting as trust - trust in the camera, Coppola, and the silence between lines - and that economy of performance makes the power in the film hit the screen better, as it’s not imposed, it’s ever so purposeful..

De Niro is also a joy to watch, as he normally is, where he’s all about the gestures, much like Brando was in the first film, where every small gesture is loaded with consequence, and his storyline is just brilliant.

John Cazale is also back and as uneasy and unsure as ever, always in the shadow of power, where the tension between loyalty and weakness is never far away.

Even characters who appear briefly feel like they occupy real space and have real stakes, and that’s a level of attention for minor roles that most films wouldn’t bother with.

But Godfather 2 is not most films.

Dark Humor and Pacing

You don’t expect to notice humor in this kind of film normally, but it’s there, dark and sly, as while these people are monstrous, they are also petty, fragile, and human, where the absurdity of their behavior is in the lines that makes them relatable in a way that’s almost uncomfortable - watching a mafia family negotiate betrayal, jealousy, or pride sometimes managed to actually elicite a dry laugh from me.

The pacing also reinforces that, as it’s also uncomfortable, much like the first movie, it’s long, and yes, it can sometimes drag, but again, each scene earns its place,and where modern films often mistake speed for intensity, here the intensity comes from the restraint - letting tension accumulate almost painfully before the payoff lands.

Emotion in the margins.

Michael’s life is incredibly calculated, featuring a lot of cold logic, yet grief, loneliness, and quiet horror seep through gim, where his moral and emotional erosion is sustained and terrifying, and it feels like you are peering into a brilliant mind quietly breaking which watching him - gestures, staging, and silence carry all the emotional weight without spelling anything out.

Contradiction and irony also run through most scenes - triumph and failure, joy and devastation, hope and despair all coexist - where it refuses to give you any neat resolutions, and that’s the cost of ambition,the fragility of family, and the corrosive nature of power.

Visual and Technical Notes

The lighting and framing are understated but oh so precise, featuring a lot of shots that are just about obscure enough to make you uneasy, while again, much like the first film, the music mostly stays out of the way.

Sound design and space interact together that even a glance or a small object in a frame carries meaning, tracking the shifts in power and identity without drawing attention.

Some of what I have said mirrors what I said about the first film to be fair, so….

Why do I think The Godather Part 2 is better than The Godfather?

If the first one is a perfectly cooked steak, the sequel is a full course meal - parallel storytelling? Genius. Young Vito’s rise? Oscar-level casting. Michael sinking into moral quicksand? Deliciously bleak - it doesn’t just tell a story, it dissects power, family, and self-destruction like a textbook you don’t want to read but can’t put down.

The first movie gives you the story, the second movie gives you the story and the existential hangover - Pacino aging in real time, Brando-esque subtlety from De Niro - yeah, it’s meticulous.

You feel like you’re being schooled in what it means to inherit a legacy, then slowly realize that the legacy is a trap.

That’s why it’s better.

Final Thoughts

The Godfather: Part II is a complete world, which is quietly devastating, and endlessly fascinating.

It’s not just watched - it’s inhabited.

Tomorrow, I will finish up with part 3 - I may not be so nice with that one.

Subscribe now

Share

I have watched The Godfather many times, and everytime I do watch it I notice even more that it never feels like it’s trying to impress you, it just does.

Good Points

• Controlled, confident direction

• Strong performances

• Atmosphere built through lighting, framing, and silence

• Subtle use of music and sound design

• Themes of loyalty and power handled without any heavy-handedness

Bad Points

• Pacing can feel slow and distant in stretches

It doesn’t push

The Godfather is a movie that is incredibly comfortable with staying inside its own world, with little outside perspective, and no attempt to step back and comment on what’s happening - everything is filtered through the family, their rules, and their logic.

This really helps to make the movie even more engaging, even if it’s not exactly a comforting place to sit, but it also never pushes you into sympathizing, and it doesn’t try and manipulate you either - it just lays everything out and lets you sit with it.

Marlon Brando does very little here, yet is masterful, and he brings a constant sense of authority in how he moves and speaks, where nothing feels wasted when he is on screen.

Al Pacino is even more interesting to me though, with his controlled, almost held back shift in character, with the small changes the ones you notice the most as he quietly adjusts to what is happening around him.

John Cazale stands out in a different way, as there’s an unease to him, a lack of confidence that contrasts with everyone else - and while I didn’t like the character, I understood him, and that makes certain scenes harder to watch, but I suppose, that’s the point.

Everything is controlled, even the visuals.

The camera rarely moves without a reason, and it feels like it’s just observing rather than guiding, a bit like you as the viewer, and there’s space for you to take things in without being told how to feel, while the lighting is dark, intentionally so - faces half-hidden, rooms closed off, details slightly obscured - which helps to create this sense that things are always being concealed, even when they’re right in front of you.

Details do the heavy lifting.

Upon every rewatch, I notice new small things - gestures, objects, the way scenes are staged - where nothing draws attention to itself, but it all adds up, and the film clearly trusts those details to carry meaning without underlining them, and I do like that approach.

Costumes and setting too are at play here and meaningful with how quietly it tracks shifts in power and identity - it’s subtle, but it’s there if you’re paying attention, but the film doesn’t rely on it - it just lets it exist as part of the structure.

You have to love that.

Sound that knows when to stay quiet.

The sound design is something that caught me off guard the first time I watched it, because there are moments where it becomes more intense than originally expected, almost overwhelming, and it did not feel too realistic either, but I have learned it doesn’t need to be either - it feels more internal than external, and the more I watch it, the more I realize it works, even if it was slightly jarring at first.

The music, on the other hand, stays out of the way for most of the film, and it never tries to take over the scene, which gives everything else even more room to breathe.

Slow, but deliberately so.

You do feel the length at times, least I do, as there are stretches where the pacing slows enough that you really became aware of it, but at the same time, that same pacing allows scenes to show even more without ever pointing it out to you.

There are long conversations, quiet transitions, and moments where nothing “dramatic” seems to happen on the surface, but that slowness is doing some very deliberate work, as it’s meaning through observation.

Take the early wedding sequence - it runs long, introduces many characters, and doesn’t rush to a clear narrative goal - but by the time it ends, you understand the world- how favors work, how respect is negotiated, how Vito Corleone operates without needing explicit explanation.

It’s all very purposeful, The Godfather in the end is all about loyalty, and how it handles it, as it doesn’t present it as purely good or purely damaging, it just shows you how it shapes decisions and consequences without offering a clear judgment.

It’s a great balance, with no neat takeaway, no moment where the film tells you what to think either - it just presents the reality of it and moves on.

Oranges, anyone?

Final Thoughts

The Godfather is controlled, restrained, and occasionally distant, but that distance also works - it’s a well loved film for a reason.

Subscribe now

Share

With Ready or Not 2: Here I come releasing this week, I thought it was time I revisted the original.

Synopsis

Grace couldn’t be happier after she marries the man of her dreams at his family’s luxurious estate. There’s just one catch - she must now hide from midnight until dawn while her new in-laws hunt her down with guns, crossbows and other weapons.

Good Points

• Samara Weaving

• Good balance between gore and dark humour

• The family dynamic

• The single-location setting

• Dialogue is dry, and consistently funny

Bad Points

• Some logic stretches are more noticeable on rewatch

The simplicity is the strength.

Nothing really needs to be explained about this movie, because the premise is simple, almost blunt, and that’s enough here - there’s a game, it’s chosen at random, and nobody over-explains why that even matters.

And when the shift happens, you know when everything clicks into place, it’s uncomfortable, where the family’s reaction tells you everything you need to know, and the film just moves forward from there.

Situation presented - tension builds.

That’s it.

It’s a lot of fun

I love how deliberately incompetent the family is, and they’re certainly not a well-oiled machine - they argue, they panic, they make mistakes - and it would’ve been easy to turn them into a clean, efficient threat, but the film goes the other way, and I think that’s why it works, because they are also hilarious.

It all feels very unpredictable at times with them, because there’s no sense of control, it’s just people trying - and failing - to handle something they treat like tradition but clearly aren’t equipped for.

Violence that knows what it’s doing.

There’s an early moment in the film with a weapon that doesn’t behave the way it should, and it sets the tone, so fom that point on, the violence stays messy, abrupt, and funny, and never stops.

I don’t usually enjoy gore for its own sake, but here it’s balanced carefully enough, as it never tips into excess just to shock, because the absurdity of the situation keeps it from doing so, and I really get the sense watching that the film knew exactly how far it could push things without losing me.

It almost seemed quite clever in its simplicity.

Samara Weaving and the family

I think Samara Weaving is brilliant in most things she does, and she is here too, with her character not written as overly capable but also not completely helpless - she adapts, she reacts, and she gets frustrated, and much like a lot of the film, she’s also funny.

While the supporting cast doesn’t get equal depth, they don’t need to either as each family member feels distinct enough to leave an impression, and they all do a brilliant job where some treat the situation like an obligation, others like an inconvenience, and they bring a lot of variety to it all.

It knows exactly what tone it wants.

What I did notice most on rewatching it though was how controlled the tone really is, as it doesn’t swing wildly between horror and comedy, it just stays in that middle space, adjusting slightly depending on the moment.

All the humour comes naturally from the situation rather than forced jokes - dialogue is dry, blunt, and often unintentionally funny - and nobody feels like they’re performing for laughs, which makes it even funnier.

There’s a moment near the end that sums it up perfectly, a line delivered so casually, considering everything that’s just happened, that it almost catches you off guard.

And if you don’t know, that line is the tagline below the title - it’s a brilliantly simple scene.

Final Thoughts

Ready or Not still works, and I am not sure it’s a film I will ever get bored of, and while I don’t think a sequel was needed, if it is half as good as this one, I will be satisfied.

Subscribe now

Share