Horror Film Review: War of the Satellites (dir by Roger Corman)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1958’s War of the Satellites opens with a tragedy.

The United Nations is leading the way in humanity’s attempt to explore space. Unfortunately, ten manned spaceships (or “satellites” as they’re called in this film) all run into the same problem. There’s a “space barrier” around the Earth, one that traps any ship that flies into it. On Earth, Dr. Pol Van Ponder (Richard Devon) is forced to remotely blow up both the ships and the UN’s astronauts. It looks like the the UN’s space program is coming to an end.

Or, at least, it does until an unseen group of aliens drop a missile on Earth. The missile, when it’s discovered by two “teenagers” who appear to be in their 30s, doesn’t explode. Instead, it simply carries a message. Don’t try to explore space, the message says. A group of snooty aliens have decided that humanity is not ready to leave the planet. The message is read at the UN. In a scene that warmed my heart, the American delegate replies that no one tells humanity what to do. The aliens don’t want us in space? Well, guess where we’re going, baby!

(Woo hoo! I love my country!)

Unfortunately, Dr. Van Ponder is in a serious car accident and is killed. Or, at least, that’s what everyone believes until he shows up at the UN without a scratch on him. Van Ponder explains that he miraculously survived the accident and he’s now ready to lead the UN mission into space. The UN takes his survival as a sign that Van Ponder is meant to take humanity to the stars.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Dr. Van Ponder actually was killed in that accident and the man at the UN is not Van Ponder but instead just an alien pretending to be him. A few people notice that Dr. Van Ponder is acting strangely. He speaks without emotion and uses curious phrases. When he burns his hand during an experiment, he barely seems to notice. When he’s alone in his office, he creates a second duplicate Van Ponder so that he can be two places at once. Everyone who suspects that Van Ponder is actually an alien ends up dead. Once the satellite takes off, it falls to crewman Dave Boyer (Dick Miller) to not only thwart Van Ponder’s evil scheme but to also convince Sybil Carrington (Susan Cabot) that Van Ponder is no longer the man who she thinks she loves.

Reportedly, a day after the Russians launched Sputnik, Roger Corman met with film producer Steve Broidy and said that, in return for $80,000, he could have a satellite movie ready to go in 90 days. Broidy asked him what the film would be about and Corman replied, “I don’t know but I will have the picture ready.” Broidy handed over the money and Corman shot War of the Satellites over the course of ten days. Corman also said that Broidy was so impressed with the film that he gave Corman an extra $500 to throw a party for the cast and crew. Corman never threw the party.

As for War of the Satellites, it clearly a rush job. The interior of the space ship is basically two rooms and a couple of chairs. The idea of the UN having a space program feels ridiculous today and I imagine it probably felt just as ridiculous in 1958. (We should have kicked the UN out of New York decades ago) That said, I have to admit that I really enjoyed this film. Richard Devon gives an appropriately off-center performance as Dr. Van Ponder and this film actually features Dick Miller in a rare heroic starring role. Even though he’s playing an astronomer, Miller still comes across like a New York wiseguy and my favorite scenes are the one where he gives Van Ponder a look that just seems to shout, “What are ya talking about, ya putz?” There’s something really enjoyable about watching scrappy Dick Miller play the type of role that would usually go to someone like Peter Graves or Kenneth Tobey. In an interview, Miller said that he felt miscast as the hero because he was only 5’5 while Devon was 6’1. But the fact that Devon is actually so much taller than Miller only makes us rooft for Dick Miller even more. As played by Dick Miller, Dave Boyar becomes the type of underdog that you can’t help but cheer for.

The best thing about this film is that it loudly declares that no one, no matter how scientifically-advanced or snooty, gets to tell humanity what to do. You want us to stay on Earth? We’re coming for the moon!

No one puts us in a corner.

October Hacks: Slashlorette Party (dir by Paula Ragsdale and Angelica de Alba)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in 2020, Slashlorette Party is a decent indie slasher. It isn’t totally successful, but it deserves credit for respecting the rules of the genre while using those rules to explore something more than the usual hacking and slashing. This is a film that never apologizes for being a slasher, and I appreciated that. I’m tired of horror movies made by people who think they’re better than the genre. At the same time, this is a film that not only has blood on the floor but thoughts in its head. There’s something to be said for that.

Molly Souza plays Brie, who is engaged to Dolph (Andrew Brown). The wedding is just around the corner, but there’s one big problem: Brie has just realized that she doesn’t really like Dolph that much. In fact, Dolph is such a jerk that he almost feels like a parody of the bad boyfriend who always shows up in romantic comedies so the sweet, sensitive guy will look even better as he encourages the female lead to dump him. (Strangely, no one ever asks, “What did you ever see in someone like that to begin with?”) Brie’s therapist (Ginger Lynn Allen) thinks Brie should consider ending the engagement. Meanwhile, Brie’s friends Alexa (Brooke Morris) and Nia (Nina Lanee Kent) want her to stay engaged at least long enough for them to throw her a bachelorette party at a remote cabin in the woods. You know who else loves parties in remote cabins in the woods? Homicidal maniacs!

Slashlorette Party is about more than just people being murdered in the woods. Absolutely no one in the film seems to believe that Brie should marry Dolph. Dolph is such a jerk that even when Brie disappears in the woods, he responds by sitting around and drinking a beer. Brie can barely stand Dolph, but she feels that she’s obligated to marry him because he asked and that otherwise she’ll run the risk of being forever single. Meanwhile, Dolph and his friends spend their time talking about how easy they believe women have it compared to men. In their worldview, all women are teases and all men are victims. (Ironically, the dumbest and most outspoken of the men actually does end up getting teased by one of the women shortly before getting his hand cut off by someone who is even more misogynistic than he is. His prediction of being both teased and victimized comes true, even if he’s too stupid to appreciate it.) When the deaths occur, they feel like a commentary on incel self-pity. Brie and her friends are targeted because of the male gaze. The men fall victim because they’re too hopelessly whiny and beta to defend themselves.

Slashlorette Party is a low-budget indie horror film. At first I didn’t have much hope for it. It seemed like just another movie that would feature a lot of bad acting and maybe some semi-decent gore. For the first half, the pace does feel off, and I spent a lot of time wondering if anyone was actually going to die. In the second half, though, things pick up. There are a few memorably bloody deaths. There are a few interesting twists. It becomes obvious that the film is meant to be more than a typical wilderness slasher. There’s some bite to the dialogue. There’s a funny joke about a male stripper who shows up as a policeman and finds himself stumbling onto a real crime scene. When the film started, I thought Dolph was too much of a lout to be believed, but the movie has a few surprises up its sleeve when it comes to his character. It ends with a final twist you will either love or hate. I always appreciate a film that’s willing to risk being hated.

I’ve been to enough bachelorette parties that I could relate. It isn’t really a bachelorette party until at least one person has said something they shouldn’t have and the bride-to-be is locked in the bathroom having a panic attack. If nothing else, this film captures the feeling of a bunch of people realizing their friend is about to make the biggest mistake of her life and deciding to throw a party to celebrate.

SOV Horror: Psycho Scarecrow (dir by Steve Galler)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In an alley in the middle of a big city, a junkie puts a human-sized mirror on the ground so that he can snort one tiny line of cocaine. Suddenly a disturbing image is reflected in the glass: a young woman (Tracy Rankin) plunges to the ground and crashes straight into the mirror. The mirror is shattered. So is the woman. The cocaine? Presumably it’s scattered to the wind. There’s probably a lesson for us all there.

So starts Psycho Scarecrow, a surprisingly enjoyable shot-on-video horror film from 1996.

The woman is named Sheila Murphy. When two detectives (Tim Vince and Joe Parro) arrive at Sheila’s apartment, they debate whether she committed suicide or was thrown to her death. The veteran detective thinks it is a clear case of suicide. It’s late, and he just wants to wrap up the investigation and go home. The younger detective, however, insists that they listen to the message Sheila tape-recorded before her death.

The rest of the film switches back and forth between the past and the present. Sheila’s final message tells the story of how she and her friends decided to go camping for the weekend and, after their car broke down, ended up spending the night in a cornfield. When one of the friends was accidentally killed, they decided to cover up the death by dressing him up as a scarecrow and leaving him in the field. Unfortunately, the field was cursed. Soon Sheila and her friends found themselves being stalked by a heavy-set scarecrow that had a pumpkin for a face. He also rides a motorcycle.

Psycho Scarecrow took me by surprise. This is a low-budget, shot-on-video horror film that actually features clever dialogue, a lot of atmosphere, and a villain who should be silly but is actually pretty creepy. Psycho Scarecrow pokes fun at the conventions of the horror genre while also showing that it understands how to use those conventions to tell an effectively spooky story. It plays out like a story you might hear while sitting around a campfire, or maybe in your living room when a storm is raging outside and the electricity is out. (Sheila’s taped narration definitely helps as far as that’s concerned.) It’s a story that will occasionally make you roll your eyes or even laugh, but it’s still told effectively enough that you’ll look over your shoulder before walking off on your own.

What makes this film so effective is that the filmmakers obviously understood the limitations of the shot-on-video (SOV) genre and, instead of being imprisoned by those limitations, used them to their advantage. The majority of the film is shot at night. Actually shooting at night is a dangerous thing. I’ve seen so many SOV films where the night scenes were so dark that you couldn’t even see what was happening on screen. (There’s a reason Hollywood developed the day-for-night shot.) In Psycho Scarecrow, the night scenes are dark but still lit enough that you can actually see who is in the scene. The background darkness becomes a character of its own. Characters emerge from and disappear into the darkness, and we’re always aware that there could be anything hiding in the shadows.

I assume the cast was made up of amateur and local actors, but everyone does a good job of bringing their characters to life. Even the scenes with the two detectives don’t slow down the action, and it’s hard not to smile at how the veteran detective refuses to accept that Sheila was murdered despite all of the evidence his partner easily uncovers.

Ultimately, what makes the film work is its rural atmosphere, which is both intriguing and ominous at the same time. Watching the film, I was reminded of the times I’ve spent in the country. I remembered walking through fields of high grass in shorts and a T-shirt and freezing in place because I heard what sounded like a snake slithering nearby. I remembered stopping to use my inhaler and trying not to think about how easy it would be for someone or something to hide behind the round bales of hay that decorated the landscape. I remembered the feeling that anything could be out there. It was scary and exciting at the same time.

Psycho Scarecrow is an enjoyably creepy SOV production. It’s the type of film that deserves to be rediscovered this Halloween.

The TSL Horror Grindhouse: Amityville A.I. (dir by Matt Jaissle)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Let’s give some credit to the Amityville franchise. It simply does not stop.

In November 1974, 23-year-old Ronald DeFeo Jr., a heroin user, murdered his entire family in their home at 112 Ocean Avenue in Amityville, New York. After realizing no one was going to buy his original claim that the Mafia killed everyone but left him alive, he eventually said a demon had possessed him. Some people believed that story because some people will believe anything that involves demonic possession.

A family called the Lutzes moved into the Amityville murder house, lasted a few weeks, then fled and claimed they’d been haunted by the same demons that drove DeFeo to kill. It was a stupid story, but it fed the 1970s obsession with the apocalypse and demonic possession. That was the decade of The Exorcist and The Omen. A “non-fiction” novel was published and became a bestseller. In 1979 a movie was made and became a hit. In the years since, there have been dozens upon dozens of films with “Amityville” in the title. Some are actual Amityville films. Most are generic low-budget horror that just borrowed the name. What they all have in common is the claim that DeFeo was possessed by Satan and that the Lutzes weren’t lying about the house being haunted. If there really is an Amityville Demon, it’s probably furious by now. These films do not make it look good.

In 2024’s Amityville A.I., Stuart Birdsall (William Childress) is the latest person to move into a house in the Amityville area. (It doesn’t appear to be the original house, though a few shots suggest they share the same attic windows.) Stuart is developing an A.I. and he’s convinced he’ll get the work done in the new place. Unfortunately the house is possessed, and soon so is his program. Even worse, the demon starts possessing the other electronic devices in the neighborhood. Stuart’s neighbor owns a sex doll that is soon running around saying, “Do you want to have sex?” while flashing a knife.

Amityville A.I. mixes demonic possession with the current moral panic around artificial intelligence and data centers. To be honest, Stuart’s A.I. doesn’t seem particularly practical. Its name is VIC 3000 and it is clearly riffing on HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Setting Vic up means lugging around a lot of bulky equipment. There are several scenes of Stuart staring at diagrams on his laptop, and it’s never quite clear what any of it has to do with VIC or why anyone would pick VIC over the other A.I. options out there. Perhaps that’s why the demon starts messing with him. Hubris, not artificial intelligence, will be the downfall of .… well, it feels a bit too dramatic to say humanity. How about Amityville? Hubris will be the downfall of Amityville.

That said, I actually enjoyed Amityville A.I. It’s a low-budget movie that looks like a low-budget movie, but it commits to the bit. The sight of Stuart being chased by a psychotic, smiling sex doll belongs in the Amityville Hall of Fame. Whether it’s the demon, the A.I., or just his own twisted mind, Stuart is put through the wringer, and the film does tap the fear a lot of people have right now: that A.I. is both convenient and destined to destroy us.

If the first Amityville film’s message was that you should just leave the house, this one suggests you should consider disconnecting. Good luck with that.

Previous TSL Amityville Reviews:

Brad reviews WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU (1980), directed by Tsui Hark!

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Bradley Crain

WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU (1980) is the story of Agent 999 (Norman Chu), an agent of the Central Surveillance Agency, who comes to a remote island to catch the notorious criminal, Rolex (Melvin Wong). Once he gets there, he discovers that the island is overrun by crazed cannibals and is ruled over with an iron fist by a power mad Chief (Eddy Ko). Chief hoards the human meat of unsuspecting travelers who happen upon the island for himself and his soldiers, leaving the villagers to starve. As Agent 999 continues his investigation and tries to avoid becoming lunch, he finds out that the repentant criminal Rolex has become the Chief’s aid in order to expose the evils of the island to the authorities on the mainland without having to go back to jail himself. When Rolex’s plans don’t work out, Agent 999 must then team up with a goofy thief (Hon Kwok-Choi) to fight off the cannibals, save his newfound love (Michelle Kim), and get the hell off of the island in one piece!

The second film to be directed by Hong Kong icon Tsui Hark, WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU is a wild hybrid film that leans heavily into horror, comedy and martial arts. It’s an odd mix that contains jarring shifts in tone, a staple of Hong Kong Cinema of the 80’s. One minute we’re watching men have their arms cut off and their guts ripped out, only to immediately shift to slapstick rape humor, before shifting to badass martial arts / roller skating kung fu action choreographed by a young Corey Yuen. Completely unpolished in terms of production values, it’s acquired somewhat of a cult classic status due to its raw energy, gory subject matter, directorial pedigree, and anti-communist political themes. I thought Norman Chu was good as Agent 999, even if his charismatic agent isn’t always as observant as we’d hope he’d be. Eddy Ko, who is in one of my favorite Hong Kong films, THE MISSION (1999), can be both menacing and goofy as the Chief who will pretty much do anything to preserve his power and supply of meat. The island village puts off its own scary vibes with its creepy slaughterhouse and masked cannibals, always at the ready to hack off a body part. It adds up to a rather unique viewing experience.

While WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU is certainly not for everyone due to its subject matter, those who appreciate the frenetic action of Hong Kong cinema will enjoy this film. It will also fit the bill for those who like kung fu action mashups served with sides of gory gore and silly giggles. Just don’t expect it to have the polished look of Hark’s later films such as PEKING OPERA BLUES (1986) and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA (1991).

Horror Book Review: The Funhouse by Dean Koontz, writing as Owen West

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1980, Dean Koontz was hired to write a novelization of The Funhouse. At the time, he was not yet a household name. He still regularly worked as an author-for-hire under a string of pseudonyms; for this book, he originally published as Owen West. While Tobe Hooper was in pre-production, Koontz was assigned to turn Larry Block’s screenplay into a fast, accessible novel. He was not particularly impressed by Block’s story, but he liked the idea of writing about a carnival. Production delays meant the novelization reached stores in late 1980, months before the film. It sold well at first. When the movie finally opened in 1981 and did disappointing business, the book’s sales collapsed. Years later, after Koontz had become a bestselling author in his own right, The Funhouse was reissued under his real name.

The first thing that stands out is how little the novel has in common with Hooper’s film. The movie, of which I am a fan, is a fairly straightforward, atmosphere-heavy slasher. Teenager Amy and her three friends hide in the funhouse after the carnival closes, witness a murder, and find themselves hunted by a carny and his son. Those elements are all present in Koontz’s book, but he adds a large amount of backstory, most of it centered on Amy’s alcoholic mother, Ellen.

In the novel, Ellen is the ex-wife of Conrad the carny. A runaway, she married him without realizing he was a Satanist who hoped she would give birth to the Antichrist. When their demonic infant attacked her, Ellen crushed the baby. Conrad swore revenge: he would let her go so he could hunt her down later and destroy whatever family she built. What plays as random bad luck in the film becomes something very different here. Over the years, Conrad and his second son, the deformed Gunther, take their carnival from town to town in search of Ellen and her new family. The other carnival workers are drawn as sympathetic figures, people on the margins who have formed a family of their own and have no idea how depraved Conrad and Gunther really are.

Family is the novel’s real subject. Ellen has remarried and has two children, Amy and Joey. In the film, Amy is a typically naïve final girl, and Joey is an annoying brat who sneaks out to the carnival. Ellen appears only briefly and makes little impression, though she is seen drinking as Amy leaves the house. In the book, Ellen hits Amy when her daughter says she is pregnant, then pays for the abortion because she fears Amy might give birth to the Antichrist. Joey is terrified of Ellen and runs away to the carnival because, like Ellen before him, he wants an escape from a dysfunctional home. The contrast between the carnies’ supportive found family and Amy and Joey’s abusive “respectable” household is easy to spot, but it still works.

Koontz’s eye for detail and his gift for vivid characterization lift The Funhouse above the usual horror novelization. The plot is occasionally stretched thin. Conrad’s revenge scheme never quite makes sense. What if Ellen had stayed unmarried and never had another child? Even so, Koontz keeps the action moving and is smart enough to lean into the melodrama without apology. He even lands a surprisingly moving final scene.

This is a case of a novelization that diverges sharply from its source. I like both Hooper’s film and Koontz’s novel. They are both wonderfully macabre. The film is true to Hooper’s aesthetic. The novel is pure Koontz.

October True Crime: Devil On Campus (dir by Elisabeth Rohm)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Remember The Vow?

A two-season docuseries that aired on HBO, The Vow featured former members of the NXIVM cult telling their stories and trying to downplay their own involvement in all of the cult’s crimes. In one of the show’s key scenes, former filmmaker and NXIVM follower Mark Vicente angrily exclaimed that anyone could get brainwashed. Anyone could become a member of a cult.

I have never really believed that.

I’ve sat through several documentaries and docudramas about cults. I have listened to countless interviews with disillusioned former members. One thing that has always really stood out to me is that people who get brainwashed and join cults are usually some of the stupidest, flakiest people in the world. Inevitably, they always say they felt they were missing something in their lives and that they needed a greater purpose. And to that, I say, “Big deal.” If something’s missing from your life, volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don’t give up your identity for a commune. Cults seem to appeal to weak-willed people who want to be told that they’re victims first and individuals last.

I found myself thinking about all of this as I watched 2024’s Devil on Campus: The Larry Ray Story. Based on a true story, Devil on Campus opens in 2010 with Larry Ray (Billy Zane) showing up at his daughter’s dorm room at Sarah Lawrence College. Larry has just been released from prison, though he claims that he was set up by Rudy Giuliani and former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik. Larry is charismatic and energetic. He has a gift for telling stories that sound like they could potentially be credible as long as you don’t give them too much thought. Larry also has a lot of money and, at the start, he seems to have a generous nature.

Larry is soon living in the dorm room and controlling the lives of both his daughter and her roommates. He can be tough. He can be erratic. But he repeatedly tells all of them that he’s just trying to help them. Larry encourages them to express their emotions and to cry and to have sex with each other. Eventually, he encourages them to live in an off-campus apartment with him, to work (without pay) on his family farm, and finally to work as sex workers. Eventually, some break away from him and some do not. It’s good that some realized the truth, but it’s hard not to be disappointed that it took them so long to do so.

Though a few names have been changed, Devil on Campus sticks close to the facts of the case. The movie works largely due to Billy Zane’s bigger-than-life screen presence. The minute that Zane appears in the film, he dominates every frame. He plays Larry as someone smart enough to know that the way to keep people from questioning you is to just keep talking. Larry instinctively recognizes when someone is too weak-willed or slow-witted to resist being manipulated. Zane’s performance dominates the film. His victims, on the other hand, come across as ciphers, but perhaps that’s a reflection of reality. Regardless of what Mark Vicente claimed in The Vow, not everyone is dumb enough to get brainwashed.

As for the real-life Larry Ray, he’s currently in federal prison. He’s scheduled to be released in 2071, when he will be 111 years old.

“They Have Awakened”, AI Short, Review by Case Wright

Posted on October 2, 2026 by casewright

Last year, I reviewed A LOT of AI horror films and yes…most were terrible. It is sad that these films exist and someone spend time making them. However, there are some that are not the worst.

“They Have Awakened” by Ethan is a super short film on Antarctic explorers who find a cave that is just chock full of Cthulhu…Cthulhus(?)…Cthulhossiers(?). Cthulhossiers are like other Cthulhus, but they’re mostly into college hoops.

The explorer team finding Cthulhus is essentially a sub-genre; the stories are always the same, BUT some times the rendering is slightly better. I am actually tired of explorers continuing to unleash Cthulhus- can’t they be like the other Antarctic scientists that I’ve met and just turn to alcoholism and amphetamines?

The film is aggressively mediocre, but it’s only 4 minutes and change; so, have an oat-forward pancake and spend four minutes watching.

Horror Film Review: Tony Manero (dir by Pablo Larrain)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Pablo Larraín’s 2008 film Tony Manero tells the story of an odd man named Raúl (Alfredo Castro). At the height of the Pinochet dictatorship, Raúl lives in a dilapidated boarding house with his girlfriend’s family. The boarding house has a small stage for putting on shows, and Raúl uses it to choreograph dances that pay tribute to his favorite movie, Saturday Night Fever, and his favorite character, Tony Manero. Raúl is a quiet man who comes to life whenever he imitates John Travolta’s dance moves. He goes to see Saturday Night Fever on a daily basis and can recite all of the dialogue by heart. A Chilean TV show is hosting a Tony Manero look-alike contest, and Raúl is determined to win. He even gets a white suit and looks forward to becoming a star instead of just a poor nobody.

That may sound like the setup for a heartwarming, crowd-pleasing movie, but it is not. Raúl is a bitter and paranoid man in his 50s. He’s on the short side. Despite owning a white suit and being able to do all the moves, he really doesn’t look much like Tony Manero. Throughout the film, he goes out of his way to find the secret to becoming Tony Manero. (He becomes obsessed with making the boarding house stage light up just like the disco dance floor in the movie.) But the truth of the matter is that he is not Tony Manero. He is not a charismatic young man trying to find himself in Brooklyn. He is a rather creepy and obnoxious middle-aged man living under a dictatorship. The film turns into a full horror film as it becomes obvious how far Raúl will go to accomplish his dream. When the kindly theater owners swap out Saturday Night Fever for Grease, Raúl is not pleased.

There is a humorous scene early in the film in which Raúl shows up at the television studio in his Tony Manero costume, only to discover that he has gotten the date wrong and has shown up a week early. Everyone in the studio is dressed up to look like Chuck Norris. At the same time, the subtext is very serious. Director Pablo Larraín is showing the influence of American culture on Chile and commenting on American involvement in helping Pinochet take power in 1973. While Raúl tries to turn himself into Tony Manero, people are informing on their neighbors and dissidents are being executed in the streets. Raúl is indifferent to the violence around him. (When he witnesses an execution, his response is to loot the body.) While his girlfriend’s son gets involved with the anti-Pinochet underground, Raúl focuses on trying to transform himself into Tony Manero. In Saturday Night Fever, Tony Manero can escape his oppressive home life by riding the train to a different borough. Raúl doesn’t have that option.

Seen from today’s perspective, Tony Manero’s portrayal of Pinochet’s Chile brings to mind what a lot of people wanted America to become during the COVID era, complete with secret police, neighborhood informants, and the rich getting to flout the rules while the poor were expected to be happy with whatever crumbs were left over. If Raúl survived the Pinochet years, it is easy to imagine him in his 90s, reporting his neighbors for not wearing a face mask and then settling in to watch Saturday Night Fever for the thousandth time.

Lifetime For October: Nightmare PTA Moms (dir by Dave Thomas)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

At the start of 2022’s Nightmare PTA Moms, Gayle (Brianna Cohen) and Rick (Jonathan Stoddard) have just relocated to Florida. Rick is the new regional manager for everyone’s favorite chic retail outfit, Jackie Z. Gayle is looking forward to reopening her bakery, Gayle’s Goodies. (If there’s anything that I’ve learned from watching Lifetime movies, it’s that there’s apparently nothing easier than opening up a bakery in a new town.) Gayle and Rick’s teenage daughter, Chloe (Madison Paige), will soon be starting at her new high school. When Gayle meets PTA president Vanessa VanDeBerg (Alison Filoramo), she’s invited to join. Gayle accepts.

Gayle has no idea what she’s getting into.

Under the velvet glove of Vanessa, the PTA has become a cult. No husbands are allowed at the after-meeting parties. They would ruin the mood as Vanessa hands out tequila shots and invites a male stripper into the house. Don’t tell, Vanessa orders, largely so she can seek revenge against anyone who does tell. Vanessa enjoys being PTA president and she’s not going to let anyone take that joy away from her. Of course, the only reason that Vanessa is president is because the woman who actually won the election, Lexie Wilson, supposedly committed suicide a month after his victory. And then Vanessa’s husband mysteriously fell to his death. “Vanessa doesn’t like to talk about that,” another member of the PTA warns Gayle.

Meanwhile, Chloe has befriended Vanessa’s daughter, Serena (Gracie Silva). Yay! Whenever you’re starting a new chapter in your life — whether it’s a new school or a new job — you should always befriend the most popular people around. However, Serena is soon taking advantage of Chloe’s friendship. Serena insists that Chloe use her Jackie Z discount card to pay for Serena’s purchases. Serena also steals a pair of sunglasses. I don’t really blame Serena. Those sunglasses were pretty cute.

Soon, Gayle is asking questions about all of the deaths surrounding the PTA and Vanessa is vamping it up whenever she stops by Jackie Z. Gayle worries that Rick is going to cheat. Rick worries that Gayle is going to get hurt if she doesn’t stop poking around the PTA. Chloe worries that she’s going to be friendless. The only person who doesn’t seem to be all that worried is Vanessa. That’s what makes her a great character. As played by Alison Filoramo, Vanessa is an unapologetic manipulator. She’s the epitome of the mean girl grown up, delivering every passive aggressive line with just the right amount of snarky menace. It’s not just that Vanessa’s bad. It’s that she has so much fun being bad. Gayle may be the hero but Vanessa is the character that most viewers are going to enjoy watching.

Nightmare PTA Moms is a delight, an unapologetically over-the-top film that is fully willing to embrace the melodrama. That said, there’s definitely an element of truth to the film’s portrayal of self-important, self-absorbed, affluent people who have joined the PTA not because they care about their children’s education but instead because they just love to wield even the smallest amout of power. As campy as the film may have been, it worked because there was just enough reality to make the film relatable. After living through the COVID lockdowns, it’s not longer a shock to see a movie about an entitled sociopath who thinks that she has the right to tell other people what to do, what to think and what to say.

In the end, the nightmare becomes reality.