Review: Normal (dir. by Ben Wheatley)


“I used to be a regular sheriff.” — Sheriff Ulysses

Ben Wheatley has built a career on making audiences uncomfortable. From the cultish dread of Kill List to the seasick chaos of Free Fire, he specializes in a specific kind of British miserablism that suddenly snaps into shocking ultraviolence. So, the idea of him directing a snowbound, American action-comedy starring Bob Odenkirk felt a little like hiring a surgeon to cater a birthday party. You know the food will be technically proficient, but you are terrified of what might be in the sauce. The 2026 film Normal, written by Derek Kolstad and Bob Odenkirk, is exactly that catering job: it is messy, bloody, surprisingly filling, and leaves you with a weird stomach ache if you think about it too long. But in a summer movie season often defined by joyless CGI sludge, Normal is a blast of R-rated, mid-budget freshness that knows exactly how stupid it is, even if it stumbles on its way to the finish line.

The premise is a beautiful piece of elevator pitch simplicity. Odenkirk plays Sheriff Ulysses, a haunted, world-weary interim sheriff who takes a short-term gig in the tiny, freezing Minnesotan town of Normal. The previous sheriff died under mysterious circumstances (ice fishing accident, sure), and Ulysses is just looking for a quiet place to drink coffee, ignore his wife’s phone calls, and heal. The problem is that Normal, Minnesota, is anything but. As Ulysses walks the beat, he notices the quiet desperation of rural America has been replaced by a strange, Stepford-like prosperity. The knitting store sells AR-15s. The diner’s walls are lined with loaded rifles. The town has somehow raised sixteen million dollars for a new town hall. It turns out that the citizens of Normal have sold their souls—and their town—to the Yakuza, acting as a quiet, frozen Swiss bank account for Japanese organized crime. When a pair of bumbling out-of-town robbers (Reena Jolly and Brendan Fletcher) hits the local bank, the bulletproof glass shatters, and Ulysses finds himself trapped in a blizzard, fighting for his life against an entire town of friendly, flannel-wearing killers.

Having Odenkirk as co-writer explains a lot about why Normal feels different from Kolstad’s other work. Where John Wick and the first Nobody are lean, machine-tooled scripts, Normal has a looser, more character-obsessed texture. The dialogue is full of weird pauses, non-sequiturs, and the kind of conversational detours that defined Odenkirk’s television work on Better Call Saul. You can feel the actor’s hand in every scene where Ulysses just stares at a absurd situation and mutters something mundane like “Well, that’s not ideal.” If you have seen the Nobody films, you know the rhythm Odenkirk plays as a performer. But what makes Odenkirk so fascinating to watch in Normal is how he continues to solidify an idea we haven’t really seen since Liam Neeson stumbled into Taken: the deeply unconventional action hero. Think about it. Before Neeson, action stars were Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis—men built like refrigerators. Then Neeson showed up at fifty-six, all grief-stricken eyebrows and theatrical training, and suddenly audiences realized that a sad dad with a “particular set of skills” was just as terrifying as any bodybuilder. Odenkirk is the spiritual successor to that twist.

No one ever looked at the guy who played slimy lawyer Saul Goodman or the hapless comic from Mr. Show and thought, “There is our next great screen fighter.” Yet here we are, years after the first Nobody, and Odenkirk has quietly become the most believable everyman action lead of his generation. Unlike Neeson’s brooding intensity, Odenkirk brings a specific, almost pathetic vulnerability. In Normal, he excels at playing the “sad dad” action hero—the guy whose joints pop when he stands up, who looks like an accountant but moves like a bar fight. Ulysses isn’t a retired assassin; he’s just a cop who is very, very tired. When he dispatches a thug with a fire extinguisher, there is no cool one-liner, just a wheeze and a wince. That grounded exhaustion is the Odenkirk brand, and because he co-wrote the part, it fits him like a tailored suit. He sells the physicality without losing that “I’m too old for this” shuffle, making you believe a middle-aged man could survive a gauntlet of killers purely out of stubbornness and regret. Henry Winkler, as the smarmy Mayor Kibner, chews the frozen scenery with glee, playing a man so polite and effervescent that you want to punch him immediately. Lena Headey shows up as a barkeep with a shotgun, and while she doesn’t get enough to do, she brings the necessary grit.

However, the secret weapon here is actually Ben Wheatley and his “anti-action” philosophy. In a recent interview, Wheatley described the violence in Normal as being akin to Final Destination. That is the smartest thing about this movie. In a typical John Wick movie, the hero is a force of nature; he actively kills people with surgical precision. In Normal, Ulysses doesn’t so much defeat the town as survive it. In one fantastic set piece, a character slips on ice and impales themselves on their own bayonet. In another, a massive sign falls and crushes a gunman mid-monologue. The town itself becomes a hostile, slippery, glass-strewn deathtrap. This gives Normal a chaotic, Looney Tunes energy that separates it from its cousins. You never know who is going to die next or how, and Wheatley directs the carnage with a blackly comic eye. The sound design of bones crunching against frozen asphalt is disturbingly hilarious. This isn’t the graceful ballet of assassination; it’s the slapstick of murder, and it is refreshing. And Odenkirk’s performance is the perfect anchor for this chaos because he always looks slightly surprised to still be alive—a quality Neeson, for all his skills, rarely conveyed. The fact that Odenkirk helped write the script means those reactions of shock and reluctant disgust feel genuine rather than performed.

But let’s address the moose in the room. Normal desperately wants to be Fargo, but it only has the vocabulary of a comic book. The Coen Brothers’ masterpiece works because the quirky dialogue masks a terrifying emptiness. Normal wears its quirk on its sleeve like a cheap souvenir. The film tries to weave in social commentary about the death of rural America, gun culture, and even features a subplot involving a trans nonbinary teen (Jess McLeod) who was the child of the previous sheriff. These moments are handled with a surprising amount of grace—they aren’t preachy, just present. However, the film is moving so fast (the runtime is a lean 91 minutes) that it forgets to give these themes any weight. You get a five-second shot of a wall of guns, and then someone blows up. The commentary is there, but it’s just set dressing for the explosion.

Furthermore, the plot structure is lopsided. The film opens with a cold sequence in Japan with the Yakuza cutting off fingers and looking menacing. It feels like a contractual obligation to remind you this is from the John Wick universe, and it’s hard not to wonder if that was a Kolstad-driven choice while Odenkirk might have preferred more mystery. It completely spoils the slow-burn reveal of the town’s corruption. Imagine The Wicker Man if the first scene showed you the villagers burning the wicker man. The tension of Ulysses realizing that “the call is coming from inside the house” is neutered because we, the audience, already know the Yakuza are lurking in the basement. Also, for a movie called Normal, it is incredibly predictable within its own lane. Once the shooting starts, you know exactly where Ulysses is going to end up (spoiler: a hardware store and then the police station). The film devolves into a familiar Assault on Precinct 13 siege scenario, and while the kills are inventive, the geography of the action gets muddy. Wheatley shoots the snowy exteriors beautifully—the white landscape makes the red blood pop like neon—but during the frantic third act, the editing gets choppy, and you lose track of who is shooting whom. For a movie that prides itself on “anti-action,” it relies heavily on the generic rhythms of action in its final twenty minutes.

Despite these structural hiccups, Normal works because it never overstays its welcome. At a brisk hour and a half, it gets in, blows up a town, and gets out. Bob Odenkirk continues to prove that he is the most relatable action hero of the 2020s—the natural heir to the “unlikely badass” throne that Liam Neeson occupied for a solid decade. Where Neeson brought Shakespearean tragedy to the genre, Odenkirk brings a frustrated accountant’s fury. He looks like he just finished paying his taxes, and you believe he is furious about it. Having co-written the film only deepens that authenticity; this isn’t a star merely showing up to say lines, but an actor who has shaped the material to his exact strengths. Ben Wheatley manages to smuggle just enough British cynicism and nasty violence into the frame to keep genre fans on their toes.

Is Normal a great film? No. It is too shallow and too structurally messy for that. But is it a great time at the movies? Absolutely. It is the cinematic equivalent of comfort food laced with hot sauce. You know what you are getting, but the kick is still satisfying. For fans of Odenkirk’s grumpy charm and Wheatley’s chaotic tendencies, Normal is a perfectly abnormal way to spend an evening. Just don’t go looking for the heart that the title promises; this one is all viscera. And frankly, in an era where most action movies are built from the same digital spare parts, watching a former comedy writer freeze his way through a Yakuza invasion feels like the most refreshing kind of normal we could ask for.

Horror Trailer: V/H/S (Red Band)


This film has already been making the film festival circuit so for genre fans it’s nothing new, but for the general public are probably still not aware that it even exists.

V/H/S is another one of those “found footage” films that everyone either hates or loves. I’m sort of straddling the fence between the two. I can dig well made ones, but some have been awful. From what I’ve been hearing about this horror anthology the reactions seem to run the gamut of it being good to almost great. I keep hearing and reading that despite flaws and unevenness in the way the five stories were told (each with it’s own filmmaker directing the segment) the film overall should satisfy genre fans everywhere. Like having so many different segments with a different filmmaker and storytelling style should give at least someone watching one good thing to like if not more.

The one thing about this film that has me interested in making it one of my must-see for this October is the fact that one of the filmmakers doing a segment in the film is none other than Ti West. His horror work has been sparse but eah one he’s released has become favorite of mine. Here’s to hoping his segment in V/H/S is not one of the flawed ones.

Review: Vanishing On 7th Street (dir. by Brad Anderson)


In the genre world of horror and thrillers there’s been one name who always seem to be on the verge of breaking out. He has done some exceptionally well-crafted horror and thrillers which never could get a mainstream audience to commit to but always gathering a cult-following upon their release. He has done some wonderful work as a TV director for such acclaimed shows as Fringe, Treme, Boardwalk Empire and The Wire. His best known work was a thriller collaboration with Christian Bale in The Machinist. While it’s a film more well-known for the extremes an actor was willing to go for to make their performance as authentic as possible it was also a film which showed style and talent in it’s filmmaker. The person I speak of is Canadian filmmaker Brad Anderson whose latest film was another low-budget horror-thriller which looks to be gaining a cult-following once again despite not being well-received by the mainstream critics. Vanishing On 7th Street was a film using the screenplay of Anthony Jaswinski which puts an interesting, claustrophobic and, at times, entertaining twist on the oft-used and well-ridden post-apocalyptic genre.

The film begins with film projectionist Paul in his projection booth reading up on the lost colony of Roanoke and the mysterious word left behind: CROATOAN. It’s through his point of view that we first see the beginning of what could be the end of the world as lights begin to flicker then go out throughout the theater and the mall it’s located in. Paul investigates this event only to discover sets of clothing and accessories where theater patrons and employees used to be in. With each passing moment the darkness — punctuated by just the flashlights of Paul and a lone mall security guard — becomes to take on an ominous tone before the film sudden moves ahead three days into what would become the major setting for the film: a lit bar on a deserted and darkened stretch of 7th Street in Detroit, Michigan.

We meet the rest of the main cast in this bar. There’s Luke who used to be a TV anchorman who discovers to his horror just what might have been the cause of the disappearance of most everyone in the world as he tries to find his girlfriend at the TV station they both worked at. It’s in these flashbacks to Luke’s early experience with the dark apocalypse that we see some of the most perfectly shot scenes of a major city devoid of life. An urban setting where the sudden disappearance of people during the power outage the night before has caused an eerie detritus of crashed vehicles, empty clothing and, in a sudden and violent sequence, a lone airline crashing in the background. It’s through Luke and the lone survivor in the bar, a 12-year old boy named James (Jacob Latimore), that we begin to try and piece together just what might have caused the event which continues to plague those left behind for the last three days.

The film posits the basic concept that darkness itself was the culprit for the disappearance of everyone and what continues to stalk those still left behind, alive and desperate for answers. While the film never really give definite answers as to the cause the two other characters in the back outside of Luke and James bring their own theories. There’s Rosemary (Thandie Newton), the distraught mother searching for her infant son, who thinks what’s going on around them is the the prophecized Rapture and those left behind were those who have sinned and were now being tormented for whatever sins they might have committed. On the other side is Paul from the beginning of the film who Luke rescues from an illuminated bus stop shelter who believes the very thing which caused the disappearance of the Roanoke colony during the 16th-century has now returned on a global-scale. His reasonings run the gamut of scientific causes from wormholes, black holes, gamma ray burst, nanotech gone amok and even an accident from a particle collider.

The audience are left to decide amongst themselves which explanation holds merit since neither one has enough backing to be the true answer. Vanishing On 7th Street leaves much of the questions raised by the dark apocalypse around these surviving characters to be left ambiguous and unanswered which at times becomes a detriment to the narrative as a whole. It’s a testament to Brad Anderson’s direction that the film was able to move past the apparent weaknesses in Anthony Jaswinski’s script and deliver a taut thriller (the film never truly gets to the level of horror) that just builds and builds with tension from beginning to an end that seemed almost too rushed.

With a low-budget and minimal cast the film tries to create some of the tension in the film be a construction of the differences between the four main characters. The actors were pretty game to try and make their characters more complex than what the script have provided, but in the end they still seem too basic for anyone of them to become sympathetic for the audience to truly care for their well-being. The film has to finally rely on just them as the last people on the planet as the main crux for the audience to latch onto. All the actors involved never become too cartoonish or stereotypical in their performance, but some of their decision-making in the middle and latter section of the film were too horror-typical, but they do add to the film’s many scenes of mounting terror as characters drop flashlights, lose light sources and other such problems with the living shadows in the darkness creeping up to try and take those still left. These scenes do look to be too stereotypical of other horror films but under Anderson’s direction there’s a palpable sense of claustrophobia and menace in these shadows.

What truly sells the film despite these flaws outside of Anderson’s direction would be the minimalist score by first-time film composer Lucas Vidal. His composition for the film were at once ominous and haunting. At times his score shows off hints of influences from the more doom-laden scores of Philip Glass. The other component of the film which definitely added to the atmosphere of inevitable doom to the film was Uta Briesewitz cinematography which made great use of darkness and solitary light sources to create islands of safety in a sea of encroaching terror we never truly comprehend. It’s the trifecta of Anderson’s directing, Vidal’s minimalist doom orchestration of a score and Briesewitz’s cinematography which gives Vanishing On 7th Street enough reasons to be a film which stands out as a fine piece of genre filmmaking despite weaknesses in the script.

Brad Anderson truly seem to be a filmmaker destined to remain in the fringes of mainstream cinema. His Vanishing On 7th Street continues to be another example of his great work in the horror-thriller genre. Despite same flaws which could turn off some of those who see this film it doesn’t diminish the fact that even at it’s worst this film was still an entertaining piece of post-apocalyptic work which brings some new ideas into the genre. Maybe a stronger treatment of the script would’ve made for a near-perfect thriller and one which could’ve had more horror to it, but Anderson was able to make a good enough film with an average script that I think deserves for this film to be seen by more people. For every horror remakes we get from Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes to the latest in the Saw-like torture porn horror it’s good to see that such films as Vanishing On 7th Street exist to be the solitary beacon of light in a sea of cookie-cutter, by-the-numbers horror films that seem to dominate each film year after the other.

Review: The Girlfriend Experience (dir. by Steven Soderbergh)


“Sometimes clients think they want the real you, but at the end of the day, they say they don’t. They want what you want to be.” — Chelsea

In between his larger projects (the Che biopic) and studio work (Ocean’s 11 through 13), Steven Soderbergh has kept busy with low-budget, experimental films like Bubble and Full Frontal. His latest entry in this HD-shot, minimalist phase is The Girlfriend Experience. When it was first announced in 2008, much of the buzz centered on Soderbergh’s decision to cast real-life porn star Sasha Grey in the lead role. From that point through its festival run, discussion of the film fixated heavily on that choice. Yet The Girlfriend Experience is ultimately a more intriguing work than its casting gimmick suggests, attempting to draw parallels between the high-end sex industry and the power structures of modern capitalism.

First off, Sasha Grey is not the film’s weak link, despite expectations tied to her background. While her performance can be uneven, there are several moments where she displays clear presence and control. What some have interpreted as a flat or vacuous screen persona actually aligns closely with the character. Chelsea is a $10,000-a-night escort whose clientele consists of wealthy, powerful men—people accustomed to buying whatever and whoever they want. What they purchase from Chelsea is the illusion of intimacy: the “girlfriend experience.”

One of the earliest scenes illustrates this perfectly, as Chelsea spends time with a client in what initially appears to be a normal relationship between a successful man and a poised, younger partner. That illusion, however, defines the entire film. Chelsea is not simply selling sex; she is selling the performance of a perfect relationship. On the surface, everything appears polished and authentic, but beneath it lies something transactional and deeply artificial.

Grey captures this duality effectively. Where some may see a performer out of her depth, her detachment instead feels intentional—part of the character’s constructed identity. It becomes difficult to distinguish where Grey ends and Chelsea begins. Whether this translates into a long-term mainstream acting career is uncertain, but with the right material and direction, she shows potential beyond the limitations of typecasting.

Despite its subject matter, The Girlfriend Experience is less about sex than it is about the commodification of fantasy. Even Chelsea’s boyfriend, Chris (played by Chris Santos), participates in this economy of illusion as a personal trainer selling physical transformation and confidence. The film avoids sentimentality, and when it briefly leans in that direction, it feels out of step with its otherwise clinical tone. Its strength lies in exposing how fragile these constructed realities are once stripped away.

Chelsea herself embodies this contradiction. She is savvy and business-minded, clearly aware of how to leverage her work into future opportunities, yet she clings to a lingering naivete. As competition emerges and her client base becomes less secure, her vulnerability surfaces. Despite operating within a world of calculated transactions, she remains susceptible to the same power dynamics that define her clients’ world.

Shot quickly during the financial collapse of 2008–2009, the film subtly mirrors that instability. Soderbergh draws a parallel between Chelsea’s profession and the broader economic system—both built on selling aspirational illusions. Just as consumers were sold the dream of prosperity they couldn’t afford, Chelsea sells emotional intimacy that isn’t real. In both cases, the illusion eventually collapses, revealing a harsher truth underneath.

Soderbergh’s direction may be challenging for some viewers. The film unfolds in a non-linear, fragmented style typical of his more experimental work. Those familiar with his filmography will likely adjust, but audiences expecting something closer to his mainstream efforts may find it disorienting. Still, his continued experimentation with HD cinematography is notable. The image is strikingly crisp—sometimes to the point of artificiality—which reinforces the film’s thematic focus on surface versus reality. Beneath that clean exterior lies something far more complicated and unpolished.

Of Soderbergh’s work in this digital format, The Girlfriend Experience stands as his strongest effort so far. It is far from perfect—at times it feels visually and emotionally restrained for a filmmaker of his caliber—but it carries an unmistakable French New Wave influence, particularly reminiscent of Jean-Luc Godard. The film is unlikely to earn major accolades, and it may ultimately be remembered as a curious crossover moment for Sasha Grey. Still, its very existence speaks to a willingness—on both the director’s and the actor’s part—to take risks outside conventional boundaries.

In an industry often driven by safety and predictability, that alone makes The Girlfriend Experience worth noting. Whether or not it succeeds by traditional standards is almost beside the point; the film exists, invites interpretation, and leaves its audience to decide its value on their own terms.