Film Review: All Quiet on the Western Front (dir. by Edward Berger)

Posted on November 11, 2026 by Arleigh

“My son was killed in the war. He doesn’t feel any honor.” — Matthias Erzberger

A clean uniform can hide a terrible history. In Edward Berger’s All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), clothing stripped from a dead soldier is repaired and handed to a new recruit, turning an ordinary military supply process into something chilling. That image captures the film’s outlook before its young protagonist understands what awaits him: the army needs another body, and his will do. This German anti-war film, adapted from Erich Maria Remarque’s 1929 novel of the same name, is the book’s third film adaptation. Berger makes it a harsh, absorbing experience that dismantles the comforting idea that battlefield suffering automatically produces honor. The uniform might look ready for a fresh beginning, but the audience already knows it belongs to a cycle.

The new recruit is Paul Bäumer, played by Felix Kammerer, a teenager who joins the German army alongside his friends during World War I. They are swept up in patriotic excitement and the promise that military service will transform them into men worth admiring. Their eagerness is uncomfortable because it feels so ordinary. They want adventure, acceptance, and a chance to prove themselves. Going together also makes the decision seem less frightening: each boy’s enthusiasm validates the others. Berger treats those desires with sympathy while showing how easily authority figures exploit them. The boys are encouraged to imagine their triumphant return, not the possibility that someone else might eventually wear their uniforms. The recruitment rhetoric works by giving them a flattering picture of themselves and leaving the actual experience of fighting conveniently out of view.

Once they reach the front, the gap between those promises and reality becomes impossible to ignore. There is no graceful transition from innocence to experience, just a violent introduction to mud, shellfire, hunger, and panic. The young men who dreamed of glory and honor quickly become disillusioned with both. Fighting for their country becomes less immediate than finding shelter or keeping a friend alive. This is the foundation of the film’s anti-war message: the grand ideas that make war appealing from a distance become useless to the people forced to endure it up close. What makes that change especially upsetting is that their disillusionment offers no escape. Realizing they have been misled does not release them from service or restore their safety. They must keep participating in something they can no longer understand in the terms they were taught.

Kammerer makes Paul’s changing state of mind visible without relying on long speeches. At first, his face has the openness of someone expecting the world to reward his enthusiasm. Gradually, that expression gives way to shock, exhaustion, and a stare that seems unable to absorb another terrible sight. What works especially well is that Paul never becomes a polished action hero. Learning to survive does not look empowering. It looks like a frightened person adjusting to conditions nobody should have to accept. His growing ability to function in battle comes with a disturbing emotional cost, and the film refuses to present that cost as a badge of maturity. When his fear or compassion breaks through, we see the distance between the soldier he must become and the young man he might otherwise have remained.

The friendship between Paul and the older soldier Stanislaus “Kat” Katczinsky gives that struggle emotional weight. Played by Albrecht Schuch, Kat offers practical knowledge and companionship rather than reassuring speeches. He understands the front better than Paul, but experience does not make him immune to its dangers. Their shared efforts to find food and enjoy brief moments of normality are among the film’s most affecting scenes. These passages show that the soldiers still have appetites, humor, and a need for company; they are not simply faces waiting for the next catastrophe. Kat’s care also provides a revealing contrast with the authority figures who encouraged Paul to enlist. Where those men offered abstract promises about duty, Kat responds to immediate human needs. His loyalty means something because it involves helping an actual person rather than praising an idea.

Those quieter moments are also essential to the film’s rhythm. Relentless violence can eventually become numbing, especially when each sequence seems determined to surpass the last in brutality. By allowing the characters to eat, talk, and briefly relax, Berger gives the audience something beyond suffering to hold onto. We understand what the soldiers are trying to preserve, even when their hopes have become very small. A meal matters because hunger is constant; companionship matters because isolation would make the fear harder to bear. The film is most emotionally convincing when it recognizes that ordinary comforts do not become trivial during a catastrophe. They become more precious.

Berger’s handling of combat is forceful and often terrifying. Soldiers appear painfully exposed against artillery, tanks, and weapons that kill on a scale individual bravery cannot overcome. The battlefield rarely feels like a place where determination guarantees success. More often, survival seems arbitrary. That choice matters because war films can condemn violence in dialogue while making it exhilarating to watch. Here, the confusion and physical ugliness usually overwhelm any excitement. You might admire how a sequence is constructed, but the film gives you little reason to wish you were inside it. Courage does not make the machinery less merciless, and one person’s resolve cannot turn an overwhelming assault into a fair contest. The imbalance between vulnerable bodies and industrial weapons makes the earlier promises of individual glory seem particularly dishonest.

The visual polish does create a complication, though. Some images are so striking that their beauty briefly competes with the horror they contain. Ruined landscapes and carefully composed shots can pull attention toward the filmmaking itself. That does not cancel the film’s message, but it raises a question about how to show war without making it visually seductive. Berger does not completely solve that problem. At times, the scale and precision invite admiration when the emotional situation seems to demand revulsion. Still, the overall effect is exhausting rather than glamorous. The images may be impressive, but the lives within them look miserable, precarious, and increasingly stripped of choice. There is little sense that participating in this spectacle would offer the excitement that watching its construction might briefly suggest.

The film becomes most devastating when it narrows its focus to Paul and a French soldier he has stabbed in a crater. Suddenly, the enemy is not a distant shape or a threatening uniform. He is a suffering person Paul cannot escape looking at. Kammerer’s panic and remorse make the scene difficult to sit through, precisely because the violence has already happened and cannot be undone. Paul’s attempts to help are heartbreaking because they expose a contradiction he cannot resolve: the person he was expected to attack is also someone he desperately wants to save. The scene brings the film’s argument out of the realm of mass destruction and into an intimate encounter. One man’s suffering becomes enough to reveal the moral damage that enormous casualty figures can leave strangely abstract.

It also complicates any easy division between innocent victim and violent participant. Paul has been manipulated and traumatized, but he is still capable of inflicting terrible harm. The film does not need to deny either truth to make him sympathetic. Instead, it shows how war places people in situations where survival and conscience can pull in opposite directions. The patriotic language that brought Paul here has nothing useful to say about the man dying beside him. There is no satisfying victory in the encounter, no emotional reward for having overcome an enemy. There is only the awful discovery that doing what the battlefield demands can leave a person unable to live comfortably with himself.

A separate storyline involving armistice negotiations expands the perspective beyond Paul’s experience. Daniel Brühl plays German representative Matthias Erzberger, and these scenes emphasize the distance between discussions about ending the war and the continuing deaths on the battlefield. The contrast is effective because peace is not merely a historical outcome for the soldiers; its timing determines whether they survive. Every delay has a different meaning for someone under fire than it does for someone seated at a negotiating table. Still, the shifts sometimes interrupt the intense connection with Paul. The film gains a broader view of power and responsibility, but loses some of the confinement that makes the trench scenes so immediate.

A commander’s obsession with glory near the ceasefire is similarly blunt. His decisions sharpen the criticism of military authority, but he can feel more like the embodiment of an argument than a fully developed person. By this point, the audience hardly needs another demonstration that prestige matters more to some leaders than their soldiers’ lives. Even so, his role completes a bitter connection with the recruitment scenes. The young men have abandoned their fantasies of honor because experience has exposed those fantasies as empty. The authority figure can continue believing in them because others bear the consequences. What sounded inspiring at the beginning becomes openly grotesque when used to justify further deaths.

Even with those weaknesses, All Quiet on the Western Front leaves a powerful impression because it never offers suffering as adequate compensation for lost youth. Paul’s experience is not an inspiring journey toward greatness; it is the destruction of possibilities he barely had time to imagine. By the end, that recycled uniform feels like more than an effective opening image. It represents a system capable of replacing a soldier without confronting the person it has erased. Berger’s film is angry, sometimes overly emphatic, and deeply upsetting. Its strongest accusation is also its simplest: the people selling war’s rewards are rarely the ones required to discover how empty those rewards can be.

Horror Icarus File No. 36: Mindhunter (by Joe Penhall)

Posted on October 28, 2026 by Arleigh

“Butchering people is hard work. Physically and mentally.” — Ed Kemper

The scariest thing in Mindhunter isn’t a crime scene. It’s how quickly a conversation with a murderer can start to feel normal. Someone makes a joke, offers an observation, or answers a question with surprising thoughtfulness, and for a moment you settle into the exchange. Then comes a detail that makes your stomach turn, delivered in exactly the same conversational tone. Across its two seasons, the Netflix series repeatedly catches you making that adjustment. You become comfortable listening to people whose actions should make comfort impossible. That’s where the show finds its particular kind of horror: not in making monsters seem alien, but in showing how easily they can sound like anyone else.

Created by Joe Penhall, with David Fincher serving as an executive producer and a defining directorial presence, Mindhunter draws from John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker’s book Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit. It follows the early development of criminal-profiling research within the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit through agents Holden Ford and Bill Tench and psychologist Wendy Carr. We’ve watched countless investigators study killers and connect behavioral patterns, but what feels different here is the uncertainty. These characters aren’t applying an established formula. They’re trying to determine whether their questions can produce anything useful at all.

That gives the procedural material an unusual texture. Holden and Bill travel, negotiate access, conduct interviews, and deal with colleagues who don’t necessarily see the value in their work. Wendy wants to turn their encounters into research rather than a collection of gruesome anecdotes. The process can be repetitive, awkward, and bureaucratic, which makes it convincing. Instead of treating profiling as a supernatural gift possessed by the smartest person in the room, Mindhunter presents it as a developing discipline shaped by observation, disagreement, and mistakes. Getting someone to talk is only the beginning. Knowing what to do with the answers is another problem entirely.

Unlike Se7en, Mindhunter doesn’t surround its characters with a grimy, nihilistic atmosphere that makes the entire world feel rotten. Nor is its main driving force the obsessive, cat-and-mouse pursuit that consumes the investigators in Zodiac. Its horror comes from somewhere quieter: the suggestion that beneath everyday normalcy lurks a darker, much darker world. Ed Kemper, Dennis Rader—the BTK killer—Wayne Williams, and Charles Manson weren’t inventions designed to populate a nightmare. They existed and walked among the masses. Their histories aren’t interchangeable, but their presence throughout the series punctures the comforting idea that dangerous people must somehow announce themselves as dangerous.

Calling Mindhunter a crime thriller or police procedural, then, only gets you so far. It has horror in its DNA and both feet firmly planted in the genre. That isn’t simply because it deals with murder and sexual violence. It makes normalcy itself feel unreliable. A calm voice, a familiar routine, or an apparently reasonable explanation tells you remarkably little about the person behind it. These people occupied ordinary spaces, held conversations, and participated in a world that didn’t always recognize what they were. There’s no supernatural threat to identify and no reassuring boundary separating their world from ours.

The use of the killers’ own recorded words makes that realization harder to shake. Although Mindhunter dramatizes its encounters rather than reconstructing them as a documentary, portions of its interview dialogue draw from actual statements. You aren’t simply hearing a screenwriter invent something horrible for a villain to say. There’s a real person behind the language, someone who found ways to describe, explain, or rationalize appalling acts. The matter-of-fact presentation makes it worse. The show rarely needs to insist that you be disturbed. It simply gives you enough time to understand what you’ve just heard.

Cameron Britton’s Ed Kemper is the clearest expression of that approach. He’s articulate, conversational, and seemingly pleased that someone wants to listen. Britton doesn’t play every exchange as a warning that violence is about to erupt. He lets Kemper be engaging, which creates a more uncomfortable response than constant menace would. You understand Holden’s fascination even while recognizing the danger in it. Kemper’s willingness to talk doesn’t mean he has surrendered control. Sometimes it means he has found another way to exercise it. Britton makes the difference between access and understanding frighteningly easy to miss.

Fincher’s influence is apparent in how patiently these encounters unfold. The controlled framing, subdued interiors, and measured pacing encourage you to notice small changes: a pause, a look, a shift in posture. A room can remain physically unchanged while the balance of power inside it moves somewhere unpleasant. These are horror sequences built around conversation. Nobody needs to jump out of the shadows. The tension comes from proximity and the possibility that the investigators have become more exposed than they realize. They can leave the room, but that doesn’t mean everything they heard stays behind.

Jonathan Groff makes Holden’s confidence both understandable and irritating. His curiosity opens doors, but he starts confusing his ability to provoke a response with an ability to control the encounter. Groff preserves the earnestness beneath that arrogance. Holden wants the work to matter, but he also wants to be right. His frightening encounter with Kemper exposes how little professional enthusiasm can do when intellectual curiosity becomes physical vulnerability. Understanding danger isn’t the same thing as feeling another person take control of your safety.

Holt McCallany’s Bill Tench supplies the weary perspective Holden lacks. He’s practical, skeptical, and more aware that a useful interview can still leave damage behind. His dry humor keeps the series from becoming suffocatingly solemn, but exhaustion always feels close to the surface. The second-season situation involving his adopted son and a toddler’s death brings his professional anxieties home. The parallel sometimes feels overly arranged, yet McCallany grounds it in a father’s helplessness. Anna Torv’s Wendy provides another necessary counterweight, insisting on methods and conclusions that can withstand scrutiny. Her personal story integrates less smoothly, but her presence keeps the project from becoming a celebration of Holden’s instincts.

The Atlanta child-murder investigation pushes those instincts against a reality that refuses to accommodate them. Behavioral patterns collide with racial distrust, political pressure, institutional priorities, and families whose grief cannot be answered by an interesting theory. Holden’s certainty becomes harder to admire when the stakes extend beyond proving his approach works. Meanwhile, the glimpses of BTK quietly undermine any comforting sense of progress. Whatever knowledge the team acquires, other lives continue beyond its awareness. Understanding some offenders doesn’t mean the investigators can recognize or stop them all.

The lack of a third season makes that expanding scope especially frustrating. Fincher has declared Mindhunter finished, citing the difficulty of justifying its production costs against its audience. Instead of reaching a deliberate conclusion, the series stops with important threads still hanging. The recurring glimpses of BTK suggest a longer game that never gets played out, while the futures of Holden, Bill, Wendy, and their developing work remain unresolved. For fans and critics who championed the series, that’s more than the disappointment of losing a favorite show. It’s the frustration of watching something grow more ambitious only to have its possibilities cut short. There’s a difference between deliberately withholding easy answers and losing the opportunity to continue asking the questions.

Still, its unfinished state doesn’t erase what those two seasons accomplished. You can admire the performances, the filmmaking, and the intelligence of its procedural detail, but its lasting effect is less comfortable than admiration. It leaves you thinking about pleasant exchanges and ordinary faces that gave nothing away. Other crime shows let the solution create distance between us and the horror. Mindhunter keeps taking that distance back. By the end, the troubling question isn’t how anyone could sit across from these men and listen. It’s how many people sat across from them before anyone knew what they had done.

Previous Icarus Files:

Horror Series Review: Below (by Jesse McKeown)

Posted on October 23, 2026 by Arleigh

“I can’t just roll over, I need to see this thing through.” — Calvin Penney

The scariest thing in Netflix’s Below might be the possibility that the place you call home no longer has a future. Sure, there’s a monster lurking offshore, and the series isn’t shy about putting its characters through some nasty situations. But beneath the creature-feature setup is a more personal story about people struggling to recognize when holding on becomes its own kind of danger. Created by Jesse McKeown, this six-episode series mixes coastal horror, family baggage, and small-town stubbornness into something engaging, even when its storytelling gets a little tangled. It works best when those elements feel like different parts of the same problem.

Set in the Newfoundland community of Snook’s Arm, Below follows Calvin Penney, a widower played by Josh Hartnett whose attachment to the town runs deep. A childhood tragedy involving relocation and the death of his father has left him with understandable reasons to distrust the idea of starting over. Now he makes ends meet alongside his son Wade, harvesting iceberg ice and renting out a room. With his other children coming home for a visit, there’s an opportunity for the family to reconnect. Naturally, this being a monster series, the reunion comes with some unpleasant complications waiting in the water.

That setup gives the show something more substantial than the usual group of strangers stumbling into danger. Calvin already has things to lose before the creature becomes a threat, and not all of them can be protected by simply surviving. His family’s relationship with Snook’s Arm isn’t necessarily the same as his own, which creates tension without requiring anyone to behave like an obvious villain. For Calvin, leaving means surrendering something essential. For others, staying might mean sacrificing a chance at a different life. The monster doesn’t create those disagreements so much as make them impossible to keep putting off.

Hartnett gives the series a reliable emotional anchor. Calvin is warm enough to make his devotion appealing, but he’s also capable of turning that devotion into a burden for everyone around him. Hartnett understands that balance, playing him as someone whose good intentions don’t automatically make his decisions reasonable. You can sympathize with his fear of losing another home while still wanting him to listen when someone challenges him. His Newfoundland accent occasionally becomes a distraction, but the performance underneath it feels grounded. Calvin’s grief matters because it influences how he behaves, not just because the script tells us he has a painful past.

Charlie Heaton adds a useful edge as Wade, whose relationship with his father carries both affection and frustration. Their shared routine suggests closeness, but it also raises questions about how much room either has to move forward. The family material is strongest when it lets those mixed feelings sit without immediately explaining them away. Mackenzie Davis brings a different energy as marine researcher Fonda Howander, giving the mystery an investigative thread beyond Calvin’s personal concerns. She helps connect the disturbing events to something the characters can begin to understand, while the family drama keeps the consequences from becoming purely theoretical.

Snook’s Arm itself is one of the show’s biggest assets. The coastal scenery has an appealing harshness, making it easy to understand both why someone would love living there and why someone else would want out. The town feels isolated before the horror really gets going, and that isolation becomes more oppressive as familiar surroundings turn threatening. There’s a difference between being somewhere quiet and realizing help might be a long way off. Below makes good use of that distinction. Its setting isn’t just attractive background scenery; it shapes the characters’ options and gives their reluctance to leave a believable emotional foundation.

The horror is especially effective when it grows out of ordinary details becoming wrong. Foul-smelling ice, disappearances, and unsettling changes create the sense that something has worked its way into the community before anyone understands its scale. The ocean has always been unpredictable, but now that uncertainty feels actively hostile. Mark Korven’s score helps sustain the unease, while the more grisly material supplies the creature-feature payoff. When the water becomes dangerous, it doesn’t just interrupt the characters’ plans. It undermines the relationship that makes the town possible. Later, the creature side of the story takes some interesting turns that complicate the initial setup without abandoning its sense of danger.

That’s why resettlement is such an effective idea to build the drama around. Residents are considering whether to accept money to leave, and the series gives that decision emotional weight rather than treating it as a simple question of common sense. Calvin’s resistance comes from experience, but experience can also trap someone in an old way of understanding a new crisis. The ecological themes fit naturally alongside that conflict. This is a story about a community facing the possibility that its surroundings can no longer support the life it knows, with a monster giving that anxiety a much more immediate form.

The danger also grows as it becomes clear that certain characters have agendas they aren’t sharing. Without giving away who wants what, those competing interests make an already desperate situation worse for the people still stuck on Snook’s Arm. Surviving isn’t simply a matter of figuring out what’s in the water; it also means navigating people whose priorities may not line up with everyone else’s safety. That adds welcome tension, although the accumulation of secrets and revelations sometimes crowds the storytelling. The later episodes reach for bigger emotional and thematic payoffs, and a little more breathing room would have helped some of those developments land more naturally.

Even with those weaknesses, Below offers more than a disposable run through familiar monster-movie territory. Hartnett holds the emotional center, the coastal atmosphere gives the horror texture, and the town’s uncertain future makes survival mean something beyond escaping the next attack. Its late turns give the creature story another dimension, while the human conflicts keep the threat from feeling comfortably predictable. The strongest material remains the people trying to protect a home while disagreeing about what protecting it actually requires. The creature gives that struggle teeth, but the harder question remains human: how do you know when staying is an act of love, and when it’s just fear of letting go?

Horror Film Review: The Babysitter (dir. by McG)

Posted on October 16, 2026 by Arleigh

“Well, I like weird, all of the time.” — Bee

The Babysitter is, above all else, Samara Weaving’s coming-out party—a wildly entertaining showcase that proves she can carry a horror movie with charm, menace, and complete comedic fearlessness. McG’s 2017 Netflix film, written by Brian Duffield, is built around a simple, absurd premise: a lonely kid discovers his beautiful babysitter is part of a Satanic cult. The movie lives and dies on Weaving’s performance as Bee, and she delivers enough star power, humor, and danger to turn a thin genre premise into a fast, colorful, gleefully violent horror comedy.

The story follows Cole, played by Judah Lewis, a nervous twelve-year-old who is still young enough to need a babysitter but old enough to hate that fact. His parents leave for the weekend, leaving him in the care of Bee. Cole has a massive crush on her, which makes the movie’s central betrayal sting even more. After staying up past bedtime to spy on the adults, he sees Bee and her friends murder someone as part of an occult ritual. Suddenly, the cozy suburban house becomes a battlefield, and Cole has to survive a night of Satanic murder, increasingly absurd violence, and the horrifying realization that the person he trusted most is trying to kill him.

Without Weaving, this premise could easily collapse into forgettable direct-to-streaming filler. Bee could have been nothing more than a one-dimensional “hot evil babysitter,” but Weaving gives her real charisma. She is funny, flirtatious, warm, and completely unhinged, often within the same scene. The film understands that Bee works best when she is both genuinely likable and genuinely dangerous. Cole trusts her because she treats him kindly, and that makes the reveal hurt. Weaving also gets most of the movie’s best lines and biggest moments, and she plays them with the kind of gleeful theatricality the material demands. This is the performance that announced her as a major modern horror presence, and it is easy to see why filmmakers and audiences took notice.

What makes The Babysitter work beyond Weaving is its total commitment to the bit. The film is essentially Home Alone filtered through a Satanic slasher and a teenage sex comedy. Cole fights back with household objects, improvisation, and pure panic, while Bee and her friends keep getting killed in ways that are gruesome, creative, and often funny. The movie never takes its mythology seriously enough for the ritual stuff to become dull. The cult’s plan is mostly an excuse for carnage, but the carnage is lively enough that the thin plot barely matters. This is a movie where a kitchen can become a weapon, a pool can become a crime scene, and a teenage cultist can be defeated by the kind of slapstick logic usually reserved for cartoons.

The supporting cult members are broad, ridiculous characters, but they fit the movie’s tone. Robbie Amell plays Max, a jock who clearly believes he is the coolest person in any room. Bella Thorne’s Allison is glamorous, vain, and increasingly undone as the night falls apart. Hana Mae Lee’s Sonya is the quiet, strange one, while Andrew Bachelor’s John is the guy who thinks he is more essential to the group than anyone else believes. None of them are deeply developed, but they do not need to be. They are archetypes, and the actors lean into that. Their banter is often juvenile, sometimes forced, but it matches the movie’s hyperactive, self-aware energy.

McG’s direction is both part of the film’s appeal and one of its biggest problems. He directs it like an extended music video: saturated colors, quick cuts, pop songs, pop-culture references, and a camera that rarely wants to sit still. When the style clicks, The Babysitter feels punchy and alive, with the energy of a comic book come to life. But McG leans so heavily into the comedy side that the movie often loses its horror footing. The jokes, quips, and broad performances are constantly pushed to the front, and when the film tries to shift into an actual horror beat, the moment frequently lands flat. The cult members are too goofy, the kills too cartoonish, and the tone too jokey for the movie to build much dread. Some jokes land with a thud, some references feel dated already, and the constant visual busy-ness can overwhelm the simpler pleasures of the premise. The film succeeds despite McG’s excesses, not entirely because of them.

The horror is more splattery than scary. Anyone expecting real dread, slow-building tension, or a genuinely unsettling villain will likely be disappointed. The movie’s comedy comes from the collision of childhood anxieties with extreme genre nonsense. Cole is afraid of bullies, girls, being alone, and growing up; the film literalizes those fears by putting him in a house full of murderous adults who want to sacrifice him. Beneath the blood and jokes, there is a surprisingly sincere coming-of-age story. But because the comedy is so relentless, the horror rarely gets room to breathe, and the movie’s scarier moments feel more like brief interruptions than genuine escalations.

Cole’s arc gives the chaos a little heart. At the beginning, he is passive, scared, and constantly humiliated. By the end, he has been forced to confront every fear he has, usually while covered in gore and running for his life. Judah Lewis is not giving a nuanced performance, but he is likable and believable as a terrified kid pushed past his limits. His friendship with Melanie, played by Emily Alyn Lind, adds another layer of warmth. Melanie encourages him to stand up for himself, and their awkward middle-school dynamic gives the movie a sweet emotional center beneath all the occult murder.

The film’s biggest weakness is its willingness to sacrifice logic for a joke. Characters make choices that only make sense because the plot needs them to. The cult’s plan is not especially well thought out. Adults and neighbors are conveniently unaware of gunfire, explosions, and general mayhem. The movie also sometimes views its female characters through Cole’s adolescent gaze, especially early on, which can make Bee and Allison feel more like fantasy objects than full people. The film gives them more agency as it goes, but the perspective remains very much that of a horny, terrified twelve-year-old boy. Whether that works for you depends on how much patience you have for that kind of teenage-male fantasy.

Still, The Babysitter has personality to spare. It is bright, brash, mean in a playful way, and unapologetically silly. It does not have the atmosphere of a prestige horror film or the emotional weight of the genre’s best work. It is not trying to be The Babadook or Hereditary. Instead, it is trying to be a bloody, funny, high-energy midnight movie, and it mostly succeeds. It is the kind of film best watched late at night, with low expectations and a high tolerance for cartoonish violence.

By the time the credits roll, The Babysitter has done exactly what it set out to do: deliver a loud, bloody, ridiculous good time while making Samara Weaving impossible to ignore. McG’s direction can be excessive, the comedy often crowds out the horror, and the scares are mild, but the film has enough energy, humor, and personality to make up for its flaws. Weaving turns Bee into one of the most entertaining horror villains of the Netflix era and uses the role as a true coming-out party for her career. Cole’s survival story gives the mayhem a surprisingly sweet coming-of-age core, but Weaving is the true engine of the film. It may not be a horror classic, but it is a very enjoyable piece of genre junk food: loud, colorful, violent, ridiculous, and much more fun than it has any right to be.

Horror Review: The Ritual (dir. by David Bruckner)

Posted on October 4, 2026 by Arleigh

“Oh, this is awful in almost every conceivable way.” — Phil

David Bruckner’s The Ritual turns a seemingly straightforward hiking-trip nightmare into a bleak, character-driven story about grief, guilt, and the fear of being judged by the worst thing you have ever done. Released in 2017, the film takes the familiar setup of friends becoming lost during a hiking trip and turns it into something far more tense, emotionally bruised, and unsettling. It is part of the wave of folk horror that began emerging in the late 2000s, with filmmakers returning to remote landscapes, old belief systems, pagan imagery, and the frightening idea that modern people are badly unprepared for places ruled by ancient customs. The Ritual contains the expected genre material—an ominous Scandinavian forest, strange symbols, a decaying cabin, and an isolated community—but its real strength is how tightly those elements connect to its characters’ unresolved guilt and resentment.

The film follows Luke, played by Rafe Spall, who is still deeply traumatized by the death of his friend Rob. In the opening sequence, Luke and Rob enter a liquor store after a night out and become caught in the middle of a robbery. Luke hides while Rob is killed trying to resist the attackers. It is an immediately harsh and effective opening because the film does not treat Luke’s inaction as something simple or easy to judge. He is terrified, frozen, and unable to process the situation. Even so, he cannot forgive himself for surviving. That moment becomes the defining wound of his life, and everything that happens afterward pushes him back toward it.

Luke eventually joins Phil, Dom, and Hutch on a hiking trip through Sweden that is meant to honor Rob’s memory. It becomes clear early on that the group’s friendship is not as solid as it once was. They know each other well enough to trade jokes and insults, but there is a lot of buried frustration underneath the banter. When Dom injures his knee, he argues that they should take a shortcut through the forest rather than continue along the longer established trail. The decision makes sense on a practical level, but it puts them in a setting where the normal rules of direction, distance, and safety quickly stop applying. The trip that is supposed to help them mourn Rob instead becomes a pressure cooker for every unresolved issue they have with one another.

That tension is what makes the first half of The Ritual more interesting than a routine “people get lost in the woods” movie. The men are not written as interchangeable victims waiting for the plot to remove them one by one. They have the worn-down chemistry of friends who have known one another for years but may have outgrown the version of themselves that first brought them together. Luke is defensive and emotionally closed off. Dom can be abrasive, especially when pain and fear make him more volatile. Phil is cynical and exhausted. Hutch is the closest thing the group has to a stabilizing influence, but even he cannot keep the old resentments from surfacing.

Bruckner gives their arguments a messy, lived-in quality. They do not stop to explain their entire friendship history for the audience; instead, the viewer picks up on it through accusations, half-finished insults, and the way everyone reacts when Rob’s death comes up. Luke’s guilt is the most obvious source of conflict, but the others are carrying their own anger toward him as well. They cannot openly say what they think without admitting that they may blame him for what happened. As the hike becomes more dangerous, that tension becomes harder to contain. The film understands that fear makes people meaner, more selfish, and more honest than they want to be.

The Swedish wilderness is easily one of the movie’s greatest assets. Bruckner and cinematographer Andrew Shulkind make the forest feel huge and claustrophobic at the same time. The woods are not shot like a scenic tourist destination. They are wet, dark, muddy, and disorienting, filled with thin trees that block the characters’ view and make every direction seem identical. The lack of clear landmarks matters because it slowly strips the group of confidence. At first, they are annoyed hikers trying to save time. Before long, they are struggling to tell where they have been, where they are going, or whether the forest is allowing them to leave at all.

The film excels at building dread through details rather than relying on constant jolts. The friends discover unnerving signs scattered through the woods: an animal carcass hanging impossibly high in the trees, crude figures made from sticks, unfamiliar markings, and evidence that somebody—or something—has been watching them. One of the most memorable sequences takes place in an abandoned cabin that the group uses for shelter. Inside, they find a grotesque shrine and signs of an old ritualistic practice that seem completely out of place in the modern world. The scene is disturbing because of how wrong it feels. These men have not just stumbled into an empty house; they have crossed into a space defined by beliefs they do not understand.

That atmosphere is where The Ritual most clearly earns its place in modern folk horror. The movie is not simply interested in isolated woods as a convenient backdrop for scares. It treats the forest as a place with a history and a set of rules that exist independently of the characters. Luke, Dom, Phil, and Hutch arrive with backpacks, maps, phones, and ordinary personal problems, but those things become almost useless once the landscape begins to feel hostile. Their modern routines and assumptions do not protect them. The horror comes partly from the idea that they are outsiders who have entered a world where their explanations mean nothing.

The later sections introduce an isolated group whose beliefs are rooted in an older, more ritualized worldview. This element can feel more direct than the earlier ambiguity, but it still fits the movie’s larger themes. The people Luke encounters represent a twisted alternative to the kind of shame and grief that have been consuming him. Their world offers a warped version of survival: submit to fear, accept the rules, and give up the parts of yourself that make resistance possible. It is an ugly kind of community, one that turns spiritual tradition into coercion and treats personal suffering as something to be exploited.

Rafe Spall is the key to why the film works as more than an exercise in atmosphere. Luke is not an idealized horror protagonist. He is stubborn, defensive, and sometimes hard to like, particularly when he tries to avoid talking about Rob. But Spall makes his guilt feel immediate and human. Luke is not haunted just because he saw someone die; he is haunted because he believes that his failure in that moment reveals who he really is. The forest repeatedly forces him to confront that belief through hallucinatory transitions that blur the wilderness with the liquor-store robbery. Doors in the forest become entrances to the shop. The wooded darkness gives way to fluorescent aisles. Luke seems to be reliving the same failure from different angles, unable to escape the moment he most wishes he could change.

Those surreal flashbacks are some of Bruckner’s best directing choices. They are visually simple but highly effective, placing Luke’s internal guilt directly into the physical environment around him. The movie never turns into a vague psychological-horror story that dismisses everything as a dream, but it uses Luke’s trauma to make the supernatural setting feel more personal. The threat in the woods is frightening because it seems to recognize his weakness. It does not just want to harm him; it wants him to surrender to the version of himself that he already hates.

If The Ritual has a flaw, it is that the final act loses a little of the earlier section’s mystery once the film begins explaining more about what is happening in the forest. The strongest passages are often the quietest ones: the men arguing while lost, the unsettling evidence in the trees, the cabin sequence, and the growing suspicion that they are being pushed in a direction they cannot understand. Still, the conclusion works because it brings the movie back to Luke’s personal struggle. His escape is not simply about reaching safety. It is about refusing to let guilt define his identity forever.

By the end, The Ritual delivers a satisfying sense of catharsis without pretending that Luke has been completely healed. He survives an experience that forces him to face the fear he has been carrying since Rob’s death, but that does not erase the loss or make him a different person overnight. What changes is his willingness to stop living as though one terrible moment has permanently decided who he is. That emotional resolution gives the film more weight than many survival-horror stories.

Overall, The Ritual is a smart, atmospheric, and surprisingly character-driven horror film. Its strongest qualities are its oppressive forest setting, its believable group dynamics, its gradual escalation, and Rafe Spall’s deeply uncomfortable performance. Most importantly, it recognizes that folk horror becomes powerful when the ancient and supernatural elements expose something painfully human. Bruckner turns a memorial hike into a nightmare about guilt, masculinity, friendship, and the terror of being unable to outrun your own past.

Review: The Last House (dir. by Louis Leterrier)

Posted on August 15, 2026 by Arleigh

“The day the rains came, we learned we were not alone.” — Ruth Delgado

The Last House has the kind of premise that is immediately effective: a family wakes up to find that their home has become an inescapable prison. Doors refuse to open, windows cannot be broken, and the outside world is suddenly as unreachable as it is threatening. Directed by Louis Leterrier, the Netflix thriller gets plenty of mileage out of that simple idea. It turns a comfortable suburban house into a claustrophobic survival space, pushes a family toward desperation, and gives its familiar setting a creeping sense of hostility. Still, while the movie is often tense and well-acted, it eventually becomes too crowded with ideas to make any one of them land as strongly as it should.

Wagner Moura and Greta Lee play Jason and Ann Delgado, parents trying to keep their two children calm while they figure out why they have been sealed inside their own home. The film wisely does not waste much time getting to the central crisis. Once the family realizes that no amount of force can open a door or shatter a window, the atmosphere shifts quickly from confusion to panic. At first, there is still a practical logic to their reactions. They test the house’s boundaries, look for tools, try to contact the outside world, and ration what they have. But as each option fails, the family begins to understand that this is not a temporary inconvenience. It is a situation that may outlast their food, water, patience, and ability to trust one another.

That is where The Last House is at its strongest. The film understands how quickly a normal home can become frightening once its basic purpose changes. Kitchens, bedrooms, closets, and hallways are not inherently scary spaces, but the movie makes them feel smaller and more oppressive as the Delgados lose their sense of control. A stocked pantry becomes a countdown. A closed bedroom door no longer offers privacy. The family’s routines and minor annoyances, which initially make the house feel lived-in, become sources of friction when nobody has the option to leave. The production design effectively captures that deterioration, gradually turning an ordinary family home into a cramped, stale environment defined by empty shelves, dim rooms, and blocked exits.

Moura is the film’s standout. Jason begins as someone who wants to solve the problem through force of will and practical action, but that confidence wears down as he realizes that the situation is beyond him. Moura gives the character a believable mix of frustration, fear, and stubbornness. He is not simply an action-thriller father trying to save the day; he is a man whose sense of usefulness begins to collapse when he cannot protect his family or even provide a way out. Greta Lee is also good as Ann, particularly when the film allows her to show the exhaustion of having to steady everyone else while quietly processing the danger herself. However, Ann is not written with quite as much specificity as Jason, and Lee is sometimes left carrying scenes that ask her to reassure or react rather than reveal more about who she is.

The children help maintain the emotional stakes, though their roles are less developed. Their fear and frustration make sense, and the film does a decent job of showing how confinement affects them differently than it affects their parents. But they often function more as pressure points for Jason and Ann than as characters with their own fully formed perspectives. The family dynamic is convincing enough to keep the story grounded, yet the screenplay never digs quite deeply enough into their shared history or unresolved tensions. There are signs of financial strain, parental guilt, and marital distance, but the movie tends to introduce these ideas without fully following through on them.

The film also brushes against an interesting nature-versus-civilization theme. The Delgados’ home represents the ordinary comforts that make modern life feel secure: stocked food, electricity, sturdy walls, private rooms, and the assumption that help is available when something goes wrong. Once the house becomes sealed, those comforts lose their meaning. The family is forced to focus on the basics—food, water, shelter, sleep, and cooperation. Their home no longer separates them from danger; it contains them inside it. The movie’s best thematic moments come from that reversal, as it suggests that civilization is much more fragile than people like to believe.

Unfortunately, The Last House complicates this solid foundation by adding another mysterious danger from the depths. The threat remains vague for much of the story, and that uncertainty creates an unnatural, ominous feeling around the family’s confinement. It gives the film an extra layer of dread, making the Delgados’ problem feel bigger than a sealed house or an isolated storm. But it also pulls attention away from the more compelling material already in place. The family’s struggle to survive, their conflict over dwindling resources, and their gradual loss of trust are strong enough to sustain the movie without needing such an elaborate additional mystery.

That is ultimately the film’s main weakness: it keeps expanding its scope when it should be tightening its focus. The intimate story of a family stuck together under impossible conditions is more powerful than the larger explanation the movie slowly reaches for. As the plot adds more questions about the source of the danger, it risks making the situation feel less immediate. The best scenes are not necessarily the ones that hint at what is happening beyond the walls. They are the ones where the Delgados must decide who gets the last resources, whether to take a reckless chance, or how much truth the parents should tell their children. Those moments make the house feel like a real emotional battleground rather than simply the setting for a mystery.

Leterrier keeps the pacing moving well enough, especially in the first half, and the rainy exterior, muted lighting, and increasingly worn-down interiors give the film a consistently uneasy mood. Even when the screenplay starts to overreach, the movie remains watchable because it knows how to frame the house as a hostile space. It is not a deeply original visual concept, but it is effective. The sense of enclosure becomes almost physical as the family’s world shrinks to a few rooms and the possibility of escape starts to feel less real with every failed attempt.

In the end, The Last House is a decent, occasionally gripping survival thriller that does not fully live up to the potential of its premise. Moura and Lee give it enough emotional weight, and the movie’s domestic setting gives the tension a relatable edge. Yet the script does not always trust its strongest idea: that being trapped with the people you love can become frightening when there is no exit, no help, and no certainty that normal life will return. By piling a mysterious external danger onto its family drama and survival story, The Last House becomes more ambitious without becoming more meaningful. It is worth watching for its atmosphere, performances, and early suspense, but it would have been stronger as a leaner, more focused film about a family discovering how quickly safety can turn into confinement.

Review: Under Paris (dir. by Xavier Gens)

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Arleigh

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, it is the one that is most adaptable to change.” — Sophia

Under Paris is one of those movies that grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go—literally, in this case. Directed by Xavier Gens, the mind behind gritty, high-octane thrillers like Frontier(s) and The Divide, this creature feature dives headfirst into the claustrophobic nightmares lurking beneath the City of Light. And let me tell you, if you’ve ever romanticized the Parisian catacombs, this film will cure you of that real quick.

The story kicks off with a team of scientists exploring the unexplored tunnels under Paris, only to stumble upon something that definitely shouldn’t exist. What starts as a routine expedition turns into a fight for survival when they realize they’re not alone down there. The creatures in question are blind, feral, and terrifyingly fast, with a taste for human flesh. It’s The Descent meets Tremors, but with a distinctly French flair. The film wastes no time setting up its premise, throwing the audience into the dark, cramped corridors where every shadow could be a predator. The tension is palpable from the jump, and Gens doesn’t bother with slow-burn scares—this is a full-throttle horror ride.

What makes Under Paris stand out is its commitment to practicality. The creatures are brought to life with a mix of practical effects and CGI, and for the most part, it works. The designs are grotesque yet believable, with elongated limbs, jagged teeth, and a primal way of moving that makes them feel like something out of a nightmare. The practical effects, in particular, give the creatures a tangible weight that CGI alone often struggles to achieve. When they’re on screen, you believe they’re real, and that’s half the battle in a monster movie. The sound design deserves a shoutout too—the way the creatures communicate through clicks and hisses is unsettling in the best way, adding to the immersive dread.

The characters are, admittedly, a mixed bag. The cast is led by a group of scientists and urban explorers, each with their own quirks and backstories, but the film doesn’t spend much time fleshing them out. This is a survival horror flick, not a character study, so don’t expect deep emotional arcs. That said, the actors do a solid job with what they’re given. The standout is probably the team’s leader, whose growing desperation as the situation spirals out of control feels authentic. There’s also a refreshing lack of the usual horror-movie stupidity—most of the characters make decisions that, while not always smart, at least feel human. They panic, they argue, they try to rationalize the irrational, and it makes their plight all the more relatable.

The setting is a character in its own right. The labyrinthine tunnels under Paris are a horror fan’s dream—narrow, dimly lit, and filled with the kind of eerie silence that makes every distant noise sound like a death sentence. Gens and his cinematographer make the most of the claustrophobic environment, using tight camera angles and rapid cuts to keep the audience on edge. There’s a sequence early on where the team’s headlamps flicker, plunging them (and us) into total darkness, and it’s a masterclass in building tension without relying on jump scares. The film also does a great job of playing with sound, or the lack thereof. In the quiet moments, all you hear is the characters’ ragged breathing and the distant, unsettling skittering of something inhuman.

If Under Paris has a weakness, it’s that it doesn’t always know when to slow down. The pacing is breakneck, which works for the most part, but there are moments where a little breathing room would’ve helped. Some of the CGI, particularly in the wider shots, can look a bit rough, though it’s never bad enough to pull you out of the movie. And while the creatures are terrifying, their backstory is a bit thin. The film hints at a larger mythology—something about evolution and isolation—but it’s never fully explored. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it does leave you with a few unanswered questions.

All that said, Under Paris delivers exactly what it promises: a tense, visceral, and often downright terrifying descent into madness. It’s a film that understands the assignment—give the audience scares, gore, and a sense of dread that lingers long after the credits roll. Gens has a knack for blending horror with social commentary, and while Under Paris doesn’t dive as deep into the latter as some of his other work, it’s still there in the margins. The idea of something monstrous lurking beneath the surface of one of the world’s most romanticized cities is a potent one, and the film doesn’t shy away from the metaphorical implications.

In the end, Under Paris is a must-watch for horror fans, especially those who appreciate their scares with a side of action. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s a damn effective one. It’s the kind of film you’ll want to watch with the lights off, the volume up, and maybe a friend or two to clutch onto when things get really intense. And trust me, they do. Xavier Gens has crafted a creature feature that’s as brutal as it is brilliant, and it’s a testament to his skill as a director that, even in the darkest, most chaotic moments, you’re never quite sure what’s going to happen next. Just don’t blame me if you start side-eying manhole covers after this one.

Review: Wandering Earth (dir. by Frant Gwo)

Posted on June 20, 2026 by Arleigh

“Regardless of the outcome for the history of mankind, we have decided to choose hope!” — MOSS

When The Wandering Earth hit theaters in 2019, it wasn’t just another blockbuster; it was a massive cultural event that announced Chinese cinema had arrived on the global sci-fi stage. Directed by Frant Gwo and based on a novella by Cixin Liu, the film presents an apocalyptic scenario that makes most Western disaster movies look like minor neighborhood inconveniences. The sun is dying and rapidly expanding, threatening to swallow the Earth. Instead of building a fleet of spaceships to escape—an approach familiar to fans of Interstellar or WALL-E—humanity decides to strap ten thousand massive thrusters to the planet and physically fly the entire Earth to a new solar system. It is a wildly ambitious concept, and the film matches that ambition with a scale that is genuinely jaw-dropping, even if the execution sometimes stumbles under its own weight.

The core premise of The Wandering Earth is where the film’s most fascinating positives lie. In Western sci-fi, the go-to survival strategy usually involves a chosen few hopping onto a ship, leaving a doomed Earth behind. Gwo’s film flips that script entirely. Taking the whole planet with you is a deeply rooted cultural metaphor. It speaks to a connection to the land, an ancestral tie to home that cannot be easily severed. In layman’s terms, if your house is flooding, you don’t just grab a life raft and leave; you try to put the whole house on stilts and float away. This collectivist approach to survival sets the tone for the entire movie. The hero isn’t a single maverick saving the day through individual brilliance; it is a massive, coordinated effort of thousands of engineers, astronauts, and rescue workers. This thematic freshness is a massive point in the film’s favor.

Visually, the movie is an absolute triumph, which is another major positive. The production design is stunning, especially considering it was a trailblazer for high-budget Chinese sci-fi. The planetary engines are these colossal, monolithic structures that make humans look like ants, perfectly capturing the sheer engineering scale required to move a planet. The surface of the Earth, frozen solid as the planet moves away from the sun, is rendered in bleak, atmospheric blues and whites. You really feel the bitter, unforgiving cold of a world that has been abandoned by its star. Sure, if you look closely, some of the CGI can look a little video-gamey, particularly in the faster action sequences. But the overall aesthetic is so dense and imaginative that it’s easy to forgive the moments where the digital effects stretch a bit thin. The design of the rugged transport vehicles, the claustrophobic underground cities, and the menacing, swirling red eye of Jupiter when the Earth gets caught in its gravity—all of it creates a visually cohesive and immersive world.

However, when we shift from the macro to the micro, the film’s flaws become glaringly apparent, starting with its pacing and narrative structure. The plot essentially operates as a relentless series of escalating, life-or-death obstacles. As soon as the characters solve one problem, another, bigger problem immediately pops up. It is an exhausting, breathless way to tell a story, which keeps the adrenaline high but leaves very little room to breathe. The Earth gets caught in Jupiter’s gravitational pull, the planetary thrusters fail, a rescue team has to transport a lighting device across a frozen wasteland, and so on. For a casual viewer, this makes for an exciting, edge-of-your-seat experience. Analytically, however, it exposes a script that relies heavily on convenience and last-minute problem-solving. The characters are constantly shouting scientific jargon to explain why the newest disaster is happening and how they can fix it, which sometimes feels less like organic storytelling and more like a frantic physics lecture you didn’t study for.

The human element is another area where the film struggles with significant flaws. The story centers on the fractured relationship between astronaut Liu Peiqiang, who is stationed on a navigating space station, and his rebellious teenage son Liu Qi, who sneaks out to the frozen surface with his adopted sister. The family dynamic is meant to be the emotional anchor of the film, and there are genuinely poignant moments regarding sacrifice and the lengths parents will go to protect their children. Unfortunately, these emotional beats are often delivered with a very heavy hand. The dialogue can be quite melodramatic, and the characters fall into recognizable archetypes—the angry young man, the stoic mentor, the plucky comic relief. The acting and line delivery can feel over-the-top and stilted. While Western audiences might find this jarring, it fits comfortably within the stylistic norms of Chinese dramatic cinema. Even so, broad emotional strokes and underdeveloped side characters hold the script back from achieving true narrative greatness.

Despite these narrative and emotional flaws, what redeems The Wandering Earth and makes it so compelling is how it leans into its thematic positives. In a standard Hollywood disaster film like Armageddon or 2012, you can bet that one charismatic hero will defy orders, punch a villain, and save the day in the final seconds. Here, the protagonists fail. A lot. Their plans don’t work, and it takes the combined, synchronized effort of rescue teams from all over the globe—including characters we never even meet—to push the story forward. There is a specific, powerful sequence where a group of international rescue workers are pushing a heavy vehicle up a slope, and one by one they fall from exhaustion, only to be immediately replaced by others stepping in to take their place. It is a brilliant, simple visual metaphor for collective endurance. The film argues that humanity survives not through individual heroism, but through shared suffering and mutual sacrifice, which ultimately elevates the flawed script.

Ultimately, The Wandering Earth is a milestone film that demands respect, warts and all. Frant Gwo managed to craft a spectacle that rivals anything coming out of Hollywood, while infusing it with a distinctly Chinese cultural identity. It is not a perfect movie. The pacing is exhausting, the exposition can be clunky, the science is often baffling, and the emotional resonance relies heavily on the audience’s willingness to accept melodramatic family tropes. Yet, the sheer audacity of the concept, the incredible world-building, and the thematic focus on communal survival make it a deeply rewarding watch. The positives of its visual ambition and unique cultural perspective heavily outweigh the flaws of its script and pacing. It is a film that asks what it means to save the world, and boldly answers that it takes the whole world to do it.

Anime You Should Be Watching: Vinland Saga (Vinrando Saga)

Posted on June 19, 2026 by Arleigh

“A true warrior doesn’t need a sword.” — Thors Snorresson

When people talk about the greatest historical fiction in anime, Vinland Saga usually storms the conversation like a Viking longship breaking through a thick morning fog. Adapting Makoto Yukimura’s sweeping manga masterpiece, Wit Studio and later Studio MAPPA created something that transcends the typical boundaries of the shonen and seinen demographics. It starts out looking like a brutal, blood-drenched revenge thriller set during the 11th-century Danish invasion of England, but it morphs into a profoundly moving philosophical epic about pacifism, trauma, systemic violence, and what it truly means to be a warrior. If you came for the hyper-violent axe fights, you will stay for the agonizing, beautiful deconstruction of why those fights shouldn’t happen in the first place.

To understand why Vinland Saga hits so hard, you have to look at how it builds its protagonist, Thorfinn. When we first meet him as a young boy in Iceland, he is bright-eyed, energetic, and eager to prove his worth. His world is shattered when his father, Thors—a legendary warrior who abandoned the Jomsvikings to live a peaceful life—is foully assassinated by a mercenary leader named Askeladd. Driven by blind rage, Thorfinn joins Askeladd’s crew, surviving in the harsh wilds of war-torn Europe for a decade just to earn formal duels against his father’s killer. For the entirety of the first season, Thorfinn is a feral, screaming ball of spite. He doesn’t care about politics, the crown of England, or the suffering of the villages he helps raid. He only cares about revenge. It is a brilliant, uncomfortable framing because the narrative doesn’t glorify his skill; it treats his obsession as a tragic wasting of his youth.

But as great as Thorfinn is, the first season is utterly stolen by Askeladd. He is easily one of the most complex, magnetic antagonists in all of anime. Askeladd is a cynical, brilliant tactician who loathes the very Vikings he leads. He is a man caught between his secret royal Welsh heritage and his current reality as a ruthless mercenary captain. His relationship with Thorfinn is deeply twisted—he is simultaneously the boy’s mortal enemy, employer, and twisted surrogate father figure. Watching Askeladd manipulate kings, generals, and his own men like chess pieces is a masterclass in writing. When the first season reaches its shocking, chaotic climax, Askeladd’s actions fundamentally break Thorfinn’s entire reality, setting the stage for one of the greatest tonal shifts in anime history.

That shift happens in the second season, often referred to by fans as the Slave Arc. If the first season is a roaring fire, the second season is the slow, aching process of clearing away the ash. Stripped of his purpose after the events of the season one finale, Thorfinn is sold into slavery and ends up clearing forests on a massive farm owned by a man named Ketil. Here, the show sheds its battle-shonen pacing entirely and becomes a slow-burning character study. Thorfinn is hollowed out, plagued by nightmarish visions of the people he slaughtered during his mercenary days. Alongside a fellow slave named Einar, Thorfinn has to learn how to farm, how to connect with other human beings, and how to carry the crushing weight of his sins without letting them destroy him.

This second season is where Vinland Saga cements itself as a masterpiece. It takes incredible narrative bravery to take a show known for jaw-dropping action animation and turn it into a quiet drama about crop yields and emotional vulnerability. The bond that grows between Thorfinn and Einar is incredibly moving, built on shared grief and mutual labor. The series uses the micro-cosmos of Ketil’s farm to explore how the violence of the Viking age wasn’t just a problem for kings and warriors on battlefields, but a systemic rot that trickled down to affect slaves, farmers, and women. When Thorfinn finally makes his vow to never hurt anyone again unless absolutely necessary, it feels earned in a way few anime character developments ever do. His realization that a true warrior needs no sword is a direct echo of his father’s words from the very first episode, bringing the emotional arc full circle.

The production values across both seasons are nothing short of stellar, despite a studio handoff. Wit Studio handled the first season with their trademark cinematic flair, giving the action sequences an incredible sense of weight, momentum, and visceral impact. Every swing of an axe or spray of blood feels heavy and dangerous. When Studio MAPPA took over for the second season, they seamlessly maintained the visual continuity while leaning heavily into the quiet, rustic beauty of the agricultural setting. The changing of the seasons on the farm, the play of light through the trees, and the hauntingly expressive close-ups of characters experiencing profound grief or joy are animated with breathtaking care. The soundtracks, composed by Yutaka Yamada, are equally phenomenal, mixing booming, Norse-inspired war chants with melancholic strings that will absolutely tear at your heartstrings during the show’s more tender moments.

It is also worth praising how the show handles its historical setting. While Vinland Saga takes plenty of dramatic liberties, it weaves its fictional narrative into real history with remarkable skill. Real-world historical figures like King Canute the Great, Thorkell the Tall, and Leif Erikson are major players in the plot. Canute, in particular, undergoes a fascinating parallel development to Thorfinn. While Thorfinn goes from a violent warrior to a peaceful farmer, Canute goes from a timid, deeply religious prince to a cold, calculating king willing to stain his hands with blood to build a peaceful utopia on earth. The philosophical clashes between Thorfinn’s personal pacifism and Canute’s grand political ambitions create an incredible, intellectual tension that elevates the final acts of the story far above standard good-versus-evil narratives.

Ultimately, Vinland Saga is an unforgettable experience because it asks incredibly difficult questions and refuses to give cheap answers. It asks how a person can find redemption after doing terrible things, and whether true peace can ever exist in a world built on conquest and subjugation. It is a rare story that respects its audience’s intelligence and emotional maturity, delivering a narrative that is as intellectually stimulating as it is emotionally devastating. Whether you are a die-hard anime fan or someone who usually sticks to prestige live-action television, this series demands your time. It is a monumental achievement in storytelling, an epic that starts with a roar of vengeance and ends with a quiet, beautiful plea for peace.

The only real sting left for fans is the agonizing wait for the next chapter of Thorfinn’s journey. Makoto Yukimura, the brilliant creator of the original manga, has openly expressed how much he looks forward to a third season of the adaptation, fully sharing the audience’s enthusiasm to see the Eastern Expedition arc brought to life. Unfortunately, the anime adaptation and the studio haven’t officially confirmed a third season yet, leaving passionate fans clamoring for news into silence. It is important to note that this delay isn’t because the studio dislikes the property or lacks interest in continuing it. Rather, it comes down to a massive, heavily stacked backlog of massive projects that the studio has to completely finish and clear out before they can even realistically allocate the core creative team to begin working on a third season of Vinland Saga. Until then, the community holds onto the hope that the patient wait will mirror the slow, rewarding pacing of the story itself.

Anime You Should Be Watching

Musical Documentary Review: Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 (dir by Jamie Crawford)

Posted on June 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In August of 2022, Netflix premiered a three-part documentary about Woodstock ’99.

Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 took a look at how the third Woodstock musical festival went from being the most highly anticipated event of the summer of 1999 to being a total disaster. I started watching the documentary the week that it premiered. I was halfway through the first episode when I realized that I needed to make sure that my car insurance had been renewed. I stopped the program, hopped online, made sure that my payment had been received and then….

Well, I don’t exactly remember what I did but I do know that I did not return to Woodstock ’99. Indeed, I kind of forgot about Woodstock ’99. It wasn’t until last night, when Jeff and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, that I saw Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 listed under “continue watching.” I did the math. I decided that, given that it had been nearly four years since I watched the opening 30 minutes of the first episode, it was perhaps to finally see what Woodstock ’99 was all about.

The three-part documentary features archival footage from the concert and also interviews with the people behind Woodstock ’99, a few people who attended, and some of the artists who performed. To be honest, I wish that more of the performers had been interviewed. Considering that one of the festival’s organizers literally blamed Fred Durst for the rioting, it’s a shame that Durst didn’t share his side of the story. I’m not a huge fan of Fred Durst but the decision to blame him for the crowd getting out of control has always seem to be a bit too convenient to me. As the documentary shows (sometimes unintentionally), people had reason to be angry long before Fred Durst stepped out on stage and told them to “break shit.” As a once popular performer who has since come to be seen as a bit of a self-parody, Durst makes for an easy scapegoat.

For all the talk about what Woodstock has represented throughout the years, all three of the festivals were ultimately about making money for the organizers. Michael Lang may have been a hippie who said the first Woodstock was about ending the war in Vietnam and that the third Woodstock was about promoting gun control but he was also a businessman. The first Woodstock only made money because of the success of the famous documentary. Woodstock ’94 lost money because the fence surrounding the festival was torn down and people were able to get in without buying tickets. Woodstock ’99 was designed to be secure and impenetrable. Instead of being held in a field, it was held on a deserted air force base where the asphalt made the summer heat unbearable and where the empty hangars helped to create a dystopian atmosphere. Woodstock ’99 was designed to be village. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a village where bottled water eventually ended up costing $14.00 and the toilets ended up overflowing. (One interviewee discusses waking up on the third day and discovering that she was suffering from something called “trench mouth.” Even the name sounds terrifying.)

The documentary features a few people who rightly point out that the festival’s organizers created a situation where the third night’s riot was almost inevitable. Michael Lang apparently had not listened to any new music since the 70s and, hence, didn’t understand that there was a world of difference between the mellow hippies of 1969 and the fans of Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Kid Rock. Amazingly, Lang thought it would be a good idea to hand out candles so that the festival could end with a candlelight vigil against gun violence. The candles were instead used to start fires. As the festival grounds burned, the fence was finally torn down, a sound tower was pulled to the ground, and eventually the national guard showed up. The organizers of the Festival, including Lang, put the blame on almost everyone but themselves.

I’ve often said that movie and documentaries made between 2019 and 2024 often feel as if they are artifacts from a different age. That’s how quickly the culture shifted after the election of 2024. That’s the case with Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99. The final thirty minutes of the documentary are spent classifying Woodstock ’99 as being an example of white privilege and it seems a little performative today but that was pretty much the prism through which everything was viewed and discussed in 2022. The truth of the matter is that there were a lot of reasons why Woodstock ’99 was a disaster and almost all of them come down to the greed at the heart of the enterprise. It was greed that led to festival being held in the worst possible location. It was greed that led to cutting corners when it came to security and the hiring of the half-assed “Peace Patrol,” a group of amateur security guards who failed to protect the most vulnerable people at the festival. (At least five rapes and numerous other sexual assaults occurred a the concert.) And it was ultimately Michael Lang’s desire to pretend that the concert was about something other than greed that led to a bunch of angry, tired, and intoxicated people being handed candles.

This documentary shows why Woodstock ’99 was the final Woodstock. (There was an attempt to put together a 50th anniversary festival in 2019 but, perhaps thankfully, it fell apart.) It’s a shame that Woodstock ended the way it did. It could have been a great American tradition. Instead, the festival of peace and love ended with fire and destruction.