Horror Film Review: Other Mommy (dir. Rob Savage)

Posted on October 15, 2026 by Arleigh

“Sometimes I think about when you and I were one person, and it makes me so happy, I cry. Do you remember that?” — Other Mommy

Jessica Chastain is the only reason Other Mommy works at all, and even she cannot quite save a horror movie that turns a genuinely strong premise into something silly through its own adaptation. Rob Savage’s 2026 film is based on Josh Malerman’s novel Incidents Around the House, and the source material’s central idea—a young girl discovers that the entity haunting her house looks exactly like her mother—is legitimately creepy and emotionally rich. The novel understands that a child’s fear of losing her mother, and a mother’s fear of being replaced, can carry an entire horror story. The movie takes that same foundation and rushes through it, leans into chaotic scares, and never finds a consistent tone, until the premise starts to feel ridiculous rather than frightening. What keeps it from being a total loss is Chastain’s double performance as both the struggling mother Ursula and the grotesque creature impersonating her. Without her, this would be an easy movie to forget. With her, it becomes a frustrating watch—good enough to keep you interested, bad enough to make you wish it had been better.

The story follows Bela, an eight-year-old girl played by Arabella Olivia Clark, who lives with her parents Ursula and Russ, played by Chastain and Jay Duplass. Their home is already unstable. The marriage is strained, the parents are distracted, and Bela is left to make sense of it all on her own. Into that environment comes Other Mommy, an entity that emerges from the closet wearing Ursula’s face. She does not simply attack Bela. Instead, she asks to be let into her heart, promising love and closeness while making it clear that refusal will have consequences. In Malerman’s novel, that setup works because the book takes its time exploring the psychological weight of it: a child caught between a mother who cannot fully show up for her and a monster who will happily pretend to. The film has the same ingredients but treats them more like a starting point for increasingly ridiculous scares than something it actually wants to sit with, and that is where the adaptation starts to lose the plot.

Chastain is the reason any of it works at all. Playing Ursula and Other Mommy gives her a chance to show two very different sides of the same face, and she makes the contrast convincing. As Ursula, she is tired, brittle, and emotionally unavailable in a way that feels believable even when the plot around her falls apart. She loves her daughter, but she is too overwhelmed and angry to show it consistently, and Chastain plays that failure without turning Ursula into a villain. As Other Mommy, she gets to go full nightmare fuel. The creature performs motherhood like someone who has studied it from the outside, smiling too widely, speaking in a warm but slightly off register, and moving with an unnatural confidence that makes every interaction feel wrong. Chastain understands that the scariest version of the monster is not the one that growls or lunges, but the one that almost gets the role right. She knows the words. She does not understand the feeling behind them.

That performance is what gives the film its few genuinely effective moments. When Other Mommy pleads with Bela to accept her, the scene works because the creature is both terrifying and pitiful. She wants to be loved, believed, and chosen, and she cannot comprehend why Bela would resist. There is something sad about that, and Chastain finds it without softening the character’s menace. She makes the entity feel like a desperate, needy thing wearing a mother’s face, and that is a much more interesting horror idea than the movie’s actual plot delivery system. If the film had leaned harder into that emotional contradiction and given it room to breathe, it might have come closer to capturing what makes the novel’s premise so effective. Instead, it keeps rushing past the interesting parts to get to the next loud, chaotic set piece.

That pacing is one of the movie’s biggest problems. At 93 minutes, Other Mommy moves fast, and not in a good way. It introduces the family’s problems, brings in the monster, and starts escalating the scares before the audience has had much time to connect with anyone. We understand that Ursula and Russ are unhappy, but we do not feel the specific weight of that unhappiness. We know Bela is lonely, but the film does not give her enough quiet moments to show what that loneliness looks like day to day. The result is a movie full of confrontations with the entity but very little emotional buildup between them. The family feels more like pieces in a horror machine than people whose survival actually matters, and that makes it hard to care when things go wrong. The novel earns its scares by making you care about the people first; the film skips that step and wonders why the scares do not hit as hard.

Savage’s direction does not help. He clearly likes big visual ideas, sudden movements, and scares that come out of nowhere, but the execution often feels more frantic than frightening. The creature design has some inventive moments—Other Mommy can stretch, contort, and squeeze herself into spaces no human body should fit—but the film rarely trusts quiet dread. It piles on noise, fast editing, and chaotic CGI effects until the tension flattens out. A scare that might have landed with a little patience becomes one more startle in a long line of startles. When the entity lingers at the edge of the frame, half-seen through a doorway or reflected somewhere she should not be, the movie creates real unease. Those moments are too rare. Most of the time, the film would rather show you everything immediately and hope volume substitutes for atmosphere, which is exactly the kind of choice that turns a creepy premise into a silly one.

The tonal swings make things worse. Other Mommy wants to be sad, scary, funny, and ridiculous all at once, and it does not know when to switch gears. There are sequences where the creature’s behavior becomes so exaggerated that it tips into camp, including a ball-pit scene that pushes the film into full-on absurdity. That campiness might work in a movie that fully embraces it, but this one keeps trying to have it both ways. It wants you to laugh at the monster’s physical comedy one minute and feel genuine dread the next, and the shifts are jarring rather than effective. The result is a film that never settles into a consistent identity. It is too silly to be truly scary and too serious to be fun camp, and that in-between space is where it lost me—and where it drifts furthest from the novel’s more controlled, unsettling tone.

The supporting cast does not do much to help. Duplass gives Russ a believable sense of helplessness, but the character is thinly written and mostly reactive. Karen Allen, Arian Moayed, and Dichen Lachman show up in roles that serve the plot rather than add dimension. Clark is better than the material deserves, bringing a real vulnerability to Bela that makes her more than just a screaming kid. She holds her own opposite Chastain, which is no small feat given how much the older actress is doing in every scene. But even a good child performance cannot fix a screenplay that does not know what it wants to say about the family at the center of the story.

In the end, Other Mommy is a movie with one great performance and an adaptation that takes a strong, genuinely unsettling premise and makes it feel silly through rushed pacing, chaotic direction, and tonal confusion. The idea of a mother-shaped entity trying to replace a child’s real mother is not the problem—Malerman’s novel proves it can be genuinely frightening. The problem is that Savage’s film does not know how to translate that idea to the screen without turning it into a series of loud, inconsistent set pieces. Chastain plays both sides of the dynamic with total commitment, and she is the only reason the movie stays watchable. It is not the worst horror movie of the year, but it is a disappointing one, because you can see the better version of this story trying to get out. If you watch it, watch it for her. Just do not expect the movie around her to hold up the way the book’s premise deserves.

Horror Film Review: Lord of Illusions (dir. by Clive Barker)

Posted on October 12, 2026 by Arleigh

“I was born to murder the world.” — William Nix

There’s a version of Lord of Illusions that exists only in Clive Barker’s head, and it’s probably a masterpiece. The version that actually made it to theaters in 1995 is something else entirely: a fascinating, frustrating, occasionally brilliant mess of a movie that tries to fuse film noir with cosmic horror and only partially succeeds. Barker wrote and directed the film based on his own 1985 short story The Last Illusion, and while he clearly understands the material better than anyone else could, his direction is surprisingly by the numbers, playing it safe when the source material practically begs for supernatural insanity.

The plot, such as it is, kicks off with a prologue in 1982 at a Mojave Desert cult compound run by a genuinely terrifying figure named William Nix, played with unsettling intensity by Daniel Von Bargen. Nix calls himself “The Puritan,” which is a nice bit of irony given that he’s basically Charles Manson with actual supernatural powers, and he’s about to sacrifice a young girl when a group of his own followers, led by a man named Philip Swann, stage a violent coup. They shoot Nix, screw an iron mask onto his face, and bury him in the desert, assuming that’s the end of it. It’s a strong opening, full of the kind of visceral, apocalyptic imagery that Barker does better than almost anyone, and it sets up a genuinely intriguing mystery about what happened to this cult and why its members turned on their leader.

Thirteen years later, we meet Harry D’Amour, a New York private detective played by Scott Bakula, who has a habit of stumbling into the supernatural the way other noir detectives stumble into dames with secrets. Harry gets pulled into a case in Los Angeles that leads him to Swann, now a world-famous illusionist, and his wife Dorothea, played by Famke Janssen, who seems to know more about the danger lurking around her husband than she’s letting on. When Swann dies on stage in a spectacularly grisly accident involving suspended swords, Harry finds himself drawn deeper into a world where the line between stage magic and genuine sorcery has been blurred past the point of no return. The investigation takes him through a strange subculture of professional magicians, each with their own secrets and rivalries, and gradually reveals that Swann’s death was not an accident but the opening move in a larger, darker game.

What works best about Lord of Illusions is its atmosphere. Barker has always had an eye for the grotesque and the baroque, and here he leans hard into the noir trappings to ground the supernatural stuff in something that feels almost noir-ish in its fatalism. Harry D’Amour is a classic archetype, a rumpled, world-weary guy who’s seen too much but keeps going anyway, and Bakula plays him with a likable, low-key charm that keeps the film from drowning in its own self-seriousness. The Los Angeles setting is used well, too, with the stark contrast between the sun-drenched surface and the darkness lurking beneath feeling very much in line with classic noir like Chinatown or The Long Goodbye. The film’s visual palette is appropriately moody, all shadows and neon and rain-slicked streets, and there are moments where it genuinely feels like it could be a lost noir from the 1940s, just with more blood and occult symbolism.

The thing is, though, Barker’s directing here is quite by the numbers. He knows the material inside and out, obviously, since he wrote the short story and the screenplay, but as a director he plays it safe instead of leaning into the supernatural insanity of the source material. There’s nothing wrong with the film on a technical level, but there’s also nothing that really grabs you by the throat the way Barker’s best work does. It’s competent, it’s professional, and it’s ultimately a little bit forgettable in a way that a Clive Barker movie really shouldn’t be. For a filmmaker whose whole reputation is built on pushing boundaries and going places other horror directors won’t, Lord of Illusions feels oddly restrained, like Barker was holding something back.

And that’s what makes the film so bewildering. Barker definitely knows how to direct a film that matches the over-the-top imagery and narrative of his source material. If his work on Hellraiser is any indication, he’s more than capable of translating his own literary excesses to the screen with style and confidence. Hellraiser is a film that fully commits to its own weirdness, that doesn’t apologize for its cenobites or its flesh-and-blood aesthetics or its genuinely transgressive themes. It’s a movie that knows exactly what it is and leans into it with everything it’s got. So why does Lord of Illusions, which comes from a story that’s every bit as strange and ambitious as The Hellbound Heart, feel so much more pedestrian? It’s not a question of budget or resources, because Lord of Illusions actually had a bigger budget than Hellraiser. It’s not a question of experience, because Barker had already directed one genuinely great film by this point. It’s a question of nerve, and for whatever reason, Barker just doesn’t seem to have the same nerve here that he did with Hellraiser.

Would leaning harder into the weirdness have made the film better? Maybe, maybe not. But here’s the thing: like most of Barker’s stories, Lord of Illusions works best when it goes over the top. Barker’s whole deal as an artist is excess. His best work, whether it’s The Hellbound Heart or Weaveworld or The Great and Secret Show, is unapologetically maximalist, throwing ideas at the wall with reckless abandon and trusting that the sheer force of imagination will carry the reader through. The short story The Last Illusion is no exception. It’s a wild, hallucinatory piece of work, full of reality-bending weirdness that feels like it could have been a genuinely unhinged horror film in the right hands. The movie version sands off a lot of those rough edges in favor of something more conventional, and while that makes the film more accessible, it also makes it less memorable.

The film’s biggest problem, and it’s a substantial one, is its pacing and structure. Barker has always been a writer with more ideas than he knows what to do with, and Lord of Illusions is stuffed to the gills with concepts and imagery that never quite cohere. The theatrical cut, which runs about 109 minutes, is notoriously choppy, jumping from scene to scene with a kind of frantic energy that leaves the audience scrambling to keep up. Characters appear and disappear without much explanation, plot threads are introduced and abandoned, and the whole thing has a rushed, unfinished quality that makes it feel like a much longer film that was hacked down in the editing room. There’s a director’s cut that runs about 121 minutes and restores a lot of the character development and thematic material, and while it doesn’t magically turn the film into a masterpiece, it does make it feel considerably more coherent. If you’re going to watch Lord of Illusions, do yourself a favor and track down the director’s cut. It won’t fix all the film’s problems, but it at least gives you a better sense of what Barker was going for.

The performances are a mixed bag in a way that’s almost charming. Bakula is genuinely good as Harry, bringing a kind of earnest decency to a role that could easily have been a Bogart impression. He’s not the most hard-boiled guy in the world, but that’s part of the point; Harry D’Amour is a detective who keeps finding himself in supernatural situations not because he’s special but because he’s unlucky, and Bakula sells that beautifully. He’s the kind of guy you’d want on your side in a crisis, even if he’s not entirely sure what he’s doing half the time, and that makes him a surprisingly effective audience surrogate for a film this strange.

Famke Janssen, in one of her earliest major roles, is somewhat underused as Dorothea, but she has a presence that makes you wish the film had given her more to do. She’s got the kind of old-Hollywood glamour that fits the noir aesthetic perfectly, and there are hints of a much more interesting character buried in there somewhere. Kevin J. O’Connor as Swann is the weak link; he’s supposed to be a charismatic showman hiding a dark secret, but he mostly comes across as twitchy and unfocused, which undercuts the tragedy of his character. The real standout among the supporting cast is Barry Del Sherman as Butterfield, one of Nix’s acolytes, who brings a genuinely unsettling energy to every scene he’s in. He’s the kind of henchman who seems like he’s enjoying himself a little too much, and that makes him far more memorable than the film’s actual villain.

Then there’s Nix himself. Barker has said that he deliberately made Nix uncharismatic, wanting to subvert the expectation of the magnetic cult leader by making him genuinely pathetic and repellent. The intention, clearly, was to evoke the real-world evil of figures like Jim Jones and Charles Manson, those charismatic monsters whose power came from their ability to bend other people’s wills to their own. It’s an interesting idea in theory, a deliberate rejection of the idea that evil has to be seductive to be dangerous.

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t really work. Nix is meant to be a Jim Jones or Charlie Manson type of evil, a man whose sheer force of personality could convince people to hand over their lives and their sanity, but he comes off as uninspired instead. Von Bargen is a fine actor and he does what he can with the role, but the character as written lacks the magnetic pull that made those real-life figures so terrifying. He’s not a seducer, he’s not a manipulator, he’s just a guy in a mask shouting about being a god. The film tells us he had followers, tells us he was dangerous, but it never really shows us why anyone would have followed him in the first place. And that’s a problem, because if you’re going to build a horror movie around a cult leader, the one thing you absolutely have to nail is the cult leader’s charisma. Nix should be the kind of villain who makes your skin crawl because you can almost understand why people fell under his spell. Instead, he’s just a snarling figurehead.

The film’s climax, where Nix is resurrected and goes on a rampage, is where the movie loses a lot of its goodwill. The special effects, which were probably decent for 1995, have not aged well, and the sequence where Nix buries his followers in the desert via a torrential downpour is more silly than scary. The famous “Origami Man” chase sequence, where Harry is pursued by a creature made of folding paper and a dog made of fire, is similarly unconvincing, looking more like a mid-90s CD-ROM cutscene than anything genuinely threatening. It’s the kind of scene that probably looked great on paper but just doesn’t work in execution, and it ends up undermining the film’s attempts at genuine dread.

And yet, despite all its flaws, I can’t bring myself to dismiss Lord of Illusions. There’s something genuinely compelling about a film that tries this hard to be something different, to blend genres in a way that studio horror almost never does. Barker’s vision, even when it’s undercut by dated effects or its own uneven execution, is always interesting. The film’s central idea, that the difference between a magician and a sorcerer is the difference between someone who entertains and someone who actually traffics with dark forces, is a genuinely good one, and the way it plays out through Swann’s character arc is the film’s strongest thematic thread. Swann, who possesses real power but chooses to use it for fame and fortune, is a more interesting figure than the film sometimes knows what to do with. His decision to hide his abilities behind the veneer of stage magic feels like a commentary on something, maybe on the compromises artists make, maybe on the way we all hide the parts of ourselves that are too dangerous or too strange for polite society.

The first two-thirds of the film, with Harry navigating the strange world of professional magicians and slowly uncovering the truth about Swann and Dorothea’s past, is genuinely engaging. It’s when the film shifts into full-on horror mode that it loses its footing, trading atmosphere for spectacle in a way that feels like a concession to the genre’s demands rather than a natural progression of the story. That’s a shame, because the noir elements are what make Lord of Illusions feel unique. There are plenty of horror films about cults and demons and dark magic, but there aren’t many that approach those subjects through the lens of a hard-boiled detective story, and the tension between those two modes is what gives the film its distinctive flavor.

In the end, Lord of Illusions is entertaining enough for what it is, but it’s hindered by a filmmaker well-known for swinging for the fences who, for some reason, holds himself back here when the source material, one he himself wrote, pretty much begs for it. This isn’t a movie that swings and misses; it’s one that never really swings at all, settling for competent when it could have been fearless.

Horror Guilty Pleasure No. 132: The Convent of Hell (by Ricardo Barreiro & Ignacio Noé)

Posted on October 10, 2026 by Arleigh

The Convent of Hell is the kind of guilty pleasure that makes you admire the artwork while hoping nobody walks in and asks what you’re reading. Written by Ricardo Barreiro and illustrated by Ignacio Noé, it feels like what would happen if European exploitation films of the 1970s collectively decided they weren’t being exploitative or extreme enough. Whatever restraint those movies occasionally exercised gets thrown out the convent window, leaving a delirious collision of religious imagery, explicit adult material, and grotesque supernatural horror. It is definitely not safe for work, and that warning covers considerably more than nudity. Still, beneath the shock tactics sits an impressive piece of visual storytelling, presented with more artistic conviction than its premise might suggest.

The setup is wonderfully suited to this kind of lurid entertainment. An isolated Spanish convent conceals a mysterious door in its basement, and investigating what lies behind it proves spectacularly unwise. Religious discipline already exists alongside cruelty, repression, and compromised authority before the supernatural threat fully emerges. That matters because the horror does not simply invade an otherwise innocent sanctuary. It finds an institution with weaknesses already built into its foundations. The Mother Superior’s fascination with the forbidden doorway turns curiosity into catastrophe, giving the story a clear dramatic engine even when its increasingly outrageous content threatens to take over completely. You know opening that door is a terrible idea, but watching the inevitable disaster unfold is part of the appeal.

Noé’s artwork is the biggest reason the book rises above being a disposable exercise in provocation. His painted imagery gives the convent a physical presence that makes its corruption feel unusually tangible. The building looks oppressive rather than comforting, with an atmosphere of isolation that establishes unease before the demonic spectacle arrives. There is a strong contrast between the solidity of the setting and the impossible things that eventually occupy it. Instead of treating the backgrounds as empty space between bodies, Noé uses the environment to sustain the mood. The result is a comic whose visual atmosphere remains compelling even when the narrative is operating at its most ridiculous. You can question the taste involved while still admiring the craftsmanship.

That craftsmanship also helps the horror retain some genuine ugliness. The demonic presence is not simply a glamorous fantasy figure with a few sinister accessories. Its animalistic design and exaggerated scale make it feel invasive, alien, and fundamentally wrong within the convent’s enclosed world. This is important because the book constantly moves between erotic spectacle and disgust, sometimes refusing to give the reader a comfortable distinction between them. Noé makes that collision visually forceful. The imagery can be excessive, but it rarely feels timid or accidentally awkward. Whether a particular page fascinates or repels you, there is usually little doubt that the artist knows exactly what kind of reaction he is trying to provoke.

Barreiro’s writing deserves some credit for giving the excess a framework. The discovery of the door, the growing mystery surrounding it, and the escalation into outright supernatural disaster create a recognizable progression rather than a completely shapeless collection of adult scenes. There is anticipation, a threshold being crossed, and a widening sense of consequences. The opening stretch gives the setting time to acquire some menace, which makes the later chaos feel like a release of pressure rather than an arbitrary change of subject. That does not mean the book becomes a deeply layered psychological drama. It simply means its exploitation elements benefit from actual pacing, and pacing makes a considerable difference when the premise is this aggressively overblown.

The characters are less convincing as complicated individuals than as participants in a nightmare about repression and corrupted power. The Mother Superior is the most important figure because her authority and transgression become inseparable, but the book is not especially interested in patiently exploring everyone’s interior life. Its religious imagery supplies an immediate vocabulary of purity, temptation, punishment, and desecration, then twists those ideas into spectacle. There is potential for a sharper critique of institutional hypocrisy here, yet the comic generally prefers another outrageous escalation to a sustained argument. That limitation is worth acknowledging. A reader looking for an insightful examination of faith or convent life will probably find the book much thinner than its elaborate artwork initially promises.

The biggest obstacle, however, is not the thin characterization. It is the sexual violence. Calling this a cheeky naughty-nuns comic would badly undersell how cruel and confrontational parts of it become. Its explicit content includes nonconsensual acts, so the guilty-pleasure label needs a serious qualification: the pleasure comes from the feverish horror, visual skill, and sheer audacity, not from pretending the disturbing material is harmless. For some readers, that combination will be an immediate dealbreaker, and understandably so. Even readers comfortable with extreme horror may find the balance between eroticism and brutality unpleasant rather than entertaining. This is a book whose content warnings are genuinely useful, not merely promotional shorthand for something mildly scandalous.

What ultimately makes The Convent of Hell memorable is the mismatch between its disreputable subject matter and its committed execution. It has the instincts of a midnight exploitation feature, but Noé gives those instincts a richly realized visual identity, while Barreiro supplies enough structure to keep the descent into chaos moving. It is excessive, uncomfortable, occasionally absurd, and unmistakably adults-only. As a guilty pleasure for readers who can tolerate its extreme content, it delivers a distinctive collision of supernatural horror and sacrilegious spectacle. As a recommendation for the average graphic-novel reader, it comes with enormous reservations. The artistry is real; so are the reasons to leave it on the shelf.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Horror Film Review: Evil Dead (dir. by Fede Alvarez)

Posted on October 8, 2026 by Arleigh

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but nothing has been fine. And everything’s been getting worse every second.” — Eric

Evil Dead does not tiptoe around its legacy; it kicks the cabin door open, grabs the Necronomicon, and buries the audience under gallons of blood. Fede Alvarez’s 2013 soft reboot faced the nearly impossible task of revisiting Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead, a cult horror landmark so tied to its handmade weirdness, manic energy, and eventual dark-comedy sensibility that a straight duplicate would have been pointless. Alvarez wisely does not try to replace the original. Instead, he takes its basic framework—the isolated cabin, the Book of the Dead, a group of doomed young people, and an escalating demonic outbreak—and reshapes it into something more polished, more punishing, and much more relentlessly nasty.

The major difference is tone. Raimi’s original had a rough, handmade quality that made every improvised effect, wild camera move, and strange performance feel like part of its identity. It was scary, but it was also energized by a kind of reckless invention. Alvarez’s Evil Dead goes in another direction. It is slicker, more controlled, and deeply mean-spirited in a way that makes the cabin feel less like a creepy vacation spot and more like a rotting death trap. This is not a winking horror-comedy, at least not until the violence becomes so excessive that it starts circling back around into stunned laughter. For most of its running time, the movie plays things brutally straight. It wants the audience to feel trapped in that filthy cabin right alongside the characters, watching every injury worsen and every possible escape route close off.

That seriousness is actually one of the film’s smartest choices. The cabin trip is no longer just a random weekend getaway that turns into hell. Mia, played by Jane Levy, is being brought to the family cabin by her brother David and a few friends so she can detox from heroin. It is a grim premise, but it gives the story a real emotional spine. Mia’s friends and family are not merely there to be picked off one by one; they are trying, however imperfectly, to help her survive something terrifying before any supernatural force enters the picture. When Mia starts seeing horrific things, the others initially assume she is suffering withdrawal symptoms or trying to manipulate them into letting her leave. That adds a nasty layer of uncertainty to the setup. The audience knows something evil is happening, but the people around Mia have a believable reason not to trust her.

Jane Levy carries a huge amount of the movie. Mia has to move through several different modes: vulnerable, furious, terrified, possessed, exhausted, and eventually almost mythic in her determination to survive. It would have been easy for the movie to turn her into either a helpless victim or a standard final girl, but Levy gives her enough rawness that she feels like a person fighting two battles at once. She is struggling with addiction, family resentment, and an actual demonic infection spreading through the cabin. Her performance gets more intense as the movie goes on, and by the final act she has become one of the more memorable protagonists in the franchise.

The supporting cast is less developed, though that is partly by design. David, played by Shiloh Fernandez, is Mia’s estranged brother and the closest thing the film has to a traditional lead for much of the first half. Lou Taylor Pucci’s Eric is the unfortunate idiot who reads from the Necronomicon despite the book being wrapped in barbed wire, marked with warnings, and seemingly designed to scream “do not open this.” Still, the movie at least gives him more guilt than the average horror-movie fool. Once he realizes what he has unleashed, Eric spends much of the film trying to help Mia and clean up his mistake. Olivia and Natalie are thinner characters, but the film uses them effectively as different stages of the Deadite infection and as delivery systems for some especially vile set pieces.

And that is where Evil Dead really earns its reputation. The film’s violence is not merely bloody; it is aggressive, tactile, and determined to make the audience squirm. Needles, glass, nail guns, electric carving knives, box cutters, hot water, exposed nerves, severed limbs—Alvarez and co-writer Rodo Sayagues treat the cabin like a giant torture chamber filled with household objects waiting to become weapons. The gore is so over-the-top that it becomes almost operatic. There is a clear effort to make every major injury feel specific rather than generic. This is not just people getting slashed in dark rooms. The movie wants viewers to remember exactly what happened, which is why several scenes are difficult to shake even after the credits roll.

What makes the carnage work is the heavy use of practical effects. The film has digital touch-ups here and there, but it mostly wants blood, makeup, prosthetics, and physical messiness in the frame. That choice connects it directly to the old-school horror tradition that made the original The Evil Dead so memorable. Alvarez has a cleaner visual style than Raimi, but he does not make the mistake of turning the Deadites into sleek CGI monsters. They look diseased, swollen, burned, cut open, and horribly physical. The cabin itself is just as important. It is damp, dark, decaying, and full of corners that seem infected before anyone even opens the book.

The film also knows how to use the iconography of the series without becoming trapped by it. The Book of the Dead is immediately recognizable, but it is presented as a more grotesque object than ever: bound in human skin, wrapped in barbed wire, and full of disturbing images and warnings that practically dare someone to ignore them. There are nods to Raimi’s films, including a familiar yellow Oldsmobile and the expected cabin imagery, but Alvarez avoids simply repeating Ash Williams’s story. Bruce Campbell’s Ash is such a distinct character that trying to replace him outright would have been a disaster. Instead, Evil Dead makes Mia its own survivor and lets her final confrontation stand apart from the earlier movies.

The biggest criticism of Alvarez’s film is also a fair one: it can feel almost too grim. The original movies had a wild punk-rock sense of fun—raw, fast, messy, inventive, and powered by the kind of reckless confidence that turns limitations into personality. Alvarez’s soft reboot abandons that punk-rock attitude almost entirely. If Raimi’s The Evil Dead feels like a sweaty, chaotic garage band ripping through a horror song at maximum volume, Alvarez’s Evil Dead is the Norwegian black-metal version: colder, uglier, more nihilistic, and committed to burying the audience under mud, blood, grief, and cruelty. It is still extreme, but it is extreme in a much more punishing key.

That is not automatically a flaw, even if it may leave fans of the original’s humor missing the unhinged fun. Alvarez is not trying to make a Raimi imitation. He makes a full-blooded, punishing horror film that takes the mythology seriously while still delivering the series’ essential pleasures: demonic possessions, a cursed cabin, practical gross-out effects, and enough blood to drown a small town. The dialogue is occasionally stiff, some of the supporting characters never become much more than targets, and the addiction metaphor can be a little blunt, but those weaknesses do not erase the film’s commitment or craft.

The climax is where the movie finally fully embraces the outrageousness that defines the franchise. Mia’s fight against the Abomination during a literal rain of blood is ridiculous in the best possible way. It is gruesome, excessive, and visually unforgettable. The movie has spent so long tightening the screws that this ending feels like an explosion of all the pent-up insanity it had been holding back. It is not as funny as Evil Dead II or Army of Darkness, but it absolutely understands that an Evil Dead finale should be bigger, wetter, louder, and more deranged than logic permits.

Ultimately, Evil Dead works because it treats the source material with respect without treating it like museum property. It is nastier than the original, more emotionally grounded, and less playful, but it is still recognizably part of the same cursed family tree. Alvarez’s version may not have the handmade chaos or goofy charm of Raimi’s The Evil Dead, but it has its own savage identity. More importantly, it proved the franchise could move forward without simply repeating Ash Williams’s story. Its grimy, practical-effects-heavy, emotionally brutal approach became the blueprint for the modern Evil Dead films that followed, including Evil Dead Rise and Evil Dead Burn, even as each one found a new setting, cast, and nightmare to unleash. Evil Dead Rise moved the carnage from the cabin into a cramped apartment building, while Evil Dead Burn carried that modern branch of the series forward with another standalone story connected to the same larger Deadite universe.

For viewers who want horror movies to go all the way—who want the blood to spray, the limbs to fly, and the final girl to earn every second of her survival—it remains one of the strongest horror remakes of its era.

Horror Film Review: The Legend of Hell House (dir. by John Hough)

Posted on October 7, 2026 by Arleigh

“Hell House doesn’t mind a guest or two. What it doesn’t like is people who come snooping around.” — Benjamin Franklin Fischer

There is something deeply unpleasant about The Legend of Hell House, and that is exactly what makes it so effective. Directed by John Hough and adapted by Richard Matheson from his own 1971 novel Hell House, the film takes a fairly simple haunted-mansion premise and turns it into something mean, claustrophobic, and surprisingly adult. It is not the most visually elaborate ghost story ever made, nor the most frightening in a conventional jump-scare sense, but it has a cold, nasty atmosphere that lingers. This is a haunted-house movie where the house does not just contain evil; it seems designed to degrade everyone who steps inside.

The setup is strong because it puts several opposing viewpoints under the same roof. A wealthy man hires physicist Dr. Lionel Barrett, played by Clive Revill, to investigate the notorious Belasco House and settle the question of whether life after death exists. Barrett brings along his wife Ann, played by Gayle Hunnicutt, and the couple joins two people with far more personal connections to the place: Florence Tanner, a deeply spiritual medium played by Pamela Franklin, and Benjamin Franklin Fischer, played by Roddy McDowall, the sole survivor of an earlier investigation. The job has a deadline, a large payday, and an obvious catch: every previous expedition into the house ended in death, insanity, or both.

It is the kind of premise that could have easily become an old-fashioned “wait for the next victim” thriller, but Matheson’s script gives it more bite than that. Every character arrives with a different theory of the supernatural, and those theories become personal weapons. Barrett is the hard-line rationalist, convinced that any haunting can be explained through physical energy. Florence believes in trapped souls and approaches the house with a nearly religious determination. Fischer knows better than anyone that Belasco House does not care what people believe, while Ann becomes the emotional pressure point between all those men and their supposedly superior ideas. The ghost story works because the haunting pushes directly on each character’s vulnerabilities instead of merely making lights flicker and doors slam.

Clive Revill makes Barrett an interesting kind of horror-movie skeptic. He is not simply smug or foolish, although he can be both. He has the conviction of a man who thinks he is on the verge of solving the biggest mystery in human history with engineering equipment and enough confidence. That makes him a perfect target. Revill plays the character with a blunt, almost comically forceful seriousness that fits the film’s style. Barrett is a man who keeps insisting that the house is a machine, even as it starts treating him like a piece of disposable machinery.

Roddy McDowall is arguably the film’s secret weapon. Fischer could have been a standard nervous survivor whose only job is to warn the newcomers not to go into the basement. Instead, McDowall gives him a sly, guarded, intermittently hostile energy. He knows the house, he has seen what it does, and he has built a personality around refusing to be emotionally open about any of it. His sunglasses, dry delivery, and generally strange behavior make Fischer seem a little ridiculous at first, but that awkwardness becomes part of the performance’s appeal. By the time the film gets into the mystery of Emeric Belasco, the wealthy sadist who once ruled the estate, Fischer’s trauma feels like the one thing in the movie that cannot be explained away by a machine.

Pamela Franklin is also excellent as Florence Tanner, particularly because the film lets her be forceful rather than purely fragile. Florence is sympathetic, but she is not passive. She believes in her gifts enough to challenge Barrett head-on, and her desire to help the lost spirits of Hell House gives the story some genuine emotional stakes. The movie can be pretty ruthless with her, especially in the way it explores sexual humiliation, possession, and psychic assault, but Franklin never plays Florence as merely victimized. Her scenes with McDowall have an uneasy charge because they represent two different forms of faith: Florence sees the dead as people worth saving, while Fischer treats the dead as weapons that must be avoided.

That unpleasant streak is really what separates The Legend of Hell House from a lot of cleaner, more comforting haunted-house films. The Belasco House is not merely spooky; it is aggressively cruel, with a history rooted in sexual degradation, murder, and the grotesque whims of its former owner. Matheson’s novel was more explicit than the movie, and the screenplay softens some of its more graphic sexual and violent material. Even so, the film remains unusually frank for a mainstream early-1970s supernatural thriller. Its horror is not just that ghosts exist. It is that a dead man’s perversions can keep poisoning the living decades later.

John Hough handles all this with a remarkably physical visual style. The camera prowls through corridors, peers around corners, tilts at unnerving angles, and uses wide lenses to make the mansion feel warped and hostile. The movie’s low, wide-angle shots give the characters an exposed, trapped quality, as if the building is staring down at them. The direction is not subtle in the same manner as Robert Wise’s The Haunting, but that is not a flaw. Hough makes Hell House feel less like an unknowable mystery and more like a spiritual pressure cooker.

The film does have limitations. Its effects are sometimes modest, and a few of its shock moments are more abrupt than scary. The climax gives the haunting a concrete answer, which makes the story’s blend of supernatural Gothic horror and strange pseudo-scientific logic feel even more pulpy and distinctive. It may not carry the elusive ambiguity of The Haunting, but The Legend of Hell House is not trying to be that kind of ghost story. It wants the audience to feel trapped in a hostile space with people whose certainty, fear, and private weaknesses are being exposed one ugly piece at a time. Even when its mechanics are a little dated, that sense of contamination remains powerful.

It also benefits from being lean. At around 90 minutes, The Legend of Hell House wastes little time building out the haunted-house situation, escalating the attacks, and forcing its investigators to choose between their competing explanations. That economy makes it feel more vicious than many later possession or paranormal movies that inflate a similar premise into two-hour lore marathons. There is no elaborate mythology to memorize. There is a bad house, a horrible dead man, four damaged people, and a deadline. That is enough.

As for influence, the film has clear roots in The Haunting and Henry James-style psychological ghost stories, but it also left traces of its own. Its combination of paranormal investigation, supposedly scientific equipment, skeptical experts, psychic mediums, and a house that manipulates people’s sexuality and emotional weaknesses can be felt in many later haunted-house stories. The direct influence is most explicitly documented in Edgar Wright’s fake trailer Don’t, made for Grindhouse: Wright and Simon Pegg riffed on Hell House’s fog-shrouded mansion imagery and echoed Roddy McDowall’s distinctive 1970s look. It also features one of the earlier cinematic depictions of sexual assault by an unseen supernatural force, a disturbing concept later revisited much more brutally in The Entity.

It would be a stretch to claim that every modern “ghost hunters enter a cursed house” movie comes directly from The Legend of Hell House, but its DNA is easy to spot. The procedural side of paranormal investigation, the conflict between technical explanation and spiritual belief, and the sense that a house preserves human evil like an infection all became familiar horror tools. Its visual atmosphere has also invited comparisons to The Shining, especially in its use of ominous spatial compositions and its fixation on the house’s ability to reshape the mental state of its occupants. The connection should not be overstated—Stanley Kubrick’s film is its own colossal thing—but they are clearly kindred haunted-house nightmares.

Ultimately, The Legend of Hell House is a rougher, nastier, more aggressively lurid cousin to The Haunting. It does not have that earlier film’s sublime ambiguity, but it has its own grimy personality: a mixture of British Gothic atmosphere, American genre bluntness, psychic melodrama, and just enough 1970s sleaze to make the mansion feel truly diseased. It is best approached not as a polished prestige classic, but as a smart, compact supernatural shocker with a nasty sense of humor and an unusually strong cast. Hell House may not be the most famous haunted mansion in horror, but once you have spent an hour and a half inside it, you can understand why nobody should want to go back.

Horror Film Review: The Evil (dir. by Gus Trikonis)

Posted on October 6, 2026 by Arleigh

“When am I gonna make you see? It’s something inside the dog!” — Dr. Caroline Arnold

On paper, The Evil has no business being as entertaining as it is. It has a familiar haunted-mansion setup, a group of characters making predictably bad decisions, a handful of effects that are more enthusiastic than convincing, and a story that often feels like it was assembled from supernatural-horror leftovers. Yet Gus Trikonis’s 1978 film somehow makes that combination work. It is a scrappy, surprisingly lively late-1970s chiller that keeps finding ways to turn its limitations into part of the fun. The movie may not have the elegance of The Haunting or the full-scale dread of The Omen, but it has momentum, personality, and just enough weirdness to make it stick in the mind.

Richard Crenna plays Dr. C.J. Arnold, a well-meaning physician who buys the old Vargas mansion with plans to turn it into a rehabilitation center. He brings his wife Caroline, played by Joanna Pettet, along with a small group of friends and workers, to spend time cleaning up the place and preparing it for renovation. It is the kind of horror-movie premise where viewers can tell within seconds that nobody should be spending the night there. The mansion is enormous, decaying, isolated, and full of the sort of dark hallways that seem specifically designed for people to wander into alone. Still, C.J. sees a building with potential rather than a nightmare waiting to happen, and the movie gets a lot of mileage out of that mistake.

Before long, the house starts acting up in all the expected ways. Doors move on their own, strange noises echo through the corridors, flames appear where they should not, and the guests begin to realize that the mansion’s history is more sinister than they were led to believe. None of this is particularly groundbreaking, even for 1978, but The Evil understands the usefulness of a clean, direct setup. It does not waste a huge amount of time pretending the house is safe. The film gets its characters into trouble, gives them an increasingly hostile environment, and lets the tension build through a series of practical, often mean-spirited scares.

The movie came out during a period when horror was especially interested in demonic forces, cursed places, possession, and spiritual danger. You can feel the shadow of films such as The Exorcist, The Omen, Burnt Offerings, The Sentinel, and The Legend of Hell House hovering over it. The Evil is clearly playing in that same sandbox, mixing the isolated-house horror formula with the era’s fascination with the Devil and the supernatural. What keeps it from disappearing completely into the crowd is not originality so much as commitment. The film believes in its own nonsense, and that sincerity goes a long way.

Gus Trikonis directs the material with a briskness that suits it. At around 85 minutes, The Evil moves quickly enough that it rarely gives viewers much time to dwell on its thinner character work or its occasionally awkward plotting. The mansion itself does a lot of the heavy lifting. It has the faded, neglected grandeur that every good haunted-house movie needs, with dark rooms, winding staircases, sealed-off spaces, and enough shadowy corners to make even a simple walk down a hallway feel questionable. The location gives the movie a genuine sense of place, which is important because much of the film depends on the audience accepting the house as an active threat rather than just a backdrop.

There is a very specific low-budget 1970s flavor to the production that adds to its charm. The movie is not sleek or refined, and that works in its favor. The roughness of the camerawork, the muted colors, the occasionally dated sound design, and the practical effects all give it a handmade quality. The Evil never looks expensive, but it often looks tangible. When the house lashes out, the effects may not always be flawless, but they have physical weight. A lot of modern horror relies on digital polish to sell its scares; this film has to make do with tricks happening in front of the camera, and that gives the best moments an immediate, almost old-fashioned punch.

The movie is at its strongest when it keeps things simple. A character hears something in another room. Someone gets separated from the group. A familiar household object or feature of the mansion suddenly becomes dangerous. These are basic horror devices, but Trikonis uses them efficiently. He knows that the fear of walking into an empty room is sometimes more useful than a long explanation of why the room is dangerous. The Evil is not a slow-burn ghost story in the style of The Innocents. It is more interested in delivering jolts and keeping the body count moving. That can make it feel mechanical at times, but it also makes the movie easy to enjoy as a late-night scare picture.

Richard Crenna gives the film more credibility than it probably deserves. He plays C.J. as a rational, decent man who believes he can bring order and purpose to a place everyone else would wisely avoid. His growing inability to explain what is happening gives the movie an anchor. Crenna does not act embarrassed by the material or play it with a knowing wink. He treats the situation seriously, which makes the supernatural chaos around him feel more convincing. He is the kind of sturdy, professional lead who can sell even the film’s more ridiculous turns simply by looking genuinely alarmed.

Joanna Pettet also helps keep the human side of the movie from getting completely lost. Caroline is more willing than C.J. to recognize that something is wrong with the mansion, and that divide gives their relationship a modest but effective tension. The rest of the cast, including Andrew Prine, Cassie Yates, Mary Louise Weller, and Lynne Moody, is more variable. They serve the story well enough, though most of them are defined more by the danger they face than by particularly deep characterization. The film does not spend much time building rich backstories, but the actors keep the group dynamic watchable.

The middle section is where The Evil shows its limitations most clearly. The structure can become repetitive: something strange happens, someone investigates alone, the house responds, and the survivors become more desperate. The mythology behind the mansion is also not always developed with much precision. But again, the movie gets away with more than it should because it keeps pushing forward. It has the energy of a film that knows it cannot afford to be boring. Even when the story is familiar, there is usually another strange image, creepy sound, or sudden danger waiting around the corner.

The final stretch is best left mostly unspoiled, because the movie takes a turn that is much stranger and more ambitious than its early scenes might lead you to expect. It broadens the scope of the story without abandoning the slightly tacky, practical-effects character that defines the rest of the film. Some viewers will probably find the shift abrupt, especially if they are expecting a straightforward haunted-house ending. Others will enjoy the fact that The Evil refuses to settle for the safest possible conclusion. It is a movie that starts with a familiar premise and gradually gets more unhinged, and that unpredictability is a real asset.

Ultimately, The Evil is not a lost classic, but it is a lot more fun than its reputation and basic setup might suggest. It has no right to work as well as it does. The premise is familiar, the characters are not deeply written, the effects are uneven, and the story occasionally runs on pure genre momentum. Yet that momentum is exactly what makes it enjoyable. Trikonis delivers a lean, energetic little horror movie with a great old mansion, a convincingly serious Richard Crenna, a few solid practical scares, and enough late-game insanity to make the experience memorable. If you enjoy the rougher, more obscure side of 1970s supernatural horror, The Evil is the kind of movie that can catch you off guard: imperfect, sometimes goofy, but much more entertaining than it has any right to be.

Horror Film Review: The Evil Dead (dir. by Sam Raimi)

Posted on October 5, 2026 by Arleigh

“I fear that the only way to stop those possessed by the spirits of the book is through the act of… bodily dismemberment.” — Professor Knowby

The Evil Dead is the kind of movie that feels like it should not have become a classic, at least not by conventional standards. It was made cheaply, filmed under brutal conditions, packed with unknown actors, and built around an extremely simple premise: five college friends head to an isolated cabin in the woods, unwittingly awaken an ancient evil, and spend the rest of the night being torn apart by demonic forces. Yet more than four decades later, Sam Raimi’s 1981 horror debut remains one of the most energetic, inventive, and genuinely nasty independent films ever made. It is rough around the edges in ways that are impossible to ignore, but those rough edges are a major part of its appeal. The Evil Dead feels handmade, hungry, and a little bit unhinged.

The story starts with Ash Williams, his girlfriend Linda, Ash’s sister Cheryl, and their friends Scotty and Shelly arriving at a remote Tennessee cabin for what is supposed to be a relaxing getaway. It is one of the most familiar setups in horror history now, but Raimi and his collaborators made it feel threatening before the real violence even begins. The cabin is decrepit, damp, and isolated to an almost absurd degree. There is no real sense of civilization nearby. The forest itself seems hostile, with tangled trees, strange sounds, and an atmosphere that makes the woods feel less like a location and more like a living organism surrounding the characters.

The group soon discovers a cellar beneath the cabin, where they find an ancient book bound in flesh, a dagger, and a tape recording left by an archaeologist. The recording describes the Necronomicon, a book of demonic incantations, and naturally the characters make the worst possible decision by playing the tape aloud. That act releases the evil presence that has been lurking in the forest, and the movie moves quickly from creepy cabin story to all-out supernatural nightmare. The concept is simple, but it gives Raimi room to focus on mood, visual invention, and escalation rather than complicated mythology.

What makes The Evil Dead special is how aggressively Raimi directs it. Even in his first feature, he had a style that was impossible to mistake for anyone else’s. The camera is constantly moving, lunging through the woods, creeping around corners, tilting at unnatural angles, and racing toward people as if the audience has become the demon’s point of view. The famous “demon-cam” shots are still startling because of how physical they feel. The camera does not glide elegantly. It charges. It crashes through the environment. It feels like something has broken loose and is hunting the characters.

That restless filmmaking gives the movie a personality far larger than its budget. Raimi turns limitations into an advantage. The cabin becomes a maze of shadows, floorboards, trap doors, windows, and hidden spaces. A cheap-looking hallway can suddenly become terrifying because the editing, sound design, and camera movement make it feel unstable. Raimi understands that horror does not always come from seeing a monster clearly. Sometimes it comes from the sense that the camera itself has stopped behaving normally, that the space around the characters is warping, and that even the trees outside are watching them.

The special effects are another major reason the film still has such a devoted following. They are obviously practical, often messy, and occasionally so exaggerated that they cross into dark comedy, but they have a tactile quality that modern digital effects often lack. The possessed characters look genuinely diseased and wrong: pale skin, dead eyes, rotting makeup, distorted faces, and unnatural movements. When the deadites attack, they do not simply become generic zombies. They taunt their friends, laugh at them, imitate their voices, and enjoy causing emotional pain. That cruel playfulness makes them more disturbing than ordinary monsters.

The makeup work on the possessed Cheryl, Shelly, and Linda remains especially effective because it turns familiar faces into grotesque masks. Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, and Theresa Tilly bring an unsettling intensity to those transformations, switching from frightened victims to shrieking, mocking demons. The performances are broad and theatrical, but that is exactly what the material needs. Nothing in The Evil Dead is subtle for very long. The film keeps pushing the characters past the point of normal human behavior until they are laughing, screaming, convulsing, and bleeding all over the cabin.

Bruce Campbell’s Ash is interesting because he is not yet the wisecracking, chainsaw-handed cult hero he would become in the sequels. In The Evil Dead, Ash is mostly an ordinary young man who slowly realizes he is trapped in a situation beyond comprehension. Campbell is still charismatic, and there are flashes of the physical comedy and wild-eyed determination that would define the character later, but this version of Ash is more vulnerable. He panics, hesitates, and suffers. By the end, he looks exhausted in a way that feels earned, covered in sweat, dirt, blood, and trauma.

That difference gives the original movie its own identity within the larger Evil Dead series. Evil Dead II would remake and expand many of the first film’s ideas with more money, more comedy, and a much more overtly cartoonish sensibility. Army of Darkness would take Ash into full fantasy-adventure mode. Those later films are arguably more polished and more immediately entertaining, especially for viewers who love Campbell’s comedic performance. But The Evil Dead has a rawness that the sequels never tried to reproduce. It is a horror movie first, even when its excesses become funny.

The film’s tonal shifts are one of its most fascinating qualities. Raimi clearly understands that grotesque violence can become absurd if it is pushed far enough, and the movie occasionally seems aware of its own madness. A possessed hand reaches through a window. A character gets stabbed with a pencil in one of the film’s most infamous scenes. Bodies erupt in streams of colored goo rather than realistic blood. The final destruction of the deadites is so elaborate that it feels like Raimi and his effects team were determined to empty every container of slime they had available. It is disgusting, but it is also gleefully imaginative.

At the same time, The Evil Dead can be more unpleasant than people remember. Its treatment of Cheryl in the woods is difficult to watch and remains one of the film’s most controversial moments. The scene is meant to establish the cruelty and violation associated with the demonic force, but it is not necessary to enjoy the movie, and it has aged badly compared with the more comic-book brutality of later entries. Raimi himself would move away from that kind of material in the sequels. It is worth acknowledging because the scene changes the tone of the film and may be a deal-breaker for some viewers.

The sound design helps make the movie feel more oppressive than its modest production would suggest. The woods groan, doors bang, voices echo from impossible places, and the demonic chants on the tape recording create a sense that something ancient has been invited into the cabin. Joseph LoDuca’s score adds another layer of unease, using shrill strings and harsh musical stabs to make even quiet scenes feel unstable. The soundtrack is not trying to be elegant. It is trying to make the viewer tense up, and it succeeds.

There is also something inspiring about the movie’s independent spirit. Raimi, Campbell, producer Robert Tapert, and their crew famously made the film through determination, ingenuity, and a willingness to endure conditions that sound miserable in retrospect. You can feel that effort on screen. Every strange camera angle, handmade prop, and splattering effect carries the energy of filmmakers trying to prove they can do something bigger than their resources should allow. The Evil Dead does not hide its budget. It turns that budget into part of its legend.

For horror fans, the movie is essential not because it is flawless, but because it is so alive. It captures the feeling of discovering a forbidden VHS tape or stumbling into a midnight screening where the audience is laughing, cringing, and yelling at the screen. It is scary in places, silly in others, and relentlessly committed to its own bizarre nightmare logic. Raimi would go on to make superhero movies, westerns, thrillers, and studio blockbusters, but the wild visual imagination that defined his career is already fully visible here.

The Evil Dead is a scrappy, blood-soaked supernatural horror movie that earns its reputation through pure filmmaking nerve. Its story may be basic, its acting may be uneven, and some of its material has not aged gracefully, but the movie’s pace, practical effects, demonic imagery, and manic camerawork remain unforgettable. It feels less like a carefully manufactured horror product than a curse someone managed to put on film. That is why it still works: Raimi and his team did not just make a movie about evil invading a cabin. They made the entire movie feel possessed.

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.

Horror Film Review: Hellraiser (dir. by Clive Barker)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Arleigh

“No tears, please. It’s a waste of good suffering.” — Pinhead

Hellraiser does not ease viewers into its nightmare; it drags them straight into a world where desire, suffering, and obsession have become impossible to separate. Written and directed by Clive Barker from his own novella The Hellbound Heart, the film is bloody, unsettling, weirdly intimate, and much more serious than its pop-culture reputation might suggest. Yes, it is the movie that introduced Pinhead and the Cenobites, but the first Hellraiser is not really a Pinhead showcase in the way later sequels became. It is a rotten little domestic nightmare about lust, betrayal, obsession, and the kind of desire that keeps going long after it should have destroyed a person.

Barker’s big strength is that he does not treat horror as something separate from human craving. In Hellraiser, pain and pleasure are tangled together from the opening scene. Frank Cotton is not some innocent fool who accidentally opens a cursed puzzle box. He actively seeks it out because normal pleasures no longer satisfy him. He wants sensation pushed past every limit, and the Lament Configuration gives him exactly that—just not in the way he expected. The Cenobites arrive with their chains, hooks, leather, scars, and ritualistic calm, offering a version of experience so extreme that it turns the body into something almost unrecognizable. That premise is memorable on its own, but Barker makes it work because Frank is already spiritually disgusting before hell ever gets involved.

The movie’s real surprise is Julia Cotton, played brilliantly by Clare Higgins. Julia could have been a standard unfaithful wife character, someone introduced merely to create tension inside the Cotton family. Instead, she becomes the dark heart of the film. Her attraction to Frank is not romantic in any healthy or even conventionally sensual sense. It is tied to resentment, boredom, humiliation, and a kind of violent need to feel alive. When Frank returns in his skinless, barely human state and needs blood to regenerate, Julia does not hesitate for long before becoming his accomplice. The scenes in which she lures men back to the abandoned house are among the movie’s most disturbing moments precisely because they are played with such cold purpose. She does not seem possessed. She is making a choice.

That decision gives Hellraiser a nasty emotional edge. Frank is obviously monstrous, but Julia is arguably scarier because she begins as an ordinary person trapped in a miserable life and willingly walks into atrocity. Higgins gives the role a detached, almost aristocratic chill. Her face barely needs to change for the audience to understand that something terrible is happening behind her eyes. The film’s central house becomes an extension of her inner life: dusty, decayed, closed off, and hiding a nightmare in the upstairs room. There is something grimly effective about the fact that the gateway to hell is not in an ancient castle or a faraway cemetery. It is in a family home where people are supposed to start over.

Andrew Robinson also deserves credit as Larry, Julia’s decent but oblivious husband. He is not the most dynamic protagonist in horror history, but that works for the story. Larry is a fundamentally ordinary man who cannot imagine the depths of corruption already moving around him. His blindness is frustrating, but it also reinforces the movie’s worldview. In Hellraiser, the people closest to us may carry desires we cannot see, and the house itself may preserve the damage left behind by old secrets. Ashley Laurence, as Larry’s daughter Kirsty, gradually becomes the film’s moral center. She is not an especially flashy final girl at first, yet Laurence gives Kirsty intelligence and genuine fear. Once she learns what the box can do, her panic feels grounded because she understands she has stumbled into something far beyond a killer with a knife.

Then there are the Cenobites, who remain some of the most striking horror creations of the decade. Doug Bradley’s Pinhead is the obvious standout, but the film wisely uses him sparingly. Pinhead is not a slasher villain who runs around collecting bodies. He is more like a supernatural official, a priest of pain carrying out a horrifying contract. Bradley’s measured voice and theatrical stillness make the character far more unsettling than a louder performance would have. The famous line, “We have such sights to show you,” works because it is delivered with calm conviction rather than rage. Pinhead is not trying to scare Kirsty for fun. He genuinely believes that torment and ecstasy are parts of the same revelation.

The other Cenobites matter too. Butterball, the Chatterer, and the Female Cenobite create the feeling that Pinhead belongs to a larger order rather than simply functioning as a lone monster. Their designs are grotesque but carefully composed, full of exposed flesh, surgical markings, and fetishistic costume details. They do not look like demons from a traditional Christian image of hell. They look like beings who have remade themselves according to an alien set of desires. That is where Barker’s imagination really separates Hellraiser from more conventional monster movies. The Cenobites are not just evil creatures. They are explorers of sensation who have gone so far beyond humanity that morality barely applies to them anymore.

The practical effects are still a major reason the film holds up. Frank’s gradual reconstruction from blood-soaked remains into a mutilated human body is disgusting in the best possible way. It has a tactile quality that CGI rarely captures. You can see the slime, the tissue, the half-formed muscles, and the painful labor involved in putting a body back together. Even when some of the effects show their age, they retain a handmade ugliness that fits the movie’s atmosphere. Nothing in Hellraiser is clean or sleek. The supernatural realm looks damp, industrial, and biological, as if hell were built out of meat, rust, chains, and bad memories.

Christopher Young’s score also does a lot of heavy lifting. It gives the movie a gothic grandeur that makes the story feel larger than its limited locations and modest budget. The film is mostly confined to a house, a hospital, a few streets, and the Cenobites’ shadowy realm, yet the music makes it feel like a grand tragedy unfolding behind the walls. That contrast is one of the movie’s best tricks. Hellraiser can be intimate and theatrical at the same time. It is essentially a chamber piece about a broken family, but it plays like a myth about forbidden knowledge.

If the film has a weakness, it is that its final stretch gets a little messy. The confrontation with Frank has some excellent makeup work and gruesome imagery, but the pacing becomes more conventional once Kirsty is forced into full survival mode. The ending also feels slightly rushed considering how carefully Barker establishes the family tension earlier on. Still, the movie earns enough goodwill through its atmosphere, performances, and imagination that these flaws do not do much damage. If anything, the roughness adds to its charm. Hellraiser feels like a filmmaker throwing every dark idea he has onto the screen and trusting the audience to follow him into the abyss.

What makes Hellraiser endure is not simply the gore, the puzzle box, or Pinhead’s instantly recognizable appearance. It lasts because it understands that horror is often rooted in the things people want but are ashamed to admit they want. Frank wants infinite sensation. Julia wants escape and emotional intensity. Kirsty wants to save her family but must confront how little of that family was worth saving. The Cenobites offer no easy moral lesson; they are simply waiting for someone foolish or desperate enough to open the door.

Casual viewers looking for a straightforward slasher might find Hellraiser slower and stranger than expected, especially if they only know the character of Pinhead through sequels, posters, and parody. But for anyone willing to meet it on its own grim terms, it remains one of the most original supernatural horror films of its era. It is gross, stylish, perverse, tragic, and surprisingly sad beneath all the blood. Barker did not just create monsters. He created a nightmare universe where desire becomes a trap—and where opening a small box can ruin everything.

Horror Review: Dark Night of the Scarecrow (dir. by Frank De Felitta)

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Arleigh

“You may think you’re getting off free, but there’s other justice in this world besides the law!” — Mrs. Ritter

Frank De Felitta’s Dark Night of the Scarecrow is one of those deceptively modest horror movies that earns its power through atmosphere, patience, and an unusually bitter sense of injustice. Originally made for television in 1981, it has none of the glossy excess or elaborate effects work associated with many theatrical horror releases of its era. What it does have is a sharply constructed premise, a remarkable villain performance from Charles Durning, and a quiet rural setting that becomes steadily more unnerving as the story moves from tragedy into supernatural revenge. It is the kind of film that understands a scarecrow is already an inherently creepy image; it does not need to overexplain or overuse that image to make it work.

The story takes place in a small Southern town where Bubba Ritter, played by Larry Drake, is a gentle, developmentally disabled man whose closest friend is a young girl named Marylee Williams. Their friendship is innocent and affectionate, but it is viewed with suspicion by Otis P. Hazelrigg, a cruel local mail carrier with a personal grudge against Bubba. When Marylee is attacked by a dog and briefly goes missing, Hazelrigg turns the situation into an accusation, convincing three other men that Bubba has harmed the girl. Before anyone bothers to learn the truth, the men hunt Bubba down, shoot him, and stage the scene to make it appear as though he was armed. It is a brutal opening act precisely because the movie refuses to treat its central tragedy as an excuse for cheap melodrama. Bubba is not a monster, and the men who kill him are not panicked heroes making an understandable mistake. They are cowardly, angry men who allow prejudice and resentment to become a death sentence.

That foundation is what separates Dark Night of the Scarecrow from a standard slasher or revenge movie. The supernatural material only becomes effective because the human evil comes first. Bubba’s death is not merely a plot device to unleash a vengeful ghost; it is the film’s moral wound. De Felitta, a veteran novelist as well as the director, approaches the story with an eye for the emotional damage left behind by that act. The film slows down after the killing, allowing the town to sit with the consequences while Hazelrigg becomes increasingly paranoid that Bubba has returned from the grave.

Charles Durning is the movie’s secret weapon. Hazelrigg is one of those villains who is frightening not because he is physically unstoppable, but because he is such a believable bully. Durning gives him a sweaty, blustering confidence that gradually rots into panic. He is the sort of man who believes his position in the community gives him the right to make judgments about everyone else, and he has no trouble manipulating weaker men into sharing responsibility for his own cruelty. Durning never plays Hazelrigg as a cartoonish sadist. Even when he is snarling threats or trying to cover up the murder, there is something painfully recognizable about him: a man who has built his identity around authority and cannot bear the possibility that he has been exposed as morally bankrupt.

Hazelrigg’s hatred of Bubba also has a nasty layer of projection to it. The movie never outright says he is a pedophile, but it heavily implies it through his creepy interest in Marylee, the way he watches her, and Mrs. Ritter’s pointed remarks. That makes his obsessive claim that Bubba is a threat even more grotesque: Hazelrigg seems to be accusing Bubba of the impulses he cannot admit in himself. The implication makes his hostility toward their friendship feel less like misplaced civic concern and more like jealousy, possessiveness, and a desperate effort to hide his own corruption behind moral outrage. It is one of the film’s darkest touches, especially because it remains mostly beneath the surface rather than being presented as a blunt plot revelation.

Larry Drake has a more difficult task because Bubba spends much of the movie absent, concealed, or transformed into a possible supernatural presence. Yet his early scenes are essential. Drake makes Bubba sweet and childlike without turning him into an object of pity or a collection of mannerisms. His relationship with Marylee, played warmly by Tonya Crowe, gives the film its emotional center. There is genuine tenderness in the way Bubba helps her, plays with her, and treats her with uncomplicated kindness. That sweetness makes the later violence feel all the more ugly. Marylee’s grief also carries real weight, because she is one of the only people who completely understands that Bubba was innocent.

The scarecrow itself is used with admirable restraint. There are no elaborate explanations about ancient curses, possession, or elaborate rules governing the entity. The film instead lets the audience wonder whether Bubba’s spirit has actually returned, whether the scarecrow is a physical vessel for vengeance, or whether Hazelrigg is simply losing his mind under the pressure of guilt. That ambiguity gives the movie much of its lasting chill. A scarecrow standing in a distant field, visible at the edge of a frame or appearing where it should not be, is often more frightening than a clearly defined monster charging at the camera. De Felitta recognizes that the image is powerful because it is still, silent, and vaguely human without actually being human.

The television origins are noticeable in some ways. The pacing is deliberate, the violence is largely implied rather than graphic, and the production is understandably small-scale. But those limitations wind up serving the movie. The lack of gore forces the film to emphasize suggestion, shadows, sound, and the ominous openness of its rural setting. Cornfields, dirt roads, farm equipment, abandoned buildings, and dark porches all become part of the film’s horror vocabulary. It feels less like a slick studio shocker and more like a regional ghost story someone might tell you after dark, the kind where the details are simple but the moral is savage.

De Felitta also has a good sense of escalation. The revenge scenes are not huge set pieces, but they are memorable because each one turns something ordinary into a source of menace. The scarecrow’s presence becomes a warning that the men involved in Bubba’s death cannot escape what they did. Instead of relying on body counts alone, the movie builds suspense around Hazelrigg’s growing desperation. Every time he sees the scarecrow—or thinks he sees it—his confidence cracks a little further. The real terror is not just that the dead may be coming for him. It is that there may be no way to outrun the truth.

The ending delivers the kind of grimly satisfying horror-movie justice that the story has earned. It is not triumphant in a cheerful sense, because nothing can undo the tragedy that put the plot in motion. Still, there is a bleak pleasure in watching Hazelrigg finally face the consequences of his actions. The film’s revenge is measured rather than sadistic, and that makes it more effective. It feels like a judgment rather than a spectacle.

Despite its TV roots, Dark Night of the Scarecrow has become a very underrated horror film, with many genre aficionados lauding it as one of the best horror films made, period. That reputation is understandable. It is not the loudest or bloodiest horror film of the early 1980s, and viewers expecting a fast-paced scarecrow slasher may initially be surprised by how much time it spends on character, grief, and small-town malice. But that is exactly why it endures. The film has a soul beneath its scares, and its simple supernatural premise gains force from the cruelty of the world around it.

Ultimately, Dark Night of the Scarecrow works because it never forgets that its monster is born from human wrongdoing. The scarecrow is frightening, but Hazelrigg and the mob that follows him are worse because they are entirely plausible. Frank De Felitta turns a compact television movie into a haunting morality tale about prejudice, guilt, repression, and the terrible cost of refusing to see another person’s humanity. Its effects may be modest, but its mood is potent, its villain is unforgettable, and its final image lingers like something standing motionless at the far end of a field.