Horror Film Review: Army of Darkness (dir. by Sam Raimi)

Posted on October 7, 2026 by Arleigh

“Well hello, Mister Fancypants. Well, I’ve got news for you, pal: you ain’t leadin’ but two things right now: Jack and shit… and Jack just left town.” — Ash Williams

Few cult movies embrace their own insanity as joyfully as Sam Raimi’s Army of Darkness. Directed by Raimi and released in 1992, the third chapter in the Evil Dead series takes Ash Williams out of the isolated-cabin horror setting of The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II and drops him into a sword-and-sorcery adventure full of skeleton armies, haunted forests, miniature doppelgängers, exploding Deadites, and more quotable one-liners than most action comedies manage in an entire franchise. It is still technically a horror movie, but calling it just a horror movie misses the point. This is a slapstick fantasy-action comedy with monsters, and its ridiculousness is exactly why it has endured as a cult favorite.

The story picks up almost immediately after the end of Evil Dead II, with Ash getting sucked through a portal and landing in medieval England. Rather than being welcomed as some prophesied savior, he is immediately treated like a suspicious outsider and thrown into a pit with a Deadite. That opening alone tells you what kind of movie this will be. Ash is no longer simply a terrified everyman trying to survive an impossible nightmare. He is now a chainsaw-handed loudmouth who shoots first, insults everyone around him, and somehow carries himself like the greatest warrior in history despite constantly making situations worse through his own arrogance.

Bruce Campbell is the entire engine of Army of Darkness. Ash has become a full-blown cartoon hero by this point, halfway between a B-movie John Wayne, a professional wrestler cutting a promo, and a smug department-store employee who has somehow convinced himself he is a legendary warrior. Campbell plays the role with total commitment, which is the key to why the comedy works. He never acts embarrassed by the dialogue or tries to make Ash seem cooler than he is. The character is funny because he is deeply incompetent beneath all the bravado. Ash talks like a conquering hero, but his victories usually involve panic, luck, explosives, and a lot of property damage.

The familiar “Groovy” attitude from Evil Dead II gets pushed even further here. Ash is not meant to be a noble fantasy protagonist. He is selfish, crude, lazy, and usually more interested in returning to modern life than helping the people trapped in a medieval war. That makes him a funny fit for the genre. In a normal fantasy film, the chosen hero would humbly accept his destiny, train with a sword, and unite the kingdoms. Ash complains about the inconvenience, makes demands, insults the locals, and uses his knowledge of basic mechanics to become a magical figure in their eyes. His improvised metal hand, shotgun, chainsaw, and homemade weapons make him look like a mad scientist dropped into an old Ray Harryhausen movie.

Raimi’s direction is as energetic as ever, even if Army of Darkness is noticeably cleaner and more studio-sized than the first two films. The early Evil Dead movies had a grimy, do-it-yourself quality that made their horror feel unusually mean and immediate. This one has a broader, more polished adventure-movie look. There are castles, battlefields, elaborate costumes, large-scale miniature work, and a full army of stop-motion skeletons. It is still cheap-looking in places, but that is part of its charm. The effects do not need to be seamless because the movie’s entire personality is built around heightened artifice. When skeletons leap around in exaggerated stop-motion or a tiny Ash attacks the full-sized Ash in a windmill, the film feels like a live-action cartoon with blood, dirt, and medieval armor.

The windmill sequence is probably the purest expression of what makes the movie special. Ash enters a windmill to escape danger and ends up trapped with miniature versions of himself, eventually swallowing one by accident. It has almost nothing to do with the larger plot in any serious sense, yet it is hilarious because Raimi keeps escalating the gag. Instead of treating the tiny Ash as a brief visual joke, the movie turns him into a recurring problem that literally grows into Evil Ash, Ash’s undead double and the leader of the titular army. That progression makes perfect cartoon logic: a small annoyance becomes a full-scale apocalypse because Ash was too careless to deal with it properly.

The horror elements are lighter than they were in the first two films, and that will probably be the biggest dividing line for viewers. Anyone expecting the nasty isolation, body horror, and relentless dread of The Evil Dead may be surprised by how openly silly this installment is. The Deadites are still grotesque enough to keep the supernatural threat alive, especially in the opening pit fight and the later siege, but they are no longer as frightening as they are funny. Raimi is much more interested in visual gags, wild camera movement, and action-movie momentum than scares.

That tonal change does not make Army of Darkness a lesser movie; it just makes it a very different one. In fact, it may be the most accessible entry in the original trilogy for people who do not normally enjoy horror. You can watch it without being especially invested in the mythology, because the plot is basically a delivery system for set pieces. Ash needs the Necronomicon to get home. He says the magic words wrong. Evil Ash rises. A skeleton army attacks. Ash helps defend the castle. The movie keeps moving, rarely pauses to explain itself, and never tries to make its fantasy world feel more serious than necessary.

The final battle is a great example of Raimi getting the maximum entertainment out of a relatively limited toolbox. Ash turns medieval villagers into a makeshift modern army, complete with explosives, contraptions, and a vehicle that feels hilariously out of place in the period setting. The action is messy, noisy, and deliberately overblown, with exploding skeletons and clashing armies staged more like a rowdy theme-park spectacle than a conventional epic. Raimi understands that the point is not realism. The point is seeing Ash yell at an undead army while wielding a chainsaw and acting like he personally invented warfare.

The movie’s dialogue is another major reason it remains so beloved. “This is my boomstick” has become the obvious classic, but Army of Darkness is packed with lines that sound like they were designed to be repeated by friends after midnight screenings. Campbell’s delivery turns even the dumbest insult into something memorable. The movie knows Ash is absurd, but it also understands that he needs to be just cool enough for the audience to enjoy watching him survive. He is a lovable jerk because he is never actually in control for long. The universe keeps humiliating him, and Campbell makes every humiliation feel like another opportunity for a louder comeback.

Army of Darkness is not the scariest Evil Dead movie, the most atmospheric, or even necessarily the best constructed. It is uneven, shamelessly goofy, and occasionally held together by pure momentum. But it has a distinct personality that most franchise sequels would kill for. Raimi and Campbell take a low-budget horror premise and stretch it into a medieval monster comedy without losing the series’ manic spirit. It feels handmade even when it is big, silly even when it is violent, and weirdly triumphant despite Ash being one of the least heroic heroes in fantasy cinema. For fans of practical effects, stop-motion creatures, quotable cult movies, and Sam Raimi operating with absolutely no interest in restraint, Army of Darkness remains a blast.

Review: Dante’s Peak (dir. by Roger Donaldson)

Posted on September 26, 2026 by Arleigh

“Not extinct, just dormant… as in sleeping. And your volcano might just be waking up.” — Harry Dalton

Dante’s Peak takes a simple but reliable disaster-movie setup—a quiet town sitting beneath a volcano that is very much not as dormant as everyone hopes—and turns it into a tense, highly watchable piece of 1990s spectacle. Directed by Roger Donaldson, the 1997 film is hardly subtle, and its character work can be pretty thin, but it remains an unusually watchable entry in the genre because it takes its central threat seriously. The movie spends enough time establishing the town and its people that, once the mountain finally blows, the destruction has some weight behind it. It is a familiar formula, but Dante’s Peak executes it with enough sincerity and old-school craftsmanship to stay entertaining.

Pierce Brosnan stars as Harry Dalton, a volcanologist for the U.S. Geological Survey who is still carrying the emotional scars of a prior eruption that killed his fiancée. Harry is sent to the picturesque Pacific Northwest town of Dante’s Peak after unusual seismic and chemical activity suggests that its supposedly dormant volcano may be waking up. His assignment initially sounds routine: inspect the mountain, collect some samples, talk to local officials, and determine whether there is any reason for concern. Naturally, there is. The water supply starts showing signs of dangerous acidity, tremors grow more frequent, steam vents become harder to ignore, and the mountain begins sending increasingly blunt warnings that it is ready to erupt.

The central tension is not whether the volcano will blow. The title alone pretty much gives that away. Instead, the first half works because of the fight over how seriously the warning signs should be taken. Dante’s Peak has just received national attention as one of the best small towns in America, and Mayor Rachel Wando, played by Linda Hamilton, is understandably hesitant to cause mass panic and wreck the town’s economy over an uncertain prediction. Harry believes the danger is real, but he also knows from painful experience that hesitation can get people killed. That conflict gives the movie a decent human foundation before the large-scale effects take over.

Brosnan is a good fit for Harry Dalton. This was the same period when he was newly established as James Bond, and Dante’s Peak makes smart use of his natural screen presence without turning Harry into an outright action hero. He is calm, capable, handsome, and articulate, but he is also clearly rattled by the possibility of repeating a tragedy he could not prevent. The role is not especially demanding on paper, yet Brosnan gives Harry enough fatigue and frustration that he comes across as a real professional rather than just a disaster-movie scientist whose only job is to shout warnings at dismissive bureaucrats.

Hamilton is arguably even more important to the movie’s success. Rachel could have been written as a generic authority figure who slows down the plot by refusing to believe the expert, but Hamilton makes her more sympathetic than that. She is not ignoring Harry because she is foolish or selfish. She has a town to protect, businesses that depend on tourism, residents who do not want to abandon their homes, and two children who become central to the film’s increasingly dangerous rescue mission. Hamilton had already cemented her action credentials in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, but here she plays a more grounded version of strength. Rachel is practical, stubborn, and brave without ever feeling like she has wandered in from another franchise with a shotgun and a leather jacket.

The supporting cast is more uneven. Charles Hallahan gets the familiar disaster-movie role of Paul Dreyfus, the superior whose skepticism creates a frustrating delay in the evacuation. Elizabeth Hoffman is memorable as Rachel’s grandmother, Ruth, even though the movie leans hard into the “stubborn elderly relative refuses to leave” setup. Rachel’s children, Lauren and Graham, mostly function as a way to push the adults back into danger after the eruption begins, and their choices can be maddening. Still, the cast sells the stakes well enough that the film avoids feeling completely mechanical.

Where Dante’s Peak really delivers is in its escalation. The first clear sign that things have gone wrong is genuinely creepy: the town’s supposedly pristine water supply turns corrosive. That detail is one of the movie’s best touches because it makes the volcano feel dangerous before it becomes visually spectacular. Then the film starts layering hazards on top of each other. There are earthquakes, falling volcanic debris, ash clouds, mudslides, a collapsing bridge, boiling water, and eventually a full eruption. It is an impressively varied disaster package. Rather than relying on one big explosion and calling it a day, the movie treats the volcano as a chain reaction that attacks the town from every direction.

The standout sequence is the drive across the lake after volcanic material has made the water acidic. It is ridiculous in the specific, memorable way that disaster cinema often is: a family in a damaged vehicle tries to outrun a lake that is essentially eating the vehicle out from under them. The science of the scene has been criticized plenty over the years, and fairly so, but it works as suspense filmmaking. Donaldson understands how to stage the moment visually, showing the immediate effects on the vehicle while keeping the characters trapped in a situation that gets worse by the second. It is the kind of scene people remember long after forgetting much of the dialogue.

Visually, the movie has aged better than some of its late-1990s peers because it balances computer-generated imagery with practical destruction, physical sets, and real locations. The effects do not always look flawless now, especially in wider shots of the erupting mountain, but the overall physicality helps. Buildings shake, roads split open, ash hangs in the air, and characters actually look buried in the mess rather than pasted in front of it. The town itself is also nicely chosen. Dante’s Peak looks like the sort of clean, friendly, postcard-perfect place that a disaster movie needs to destroy. The contrast between its calm opening scenes and its ash-covered final act is one of the film’s strongest visual ideas.

Roger Donaldson directs efficiently, even if he never quite gives the film a distinctive personality. He keeps the geography clear during most of the action, which matters a lot in a movie built around people trying to flee shifting dangers. You usually understand where Harry and Rachel are, what obstacle is in front of them, and why they cannot simply drive away. The pacing is a little slow in the middle, particularly when the scientific warnings begin repeating themselves, but that patience pays off once the final act kicks in. The movie takes a while to get to the eruption, then makes sure the eruption earns its screen time.

The screenplay by Leslie Bohem is where Dante’s Peak shows its limitations. The dialogue is often blunt, the romance between Harry and Rachel is predictable, and several characters exist mainly to make unwise decisions at the exact moment the plot needs more danger. The film also has a habit of making Harry right about nearly everything, which can flatten the debate around whether to evacuate. Still, there is something likable about how earnestly it embraces its own premise. It never winks at the audience or tries to become ironic. It wants viewers to care about the town, fear the mountain, and cheer when people narrowly escape certain death.

That sincerity is probably why Dante’s Peak has endured better than its mixed critical reputation might suggest. It is not a great disaster movie in the way that The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno can be called great, and it does not have the full-throttle spectacle of Twister. But it is dependable comfort-viewing for anyone who enjoys this particular brand of high-stakes Hollywood nonsense. The movie’s science is questionable in spots, its family drama can get corny, and its plot follows the disaster handbook almost page for page. Yet Brosnan and Hamilton give it enough credibility, Donaldson keeps it moving, and the volcanic destruction is still satisfying.

In the end, Dante’s Peak is a solid, unpretentious disaster thriller that understands the appeal of watching ordinary people try to outrun an extraordinary catastrophe. It may not reinvent the genre, but it delivers the basics with conviction: a looming natural threat, decent leads, escalating tension, and a finale full of lava, ash, and desperate escapes. Sometimes that is more than enough.

Review: The Last Starfighter (dir. by Nick Castle)

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Arleigh

“Alex! Alex! You’re walking away from history! History! Did Chris Columbus say he wanted to stay home? No! What if the Wright Brothers thought that only birds should fly?” — Centauri

The Last Starfighter is one of the most purely enjoyable science-fiction adventures of the 1980s: earnest, inventive, occasionally corny, and driven by the kind of wide-eyed imagination that modern blockbusters too often confuse with sheer scale. Directed by Nick Castle, the 1984 film builds an entire intergalactic adventure around a premise that could have been dismissed as a gimmick: an arcade champion discovers that his favorite game is actually a recruitment test for a real war in space. Instead of treating that premise ironically, the film commits to it wholeheartedly, and that sincerity is ultimately what makes it endure.

Lance Guest stars as Alex Rogan, a teenager living in the Starlite Starbrite trailer park with his mother and younger brother, Louis. Alex is smart, resourceful, and visibly restless. He wants to get out of his small-town surroundings, attend college, and build a better future, but financial strain and family responsibility keep making those ambitions seem less realistic. His one reliable escape comes from an arcade machine outside the local store called The Last Starfighter. Alex plays constantly, eventually achieving a record score that attracts the attention of the game’s mysterious creator, Centauri.

Robert Preston’s Centauri is one of the film’s great pleasures. He is an interstellar recruiter who behaves like a flamboyant carnival salesman, arriving in Alex’s life with a strange vehicle, flashy clothes, a rapid-fire sales pitch, and a proposition that sounds completely insane. Centauri reveals that The Last Starfighter is not merely a video game; it is a test designed to identify young people with the reflexes, tactical instincts, and courage needed to become Gunstar pilots for the Rylan Star League. Alex has not just beaten a difficult arcade game. He has qualified to defend an entire civilization from the Kodan Armada.

That central idea remains the movie’s strongest asset. It transforms a familiar adolescent fantasy into something emotionally resonant. Alex is not gifted with a magical sword, superpowers, or an ancient royal lineage. He is selected because he became exceptionally skilled at something the adults around him would probably regard as a waste of time. His ability to master a video game becomes proof that he has discipline, intelligence, hand-eye coordination, and the ability to make decisions under pressure. For anyone who grew up playing arcade games, it is an irresistible fantasy: the thing you are good at for fun might one day turn out to matter more than anyone realizes.

The film understands, however, that being offered a larger life is not the same as being ready for it. Alex initially reacts to the truth with disbelief and fear rather than instant heroism. He wants to return home. He assumes there has been a mistake. That response helps ground the movie, because Alex is not a prepackaged action hero. He is a teenager who has dreamed of escaping his circumstances but has never seriously considered the sacrifices that escape might require. It is easy to want a more exciting future when it is only an idea. It is harder when that future involves leaving your family, crossing the galaxy, and possibly dying in a war you barely understand.

Lance Guest gives Alex enough insecurity and frustration to make his eventual growth satisfying. Alex can be impatient and occasionally self-centered, but he never comes across as unlikable. He feels trapped, and the film makes that frustration understandable. His conflict is not simply whether he can destroy enemy ships; it is whether he can accept that he deserves a larger destiny than the one he has assumed is available to him. By the time he decides to fight, he has moved beyond wanting adventure as an escape. He has chosen to take responsibility for something greater than himself.

Catherine Mary Stewart is also appealing as Maggie Gordon, Alex’s girlfriend. Maggie is not given an enormous amount to do, but she has more personality than the standard passive romantic interest in many 1980s adventure films. She cares deeply about Alex, yet she also has every reason to be hurt and confused when he suddenly disappears and begins acting strangely. Her scenes with Beta Alex, the android duplicate sent to take Alex’s place on Earth, provide some of the movie’s most amusing moments. Beta Alex looks exactly like him, but his behavior is just strange enough to create an entertaining mixture of comedy and unease.

The Beta Alex subplot is one of the film’s cleverest touches because it allows the story to explore Alex’s absence without simply abandoning the Earthbound characters. Beta Alex is a convincing physical duplicate, but he cannot quite replicate the nuances of being human. His overly literal responses, awkward attempts at social interaction, and bizarre behavior around Maggie make him a memorable comic creation. The device also reinforces the contrast between Alex’s old life and the extraordinary new situation he has been pulled into. While the real Alex is in space facing a galactic conflict, the people at home are left trying to make sense of a version of him that seems familiar but fundamentally wrong.

Robert Preston’s performance gives the entire movie energy whenever Centauri appears. He could easily have become an irritating eccentric, but Preston makes him funny, charismatic, and unexpectedly warm. Centauri sees Alex’s potential before Alex sees it himself. Beneath the fast talking and theatrical mannerisms is a real belief in the people he recruits. He does not merely need another pilot; he genuinely wants Alex to become the person he is capable of being. Preston’s presence adds an old-fashioned show-business charm to a film otherwise built around futuristic hardware and computer-generated spacecraft.

Dan O’Herlihy is equally important as Grig, the reptilian alien navigator assigned to work with Alex. Grig initially seems like the typical stern mentor figure, but he gradually becomes one of the movie’s most likable characters. He has experience, discipline, and a personal history with the war that gives the conflict some added seriousness. His partnership with Alex works because they begin from very different places. Grig is a hardened veteran who has seen the cost of battle, while Alex is an overwhelmed rookie who still wants to go home. As they learn to trust each other, their relationship becomes the heart of the space-adventure material.

The villains are broad but effective. Xur and the Kodan Armada are not psychologically complex antagonists, yet the movie does not need them to be. Their purpose is to represent a threat large enough to force Alex into a defining choice. Xur’s willingness to betray the Star League and sacrifice innocent lives for power makes him an appropriately clear villain for this kind of adventure. The conflict is straightforward: a small group of defenders must stand against an overwhelming enemy force, and Alex must decide whether he will be one of those defenders.

The visual effects are perhaps the most historically fascinating part of The Last Starfighter. The film was an early showcase for computer-generated imagery, using digital effects for its spacecraft, alien environments, and space-combat sequences. At the time, this was revolutionary. Seen today, the visual effects are obviously dated. The ships have a smooth, artificial quality, the textures are basic, and the movement lacks the weight and complexity audiences expect from modern computer animation. Yet there is still something charming about them. They represent a major transitional period in science-fiction filmmaking, when filmmakers were beginning to discover what computers could do for cinematic spectacle.

The early CGI gives the movie a distinctive visual identity rather than simply making it look obsolete. The Gunstar fighter, the Kodan fleet, and the distant alien landscapes have the clean, geometric appearance of an advanced arcade game brought to life. That is fitting for a story about a teenager whose gaming skills translate into real combat ability. The computer-generated imagery may not have the tactile realism of the practical miniature work seen in films such as Star Wars or Blade Runner, but it has an important place in the history of visual effects. The movie was imagining a future that the technology of its day could only partially create, and that ambition remains visible in every digital battle.

The Gunstar itself is a memorable piece of science-fiction design. It looks futuristic while still retaining the simplicity of a classic arcade spaceship, and the cockpit scenes effectively sell the sensation of Alex being thrown into something far beyond his experience. The climactic use of the “Death Blossom” maneuver is especially satisfying because the film treats it as a genuine last resort. It is the cinematic equivalent of unleashing a devastating power-up at the exact moment an arcade game seems impossible to win. The sequence is flashy, uncomplicated, and immensely fun.

What makes The Last Starfighter last is not its special effects alone, nor is it just nostalgia for the arcade era. The movie works because it is fundamentally optimistic. It believes that potential can emerge from unlikely places and that someone who feels ignored, trapped, or underestimated may still possess the ability to do something remarkable. Alex is not chosen because he is already fearless. He becomes heroic because he eventually chooses to act despite being afraid.

The film is not perfect. Its dialogue can be cheesy, some characters are thinly developed, and the dated effects may be difficult for viewers accustomed to modern CGI. Even so, those imperfections are part of its charm. The Last Starfighter is colorful, sincere, and unashamedly enthusiastic about its own premise. It remains a lovable science-fiction adventure because it takes the dreams of a video-game-playing teenager seriously. It asks viewers to imagine that the skill everyone dismisses, the hobby that feels like an escape from ordinary life, might actually be the first sign that they are capable of something far greater.

Review: Legend (dir. by Ridley Scott)

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Arleigh

“What is light without dark? What are you without me? I am a part of you all. You can never defeat me. We are brothers eternal!” — Darkness

Legend is one of those films that feels like it should be a masterpiece even before it begins. It has Ridley Scott behind the camera, an extravagant fantasy premise, elaborate practical effects, striking production design, and a cast that includes a young Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, and Tim Curry. Released in 1985, the film arrived as a dark fantasy event that had been heavily anticipated, especially because Scott had already earned a reputation for visually stunning films. Alien and Blade Runner had established him as a director who could make entire worlds feel tactile, mysterious, and overwhelming. The idea of Scott applying that sensibility to unicorns, goblins, forest sprites, demonic lords, and fairy-tale mythology was exciting on paper. Unfortunately, while Legend is often gorgeous to look at, it becomes an uneven mess that is only saved from becoming a major disappointment by Tim Curry’s performance as Darkness.

The setup is familiar enough to sound almost deliberately archetypal. In a magical forest, Jack, played by Cruise, is a woodland boy who lives in harmony with nature and has fallen in love with the innocent Princess Lili, played by Sara. The world’s balance is tied to a pair of unicorns, embodiments of purity and light. Darkness, a devil-like ruler who wishes to plunge the world into permanent night, sends his goblin servants to kill the unicorns and take one of their horns. Lili’s fascination with the unicorns sets the tragedy in motion, and once one of the creatures is slain, winter and darkness descend upon the land. Jack must rescue Lili, restore the horn, defeat Darkness, and return light to the world.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a simple fairy-tale plot. In fact, Scott’s strongest instinct in Legend is treating fantasy with a sense of visual seriousness. The forest does not look like a clean studio set built for children; it looks damp, overgrown, foggy, and vaguely dangerous. The trees loom like ancient creatures, shafts of light break through the branches in painterly bursts, and even the beautiful areas of the film carry an eerie quality. Scott and cinematographer Alex Thomson create images that often resemble illustrated storybooks poisoned by a nightmare. The film’s environments are its greatest achievement. Whether it is the glowing forest, the icy wasteland after the unicorn’s death, or Darkness’ fire-lit underworld, Legend makes a serious effort to create a fully realized fantasy space rather than simply dressing actors in costumes and placing them in generic medieval scenery.

That visual commitment is why the film remains so fascinating despite its flaws. You can pause almost anywhere and find something worth admiring: a strange creature in the background, smoke drifting through a cavern, an enormous set textured with roots and stone, or a costume that looks handmade rather than mass-produced. Scott’s eye for atmosphere is undeniable. The film has an unusual physicality, too. Its magic is created through prosthetics, makeup, puppetry, matte work, and elaborate sets, so even when some effects have aged, they retain a handmade charm. Modern fantasy often has the advantage of digital flexibility, but Legend has the kind of tactile design that makes its world feel like it has dirt under its fingernails.

Still, visual beauty cannot completely compensate for a story that never finds a consistent rhythm. Legend often feels less like a fully developed narrative than a collection of spectacular images and half-formed fairy-tale ideas. Characters appear with little introduction, emotional shifts happen abruptly, and major story developments can feel rushed or strangely underexplained. The theatrical cut in particular carries the sense that important connective material has been removed. There are moments when the movie seems to expect emotional investment simply because the images are grand or the music swells, but the script has not done enough to earn that reaction.

Jack is also an unusually bland hero for a film that needs a strong center. Cruise was still early in his career, and there are flashes of the screen presence that would soon make him a major star. He is physically committed and looks believable racing through forests, climbing ruins, and confronting danger. But Jack is written as a generic pure-hearted fantasy protagonist, and Cruise never gets enough material to make him feel specific. He is brave because the story says he is brave, romantic because the story says he loves Lili, and destined to save the world because that is what these stories require. He does not have much inner conflict beyond the expected guilt and determination.

Lili is similarly underwritten, although Mia Sara does bring a dreamy, otherworldly quality to the role. The film wants her to embody innocence, temptation, and romantic idealism, but it does not give her much agency until she becomes corrupted by Darkness’ influence. Her transformation into a dark bride is visually memorable, especially in the elaborate black gown and makeup, but it also highlights the film’s habit of prioritizing imagery over character. The sequence is beautiful, eerie, and loaded with gothic fantasy appeal, yet Lili’s emotional journey into that role feels more decorative than dramatically convincing.

The supporting characters are more colorful but not always more useful. The dwarfs, elves, and forest companions give the story occasional energy, particularly the sarcastic fairy Oona and the armored dwarf Gump. Yet their presence can make the film feel tonally scattered. Sometimes Legend wants to be haunting and mythic; sometimes it wants broad comic relief; sometimes it drifts toward romantic melodrama. Those modes do not always blend. The result is a movie that can move from an ominous demonic ritual to a goofy side-character exchange without establishing a stable tone.

Then there is Tim Curry, who walks into the movie and immediately makes every other problem less important. His Darkness is one of the most iconic fantasy villains ever put on screen, and it is not difficult to understand why. The makeup design alone is astounding: massive horns, red skin, cloven hooves, muscular proportions, and a towering silhouette that makes him look like a medieval illustration of Satan brought to life. But the design would be nothing without Curry’s performance. He does not merely hide beneath the prosthetics; he gives Darkness a voice, posture, and seductive intelligence.

Curry plays Darkness as both monstrous and theatrical. His deep, measured delivery turns lines about night, desire, and evil into something genuinely alluring. He understands that the character should not simply roar or sneer. Darkness is persuasive. He offers Lili beauty, power, and escape from innocence, which makes him more interesting than a villain who only threatens destruction. His scenes with Sara have a strange, almost operatic energy, mixing horror, seduction, and camp in a way that fits the film’s most ambitious visual impulses. Curry makes Darkness feel ancient, vain, cruel, romantic, and weirdly funny all at once. He gives Legend its pulse.

The famous confrontation between Jack and Darkness should be the film’s crowning achievement, and visually it almost is. Darkness’ lair, lit by flames and surrounded by infernal architecture, gives Scott room to indulge his talent for monumental images. Curry’s villain towers over Cruise, making the hero look small and vulnerable. Yet even here, the fight is more memorable for its atmosphere than its dramatic construction. It is a good example of the whole film: rich in aesthetic invention, less persuasive as storytelling.

The music also reflects the movie’s fractured identity. Different versions of Legend are associated with different scores, most notably the Jerry Goldsmith score and the Tangerine Dream soundtrack used in the American theatrical release. The Goldsmith material feels more classically mythic and orchestral, while Tangerine Dream’s electronic music gives the film a distinctly 1980s dream-pop atmosphere. Both have their supporters, and both alter the experience considerably. That split feels appropriate for a movie that has always existed in multiple forms and competing moods. Legend is never quite one thing.

In the end, Legend is a flawed cult fantasy rather than a lost masterpiece. Its reputation rests largely on its imagery, its practical craftsmanship, and Curry’s towering performance, not on the strength of its plot or its emotional depth. Ridley Scott clearly wanted to make a dark fairy tale that felt ancient and sensual, but the finished film too often gets trapped between mythic grandeur, children’s fantasy, gothic romance, and broad adventure comedy. It is an uneven mess, but it is a beautiful one. And every time Tim Curry’s Darkness enters the frame, Legend briefly becomes the extraordinary film it was always trying to be.

Review: Rollercoaster (dir. by James Goldstone)

Posted on August 12, 2026 by Arleigh

“If they pay me and if they do what I say, I’ll never bother them again.” — Young Man

James Goldstone’s 1977 film Rollercoaster exists in a fascinating, albeit deeply flawed, space within the history of seventies disaster cinema. If you are a fan of retro 70s movies, specifically the whole Sensurround era where Hollywood was desperately trying to get people out of their living rooms and into theaters with seat-rumbling audio gimmicks, you have probably heard of this one. It has a genuinely neat, gritty vibe because it was actually shot on location at real amusement parks like Kings Island and Magic Mountain. You get this awesome, vintage, mid-century theme park atmosphere that you just cannot fake on a studio backlot. You can almost smell the cotton candy, the hot asphalt, and the stale beer. But once that initial wave of nostalgia wears off, you are left looking at what is actually on the screen, and honestly, Rollercoaster is not a great film. In fact, one could very easily say it is not even a good film. At its absolute best of times, it is a thoroughly average, middle-of-the-road thriller that feels more like a slightly elevated, padded-out television movie of the week than a major theatrical release.

The plot is about as standard as it gets for this era of disaster-adjacent cinema. A mysterious, young terrorist starts blowing up rollercoasters, not for any grand political manifesto, but simply to extort amusement park owners for millions of dollars. Enter our protagonist, Harry Calder, played by George Segal, who is a cynical safety inspector that just happens to survive the first derailment. Segal is basically just playing George Segal here—exasperated, a bit snarky, wearing a rumpled suit, and teaming up with an FBI agent played by Richard Widmark. The villain is played by a very young Timothy Bottoms, who is effectively creepy but given virtually zero backstory or motivation. He is just a blank-eyed psycho doing psycho things because the script needs an antagonist. The movie essentially just bounces from one park to another, with Segal walking around looking stressed while the FBI tries to figure out where the next bomb is hidden.

The pacing is arguably the film’s biggest sin. For a movie literally named Rollercoaster, it is shockingly lacking in momentum. Goldstone’s direction completely lacks the tight, pulse-pounding beats you would expect from a high-stakes thriller. There is so much filler here, so many scenes of Segal drinking coffee and staring at blueprints, and so much tedious FBI bureaucratic nonsense that it completely kills any tension. The romantic subplot feels entirely tacked on, and the climax fails to deliver the massive, explosive payoff you have been waiting for. If you judge Rollercoaster purely on its cinematic merits—the acting, the script, the direction—it is undeniably average, the kind of movie you leave on in the background while you fold laundry.

However, despite all of these glaring, undeniable flaws, Rollercoaster has a fascinating, almost prophetic legacy when you look back at the history of the thriller genre. It may not be remembered as a great movie, but it essentially built the exact template for an entire subgenre of cat-and-mouse thrillers that dominated the 90s. It practically invented the “specific-professional-against-a-psychopathic-mastermind” formula. Before Rollercoaster, thrillers were usually about spies, cops, or generic everymen. But this film introduced the idea of a highly specific, niche expert being forced into a one-on-one intellectual duel with a terrorist who targets them specifically because of their expertise. Think about how that exact template was endlessly copied and refined in the decades that followed. Look at In the Line of Fire, where Clint Eastwood plays a Secret Service agent hunted by a psycho played by John Malkovich. Or look at Blown Away, where Jeff Bridges is a bomb-defusing expert tormented by an Irish terrorist played by Tommy Lee Jones. Even The Bone Collector fits this mold perfectly, with Denzel Washington’s bedridden forensics expert being targeted by a serial killer who uses specific crime scenes just to test Washington’s intellect. All of these films drew direct DNA from Rollercoaster, using that exact same dynamic of a reluctant protagonist with a very particular set of skills being singled out by a psychopath who treats mass murder like a twisted, personalized game of chess. And if you want the absolute pinnacle of the “expert vs. bomb” trope, you have to look at Speed, which polished the cat-and-mouse dynamic perfected right here in Rollercoaster.

Because the original film was so hampered by 1970s filmmaking technology, it really makes you realize how easily this movie could be remade in this day and age. Back then, the actual destruction of the rides was limited by practical effects, clunky models, and standard camera angles that made the crashes feel somewhat static and safe. Today, technology in filmmaking has advanced to the point that the sheer scale, speed, and physical danger of the rides themselves really does become the focus of real danger. With modern CGI, drone cameras, and advanced practical rigging, you could put the audience right inside the front car of a 300-foot hyper-coaster as the tracks buckle and twist in slow motion. You could make the metal fatigue, the snapping cables, and the horrific physics of a derailment feel genuinely terrifying, turning the amusement park rides into massive, mechanical monsters rather than just static backdrop props for guys in suits to talk around.

Naturally, if Hollywood were to actually remake Rollercoaster today, you know exactly how it would look and who would star in it. It would undoubtedly star someone like Dwayne Johnson or Chris Pratt, a guy who can deliver a quip while looking concerned and holding a blueprint. They would inevitably give the safety inspector a tragic backstory, probably a dead wife or a kid they are estranged from, just to artificially raise the emotional stakes. And because it is a high-concept thriller that does not quite have the cultural weight of a massive comic book franchise, the remake would almost certainly be relegated to a streaming release. It would drop on a Friday on Netflix or Amazon Prime with a generic, algorithmically tested poster and a slick, forgettable title. It would be exactly the kind of mid-budget, mildly entertaining action flick you watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon before completely forgetting about it by Monday morning.

So, ultimately, how do you rate a movie like Rollercoaster? You just have to accept its extreme averageness and respect its ripple effect. It is clunky, the performances are uneven, and it is rarely as thrilling as its title promises. But it absolutely should not be written off entirely. It was the exact moment Hollywood realized that pitting highly specialized professionals against high-concept villains made for compelling, relatable drama. Without George Segal boredly walking around Magic Mountain, we probably do not get the overly dramatic, incredibly ridiculous, yet thoroughly entertaining 90s thriller boom, nor the slick, CGI-heavy streaming thrillers of today. Rollercoaster might just be a mediocre hill, but it is undeniably the hill that started the entire ride.

The Odyssey (dir. by Christopher Nolan)

Posted on July 17, 2026 by Leonard Wilson

(Editor’s Note – With Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey being an Event Level film, this probably won’t be the only post/opinion on it. Expect multiple viewpoints to come over time and enjoy!)

It’s been a long time since I read anything on Homer’s The Odyssey. Perhaps sometime in Junior High or High School. I only remember bits and pieces, but earlier this year, I watched the 1997 2-Part Miniseries with Armand Assante(who can do no wrong, despite how some may feel about 1993’s Fatal Instinct) to refresh my memory. That is also a great miniseries, which I recommend. Theoretically, there’s nothing to spoil here, but I’ll try to say little.

2026 has been somewhat amazing when it comes to film. We’ve seen fresh young filmmakers like Mark Fischbach and Kane Parsons take what little resources they had and make some magic in Iron Lung and Backrooms, respectively. Of course, Corey Barker’s little indie/Inde film, Obsession, continues to amaze and break records thanks to Navarette’s and the rest of the cast’s unforgettable performances. It’s a great sight to behold. On the other end of the filmmaking spectrum, we have big pitch films like Project Hail Mary and Christopher Nolan’s version of The Odyssey, showcasing what we can pull off with the advancments in film technology or just great writing.

Most IMAX movies have that label stating “Filmed with IMAX cameras”, which usually means that key scenes were recorded in the format. My first IMAX experience was back in 2003 with The Matrix Revolutions in the AMC Lincoln Center IMAX (which is still by far the best NYC hotspot for a classic big screen experience), but that was remastered to fit the screen. Most of Nolan’s works were filmed with IMAX cameras for key scenes as of 2008’s The Dark Knight. It’s commonplace now to see a film shift from the old square 4:3 (1.33:1) ratio to a 2:35:1 letterboxed widescreen. The intro to Richard Donner’s Superman is one of my favorite examples of it. 2001’s Moulin Rouge! did something similar, though the boarders weren’t exactly visible. If you watch a movie on Disney Plus or HBO Max filmed with IMAX cameras, you can often see the change in aspect ratio, either abrupt or with a smooth transition. Large Format Screenings aren’t anything extremely new. My Dad once drove the family out to Long Island to see a 70 MM showing of The Empire Strikes Back.

What makes The Odyssey so amazing is that Nolan filmed it entirely with IMAX cameras. There are tons of documentaries shot this way, but it’s rare for a feature film to do so. According to an interview with ABC News, Nolan and the crew went through 2 million feet of IMAX film, shot in 3 minute intervals because the cameras would use up the roll in that amount of time. Imagine setting up a shot, getting everyone on their marks and then letting them know you’ve 3 minutes for the actors to get to where they need to be in the scene and nail it. Academy Award Winning Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who worked with Nolan since Dunkirk, captures some beautiful vistas and landscape shots that are just majestic regardless of the format you choose to watch the film in. If you can catch the film in the IMAX 70MM, you’re getting the best possible picture, though the Regal RPX I watched wasn’t a slouch by any means. I’m hoping I can catch it in IMAX before the run ends.

The film acknowledges that that the setting is in an age of magic, and as such, some things may be a little beyond the pale. I have to wonder how Ray Harryhausen and Stan Winston would feel about some of the visual effect choices in The Odyssey. There are some pretty wild elements of horror here, which is surprising coming from Nolan. They’re still practical, everyday things, but I had a few whispered “Wow” or “Oh crap!” moments.

The Odyssey is the story of Odysseus (Matt Damon, Interstellar, Oppenheimer), King of Ithaca and loyal servant to King Agememnon (Benny Safdie, Oppenheimer, The Smashing Machine). set on a quest to claim the city of Troy. The film jumps between Odysseus in various phases of his journey. Through his actions, he defies the gods and is sent (along with his men) far from Ithaca. Back home, his wife, Penelope (Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar) observes Zeus Law of hospitality to strangers. This, however, has brought many suitors who overstay their welcome and wish the claim both her hand and the throne in Odysseus’ absence, among them being the scheming Antinous (Robert Pattinson, Tenet, The Drama) and Polybus (Corey Hawkins, The Last Voyage of the Demeter). Her son, Telemachus (Tom Holland, the upcoming Spider-Man: Brand New Day) believes his father is still out there, but knows little of him. Can Odysseus find redemption? Can he and his men make their way back to Ithaca?

The casting for The Odyssey is really good, but for as stacked as it is both with friends and new talent, not everyone gets to shine as much as one would think. They all have a role to play in this and surprisingly, the strongest performances are more from the supporting cast than the main ones. Damon is just fine here. He’s reliable when I’ve watched him in films like The Martian and The Bourne Films. He fits Odysseus okay, there’s really nothing wrong with him at all in this. The character is mentally tortured in some ways and he just wants to get home. I’m just not entirely sure I felt the whole weight of the character with Damon’s performance. This isn’t to say he dials it in, far from it. Again, that’s more me coming off of watching Assante do his thing in the 90s and then uncontrollably comparing. Hathaway, on the other hand, I suppose anyone who watched Troy (a film I don’t really remember, other than for Brian Cox’s screaming) may make similar comparisons to different elements of this film.

Hathaway and Holland do more in their roles to carry the story along. Penelope pines for her love and Telemachus knowledge of his father, and that both showcase the emotions that go with that well. I’m used to Holland playing younger characters. This may be one of the first few times where he seemed more like an adult, which he handles well. On the supporting cast side, both John Leguizamo (John Wick) as the family’s servant and Himesh Patel (Tenet) as one of Odysseus’ main soldiers really stood out with their roles. For the smaller parts, Elliot Page’s (Inception) Sinon, Samantha Morton’s (Minority Report) Circe make the best of their scenes. Safdie’s Agamemnon in particular doesn’t have to say a word. His mere presence was enough. Pattinson could have been a bit stronger or darker in nature, but I felt he carried his character well. Jon Bernthal (The Accountant 2) and Lupita Nyong’o(A Quiet Place: Day One) don’t have particularly large roles, but are important to the tale. Zendaya and Charlize Theron are kind of regulated to just a little expositional assistance here and there. They, along with Mia Goth (Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein) could have easily received a “guest starring” credit and no one would have known the difference.

I only have 2 issues with the movie. The first is that there are some elements in the overall story that never come into play(such as the Adverse Winds). Granted, you’re condensing a major text down to just 3 hours, so they had to pick and choose what they were going to work with. Still, I would have like to have seen some of those elements. For a film about gods and monsters, The Odyssey felt like it really veered more towards the monsters than anything else. Again, that’s just me coming off classic films like Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans. The gods here feel mostly like advisors, if nothing else. Again, not terrible, just different from my expectation. The other problem (or tic, nitpick, maybe) is that you may or may not find yourself chuckling a little and thinking of Monty Python’s The Holy Grail during some sequences that involve running. Maybe it was just me, but seeing everyone go from one adventure to the next just had me expecting a killer rabbit to be somewhere on the list of enemies. no matter how serious the film was.

Musically, Ludwig Goransson hasn’t slowed down since winning an Oscar for Sinners last year. His score for Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu was easily the best part of that film. For The Odyssey, Gorannson was asked to use Peter Gabriel’s Passion (the soundtrack for Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ and one of my favorite sources for background writing music) as inspiration for his own score. Working with classic instruments, he did very well here. I’m listening to it now as I’m working on this piece. While I’m still trying to recall what sound went where, it’s a solid score overall.

Overall, I absolutely enjoyed The Odyssey. I’m not sure how it’ll fare come Awards Season, but I do hope it finds itself in the mix, at least from a Cinematography standpoint.

Review: Munich (dir. by Steven Spielberg)

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Arleigh

If you’re looking for a comfortable, easily digestible thriller with clear-cut heroes and villains, Munich is going to be a tough sit. This 2005 film, now two decades old, finds Steven Spielberg operating at a peak level of craft, but it’s a cold and angry kind of mastery. It’s a dense, paranoid, and deeply unsettling historical drama that feels less like a movie and more like a wound that’s been picked at for years. Based on the book Vengeance, the film dramatizes the secret Israeli mission, “Operation Wrath of God,” to hunt down and assassinate the Palestinian militants responsible for the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. But here’s the kicker: this isn’t an action movie about a bunch of spies getting revenge and feeling good about it. Spielberg isn’t making a war film about who is right and who is wrong. Munich is a film about the ugly, corrosive nature of state-sponsored violence and the way it eats away at the soul of everyone involved. It’s a thriller, sure, but the tension isn’t built around whether the team will succeed, but around the psychological and moral cost of their success. There’s no triumph here, no victory lap—just the sinking realization that for every target they eliminate, the wound in the world only seems to get deeper.

The movie is anchored by a phenomenal performance from Eric Bana as Avner, the team’s leader. He’s a man of deep patriotism, handpicked for this mission by Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) herself, but he’s completely unprepared for the psychological toll the job will take. He’s joined by a fantastic ensemble that includes Daniel Craig as a brutal and cold-blooded South African operative, and Mathieu Kassovitz as a toymaker turned reluctant bomb expert. They’re a tight, desperate group, and as they move from one European capital to the next, meticulously planning and executing assassinations, the initial sense of righteous duty slowly curdles into paranoia, guilt, and nihilism. The film doesn’t shy away from the violent acts, but it presents them not as a cause for celebration, but as messy, brutal affairs that often have unintended, horrific consequences—like a scene where a bombing intended for a target gets dangerously close to an innocent child. You can feel the weight of every decision pressing down on these men, and Spielberg makes sure you sit with that discomfort rather than brushing past it for the sake of pacing.

One of the most crucial—and still controversial—aspects of Munich is its willingness to humanize the Palestinian perspective. This isn’t a film that paints the Black September terrorists as caricatures of evil. In one of the film’s most powerful scenes, Avner and a PLO member named Ali (Omar Metwally) engage in a tense, philosophical debate about their respective claims to the land. Avner warns that the world will see the Palestinians as “animals” for their actions, to which Ali chillingly replies, “Yes, but then the world will see how they’ve made us into animals. They’ll start to ask questions about the conditions in our cages.” The film doesn’t excuse the terrorism, but it forces the audience to understand the desperation and statelessness that fuels it, presenting a horrifying symmetry where both sides see themselves as victims fighting for survival. It’s a gutsy move for a mainstream Hollywood director, especially in the mid-2000s, and it’s precisely that moral even-handedness that made the film so divisive upon release—and still makes it so damn compelling today.

And that’s where this film connects to a larger, darker moment in Spielberg’s career. Munich was released at the tail end of what some critics have rightly called his “Post-9/11 triptych,” alongside Minority Report (2002) and War of the Worlds (2005). These aren’t just three random films. They are all steeped in a profound sense of paranoia and fear of the outsider that was so prevalent in America after 9/11. Minority Report imagines a society where you’re arrested for a crime before you commit it; War of the Worlds literalizes the fear of a sudden, devastating attack on American soil; and Munich transposes those anxieties onto the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Spielberg used this triptych to explore the American psyche’s newfound sense of vulnerability and its willingness to embrace extreme, morally ambiguous measures—like torture and preemptive strikes—in the name of security. It was a director grappling with a changed world, and Munich, with its focus on a secret, government-approved assassination squad, feels like his most potent and cynical entry in the series. You can almost hear the echo of post-9/11 rhetoric in every scene, as if Spielberg was holding up a dark mirror to his own country’s creeping acceptance of extrajudicial killing.

But the bleakest part of Munich is how it transcends even that specific historical and political moment. The film relentlessly returns to the theme of the “violence loop.” The team assassinates one target, and he is immediately replaced by someone even more radical. They get a hit, and there’s a retaliatory bombing. It’s a terrifyingly accurate depiction of what has continued to happen for decades after the film’s events. Avner realizes that their entire operation, the endless cycle of state-sponsored revenge, is ultimately pointless for achieving peace. It’s a desperate, bloody game of whack-a-mole that only ensures the conflict continues in perpetuity, a cycle of vengeance that simply feeds on itself. As the film shows, and as is still plain to see today, the violence doesn’t end when the “list” is completed; it just regenerates. The final scenes, where Avner finds himself unable to even sleep in his own bed, watching his young daughter with a haunted look, drive home that the real casualty of state-approved assassination isn’t just the targets—it’s the humanity of the people pulling the trigger. He’s won the tactical war, but he’s lost every single battle that actually mattered.

Ultimately, Munich is a masterclass in filmmaking that offers no easy answers, and watching it today, with the current geopolitical landscape looking more fractured than ever, its relevance hasn’t faded one bit—if anything, it’s sharper and more painful now than it was in 2005. The same arguments, the same grievances, the same bloody score-settling between Israel, the Palestinians, and their Arab allies are still playing out in real time, with no end in sight. And yet, for all its brutal honesty, the film also exposes a tragic truth: this movie, like so much of the discourse surrounding the conflict, will probably only deepen the divide between the two groups watching it, as each side can point to it and say, “See? That’s what they do to us. That’s our pain validated.” It becomes another piece of ammunition in an endless argument rather than a bridge toward understanding. The brilliant cinematography from Janusz Kaminski and the chilling, minimalist score from John Williams only add to that oppressive, paranoid atmosphere, making it not a film that will make you feel good about anything, but one that will make you think—and perhaps that’s exactly why it remains so damn relevant decades later.

So what’s the way out? The film doesn’t give you a manual, but it does whisper a desperate question between its frames: can either side actually step back from the brink long enough to see the loop they’re both trapped in? Because the violence loop isn’t a natural disaster—it’s a human creation, and what humans build, humans can theoretically unbuild. But that would require something infinitely harder than pulling a trigger or planting a bomb—it would require acknowledging that your own righteous suffering doesn’t cancel out the other side’s legitimate pain, it would require looking at the face of your enemy and seeing not a monster but a person who also loves their children and believes they’re fighting for survival. The film dares to suggest that the only real break in the cycle might come from exhaustion, from the sheer soul-crushing fatigue of burying one more generation, or from a moment of radical, almost insane empathy that makes someone say “enough” before the next retaliation.

Spielberg doesn’t offer that moment in the movie, because he knows it hasn’t happened yet in real life—Munich isn’t a prescription; it’s an autopsy. Every few years, when the news cycle inevitably rolls around to another flare-up in that tortured corner of the world, this movie comes back to mind not as a prophecy, but as a painfully accurate diagnosis. It’s a powerful, haunting reminder that the echo of old violence is never truly silent, and that in the long run, vengeance is often a debt that can never be repaid. If you go in expecting a straightforward revenge fantasy, you’ll walk out exhausted and conflicted. But if you go in ready to wrestle with some of the ugliest questions about justice, morality, and state power, then Munich will stick with you like a splinter you just can’t dig out—and maybe, just maybe, that splinter is the first tiny crack in the loop that someone, someday, will have the courage to break.

Review: Obsession (dir. by Curry Barker)

Posted on May 18, 2026 by Arleigh

“Just because you chose this for her doesn’t make it less real.” — Phone Operator

There is something especially unsettling about horror films that begin with a simple emotional truth. Obsession, written and directed by Curry Barker, starts with a feeling most people understand: wanting someone to love you back. Barker takes that universal desire and twists it into something ugly, tragic, and terrifying. The result is a horror film that works both as a supernatural nightmare and as an uncomfortable examination of loneliness, entitlement, and emotional dependency.

The premise sounds deceptively simple. Bear, played by Michael Johnston, is a socially awkward young man hopelessly in love with his longtime friend Nikki, played by Inde Navarrette. Bear convinces himself that if circumstances were just slightly different, Nikki would finally realize he is the right person for her. When he discovers a supernatural object known as the “One Wish Willow,” he makes the disastrous decision to wish that Nikki would love him completely. Naturally, the wish mutates into something horrific, transforming Nikki’s affection into a violent and all-consuming obsession.

At its core, Obsession feels like an old-fashioned monkey’s paw story updated for the modern age. Barker takes the familiar “be careful what you wish for” premise and dials the nastiness up to 11. The film fully commits to the emotional ugliness of its concept, giving the well-worn trope a vicious bite that makes the movie far better than it has any reason to be. Instead of treating the supernatural element like a gimmick, Barker roots the horror in emotional selfishness and the terrifying consequences of trying to control another person’s feelings.

What makes the film work so well is that Barker avoids turning the story into a heavy-handed moral lecture. The script trusts the audience to understand the disturbing reality underneath Bear’s actions. Bear is not portrayed as a cartoon villain. He is insecure, lonely, emotionally immature, and quietly resentful. That complexity makes him far more unsettling because he feels recognizable. The film taps into a very modern type of “nice guy” entitlement, where affection is viewed less as mutual connection and more as something owed or deserved.

Michael Johnston gives an impressively layered performance as Bear. He never plays the character as openly monstrous right away. Instead, Johnston leans into Bear’s passivity and self-pity, making him seem like someone convinced life has unfairly denied him happiness. Even as events spiral out of control, Bear continues rationalizing his decisions instead of fully confronting the damage he has caused. Johnston manages to make the character pathetic, frustrating, and disturbing all at once.

Inde Navarrette delivers the film’s strongest performance as Nikki. Once the wish begins taking hold, Navarrette shifts between affection, emotional collapse, desperation, and outright menace with remarkable control. What makes her performance especially effective is that Nikki never stops feeling human beneath the horror. There is a lingering sadness to the character because the film makes it clear she is losing her autonomy piece by piece. That loss of agency becomes one of the movie’s most disturbing ideas.

More than anything, Obsession is about the horror of emotional suffocation. Barker exaggerates toxic relationship dynamics into supernatural horror, but the emotions underneath everything feel believable enough to sting. The film understands how frightening dependency can become when love starts turning into possession. In many ways, the supernatural curse almost feels secondary to the emotional damage unfolding between the characters.

One of the film’s biggest surprises is how confidently Barker handles tone. Considering his background in online comedy and internet content, it would have been easy for the movie to lean too heavily into irony or self-awareness. Instead, Obsession balances dark humor and psychological dread remarkably well. There are genuinely funny moments throughout the film, often rooted in painfully awkward social interactions, but the comedy never weakens the horror. If anything, it makes scenes more uncomfortable because the characters and situations feel recognizable.

Visually, the film punches far above its apparent budget. Barker and cinematographer Taylor Clemons create an atmosphere that feels claustrophobic and emotionally oppressive. The framing often leaves characters isolated within empty spaces, subtly reinforcing the loneliness and discomfort driving the story. The lighting also deserves praise, frequently bathing scenes in dim yellows, reds, and shadows that gradually make ordinary environments feel increasingly hostile.

The sound design is equally effective. Barker wisely avoids relying only on loud jump scares. Instead, the film builds tension through silence, distant noises, and subtle audio distortions that make scenes feel emotionally wrong before anything overtly frightening even happens. Combined with Rock Burwell’s unsettling score, the movie maintains a lingering sense of dread that hangs over nearly every scene.

When the horror finally erupts into violence, Barker shows admirable restraint. The graphic moments land hard because the emotional groundwork has already been carefully established. Some scenes are genuinely difficult to watch not simply because they are bloody, but because the violence feels directly tied to desperation, obsession, and loss of control. The film understands that emotional discomfort can often be more disturbing than gore itself.

If the movie has weaknesses, they mostly stem from Barker occasionally pushing the central metaphor a little too hard. Some later scenes become slightly obvious in their symbolism, and a few supporting characters feel underdeveloped compared to the leads. Still, those flaws never seriously damage the film because the central performances and atmosphere remain compelling throughout.

What ultimately makes Obsession stand out from many modern horror films is how emotionally specific it feels. Rather than chasing broad social commentary, Barker narrows his focus onto a very particular kind of emotional dysfunction. The film is less interested in making sweeping statements about relationships and more interested in examining the terrifying consequences of confusing love with ownership.

In that sense, the “One Wish Willow” works less as a magical object and more as a representation of selfish fantasy. Bear wants love without vulnerability, rejection, or reciprocity. He wants an easy shortcut to emotional fulfillment. The horror comes from realizing that genuine love cannot exist without freedom.

There are traces of earlier psychological horror films throughout Obsession. The movie occasionally recalls the obsessive fixation of Misery and the emotional body horror of Possession, though Barker filters those influences through a distinctly modern lens shaped by internet-age loneliness and social isolation. Yet despite those influences, the film never feels derivative. Barker’s voice as a filmmaker comes through clearly in both the emotional discomfort and escalating supernatural chaos.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about Obsession is how assured it feels for a filmmaker still early in his career. Barker directs with confidence, gradually tightening the emotional pressure until the movie becomes almost suffocating by its final act. By the end, the film reaches a level of tragic inevitability that feels earned rather than forced.

Obsession succeeds because it recognizes how frightening loneliness and emotional dependency can become when mixed with entitlement and fantasy. Beneath the supernatural premise is a painfully human story about people confusing obsession with love. Curry Barker turns that idea into a disturbing, darkly funny, emotionally bruising horror film that lingers long after the credits roll.

For a filmmaker making such an ambitious leap into feature-length horror, Barker delivers something remarkably confident and emotionally sharp. Obsession is creepy, uncomfortable, tragic, and surprisingly insightful. More importantly, it feels like the arrival of a filmmaker who understands how modern horror can reflect real emotional anxieties while still delivering an entertaining and deeply unsettling experience. In many ways, Barker joins the recent wave of younger horror filmmakers like Oz Perkins and Zach Cregger who have proven that horror, dread, and dark comedy do not have to work against each other. Like those directors, Barker understands how to blend discomfort, absurdity, and genuine emotional tension into a cohesive whole, creating a film that is as unsettling as it is unexpectedly funny.

Guilty Pleasure No. 114: Death Race (dir. by Paul W.S. Anderson)

Posted on May 1, 2026 by Arleigh

Death Race (2008) is the kind of movie that feels like it was engineered in a lab specifically to test how much nonsense an audience will tolerate as long as things explode every ten minutes. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, a filmmaker whose entire career seems built on the philosophy of “style over literally anything else,” the film doesn’t so much tell a story as it barrels through one at full speed, flipping off logic, subtlety, and occasionally even coherence along the way. And yet—this is the annoying part—it works. Not in a “this is a good film” sense, but in that grimy, late-night cable, “I probably shouldn’t be enjoying this as much as I am” way.

The premise is pure pulp: in a dystopian future where the economy has collapsed (because of course it has), prisons have turned into profit-generating entertainment hubs. The main attraction is the Death Race, a gladiatorial car battle where inmates drive weaponized vehicles and murder each other for the amusement of a bloodthirsty audience. Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, a wrongfully convicted ex-racer forced to step into the role of a masked legend named Frankenstein. It’s as blunt and ridiculous as it sounds, and the movie never once tries to elevate it beyond that. There’s no pretense of social commentary that isn’t immediately undercut by another machine gun turret popping out of a car hood.

Anderson directs the whole thing like he’s permanently hopped up on energy drinks and early 2000s music video aesthetics. The camera is constantly moving, cutting, shaking, and occasionally losing track of what’s happening entirely. Action scenes are edited within an inch of their life, creating a sense of chaotic momentum that’s exciting in the moment but completely disposable five seconds later. It’s visual junk food—greasy, loud, and weirdly satisfying even when you know it’s terrible for you.

A huge part of why Death Race remains watchable—arguably the biggest reason—is the decision to cast Jason Statham in the lead. This is exactly the kind of role his entire screen persona was built for, and the film leans on that heavily. Statham doesn’t bring depth or complexity, but he brings something more valuable here: credibility. You believe he can survive this world. You believe he can drive, fight, and endure the endless barrage of chaos being thrown at him. In a movie this dumb, that kind of grounding goes a long way. Swap him out for a less naturally commanding actor, and the whole thing probably collapses under its own stupidity.

That’s not to say he’s delivering some kind of nuanced performance. He isn’t. He operates in that familiar Statham mode—minimal dialogue, maximum scowl, and a constant sense that he’s two seconds away from breaking someone’s arm. But that simplicity works in the film’s favor. He becomes the one stable element in an otherwise unhinged movie, a human anchor that keeps the madness from drifting into outright parody. The choice to center the film around him is one of the few decisions here that feels genuinely smart, even if everything surrounding it is chaos.

Then you’ve got Joan Allen, who plays the prison warden with a level of icy commitment that almost tricks you into thinking the movie has something deeper going on. She treats the Death Race like high art, which is both hilarious and oddly effective. There’s a strange tension between her seriousness and the film’s inherent stupidity that gives Death Race a bit more texture than it probably deserves. She’s acting in a better movie that doesn’t exist, and somehow that makes this one more watchable.

But let’s not kid ourselves—this is not a good film. The characters are paper-thin, the dialogue is aggressively functional, and the plot moves forward with the grace of a sledgehammer. Emotional beats land with a dull thud, and any attempt at stakes is drowned out by the next explosion or metal-on-metal collision. It’s the kind of movie where you can predict every major turn five minutes in advance and still not care because you’re too busy watching a car fire a missile at another car.

What makes Death Race oddly compelling, though, is how completely it commits to its own stupidity. There’s no wink to the audience, no self-aware humor trying to soften the edges. It plays everything straight, which paradoxically makes it feel more honest than a lot of “so bad it’s good” movies. It’s not trying to be clever or subversive—it just wants to show you armored cars smashing into each other while people scream and things explode. And on that level, it absolutely delivers.

There’s also something weirdly nostalgic about it. It feels like a relic of a very specific era of action filmmaking, where grit meant desaturated colors, shaky cameras, and protagonists who communicated exclusively through clenched jaws and short sentences. It’s pre-Mad Max: Fury Road, pre-the current wave of more thoughtfully constructed action cinema. Death Race exists in that awkward middle ground where filmmakers had access to bigger budgets and better effects but hadn’t quite figured out how to use them with any real finesse.

And yet, despite all its flaws—or maybe because of them—it’s entertaining. Not in a “this is a masterpiece” way, but in that guilty pleasure sense where you’re fully aware of how dumb it is and still having a good time. It’s a film that succeeds almost accidentally, powered by sheer momentum and a refusal to slow down long enough for you to think too hard about what you’re watching.

In the end, Death Race is a mess. A loud, clunky, overedited mess with delusions of intensity and a complete disregard for nuance. But it’s also a perfect example of a movie that’s entertaining despite itself. It shouldn’t work, and on paper, it really doesn’t. But between the explosions, the ridiculous premise, and—crucially—Statham’s perfectly calibrated presence, it finds a groove and sticks to it. You don’t respect it, you don’t admire it—but you kind of enjoy the hell out of it anyway.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 110: Undercover Brother (dir. by Malcolm D. Lee)

Posted on April 5, 2026 by Arleigh

Undercover Brother is exactly the kind of movie that earns the phrase “guilty pleasure.” It is messy, broad, and often ridiculous, but it is also packed with enough energy, attitude, and sharp-enough satire to make its flaws feel like part of the joke rather than dealbreakers. The result is a comedy that may not always land cleanly, but it absolutely understands its own vibe and commits to it hard.

At the center of it all is Eddie Griffin, who gives the title character a big, swaggering, old-school cool that carries the movie through its shaggier patches. He plays Undercover Brother as a throwback spy hero with a giant Afro, loud fashion sense, and nonstop confidence, and that exaggerated persona is a big reason the film works as well as it does. Griffin’s performance is not subtle, but subtlety is not really the point here; he sells the movie’s cartoonish energy without making it feel lazy.

What makes Undercover Brother more than just a random parody is how committed it is to poking at both blaxploitation iconography and mainstream spy-movie clichés. The film was directed by Malcolm D. Lee and written from material based on John Ridley’s earlier animated series, and it leans into that satirical roots-and-gadgets formula with a lot of style. It clearly wants to be playful, but it also wants to say something about race, image, and the way Black identity gets packaged or watered down in pop culture.

That said, the movie is not exactly a model of precision. Some of the jokes are sharp and immediate, while others feel like they are still revving the engine long after the punchline should have arrived. The plot is basically an excuse to move from one set piece to another, and the film knows it, which helps, but it also means the whole thing can feel more like a high-speed sketch comedy than a fully shaped story. If you go in expecting airtight narrative logic, you will probably be annoyed; if you go in wanting a fast, funky send-up, you will have a much better time.

The supporting cast gives the movie a lot of its flavor. Dave Chappelle, Aunjanue Ellis, Billy Dee Williams, Chris Kattan, Denise Richards, and Neil Patrick Harris all add to the film’s chaotic mix, and the casting itself becomes part of the joke. Billy Dee Williams especially feels perfectly placed in a movie that is constantly riffing on cool, style, and old-school charisma, while Denise Richards gets a knowingly exaggerated role that plays into the film’s cartoonish battle between seduction and resistance.

What helps Undercover Brother age a little better than some early-2000s comedies is that it is not just throwing random nonsense at the screen for cheap laughs. There is a genuine satirical target here, and even when the movie gets clumsy, it still feels like it has a point of view. The movie clearly aims to be both goofy and observant, and even when the balance is uneven, it is hard not to appreciate the effort.

The best thing about Undercover Brother is its attitude. It moves like a movie that wants to be loud, stylish, and a little bit too much, and that confidence gives it a strange charm. The humor is often broad, sometimes cartoonish, and occasionally uneven, but the film’s willingness to fully commit to its bit makes it easy to forgive a lot. Even when the satire is more enthusiastic than elegant, the movie keeps its foot on the gas, and that momentum is a big part of its appeal.

Its biggest weakness is also the thing that makes it memorable: the movie can feel overstuffed with ideas, references, and gags, some of which work better than others. A few jokes feel a little dated now, and the film’s style of satire is not always as clean or as clever as it seems to think it is. Still, the movie has enough bite, personality, and goofy confidence that those rough edges become part of its charm instead of sinking it. That is the hallmark of a true guilty pleasure: you can see the flaws clearly, but you keep smiling anyway.

So Undercover Brother is not a perfect comedy, and it is not trying to be one. It is loud, silly, politically aware in a very pop-movie way, and shamelessly committed to its own funk. If you want polish, you will find plenty to criticize; if you want a movie with attitude, quotable energy, and the kind of swagger that makes its imperfections oddly lovable, this one delivers. It is a flawed satire, sure, but it is also a genuinely fun one, and that is why it still plays like a guilty pleasure worth revisiting.

Previous Guilty Pleasures