Gooey Glory and Gallows Laughs: Slither (2006)

30 Monday Mar 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Long before he was steering blockbuster juggernauts for Marvel Studios and DC Studios, James Gunn made his directorial debut with something far slimier, stranger, and far more sincere in its love for the grotesque. Slither arrived in 2006 as a love letter to classic creature features, splatter cinema, and the kind of horror-comedy that delights in pushing good taste to its absolute limits.

And nearly two decades on, it still squelches with personality.

Practical Effects That Refuse to Play Nice

If Slither has a beating heart (and it has many), it lies in its gloriously excessive practical effects. This is a film that revels in the tactile — in flesh that mutates, stretches, bursts and oozes with gleeful abandon.

Drawing clear inspiration from genre staples like The Thing and Night of the Creeps, Gunn leans into the artistry of physical transformation. The alien parasites — slug-like invaders that burrow into human hosts — are both repulsive and oddly playful, writhing across the screen in a way that feels refreshingly tangible in an era already leaning heavily into CGI.

The centrepiece, however, is the grotesque evolution of Grant Grant, played with unnerving commitment by Michael Rooker. His transformation is a slow, tragic descent into body horror — a man losing not just his humanity, but his physical form in ways that are as disturbing as they are darkly comic.

It’s disgusting. It’s excessive. It’s absolutely the point.

Macabre Humour Done Right

What elevates Slither beyond a simple creature feature is Gunn’s razor-sharp tonal control. The film walks a precarious line between horror and comedy, never allowing one to fully undermine the other.

The humour is pitch black, often absurd, and frequently rooted in the sheer extremity of what’s unfolding. Gunn understands that the best horror-comedy doesn’t deflate tension — it amplifies it by forcing audiences to laugh at things they probably shouldn’t.

This balance would later become a defining trait of his work, visible in films like Guardians of the Galaxy, but here it feels rawer, more unrestrained — like a filmmaker gleefully testing how far he can push both the audience and the material.

A Cast That Gets the Joke

A film like Slither lives or dies on its performances, and Gunn assembles a cast that fully commits to the madness.

Nathan Fillion anchors the film as Sheriff Bill Pardy, bringing a dry, understated charm that grounds the chaos. His everyman sensibility provides a necessary counterbalance to the escalating absurdity, allowing the audience to latch onto something recognisably human amidst the carnage.

Opposite him, Elizabeth Banks delivers a performance that adds emotional weight to the film’s more grotesque elements. As Starla, she becomes the emotional core of the story, her relationship with Grant adding a surprising layer of tragedy to what could have easily been pure exploitation fare.

And then there’s Rooker — unhinged, committed, and unforgettable. His performance is the film’s grotesque centrepiece, embodying both the horror and the humour in equal measure.

Small-Town Horror with Big Personality

Set in a sleepy town slowly overtaken by alien infection, Slither taps into familiar genre territory but injects it with a chaotic energy that keeps it feeling fresh. The invasion narrative unfolds with increasing intensity, each new mutation escalating the stakes and the spectacle.

Yet beneath the slime and spectacle, there’s a genuine affection for the genre. Gunn isn’t mocking horror — he’s celebrating it, embracing its excesses while understanding the craft required to make them work.

A Cult Classic That Still Sticks

Despite a modest reception upon release, Slither has rightfully earned its place as a cult favourite. It’s a film that understands exactly what it wants to be and executes that vision with unapologetic enthusiasm.

It’s messy. It’s grotesque. It’s often ridiculous.

But it’s also incredibly well-made.

The Prognosis:

A gloriously goo-soaked horror-comedy that showcases James Gunn’s early voice, blending practical effects, macabre humour and a committed cast into one of the most entertaining creature features of the 2000s.

  • Saul Muerte

Steel, Sorcery and Splattercraft: Deathstalker (2026)

29 Sunday Mar 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

In an era where digital spectacle often overwhelms texture and tactility, Deathstalker arrives like a relic unearthed from a more visceral cinematic past. Directed by Steven Kostanski, this Shudder-exclusive fantasy-horror hybrid leans unapologetically into the aesthetics of sword-and-sorcery pulp, resurrecting a subgenre that thrives on excess, grime, and the physicality of handcrafted effects.

Kostanski, whose reputation has steadily grown through cult favourites such as The Void and Psycho Goreman, has long been recognised as a modern custodian of practical effects artistry. With Deathstalker, he reasserts that position with confidence, delivering a film that feels less like a reinvention and more like a reclamation — a reminder that horror-fantasy can still breathe, bleed and rupture in tangible ways.

A Return to Practical Alchemy

The narrative itself is deliberately archetypal. When a battle-hardened warrior, played by Daniel Bernhardt, retrieves a cursed amulet from a battlefield littered with corpses, he becomes entangled in a web of dark magick, pursued by assassins and shadowed by an encroaching evil. It is a familiar framework — one that echoes the mythic simplicity of Conan-era storytelling — but Kostanski is less interested in narrative innovation than in experiential immersion.

Where Deathstalker distinguishes itself is in its commitment to the physical image. The creatures, transformations and grotesqueries that populate this world are rendered with a devotion to prosthetics, animatronics and practical ingenuity that feels increasingly rare. Flesh tears, bodies distort, and the supernatural manifests not as weightless pixels but as textured, often repulsive forms that occupy space with convincing presence.

There is a tactile pleasure in this approach — a sense that the horror exists within the frame rather than being layered atop it.

Kostanski’s Controlled Chaos

Kostanski’s direction walks a delicate line between reverence and reinvention. His work here feels informed by the splatter traditions of filmmakers like Stuart Gordon and Sam Raimi, yet it avoids slipping into mere pastiche. Instead, he channels those influences through a contemporary lens, maintaining a playful awareness of genre conventions without undermining their impact.

There is, crucially, a sense that Kostanski is enjoying himself.

That enjoyment becomes infectious. The film’s more excessive moments — of which there are many — are staged with a gleeful confidence that invites the audience to revel in the absurdity. Limbs are dispatched, creatures emerge from unlikely places, and the boundaries of taste are tested with a wink rather than a nudge.

Yet beneath the chaos lies a disciplined craftsman. Kostanski understands rhythm, allowing sequences of visceral intensity to breathe before plunging back into the grotesque. It is this balance that prevents the film from collapsing under the weight of its own indulgence.

Form Over Function

If Deathstalker falters, it does so in its narrative ambitions. The story, while serviceable, rarely transcends its archetypal foundations. Characterisation remains broad, motivations are often sketched rather than explored, and the emotional stakes never quite reach the same level of engagement as the film’s visual spectacle.

But this feels, to some extent, intentional.

Kostanski appears less concerned with crafting a deeply layered narrative than with constructing a world — one defined by its textures, its grotesqueries, and its commitment to physical effects. The result is a film that prioritises sensation over introspection, experience over exposition.

A Leader in His Field

In many ways, Deathstalker serves as a reaffirmation of Kostanski’s position within contemporary genre filmmaking. At a time when practical effects are often relegated to novelty status, he continues to push their boundaries, exploring what can be achieved through ingenuity, craftsmanship, and a willingness to embrace imperfection.

The film may not fully transcend its pulp origins, but it doesn’t need to. Its value lies in its execution — in the sheer commitment to a mode of filmmaking that refuses to disappear quietly.

The Prognosis:

Deathstalker is not a film that seeks to redefine fantasy horror. Instead, it embraces its lineage, revels in its excesses, and delivers a tactile, visceral experience that stands in stark contrast to the polished artificiality of much contemporary genre cinema.

A rough-edged but invigorating return to practical effects-driven storytelling, with Steven Kostanski once again proving himself a vital and playful force in modern horror.

  • Saul Muerte

Deathstalker will stream on Shudder from Fri 3rd April

Pedigree Meets Pulp: Cold Storage and the Limits of B-Movie Ambition

28 Saturday Mar 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Movies and names.
It’s a subconscious thing with some, or sometimes, the only thing people do before considering a movie.
And that is, look at the names.
Specifically, the ones on the poster.
Actors (obvs) but “written by” and “directed by” are also big ones. And if you consider yourself a real cinephile, “produced by”.
Cold Storage has some impressive names attached to it. Also, “based on a novel” usually means there has been creative interpretation applied to the script, and most film makers usually LOVE flexing their game at such activity.
Throw in the fact that the writer is the man who wrote Carlito’s Way, the first Mission Impossible and a shit ton of Jurassic Park movies, and you have pedigree right there.
Plus, there is the cast. One made up of the cool guy from Stranger Things, the lead from (masterful) horror film Barbarian, Kevin Bacon’s daughter (the lead in the first Smile) and Liam frickin Neeson and Vanessa frickin Redgrave! Those are all decent hitters!
Plus-plus it is directed by… err someone with a lot of TV & doco credits, so we’ll see…

So, this film is a horror sci-fi set in a storage facility. And as locations go, that’s pretty cool. (Except I’ve yet to see a sci fi horror set in one be any good… 2012’s Storage 24 was one of the first and when you shoot an entire film in close up, it makes for a really shitty movie).
But I digress. Will this film be the exception?
It starts back in 1979 when Skylab fell to Earth, Western Australia (an event I actually remember, as I was both alive and on the same continent when it happened IRL). Once this happens, we soon find ourselves in Alien-bug-has-landed-on earth territory.
Fast jump to the exotic future of 2007 and said bug has been locked deep down inside a military storage facility all this time.
Except with time comes change and the facility has now become (on the surface at least) just a regular commercially-available-for-hire-by-the-general-public storage place.

And of course, 2007 is the year the deep cold vault containing the bug starts to fail…
So – what happens next – I’ll let Chris Dawes take you through.

This film hopes to answer two age old questions – Firstly, has the mold growing in my shower been conscious all along, and if so, have all the times I have smudged it with my arse driven it to vengeance?
And second! Is the reason we haven’t found aliens in Area 51 was that they hired Bazza to put up gyprock?
Cash job, of course.
The answer is yes to both, and thanks to top tier government fuckery uncolding the subterranean fridges, two down on their luck minimum-wagers are forced to do battle with a sentient sludge so profoundly roided up neither the Marines, the Hell’s Angels,
nor your butthead neighbour’s cat can knock it on its arse.
Damn your weakness, Ajax Spray and Wipe!
This film is pap. But it is pap made with a love of the genre and stars a cast of award winners who clearly enjoyed making a high budget B-Movie.
If you have two hours to switch your brain off and have a solid good time, you can do far worse than spending twenty bucks on this. Back to Ant.

So, as you can see, this is a fun popcorn romp, with some very strong ingredients.
But is it Tremors level B-grade horror/comedy par excellence?
For mine, not really. It has some very fine moments held up by an outstanding afore-mentioned cast, but its pacing is at times uneven. And certain story elements feel rushed or glossed over.
And for that I can only think to blame a director who is still finding his movie legs, as this is just his second feature. Although he has a lot of excellent TV credits, so maybe studio interference stuffed him around?
Who knows?

The Prognosis:

Worth a look, but lower the expectations the better. A good facility for some silly fun.
See what I did there?

  • Antony Yee & Chris Dawes

Party Games and False Starts: Revisiting April Fool’s Day (1986)

25 Wednesday Mar 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

By the mid-1980s, the slasher boom was already showing signs of fatigue. The formula — isolated setting, attractive young victims, a masked killer patiently thinning the herd — had been repeated so many times that even filmmakers seemed unsure how to keep it fresh. Into this increasingly crowded field arrived April Fool’s Day, directed by Fred Walton, a film that gestures toward clever subversion but ultimately settles into something far less memorable.

Four decades later, April Fool’s Day remains a curious entry in the slasher canon: not outright terrible, but strangely inert.

A Familiar Setup

The premise feels immediately recognisable. Wealthy college student Muffy St. John invites a group of friends to her parents’ secluded island mansion for a weekend getaway. Predictably, tensions simmer, practical jokes escalate, and before long the group begins disappearing one by one.

The film initially hints at a more playful approach to the genre. Given its title, audiences might expect elaborate trickery or a sly commentary on slasher conventions. Instead, much of the runtime unfolds with a slow, almost perfunctory rhythm as the characters wander through the house and surrounding island, occasionally pausing for mildly suspicious developments.

There’s nothing particularly offensive about the structure — but there’s also very little urgency.

A Slasher Without Much Bite

Part of the problem lies in the film’s strangely subdued tone. Director Fred Walton, who previously crafted the tense holiday thriller When a Stranger Calls, seems unsure whether he’s making a suspenseful whodunit or a tongue-in-cheek genre experiment. The result lands awkwardly somewhere in between.

The murders themselves lack the visceral punch audiences had come to expect from mid-80s slashers. While this restraint may have been intentional, it leaves the film feeling oddly toothless compared to contemporaries dominated by the likes of Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger.

Tension rarely escalates, and the pacing drifts through long stretches of exposition and character banter that never quite develops into meaningful drama.

Amy Steel Brings Much-Needed Presence

One bright spot comes from Amy Steel, best known to horror fans for her role in Friday the 13th Part 2. Steel manages to inject a degree of credibility into the proceedings, grounding the film whenever the narrative threatens to drift into complete inertia.

Her performance carries a quiet sincerity that lends the character a sense of intelligence and awareness often missing from the genre’s stock archetypes. Even when the script falters, Steel maintains a level of gravitas that suggests a stronger film lurking somewhere beneath the surface.

Unfortunately, she’s working within a story that rarely gives her — or anyone else — much to do.

A Twist That Divides

Without venturing too deeply into spoiler territory, April Fool’s Day hinges on a final twist that attempts to reframe the entire narrative. For some viewers, it’s a clever subversion of slasher expectations. For others, it feels like a narrative rug-pull that undermines the tension the film spent its runtime trying to build.

The twist certainly makes the film memorable but not necessarily satisfying. Instead of elevating the material, it retroactively highlights how little suspense was actually generated along the way.

A Mild Curiosity of the Slasher Era

Viewed today, April Fool’s Day feels less like a forgotten gem and more like an interesting footnote in the evolution of the slasher genre. It gestures toward the kind of self-awareness that would later define films like Scream, but it never fully commits to the satire or the horror.

What remains is a mildly diverting curiosity — a film that isn’t particularly scary, particularly funny, or particularly inventive, but manages to coast along thanks to its charming cast and unusual ending.

  • Saul Muerte

Blue Light Special on Mayhem: Revisiting Chopping Mall (1986)

23 Monday Mar 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Few films capture the peculiar charm of 1980s B-movie excess quite like Chopping Mall, the gleefully silly sci-fi slasher directed by Jim Wynorski. Promising a blend of high-tech terror and consumerist satire, the film strands a group of teenagers in a shopping centre stalked by malfunctioning security robots. On paper, it’s a wonderfully ridiculous premise — Short Circuit by way of Dawn of the Dead — but the result is a somewhat uneven cult oddity that never quite lives up to its gleeful concept.

A Mall After Midnight

The setup is pure 1980s sci-fi pulp. The Park Plaza Mall installs a trio of sophisticated security robots — affectionately dubbed “Killbots” — designed to patrol the complex after hours. Naturally, the system works perfectly… until a lightning strike short-circuits the controls, turning the machines into lethal enforcers with a very loose definition of trespassing.

Meanwhile, a group of young mall employees decide to throw a secret after-hours party inside one of the stores. Predictably, their night of rebellious fun quickly transforms into a cat-and-mouse game as the robots begin hunting them through the darkened corridors.

It’s a premise that promises chaos and ingenuity, yet the film often settles for repetition. The Killbots trundle through the mall with mechanical persistence, firing lasers and delivering the occasional electrocution, while the teens scramble from store to store in search of escape.

Campy Energy, Limited Bite

To its credit, Chopping Mall embraces its B-movie identity with enthusiasm. Director Jim Wynorski, who would become a prolific figure in low-budget genre filmmaking, keeps the tone playful rather than frightening. The film operates firmly in the realm of camp rather than suspense.

Unfortunately, that playful spirit doesn’t always translate into momentum. Much of the middle section consists of characters hiding, running, or debating their next move while the robots slowly patrol the premises. The mechanical villains themselves — squat, boxy machines topped with blinking lights — look more like malfunctioning appliances than unstoppable killing machines.

The result is a film that feels more goofy than dangerous.

Barbara Crampton Brings Some Spark

One of the film’s more enjoyable elements is the presence of Barbara Crampton, who would soon become a beloved icon of 1980s horror thanks to films like Re-Animator and From Beyond. Even within the confines of a lightweight script, Crampton manages to bring charisma and a touch of sincerity to her role.

She stands out in a cast largely composed of archetypal 80s teens, providing moments of charm that briefly elevate the otherwise disposable proceedings.

Consumer Culture Meets Killer Robots

There’s also a faint whiff of satire running through the film’s premise. The idea of automated security systems turning on the very consumers they were designed to protect carries a subtle commentary about technological overreach and corporate obsession with efficiency.

Yet these ideas never develop beyond the surface level. Unlike Dawn of the Dead, which used the shopping mall as a biting critique of consumer culture, Chopping Mall seems more interested in using the setting as a convenient playground for laser blasts and exploding heads.

The film gestures toward satire but ultimately settles for spectacle.

A Mildly Amusing Cult Curio

Despite its shortcomings, Chopping Mall has endured as a minor cult favorite — and it’s easy to see why. The premise is delightfully absurd, the setting wonderfully nostalgic, and the film’s brisk runtime prevents the silliness from overstaying its welcome.

Still, nostalgia can only carry a film so far. While it offers a handful of entertaining moments and plenty of retro charm, the movie never quite capitalizes on the chaotic potential of its killer-robot-in-a-mall setup.

  • Saul Muetre

The Killer Who Knew the Rules: Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

12 Thursday Mar 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By the mid-2000s, the slasher genre was caught in a strange paradox. The icons were immortal — Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers still loomed large — yet the formula they established felt increasingly exhausted. Into that landscape arrived Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, a gleefully self-aware mockumentary directed by Scott Glosserman that didn’t just parody the slasher genre — it dissected it with loving precision.

Nearly two decades later, the film remains one of horror’s most inventive meta-experiments, a cult classic that understands the rules of the genre so well it turns them into narrative architecture.

A Slasher Documentary

The film’s premise is immediately irresistible: a documentary crew is granted unprecedented access to Leslie Vernon, an aspiring serial killer preparing to join the pantheon of legendary slashers. Leslie explains his craft with the enthusiasm of a motivational speaker. Killing teenagers isn’t simply instinct — it’s discipline, training, and performance art.

Actor Nathan Baesel delivers one of horror’s most charmingly unsettling performances as Leslie. He’s charismatic, funny, and disturbingly relatable. In interviews with the camera crew, he speaks openly about stamina, psychological manipulation, and cardio — because keeping up with fleeing teenagers requires serious physical conditioning.

The mockumentary format gives the film its distinctive tone. For much of the runtime, Leslie functions less like a monster and more like a tour guide through the mechanics of slasher mythology.

Deconstructing the Slasher Mythology

What makes Behind the Mask so enduring is its encyclopedic knowledge of horror tropes. Leslie explains how every slasher narrative requires the same structural components: the final girl, the abandoned house, the traumatic backstory, the moment of inevitable confrontation.

The film cleverly frames these elements as an ecosystem — a ritualistic cycle that must unfold correctly for a killer to achieve legendary status. Leslie even references his heroes, the genre’s mythic boogeymen, as if they’re respected elders who paved the way.

In doing so, the film anticipates the meta-horror wave that would flourish years later. While Scream famously commented on horror rules, Behind the Mask goes further by presenting those rules as literal reality within its universe. Slashers don’t simply follow tropes; they study them.

It’s satire, homage, and genre theory all wrapped into one.

The Shift From Commentary to Carnage

One of the film’s cleverest structural tricks arrives in its final act. For most of the runtime, the mockumentary style maintains a sense of ironic distance. Then, abruptly, the film abandons the documentary aesthetic and becomes the very slasher movie it has been analyzing.

The shift is electrifying.

Suddenly the audience is no longer observing Leslie’s preparation — we’re witnessing the performance itself. What was once commentary becomes reality, and the tone darkens considerably. The playful deconstruction gives way to genuine suspense.

This tonal pivot transforms the film from clever parody into something far more satisfying: a slasher film that both critiques and fulfills the genre’s promise.

A Cult Legacy

Despite strong word of mouth, Behind the Mask never achieved mainstream success upon release. Instead, it slowly built a passionate cult following among horror fans and filmmakers who recognized its ingenuity.

Its influence can be felt in later genre experiments that blur satire and sincerity. The idea that horror tropes can function as world-building mechanics has since become a cornerstone of modern meta-horror storytelling.

What keeps the film alive, however, is not just its cleverness but its affection. Glosserman’s film isn’t mocking the slasher genre from a distance — it’s celebrating it from within.

Leslie Vernon doesn’t want to destroy horror mythology.

He wants to earn his place in it.

Final Thoughts

Nearly twenty years later, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon feels both ahead of its time and perfectly of its moment. It captures the mid-2000s transition when horror began openly interrogating its own formulas while still reveling in them.

Smart, funny, and surprisingly tense, it remains one of the most inventive genre films of its era.

Proof that sometimes the most dangerous killer is the one who knows the script by heart.

  • Saul Muerte

The Slow Rot of Truth: We Bury the Dead (2024)

11 Wednesday Mar 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Zombie cinema has rarely been short of metaphors. From consumerism to social collapse, the living dead have long functioned as mirrors reflecting humanity’s anxieties back at itself. In We Bury the Dead, Australian filmmaker Zak Hilditch approaches the genre from a quieter, more introspective angle, delivering a film that is less concerned with apocalyptic spectacle and more invested in the emotional wreckage left behind when the world stops making sense.

Following the critical success of his Stephen King adaptation 1922, Hilditch once again demonstrates a fascination with grief, guilt and moral ambiguity. Where many zombie films focus on the chaos of the outbreak itself, We Bury the Dead situates its narrative in the uneasy aftermath — a world where the catastrophe has already occurred and society is struggling to process what comes next.

The premise is deceptively straightforward. After a military experiment goes catastrophically wrong, large portions of the population are left dead… or something close to it. The government attempts to contain the situation by declaring the reanimated victims harmless and slow-moving, encouraging volunteers to enter quarantined zones to recover bodies and offer closure to grieving families. It is an oddly bureaucratic approach to the apocalypse — one that immediately hints at deeper layers of deception.

Enter Ava, portrayed with steely determination by Daisy Ridley. Driven by the possibility that her missing husband might still be found within the restricted zone, Ava volunteers to join the clean-up effort. What begins as a mission rooted in grief soon transforms into a descent into a landscape where the official narrative begins to unravel.

Because the dead, it seems, are not as harmless as the military would like the public to believe.

Grief at the End of the World

At its heart, We Bury the Dead is not really about zombies. Instead, it is about the human inability to accept loss.

Hilditch structures the film almost like a road movie through the ruins of a broken society. Ava’s journey through quarantined territories becomes a physical manifestation of grief itself — a search for answers that may never come, fuelled by the stubborn hope that closure might still be possible.

The film repeatedly asks a troubling question: if the dead returned, even briefly, would we really want to let them go again?

This thematic focus places the film closer to reflective entries in the genre such as The Girl with All the Gifts or 28 Days Later, where the apocalypse becomes a canvas for exploring the emotional cost of survival rather than simply a playground for gore.

A Different Kind of Undead

The film’s interpretation of the undead also deserves mention. Rather than the traditional shambling hordes popularised by George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, Hilditch presents a more ambiguous threat.

Initially passive, the reanimated bodies appear almost dormant — eerily calm, as if waiting. But as Ava moves deeper into the quarantine zone, something begins to shift. The dead become restless, unpredictable, increasingly aggressive.

The slow escalation works effectively because Hilditch refuses to rush it. The horror creeps in gradually, allowing the tension to build organically rather than relying on sudden bursts of violence.

This patient pacing will not satisfy viewers looking for relentless zombie carnage, but it serves the film’s more contemplative ambitions well.

Atmosphere Over Spectacle

Visually, We Bury the Dead leans heavily into desolation. The quarantined landscapes feel eerily still, drained of life and colour. Roads stretch endlessly through abandoned territories while small settlements sit frozen in time, as though the world simply stopped functioning mid-sentence.

The result is an atmosphere that feels closer to post-apocalyptic melancholy than traditional horror.

Hilditch has always shown a strong sense of visual restraint, and that restraint works largely in the film’s favour. The horror rarely comes from the monsters themselves but from the creeping realisation that the official narrative surrounding the disaster may be deliberately misleading.

In other words, the true threat may not be the dead — but the living who are trying to control the story.

A Thoughtful Entry in a Crowded Genre

While We Bury the Dead occasionally struggles with pacing — its deliberate tempo can at times feel slightly overextended — the film’s emotional depth helps it rise above many of its genre contemporaries.

Ridley anchors the story with a performance grounded in determination and vulnerability, carrying the film through its quieter moments of reflection and uncertainty. Her journey is less about survival than about acceptance — the painful process of realising that some answers simply cannot bring comfort.

In a genre often dominated by chaos and carnage, We Bury the Dead chooses a more sombre path.

It’s a zombie film about mourning.

And in that quiet, reflective approach, Zak Hilditch finds something unexpectedly powerful.

The Prognosis:

A thoughtful, grief-stricken take on the undead mythos that favours atmosphere and emotional weight over relentless action.

  • Saul Muerte

Watching the Watchers: Bodycam (2026)

11 Wednesday Mar 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The found-footage format has long been one of horror’s most effective narrative devices. When done well, it places audiences directly inside the unfolding terror, collapsing the distance between viewer and victim. Yet it’s also a subgenre littered with misfires, where shaky cameras and contrived setups often undermine the illusion of authenticity. Bodycam, the latest Shudder Original from Canadian filmmaker Brandon Christensen, sits somewhere between those two extremes — a competent genre exercise that understands the mechanics of found-footage horror, even if it doesn’t entirely reinvent them.

Christensen has quietly carved out a niche within contemporary supernatural horror. His earlier films, particularly Still/Born and Superhost, demonstrated a knack for building tension through confined spaces and psychological unease. With Bodycam, he expands that approach into a story rooted in modern surveillance culture, using the now-familiar lens of police body cameras to frame a tale where guilt, paranoia, and something far more sinister begin to blur together.

The premise is deceptively simple. Two police officers respond to what initially appears to be a routine domestic disturbance call. When the situation spirals into a tragic accident, the pair make a desperate decision to conceal the truth, fearing the consequences of public scrutiny and institutional fallout. Yet as they attempt to rewrite the narrative, they begin to realise that the technology designed to document the truth may not be the only witness present.

And perhaps something else is recording.

Christensen leans heavily into the aesthetics of surveillance — dashboard cameras, bodycam footage, and fragments of security recordings stitched together to tell the story. This multi-camera structure echoes the fragmented style seen in genre landmarks like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, and REC, all of which demonstrated how technological mediation can heighten a sense of realism. The trick, however, lies in convincing audiences that every camera angle exists for a plausible reason — one of the classic “dos and don’ts” of found-footage filmmaking.

To Christensen’s credit, Bodycam largely understands those rules. The body camera format itself naturally justifies the constant presence of a recording device, avoiding the common genre pitfall where characters inexplicably continue filming while their lives are clearly in danger. The immediacy of the footage lends several scenes a raw intensity, particularly when the supernatural elements begin to bleed into the frame in subtle, fleeting glimpses.

Where the film falters slightly is in its reliance on familiar beats. The escalating paranoia, the creeping suggestion that unseen forces are manipulating events, and the eventual collision between guilt and supernatural consequence follow a trajectory that seasoned horror audiences will likely recognise. Christensen proves adept at staging tension, but the narrative rarely deviates far from the established playbook.

Still, the film’s thematic core gives it an added layer of intrigue. By centring the story on police officers attempting to hide a mistake, Bodycam taps into contemporary anxieties surrounding accountability, surveillance, and the uncomfortable reality that technology can both reveal and obscure the truth. The idea that the cameras designed to protect authority figures might ultimately condemn them adds an unsettling moral dimension to the proceedings.

Visually, the film embraces the claustrophobic aesthetic that Christensen has proven comfortable with throughout his career. Much like Superhost, the tension builds through confined environments and a slow tightening of psychological pressure. Darkness becomes a character in its own right, with the limited field of vision offered by the body cameras forcing viewers to search every corner of the frame for signs of what might be lurking just outside the light.

As with many entries in the found-footage canon, the film’s success ultimately depends on how much patience audiences have for the format’s limitations. Shaky visuals, fragmented storytelling, and a reliance on atmosphere over spectacle are all part of the package.

For fans of the subgenre, Bodycam offers a solid if familiar addition to the catalogue — a tense supernatural thriller that understands the rules of the game without necessarily rewriting them.

The Prognosis:

A competent found-footage chiller that proves Brandon Christensen knows how to work within the genre’s framework, even if he occasionally plays it a little too safe.

  • Saul Muerte

Bodycam streams on Shudder from Fri 13 Mar

The Cruel Game of Belonging: The Plague (2025)

10 Tuesday Mar 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Few environments can be as quietly brutal as a group of adolescent boys left to navigate the fragile space between childhood and adulthood. The Plague, the feature debut from writer-director Charlie Polinger, taps into that unsettling social ecosystem with an unnerving sense of authenticity, crafting a coming-of-age drama that plays like a slow-burn psychological horror.

Set against the competitive backdrop of a boys’ water polo camp in the summer of 2003, the film follows twelve-year-old Ben as he attempts to integrate into the camp’s unforgiving social order. Everett Blunck captures the unease of a boy desperate for acceptance, only to find himself pulled into the group’s cruel fixation on Eli — an isolated camper whom the others brand as contagious, referring to him with chilling simplicity as “The Plague.”

What begins as childish teasing slowly reveals itself to be something far more disturbing.

A Study in Toxic Masculinity

Polinger’s film isn’t interested in conventional horror tropes. Instead, the true terror lies in the social dynamics of the boys themselves. Within this tightly wound, male-dominated environment, power is established through humiliation, conformity and cruelty.

The film scrutinises the early formation of toxic masculinity with uncomfortable precision. Strength is equated with dominance. Vulnerability becomes a weakness to be mocked or punished. And the desire to belong — particularly at such a fragile age — becomes a powerful motivator for moral compromise.

Ben’s gradual complicity in the torment of Eli becomes the film’s central tragedy. The cruelty isn’t born from malice so much as fear: fear of exclusion, fear of being the next target, fear of standing apart from the pack.

It’s an unsettling reminder that the pressures of social acceptance can be just as dangerous as outright hostility.

The Horror of Adolescence

Polinger frames the story almost like a psychological fable about adolescence. The rumour of “The Plague” itself operates less as a literal illness and more as a metaphor — a childish myth that allows the boys to rationalise their behaviour while maintaining the illusion of innocence.

The film’s atmosphere subtly leans into genre territory. Long stretches of uneasy silence, tense glances between characters and the oppressive heat of the summer camp create a creeping sense of dread. At times it feels closer to social horror than traditional drama, echoing the uncomfortable emotional territory explored in films like Carrie and Raw.

The difference here is that the monsters are not supernatural — they’re simply boys learning the wrong lessons about what it means to become men.

A Strong Ensemble of Young Performers

Much of the film’s effectiveness comes from its young cast, who bring a naturalistic authenticity to the story. Everett Blunck anchors the film with a quietly affecting performance as Ben, capturing the anxiety and moral confusion of a boy desperate to fit in.

Opposite him, Kenny Rasmussen’s Eli becomes the film’s emotional centre — a painfully believable portrait of the outsider whose difference makes him an easy target.

Meanwhile Joel Edgerton, appearing as the camp authority figure “Daddy Wags,” adds an intriguing layer to the dynamic, embodying the distant adult presence that looms over the boys’ social ecosystem without ever fully understanding it.

A Telling and Timely Reflection

At its core, The Plague is less about childhood cruelty and more about the systems that quietly nurture it. The film exposes the unspoken rules that shape male identity from a young age — rules that reward aggression, punish empathy and demand conformity at all costs.

It’s a telling and topical story, particularly in an era increasingly willing to interrogate the cultural roots of toxic masculinity.

While the film occasionally lingers too long in its quieter moments, its thematic weight and strong performances ultimately make it a compelling and thought-provoking watch.

The Prognosis:

An uncomfortable yet insightful exploration of peer pressure, masculinity, and the terrifying cost of wanting to belong.

  • Saul Muerte

The Plague will be screening in Australian cinemas from Mar 12.

Blood in the Sand: Alexandre Aja’s Savage Rebirth of The Hills Have

09 Monday Mar 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

When The Hills Have Eyes arrived in 2006, the horror remake machine was already grinding at full capacity. Yet unlike many of its contemporaries, this reimagining did not merely exhume a cult property — it detonated it. Directed by French provocateur Alexandre Aja and based on The Hills Have Eyes by Wes Craven, the film stands as one of the rare remakes that amplifies its source material’s themes while carving out its own vicious identity.

If Craven’s 1977 original was raw and nihilistic in its grindhouse austerity, Aja’s version is a full-throated scream — angrier, bloodier, and charged with post-9/11 paranoia.

From Exploitation to Extinction-Level Brutality

Craven’s original functioned as a grim allegory of American violence — the bourgeois family confronted by a feral mirror image of itself. Aja retains this central dialectic but pushes it to the brink of endurance. The Carter family’s ill-fated road trip into a government atomic testing zone reframes the horror in explicitly national terms: this is not merely backwoods savagery, but the grotesque afterbirth of state-sanctioned nuclear experimentation.

The desert is no longer just an isolating landscape; it is a scar. The mutants are not vague degenerates but irradiated casualties of American hubris. In this sense, Aja’s film sharpens Craven’s subtext into something accusatory. The horror does not emerge from nowhere — it has been engineered.

And then there is the violence.

Aja, coming off the ferocious High Tension, brings with him the transgressive energy of New French Extremity. The assaults here are prolonged, confrontational, and deeply uncomfortable. The infamous trailer sequence — a crescendo of humiliation, terror, and murder — is staged with an almost unbearable intensity. It is exploitation cinema executed with art-house rigour.

Yet the brutality is not empty spectacle. It serves a thematic function: civilization stripped to bone.

The Collapse of the American Family

What makes The Hills Have Eyes more than a bloodbath is its ruthless deconstruction of the nuclear family. Each Carter must either adapt or perish. Doug (Aaron Stanford), initially coded as the mild, intellectual outsider, becomes the film’s unlikely avenger. His transformation — from bespectacled liberal to mud-caked survivalist — echoes Craven’s thesis that violence is a contagion.

The film’s most unsettling idea is not that monsters exist, but that they are forged under pressure. By the final act, the distinction between Carter and mutant blurs. The hunted become hunters, and the moral high ground evaporates in the desert heat.

Aja stages this metamorphosis with operatic savagery. The climactic pursuit across blasted military ruins feels mythic — a primal reckoning amid the detritus of modern warfare.

The Aja Signature: Controlled Chaos

Aja’s direction is muscular and kinetic, but never sloppy. His camera prowls, lunges, and recoils. He understands spatial geography — the desert feels vast and claustrophobic simultaneously. Working with cinematographer Maxime Alexandre, he bathes the film in sun-bleached decay by day and abyssal shadow by night.

Sound design is weaponised: the wind howls like a warning, gunshots echo like thunderclaps. The score punctuates rather than overwhelms, allowing stretches of dreadful silence to suffocate the frame.

Where many remakes polish away rough edges, Aja embraces abrasion. The film feels dangerous — a quality that horror so often loses in translation.

Honoring Craven by Going Further

To its credit, the film never condescends to its origin. Wes Craven, who produced the remake, understood that the only way to justify revisiting his story was to reinterpret it for a new cultural anxiety. In the mid-2000s, that anxiety centered on unseen enemies, governmental secrecy, and a pervasive sense of vulnerability.

Aja’s version channels those fears without sacrificing pulp ferocity. It is both politically resonant and viscerally punishing.

Legacy: A Remake Done Right

In the crowded landscape of 2000s horror remakes, The Hills Have Eyes remains a high-water mark. It is unrelenting but purposeful, grotesque yet thematically coherent. Where others sought nostalgia, Aja sought escalation.

The result is a film that does not replace Craven’s original but stands alongside it — a brutal companion piece forged in a harsher era. Few remakes justify their existence; fewer still feel this alive.

Two decades later, Aja’s desert nightmare still burns.

  • Saul Muerte