Somnium (2025)

There is an exhaustion to this film, watching someone chase dreams unfulfilled and ephemeral fantasies. Of witnessing someone’s vibrance and confidence slowly wither under the relentless assault of disappointment and the Sisyphean grind. The movie carries a languid surrealism, drifting between unsettling notions with a visual dichotomy used to illustrate the harshness of daily toil, contrasted to vibrant fluorescent dreams. But dreams often transition into nightmare, and this film presents genuinely disturbing manifestations, with an aura of ambiguous threat and menace as dream intrudes upon reality. 

Many will find this a meandering slog, slow burning and on occasion baffling. The horror elements rely mostly on some disquieting visuals and uncertainty on how much is real and how much is psychological, and whether the difference matters. Chloe Levine gives a stellar performance here, haunted and fraying more, every day that passes. The character is breaking down, and we witness this in real-time. She carries the film with a ferocious grace, straddling the liminal space between dream and reality. A problem is pacing, slow to the point of turgid, which aids in creating a surreal dreamlike experience, but might infuriate. Fractured flashbacks convey thematic beats and necessary exposition. 

Critiques aside, as a debut film, this is remarkably well made. Thematically rich, well acted, with a quality script lurking beneath lurid fluorescents and disquieting visuals. It is assured and bold, unafraid to be opaque or cryptic, but will certainly dissatisfy those seeking more horrific experiences or a concrete resolution. The ending is largely ambiguous, presenting a sense of fulfillment, but enough clues and questions to wonder whether it is all fantasy and ephemera, and if we witness someone who has traded reality to persist in delusion

C+

Until Dawn (2025)

I rewatched this film in an attempt to gain insight as to what was going on, what connection there was to the source, and what were the directors thinking. By midpoint, it became clear: clarity was not the objective. The plot is paper-thin stitched together with the faintest thread of narrative logic, and the characters are undercooked to the point of raw.

Fans of the game will be baffled, even affronted, others might argue an attempt to build off the source to present something new. A more cynical person might say they slapped a marketable ip onto a generic horror script on some dusty shelf and called it a day. The objective of the film seems to be to hurtle through a carousel of as many generic horror tropes as possible, a cabin in the woods without any of the charm or intelligence.

It is watchable enough: polished, well-lit, technically competent. The performances are decent, rarely inspired but little in the script warrants it. Moments of genuine tension are co-opted by visual flair and the need to be edgy and ‘self-aware’. But, the direction is sound, the visuals flavorful and intense, and certain moments elicit genuine chills. The carousel of tropes elicits at least one outlandish LOL moment, and might be a fun ride, in the right mood or under the auspices of the right inebriants. 

C-

HIM (2025)

This movie had a great trailer that lied. About everything, including the director. Where it promised a mind-bending parable about faith and football, what emerges is the film equivalent of CTE: violent, confused but ultimately brain-dead. Everything is loud and hallucinatory, almost a sensory assault, with a lot of flash, committed performances and unfulfilled aspiration towards substance. The standout of this film is Marlon Wayans delivering a career high alternating between dramatic, and absolutely gonzo intensity, but Tyriq Withers also delivers a fantastic and understated performance that contrasts nicely. Thematically the movie strives for profundity, with ambition to deliver a critique of sports culture and its cult-like devotion alongside commentary on the cost and sacrifice required for greatness. But ambition is not achievement, and the fractured narrative and botched execution steal the glory from elements that actually work. There is technical merit, the visuals are brash and distinctive, and the cinematography is sometimes brilliant, with some gorgeous sets and striking vibrant palettes. Ultimately, this movie demonstrates a frustrating mess of style over substance, a fever dream of excess that will leave one dazed, mildly-impressed, half-irritated, and maybe mentally bruised. 

D

Good Boy (2025)

Who’s a good indie movie? That’s right! You are! So good, so clever and creative. And surprisingly smart! Audiences need to pay attention tho, there’s all sorts of clues and hidden meanings that pass by pretty quickly, which makes sense for the fact you’re anchored in the dog’s perspective for the duration of the film. Clever gimmick, yes indeed, but works so very well and makes a very Good Movie! Yes you are! Hammering home the tragic nature of being helpless and the heartache of watching a loved one suffering. And the main doggo, Indy, isn’t just a Good Boy, but the bestest boy! Anchoring a very surprisingly poignant and profound look at bereavement, loss, and unconditional loyalty and love.  Are you emotionally deep? Yes you are! Is it all possibly monster as metaphor for wasting illness, inevitability and generational trauma? Yup yup yup! Are the creeps very creepy! Yes again! Such atmosphere! Such spooky and cleverly designed creature that is thematically resonant! Much good camera angles and distorted audio cues! Is it perfect, no. It does get a little repetitive and seems to spin its heels before ending a bit abruptly. Creepy you are, scary you are not. But this Good Boy is a good movie, deserves all the treats for taking a high concept pitch and grounding it in a genuinely well-crafted gem.

B+

Bring Her Back (2025)

The Phillippou brothers followup to Talk to Me (2022) is a devastating and deeply tragic film on trauma and grief that will linger. The centerpiece is a riveting performance by Sally Hawkins, nuanced and emotionally raw but with always a hint of the unhinged bubbling beneath the surface. The other actors in a relatively small cast also deliver emotional and wrenching performances that augment the strong direction. The brother’s skill with atmosphere and pacing is fully on display, although impatient audiences may decry a long buildup in the first act. Every shot serves deliberate purpose, from external drone, to VHS tapes, and dimly lit interiors. The direction often serves a narrative purpose, mimicking the perspective of the protagonist Piper, who is visually impaired, and the directors frame much of their more disquieting shots from that perspective. Clouded and indistinct, like being shot through a rain-soaked veil. The horror that exists here is not just in the demons and ritual, but from calculated manipulation and echoes of emotional trauma.  The scares here are sparse, but there are shocking and horrifying reveals, and arguably one of the most grotesque scenes that 2025 has to offer. The ending might prove divisive, as there is ambiguity and a lack of clarity, but appropriate to the thematic threads of the film’s portrayal of grief. Of course there are no easy answers, of course the future will seem uncertain, of course we struggle to move forward and pick up the pieces, and we will always wonder, to what length and what sacrifice might we make, to hear a beloved voice… one last time. 

While lacking the more traditional terrors of their previous film, the Phillippou brothers sophomore effort proves these two are masterful filmmakers and I cannot wait to see what horrors they conjure next. 

B+

Wolf Man (2025)

It is unfortunate one can count the number of genuinely great werewolf films on your fingers and still have remaining digits. This film does not add to that number. Of late werewolves seem relegated to domestic violence metaphors with a healthy dose of generational trauma, which does make me pine for when they were being used as puberty analogies. This film makes the attempt to ‘ground’ lycanthropy as a disease, centering the film around the slow, grotesque unraveling of body and mind. The practical effects are suitably gross, even if the final design is questionable, as werewolves always come off better with far less alopecia. The film is never actively bad, but never quite good either, with the exception of several scenes of ‘werewolf vision’ which are inspired. But the script is a bigger problem:  it meanders through plot and character development, with a number of subplots that never really pay off. The performances are above average, Julia Garner delivers but she’s saddled with some thankless character work. The metaphors grow tedious and long in the tooth, repeated ad nauseam in case you weren’t paying attention from the first second. Overall, this is a rare miss for director Whannell, and another disappointing addition to the library of weak werewolf films.

C

Witchboard (2025)

A superior remake to a bad movie and still a bad movie, but in a good way. The film feels like a neon drenched throwback to the spirit and 80’s flair of the original: lurid and messy. Core elements have been updated and reskinned: swapping out the ouija board (which is its own franchise) for a pendulum board, moving the setting to New Orleans, changing relationship dynamics, but the characters remain gloriously dumb with most of them seemingly possessing a death wish. The acting is serviceable, embracing the cheese and Jamie Campbell Bower’s occult scholar chewing every bit of scenery like an all-you-can-eat buffet. While sparring, the gore is plenty gruesome, but with an unfortunate insistence upon garish CGI blood. The updated script tries to inject some background and justify witchcraft with a parallel (and anachronistic) 1600’s timeline explaining the board’s origins and history, but this serves to make audiences more sympathetic towards the witch than the annoying victims of her rampage. While far from perfect, there are some inspired moments, and occasionally great direction. At its best, the film plays with, and even validates  the worst excesses of horror movie tropes. But at worst, it is languid and indulgent, it could easily trim 20 minutes from its runtime and not miss a beat. As a remake, this film makes some big swings and delivers a fun combination of cheese and charm and an entertaining watch for those seeking a bloody meal without brains. 

C+

The Monkey (2025)

After director Perkins' string of long, dour horror films dripping in subtle atmospherics, along comes a maniacal, death-dealing monkey to deliver unadulterated chaos.

Adapted  from a Stephen King short with the fidelity of a drunken karaoke cover, this feels like Perkins reveling in the opportunity to unleash, like the titular monkey, baring all teeth in a rictus grin. The film is never scary, but there is a fun anticipation in seeing how the simian reaper delivers, in escalating splatter and bodycount. There is intentional tonal juxtaposition, as scenes of mundanity and grief give way to absurd spectacle and slapstick slatterhouse.And Perkins is sly here, skewering the notion of ‘elevated horror’ because through all the nihilistic insanity mayhem and absurdity, there are strong thematic throughlines on generational trauma, the randomness of loss and grief, the brokenness of coping mechanisms, and laughing in the reaper’s bony face. Then someone’s head explodes in a giant middle finger to pretension.

Not everyone will appreciate the over-the-top unhinged nature of this film, or the copious amounts of gore, but if you’re a fan of horror-comedy, the monkey’s grin will certainly be infectious. To quote King on the film: “It’s batshit insane. As someone who has indulged in batshittery from time to time, I say that with admiration.”

B

Shaman (2025)

Rarely subtext and symbolism is far more interesting than a film itself. But here we are. This deals with the nature and legacy of ‘missionary mentality’ upon indigenous populations. The eponymous Shaman isn’t some elevated master, more akin to a blue-collar toiler on spiritual fronts, trying to stop ignorant outsiders from making horrible mistakes out of their arrogance and presumption.There are striking symbols and visual representation of the conflict of faith, propaganda, sovereignty and intrusion, that all get unfortunately lost under tired tropes and lackluster scares. There are unique elements: gorgeous setting, localized mythology, some interesting thematic conflicts and mostly competent direction, but all the uniqueness is squandered by a script that doesn’t commit to its potential. The film presents an untouched setting and mythology to explore the above thematic notions, but ends up indulging easy exorcism shorthand, derivative of every exorcism film you’ve ever seen. Ever.. The localized mythology in conflict with the catholic usurpers could have been cinematic gold,but Shaman settles for drivel, leaving its bold ideas to rot. 

D+

The Home (2025)

Spoiler alert: Pete Davidson does not make the list of this film’s worst sins. He is certainly making the most from his deal with the devil/or devils, but… his line deliveries are far from the worst this film has to offer. It’s a paradox, how a film can be utterly predictable, yet incomprehensible. There are twists and swerves, strange cults, evil machinations and personal conspiracies, but very little follows organically and even less makes sense. Viewers can predict most beats, but remain baffled by the leaps in logic and comprehension the film demands. Almost tragically, the last act delivers payoffs, escalating nicely and ending with a solid coda, but it almost feels like an apology after meandering through exercises in incoherence. Now, if you like to squirm from medical malfeasance… Eyeballs poked, flesh torn, needles, scalpels and other nastiness, there’s a decent amount to ‘enjoy’ here. But for those who appreciate cohesion in storytelling, and characters whose actions bear even a passing resemblance to human logic, this is not worth the visit.

D+

Sinners (2025)

This is one of those films ludicrously overhyped, where expectation might work against it, but even so. The hype is warranted. Every aspect of this film can be complemented from the veteran actors who deliver top-tier performances, to the newcomer who absolutely defies expectation. Costumes, sets, the script, themes and subtext. Everything is on a peak pedestal, but there’s really only one scene that matters. It’s everything the film builds to and everything that informs what follows. And it is transcendent. By its design. As a plot point about the nature of music and culture that can shatter space and time and rend reality. It works. It elevates the soul. But also summons a hungry darkness.

In less capable or competent direction this would’ve been an abject failure. Here it elevates. Make no mistake, as a horror movie there are elements lacking. It’s not particularly scary. It’s sanitized on the gore front. Anything in the back half of the film is arguably weaker to the set up. The true horror is far more insidious, and demands a little bit of work to dissect. It lies between the lines, and slyly conveyed through direction and subtext. But this is a great film. A masterpiece even and the fact it skews into horror. is a blessing for genre aficionados. It’s an essay about identity, culture, expectation, potential, and all the forces aligned to defile each. and for that one scene alone, this film deserves an unreserved:

A