Them (Ils) (2006) at 20: When Horror Stopped Explaining Itself

Tags

Every horror film begins with a question.

Who is the killer?

What is the monster?

Why is this happening?

For decades, audiences were conditioned to expect answers. Gothic horror unravelled ancient curses. Slashers often revealed buried traumas or revenge. Even supernatural nightmares eventually exposed the mythology lurking beneath their terror.

Then, somewhere during the early years of the twenty-first century, horror quietly changed its mind.

It stopped explaining itself.

Released in 2006, Xavier Palud and David Moreau’s Them (Ils) arrived at the forefront of that transformation. Ostensibly a minimalist home invasion thriller, the film stripped away comforting explanations until all that remained was fear in its purest form.

Not fear of monsters.

Not fear of the supernatural.

Fear of uncertainty.

Lucas and Clémentine live peacefully in an isolated country house on the outskirts of Bucharest. Their lives are ordinary, their surroundings tranquil.

Until one night…

They hear something.

It is a deceptively simple beginning.

No elaborate set-up.

No ominous prophecy.

No forewarning that evil is approaching.

Instead, Them introduces terror through one of humanity’s oldest instincts: the unsettling awareness that something isn’t quite right.

A noise.

A movement.

A light where no light should be.

The brilliance of Palud and Moreau lies in their understanding that genuine fear rarely arrives with spectacle.

It begins with doubt.

Every sound invites another question.

Every silence becomes heavier than the last.

What makes Them so effective is not what it reveals.

It is what it refuses to explain.

The film belongs to a remarkable wave of horror that emerged during the 2000s—a period that increasingly rejected neat psychological motivations in favour of existential uncertainty.

Films such as Wolf Creek, Funny Games, Inside, The Strangers and Eden Lake all shared a similar philosophy.

Violence no longer required elaborate justification.

Sometimes terrible things simply happened.

That shift fundamentally altered horror’s relationship with its audience.

Explanation offers comfort.

If we understand evil, perhaps we can avoid it.

Randomness removes that reassurance entirely.

Suddenly horror no longer feels like a puzzle to solve.

It becomes a condition to endure.

Them understands this instinctively.

Every unanswered question deepens the terror because uncertainty itself becomes the antagonist.

Home invasion stories have always exploited one of humanity’s deepest assumptions.

Home is where we retreat from the world.

It represents privacy.

Security.

Control.

Them dismantles each of those certainties with ruthless efficiency.

The house ceases to function as a sanctuary and instead transforms into an elaborate labyrinth.

Doors no longer provide protection.

Windows become vulnerabilities.

Corridors stretch into darkness.

Every room offers only temporary refuge before demanding another desperate escape.

The geography itself begins to betray the characters.

Palud and Moreau construct the house almost like a living organism, constantly shifting the audience’s sense of orientation. We rarely know exactly where the attackers are.

More importantly…

Neither do Lucas and Clémentine.

That disorientation becomes one of the film’s most powerful weapons.

One of Them‘s greatest achievements is its remarkable restraint.

There are no elaborate special effects.

No extravagant action sequences.

No orchestral flourishes announcing every scare.

Instead, the directors rely upon absence.

Darkness conceals more than it reveals.

Silence becomes oppressive.

The audience is encouraged to imagine threats rather than simply witness them.

It recalls the philosophy of Val Lewton’s great psychological horror films of the 1940s, where suggestion proved infinitely more terrifying than explicit revelation.

By refusing to overwhelm the senses, Them forces viewers to become active participants in their own fear.

The imagination completes what the screen deliberately withholds.

Perhaps the film’s most unsettling idea emerges during its closing act.

Without dwelling upon its revelations, Them quietly challenges one of society’s most deeply rooted assumptions—that innocence naturally accompanies youth.

It is a profoundly uncomfortable inversion.

Horror has frequently explored corrupted children, from The Omen to Village of the Damned, but Them approaches the concept with startling realism.

There are no supernatural forces.

No demonic possession.

Only the disturbing possibility that appearances and assumptions may offer little protection from cruelty.

The result leaves the audience confronting questions that linger long after the narrative itself has concluded.

Looking back two decades later, Them feels less like an isolated success and more like the beginning of a broader movement within horror cinema.

Its fingerprints can be found throughout the home invasion films and survival thrillers that followed.

More importantly, it demonstrated that horror no longer required mythology to be effective.

Atmosphere became enough.

Ambiguity became enough.

Not knowing became enough.

It is a remarkably confident approach to storytelling.

One that continues to influence the genre today.

Them (Ils) remains one of the defining horror films of the 2000s not because it reinvented the home invasion subgenre, but because it quietly redefined what audiences expected from fear itself.

Rather than offering explanations, it strips them away.

Rather than confronting viewers with elaborate monsters, it asks them to confront uncertainty.

That philosophical shift proved enormously influential.

In the years that followed, horror increasingly abandoned comforting answers in favour of unsettling ambiguity, recognising that the unknown has always been the genre’s most enduring monster.

Twenty years later, Them still understands a truth that many horror films continue to chase.

The most frightening question isn’t, “Why?”

It’s…

“What if there isn’t one?”

  • Saul Muerte

Vamp (1986) at 40: When Vampires Became Pop Art

Tags

,

There are vampire films that seduce.

There are vampire films that terrify.

And then there is Vamp.

Released in 1986, Richard Wenk’s neon-drenched horror comedy occupies a curious place within vampire cinema. Arriving between the elegant sensuality of Tony Scott’s The Hunger and the youthful rebellion of Joel Schumacher’s The Lost Boys, Vamp chose neither path. Instead, it carved out an identity all of its own—a fever dream where horror, fashion, cabaret and MTV collided beneath the pulsating lights of an underground nightclub.

It has never enjoyed the critical acclaim of its contemporaries.

Nor has it attained the same cultural footprint.

Yet forty years later, Vamp remains one of the decade’s most distinctive vampire films precisely because it dared to imagine the vampire not simply as a monster…

…but as performance.

The premise is wonderfully simple.

Two fraternity pledges, Keith and AJ, venture into a notorious nightclub to recruit an exotic dancer for their college party, only to discover that the club’s performers and patrons conceal a far darker appetite.

On paper, it sounds like another horror-comedy built upon familiar genre conventions.

What Richard Wenk delivers, however, feels closer to mythology than exploitation.

The nightclub isn’t merely a location.

It is a threshold.

Once its doors close behind the protagonists, the ordinary world disappears. Time seems suspended. Morality becomes fluid. Every corridor feels detached from reality itself.

Like the River Styx or Dante’s descent into the Inferno, the nightclub functions as a liminal space where the living unknowingly wander into the realm of the dead.

The audience quickly realises something the protagonists do not.

They were doomed the moment they walked through the door.

She Becomes Her.

If Vamp possesses a beating heart—or perhaps an undead one—it belongs entirely to Grace Jones.

To say she steals the film feels almost inadequate.

She is the film.

Jones speaks remarkably little throughout her performance, yet commands every frame through sheer physical presence. Every movement feels choreographed. Every pose resembles sculpture. Every glance carries more weight than pages of dialogue ever could.

This is performance stripped back to its purest visual language.

Long before audiences discuss Katrina, they remember her silhouette.

Her impossibly angular features.

The stark make-up.

The hypnotic dance sequences.

Jones understands something fundamental about monsters.

The most frightening rarely explain themselves.

They simply exist.

Her portrayal recalls the silent horror icons of the 1920s, where actors communicated terror through expression, posture and movement rather than words. There are echoes of Max Schreck’s Nosferatu buried beneath the extravagant costumes, yet Jones transforms those influences into something unmistakably modern.

She doesn’t merely portray a vampire.

She reinvents the image of one.

Much has been written about the visual excess of 1980s horror, but Vamp deserves greater recognition for how completely it embraces the aesthetics of the MTV generation.

By 1986, music videos had transformed visual storytelling.

Narrative often became secondary to atmosphere.

Smoke drifted endlessly through impossible spaces.

Neon lights bathed every surface.

Reality gave way to spectacle.

Vamp absorbs that language effortlessly.

The nightclub resembles less a functioning business than a stage production where horror itself becomes entertainment. Every corner appears carefully designed to overwhelm the senses, blurring the boundaries between dance performance, fashion show and supernatural nightmare.

Watching the film today, it often feels as though someone stretched an avant-garde music video into feature length.

Remarkably…

That isn’t a criticism.

It is precisely what gives the film its enduring personality.

For generations, cinematic vampires have reflected contemporary ideas surrounding beauty and desire.

Bela Lugosi embodied Old World aristocracy.

Christopher Lee projected commanding masculinity.

Catherine Deneuve radiated unattainable elegance.

Grace Jones offered something entirely different.

She challenged conventional beauty.

Angular rather than soft.

Commanding rather than seductive.

Androgynous rather than traditionally feminine.

She was neither attempting to imitate Dracula nor subvert him entirely.

Instead, she expanded the mythology.

Jones demonstrated that vampires need not conform to inherited notions of attractiveness to remain mesmerising.

Power itself became seductive.

Presence became irresistible.

It remains one of horror cinema’s most fascinating reinterpretations of vampirism.

One of Vamp‘s greatest strengths is its understanding of tonal balance.

Comedy frequently threatens horror by undermining tension.

Richard Wenk avoids that trap.

The humour arises naturally from the increasingly absurd predicament facing Keith and AJ rather than at the expense of the horror itself.

If anything, the comedy heightens the surrealism.

Laughter becomes another means of disorientation.

The audience never feels entirely comfortable enough to relax.

That unpredictability gives Vamp an eccentric charm that has aged surprisingly well.

It would be dishonest to describe Vamp as flawless.

Certain performances drift towards caricature.

The pacing occasionally loses momentum.

Some practical effects inevitably reveal the limitations of a modest budget.

Yet none of those imperfections diminish what makes the film memorable.

Its ambition.

Richard Wenk wasn’t interested in making another Dracula story.

He wanted to create an experience.

A vampire film infused with nightclub culture, performance art and the hyper-stylised visual language of the 1980s.

In that respect, Vamp succeeds magnificently.

Vamp may never occupy the same revered status as The Lost Boys or Near Dark, but perhaps comparison misses the point.

Richard Wenk’s film isn’t attempting to preserve vampire tradition.

It is transforming it.

By merging horror with fashion, music video aesthetics and one of cinema’s most unforgettable screen presences, Vamp became something entirely its own.

Grace Jones doesn’t simply play a vampire.

She becomes a living piece of pop art.

Forty years later, that singular vision remains every bit as hypnotic as the neon lights that first illuminated Katrina’s nightclub.

Sometimes monsters don’t need elaborate mythology.

Sometimes they simply need the confidence to walk into a room…

…and make the darkness feel like a stage.

  • Saul Muerte

Monster Dog (1986) at 40: When Heavy Metal Became Horror’s Favourite Monster

There was a time when horror cinema and heavy metal seemed inseparable.

By the mid-1980s, both were being accused of corrupting young minds. Parents worried about the rise of occult imagery, religious groups condemned devilish iconography, and politicians questioned whether popular culture had become dangerously enamoured with darkness. At the centre of it all stood a procession of larger-than-life rock stars who embraced horror not as something to fear, but as something to celebrate.

Few embodied that collision of music and macabre more completely than Alice Cooper.

For more than a decade, Cooper had transformed the concert stage into a theatrical house of horrors. Guillotines, electric chairs, snakes, fake executions and gallons of stage blood became as much a part of his performances as the music itself. Long before shock rock became commonplace, Alice Cooper understood that horror wasn’t merely something to sing about.

It was something to perform.

So when Monster Dog arrived in 1986, casting Cooper as its leading man, it felt less like an unusual career move and more like an inevitable extension of the persona he had already perfected.

Whether it resulted in a great film is another matter entirely.

Viewed purely as a werewolf film, Monster Dog struggles to stand alongside the genre’s finest examples.

Its pacing often falters, the performances are uneven, and the modest budget occasionally limits its ambitions. Even by the standards of 1980s creature features, it never quite delivers the visceral transformation sequences or sustained suspense audiences had come to expect following films such as An American Werewolf in London and The Howling.

Yet judging Monster Dog solely on those terms overlooks what makes it genuinely interesting.

This isn’t simply a horror film starring Alice Cooper.

It is an Alice Cooper performance stretched across ninety minutes.

The werewolf mythology provides the framework, but the real attraction is watching one of rock music’s most iconic theatrical figures inhabit a world that already feels tailor-made for his macabre sensibilities.

The film isn’t asking audiences to believe Alice Cooper could become a monster.

By 1986, popular culture had already decided he was one.

One of the more overlooked aspects of Monster Dog is how completely it embraces the visual language of the MTV generation.

The 1980s witnessed an explosion of music videos that prioritised atmosphere, stylised lighting and striking imagery over traditional narrative. Smoke drifted endlessly through abandoned buildings. Blue moonlight illuminated every corner. Wind machines blew dramatically through perfectly coiffed hair.

Narrative often became secondary to mood.

Monster Dog feels remarkably similar.

Rather than grounding itself in realism, the film leans into spectacle, constructing an almost dreamlike environment where rock concert aesthetics merge seamlessly with Gothic horror. The result often resembles an extended Alice Cooper music video more than a conventional feature film.

Ironically, that may be precisely where its greatest appeal lies.

Viewed through a contemporary lens, the film serves as a fascinating time capsule of an era when horror cinema increasingly embraced the stylised excesses of music television.

It is impossible to discuss Monster Dog without acknowledging the cultural climate that surrounded its release.

The mid-1980s represented the height of the Satanic Panic.

Heavy metal bands were accused of promoting devil worship. Album artwork was scrutinised for hidden meanings. Parents feared that theatrical stage shows concealed genuine occult influence. Organisations such as the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) fuelled debates surrounding censorship, morality and the supposed dangers of popular music.

Alice Cooper found himself at the centre of many of those anxieties.

The irony, of course, is that Cooper’s stage persona was never rooted in genuine menace.

It was theatre.

Like the Grand Guignol productions of the nineteenth century or the Universal Monsters before them, his performances revelled in exaggerated horror with a knowing wink to the audience. Beneath the makeup and the mock executions was an entertainer who understood that fear and fun had always shared the same stage.

Monster Dog extends that theatrical tradition.

Rather than attempting to reinvent Cooper as a dramatic actor, the film wisely allows him to inhabit the persona audiences already recognised. He becomes less a traditional protagonist and more a living extension of the myth that had surrounded him throughout his musical career.

Perhaps the film’s most intriguing idea emerges almost accidentally.

Throughout Monster Dog, people project expectations onto Alice Cooper’s character before he has done anything at all.

They assume darkness.

They anticipate violence.

They expect transformation.

In many ways, the audience does exactly the same.

The werewolf becomes almost incidental.

The real subject is celebrity.

More specifically, the way society constructs monstrous identities around public figures who challenge convention.

Whether intentional or not, Monster Dog captures that phenomenon remarkably well. Cooper spends much of the film playing a version of himself burdened by other people’s expectations—a man whose reputation often arrives before he does.

That tension proves more compelling than the creature feature surrounding it.

None of this suddenly transforms Monster Dog into an overlooked masterpiece.

Its narrative remains uneven, its pacing inconsistent and its creature effects rarely rival the best genre offerings of the decade.

But perhaps greatness was never the point.

Instead, the film preserves a unique cultural moment when horror cinema, heavy metal and music television briefly occupied the same creative space.

For ninety minutes, they speak the same visual language.

Blood becomes stage makeup.

Moonlight becomes concert lighting.

The monster becomes the rock star.

Monster Dog may never earn a place among horror’s greatest werewolf films, but it deserves recognition as one of the most fascinating intersections between heavy metal culture and horror cinema.

While its storytelling often struggles beneath the weight of its ambitions, its cultural significance has only grown with time. It captures an era when shock rock dominated headlines, MTV reshaped visual storytelling and horror enthusiastically embraced theatrical excess.

Alice Cooper didn’t become a horror icon because he played monsters.

He became one because he understood that the greatest monsters have always been performers.

Forty years later, Monster Dog remains less a forgotten werewolf film than a compelling snapshot of the moment when heavy metal and horror looked at one another—and realised they were already part of the same show.

  • Saul Muerte

The Many Faces of Fear: Remembering Sam Neill (1948–2026)

Tags

, , , ,

Some actors become horror icons because they wear the mask.

Others become icons because they become the monster.

Sam Neill achieved something far rarer.

He became the audience.

Throughout a career spanning more than five decades, Neill possessed an extraordinary ability to ground the unbelievable. He rarely played action heroes or larger-than-life figures. Instead, he portrayed ordinary men confronted by extraordinary horrors, inviting audiences to experience fear through his eyes. It was this gift—his effortless humanity—that made him one of horror cinema’s most quietly indispensable performers.

News of his passing at the age of 78 marks the loss of one of the screen’s most versatile actors. While mainstream audiences will forever remember him as Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park, horror fans recognise a very different legacy—one built upon psychological collapse, cosmic terror, religious apocalypse and existential dread.

Few actors travelled through as many corners of the genre with such conviction.

When Neill inherited the role of Damien Thorn in Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981), he faced an impossible challenge.

How do you follow one of horror’s greatest child villains?

Rather than attempting to imitate what had come before, Neill transformed Damien into something altogether more unsettling. Calm, articulate and utterly convinced of his divine purpose, his Antichrist never relied on theatrical villainy. Evil, in Neill’s hands, became sophisticated.

It was less frightening because of what Damien did.

It was frightening because of how completely he believed he was right.

If one performance defines Sam Neill’s relationship with horror, it is undoubtedly Possession (1981).

Opposite Isabelle Adjani’s astonishing portrayal of emotional disintegration, Neill charts an equally devastating psychological descent. Jealousy gives way to paranoia. Paranoia mutates into obsession. Eventually, reality itself begins to fracture.

Few actors have depicted emotional collapse with such raw vulnerability.

The horror of Possession lies not only in its infamous imagery but in Neill’s willingness to expose every insecurity, every fear and every contradiction within his character.

It remains one of cinema’s bravest performances.

By the time John Carpenter cast Neill in In the Mouth of Madness (1994), the actor had become uniquely suited to a particular kind of horror.

The horror of comprehension.

As insurance investigator John Trent, Neill doesn’t simply encounter cosmic terror.

He gradually understands it.

His performance captures the devastating realisation that knowledge itself can become a curse, echoing the works of H.P. Lovecraft where the greatest danger is not death but the collapse of certainty.

It remains one of the finest cinematic expressions of cosmic horror ever committed to film.

Even outside traditional horror, Neill continually found himself drawn towards stories exploring fear and survival.

The psychological tension of Dead Calm.

The hellish nightmare of Event Horizon.

Even Jurassic Park, at its heart, is a monster movie dressed as an adventure.

Across genres, Neill displayed remarkable consistency.

He never mocked the material.

He believed in it.

And because he believed…

We believed.

Perhaps that is Sam Neill’s greatest contribution to horror.

He reminded us that courage is rarely loud.

His characters were frightened.

They doubted themselves.

They made mistakes.

They suffered.

Yet they continued forward nonetheless.

In a genre often populated by heroes and monsters, Neill specialised in portraying people.

Real people.

That humanity transformed extraordinary horrors into deeply personal experiences.

There will undoubtedly be tributes celebrating Sam Neill’s extraordinary career.

They will speak of awards, acclaimed performances and blockbuster successes.

They should.

He earned every accolade.

But here at Surgeons of Horror, he will also be remembered as one of the genre’s great ambassadors.

An actor who never treated horror as a stepping stone.

An actor who understood that fear could reveal as much about the human condition as any drama.

An actor whose quiet sincerity elevated every nightmare he entered.

The monsters may have belonged to the stories.

But the humanity…

That always belonged to Sam Neill.

Thank you for showing us that the most unforgettable performances are not always those of the hero or the villain, but of the person caught between them, trying to make sense of a world that suddenly no longer does.

  • Saul Muerte

Squirm (1976) at 50: When Nature Stopped Biting Back… and the Ground Turned Against Us

There are monsters we expect to fear.

Vampires emerge from the darkness.

Werewolves howl beneath a full moon.

Sharks circle unseen beneath the water’s surface.

But every now and then, horror asks us to fear something so ordinary that we barely notice it.

The ground beneath our feet.

When Jeff Lieberman’s Squirm slithered into cinemas in 1976, audiences were treated to what sounded like one of the decade’s more outrageous premises: a violent electrical storm sends high-voltage power lines crashing into the rain-soaked earth, transforming an ordinary population of worms into ravenous flesh-eating predators.

It is exactly the sort of wonderfully absurd concept that could only have emerged during the golden age of 1970s creature features.

Yet beneath its B-movie exterior lies something surprisingly revealing about the decade that produced it.

The 1970s marked a turning point in horror cinema.

Gone were the Gothic castles and supernatural curses that had dominated previous generations. Instead, filmmakers increasingly looked towards the natural world as the source of humanity’s nightmares.

The decade was shaped by growing environmental awareness. Industrial pollution, pesticide use, the oil crisis and fears surrounding humanity’s exploitation of the planet entered public consciousness with unprecedented urgency. The first Earth Day had been celebrated only a few years earlier, while environmental activism was steadily becoming part of mainstream conversation.

Cinema responded accordingly.

Rather than presenting nature as something beautiful or indifferent, horror increasingly imagined it fighting back.

Suddenly frogs became deadly.

Ants organised themselves into terrifying colonies.

Spiders descended in overwhelming numbers.

Even rabbits—perhaps cinema’s least threatening creatures—were transformed into monstrous killers.

In that context, Squirm wasn’t an isolated oddity.

It was part of a wider movement that suggested humanity had disrupted the natural order for so long that nature itself had begun to retaliate.

The enemy was no longer a vampire.

It was the ecosystem.

What distinguishes Squirm from many of its contemporaries is the simplicity of its central fear.

Most monster movies encourage audiences to look outward.

Towards the sea.

Towards the forest.

Towards the night sky.

Lieberman asks us to look down.

It is a remarkably effective psychological shift.

Worms are among the least glamorous creatures imaginable. They are silent, blind and usually hidden beneath the earth. We rarely think about them at all.

Until Squirm.

By transforming the soil itself into a source of danger, Lieberman quietly undermines one of our most basic assumptions—that the ground is safe.

There is something deeply unsettling about that idea.

The earth, after all, is supposed to be stable. It is where we build our homes, grow our food and seek shelter from the unknown.

Squirm imagines that sanctuary becoming hostile.

The monster is no longer lurking somewhere beyond civilisation.

It has been beneath civilisation all along.

Viewed today, Squirm is undeniably a product of its time.

Its performances occasionally drift towards melodrama.

Some of the dialogue invites unintentional laughter.

Certain effects reveal the limitations of a modest budget.

Yet those very imperfections are part of its enduring charm.

Lieberman never approaches the material with irony.

He believes in the premise wholeheartedly.

That sincerity proves infectious.

Modern creature features often hide behind self-awareness, acknowledging their absurdity before audiences have the opportunity to question it.

Squirm refuses to apologise.

It commits completely to the idea that ordinary worms can become instruments of unimaginable terror.

Oddly enough…

That commitment makes the film easier to embrace.

While Squirm may never receive the same critical recognition as some of horror’s more celebrated classics, its place within the evolution of eco-horror deserves acknowledgement.

Alongside films such as Frogs, Night of the Lepus, Empire of the Ants, Kingdom of the Spiders, Australia’s Long Weekend and Prophecy, it helped define a period in which nature ceased to be a backdrop for horror.

It became horror itself.

Many contemporary environmental thrillers continue to explore similar anxieties, albeit through different metaphors.

Climate change.

Pandemics.

Ecological collapse.

The specifics may have evolved, but the underlying fear remains remarkably familiar.

Humanity’s greatest threat may ultimately be the world we have reshaped.

Squirm is far from a flawless film.

Its premise borders on the ridiculous, its execution occasionally stumbles and it lacks the polish of many better-known horror classics from the decade.

Yet dismissing it as nothing more than a killer worm movie overlooks its significance.

Jeff Lieberman captured a moment when horror cinema stopped asking audiences to fear distant monsters and instead encouraged them to question their relationship with the natural world itself.

Perhaps that is why the film continues to burrow beneath the surface of horror history.

Not because giant carnivorous worms are especially believable…

But because Squirm reminds us that the most effective creature features are rarely about the creatures.

They’re about the fears waiting just beneath the surface.

And in 1976, few fears felt more immediate than the possibility that nature had finally decided to fight back.

  • Saul Muerte

A Page of Madness (1926) at 100

Tags

,

There are horror films that ask us to fear the monster.

There are horror films that ask us to fear the dark.

Then there are films that ask us to fear our own minds.

Nearly a century before psychological horror became one of cinema’s most celebrated subgenres, Teinosuke Kinugasa’s A Page of Madness (狂った一頁) was already dismantling the relationship between audience and reality. It offered no comforting explanations, no reliable narrator and very little dialogue to guide the viewer through its fractured world. Instead, it immersed audiences in an emotional and psychological experience that remains startlingly modern one hundred years later.

Watching A Page of Madness today is less like viewing a silent film and more like stepping into someone else’s nightmare.

Released in 1926, the film arrived during a period of extraordinary artistic experimentation. Across Europe, German Expressionism was transforming architecture and shadow into reflections of emotional distress, while Surrealism was beginning to challenge the boundaries between dreams and waking life. In Japan, however, Kinugasa was forging an entirely different cinematic language.

Working alongside novelist Yasunari Kawabata, whose literary interests centred on perception, memory and emotional subjectivity, Kinugasa rejected conventional storytelling in favour of sensation. Their collaboration sought not simply to tell a story, but to place the audience inside a fractured state of consciousness. The result was a film unlike anything produced before it—and, arguably, unlike anything produced since.

Its premise appears deceptively straightforward.

A janitor secretly works within an isolated mental asylum, hoping to free his wife, who has been institutionalised after attempting to take her own life. Yet this synopsis barely scratches the surface. Narrative quickly gives way to emotion as dreams, memories, fantasies and reality begin folding into one another until they become almost impossible to separate. This is not a mystery designed to be solved. It is an experience designed to be felt.

Perhaps the film’s boldest artistic decision lies in its rejection of explanatory intertitles. While most silent cinema relied heavily upon written cards to propel narrative and clarify motivation, A Page of Madness strips much of that certainty away. Viewers are forced to navigate its emotional landscape through expression, movement, editing and atmosphere alone. The effect is profoundly disorientating.

Like the asylum’s patients, we struggle to distinguish memory from hallucination. The film doesn’t merely depict mental illness—it constructs a cinematic language that places us within uncertainty itself. Kinugasa’s direction remains astonishing even by contemporary standards. Rapid montage fractures both time and space. Double exposures allow multiple emotional realities to occupy the same frame. Reflections distort identity. Masks appear and disappear with haunting ambiguity. The camera glides through corridors with dreamlike fluidity before suddenly becoming trapped inside frantic bursts of chaotic movement.

There are moments where the editing feels decades ahead of its time, anticipating techniques later embraced by experimental filmmakers and psychological horror alike. Without claiming direct influence, it is difficult not to recognise echoes of its fragmented subjectivity in films such as Repulsion, Jacob’s Ladder, Perfect Blue, Black Swan and The Lighthouse. Each similarly invites audiences to question whether what they are witnessing is external reality or internal collapse.

Yet A Page of Madness achieves this without the benefit of synchronised sound, modern visual effects or contemporary editing technology.

It relies entirely upon cinema’s most fundamental tools.

Light.

Shadow.

Movement.

Rhythm.

Emotion.

The title itself offers another fascinating clue to Kinugasa’s intentions.

A Page of Madness.

Not The Madman.

Not The Asylum.

Not The Monster.

Just… a page. A fragment. A fleeting glimpse into a consciousness we can never fully comprehend.

Madness here is not presented as spectacle or villainy. Instead, it becomes a deeply human condition, one that exists not only within the institution’s walls but potentially within every one of us. The asylum ceases to function merely as a location and instead becomes a metaphor for the fragile architecture of the human mind. That ambiguity remains one of the film’s greatest strengths.

For all its visual innovation, A Page of Madness is ultimately a remarkably compassionate work. Rather than sensationalising mental illness, it portrays those living within the asylum with empathy and sadness. The janitor’s desperate attempts to reconnect with his wife are driven not by fear, but by love, guilt and hope. Horror emerges not through monsters or violence, but through the devastating possibility that some emotional wounds cannot simply be undone. The film’s own history possesses an almost mythical quality. For decades, A Page of Madness was believed lost.

Like so many silent masterpieces, it seemed destined to survive only through written accounts and fading memories. Then, in the early 1970s, Kinugasa himself discovered a print stored away in his own warehouse. A film concerned with memory, fractured identity and forgotten lives had itself become forgotten before unexpectedly returning to the world. It is difficult to imagine a more fitting fate.

One hundred years after its original release, A Page of Madness continues to resist easy interpretation. It asks audiences to surrender certainty in favour of emotion. To abandon narrative comfort in favour of instinct. To accept that some experiences cannot be neatly explained. Perhaps that is why it still feels so contemporary. Modern psychological horror frequently asks us whether we can trust our senses. Kinugasa asked the same question in 1926.

Long before horror found its vampires.

Long before masked killers stalked suburban streets.

Long before demons possessed isolated cabins.

It found something altogether more unsettling. The terrifying possibility that our greatest fears are not waiting for us in the darkness…

…but quietly taking shape within ourselves.

A Page of Madness remains one of the most daring achievements in horror-adjacent cinema—not because it presents terrifying images, but because it dismantles the audience’s certainty. It transforms madness into atmosphere, editing into emotion and silence into psychological unease. A century later, its fractured vision still feels startlingly modern, reminding us that the most enduring horrors have never depended upon monsters. Sometimes, they simply ask us to question whether the world we are seeing was ever real at all.


If you enjoy exploring the forgotten corners of horror history, be sure to visit the Surgeons of Horror archive, where you’ll find retrospectives celebrating landmark works from across the genre’s rich and varied past—from silent cinema and Gothic classics through to modern psychological horror. Every film tells a story. Every anniversary offers a chance to rediscover it.

Kwaidan (1964): A Haunting Masterpiece of Japanese Horror

Onibaba: The Demon That Haunts Global Cinema

Twenty Years Beneath the River: The Host (2006)

Obsession (2025): When Love Becomes Possession

Tags

, , , ,

There is a dangerous lie embedded within modern romance.

We are told that persistence is passion. That determination proves devotion. That if we want something badly enough, we should fight for it. Popular culture has long celebrated the hopeless romantic—the dreamer willing to cross impossible distances in pursuit of love.

But what if that pursuit isn’t love at all?

What if it’s simply obsession?

Director Curry Barker’s Obsession takes that uncomfortable question and twists it into a surprisingly intelligent slice of supernatural horror. On its surface, it presents a familiar cautionary tale about wishes granted at a terrible cost. Beneath that, however, lies something far more unsettling: an examination of desire stripped of empathy, where affection becomes ownership and fantasy begins to overwrite consent.

The premise is deceptively simple. After breaking the mysterious One Wish Willow in an attempt to win the heart of his crush, a lonely young man discovers that his wish has indeed come true. Yet as reality begins to warp around him, he realises that some desires demand far greater sacrifices than anyone could anticipate.

The brilliance of Barker’s screenplay lies in its refusal to treat obsession as romantic.

Too often cinema blurs the distinction between relentless pursuit and genuine affection. Characters are encouraged to ignore rejection, persist beyond reason and eventually earn their happy ending through sheer determination. Obsession dismantles that fantasy piece by piece.

Love requires two people.

Obsession only requires one.

It is here that the supernatural elements become more than narrative devices. The cursed wish functions as an external manifestation of entitlement, exposing the dangerous assumption that happiness can somehow be taken rather than shared. The horror doesn’t emerge from monsters hiding in the shadows; it grows from a mind convinced it deserves another human being simply because it wants them enough.

That is a genuinely frightening idea.

Barker understands that horror has always been most effective when it exposes uncomfortable truths about ourselves. The film isn’t asking us to fear the One Wish Willow.

It’s asking us to question the stories we’ve been telling ourselves about romance.

There is also something refreshingly contemporary about Obsession. Rather than relying solely on traditional horror conventions, Barker captures a generation shaped by loneliness, social media and carefully curated fantasies. In an era where parasocial relationships and idealised online identities have become increasingly commonplace, the film feels acutely aware of how easily longing can become fixation.

Without ever becoming preachy, it quietly interrogates the difference between connection and consumption.

Technically, Barker continues to demonstrate why he is one of the more exciting emerging voices in independent genre cinema. His direction balances moments of tenderness with escalating dread, allowing seemingly innocent encounters to slowly curdle into something deeply unnerving. The supernatural flourishes never overwhelm the emotional core, instead reinforcing the psychological deterioration unfolding before us.

The cast similarly embrace that balance. Performances remain grounded even as the story ventures into increasingly surreal territory, ensuring the emotional stakes never disappear beneath the horror.

Perhaps most impressive is the film’s confidence.

Many modern horror films feel compelled to explain every mystery they introduce, as though ambiguity were somehow a weakness. Obsession is content to leave certain questions unanswered, trusting its audience to wrestle with the implications rather than simply providing solutions. That confidence gives the film an air of unease that extends beyond its central premise.

If there is a criticism, it is that some of the film’s supporting characters occasionally feel underdeveloped, leaving a handful of emotional beats with less impact than they might otherwise have carried. Yet these are relatively minor shortcomings within a film that remains remarkably assured in both its thematic ambition and execution.

What ultimately elevates Obsession above its supernatural premise is its understanding that horror often emerges from ordinary human emotions pushed beyond their natural limits.

Love can nurture.

Desire can inspire.

But obsession…

Obsession seeks to possess.

By the time Barker draws those distinctions into sharp focus, the film has quietly transformed from an entertaining supernatural thriller into something far more thought-provoking.

Obsession is far more than another “be careful what you wish for” horror story. It is a thoughtful exploration of modern desire, loneliness and the dangerous confusion between affection and ownership. Curry Barker demonstrates impressive confidence as both a storyteller and filmmaker, crafting a horror film that is as psychologically engaging as it is unsettling. Smartly written, elegantly directed and underpinned by ideas that deserve reflection, Obsession proves that some of the darkest monsters are not supernatural at all—they are the stories we tell ourselves about what we believe we deserve.

  • Saul Muerte

Now available to Rent or Buy

Apple TV – Foxtel Store – Prime Video – YouTube – Google TV – Fetch – Sky NZ

Evil Dead Burn (2026): Burning Bright, But Without a Soul

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Since Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert threw audiences into a ramshackle cabin in the Tennessee woods more than four decades ago, the Evil Dead franchise has become something of a creative playground. Rather than endlessly repeating itself, each instalment has dared to evolve, shifting from visceral survival horror to slapstick comedy, medieval fantasy and urban nightmare. It is a series that has thrived through reinvention.

With Sébastien Vaniček stepping into the director’s chair following the ferocious Vermines (Infested), expectations were understandably high. His debut demonstrated an extraordinary command of tension, practical effects and claustrophobic action, making him an inspired choice to shepherd the next chapter in one of horror’s most fearless franchises.

On paper, Evil Dead Burn appears to continue that tradition.

The film centres on a grieving widow who, following the death of her husband, retreats to the home of her in-laws in search of refuge. Instead, long-buried wounds are violently reopened as the family is consumed one by one by Deadites, forcing her to confront horrors that extend far beyond the supernatural.

The central metaphor is clear.

Like the franchise before it, Evil Dead Burn understands that the most terrifying demons are often the ones we bring home.

This time, however, the story explores the lingering trauma of domestic violence and the devastating ways abuse can continue to shape families long after the violence itself has ended. It is an important and timely subject, and Vaniček deserves credit for attempting to weave genuine social commentary into the relentless carnage.

Unfortunately, the film never fully earns the emotional weight its themes demand.

The domestic trauma feels less like the beating heart of the narrative and more like a framework upon which another Evil Dead story has been constructed. The metaphor is present, but it remains frustratingly underdeveloped. Rather than allowing its characters the space to breathe, the screenplay rushes from one violent set piece to the next, often mistaking intensity for emotional investment.

As a result, the horror frequently becomes spectacular without ever becoming genuinely affecting.

That is particularly disappointing because Souheila Yacoub delivers a committed and compelling central performance. She grounds the film with remarkable conviction, carrying scenes that occasionally ask more of her than the script is willing to provide. Even when the narrative falters, she remains entirely believable, offering flashes of vulnerability amid the escalating chaos.

Visually, however, there is little to criticise.

Vaniček once again demonstrates an impressive eye for physical action. The choreography of the Deadite attacks is inventive, kinetic and frequently brutal, while the practical effects embrace the franchise’s gleeful commitment to blood-soaked excess. Fans of the 2013 remake’s uncompromising violence will undoubtedly find much to admire here.

The film rarely lacks energy.

It simply lacks emotional gravity.

That absence becomes increasingly apparent as the story unfolds. One of the enduring strengths of the Evil Dead series has always been its ability to anchor even the most outrageous horrors in memorable characters. Whether it was Ash Williams’ reluctant transformation from everyman to hero, Mia’s battle with addiction in the 2013 remake, or the desperate family dynamics of Evil Dead Rise, there was always something human beneath the gore.

Evil Dead Burn struggles to establish that same connection.

Its characters remain broadly sketched, their relationships more implied than explored. Consequently, when the inevitable possessions begin, there is surprisingly little sense of tragedy. The violence is expertly staged, but without meaningful emotional investment, it often becomes an exercise in endurance rather than suspense.

Ironically, the film’s greatest weakness emerges from one of Raimi and his collaborators’ greatest strengths.

Their willingness to invite distinctive filmmakers into the franchise has ensured that Evil Dead never grows stale. Each director brings a unique perspective, allowing the mythology to evolve while retaining its anarchic spirit. It is an admirable philosophy, and one that continues to keep the series creatively alive.

Yet reinvention alone is not enough.

There must also be something that binds these stories together beyond the Necronomicon and the Deadites.

Here, that connective tissue feels unusually thin.

Strip away the familiar iconography, and Evil Dead Burn often feels like a competent supernatural horror that has been retrofitted into an established franchise. It borrows the mythology, embraces the brutality and honours the practical carnage, but rarely captures the mischievous personality or emotional investment that have long distinguished Evil Dead from its imitators.

It is telling that some of the film’s most memorable moments are its individual sequences rather than its overall narrative.

Vaniček continues to prove himself an immensely talented visual filmmaker, and there is little doubt that his career will continue to flourish. Few contemporary directors stage visceral horror with such confidence or physicality. The problem is not one of execution.

It is one of connection.

Evil Dead Burn contains flashes of the bold filmmaking that made Sébastien Vaniček such an exciting choice for the franchise. Its practical effects, relentless brutality and assured direction deliver several exhilarating moments, while Souheila Yacoub anchors the film with a committed performance. Yet despite its impressive craftsmanship, the emotional core never fully ignites. By leaning so heavily into violence without first giving audiences characters to truly invest in, the film ultimately becomes the least affecting—and perhaps the least distinctive—entry in the Evil Dead series to date.

It burns fiercely.

But unlike the franchise’s finest chapters…

It leaves surprisingly little behind once the flames have died.

  • Saul Muerte

🩸 Continue the Journey Through the Evil Dead

With the release of Evil Dead Burn, there’s never been a better time to revisit one of horror’s most inventive and enduring franchises.

Explore the full Surgeons of Horror Evil Dead retrospective series, where we chart the evolution of the Deadites from Sam Raimi’s groundbreaking 1981 original through to the franchise’s latest incarnation.

Read the series:

📖 The Evil Dead (1981) at 45 – How a group of friends created one of the most influential independent horror films ever made.


🎥 Watch on YouTube

Expand your journey through the world of the Deadites with two special companion series:

📚 Library of the Occult – The Necronomicon: The Book That Escaped Fiction
A four-part documentary exploring the extraordinary history of horror’s most infamous fictional grimoire—from H.P. Lovecraft’s imagination to its iconic role in The Evil Dead.

Whether you’re rediscovering the original cabin in the woods or venturing into the franchise’s latest nightmares, there’s always another page waiting to be turned…

The Woods (2006) Twenty Years Later, Lucky McKee’s Forgotten Folk Horror Fable Feels More Relevant Than Ever

Tags

, ,

There is something fitting about The Woods having spent much of its existence lost in the shadows.

Released in 2006 after a troubled production and delayed release schedule, Lucky McKee’s Gothic horror film arrived with little fanfare, quietly slipping through the cracks during a period when mainstream horror was dominated by remakes, torture horror and the lingering aftershocks of J-Horror. Audiences largely overlooked it. Critics were divided. The film faded into obscurity.

Yet twenty years later, The Woods feels less like a forgotten oddity and more like a film released a decade too early.

Long before the resurgence of folk horror ushered in films such as The Witch, Hagazussa and You Won’t Be Alone, McKee was already exploring the dark intersection between female experience, folklore and institutional oppression. Viewed retrospectively, The Woods now emerges as a fascinating companion piece to May and a precursor to the righteous fury that would later define The Woman.

Like much of McKee’s work, The Woods is concerned with outsiders.

More specifically, it is concerned with what happens when young women are forced into environments designed to suppress who they are.

Set in 1965 New England, the film follows troubled teenager Heather Fasulo (Agnes Bruckner), who is sent by her estranged parents to Falburn Academy, an isolated girls’ boarding school hidden deep within an ancient forest. Already burdened by familial neglect and simmering anger, Heather quickly discovers that both the school and the surrounding woods harbour secrets far older and more dangerous than she could possibly imagine.

At first glance, The Woods appears to occupy familiar territory. The isolated boarding school, strict authority figures and adolescent anxieties evoke echoes of classic Gothic literature. Yet McKee uses these conventions not merely to generate atmosphere, but to interrogate the social structures that seek to discipline and define young women.

Falburn Academy is less a place of education than one of containment.

The institution demands conformity, obedience and silence. Individuality is discouraged. Dissent is punished. Heather’s rebellious nature immediately places her at odds with both her peers and the faculty, particularly the formidable Headmistress Traverse, played with delicious severity by Patricia Clarkson.

As in May, McKee once again demonstrates an extraordinary empathy for those who exist on society’s fringes. Heather is prickly, defensive and often difficult to like, yet McKee never judges her. Instead, he recognises her anger as a natural response to abandonment, alienation and emotional neglect.

She is not broken.

She is resisting.

This focus on female alienation has become one of McKee’s defining artistic signatures. Across films such as May, The Woods and The Woman, he consistently explores how patriarchal structures marginalise, pathologise and seek to control women who refuse to conform.

In The Woods, these themes manifest through the film’s central metaphor: the forest itself.

The woods surrounding Falburn are not merely a setting. They are a living, breathing presence — ancient, unknowable and overwhelmingly feminine. In contrast to the rigid order imposed by the school, the forest represents instinct, freedom and a primordial power that cannot easily be domesticated.

Nature, McKee suggests, remembers.

And nature resists.

Viewed through a contemporary lens, it is difficult not to see The Woods as an early entry in what would later become the modern folk horror renaissance. Its fascination with isolated communities, feminine power, folklore and the tension between civilisation and the natural world anticipates many of the thematic concerns explored by later filmmakers.

Admittedly, the film is not without flaws.

The screenplay occasionally struggles to balance its competing ideas, while certain narrative revelations feel somewhat underdeveloped. The final act, in particular, leans more heavily into conventional supernatural spectacle than the film’s earlier psychological ambiguity perhaps warrants. There are moments where one senses studio interference, an understandable consequence given the film’s troubled production history.

Yet these shortcomings do little to diminish the film’s considerable strengths.

Visually, The Woods remains a sumptuous piece of Gothic horror. McKee and cinematographer John R. Leonetti cloak the film in autumnal hues, transforming the New England landscape into an intoxicating realm of beauty and menace. The atmosphere is consistently rich, evoking the sensation of wandering through a dark fairy tale where danger lurks just beyond the treeline.

And at its centre stands Agnes Bruckner, delivering one of the strongest performances of her career. Heather’s journey from frightened outsider to self-possessed young woman provides the film with its emotional core, grounding its supernatural elements in genuine feeling.

Twenty years on, The Woods deserves rediscovery.

Not merely as an overlooked curiosity within Lucky McKee’s filmography, but as an important stepping stone in the evolution of contemporary folk horror and feminist genre cinema. In many respects, the film feels startlingly prescient, anticipating conversations that horror audiences would only fully embrace years later.

Some films fade because they have nothing left to say.

The Woods disappeared because audiences simply weren’t ready to listen.

  • Saul Muerte

From Cabin to High-Rise: Why Evil Dead Never Repeats Itself

Most horror franchises are built upon familiarity. Audiences return expecting the same masked killer.

The same final girl.

The same summer camp.

The same suburban street.

Comfort arrives through repetition. Innovation often comes second.

The Evil Dead franchise has survived for more than four decades by embracing the opposite philosophy. It refuses to stand still. Every new chapter tears down what came before, rebuilding itself around a different tone, a different style and, occasionally, an entirely different idea of what Evil Dead should be. And remarkably… It still feels unmistakably like Evil Dead. That may be the franchise’s greatest achievement.

When Sam Raimi released The Evil Dead in 1981, the formula appeared deceptively simple.

Five friends. A remote cabin. An ancient book. A force that possesses the living. Yet beneath that familiar premise lay extraordinary ambition. The film blurred supernatural horror with relentless camera movement, savage practical effects and an almost punk-rock energy.

It wasn’t polished.

It wasn’t elegant.

It was raw.

Every frame felt as though it had been willed into existence through sheer determination. The cabin became horror’s perfect pressure cooker.

Isolated.

Claustrophobic.

Inescapable.

Most franchises would spend the next forty years returning to that same location. Raimi did something far stranger. He blew the cabin apart.

Only six years later, Evil Dead II arrived.

Neither straightforward sequel nor conventional remake, it remains one of horror’s most audacious reinventions. Where the original embraced terror, the follow-up leaned gleefully into slapstick. Limbs fought their owners. Furniture laughed. Blood became choreography. Bruce Campbell transformed Ash Williams from terrified survivor into horror’s most reluctant action hero. Many filmmakers fear changing tone. Raimi understood that horror and comedy spring from the same source.

Timing.

Tension.

Release.

The result was a film unlike anything audiences had seen before. Instead of repeating success… It reinvented it.

If Evil Dead II surprised audiences… Army of Darkness bewildered them. Suddenly, the haunted cabin gave way to medieval castles. Chainsaws shared the screen with knights. Stop-motion skeletons battled wisecracking heroes. Fantasy collided with horror. Ray Harryhausen met The Three Stooges. It was gloriously absurd. Some fans longed for the terrifying intensity of the original. Others embraced Raimi’s fearless creativity. Regardless of preference, one truth became increasingly clear. The Evil Dead series had no interest in becoming predictable.

Following a lengthy silence, director Fede Álvarez resurrected the franchise in 2013. Many expected nostalgia. Instead, they received something almost merciless.

Gone were the jokes.

Gone was Ash.

In their place came addiction, trauma and astonishing practical gore. The familiar cabin returned, but its purpose had changed. Rather than celebrating the past, Álvarez stripped Evil Dead back to its most primal elements.

Isolation.

Possession.

Survival.

The result became one of the strongest modern horror remakes precisely because it resisted becoming a tribute act. It respected Raimi’s spirit. Not his formula.

Then came Evil Dead Rise.

Once again, expectations shifted.

The forest disappeared.

The cabin vanished.

Instead, evil emerged within a decaying apartment block. Vertical rather than horizontal. Neighbours instead of woodland. Family replacing friendship. The setting changed. The emotional stakes changed. Even the Book of the Dead evolved. Yet audiences recognised the franchise instantly. Because Evil Dead has never been defined by geography. It has always been defined by escalation. Every chapter asks the same question. How much worse can this become? Then answers… Far worse.

If locations change…

If protagonists change…

If tone changes…

What exactly makes an Evil Dead film?

The answer isn’t Ash Williams.

Much as Bruce Campbell’s performance remains iconic, the franchise has demonstrated it can survive without him. It isn’t the cabin. Nor the chainsaw. Nor even the Deadites themselves. It is the Necronomicon. The cursed book has become the franchise’s true protagonist. It is the thread connecting every era. The catalyst that transforms ordinary lives into unimaginable nightmares. Unlike Dracula or Frankenstein’s Monster, the Necronomicon possesses remarkable flexibility.

It travels.

It waits.

It tempts.

Every generation discovers it anew. In many ways, the book reflects the franchise itself.

Forever changing.

Forever returning.

Many long-running horror franchises eventually become prisoners of nostalgia. They recreate familiar scenes. Repeat iconic dialogue. Resurrect beloved villains.

Sometimes this offers comfort.

Sometimes it exposes creative exhaustion.

Evil Dead has largely avoided this trap. Rather than asking audiences to relive old memories, each filmmaker contributes a fresh interpretation of Raimi’s original idea. Every generation receives its own version. Not a replacement. A continuation. The franchise has become less a single narrative than a shared mythology. A haunted framework within which different voices can flourish. That willingness to evolve explains why Evil Dead remains culturally vibrant after forty-five years. It refuses to become a museum piece.

Perhaps the greatest horror stories aren’t those that remain unchanged. They’re the ones brave enough to mutate. Like the demonic force that courses through its pages, Evil Dead has never stayed still.

It moves.

It possesses.

It transforms.

From isolated cabin…

To medieval battlefield…

To blood-soaked apartment tower…

The franchise continually sheds its skin without ever losing its soul.

Few horror series have reinvented themselves so completely. Fewer still have succeeded every time. As a new chapter begins with Evil Dead Burn, one thing seems certain. The Necronomicon has another story to tell.

And somewhere…

Someone is about to open it.

  • Saul Muerte

Long before revisiting the Evil Dead franchise for this retrospective series, I dedicated a trio of podcast episodes to Sam Raimi’s original trilogy. Listening back today, it’s fascinating to hear how my own appreciation of these remarkable films has evolved—but the enthusiasm remains exactly the same.

If you’d like to continue the journey, revisit these conversations from the archives:

🎧 The Evil Dead (1981)

🎧 Army of Darkness (1992)

🎧 The Evil Dead (2013)