Category Archives: retrospective

Aatank (1996): When Bollywood Heard the DUN-DUN

08 Sunday Feb 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

By 1996, Jaws had long since escaped the confines of New Hollywood and become a migratory genre organism, washing up on shores far beyond Amity Island. Aatank, directed by Prem Lalwani, is one of the more fascinating examples of this cinematic drift—an Indian coastal thriller that doesn’t merely borrow Spielberg’s template, but absorbs it wholesale, then filters it through the melodramatic, musical, and moral frameworks of Bollywood cinema.

The influence is impossible to miss. A man-eating shark terrorises a fishing community. Authority figures falter. Economic greed disturbs the natural order. Loved ones vanish beneath deceptively calm waters. Lalwani stages his set-pieces with a clear awareness of Jaws’ grammar: delayed revelation, ominous underwater POVs, and a mounting sense that the sea itself has turned hostile. Even the shark—“gigantic” and virtually indestructible—feels less like an animal than a force of narrative punishment.

Where Aatank diverges is in its cultural emphasis. Spielberg’s film is a parable about civic denial and institutional paralysis; Lalwani’s is rooted in class struggle, corruption, and exploitation. Alphonso, the gangster figure disturbing the ocean for black pearls, is as much the villain as the shark itself. The monster becomes an extension of human greed—a folkloric retribution rather than a random act of nature. This moral framing aligns Aatank more closely with Bollywood’s tradition of cosmic justice than Hollywood’s man-vs-nature spectacle.

Tonally, the film oscillates between romance, tragedy, and creature feature with little concern for restraint. Musical interludes and heightened emotion sit uneasily beside severed limbs and marine terror, yet this collision is precisely what makes Aatank compelling as a global genre artefact. It is not subtle, nor especially polished, but it is sincere in its ambition to localise a Western horror touchstone within Indian popular cinema.

The Prognosis:

Aatank stands as a reminder that Jaws did not merely create a subgenre—it became a cinematic language spoken worldwide, even when the accent was unmistakably regional. Rough around the edges and deeply derivative, yes, but also culturally revealing, Aatank is less a knock-off than a translation—one where the shark swims through distinctly Indian waters.

  • Saul Muerte

Pulse (2001) – 25 Years of Digital Despair

02 Monday Feb 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s 回路 (Kairo), released in 2001, arrived not as a conventional ghost story but as a premonition: a slow, suffocating meditation on isolation, technology, and the quiet extinction of human connection. Watching it again twenty-five years later, it remains both eerily prophetic and achingly nostalgic — a film that understood the emotional cost of the digital age before most of us had logged on.

Set in a Tokyo where computers begin opening doors to the afterlife, Pulse frames technology not as a tool but as a conduit for despair. The ghosts here are not vengeful spirits in the traditional sense; they are residues of loneliness, beings who have discovered that even death offers no companionship. Kurosawa’s great insight is that horror does not arrive through violence or spectacle, but through absence — empty rooms, abandoned factories, and human figures slowly fading into smudges on the wall.

This is a film that weaponises space. Corridors stretch too long. Rooms feel cavernous and airless. Characters drift through environments that seem already evacuated of meaning. Kurosawa’s camera rarely rushes. Instead, it waits, allowing dread to ferment in stillness. Few images in early-2000s horror are as indelible as the woman approaching in the factory corridor — a sequence that reduces movement itself to a source of existential terror.

At the time of release, Pulse was often grouped with the J-horror wave that brought Ringu and Ju-on to international attention. Yet Kurosawa’s sensibility was markedly different. Where those films leaned on mythic curses and narrative propulsion, Pulse dissolves plot into atmosphere. It is less concerned with why the ghosts appear than with what their presence reveals about the living.

The film’s central anxiety — that technology would not connect us, but isolate us further — now plays less like science fiction and more like quiet sociology. Kurosawa’s vision of a world where people retreat into screens, lose the ability to touch one another, and eventually vanish altogether, feels uncannily aligned with the psychic landscape of the 2020s. Social media, remote work, algorithmic loneliness: Pulse anticipated them not in mechanics, but in mood.

And yet, there is a tenderness to its pessimism. The film does not rage against modernity; it mourns it. Its characters are not punished for their solitude — they are already wounded by it. Even the apocalypse that unfolds feels less like an invasion than a surrender.

Revisiting Pulse now, one feels both chilled and comforted by its slowness. In an era of accelerated horror and algorithm-driven scares, Kurosawa’s patient, analogue dread feels like a relic from a more contemplative age of genre cinema. The film’s grainy textures, dial-up modems, and empty chat rooms anchor it firmly in the early 2000s, lending it a melancholic nostalgia alongside its enduring relevance.

The Prognosis:

Twenty-five years on, Pulse remains one of the most philosophically unsettling horror films ever made — a ghost story not about death, but about what it means to disappear while still alive.

A rare work that has aged not by becoming obsolete, but by becoming increasingly true.

  • Saul Muerte

Five years ago, to mark the film’s twentieth anniversary, the Surgeons of Horror team recorded a special in-depth podcast discussion on Pulse, exploring its themes of isolation, technology, and existential dread in the context of both early-2000s J-horror and the modern digital age. It remains a thoughtful companion piece to Kurosawa’s film — a conversation that deepens appreciation for a work that continues to haunt long after the final frame fades to black.

Hearts, Masks, and Missed Opportunities: Why Valentine Failed the Slasher Revival

01 Sunday Feb 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

By the time Valentine arrived in early 2001, the slasher revival ignited by Scream was already beginning to show signs of exhaustion. What had once felt like a sharp meta-correction to a moribund genre was fast becoming a formula in its own right, and Jamie Blanks’ glossy, well-cast but timid thriller stands as one of the cycle’s clearest examples of diminishing returns.

On paper, the ingredients are sound. A high-school humiliation echoes forward into adulthood. A masked avenger marks his victims with sentimental cruelty. A quartet of recognisable young stars — Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw — circle one another in a web of suspicion and romantic misdirection. Even Blanks himself, coming off the more stylish Urban Legend, seems an ideal candidate to steer a post-Scream whodunit into the new millennium.

Yet Valentine is a film curiously afraid of its own moment.

Where Scream and even I Know What You Did Last Summer attempted — however commercially — to interrogate genre mechanics, Valentine retreats. Instead of advancing the slasher into the 2000s, it slides backwards into mid-90s complacency, borrowing the superficial trappings of postmodern horror while abandoning the intelligence that made the revival briefly compelling. Its mystery is serviceable but inert, its twists telegraphed, its structure overly reliant on red herrings that never generate true paranoia.

The central conceit — that cruelty in adolescence metastasises into murderous adulthood — should provide psychological bite. Instead, the film reduces trauma to a blunt narrative engine, less interested in emotional consequence than in ticking off victims one by one. The killer’s motivation is comprehensible but thin, treated as an excuse for mechanics rather than an exploration of obsession or grievance.

Blanks directs with polish but little personality. The camera glides, the lighting flatters, the murders are bloodless enough to appease ratings boards — and in doing so, drain the film of impact. Even the Valentine’s Day setting, rich with symbolic potential, becomes mere decoration: hearts, cards, masks, all deployed without irony or thematic weight.

What lingers is not terror, but missed opportunity.

The cast, to their credit, does what it can. Shelton brings a quiet steadiness, Richards an icy defensiveness, Boreanaz the requisite brooding ambiguity. Yet the screenplay affords none of them enough interiority to transcend archetype. They are suspects first, characters second.

The Prognosis:

Valentine plays less like a product of horror’s rebirth than a sign of its impending fatigue. It mistakes imitation for evolution, reverence for innovation. Where the genre should have been pushing forward — into new forms, new anxieties, new structures — Valentine clings to the safety of familiar rhythms and well-worn shocks.

Not incompetent. Not irredeemable. But emblematic.

A film that wanted to ride the coattails of Scream, and instead found itself stranded between decades — too self-aware for the 90s, too conservative for the 2000s, and ultimately too cautious to leave a lasting scar.

  • Saul Muerte

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001) and the Prestige of Cult Excess

30 Friday Jan 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Some films are not built to be loved universally.

They are built to be argued over, rediscovered, defended, and passed hand-to-hand between devotees. Brotherhood of the Wolf is one such work: a film whose reputation has grown not through consensus, but through cult allegiance.

Released at the turn of the millennium, Christophe Gans’ lavish historical thriller arrived wearing too many masks at once — period drama, martial arts film, conspiracy thriller, creature feature, political allegory — and in doing so, ensured that it would never quite belong to any single tradition.

Its very excess is the foundation of its longevity.

Prestige Casting in a Genre Disguise

What anchors Brotherhood of the Wolf — and elevates it far above most genre hybrids of its era — is the sheer calibre of its cast.

Samuel Le Bihan’s Chevalier de Fronsac provides a steady, rational centre, playing the Enlightenment investigator not as dashing hero but as methodical observer. His performance supplies the film with intellectual ballast amid its stylistic flights.

Opposite him, Mark Dacascos’ Mani is rendered with a physical precision that borders on mythic. More symbol than character, Mani becomes the film’s embodiment of the outsider — part warrior, part spectacle, part political provocation.

And then there is Vincent Cassel.

As the disfigured, decadent Jean-François de Morangias, Cassel delivers one of the film’s most indelible performances: theatrical, grotesque, and perversely charismatic. He understands the assignment perfectly. This is not realism. This is operatic villainy.

Even in smaller roles, the ensemble radiates seriousness of intent. Monica Bellucci, Émilie Dequenne, and Jacques Perrin lend the film a gravitas that most monster mysteries could only envy.

This is a creature film performed as if it were court theatre.

The Cult of Ambition

The film’s cult appeal lies not in its coherence, but in its audacity.

Gans refuses to restrain himself to a single genre grammar. Sword fights bleed into kung fu. Political intrigue gives way to erotic melodrama. Naturalistic horror collapses into baroque conspiracy.

At times, the film feels less directed than curated — a museum of stylistic obsessions arranged into a single, overstuffed narrative.

For some viewers, this is fatal.

For others, it is precisely the point.

Cult cinema thrives on tonal instability. The very elements that confound mainstream reception — the slow first act, the abrupt shifts, the indulgent digressions — become the features that devotees celebrate.

Brotherhood of the Wolf is not tidy. It is textured.

When Style Overwhelms Substance

Where the film falters is in its narrative architecture.

The mystery of the Beast of Gévaudan — one of France’s great historical legends — is gradually smothered by exposition, secret societies, and political scheming. The later revelations feel less like discoveries than like over-engineered solutions to a problem that was more interesting when left ambiguous.

The film’s need to explain, to mythologise, to systematise, drains the central legend of some of its primal power.

What begins as folklore becomes logistics.

And yet, even in its miscalculations, the film remains compelling. Gans’ visual command is undeniable. The fog-drenched forests, candlelit salons, and choreographed violence are composed with painterly care.

This is cinema that believes deeply in its own importance — sometimes to its detriment, often to its advantage.

The Prognosis:

Brotherhood of the Wolf earns its reputation not as a flawless achievement, but as a deliberate cult construction.

It is too long, too busy, too self-conscious to be great.

But it is also too ambitious, too beautifully cast, too committed to be dismissed.

Its legacy endures because it offers something rare: a genre film that refuses to apologise for its intelligence, its extravagance, or its contradictions.

In the end, Brotherhood of the Wolf survives not as a definitive monster movie, but as a cult object — a film that invites loyalty precisely because it never quite behaves.

  • Saul Muerte

Troll (1986) and the Curious Curse of John Carl Buechler

21 Wednesday Jan 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

There are cult films, and then there are accidents of cinema — features that achieve immortality not through design, but through coincidence, misreading, and sheer historical mischief. Troll (1986) belongs squarely in the latter category: a film remembered less for what it is than for what it accidentally prefigured, misinspired, and became associated with long after its modest ambitions had curdled into kitsch.

And yet, behind the latex ears and ill-fated wizardry stands a filmmaker worth far more respect than this film’s reputation allows.

The Craftsman Behind the Curtain

John Carl Buechler remains one of genre cinema’s great unsung artisans. A gifted special effects designer who helped shape the tactile horrors of Friday the 13th Part VII, Re-Animator, and countless exploitation staples, Buechler belonged to that dying breed of filmmakers who understood monsters as objects — sculpted, painted, and animated by hand.

Troll was his directorial debut, and it bears all the marks of a craftsman promoted too quickly to magician.

There is, undeniably, a handmade charm to the film. The practical effects — crude as they are — possess a sincerity now absent from much digital fantasy. The creatures are physical. The makeup is tangible. You can see the fingerprints of labour in every prosthetic and puppet. But good intentions, sadly, do not summon good storytelling.

The Myth of the Boy Wizard

It is impossible to discuss Troll without addressing the elephant — or rather, the bespectacled boy — in the room.

Long before Hogwarts, long before J.K. Rowling, this film introduced a young protagonist named Harry Potter. The coincidence is so outrageous it has since become the film’s primary cultural legacy. The connection is legally irrelevant, narratively meaningless, and yet historically irresistible. In hindsight, Troll reads like a bootleg prophecy — a cheap VHS oracle accidentally whispering a name that would one day dominate popular culture.

Of course, this Harry Potter is no chosen one. He is a bland, passive child adrift in a narrative that barely knows what to do with him. Magic here is not destiny, but disorder — a grab bag of spells, potions, and goblin politics that never cohere into a convincing mythology.

What remains is not mythology, but meme.

Band, Bono & B-Movie Business

As ever, hovering behind the chaos is Charles Band, Full Moon’s impresario of low-budget fantasy and high-concept nonsense. His influence is everywhere: the tonal instability, the commercial opportunism, the sense that the film is less telling a story than testing a product line.

Troll feels engineered less as a film than as a franchise prototype — a world to be exploited, sequelised, and merchandised. That it eventually spawned the infamously unrelated Troll 2 only underlines how little creative coherence existed at the foundation.

Adding to the oddity is the presence of Sonny Bono, whose performance is less acting than cameo-as-curiosity. He drifts through the film like a misplaced sitcom ghost, never fully belonging to the fantasy world around him, and inadvertently reinforcing the film’s tonal confusion.

And then there is Julia Louis-Dreyfus, in an early role that serves primarily as historical footnote. She is capable, charming, and completely underserved — a future comedic titan trapped in a film that barely knows what to do with its own plot, let alone its supporting cast.

A Film at War with Itself

The central problem with Troll is not its budget, nor its effects, nor even its camp. It is its profound indecision.

Is this a children’s fantasy? A horror film? A family comedy? A supernatural soap opera? The film answers “yes” to all, and commits fully to none. Scenes of possession and body horror sit awkwardly beside slapstick and sitcom rhythms. Threat never coheres. Stakes never settle. Even Torok, the film’s central antagonist, oscillates between menace and pantomime.

What emerges is not a failed epic, but a confused one — a film whose imagination outpaces its discipline.

The Legacy of a Miscast Spell

Troll survives not as cinema, but as artifact.

It is remembered because of a name, not a narrative. Because of a sequel, not a success. Because of careers that outgrew it, not because it nurtured them. And yet, within its rubbery frame, there remains a faint trace of Buechler’s genuine love for monsters — a craftsman trying, unsuccessfully, to become a storyteller.

In the end, Troll is less a film than a cautionary tale: about promotion before preparation, about concept without control, about how even the most gifted monster-makers can be undone by a story that refuses to behave.

The Prognosis:

A curiosity. A footnote. A miscast spell that, by sheer accident, echoes through pop culture far louder than it ever deserved.

  • Saul Muerte

Wolf Blood (1925) — A Century Later, Still Howling for a Pulse

15 Monday Dec 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

One hundred years on, Wolf Blood remains less a horror film than a cinematic curiosity—an early brush with werewolf mythology that never commits to being a werewolf film, a thriller without thrills, and a relic overshadowed entirely by the genre giants that defined its era. Released in 1925, it limps into its centenary not as a pioneering milestone but as an instructive footnote in what not to do with burgeoning horror iconography.

It’s almost unfair, at first glance, to compare Wolf Blood to Nosferatu (1922) and The Phantom of the Opera (1925)—but the comparison is inescapable. Murnau’s Nosferatu was already reshaping cinematic language, introducing expressionist shadows and spectral dread that embedded itself into the DNA of screen horror. Phantom, released the same year as Wolf Blood, showcased the artistry of Universal’s early macabre sensibilities, anchored by Lon Chaney’s transformative terror and lavish Gothic production design.

Wolf Blood, by contrast, feels timid and strangely uninterested in horror altogether. Where Nosferatu stalked its audience with plague-ridden menace, and Phantom delivered operatic Gothic spectacle, Wolf Blood spends a remarkable portion of its runtime on logging-camp melodrama, business rivalries, and a love triangle so tame it seems allergic to narrative urgency. The title promises lycanthropy; what it delivers is a medical transfusion and a man convinced—psychologically, never literally—that he may be turning into a wolf. No transformation, no bite, no curse. The supernatural is purely theoretical, and the film leans on dream sequences instead of embracing the monstrous.

In the 1920s, horror cinema was still defining its parameters, testing the boundaries of what images could frighten or disturb. Wolf Blood could have been part of that formative experimentation. Instead, it skirts away from genre entirely. Its werewolf premise is never realised; its mood never crosses into the uncanny; and its execution—flat staging, wandering pacing, and little sense of atmospheric danger—renders it a film that neither innovates nor entertains.

Even as proto-werewolf cinema, it is overshadowed by later, more robust entries (Werewolf of London in 1935 and The Wolf Man in 1941), which would properly codify the mythos that Wolf Blood only half-heartedly gestures toward. Its legacy, such as it is, lies in being technically the first feature to reference a form of lycanthropy—though even that badge comes with an asterisk, given that nothing resembling a werewolf appears on screen.

As a centenary artefact, Wolf Blood is valuable mostly in contrast. It reveals how essential atmosphere, visual imagination, and narrative conviction were to early horror’s development—and how barren a horror film becomes without them. While its contemporaries still throb with cinematic life, Wolf Blood feels anaemic, drained of tension and lacking both bite and bark. Forgotten by audiences and film history alike, it stands today as a reminder that not every first is foundational, and not every early effort deserves resurrection.

  • Saul Muerte

Haunted (1995) — A Handsome Ghost Story Searching for Its Own Pulse

29 Saturday Nov 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Lewis Gilbert’s Haunted (1995) is one of those elegant, fog-draped period ghost tales that feels immediately familiar—handsome, atmospheric, well-appointed—yet never quite as stirring or chilling as it promises to be. Sitting in the late-career period of a director best known for shaping British cinema across decades (Alfie, Educating Rita, and a trio of Bond films), Haunted is a curious detour: a genteel supernatural romance wearing the clothes of a Gothic thriller, its pleasures found not in terror but in craftsmanship and star-making potential.

Gilbert brings his signature polish to the material. The English countryside glows with a painterly melancholy; the decaying Edbrook estate feels like a place where secrets seep from the wallpaper; and the film’s structure—rooted in an academic sceptic confronting the irrational—allows Gilbert to indulge in classic ghost story rhythms. But where his earlier work thrived on emotional immediacy and character complexity, Haunted often keeps its characters at an elegant distance. Its chills are tasteful, its reveals measured, its emotional turbulence curiously restrained.

Yet the film holds its greatest historical value in the emergence of Kate Beckinsale. This is the moment she fully announces herself—poised, luminous, and quietly magnetic. As Christina Mariell, Beckinsale blends innocence with a subtle, teasing darkness, foreshadowing the commanding screen presence that would follow in later roles. Haunted isn’t her breakout exactly (that credit often goes to Cold Comfort Farm or The Last Days of Disco), but it’s a pivotal early performance that demonstrates her range within genre cinema long before Underworld made her an international name.

Opposite her, Aidan Quinn delivers a thoughtful turn as Professor David Ash, a man defined by rational armour that Gilbert and the script slowly chip away. Their pairing adds a romantic heat the film otherwise struggles to ignite, helping anchor a narrative that threatens to drift into over-familiar Gothic territory.

The film’s shortcomings are largely tonal. Gilbert aims for a restrained, classical ghost story—something closer to The Innocents than the brasher supernatural thrillers of the 1990s—but the adaptation of James Herbert’s novel leans too heavily on melodramatic twists and over-explanatory reveals. The final act, particularly, gives in to excess at the very moment the film’s strength has been its quietude. You can feel the tension between a director committed to craft and a story eager to indulge in more conventional shock.

The Prognosis:

Haunted remains an enjoyable mid-tier entry in ’90s British genre cinema: undeniably flawed, but handsomely directed, occasionally haunting, and notable for capturing Beckinsale’s ascent at a formative moment. For Gilbert, it stands as a late-career experiment—an elegant but slightly undercooked ghost story that reminds us of his ability to shepherd character-driven drama even when surrounded by ectoplasm, séances, and flickering candlelight.

  • Saul Muerte

Transmutations (1985) — A Curious Misfire in the Barker Cinematic Bloodline

26 Wednesday Nov 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

George Pavlou’s Transmutations (also known as Underworld) occupies an awkward, largely forgotten corner in the canon of Clive Barker–related cinema—a curiosity rather than a cornerstone, a footnote rather than a foundation. Released two years before Hellraiser would redefine Barker’s place in the genre, this early attempt at translating his sensibilities to the screen delivers more frustration than fascination, offering only faint glimmers of the nightmarish imagination that would soon reshape horror.

The premise holds the embryonic outline of Barker’s obsessions: flesh in flux, identity undone, desire twisted into mutation. A missing sex worker, a wealthy puppet master, a mercenary ex-lover, and a secret colony of chemically altered outcasts living beneath the city—on paper, it’s unmistakably Barker. But while the ingredients are present, the alchemy is not. Pavlou’s direction lacks the atmosphere and transgressive conviction needed to bring Barker’s script to life, resulting instead in a confused stew of sci-fi noir, body horror, and crime thriller clichés.

What should feel mythic and grotesquely operatic instead feels oddly anaemic. The underground mutants—conceptually ripe territory for Barker’s fascination with monstrous otherness—never rise above rubber-suit awkwardness. Their tragedy is undercut by clumsy execution, their menace diluted by incoherent world-building. Even the film’s central hallucinogenic powder, a classic Barker motif of transcendence through sensation, slips through the story like an undeveloped idea.

For Barker admirers, the film is primarily interesting as a “before the storm” artifact: a glimpse of themes and images he’d later refine with far more confidence, from the eroticised metamorphoses of Hellraiser to the urban-myth underworlds of Nightbreed. Transmutations hints toward these futures but never manages to articulate its own identity. It’s a film caught between genres, visions, and expectations—ultimately satisfying none.

As a mid-1980s horror oddity, it has its moments of charm: a grubby London atmosphere, a handful of practical effects that almost work, and a pulpy energy that occasionally threatens to spark to life. But as part of the Barker cinematic legacy, Transmutations remains a minor and often misguided experiment—one that underscores how vital Barker’s own directorial control would become in shaping the stories he imagined for the screen.

The Prognosis:

A relic for completists, a curiosity for scholars of Barker’s filmography—but for most viewers, it’s easy to see why this particular mutation never evolved.

  • Saul Muerte

Pasolini’s Final Provocation: A Descent Into Filth, Fury, and the Failure of Outrage

22 Saturday Nov 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

There are films you watch.
There are films you endure.
And then there is Salò: Pier Paolo Pasolini’s final cinematic scream, released weeks after he was murdered on an Ostia beach, his body left grotesquely mangled — an ending uncanny enough that it feels like it might have been authored by Pasolini himself.

To watch Salò is not merely to consume a film; it is to enter a locked chamber of Pasolini’s mind at its most confrontational, most cryptic, and most convinced that art must wound if it hopes to matter. It’s a cinematic razor blade dragged across the audience’s sense of morality, its meaning delivered less through narrative than through abrasion.

And yet — for all its notoriety, for all its moral panic, for all the scholarly wrangling around it — Salò remains a polarising, deeply compromised vision. A film that demands you applaud its audacity while questioning whether its assaultive method ever truly earns its brutality.

The Last Testament of a Man at War

By 1975, Pasolini had become a cultural lightning rod: Marxist poet, queer public intellectual, devout critic of capitalism, devourer of myth and folklore, the “wyrd prophet” of Italy’s post-war anxieties. He remained perpetually in conflict — with the state, the Church, the bourgeoisie, the police, the left, the right, and often himself.

Salò emerges from this volatile crucible as both testament and tantrum — the vision of a man who believed society had already surrendered to a fascism more insidious than Mussolini’s: a consumerist degradation of the human spirit.

By updating de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom to the dying days of the Republic of Salò, Pasolini stages fascism not as political ideology but as the terminal condition of a culture that has lost its soul. Every atrocity — the forced meals of excrement, the mechanised sexual violence, the casual execution of youth — is framed with the cold, bureaucratic stillness of a society numbed by its own cruelty.

But the question that haunts Salò, and haunts us still, is this:
Does Pasolini expose fascism, or replicate its gaze?

A Museum of Horrors, Curated With Clinical Precision

The film unfolds in circles — the Anteinferno, the Circle of Obsessions, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Blood — as if Dante himself collaborated with a mortician. Pasolini arranges bodies like objects, frames violence as ritual, and refuses any catharsis that might allow the viewer moral escape.

The performances are deliberately stiff, theatrical, emptied of emotion. The victims are blank slates; the libertines are stylised monsters. Everything is choreographed with a perversely detached elegance.

It is simultaneously the point and the problem.
Pasolini wants to suffocate us — but suffocation is not the same thing as meaning.

Where the Film’s Power Slips

For all its intellectual scaffolding, Salò spirals into a paradox:
Pasolini indicts dehumanisation by dehumanising.
He condemns voyeurism by forcing us to be voyeurs.
He rails against fascism while reproducing its structures.

This is the crux of its polarising legacy.
Some critics call it the most important film of the twentieth century; others consider it an irredeemable wallow in cinematic sadism.

My view — at a measured and wary two stars — sits in the uneasy middle: Pasolini’s overarching thesis is potent, his courage (or recklessness) undeniable, but the film’s unrelenting brutality eventually dulls the intellectual edge it seeks to sharpen. That shock becomes monotony; horror becomes repetition; outrage becomes noise.

There is no escalation, only accumulation.
No revelation, only endurance.
No life — only Pasolini’s autopsy of humanity.

The Haunting Aftermath: Art as Provocation, Art as Suicide Note

And yet, perhaps the true power of Salò lies not in the film itself but in the myth that formed around it. Pasolini died before he could defend it, revise it, or distance himself from it. The film became a tombstone — a final act of aesthetic defiance from a man who had always preferred confrontation to comfort.

His death casts a radioactive glow across Salò.
It colours every frame with an eerie sense of inevitability, as if the film were a prophecy of his own destruction.
You don’t watch Salò thinking about the characters.
You watch it thinking about Pasolini.

The gap between artist and artwork collapses entirely.
Perhaps that is what he intended.
Or perhaps it is the final irony — that a filmmaker obsessed with exposing societal decay has, in his last work, created something that ultimately feels embalmed, sealed off from the living world.

The Prognosis:

Salò remains a cultural Rorschach test: a masterpiece of provocation for some, an act of cinematic masochism for others. My own viewing leaves me with admiration for Pasolini’s audacity, respect for his intellectual rage, and deep reservations about the film’s blunt-force method.

A monumental idea, trapped in a punishing, airless execution.
A film easier to analyse than to justify, and easier to endure than to embrace.

  • Saul Muerte

Minimalist Horror Goes to the Dogs — and Sometimes Finds Its Bark

18 Tuesday Nov 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In the recent wave of minimalist horror — the creeping, patient, anti-spectacle cinema of Skinamarink, In a Violent Nature, The Outwaters, and When Evil Lurks’ quietest passages — fear is less a constructed set piece than a condition. A suffocating stillness. A negative space. A question of what the camera refuses to illuminate. Ben Leonberg’s Good Boy arrives squarely within this movement, committed to the genre’s most ascetic instincts: sparse storytelling, spatial ambiguity, and the eerie potency of silence. What distinguishes Good Boy from its contemporaries, however, is its protagonist — not a faceless killer or traumatised everyman but a 35-pound retriever named Indy, whose performance is so unwavering, so soulful, that he becomes the film’s emotional core and, crucially, its most expressive actor.

Indy’s work here has already made waves. The New York Times’ Erik Piepenburg called his eyes “soft” yet capable of conveying “joy, pathos and, most astonishingly, terror.” Variety’s Peter Debruge praised the film’s ability to “devastate us with the devotion these soulmates are capable of showing.” These aren’t backhanded compliments; they are acknowledgments that Good Boy, for all its supernatural trappings, rests on a profoundly grounded emotional premise — the purity of a dog’s love for its human, and what happens when that human begins to slip into darkness.

The Haunted House as Negative Space

Leonberg’s directing style, shaped by an Eagle Scout pragmatism and an MFA’s sense of craft, embraces an artisanal minimalism. The film’s rural home — long vacant, thick with dust and memory — is not populated by jump scares but by suggestion. Corners breathe. Empty rooms hum with expectancy. The world is haunted not by apparitions but by absence.

This aesthetic places the entire burden of emotional interpretation on Indy, and astonishingly, it works. The dog’s reactions — a lowered head, a whine, a sudden lurch into the dark — become semiotic clues, as if the canine is whispering an alternate plot beneath the human one. In one early scene, Indy freezes at a doorway and refuses to enter, and the hesitation is more chilling than any spectral figure would have been.

Leonberg knows the grammar of minimalist horror: long takes, fixed shots, diegetic silence punctured only by the house’s nocturnal contractions. It’s a mode designed to induce paranoia in the viewer, to make us scrutinise every shadow for signs of the supernatural. The technique is effective — to a point.

The Strength and Strain of Minimalism

Minimalist horror is a delicate architecture. When the premise is razor-thin, pacing becomes everything. Good Boy’s story — Indy senses an invisible presence; Todd succumbs to it — is conceptually strong but narratively sparse. It relies on atmosphere and gesture rather than escalation, and as a result, the film occasionally buckles under the weight of its own simplicity.

Scenes of Indy pacing hallways, staring into voids, or reacting to sounds we never hear create a hypnotic loop that risks repetition. What feels unnerving in the first act begins to sag by the midsection, and although the third act reintroduces urgency, the film’s momentum never fully matches the intensity promised by its premise.

This is not a failure of direction so much as a structural challenge inherent to the genre. When your protagonist cannot speak, when your antagonist remains invisible, and when your environment is deliberately barren, rhythm becomes treacherous terrain. Good Boy is atmospheric, often beautifully so, but the atmosphere sometimes dilates beyond its dramatic utility.

Still, the emotional spine — the bond between Todd and Indy — remains compelling throughout. Their relationship bears the film’s heart, even when the plot stalls.

Indy, the Actor, and Indy, the Idea

To call Indy “remarkably focused” undersells the phenomenon onscreen. He is not a gimmick. He is not comic relief. He is not even, despite the title, simply “a good boy.” He is a full-fledged dramatic participant whose emotional arc mirrors Todd’s psychological unraveling.

We see the supernatural entirely through Indy’s sensory field, and in this choice lies the film’s most unusual power: the horror is not filtered through a traumatised human consciousness but through a loyal animal desperately trying to save someone who does not understand that he is in danger.

Leonberg’s gamble — to build a horror chassis around a dog — pays off because Indy is not performing as a trained animal. He is responding. Feeling. Reacting with an authenticity no human could replicate. If the film unsettles, it is because Indy believes the house is wrong.

Where the Film Lands: Devotion as Haunting

For all its experiments in minimalism, Good Boy is ultimately not about ghosts or curses but about devotion. The supernatural presence may be indistinct, the pacing uneven, the tension sometimes stretched thin, but the thematic clarity never falters: a dog will follow you anywhere, even into the spaces where the living and the dead bleed together.

This is what elevates the film above mere gimmick or novelty. It does not anthropomorphise Indy; it recognises something purer — the instinctive loyalty, the unguarded love, the readiness to protect. In a genre built on human fragility, Good Boy dares to centre an animal’s emotional resilience.

The Prognosis:

Good Boy is a compelling addition to the minimalist horror boom, a film that combines handcrafted genre sensibilities with an unusual and affecting performance from its canine star. While its slender premise occasionally stretches too thin, and its pacing wavers under the constraints of its aesthetic, the film remains memorable for the very thing that makes it risky: its sincerity.

A haunting, heartfelt experiment that sometimes falters but never loses sight of the bond at its core.

  • Saul Muerte

Good Boy streams on Shudder from Nov 21