3. “When the Shark Never Died: Jaws and the Birth of the Franchise Machine”

The shark exploded. Literally. A scuba tank to the gut and a chunk of ocean sky lit up like the Fourth of July. Boom. Done. Fade to black. But of course, it wasn’t done.

Because Jaws didn’t just launch a blockbuster—it launched a beast. Not the kind with fins and teeth, but the kind that lives in boardrooms. The kind that smells profit in blood and doesn’t care who bleeds next.

Spielberg walked away. Smart move. He knew he’d pushed his luck once and nearly drowned doing it. But the studio? They smelled money—hot, salty, mid-’70s Americana money. Jaws made $100 million faster than any film before it. And when a monster does that, you don’t bury it. You build a theme park around it. You crank out sequels. You slap its name on lunchboxes, novelisations, jigsaw puzzles, Atari cartridges, and eventually, straight-to-cable sludge.

And so the shark came back. Again and again. Jaws 2 (not terrible, just toothless), Jaws 3-D (aka the fish tank screensaver from hell), and finally Jaws: The Revenge—a film so apocalyptically stupid it made Plan 9 from Outer Space look like Citizen Kane. This was where things got unhinged. The shark follows the Brody family from Amity to the Bahamas. It growls. It explodes in slow motion. It holds grudges. Somewhere, Moby Dick is rolling his eyes.

But here’s the rub: Jaws didn’t just franchise itself—it birthed the very concept of franchise-as-strategy. Before this, sequels were an afterthought, a maybe, a footnote. After Jaws, they became the plan. The future. The business model.

Studios started greenlighting entire trilogies before cameras rolled on the first frame. Intellectual property (IP) became the new oil, mined from the bones of old ideas. If it had a logo, it had legs. Star Wars, Rocky, Halloween, Alien—all in the wake of that fin cutting through the water. And that legacy only grew more grotesque in the 2000s. Prequels, reboots, cinematic universes. Every monster has a cousin. Every killer has an origin story. Every shark gets a spinoff.

You can see the DNA of Jaws in Jurassic Park, Pirates of the Caribbean, even Marvel. Big beast. Bigger box office. Bigger merchandising rollout. Spielberg didn’t just direct Jaws—he accidentally wrote the modern studio playbook, and then tried to outrun it.

And yet… through all the corporate feeding frenzy, the original remains untouched. Untarnished. Somehow, despite the cash-ins and copycats, Jaws still feels singular. A freak accident. A masterpiece birthed from chaos, not commerce. And maybe that’s why the shark never really died—because we keep coming back, not for the sequels or the plastic toys, but for the feeling. The quiet before the scream. The thrum of danger just beneath the surface. The electricity of a movie that didn’t know what it was until it was finished—and then couldn’t be replicated.

Franchise culture may have chummed the waters, but Jaws still swims alone.

  • Saul Muerte

2. “Out of Sight, Into Terror: Jaws as the Accidental Masterclass in Minimalist Horror”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Here’s the thing about the shark: it barely worked.

It sank. It stalled. It glitched and groaned and refused to cooperate. Nicknamed “Bruce” on set, the beast spent more time in dry dock than terrorising the screen. Spielberg was 26, sleep-deprived, in over his head, and rapidly learning the only thing scarier than a killer shark was a Universal executive demanding to know why the footage still wasn’t usable.

And somehow, that mechanical failure became a cinematic miracle.

Because what Spielberg did—what Jaws did—was weaponise absence. The shark, originally meant to be front and centre, became a whisper in the dark. A shape beneath the surface. A disturbance in the rhythm of things. You didn’t see it. You sensed it. And that, it turns out, is the oldest, darkest trick in the horror book.

The great lie of movie monsters is that we want to see them. We don’t. Not really. We want to imagine them. The moment you put teeth on screen, you give the audience a sense of control. You label the fear. Spielberg yanked that control away. With John Williams’ pulsing two-note theme doing all the heavy lifting, he transformed absence into dread. The water itself became the monster.

It was Hitchcock’s Psycho shower scene stretched over two hours—and soaked in salt. This wasn’t just an accident. It was an evolution.

The lineage is everywhere. Fast forward to 1999 and you’ve got The Blair Witch Project freaking people out with sticks and sobbing. Paranormal Activity builds its terror from night-vision nothingness. It Follows delivers slow, patient doom from offscreen threats. Even Ari Aster plays coy with his demons, knowing full well that what you don’t see can stick in the brain far longer than anything prosthetic or CGI.

But Jaws did it first—because it had no other choice. And that’s what makes it genius. The ocean becomes a canvas of paranoia. The camera lingers on legs dangling from piers, swimmers bobbing like bait, empty stretches of sea humming with invisible menace. You start scanning the horizon like your life depends on it. Spielberg took a broken prop and turned it into a philosophy: less is fear.

What’s wild is how this “restraint” has been almost entirely misunderstood by Hollywood ever since. In the years that followed, the pendulum swung back to spectacle. Bigger sharks, bigger blood, more teeth, more tech. Sequels gave us full-frontal fish. Other monster movies mistook visibility for effectiveness. But the terror in Jaws came from its limits. The scariest monster in movie history only appears on screen for about four minutes. And that’s all it needed.

Because fear, real fear, comes not from what’s in front of you—but what’s lurking just out of view. It’s the ripple. The shadow. The dark shape sliding silently beneath your feet.

And in that space—between the surface and the scream—Jaws lives on.

  • Saul Muerte

1. “The Shark That Ate the ‘70s: Jaws and the Death of the Director’s Decade”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The 1970s began with a bang. Or maybe a bottle being smashed in some dingy Manhattan dive bar by a furious auteur screaming about final cut. Either way, it was the era of the director as God: Altman, Coppola, Scorsese, Ashby, Friedkin. Films were messy, political, experimental, personal—shot through with cigarette smoke, New York grime, and the scent of celluloid freedom.

Then came the fin.

Jaws didn’t mean to kill anything. That’s the great irony. Spielberg was a film brat just like the others, trying to make his mark, trying to keep the camera dry and the production afloat. But when Jaws exploded at the box office—wide release, national marketing, TV spots, merchandising—the studios smelled blood in the water. And they didn’t just dip a toe in. They cannonballed.

Suddenly, the auteur was out, and the high-concept was in. You didn’t need a soul, just a hook. Something you could pitch in two words and poster in one: “The Shark.” “The Alien.” “The Ark.” The seismic success of Jaws set the table for Star Wars, Close Encounters, and the age of Event Cinema. The summer blockbuster was born, swaddled in popcorn grease and lit by the flicker of a thousand multiplex screens.

What died? Ambiguity. Risk. The kind of film where a character might sit in silence, drink whiskey, and tell you a story about the USS Indianapolis—without cutting away, without cutting corners, without caring if you were bored. That kind of patient tension would soon be carved up, streamlined, test-screened to death.

And it’s not Spielberg’s fault. He made a damn masterpiece. But he also gave the studios a blueprint: thrill them, brand it, repeat. What was once a wild landscape of rogue visionaries turned into a theme park, complete with merchandising stands and licensing deals. From the moment Jaws hit, the clock was ticking on the Director’s Decade. Within five years, the studios would have their claws back in the tiller, and the artists would be back to hustling for their next passion project on the sidelines.

But the irony’s saltier than the Atlantic: Jaws is a product of the very freedom it helped destroy. You feel it in the sweat on Roy Scheider’s brow, the simmering class tension between Brody, Hooper, and Quint, the silence that builds between John Williams’ stabs of dread. It’s not just spectacle—it’s cinema. Dangerous, uncertain, and tinged with fear. And maybe that’s why it resonates still: because it wasn’t meant to be a product. It just became one.

So yes, Jaws gave us the summer movie. But it also gave us the final act of New Hollywood, played out not in a boardroom, but on the high seas—with one man trying to keep control of a beast too big, too unruly, too monstrous to contain.

Sound familiar?

  • Saul Muerte

Still Waters Run Deep: 50 Years of Jaws”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A Multi-Angled Retrospective on the Film That Changed Everything

There’s blood in the water, and it never really cleared.

In the summer of 1975, a mechanical shark that barely worked chewed its way through film history, tore apart a sleepy seaside town, and accidentally invented the modern blockbuster. Jaws didn’t just change movies—it devoured them, spat out the bones, and called it summer. Fifty years later, we’re still paddling in its wake, trying to piece together how something this primal, this malfunctioning, this brilliant, took hold of the cultural imagination and refused to let go.

Yes, the stories are legend: Spielberg nearly broke, the shark that wouldn’t cooperate, the endless rewrites, the saltwater editing suite. But we’re not here to just rehash anecdotes. No, this is about mythmaking and myth-breaking. It’s about the movie that killed the decade it was born in. The movie that redefined what fear looked like, sounded like, and sold like. The movie that taught us not just to be afraid of the water—but to buy the T-shirt, the action figure, and the VHS re-release.

This anthology is a series of dispatches from the belly of the beast—cultural, cinematic, economic. Each essay peers down the gullet of Jaws from a different angle, chewing on its legacy with teeth bared. Because 50 years on, the fin may be distant, but the ripple it left on the surface? Still there. Still circling.

Now, let’s talk about how it all went south.

  • Saul Muerte

The Devil’s Rain (1975): Satanic Meltdowns and Star Power in a Slippery Cult Classic

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

When It Rains, It Melts: Revisiting The Devil’s Rain at 50

Half a century on, The Devil’s Rain remains one of the strangest artifacts of the 1970s occult horror boom—an overheated stew of devil worship, grotesque visuals, and unexpected A-list casting that somehow managed to attract both Hollywood veterans and rising stars into its dripping, gooey vortex.

Directed by Robert Fuest—best known for the eccentric Dr. Phibes films—The Devil’s Rain is deeply entrenched in the cultural anxieties and supernatural fascinations of its time. The film plays like a fever dream born of late-night TV evangelist warnings and paperback Satanic panic, spinning a tale of black masses, soul-selling contracts, and a cursed family line haunted by a vengeful cult leader.

That cult leader, Jonathan Corbis, is played with devilish relish by Ernest Borgnine, who flips his usual affable persona on its head. Decked out in robes and goat-like makeup by the climax, Borgnine is clearly having the time of his life. He’s surrounded by a wildly eclectic cast: William Shatner as the tormented hero, Ida Lupino as his doomed mother, Tom Skerritt as his psychic brother, and Keenan Wynn as a blustery local sheriff. Oh—and there’s a young, largely silent John Travolta in his first film role, just months before Welcome Back, Kotter launched him into stardom.

But for all its firepower in front of the camera, the film never quite coalesces into a satisfying whole. The plot is thin, stretched across loosely connected sequences of ritualistic mumbo jumbo and endless scenes of people melting into waxy goo beneath acid rain—an effect that, while memorable, wears thin. The much-hyped “incredible ending” involves an extended final act of meltdowns, betrayals, and demonic possession that’s more exhausting than exhilarating.

Still, there’s a goofy charm to the way The Devil’s Rain leans hard into its Satanic aesthetic. This was the era of The Exorcist, Race with the Devil, and The Omen—and The Devil’s Rain rides that same wave of occult obsession, just with less discipline and a lot more slime. The involvement of real-life Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey (credited as technical advisor and appearing onscreen) only adds to the gonzo credentials, even if the end result feels more theatrical than terrifying.

As a piece of horror history, The Devil’s Rain deserves a glance—not for its scares, but for its sheer audacity. It’s a wild blend of old Hollywood gravitas, ‘70s devil craze, and low-budget exploitation, all filtered through Fuest’s offbeat lens. Fifty years later, it’s more fun as a conversation piece than a horror classic, but there’s no denying: few films have ever gone down in flames quite like this.

  • Retrospective Review by Saul Muerte

Bug (1975): A B-Movie That Burns Bright—Then Fizzles

Tags

, , , ,

In 1975, Bug crawled out of the cracks in the earth and onto cinema screens, riding a wave of post-Exorcist horror hype and late-’70s disaster film mania. Directed by Jeannot Szwarc—who would go on to helm Jaws 2 and various genre television—this curious creature feature was billed as “Out of the worst nightmare!” but lands more as a fascinating oddity than an outright terror.

The story begins with an earthquake that unleashes a strain of prehistoric, fire-starting cockroaches from deep underground. These bugs are no ordinary pests; they ignite mayhem—literally—by setting fires across a small Southern California town. Into this chaos steps scientist James Parmiter (Bradford Dillman), whose obsession with the insects transforms the film from a town-in-peril B-movie into something stranger and more cerebral.

Despite its sensationalist setup, Bug is oddly divided. The first half plays like a classic man-vs-nature thriller in the mold of Them! or The Swarm, but the second half goes full mad science as Parmiter begins experimenting with the creatures, leading to unsettling results that are more philosophical than frightful. This tonal shift, while bold, doesn’t fully stick to the landing, and the pacing suffers as a result.

Still, Bug earns points for its ambition and its legacy. The film marks the final screenwriting credit for horror icon William Castle, best known for gimmick-laden hits like House on Haunted Hill and The Tingler. While Castle didn’t direct, his signature showmanship lingers in the premise: intelligent, pyrokinetic cockroaches are the sort of high-concept horror few studios would touch today.

The special effects, practical and charmingly clunky, embody the B-movie charm. Flames burst from cracks in walls, cockroaches crawl in erratic stop-motion patterns, and the film’s pseudo-scientific jargon is delivered with deadpan sincerity. Dillman’s lead performance is suitably obsessive, grounding the escalating absurdity in a brittle sense of purpose.

Fifty years on, Bug is best appreciated as a relic of a transitional period in horror—a bridge between the giant monster flicks of the ’50s and the grittier body horror of the ’80s. It’s not particularly scary, and it never reaches the heights it clearly aspires to, but there’s something compelling in its weird confidence.

Bug never fully delivers on the paranoia or pyrotechnics promised in its lurid marketing, but for fans of eco-horror and insect cinema, it remains a crispy curiosity worth digging up—just don’t expect it to set your world on fire.

  • 50th Anniversary Retrospective by Saul Muerte

Swinging Sixties Slasher in The Haunted House of Horror’s Lifeless Mystery

Tags

, ,

Frankie Avalon can’t save this creaky, confused slasher from itself.

Michael Armstrong’s The Haunted House of Horror promises much with its lurid title and mod-era setup, but the final product is a disappointingly tepid affair that never quite knows what it wants to be. Part swinging ’60s youth flick, part slasher prototype, and part drawing-room whodunit, the film struggles under the weight of its own confused identity—and the results are more boring than chilling.

The plot is familiar: a group of hip London teenagers (or at least actors playing them) decide to explore an abandoned mansion on a lark, only to be picked off one by one by an unseen killer. There’s potential here for either taut horror or campy fun, but The Haunted House of Horror commits to neither. The pacing is glacial, the tension limp, and the atmosphere undercut by odd tonal shifts and clunky dialogue.

The film seems content to coast on the marquee name of American teen idol Frankie Avalon, whose presence feels oddly out of place amidst the otherwise British cast. While he’s given the most screen time, his performance is stiff, and the script never gives him much to work with beyond furrowed brows and blank stares. Whatever youthful edge the film tries to evoke is lost in a fog of awkward character dynamics and wooden delivery.

What might have redeemed this clunky murder mystery is a satisfying twist or a killer finale—but The Haunted House of Horror fumbles that too. Its ambiguous ending, instead of offering intrigue or open-ended interpretation, feels more like a shrug. Who did it? Why? What does it mean? The film doesn’t seem all that interested in answering.

Despite a few stylish flourishes and some decent cinematography in its haunted corridors, The Haunted House of Horror lacks the bite or blood to stand out among its late-’60s horror contemporaries. It’s a curiosity piece at best—a relic trying to cash in on both the horror boom and the youth market and succeeding at neither.

  • 1960s Retrospective review by Saul Muerte

“Consecration: A Beautifully Shot Descent into a Convoluted Mystery”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Director Christopher Smith (Triangle, Severance, Creep) has long walked the fine line between genre smarts and psychological thrills. With Consecration, he returns to familiar territory: isolation, trauma, and the gnawing sense that reality is unspooling by divine design—or perhaps something darker. Unfortunately, despite a stellar cast and evocative visuals, this theological thriller never quite delivers the clarity or momentum it promises.

At the centre of the story is Grace, played with icy restraint and wounded conviction by Jena Malone, who travels to a remote convent in the Scottish Highlands after the supposed suicide of her priest brother. It’s no spoiler to say she doesn’t buy the Church’s official line. What follows is a grim unpicking of spiritual rot, ancient rites, and personal demons—literal and otherwise.

Malone is a reliably magnetic presence, giving Grace a cold, coiled intensity. She’s in nearly every frame and carries the film with a quiet sense of fury, even when the script leaves her wandering in narrative fog. Danny Huston, meanwhile, brings a slippery, unsettling charm to his role as Father Romero—a man whose calm demeanour suggests he’s either a holy man or something far more manipulative. Their scenes together crackle with tension, even if the broader story never quite catches fire.

Visually, Consecration is arresting. Robert Adams’ cinematography makes the windswept cliffs and ancient stone interiors of the convent feel appropriately ominous and otherworldly. There’s a chilling stillness to the imagery, as though the land itself has been cursed. Smith knows how to set a mood, and he does so beautifully here, evoking The Ninth Configuration by way of The Nun.

But for all its atmosphere, Consecration stumbles under the weight of its convoluted plot. Flashbacks, hallucinations, religious visions, and a not-so-linear structure make for an increasingly confusing experience. Smith is no stranger to twisty storytelling—Triangle remains a standout in that regard—but here the puzzle-box elements feel murky rather than mind-bending. The story moves slowly, and its pacing often saps the tension that the setting and premise so deftly establish.

By the time the “revelations” arrive, they’re less shocking than they are baffling, tipping the film into a kind of Doctor Who-style timey-wimey terrain that doesn’t mesh with the grounded horror of its opening acts. It’s a tonal mismatch, and one that ultimately dulls the emotional impact of the finale.

Still, there’s something admirable about the ambition on display. Consecration isn’t content to offer up surface-level scares. It aims for spiritual unease and existential horror, and when it clicks, it’s genuinely unsettling. But in the end, the execution can’t match the ambition.

A gorgeous, well-acted descent into faith and madness—but one that loses its way somewhere along the sacred path.

  • Saul Muerte

Consecration will be available on UK Digital Platforms from 16th June.

“In Her Skin: The Stylist and the High Cost of Belonging”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Streaming on Shudder and AMC+ from Monday 16 June

Beneath its softly lit salons and the hushed intimacy of late-night haircuts, The Stylist carves out something far more unsettling: a psychological portrait of aching loneliness, identity collapse, and the monstrous lengths some will go to feel like they belong. Directed with eerie precision by Jill Gevargizian, this feature-length adaptation of her acclaimed short film offers a muted but effective horror tale that leans more into sadness than shocks.

Claire (Najarra Townsend) is a woman adrift—quiet, awkward, desperate to connect—but with a hunger that’s gone grotesquely unmet. She doesn’t just cut hair. She scalps. Each kill is not about violence for its own sake, but a tragic, chilling attempt to wear someone else’s life. And that’s where The Stylist cuts deepest—not in the gore, but in its exploration of identity as a fragile performance, and what happens when someone can no longer locate their own sense of self.

Enter Olivia (Brea Grant), an affable, outgoing bride-to-be who naively invites Claire deeper into her world. From there, the spiral is slow and agonising. What starts as admiration curdles into obsession. Claire’s need to be Olivia isn’t just jealousy—it’s pathological yearning. Her scalping isn’t about trophies in the serial killer sense. It’s about transference. Taking the one thing a person can’t fake: their presence, their social ease, their confidence. Claire doesn’t want to destroy—she wants to inhabit.

Townsend delivers a superb, painfully internal performance. Her Claire is meek but never blank—each nervous twitch and downward glance revealing someone quietly screaming behind her skin. She doesn’t play the killer as a monster, but as a woman in mourning—for connection, for warmth, for identity. It’s a performance that sticks with you. Brea Grant, meanwhile, plays Olivia with a brightness that never tips into caricature, making her slow realisation all the more tragic.

Stylistically, the film is polished, with an elegant aesthetic that contrasts beautifully with its macabre subject matter. There are echoes of Maniac, May, even Single White Female, but The Stylist stands on its own, particularly in how grounded its emotional horror remains. The mood is heavy, sometimes to a fault, with pacing that occasionally feels listless rather than deliberate. Still, the thematic undercurrents—how we mask our emptiness, how we covet others’ confidence like currency—are deeply resonant.

There’s a sadness in the scissors. In the need to be seen. In the horror of invisibility. The Stylist doesn’t reinvent the horror genre, but it delivers something more haunting than expected: a quiet eulogy for those who never quite found their place, and the darkness that fills the void.

  • Saul Muerte

Englund, Harris, Moseley—Wasted on a Toothless Slasher

Tags

, , , ,

Trick, no treat: A horror legend trio wasted on a forgettable fright night

Directed by Dwight H. Little, Natty Knocks arrives with a nostalgic promise—one rooted in its genre-savvy casting. With horror icons Bill Moseley, Danielle Harris, and Robert Englund all appearing in the same film, expectations are understandably raised. Unfortunately, what unfolds is a tepid, undercooked Halloween flick that feels more like a missed opportunity than a macabre thrill ride.

Set on Halloween Eve, the story follows Britt (Charlotte Fountain-Jardim), a babysitter tasked with protecting a group of kids from Abner Honeywell, a deranged killer who is also the son of a B-movie scream queen known as “Natty Knocks.” It’s a set-up that might have worked better had the film leaned harder into its retro horror roots, or capitalised on its intriguing central lore. Instead, the narrative plods along with soft suspense and little impact.

Bill Moseley plays it straight but subdued, a far cry from his unhinged roles in House of 1000 Corpses or The Devil’s Rejects. Danielle Harris, often a reliable presence in indie horror, is underused here, while Robert Englund—despite a brief and welcome appearance—feels more like stunt casting than a meaningful addition. The trio’s collective legacy deserves better than what the film ultimately offers.

Technically, the film struggles with uneven pacing and flat direction. There are a few stylistic touches and the occasional attempt at atmosphere, but none of it ever quite gels. The kills are mostly offscreen or uninspired, and the tension rarely rises above a simmer.

In the end, Natty Knocks tries to dress up a bare-bones slasher with legacy casting and light folklore, but it doesn’t have the teeth to break through the noise. For fans of Moseley, Harris, or Englund, there’s some fleeting curiosity value. For everyone else, it’s a Halloween story better left untold.

  • Movie Review by Saul Muerte

Natty Knocks is available to rent or buy now.