Tag Archives: film

Buried Deep: Hokum (2026)

08 Friday May 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

With Hokum, writer-director Damian McCarthy continues his ascent as one of contemporary horror’s most distinctive voices — a storyteller deeply attuned to atmosphere, folklore, and the psychological wounds that fester beneath grief.

Following the unnerving precision of his earlier work, McCarthy delivers perhaps his most accessible feature to date, but crucially, accessibility does not come at the expense of identity. Hokum still bears all the hallmarks of his cinema: oppressive mood, fractured psyches, dark humour, and mythology that feels less invented than unearthed.

This is horror that creeps rather than lunges.
A ghost story told through rot, memory, and rebirth.

The Inn as Psychological Mausoleum

The premise is deceptively intimate. Novelist Ohm Bauman retreats to a remote inn to scatter his parents’ ashes, only to become entangled in whispers surrounding a witch tied to the building’s infamous honeymoon suite.

But McCarthy understands that isolated settings are never merely locations. They are psychological extensions of the characters trapped within them.

The inn in Hokum becomes a liminal space suspended between mourning and transformation — a decaying threshold where unresolved trauma manifests through folklore and hallucination alike. Every creaking corridor and dimly lit room feels infected by memory.

The one-location approach works beautifully here, amplifying the claustrophobia while forcing the audience into the same suffocating emotional space as Ohm himself.

Folklore as Emotional Architecture

What separates McCarthy’s work from more conventional supernatural horror is the way he embeds folklore into the emotional core of his narratives.

The mythology in Hokum never feels expositional or over-explained. Instead, it exists like oral tradition — fragmented stories passed down, distorted through fear and repetition. The witch haunting the inn becomes less a singular entity and more a manifestation of communal grief and inherited guilt.

McCarthy understands an essential truth about folklore:
its power lies not in certainty, but in ambiguity.

The horror emerges from what cannot be fully understood.

Grief, Decay, and Rebirth

Beneath its supernatural framework, Hokum is fundamentally a film about grief — specifically the way grief reshapes identity.

Ohm’s journey is not simply about uncovering the inn’s secrets, but confronting the emotional debris left behind by loss. McCarthy explores mourning as something cyclical and transformative, where death inevitably gives rise to reinvention, however painful.

This theme of rebirth surfaces repeatedly through the film’s recurring rabbit iconography — creatures traditionally associated with fertility, resurrection, and transition between worlds. Here, the rabbit imagery becomes deeply uncanny, suggesting both vulnerability and metamorphosis.

It is one of the film’s most effective symbolic threads, quietly reinforcing the idea that trauma changes us into something new… whether we wish it to or not.

Humour in the Darkness

What makes Hokum particularly compelling is its willingness to puncture its own dread with moments of dry, almost uncomfortable black humour.

McCarthy has become increasingly adept at balancing tonal shifts without collapsing the atmosphere entirely. The humour here does not undercut the horror; it humanises it. It reminds us that absurdity often accompanies grief, that fear and laughter are not opposites but uneasy companions.

This tonal elasticity gives the film texture, preventing it from disappearing entirely into self-seriousness.

Damian McCarthy’s Rising Voice

With Hokum, McCarthy further establishes himself as part of a modern wave of horror filmmakers reclaiming atmosphere and folklore as vehicles for deeply personal storytelling.

There are traces of classic ghost stories here, certainly, but also something distinctly contemporary in the film’s focus on emotional inheritance and psychological fragmentation.

More importantly, McCarthy continues to trust the audience — resisting over-explanation in favour of mood, suggestion, and symbolism. In an era where many horror films feel compelled to spell out their mythology, Hokum allows mystery to remain unsettlingly intact.

The Prognosis:

Hokum is another strong entry in Damian McCarthy’s growing body of work — a haunting, folkloric meditation on grief, identity, and transformation wrapped inside an eerie one-location nightmare.

Atmospheric, psychologically rich horror that finds beauty in decay and terror in rebirth.

  • Saul Muerte

Faith in the Fire: Heresy (2026)

29 Wednesday Apr 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

There is a quiet severity to Heresy, a film that understands that true horror rarely announces itself with spectacle. Instead, it festers — in doctrine, in fear, in the fragile structures of belief that govern isolated communities. Premiering as a Shudder exclusive, this medieval folk horror leans into atmosphere and allegory, delivering a compact yet thematically dense meditation on faith, repression, and the unseen forces that thrive in both.

The Weight of Belief

Set within a remote Dutch village, Heresy wastes little time establishing its suffocating world. This is a society bound not just by geography, but by rigid religious doctrine — where faith is less a comfort and more a mechanism of control.

At the centre is a young woman caught in the crossfire between personal conviction and communal expectation, portrayed with quiet intensity by Anneke Sluiters. Her performance anchors the film, embodying both vulnerability and a simmering resistance that threatens to rupture the oppressive order around her.

Supporting turns from Len Leo Vincent and Reinout Bussemaker reinforce the film’s central tension — figures who oscillate between protectors of faith and enforcers of fear.

Folklore as Fear Language

Where Heresy distinguishes itself is in its use of folklore as both texture and threat.

The woods that loom on the outskirts of the village are more than a setting — they are a repository of whispered myths, ancestral warnings, and half-forgotten truths. The film draws on the traditions of European folk horror, where superstition and reality blur into something indistinguishable.

Witchcraft here is not simply an external evil, but a projection of collective anxiety. It is the language through which the village explains its suffering — failed crops, illness, unrest — and, more disturbingly, justifies its cruelty.

In this sense, Heresy aligns itself with the lineage of folk horror that sees mythology not as fantasy, but as a mirror of societal fear.

Compression and Constraint

At a brisk runtime, the film packs an impressive amount into its frame: hardship, religious suppression, gendered control, and the ever-present spectre of the supernatural.

Yet this compression is both its strength and its limitation.

There is an urgency to the storytelling — a sense that the narrative is racing to articulate its ideas before time runs out. While this lends the film a certain intensity, it occasionally comes at the expense of deeper exploration. Themes are introduced with potency, but not always given the space to fully resonate.

Aesthetic of Austerity

Visually, Heresy embraces restraint. The palette is muted, the compositions stark, reinforcing a world stripped of comfort. Interiors feel claustrophobic, exteriors indifferent. Light is scarce, and when it appears, it feels less like hope and more like exposure.

The sound design complements this austerity, favouring silence and ambient unease over overt musical cues. It is a film that understands the power of absence — of what is suggested rather than shown.

The Horror Within

What lingers most is not the presence of dark forces in the woods, but the behaviour of those within the village walls.

Heresy suggests that fanaticism is its own form of possession — that belief, when weaponised, can be as destructive as any supernatural entity. The true terror lies in how quickly fear transforms into persecution, how readily communities turn inward to purge what they do not understand.

The Prognosis:

Heresy is a thoughtful, if slightly constrained, entry into the folk horror canon — one that balances atmosphere and allegory with a commendable sense of purpose.

A compact and compelling meditation on faith, folklore, and fear, where the line between the supernatural and the societal is unsettlingly thin.

  • Saul Muerte

Heresy Premieres Exclusively on Shudder and AMC+ Friday 1 May

Death Never Looked So Good: Tales from the Crypt Rises Again

27 Monday Apr 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

There are horror anthologies… and then there is Tales from the Crypt — a series that didn’t just push boundaries, it gleefully dismembered them, stitched them back together, and laughed in your face as the blood pooled at your feet.

Now, with its resurrection on Shudder, a whole new generation is about to discover what made this corpse such a vital, beating heart of ‘90s horror television.

And for those of us who grew up on it?
This is less a rewatch… and more a reunion with an old accomplice.

The Crypt Keeper Cometh

Front and centre — always — is the grotesque ringmaster himself: Crypt Keeper, voiced with deliciously deranged glee by John Kassir.

He wasn’t just a host.
He was a provocateur. A comedian. A corpse with better timing than most living actors.

Each episode began and ended with his signature brand of pun-laden sadism — a tonal mission statement that told you exactly what you were in for:
this was horror with a grin… and a knife behind its back.

EC Comics DNA: Morality With Bite

Adapted from the infamous EC Comics of the 1950s, Tales from the Crypt carried forward a very specific ethos:

Bad people will suffer.
And they will suffer poetically.

Greed. Lust. Jealousy. Betrayal.
Every sin had its price — and the show delighted in collecting.

What made it land wasn’t just the comeuppance, but the ironic symmetry of it all. These weren’t random acts of violence; they were carefully constructed moral traps snapping shut.

A Playground for the Bold

What truly set the series apart was its ability to attract — and unleash — top-tier talent.

Directors like Robert Zemeckis, Tobe Hooper, and William Friedkin brought their distinct voices to the format, often experimenting in ways that traditional cinema wouldn’t allow.

And then there’s the cast — an almost absurd roll call of talent:

Brad Pitt, Demi Moore, John Lithgow, Christopher Reeve, Catherine O’Hara, Steve Buscemi, Brooke Shields — all stepping into this macabre sandbox.

Even behind the camera, names like Tom Hanks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Michael J. Fox took turns directing.

This wasn’t just television.
It was a creative free-for-all.

Gore, Guts, and Glorious Excess

Freed from the constraints of network censorship, Tales from the Crypt revelled in its HBO-backed excess.

The gore was unapologetic.
The language unfiltered.
The tone wildly unpredictable.

One week you’d get pitch-black comedy.
The next, a genuinely unsettling psychological descent.
Then a full-blown creature feature just for good measure.

It was this tonal elasticity that made the series so addictive — you never quite knew what flavour of horror you were about to consume.

The Anthology That Shaped a Generation

Long before the current resurgence of anthology horror, Tales from the Crypt set the template:

Self-contained stories.
Bold creative voices.
A willingness to be weird, nasty, and darkly funny.

You can trace its DNA through modern successors, but few capture that same gleeful irreverence.

Why It Still Matters

Revisiting Tales from the Crypt now, there’s a refreshing lack of restraint. It doesn’t second-guess itself. It doesn’t sand down its edges. It simply commits — to the bit, to the gore, to the punchline.

In an era where horror can sometimes feel overly polished or self-serious, this series remains a reminder that the genre can be:

funny, vicious, stylish… and just a little bit mean.

With its arrival on Shudder, Tales from the Crypt isn’t just being revived — it’s being reunleashed.

And if you’re willing to step back into its coffin-shaped world, one thing becomes immediately clear:

Some stories never die.
They just wait… for the right time to dig themselves back up.

  • Saul Muerte

Tales From the Crypt Series Premieres Exclusively on Shudder and AMC+ Friday 1 May on Shudder

Rituals in Ruin: 28 Years Later: Bone Temple (2026)

25 Saturday Apr 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

There is a point, deep into 28 Years Later: Bone Temple, where the infection — once a visceral, immediate terror — gives way to something far more unsettling: myth. Not just survival, not just rage, but ritual. What emerges from the ashes of civilisation is not merely chaos, but structure — and with it, a far more disquieting question about what humanity becomes when it has time to adapt to horror.

If earlier entries in the franchise were defined by urgency and collapse, Bone Temple is defined by aftermath.

From Infection to Ideology

Where 28 Days Later thrived on momentum — the frantic unravelling of society — Bone Temple slows the pulse to examine what lingers. The infected are no longer simply a threat; they are part of an ecosystem, one that survivors have begun to interpret, mythologise, even weaponise.

The titular “Bone Temple” is less a location than an idea — a manifestation of humanity’s desperate need to impose meaning on the incomprehensible. Structures built from death, rituals carved out of trauma, belief systems emerging in the vacuum left behind by the old world.

This is horror evolving into anthropology.

Nia DaCosta’s Controlled Descent

Under the direction of Nia DaCosta, the film takes on a markedly different tonal register from its predecessors. Where once chaos reigned, DaCosta imposes a sense of deliberate control — not to diminish the horror, but to refine it.

Her approach is patient, almost observational. She allows dread to accumulate rather than erupt, trusting the audience to sit within discomfort. It’s a bold pivot that may alienate those expecting relentless intensity, but it ultimately enriches the film’s thematic ambitions. DaCosta is less interested in jump scares than in cultural decay, in how societies rebuild themselves around trauma.

The Aesthetic of Decay

Visually, the film leans into a stark, almost reverential depiction of ruin. Landscapes feel less abandoned than reclaimed, nature and decay intertwining with the remnants of human architecture. There is a quiet, oppressive beauty to it — a sense that the world has moved on, even if humanity has not.

The camera lingers. It observes. It allows the audience to sit within this new order, rather than recoil from it.

And in doing so, it reinforces the film’s central thesis: that horror, when sustained long enough, ceases to be an interruption and becomes a state of being.

Performance and Presence

At the centre of this evolving world stands Ralph Fiennes, delivering a performance that is as measured as it is magnetic. There is a quiet authority to his presence — one that suggests a man who has not only survived the collapse, but adapted to it in ways that are morally ambiguous at best.

Fiennes resists grandiosity. Instead, he leans into restraint, allowing subtle shifts in expression and tone to carry weight. It is a performance that mirrors the film itself: controlled, deliberate, and quietly unsettling.

Violence Recontextualised

The violence here is markedly different from the raw, chaotic brutality of earlier instalments. It is no less shocking, but it is more deliberate. Where once it was survival-driven, now it carries intention — ritualistic, symbolic, sometimes even performative.

This shift is crucial. It reframes the infected not just as antagonists, but as catalysts for transformation. The real horror lies not in their existence, but in how the uninfected respond to it.

Sound, Memory, and Cultural Echoes

One of the film’s most striking sequences is underscored by the unmistakable presence of Iron Maiden — a choice that feels both anachronistic and eerily appropriate. The music cuts through the film’s otherwise restrained sonic landscape, injecting a jolt of cultural memory into a world that has largely lost its connection to the past.

It’s a reminder that even in collapse, fragments of identity persist. Music, like ritual, becomes a bridge between what was and what remains.

Echoes of the Past

Fans of the original will find a quiet but meaningful connection in the appearance of Cillian Murphy, whose cameo serves less as fan service and more as a spectral reminder of the franchise’s origins. His presence underscores the passage of time — not just within the narrative, but within the cultural memory of the series itself.

It is brief, but resonant.

A Demanding Evolution

This is not a film interested in easy engagement.

Its pacing is measured, occasionally to the point of frustration. Its narrative resists clear answers, favouring ambiguity and thematic exploration over plot-driven clarity. Characters are often secondary to the world they inhabit — vessels through which ideas are explored rather than traditional protagonists to root for.

For some, this will feel like a betrayal of the franchise’s origins.

For others, it will feel like its natural evolution.

The Prognosis:

28 Years Later: Bone Temple is a bold, highbrow extension of a franchise that could easily have settled into repetition. Instead, it pivots toward something more reflective, more unsettling, and ultimately more enduring.

A meditative, ritualistic descent into post-apocalyptic identity, where the true horror is not the infection, but the meaning we build around it.

  • Saul Muerte

Innocence Unleashed: Who Can Kill a Child? (1976)

25 Saturday Apr 2026

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

There are few films that confront the audience with a question so blunt, so morally paralysing, as Who Can Kill a Child?. Directed by Chicho Ibáñez Serrador, this unnerving slice of Spanish horror does not rely on elaborate mythology or baroque excess. Instead, it weaponises something far more disquieting:

Innocence itself.

The Horror of the Unthinkable

From its opening frames, Serrador signals his intent. A montage of real-world images — war, famine, suffering — grounds the film in a recognisable reality, implicating humanity long before the narrative begins. By the time the English couple arrive on the sun-drenched island of Almanzora, the question has already been posed, quietly but insistently:

What have we done to the world… and what might the next generation do in return?

What follows is a slow unravelling. The absence of adults is not immediately terrifying — merely strange, faintly uncanny. Children play, laugh, and watch. Always watching. It is in their stillness, their smiles, that Serrador finds his dread.

There is no rush to violence. Only the creeping realisation that something is profoundly, irrevocably wrong.

Sunlight as Terror

Unlike the shadow-drenched gothic traditions of horror, Who Can Kill a Child? unfolds largely in broad daylight. The Mediterranean setting — bright, open, deceptively serene — becomes a stage for unease.

Serrador understands that horror need not hide in darkness. Here, it thrives in exposure.

The empty streets, the echo of footsteps, the oppressive quiet of a village stripped of its adult presence — all contribute to an atmosphere that feels less like a nightmare and more like a waking dread. The world is visible, tangible… and entirely hostile.

Morality as the True Battleground

The film’s most enduring power lies in its central dilemma. As the threat becomes undeniable, the question ceases to be abstract.

It becomes immediate. Personal. Inescapable.

Who can kill a child?

Serrador refuses easy answers. The film does not revel in violence, nor does it offer catharsis. Instead, it traps both its characters and its audience within an ethical paradox — survival demands an unthinkable act, yet to commit it is to cross a line that cannot be uncrossed.

In this way, the film transcends its premise. It is not simply about killer children — a trope that would later be explored in films like Children of the Corn — but about the collapse of moral certainty under extreme conditions.

A Measured, Relentless Descent

Serrador’s pacing is deliberate, almost clinical. The tension builds not through escalation, but through accumulation — each moment adding weight to an already suffocating atmosphere.

If there is a flaw, it lies in this restraint. The film’s commitment to its central conceit occasionally limits its emotional range, keeping the characters at a slight remove. We observe their descent more than we fully inhabit it.

And yet, this distance may well be intentional. A buffer between the viewer and the horror they are being asked to contemplate.

Legacy of Unease

Decades on, Who Can Kill a Child? remains one of the most unsettling entries in European horror — not because of what it shows, but because of what it demands.

It asks the audience to consider the unthinkable… and then refuses to let them look away.

In an era where horror often seeks to shock through excess, Serrador’s film endures through precision. Through the careful construction of a scenario in which there are no good choices — only consequences.

The Prognosis:

Who Can Kill a Child? is not an easy film to watch, nor is it meant to be. It is a moral provocation wrapped in the guise of horror, a work that lingers not in the memory of its images, but in the weight of its question.

A chilling, sunlit nightmare that transforms innocence into terror, and forces us to confront the limits of our own humanity.

  • Saul Muerte

Playtime Turns Predatory: Dolly

23 Thursday Apr 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

There is a familiar rhythm to Dolly, a film that arrives wrapped in the well-worn trappings of captivity horror and slasher sensibilities, yet occasionally hints at something more psychologically curious beneath its surface. Premiering as a Shudder original, it treads a precarious line between formula and subversion — rarely straying too far from the former, but not entirely devoid of the latter.

A Familiar Game of Survival

At its core, Dolly is disarmingly simple. A young woman, Macy — played with a grounded resilience by Fabianne Therese — is abducted by a grotesque, childlike figure intent on “raising” her. The premise is unsettling in theory, tapping into distorted notions of family, control, and psychological regression.

In execution, however, the film largely adheres to a paint-by-numbers structure. The beats are recognisable: capture, resistance, escalation, and survival. Tension rises and falls in expected intervals, rarely deviating from the genre’s established blueprint.

Flashes Beneath the Surface

And yet, it would be reductive to dismiss Dolly entirely.

There are fleeting moments — brief, almost intrusive — where the film gestures toward a more complex identity. The central antagonist, portrayed with unnerving physicality by Max the Impaler, carries a disquieting blend of menace and arrested development. The idea of imposed infantilisation, of forced dependency, lingers as an underexplored but compelling thematic thread.

Similarly, the inclusion of dark humour — often abrupt, sometimes jarring — suggests a film aware of its own absurdity, even if it struggles to fully integrate that awareness into a cohesive tone.

Violence as Punctuation

Where Dolly finds its most immediate impact is in its bursts of gore. These moments arrive sporadically, punctuating the narrative with flashes of brutality that momentarily jolt the film to life.

They are effective, if fleeting — less a sustained atmosphere of dread than intermittent reminders of the stakes. In this sense, the film operates more as a sequence of peaks and valleys than a steadily mounting crescendo.

The Weight of Simplicity

The film’s greatest strength — its simplicity — ultimately becomes its limitation.

By adhering so closely to familiar genre mechanics, Dolly never quite earns the psychological depth it gestures toward. Its exploration of trauma, control, and identity remains surface-level, hinted at rather than interrogated.

Even performances from recognisable faces like Seann William Scott and Ethan Suplee feel underutilised, existing more as texture than as integral components of the narrative.

The Prognosis:

Dolly is a film caught between impulses — the desire to deliver straightforward genre thrills and the ambition to probe something darker, more psychological. It succeeds intermittently on both fronts, but never fully commits to either.

A serviceable slasher with flashes of twisted promise, where moments of gore and uneasy humour briefly break through an otherwise familiar and simplistic framework.

  • Saul Muerte

Dolly streams on Shudder from Fri 24th April.

Dark Nights Film Fest V.3: Surgery on the Soul of Modern Horror

14 Tuesday Apr 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

There’s a growing divide within modern horror.

On one side, the polished and palatable—the algorithm-friendly nightmares designed to deliver quick shocks and clean resolutions. On the other, something far more insidious: films that resist structure, that burrow into the psyche, and refuse to offer the audience the comfort of escape.

It’s within this latter space that Dark Nights Film Fest has firmly embedded itself.

Returning for its third iteration on October 10 at The Reservoir Cinema in Sydney, Dark Nights Film Fest V.3 continues its quiet, calculated dissection of what horror can be when it is stripped back to its rawest nerve endings. This is not a festival concerned with spectacle—it is concerned with sensation. With unease. With the lingering afterimage.

From its inception, Dark Nights has operated less like a traditional festival and more like a curatorial scalpel, carving out a space for filmmakers who exist on the fringes of genre. Those who understand that true horror is not always seen—but felt. A slow infection rather than a sudden shock.

Festival Director and Curator Bryn Tilly articulates this ethos with precision: this is not a platform for safe horror. It is a space for works that feel almost unnatural in their existence—films that challenge, provoke, and destabilise.

And in many ways, this philosophy aligns with the core of what Surgeons of Horror has long explored: the idea that horror, at its most potent, functions as a form of psychological excavation. A peeling back of layers to expose something uncomfortable, something unresolved.

Dark Nights Film Fest V.3 sharpens this focus even further through its pared-back, single-night format. There is no excess here—only intention. Each film selected is part of a carefully constructed experience designed to immerse audiences in a continuum of dread, where the boundaries between stories begin to blur into a singular, oppressive atmosphere.

It’s also worth noting the festival’s continued commitment to nurturing new voices—not only through its short film program but via its unproduced screenplay competition. In an industry often dominated by established names and recognisable formulas, this remains a vital artery for fresh, unfiltered perspectives to emerge.

Recognition from Dread Central—which listed Dark Nights among the “90 Best Genre Film Festivals on Earth – 2025”—only reinforces what many within the horror community are already beginning to understand: that this is a festival less concerned with growth in size, and more invested in depth of impact.

Because horror, in its purest form, has never been about comfort.

It is about confrontation.

It is about forcing an audience to sit with something they would rather avoid.

Dark Nights Film Fest V.3 doesn’t just programme films—it curates experiences that linger in the subconscious, resurfacing long after the screen has gone dark.

For filmmakers, the invitation is clear: abandon restraint. Reject convention. Submit the work that feels too strange, too confrontational, too much.

Because those are often the films that matter most.

Submissions are now open via FilmFreeway, with deadlines running through to August 30.

For audiences, October 10 marks an opportunity not simply to watch horror—but to undergo it.

And as any good surgeon knows… the deeper the incision, the more revealing the outcome.

  • Saul Muerte

Dark Nights Film Fest – V.3

The Reservoir Cinema, Sydney – October 10

Submissions via FilmFreeway.com/DarkNightsFilmFest

Deadlines:

Earlybird – April 30, Regular – June 21 , Late – August 2, Final – August 30  

For festival info and submission guidelines, visit darknightsfilmfest.com

The Sound of Silence: Undertone (2026)

13 Monday Apr 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

There is a quiet audacity to Undertone — a film that dares to strip horror back to its barest components and, in doing so, exposes both the potency and the peril of minimalism. Where many genre efforts lean into excess — of imagery, of narrative, of shock — Undertone instead retreats inward, crafting an experience defined less by what is shown than by what is felt.

It is, for better and worse, a film built on absence.

Less as Language

Minimalism in cinema is often misunderstood as restraint for its own sake. In Undertone, it becomes a language — one that communicates through negative space, elongated silence, and the careful withholding of information.

The narrative itself is skeletal, almost deliberately so, allowing themes of grief, emotional suppression, and psychological entrapment to seep through the cracks rather than announce themselves outright. Characters feel less like fully articulated individuals and more like vessels for internal states — fractured, repressed, and quietly unraveling.

This approach is undeniably immersive… but also demanding.

The Power of Sound

If Undertone has a defining strength, it lies in its sonic architecture.

Sound here is not merely accompaniment — it is the film’s primary instrument of tension. Subtle shifts in tone, the intrusion of low-frequency hums, the absence of expected auditory cues — all contribute to a sense of unease that lingers beneath the surface.

In many ways, Undertone aligns itself with traditions of psychological horror that privilege atmosphere over spectacle. It understands that fear often resides not in what we see, but in what we anticipate — and what we cannot quite place.

The result is a film that listens as much as it shows.

The Slow Burn of Suppression

Thematically, Undertone is preoccupied with what happens when emotion is buried rather than expressed. Grief, in particular, becomes a suffocating presence — not explosive, but corrosive. It manifests in the stillness, in the hesitation, in the inability of its characters to confront what lies beneath.

This is horror as internalised pressure.

The pacing reflects this intent. Scenes linger. Moments stretch. Time itself feels elongated, mirroring the psychological stasis of its characters. For some, this will read as hypnotic — an invitation to sit within discomfort. For others, it may verge on inertia.

Minimalism as Double-Edged Sword

And here lies the film’s central tension.

The same minimalism that gives Undertone its identity also limits its reach. The scarcity of overt scares, the deliberate narrative opacity, and the glacial pacing risk alienating viewers who seek more immediate engagement.

There are moments where the film feels on the cusp of revelation — where its restraint might give way to something more tangible — only to retreat once again into ambiguity. This can be frustrating, particularly when the emotional payoff does not fully match the investment required.

Yet to criticise Undertone for this is also to acknowledge its commitment. It refuses to compromise its vision, even when that vision narrows its audience.

The Prognosis:

Undertone is a film that exists in the margins — of sound, of space, of emotion. It is an exercise in restraint that occasionally teeters into limitation, but never without purpose.

A haunting, slow-burning meditation on grief and suppression, where minimalism becomes both its greatest strength and its most significant constraint.

  • Saul Muerte

Undertone is currently screening in cinemas nationwide

Ready or Not… It’s Hunting Season Again

07 Tuesday Apr 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

5…4…3…2…1…. Ready or not, here it comes!

A sequel to 2019’s Ready or Not.

There are many angles this review could take, but regular readers will probably think we’ll go through the Six Qualities that make a good sequel checklist. And you’d be right.

  • Does it respect the first film and not shit on it?
  • Is it just a carbon copy of the first film?
  • Is it just a carbon copy of the first film, but “bigger” and nothing more?
  • Does it add/expand on the legend/universe started by the first film?
  • Does it still stay within the SAME SPIRIT established by the first film?
  • Does it stand on its own 2 feet as a standalone film?

Before we go through these points, just a quick recap. In the first movie a young woman – Grace – marries into an uber rich family. It’s established she has no living relatives, so marrying for big love and even bigger money is pretty much jackpot for her! Cue the night of the wedding, and Grace’s new husband tells her his clan has a tradition where any newcomer must play a game with them. Over the years they have made a fortune selling boardgames, so as traditions go, it’s quirky more than weird. That is until Grace pulls a playing card to determine what kind of game they’ll be enjoying, and the card says “hide ‘n’ seek”. Said fam then all try and kill Grace in their giant mansion by sunrise – otherwise their mysterious benefactor; who has bestowed upon them all their family’s good fortune and glory – will be displeased. And will appear and kill them all if Grace is not caught. And the dude is basically the devil.

So onto movie 2, which would have been waaaay cooler if the #2 hadn’t appeared in the title. I mean from a marketing perspective I get it, people are idiots, but if the sequel to Ready or Not was just actually Ready or Not, Here I Come… that would have been awesome along the lines of Aliens to Alien. Prey to Predator. Happy Death Day 2U to Happy Death Day. As this fits into Point # 7 (which is not mandatory) Does it have a cool title that doesn’t have a number tagged on the end (like most sequels do) or a subtitle? Eg: Indiana Jones and the ever- decreasing quality of adventure.

Anyway – this new instalment literally picks up from the last scene of the last movie, and Grace – it is revealed – has a sister! And if you think that feels like a jammed in retcon, you’d be right. But more on that later. It is also revealed that the family Grace married into is actually one of 6 who have made the same pact with the devil. And as Grace has effectively wiped out one of these families (her former in- laws) the title for head family (think Lannisters versus all the other Houses) is up for grabs. So, one kidnapping later of her and her sister (who is estranged from Grace – of course; ya gotta have sibling conflict) and we have our setting for another round of deadly hide and seek. Whichever family gets to kill Grace before sunrise gets the brass ring (or in this case gold ring) to rule them all; and with it get a ton of world influencing power.

So – going through our points, does this pass the Surgeons’ Pub Test of what makes a good sequel? Does it respect the first film and not shit on it like Highlander 2 did to Highlander?

Well, considering the sister angle was from another script from directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett that they then re-purposed for this movie, you would be forgiven for thinking this could go off the rails ala the plethora of Die Hard movies after 3. But this film is very much in-universe in flavour, and whatever leaps it takes feels natural and earned. Even the explanation as to why Grace has a sister when the first film has her earnestly state she has no siblings, feels acceptable. Sort of. Certainly the fact this bump happens at the start of this movie makes it easier to drive over, as you are still open to seeing if this instalment will be any good.

Is it a carbon copy of the first film? Or a carbon copy, but just bigger? Ie: a re-hash with just more kills – like any number of countless slasher horror sequels, the most offensive in recent memory being I Know What You Did Last Summer Because It’s I Know What You Did last Summer. This is a delicate one for a lot of films, as the main hook for a horror called “hide & seek” is that it should contain characters playing hide and seek. So if this film deviates from that, then it violates point 1. But if it contrives a lazy way to throw Grace into another mansion to be hunted in, then it fails point 2 & 3.

But the set up as to why Grace (and her sister) gets hunted in this film feels well-earned enough to check off point 4, as it expands this movie’s in-universe mythos in a compelling way.

Point 5, does it stay in the same spirit of the last movie? Considering that spirit is an entertaining graphic horror tale with a strong streak of black humour?
Definitely. Two words, bride fight. You’ll get it when you see it.

Point 6 – does it stand up on its own 2 feet? Again, yes. There are multiple reasons why, but one (and this might be a little surprising) is Samara Weaving (who plays Grace). There is no questioning her acting pedigree, but her chops – especially at the gut-wrenching realisation that the nightmare she has just endured is about to happen again – is surprisingly grounded and real. Being in a popcorn movie doesn’t mean you can’t sell it. In fact, it’s one thing to act powerfully with Oscar award winning material. But to draw in an audience in a setting that is meant to be silly fun… some would say that’s where the real game lies.

The Prognosis:

This is a worthy sequel to a film that felt like a nice self-contained B-grade home run. It didn’t need a second instalment, but that didn’t stop the film makers from crushing it. The fun is still there, the jeopardy is still there, and the sister element – whilst at times feels a little forced – doesn’t get in the way of another well executed romp.

Ready or Not… this finds you.

  • Antony Yee 06/04/26

Bad Taste as Baptism: Fuck My Son! (2026)

04 Saturday Apr 2026

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

There are films that provoke… and then there are films that weaponise provocation as their entire identity.
Fuck My Son!, directed by Todd Rohal, firmly belongs in the latter camp — a grotesque, confrontational descent into taboo that feels less like storytelling and more like an endurance test.

Adapted from the underground comic by Johnny Ryan, the film embraces its origins with unapologetic aggression. Narrative coherence is secondary. Characterisation is almost incidental. What matters here is impact — how far it can push, how hard it can hit, and how long an audience can withstand the onslaught before recoiling.

The Aesthetics of Offence

Rohal’s approach is not without craft. In fact, what makes Fuck My Son! so confronting is how deliberately constructed it is. This is not chaos by accident — it is chaos curated.

The practical creature effects, in particular, demand attention. There is a tactile, squirm-inducing quality to the film’s physical grotesqueries that places it in lineage with boundary-pushing auteurs who understand that revulsion is most effective when it feels real. Flesh stretches. Fluids flow. The body becomes both canvas and battleground.

In an age of digital sanitisation, this commitment to the physical image is perversely admirable.

Taboo as Currency

But provocation, when used as currency, quickly devalues itself.

The film’s central conceit — deliberately offensive, aggressively transgressive — initially shocks, then unsettles, and eventually… numbs. Without thematic grounding or emotional counterpoint, the transgression begins to feel repetitive rather than revelatory.

This is where Fuck My Son! falters.

The most effective works of extreme cinema often use taboo as a gateway to deeper commentary — on society, morality, repression. Here, the suggestion of meaning is fleeting at best. The film gestures toward satire, but rarely commits to it.

Know Your Audience

And yet, to dismiss the film outright would be to misunderstand its purpose.

There is an audience for this. A dedicated, discerning subset of genre fans who seek out the extreme not for narrative satisfaction, but for experiential confrontation. For them, Fuck My Son! is not a failure — it is a badge of honour. A film to be survived, debated, and worn like a scar.

It is cinema as dare.

The Prognosis:

Fuck My Son! is not interested in pleasing you. It barely cares if you understand it. It exists to provoke, to repel, and to challenge the limits of what can be put on screen.

A technically committed but narratively hollow exercise in taboo, elevated by its practical effects and sustained only by the endurance of its audience.

  • Saul Muerte

Fuck My Son will be screening at select cinemas from Apr 9 for a limited time.

Filth, Flesh and Freedom: A Brief History of Trash Cinema