Tag Archives: universal pictures

Black Phone 2 — Derrickson Dials Back the Horror, But the Line’s Gone Cold

16 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scott Derrickson returns to familiar ground with Black Phone 2 (2025), a sequel that stretches the eerie premise of his 2022 hit into icier, more supernatural territory — but the call doesn’t quite connect this time.

Set four years after Finney Blake’s (Mason Thames) narrow escape from The Grabber, the film finds the once-traumatised boy struggling to rebuild his life under the weight of memory and unresolved fear. His sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) remains gifted — or cursed — with psychic visions, and when she begins dreaming of three missing boys at a winter camp, the black phone begins to ring again. Only this time, the voice on the other end isn’t just calling from the past — it’s pulling them back into it.

Derrickson, who cut his teeth on Sinister and Deliver Us from Evil, once again demonstrates a clear mastery of atmosphere. His use of light and shadow is chillingly deliberate, and the wintry backdrop gives the sequel a haunting, desaturated beauty that recalls the nightmare logic of A Nightmare on Elm Street crossed with the isolation of Friday the 13th. The cinematography by Brett Jutkiewicz captures frost-bitten textures and dreamlike corridors of fear, keeping the mood taut even when the story falters.

And falter it does. Despite a promising setup, Black Phone 2 struggles to escape the confines of its own mythology. What once felt mysterious and emotionally grounded now feels repetitive and muddled. The attempts to expand The Grabber’s lore — turning him into a supernatural force rather than a disturbed man — rob the story of its primal fear. The original thrived on ambiguity; this sequel over-explains.

Mason Thames and Madeleine McGraw both deliver earnest performances, grounding their characters in shared trauma, but they’re hampered by dialogue that’s often clunky and exposition-heavy. Even the film’s pacing, once one of Derrickson’s strong suits, slips into uneven rhythms — long stretches of ghostly visions interrupted by bursts of predictable violence.

Still, credit where it’s due: Derrickson’s visual language remains potent. Echoes of Sinister resonate throughout, from the use of distorted sound design to the flicker of analogue textures, suggesting a filmmaker who still knows how to craft a mood. The Grabber, though used sparingly, continues to terrify — his mask, redesigned with subtle variations, remains one of modern horror’s most unsettling icons.

But for all its chills, Black Phone 2 can’t shake the feeling of déjà vu. It’s a sequel haunted not only by its ghostly antagonist but by the shadow of a stronger predecessor. Derrickson’s talent for visual dread is undeniable — he just needs a story worth listening to again.

The Prognosis:

Black Phone 2 has the atmosphere, tension, and menace you’d expect from Scott Derrickson, but not the clarity or emotional pull that made the original so striking. Despite its best efforts to evolve into a supernatural slasher, this follow-up never quite finds its signal.

In the end, Black Phone 2 just doesn’t have time to thaw out properly — it rings, but the line’s gone cold.

  • Saul Muerte

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): She’s Back, Taller, and Still Twisting

07 Monday Jul 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Me-Three-Gan Two.

The sequel we all knew was coming. And yes, we will be referring to our checklist of what makes a good sequel, but that aside, is this outing any good, and was it necessary?

From memory the last movie (reviewed and podcasted by me and Chris Dawes) was definitely ripe for franchising. So straight away we’re not in Matrix territory where the question “Why!? Just why!??” isn’t screaming in your head every few minutes.

In 2.0 we pick up two years after the last movie, where Megan’s creator – Gemma (Allison Williams) and her niece Cady (her name is Cady!?? The whole time you swear they’re calling her “Katie!) played by Violet McGraw – are continuing their lives as the only family each one of them has. Except now Gemma is a staunch and vocal advocate for AI regulation due to her knee-jerk reaction to being almost killed by a robot AI (of her own making, it should be said) and Cady (in turn) is following in her aunts’ footsteps (of sorts) by being a computer science nerd.

In an overcompensating effort by Gemma, she ensures Cady takes Akido lessons so she can defend herself. Unfortunately Cady takes those lessons to an unwanted extreme by regarding Steven Segal as a martial arts poster boy, and one beaten up school bully later, Cady gets in trouble; Gemma is at her wits end, and we soon realise life between them is full of tension. For Gemma still punishes herself for putting Cady in harm’s (Megan’s) way, and Cady hates on Gemma for… reasons. She’s a teenager now, so it’s Hollywood lore she be a little bitch to any authority figure in her life. To be honest, you kinda zone out when you go through their motivations ‘cause you’re keen for the Megan goodness to begin.

And that gets kick started by the presence of another killer robot named Ameila (played by NOT Olsen sister, Ivanna Sakhno). However, unlike Megan, Ameila is very lifelike in face and body, as she is constructed NOT to be a faux babysitter for kids, but as a turbo charged infiltration assassin for the CIA.

How she came into existence is the McGuffin that drives the Main Plot of this film, as we simultaneously find out that (shock surprise) Megan is still “alive”, in an online only sort of way. So when Amelia goes rogue (because of course she does) and comes after Gemma and Cady (for reasons you’ll have to watch to understand) Megan’s primary directive to protect Cady at all costs comes to the surface as she demands Gemma build her a new body to literally kung fu fight Amelia (robato robato).

So with our pieces on the board, let’s get into the nuts ‘n’ bolts of M3gan 2.0.

And for a more detailed description of that, as with our last analysis of the first movie, here’s Chris

Dawes with his half of this review.

Dude – I didn’t see it! You went to the premiere without me!

Chris Dawes

Thanks Chris!

Anyway – some highlights worth mentioning is the existence of another Chekov’s Gun in the form of a cybernetic exo-skeleton that makes people super strong (although its application is at least a little funnier/cooler than you’d think).

We also have a new Megan dance number. For those of you who don’t remember, the main (and some would argue, only) reason the first movie did so well, was because of Megan’s hip-hop/ballet moves she pulls before killing Ronnie Cheng. It was a perfectly bite sized Tik Tok moment which gave the film it’s viral boost as countless people imitated it along the lines of Deadpools *Nsync number. 

However, Megan’s effort this round – whilst certainly cool – is less memorable due to the fact it doesn’t have any unique & easy-to-copy dance move(s). In the first instalment it was a simple twist of the hips and a rubbery swing of the arms mixed with a sideways head-duck. But for 2.0 she does the Robot (very generic and a bit on the nose) with a 360-degree head spin (which is impossible to replicate). Although in its defence, it’s still entertaining to watch… 

Kiwi legend Jermaine Clement guest stars as Alton Appleton, a tech billionaire who serves as both plot device and comedy device.

Another nice (re)addition is the return of Gemma’s two co-workers from the last film Cole (Brian Jordan Alvarez) and Tess (Jen Vann Epps) giving us some nice continuity for 2 characters (and actors) who really don’t need to be there.

And speaking of returning cast – the 2 most important also come back, despite the fact that, had they not, a lot of people wouldn’t have noticed. And they are Amie Donald and Jenna Davis. For they are Megan. More specifically her body and voice respectively.

As Megan was meant to be a pre-teen to match Cady in the first film, the immediate problem they were always facing was, IF they were going to recreate her as before, they would have to recast. But the film-makers clearly appreciate one of the reasons Megan works, is because Donald and Davis clearly work.

And so – with Donald going through the typical growth spurt that comes with puberty – Megan finds herself a foot taller when given her new body, and leaning into this means that the franchise is trying to give the impression each instalment will be a continuation of Megan’s evolution; both in body and in sentience.

And that alone implies this film series will be less Chucky and more Terminator. In more ways than one, as tonally there is a clear shift in Megan’s role from being the Big Bad, to the thing that fights the Big Bad (just like Arnie did in T2)

The Prognosis:

The film-makers have put careful thought into this sequel by analysing the first film’s success, identifying what worked, and leaning into those markers.

So checklist time:

1. Is it a clone of the original? NO

2. Is it a clone of the original but simply more and just bigger? NO

3. Does it expand the universe/lore of the original? YES

4. Is it a good standalone film without relying too heavily on the original? YES

5. (Optional) Does it have a cool new gimmick or element that’s not in the original film, but sits well within the universe of the first film? (Eg: Think Yoda and his ground breaking puppetry in The Empire Strikes Back. Or the CGI T-1000 in T2). NO

6. Does it identify the SPIRIT of the original, and duplicate it? YES definitely.

Because the biggest thing the film-makers have wisely clocked is that Megan ISN’T a horror film, but a fun film. Camp fun. And that’s what makes this movie an upgrade from the original.

Bring on Me-Three-Gan-Three

  • Antony Yee

Final Destination: Bloodlines” Sends the Franchise Out with a Bloody, Belly-Laugh Bang

14 Wednesday May 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Gruesome deaths, tongue-in-cheek humour, and one last haunting turn from Tony Todd give this unexpected final chapter a shockingly fun farewell.

Okay, so what number is this? FD 14? 80? Final Destination 482?

Meh, who cares.

To be perfectly honest, I really wasn’t expecting much from this, so did it deliver?
Drum roll… well, you’ll see.

The plot is: College student, Stefani, is plagued by the same super-violent nightmare  night after night so investigates to find out what’s the deal. Then blah de blah, something, something about cheating death and it coming back to get you.

IRL SPOILER ALERT: Death catches up with everyone in the end.

Starring… well, I don’t know. Other than Tony Todd (in his final role before his passing) reprising his usual role, there’s no big ‘stars’… unless you count the Maya Hawke lookalike. This obviously makes the cast extra-expendable when they meet their bloody end. And boy oh boy, did they not scrimp on the blood and gore!!!

Every death is gratuitously gore-rific. The audience at the screening, the sick puppies they were, erupted in absolute fits of laughter every time one of the characters was killed.

Again, sick puppies… myself included of course.

But that’s it too. It most definitely plays for laughs. The writers are comedy and/or horror specialists. Between them they are responsible for: “Abigail”, “Ready or Not”, “Spider-Man: Homecoming” to name but a few. And they’ve had a great deal of fun with the script for this.

The Prognosis:

For me, “Final Destination: Bloodlines” was a great surprise. The makers have promised this is the final chapter of the long-exhausted franchise but hooly dooly, what a way to go out.

Now let the franchise die and head to its final destination.

  • Movie Review by Myles Davies

The Woman in the Yard: Rooted in Atmosphere, But Lacking in Fear

19 Saturday Apr 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Danielle Deadwyler shines in this moody supernatural tale, but Jaume Collet-Serra struggles to fully unearth the horror at its heart.

Twenty years after House of Wax melted into mediocrity, director Jaume Collet-Serra returns to the horror genre with The Woman in the Yard, a moody, slow-burn supernatural tale that teases tension but never quite takes root. There’s a welcome sense of restraint this time around — a desire to craft something more grounded, more psychological — but the final product ends up feeling more undercooked than unnerving.

Danielle Deadwyler is the anchor of the film, delivering a committed and emotionally charged performance as Ramona, a grieving widow attempting to hold her family together after her husband’s sudden death. Deadwyler brings texture and soul to every scene she’s in — her presence commands attention and breathes life into an otherwise uneven script. Whether she’s shielding her children from the unknown or confronting her own internal anguish, she elevates the material with quiet fury and vulnerability.

The premise has potential: a mysterious woman appears on the property — expressionless, enigmatic, and perhaps not entirely human. The creeping dread builds in the first act with genuine intrigue. But instead of snowballing into something harrowing, the film meanders, content to rely on vague symbolism and atmospheric shots without connecting the emotional stakes to the horror elements. The titular woman remains more concept than character — a spectral threat with no real grip on the narrative beyond metaphor.

Collet-Serra shows flickers of maturity here, eschewing the slick gore of his early career for something more intimate and slow-burning. There are shades of The Others and even Relic in the DNA, and a few sequences — particularly a late-night confrontation hint at the film this could have been. But despite these improvements, The Woman in the Yard never fully comes into focus. The tension dissipates rather than crescendoes, and by the final act, the film seems content to whisper instead of scream.

The Prognosis:

It’s not a disaster — far from it. But with such rich performances and a potent setup, it’s frustrating to watch it all drift into the mist. Ultimately, Collet-Serra has taken a step forward in his genre evolution, but this yard still needs some serious tending.

  • Saul Muerte

Wolf Man (2025) – Leigh Whannell’s Howl Fails to Resonate

05 Wednesday Feb 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man arrives with the weight of expectation, following his 2020 critical and commercial hit The Invisible Man. Much like its predecessor, the film modernises a Universal Monsters classic, filtering it through Whannell’s sleek, grounded style. But whereas The Invisible Man thrived on paranoia, tension, and social relevance, Wolf Man struggles to find its footing, delivering a film that is as unsteady as its protagonist’s transformation.

The story follows Blake (played by Christopher Abbott), a man whose troubled marriage leads him and his wife Charlotte (Julia Garner) to his secluded childhood home in rural Oregon. What starts as an attempt at reconciliation quickly turns into a nightmarish ordeal when they’re attacked by an unseen creature. As Blake’s behaviour grows increasingly erratic, the lines between man and beast blur, forcing Charlotte to confront a horrific truth.

At its core, Wolf Man treads familiar ground—Whannell’s fascination with the human body in flux is evident, echoing Upgrade (2018) in its depiction of involuntary transformation. However, unlike Upgrade, which explored its themes with a sharp, kinetic energy, Wolf Man feels oddly inert. The family dynamic, which should be the film’s emotional anchor, is frustratingly underdeveloped. The tension between Blake and Charlotte lacks depth, reducing their relationship to a mere setup for the inevitable carnage. Without a strong emotional core, the horror feels weightless, and the film’s attempts at suspense suffer.

Where The Invisible Man thrived on paranoia and psychological tension, Wolf Man attempts to create a similar claustrophobic dread but fumbles in execution. The couple’s choices feel forced rather than organic, making their descent into terror feel more like a scripted inevitability rather than an authentic unraveling. The film teases interesting ideas—Whannell is clearly drawn to the horror of losing control, both physically and mentally—but they never quite coalesce into something meaningful.

The Prognosis:

Visually, Whannell maintains his knack for stylish, stripped-down horror, and there are fleeting moments of genuine unease. The practical effects and creature design are commendable, but they can’t compensate for the film’s lack of narrative momentum. Despite solid performances, Wolf Man ultimately feels like a missed opportunity—a film that howls at the moon but never quite sinks its teeth in.

  • Saul Muerte

Revisiting The Evil of Frankenstein (1964): A Visual Feast Undermined by a Weak Script

08 Thursday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In the annals of Hammer Films’ storied Frankenstein series, The Evil of Frankenstein (1964) holds a unique yet somewhat controversial place. Directed by Freddie Francis, who was rising as a notable figure behind the camera, this film brought a fresh visual style that showcased his expertise in cinematography. Despite its aesthetic triumphs, the film struggled to captivate audiences and critics alike, often regarded as the weaker entry in the Hammer Frankenstein saga.

Freddie Francis, known for his distinguished work as a cinematographer, brought an unparalleled visual flair to The Evil of Frankenstein. His directorial approach was marked by a keen eye for composition and lighting, elements that elevated the film’s atmosphere. Francis’s insistence on an elaborate laboratory set was a testament to his commitment to creating a visually compelling environment. The laboratory, with its intricate details and Gothic grandeur, became a highlight of the film, reflecting the meticulous craftsmanship behind the scenes.

Peter Cushing reprised his iconic role as Baron Frankenstein with his usual dedication and intensity. Known for his commitment to performing his own stunts, Cushing’s involvement in the film’s climactic finale was particularly noteworthy. The scene where he swung into the burning laboratory was not without consequence, reportedly resulting in third-degree burns for the veteran actor. Cushing’s performance, marked by his characteristic blend of charm and menace, remained a strong point even as the film faltered in other areas.

A significant aspect of The Evil of Frankenstein was its association with Universal Pictures. This partnership allowed Hammer Films to utilize elements from Universal’s classic Frankenstein series, including the iconic monster design. While this brought a sense of legitimacy and continuity, it also highlighted the film’s struggles to carve out its own identity. The reliance on established tropes and visual cues from Universal’s Frankenstein films, while nostalgic, often felt like a retread rather than a reinvention.

Despite these promising elements, The Evil of Frankenstein ultimately stumbled due to its weak script. The narrative lacked the depth and intrigue that characterized the earlier entries in the series, resulting in a disjointed and uninspired story. The film’s reception reflected this, with audiences and critics finding it a lackluster addition to the Frankenstein mythos. Its poor performance at the box office further cemented its reputation as a misstep for Hammer Films.

The Prognosis:

The Evil of Frankenstein remains a visually stunning yet narratively flawed entry in the Hammer Frankenstein series. Freddie Francis’s directorial prowess and Peter Cushing’s unwavering dedication brought moments of brilliance, but these were not enough to overcome the shortcomings of the script. While it may not stand as a pinnacle of Hammer’s horror legacy, it serves as a testament to the creative risks and collaborations that defined the studio’s golden era.

  • Saul Muerte

Movie Review: Abigail (2024)

18 Thursday Apr 2024

Posted by in Movie review

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Okay, so we’ve all seen the trailer by now.

And if you haven’t then pfft, call yourselves horror fans.

Anyways, the premise is: a group of criminals kidnap the daughter of a very powerful underworld boss. Holed-up at a spooky, and isolated, mansion they’re directed to wait it out till morning unaware the little girl is no ordinary little girl.

She’s a vampire.

Sorry a spoiler but not a spoiler.

It’s in the damn trailer.

Anyways, going into this you know you can expect some gory blood-drenched fun and it bloody delivers. To be perfectly honest, at times you can actually see the numbers blatantly etched into this paint-by-numbers monster horror, but I was actually beyond caring. I was having far too much fun with this.

Brought to you by the makers of the latest “Scream” incarnations and the awesome and not too dissimilar “Ready or not” – as it has the same trapped-in-a-mansion-with-someone/something-trying-to-kill-you vibes.

They’ve also clearly got enough weight to bring along an A-grade cast for the ride, including: Melissa Barrera (The new “Scream” movies), Kathryn Newton (“Freaky”), Dan Stevens (“Legion” and “The Guest”), and the supremely talented Alisha Weir (“Matilda”) as Abigail, as well as an assortment of others including the late Angus Cloud (“Euphoria”).

The Prognosis:

Look, I’m not going to go into this too deeply, nor does it warrant it. It’s just a very polished popcorn-horror for those who want just that. There’s jump-scares, there’s laughs, there’s gore, and the leads are completely drenched in dyed-red corn syrup by the end. Exactly what it says on the tin.

A must see for any horror fan.

  • Myles Davies

Retrospective – Curse of the Undead (1959)

16 Thursday Feb 2023

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Those who know me, know of my aversion to the Western genre in cinema. As a cinephile I indulged in the classics especially the Ford era of which we are supposed to marvel at the sweeping landscapes, but send me into a state of lull. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions that have lit a fuse in my love of the celluloid art, and there is intrigue to be found in blending this genre with a vampire sub genre twist. 

With some of the townsfolk falling prey to a mysterious illness, and the reveal of two punctures in the neck of the latest victim we pave the scene of a nosferatu in the mix. 

The Western influence throws mistrust and turmoil among a neighbouring family, where all must find a way to unite in order to rid the town of the foul fate that lay before them.

There’s the obvious love scenario two between the mysterious Drake Robey (Michael Pate) and Dolores (Kathleen Crowley), plus the hope and steadfast clergyman in Preacher Dan (Eric Fleming). All the ingredients are there to provide a somewhat entertaining tale.

All too often though I found myself drifting off and disconnecting from the content, with a lack of depth in the characters and both genres telling a tale too often told to stimulate the mind.

It was a bold approach from writer, director Edward Dein to try and merge what should be successful film categories but there’s no style or substance for that matter, so for that Curse of the Undead slips all too easily into forgettable terrain.

  • Saul Muerte

Movie review: Resurrection (2022)

24 Thursday Nov 2022

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

First things first, if Rebecca Hall is in something you’ve already got my attention. You’re guaranteed to watch a captivating performance and in her latest feature, Resurrection she goes above and beyond, perhaps contributing her finest performance on screen to date.

On the surface Margaret (Hall) is perfection personified. She has a successful career, where she is in complete control of her environment and a bastion of strong leadership amongst her peers; a symbol of success and an inspiration to those who she works with. On the homefront,  her daughter Abbie (Grace Kaufman – The Sky is Everywhere) is turning 18 and heading off to university. And Maragert’s sex life appears wild and passionate. All of this appears to be held together with effortless grace. What we see however, is a facade to a darkly, traumatic past that Margaret has been buried in the recesses of time, forging on and hoping that it won’t ever resurrect itself. 

Unfortunately, it all unravels when David (Tim Roth) appears back in her life, forcing her to confront those horrors, whilst still hanging on to some sense of control. The tighter the grip though, the more will slip through her fingers. Her job, her love life, her daughter. What will it cost her to save herself and those she holds dear from absolving her guilt and the scars of time once lost in oppression and grief.

The Prognosis

Andrew Semans, the writer and director for Resurrection in what is his second outing behind the camera, carves out a harrowing and hardy tale of trauma. It’s a captivating take on the effects and impact caused when something hauntingly tragic occurs and we try to squash it down and run away from our past. 

Hall is magnificent in her portrayal, personifying every aspect of a woman trying to keep everything collected but being forced to heal in an agonisingly cathartic way. To watch her is to be schooled on acting prowess, such is the effortless way she encapsulates her character. 

Roth also delivers a fine performance of David devoid of compassion and intent in maintaining the disturbing hold he has on Margaret. 

Combined, the performances, narrative and direction weave together to scrutinise dominance, power and domestication. The journey is hard, the scars run deep, and the impact may be confronting, but the result is to share in the purge.  

  • Saul Muerte

Resurrection will be available on digital platforms from November 30th.

Retrospective: Monolith Monsters (1957)

16 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

As 1957 drew to a close, so did Universal’s stories around monsters, giant creatures, and supernatural events in the science fiction realm.

It wasn’t that the production company was short on ideas, and Monolith Monsters is a testament to this, pushing the envelope away from the known and into the unknown. When a meteorite crashes and its material then grows to epic proportions once exposed to water and turns anyone that crosses its path to ash.

Grant Williams who had already starred in the successful The Incredible Shrinking Man would star as the everyman turned hero, Dave Miller. Dave happens to be the head of San Antonio’s geological office, so he’s a man with smarts and just might have the answer to saving humanity from these monumental blocks of stone.

Joining Millar is his girlfriend and teacher Cathy played by American singer Lola Albright who supported Frank Sinatra and Debbie Reynolds in The Tender Trap and was only a few years away from acting opposite Elvis Presley in Kid Galahad. For Monolith Monsters though the lead characters Dave and Cathy would use their combined knowledge along with college professor Arthur Flanders (Trevor Bardette) to find a solution to stop the threat expanding into their town.

A particular highlight is the cameo performance from William Schallert as a benign meteorologist, happily carrying out his day without the slightest notion of the impending danger that is facing humankind. Also keen viewers will note a young Troy Donahue in one of his earlier roles playing a dynamite expert.

Whilst noted for its production design and special effects plus some noteworthy performances Monolith Monsters suffers with execution. It presents a unique story but fails to manifest or produce anything out of this grain of salt idea. As such the sands of time have been unkind over the years, left as a forgotten relic from a decade of dwindling success.

– Saul Muerte

Monolith Monsters is currently available as part of a double feature blu-ray with The Deadly Mantis at Umbrella Entertainment.