Review: Buddy (2026)

I seldom come across a movie that I want to recommend to everyone I know where I recognize that - at best - the number of people who will love it as much as I do might hover around 3 in 10.  And that's if I am lucky.  But dammit, Buddy is such a darkly fun time that I will continuously send people into it with as little warning as possible.

My only knowledge going into this movie was that it was a horror movie that escalated quickly and that parents had taken their children to see it, somehow missing that it had an R rating.  And honestly, that was sufficient.  This is a movie that pays dividends by going into it blind - not because of surprises (though there are some), but because the movie is such an experience that the less you know, the better.

Which makes writing a review difficult, I must say.  The most I can say about the plot is that Buddy is a children's show character and it is a horror movie.  The performances are pretty great across the board - though I will point out that it felt like Topher Grace put in minimum effort in a very stock role - the set design and score are pitch perfect, and humor is just the right amount of dark.

Director Casper Kelly (who co-wrote this with Jamie King) had not directed a feature-length movie before this, and was mostly known for the Adult Swim short film "Too Many Cooks", does not hesitate in the slightest with the material.  There is a confidence to this direction that serves the movie well - I think someone who approached this film with irony or skepticism would have doomed it, so Kelly taking the reins worked in its favor.

The main critique I would have - aside from Grace's performance mentioned above - is that there is a section of the movie that feels completely unnecessary.  It's the only segment that feels like it could be cut, though it is likely in to keep the movie at a respectable length of 96 minutes.  It's also the only section that feels shocking for shock's sake.

But overall, this is a fun movie.  Definitely not for everyone, but I would still encourage everyone to see it.

8 out of 10

Review: The Fog (1980)

Four reviews in, I feel like I should have a checklist for my Carpenter reviews.

Excellent performances, including some all-time great ones?  Check (in this case, Hal Holbrook as Father Malone and Adrienne Barbeau as Stevie Wayne)

Outstanding musical score?  Check

Atmosphere for days?  Check

A simple story, well-told and directed?  Check, check check.

Inspired by a visit to Stonehenge, Carpenter and Debra Hill co-wrote this story of Antonio Bay, a small coastal town celebrating its 100th anniversary when a mysterious and deadly fog starts appearing.  We follow various characters as they try to uncover the mystery of the fog before they fall victim to it.

If Halloween is an elemental fable of Good and Evil, then The Fog is a ghost story told around the campfire.  In fact, the movie opens with such a scene, a perfect tone and mood setter to prepare the audience for the story about to unfold.  All plot can be explained by this premise: why does the fog suddenly start rolling in? Because 100 years is a significant anniversary.  Why do the ghosts and their fog only appear at a specific time?  Because that is the same time their murderer's conspired against them.  The movie never outright explains this, but trusts the viewers to pick up on the hints dropped throughout.

I mentioned the performances, but it really cannot be stated just how good Adrienne Barbeau is in this movie.   It's almost criminal that this role didn't propel her to mega-stardom - though, perhaps, she never wanted that - it easily stands with Jamie Lee Curtis's performance in Halloween, or Kurt Russell's in The Thing as among the best to appear in Carpenter's filmography.

Perhaps it was the mixed reception to the film during its initial release.  Like many of Carpenter's films, it was only later reassessments that properly credited the filmmaker for his effective storytelling.  Either way, this performance - secluded from the rest of the cast by virtue of the character running a radio station from a lighthouse - ties the movie together.

Carpenter quite effectively uses the fog in setting the scenes.  Much has been written about the various iconic scenes in Halloween, but much less the ones in this film.  The fog - with an otherworldly glow -  slowly cresting over the hillside and descending on the lighthouse, or the various victims pulled into it with only glimpses of what it harbors are startling effective.

Cinematographer Dean Cundey again works with Carpenter on this film, to its extreme benefit.  At times, Antonio Bay feels like it might be the last town on Earth, and much of that can be credited to Cundey's cinematography.  The night scenes have a stillness to them that is plain, but somehow wrong - there's a tension in the shots even before we first encounter the titular fog.

If the movie is letdown from Carpenter's previous theatrical feature, it's only because his previous film was Halloween, which would be a tough act for anyone to follow.  But 'not quite as good as Halloween' is a compliment, even if it doesn't quite sound like it.  If  you want to watch a horror film, this is a solid selection.

8 out of 10

Fun fact:  This is the third straight film to feature Charles Cyphers and Nancy Loomis and somewhat sets the stage for Carpenter to frequently collaborate with the same actors.

Review: Halloween (1978)

When I decided to do my John Carpenter marathon, I debated skipping this movie.  What review could I write that would anything new to this heavily-discussed masterpiece?  Is there anything to add to the discussion at this point, 48 years later?  In some ways, it is easier to discuss the sequels (and their wide range of quality) than the original, since - outside of Halloween II (1981) - they are much less discussed and picked-apart as this one.

This is, quite literally, a perfect horror movie.  Moody, atmospheric, almost elemental in its storytelling, it's not surprising that the movie is credited (incorrectly, I might add) with being the first slasher - while Black Christmas and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre predate it, the influence this film had vastly outshines those films, great though they are.

The film almost reads better as a fable: this is a battle between Good (Laurie Strode, famously played by Jamie Lee Curtis in a star-making performance) and Evil (The Shape - sometimes called Michael Myers - as played by Nick Castle).  Only the pure can survive the corruption of Evil's creation, and God help anyone else who encounters it.

The film also has it's soothsayer in Donald Pleasence's performance as Dr. Sam Loomis, one of the all-time great horror performances (expect me to make that statement in several of Carpenter's upcoming films - part of his legacy is ushering in some of the best the genre has ever seen).  His various monologues and asides provide just the right amount of heightened surrealism to the movie that gives it that elemental feel.

Carpenter also did composing work for this film, and created one of the best musical scores of all time, with the title theme being recognizable to even the most unlearned of movie buffs.  The cinematography - done by Dean Cundey - is also a standout part of the film.  Bright yellows during the daytime, and an almost impossible blue to the night scenes, Cundey's contributions cannot be understated.

This is one of those horror movies that I think everyone should watch.  Not just because I am a fan of horror, but because it is a standout in a genre that has far more duds than it has masterpieces.

10 out of 10.

(A fun aside:  One of the movies watched during the babysitting scenes is 1951's The Thing From Another World - a movie that Carpenter would remake 6 years later)

Review: Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Now this is a great movie!

Part of the reason I wanted to do a John Carpenter marathon was because there were so many I had never seen.  While Dark Star was more of a mixed bag, Assault on Precinct 13 very quickly won me over.  A low budget exploitation film where Carpenter had complete creative control, this film follows Lieutenant Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) as he is assigned to a precinct shortly before it closes.  On this last night, a series of incidents results in Ethan, along with prisoners Napoleon Wilson and Wells (Darwin Joston and Tony Burton) and secretary Leigh (Laurie Zimmer) having to fortify the building as a gang out for revenge attacks.

This is a mean movie.  It opens with police killing a group of gang members (which is somehow not the inciting incident, though it contributes to it), has a little girl shot while buying ice cream (the real inciting incident), and brutally kills off the majority of the cast during the initial onslaught by the gang members.  While a few do make it past that initial onslaught, none outside that main four (and Mr. Lawson, the father of the murdered girl) last terribly long into the movie.

What follow is a fight for survival, with a tentative alliance between the prisoners and the police officers as they try to survive the hail of bullets.  While this is an action movie first, the dialogue between the members of this alliance is legitimately good, far better than one would expect in an exploitation movie.

Stoker and Joston both do an excellent job.  Stoker elevates a fairly stock character, while Joston has to maintain an air of ambiguity his entire performance - something he more than succeeds at.  The smaller roles are also strong, with Nancy Loomis as secretary Julie being a stand out.

I cannot say enough good things about this movie.  Carpenter makes the set feel like a character, and not a single shot is wasted.  The viewer never gets confused about the layout, and the ever-present threat of the gang helps provide an almost oppressive tone.

I would definitely recommend this to fans of the action genre, and even those that are more cool on it.  This is the John Carpenter quality I expected.

8 out of 10

Review: Dark Star (1974)

This review feels like it needs a multitude of caveats.  It was originally a student film, but had edits and reshoots to get to theatrical length.  Said edits shifted it towards a G rating, and said reshoots were a year after the first version of the film was completed.  The resulting film is charming despite (or because?) it wearing its low budget on its sleeve.

Set in the mid-22nd century, the movie follows the crew of the Dark Star, a scouting ship with a sentient AI managing the ship's systems that also has sentient bombs to deploy on unstable planets.  The crew has been on its mission for 20ish years, and their ship is suffering from numerous malfunctions, which has also caused the death of their commanding officer.  The remaining four members are in various states of cabin fever and try to keep themselves entertained in various ways.

Did I mention the film is a comedy?

The comedy is hit and miss, with some bits working especially well: a series of scenes where Pinback (Dan O'Bannon - who also co-wrote the film) is trying to recapture an alien he has brought onboard as a sort-of mascot is fairly solid, and a conversation between the ship and the bomb is also fairly amusing.  But for every scene that works, there is another where the humor doesn't quite land.

The movie is mostly interesting as the first film directed by John Carpenter.  While you do see some of his trademarks, it doesn't quite showcase just how talented he actually was, nor would any contemporaneous moviegoers have expected that the maker of this movie would eventually make three of the greatest horror movies of all time (Halloween, The Fog, and The Thing).

Would I recommend it?  Yes.  The special effects are dated (again, this movie wears its low budget on its sleeve), the acting is a weird mix of good and bad (each actor has good scenes and bad scenes), the story is fairly barebones (though it spins some gold despite this), but despite these criticisms, the movie works.

What would I rate it?  That isn't a simple question.  As previously mentioned, every comment feels like it needs a caveat.  However, I did enjoy the movie.

I'll give it a 6 out of 10, but I could get away with giving it anywhere from a 5 to an 8 depending on my mood.

Review: Backrooms (2026)

How to review a movie like Backrooms?  Based off a creepypasta turned YouTube series, the film follows Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a furniture store owner who discovers an entrance to the titular Backrooms within his store, and Dr. Mary Kline (Renate Reinsve), Clark's therapist who is dealing with her own trauma.  The movie is almost dreamlike in its structure, and it plays with how trauma affects memory while still telling a straightforward story.

I don't quite think that film succeeds at all of its goals - the ending in particular will likely make people throw their hands up in frustration - but it captures an altogether off-putting tone throughout its runtime that makes it well worth watching.

The movie is amazing for how well directed it is by first-time filmmaker Kane Parsons, who had his own Backrooms webseries prior to making this film, with plans to continue said series even after this movie's wild success.

Parsons takes a fairly sparse script and just fills it to the brim with mood and otherworldliness. For a film that could very easily have become 'actors walk through rooms with weird decorations,' Parson deftly dodges that trap with interesting shots and camera movements and - most importantly - no false jump scares to break the tension.  Said tension almost becomes overwhelming in parts due to Parsons refusal to give an easy break.

In fact, that might be one of the greatest strengths of this movie: It trusts that the audience can wait.  The movie isn't scary in the modern sense that the audience would expect, but takes a more traditional slow build approach.

It helps to have Oscar-caliber actors in the lead roles (both Ejiofor and Reinsve have been nominated in recent years) who are capable of filling in the details of these characters and make them feel perfectly human in a situation that feels like it has dream-logic.  There audience won't feel the need to ask why these characters keep going back into the Backrooms, thanks in part to both actors perfectly calibrating their performances to the tone and tenor of the film.

With so much praise for the film, it hurts to have to get into why I ultimately think it doesn't work, but I will: the script just needs a bit more of everything.  The actors fill out their characters well, but we could use a bit more of information other than the therapy sessions and vague memories.  The ultimate resolution is a good ending for the film, but it feels like it leaves out just a little too much of an explanation of what is going on.  The final shots tie into the themes of the movie, but could have used a few more threads so that 'backrooms ending explained' isn't a top search term.

Despite my feeling that the movie ultimately fails to cohere at the end, I am thankful for its existence.  I'd rather have what I consider an interesting failure over what could have been a cheap gore movie that had nothing to say.

6 out of 10, but I could see this one growing on me.

Review: How to Make a Killing (2026)

How to Make a Killing follows Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell), the son of the disowned Mary Redfellow (Nell Williams) who sets about killing various Redfellow family members to move his name up the list of heirs since - while still exiled - he is still among those who could inherit Whitelaw Redfellow's (Ed Harris) billions of dollars.

As the description implies, this is a dark comedy.  I think it is also meant to be satirical - more on that later - but the dark comedy is the main selling point of the film.  We have to get some laughter out of the various ways Becket removes those ahead on him, or the whole movie falls apart.  The movie mostly succeeds at this.  It needs to be meaner (really, it needs to lean more into the satire sitting just at the edges of it) and if it had gone in an American Psycho-but-funny route this might have been an easy 10 out of 10.  But the need to sand off the edges - Powell's Becket doesn't even begin to approach the depravity of Christian Bale's Patrick Bateman - ultimately holds the movie back, resulting in an ending that just doesn't work given the material before.

Which I hate, because many of the performers are clearly having a good time.  In addition to Powell and Harris, the movie has Topher Grace, Zach Woods, and Bill Camp among the family members along with Margaret Qualley as a childhood friend of Becket and Jessica Henwick as his love interest.  All of them give perfect performances for the movie.  It really is an acting showcase, the simple roles given life and idiosyncrasy by the performers who really elevate this film.  The writing really only fails Powell - and even then, mostly at the end - and given the relative size of the roles I don't think anyone fails to make a mark in the screentime given.

Again, it's just the structure of the film that keeps it from greatness.  Powell is just too damn likeable as Becket.  There needs to be charm, sure, otherwise Henwick's Ruth would never become a love interest, but it needed to read as more a facade than the actual Becket.  Powell is clearly doing what is expected of the performance, but each kill becomes less and less credulous the more time we spend with the character.

I almost wish they had gone with a different ending.  It could've still been cold and cynical like the current one, but it needed to be different from the one we end up getting.  It doesn't gel with the character Powell has given us - but it could have if a few changes were made.

Would I recommend this film?  Yes.  Despite the ending, it is overall a fun movie and Henwick and Powell have some real chemistry.

7.5 out of 10