Review: The End of Oak Street (2026)

It's kind of funny that The End of Oak Street delivered on the broken promise of the latter Jurassic World movies.  While those movies teased but ultimately only gave us glimpses of dinosaurs in the suburbs, this film gives it to us in spades.  For a PG-13 movie, it has a surprising amount of violence (though it does refrain from being gory) and does not hesitate when killing off the various denizens of the neighborhood.  It gives us everything we wanted from Jurassic World that we were denied, and I respect it for that.

To give a summary, in July of 1982, the Platt family finds not only themselves, but their entire neighborhood transported to the distant past.  Dinosaurs quickly invade the neighborhood and the family finds itself struggling to survive.  As is often the case with films produced by JJ Abrams, there is also a healthy amount of family drama akin in the vein of the great Spielberg movies of the 80s.

For obvious reasons, this story feels familiar in many ways - hell, the movie almost forces a Spielberg-esque bicycle scene with son Brian (Christian Convery) - and director David Robert Mitchell leans into it mostly successfully.  The film isn't completely devoid of subversions, but a seasoned moviegoer is going to predict most of the major beats should they wish to.

Mitchell mostly avoids this by keeping things moving at such a pace that you don't have time to think, but there is something to be said for using familiar tropes to focus on the character work being done.  Anne Hathaway, as the family matriarch Denise, is particularly good in her role in a way that the movie didn't need but is much better for having.  Ewan McGregor, who plays Greg, the father, doesn't have quite as much to work with but nevertheless also gives his character details that enrich the movie in small ways.

The dinosaurs are probably on the more accurate end of movie creations, though not without creative liberties.  Some of these work well - the body proportions are off in a way that adds to the surrealism of the situation - but some of them feel odd.  Having the long-necked dinosaurs (I dare not try to guess which they are supposed to be given the mix of dinosaurs shown) covered in what looks like hair just feels weird as opposed to surreal.

There are two main criticisms I would have for the film, both on the 'personal pet peeve' end of the spectrum.  The first?  There is an obvious hole in the story where a sapphic storyline involving the daughter Audrey, played by Maisy Stella, was meant to be.  In a time period with the type of president we have, running away from any LGBT storyline feels like a deliberate choice, and not one that makes me comfortable.

The other main critique involves a mild spoiler - so mild that I hesitate to even call it a spoiler.  Anyone who has watched a movie can see a certain plot point coming, but consider this the spoiler-warning paragraph before I delve into it.

So, there is a family dog that disappears early in the film and of course it shows up in a pivotal moment to save the day.  I'm not against this.  This is a certain type of movie, and in this type of movie, the dog is going to live.  That is fine.  What is not fine is this movie going out of its way to kill multiple cats.  One, I would not be happy about, but I could live with - especially since it is one of the first hints that something is wrong.  But multiple?  Including a scene where it is several dinosaurs picking at the corpse of one?  It just feels so unnecessary that it rubbed me the wrong way very late in the movie.

Would I recommend this?  Probably.  It's a fun time, and it gives us something we haven't seen in awhile onscreen.  But I'd more likely recommend Primitive War before this one.

6 out of 10.

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.