A lonely Frankenstein travels to 1930s Chicago to ask groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious to create a companion for him. The two revive a murdered young woman and The Bride is born. But what ensues is beyond what either of them imagined.
REVIEW
A modern interpretation of one of the greatest Universal Monster features of all time, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s version of THE BRIDE! is inspired by 1935’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, 1967’s BONNIE AND CLYDE, a few Golden Age of Hollywood gangster movies, as well as a JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX vibe that can’t be ignored. Actress Gyllenhaal really swings for the fences as a director for her first big-budgeted feature, going all out and throwing so many ideas at the wall while working with what sticks. Unfortunately, this becomes troublesome for THE BRIDE! as its narrative feels all over the place throughout its runtime. Is it a monster horror film? Is it a gangster film? Is it a romantic drama? Is it a musical? Is it too message heavy on feminism and misogyny? I think if THE BRIDE! had more of a focus with its screenplay [also written by Gyllenhaal], this film would have been better received by a mainstream audience who aren’t ready or willing to accept anything this experimental. It’s tonally all over the place, which might make it tough for many to connect with.
That being said, the cast is pretty great in THE BRIDE!. Future Oscar Winner Jessie Buckley is phenomenal as the title character, playing a dual role as both the victim “Ida” and author Mary Shelley, who possesses Ida’s body to experience what it would feel like to be the Bride of Frankenstein. Buckley plays both roles quite differently, sometimes at the same time, changing accents and dialects that’s both jarring and awe-inspiring all at once. She’s all in on these characters and you can tell she’s having a lot of fun playing both ladies. No matter what one might think of this film, we can all agree that Buckley is fantastic here.
Same goes to Christian Bale as Frank, who plays the famous monster in a quiet manner until he’s provoked, almost childlike compared to the more adult and confident Bride. Bale gets to sing, dance, have action moments and share romantic chemistry with Buckley. It’s one of his many quirky roles that works well in his favor, as he’s fun to watch.
The rest of the supporting cast is good as well. Maggie Gyllenhaal brings in her husband, Peter Sarsgaard as a detective who may be connected with Ida. She also brings in her brother Jake in a smaller role as an actor Frank is infatuated with. Penelope Cruz holds her own as Sarsgaard’s investigative assistant who seems more capable for the job than he is. And Annette Benning is wonderful as Dr. Cornelia Euphronious, a new mad scientist who brings The Bride to life.
Despite the messy screenplay, Gyllenhaal does visualize a beautiful looking film that feels both retro and modern at the same time. Colors pop, the special effects and make-up are on point, and the action-oriented sequences have energy and tension. I’m not sure if any studio will give her another $90 million to play with as a filmmaker after the commercial disappointment of THE BRIDE!, but Gyllenhaal definitely has a unique voice and a clear vision of the type of movies she probably wants to continue making. So I’m very interested in what she does next.
THE FINAL HOWL
THE BRIDE! isn’t for everyone and I understand why a majority of people seem to dislike it. But this is everything that JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX should have been as Gyllenhaal has the balls to make something outside the mainstream, even if it doesn’t completely work in the end. I would rather see filmmakers think outside the box and make their personal art than directors who want to play it safe for the quick cash. THE BRIDE! is the type of movie that cinema needs more of, even if audiences won’t embrace it right away. But I definitely see this becoming a cult favorite in the future.
Two colleagues become stranded on a deserted island, the only survivors of a plane crash. On the island, they must overcome past grievances and work together to survive, but ultimately, it’s a battle of wills and wits to make it out alive.
REVIEW
I’m sure if you ask mainstream audiences the first thing they think of when it comes to director/producer Sam Raimi, it’s probably the mega-successful SPIDER-MAN trilogy of the 2000s. While those films are mostly great, us horror fans know the man for scaring us and/or making us laugh with his immortal THE EVIL DEAD trilogy. The same fans who recognize his work on beloved cult classics like DARKMAN, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, THE GIFT and DRAG ME TO HELL. Raimi also brought some blood and scares to his last film, the successful DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS despite Disney fighting him on certain horror elements to please a bigger audience. So it’s nice to see Raimi back in full horror mode in 2026’s SEND HELP, a film that had me hooked the moment it was announced due to Raimi and the casting of both Rachel McAdams and Dylan O’Brien - two actors I enjoy on screen. Having these two actors antagonize each other on a desert island in devious ways had to be a fun time at the theater. And I was right, as SEND HELP is another highlight in Raimi’s filmography.
SEND HELP is pretty much a story about power dynamics between the sexes and the classes. Linda Liddle is one of the star employees at her financial management job, using her corporate strategy to keep her company successful. Due to her great work, she is promised a promotion to Vice President. Unfortunately her boss has passed away, now replaced by his frat boy and misogynist son Bradley, who has given the position to his best college friend while looking down on her for her frumpy appearance and eating habits. During a flight to Bangkok for a business meeting, the plane crashes onto a deserted island, leaving only Linda and Bradley as the flight’s sole survivors. While Bradley still attempts to order Linda around, he soon realizes that he has no survival skills on an island. However, Linda does, doing all the hunting and shelter building, proving to Bradley that they’re on her domain now. Despite attempts to get along and work together, Bradley’s ego is so bruised that he just wants to get off the island and go back to his fiancee. Linda, though, finally has control and power in her life, doing everything to make sure she stays on the island - even if she has to keep Bradley prisoner to make it happen.
In a lot of ways, SEND HELP feels like MISERY but on an island. Bradley hurt his leg due to the plane crash, with Linda reluctantly helping him and making sure he heals up. But she keeps certain information from him and makes him reliant on her, keeping him as an unknowing prisoner as revenge for how he has treated her and other women at their workplace. Things become more interesting as we realize, through backstories, why the two characters feel justified in how they treat others. You start to sympathize with both Linda and Bradley and get how they got to be in their current positions to begin with. But Bradley still wants to go back to his old, upper class life while Linda, feeling she has nothing left at home, refuses to find any way of getting off the island to maintain her power over Bradley. This is where the power struggle begins for both the characters and the audience because you go back-and-forth on who to root for here. Linda is the wronged party from the start, but she becomes violently power hungry as the film rolls on. Bradley is a jerk, but it’s due to his neglectful upbringing, using his behavior as a defense mechanism. But he never really changes who he is either, despite all that. I think writers Mark Swift and Damian Shannon do a fantastic job in giving both characters depth and putting each one in a grey area. You definitely root for one character over the other, but there are times where you start questioning your opinion. It’s not a black-and-white world here, which makes the antagonistic nature between our two main characters a lot of fun to watch.
Sam Raimi is in fine form here behind the lens, giving us enough Raimi-isms to make the audience aware that, visually, this is his movie. While it never goes off the rails, in terms of visuals and violence, like his EVIL DEAD films, there are definitely moments where you smile because you know Raimi is having fun. We get the classic first person point-of-view shots where the camera is just zooming all over the place. We get moments where Linda will hunt an animal for sustenance and the animal’s blood gushes on her as if she’s Ash Williams. There is quirky framing of shots that make you laugh because they’re so unserious. And there’s a torture scene that gives us extreme close-ups that raise the tension tenfold. This is a more subtle Raimi, who only brings out the goods when the story calls for it. And I thought the use of the island location was wonderful, with gorgeous shots that display both paradise and dread. Some of the CGI is spotty, especially with the animals, but it’s not a total eyesore.
What really makes SEND HELP a film to watch is the chemistry between the two lead actors. I’ve been a fan of Dylan O’Brien since MTV’s Teen Wolf days and he’s only gotten better with each project he takes part of. SEND HELP is no exception, as O’Brien really brings out Bradley’s rich, frat boy persona. He’s believably misogynistic and has tantrums whenever he can’t use power on a woman. But O’Brien never goes too far with it, as he gives you glimpses that it may all be a front and he’s just really scared. There are times where you feel sorry for him, which can be challenging to play considering Bradley is a huge jerk. And O’Brien is just so likable as an actor that it almost feels a bit miscast. But he makes it work and shares a fun, frenemy chemistry with Rachel McAdams.
Speaking of McAdams, I think SEND HELP may contain one of the best performances of her career. McAdams plays Linda as this meek, frumpy, insecure and totally socially awkward woman from the start. Along the way, she transforms into this confident and powerful woman, who unfortunately becomes corrupted by that power once she has a real taste of it. She goes from prey to predator throughout the film and it’s believable every step of the way because McAdams captures that change perfectly. From her body language, to the way she dresses, and to the way she speaks to Bradley [which totally evolves], McAdams becomes someone to be wary of. Considering she has the most meat to chew on here, it’s not surprising how much fun McAdams is playing every emotional beat of this character. You can tell she and O’Brien had a blast making this movie, which makes it fun for the audience too.
And any film with Blondie on the soundtrack scores points with me. From “Rip Her to Shreds” to “One Way or Another”, the needledrops are pretty on point. Also, props to Danny Elfman for an engaging musical score.
THE FINAL HOWL
One of my most anticipated films of 2026, Sam Raimi’s SEND HELP does not disappoint. While not Raimi’s most memorable visually, Raimi still manages to let the audience know he’s at the helm here. While most of the film is very subtle, capturing the bland office setting while later showcasing the beautiful island location to create a bleak paradise, the Raimi tropes do make their presence when the story calls for it. First person zooms. Gushing crimson that sprays on people. Extreme close ups to raise tension and terror. The Raimi horror maker is here and much welcomed.
Helping the visuals are the strong performances by both Dylan O’Brien and [especially] Rachel McAdams, who have great antagonistic chemistry as the two play off each other to see who can outdo the other. The shift in power dynamics between the two is a wild ride, as you sympathize with one over the other, which will then switch vice-versa, then make you feel sorry for both characters, until it shifts right back to the start. The simple writing allows both O’Brien and McAdams to flesh out their characters through body language and facial expressions, which tells their stories more than any dialogue could. It also helps that the two are clearly having fun, which makes it fun for the audience as well.
While I hope we get Raimi to making more horror films in a much crazier style like his older work [there were glimpses in DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS], SEND HELP is still a fine piece of work that I highly recommend if you’re looking for a well-made survival thriller.
Home from college, Lucy reunites with family including pet chimp Ben. Ben contracts rabies during a pool party and turns aggressive. Lucy and friends barricade in a pool, devising ways to survive the vicious chimp.
REVIEW
2026 begins just like 2025 did - highlighting apes for the first chunk of the year. Last year, we had two solid films in the Robbie Williams’ biopic BETTER MAN [in which Williams envisions himself as a CGI man-ape] and Osgood Perkins’ underrated THE MONKEY [one of my favorite horror films of 2025]. This year, the horror genre kicks off its movie year with Paramount’s PRIMATE - a film I’ve seen the trailer for countless times, with various audiences either laughing at it or groaning about the premise. I honestly wasn’t expecting much out of this film, but with a high Rotten Tomatoes score and solid word of mouth, it got me a bit excited for some chimp vs. human action. And yes, the hype is real because PRIMATE is a really fun time at the cinema.
The easy way to describe PRIMATE is “CUJO but with a chimpanzee”. The inspiration is fairly obvious, as our chimp Ben gets bitten by a rabid mongoose while in his enclosure, causing Ben to lash out at his human family and terrorize them in their own home. Ben gets more violent and relentless while the human characters either make smart [or in a lot of cases, dumb] decisions in order to survive while debating how to handle an innocent, yet sick, chimp.
Survival films like PRIMATE are pretty hard to mess up, as it's an easy premise that doesn’t require a whole lot of human characterization while mainly focusing on the battle between animal and human. The lack of real character development does hurt the film a bit, as you don’t really get to attach to the characters as much as one would like. The deepest we get is that eldest daughter Lucy is a bit estranged from the family due to the death of her mother. Lucy’s younger sister, Erin, is a bit upset with her while their deaf father has taken over their mother’s businesses and becomes an almost absentee dad because of it. Lucy has a supportive best friend in Hannah, while Hannah’s brother Nick is Lucy’s crush. That romance subplot is thwarted by Hannah’s friend Kate, who is kind of the mean girl of the group and doesn’t understand why Lucy would have a chimp as a pet. There are also a couple of boys that the group meets, who are just around to raise the body count. Other than that, it’s just a tale of surviving the night against a rabid chimp who has no issue hurting the family that took care of him.
Johannes Roberts, probably best known as the director who gave us RESIDENT EVIL: WELCOME TO RACCOON CITY, THE STRANGERS: PREY AT NIGHT, and 47 METERS DOWN, really does a fantastic job with building tension, suspense and dread once Ben is bitten and becomes insanely vicious towards his human counterparts. While the premise may seem silly to some, Roberts really brings out the terror in many scenes, portraying events as if it’s a slasher film with Ben stalking and attacking anyone he considers a threat. The film takes place within a day and mostly at night, adding a bleak atmosphere that makes you wonder if anyone is going to get out alive. The musical score is used impressively to elevate the tension, while the gore effects [and there are a lot of them] are done through CGI but it never takes away the effect of watching Ben rip jaws from faces and bash people’s heads in without a care. Roberts reminds us that while chimps are cute creatures, they’re also extremely unpredictable and dangerous. A chunk of the film has characters stuck inside a swimming pool after a character is bitten by Ben, while the chimp sits outside the pool watching them while struggling with his disease. It could have come off boring, but Roberts keeps you invested with solid pacing and care to detail. I thought he did a great job with PRIMATE.
The acting won’t win any awards, but I felt everyone did a solid job in making the situation super believable. I thought Johnny Sequoyah was a good Final Girl type as Lucy, as she’s given the most to do and has the most agency amongst the characters. She comes across as likable, caring and tough. I also liked Oscar winner Troy Kotsur as the father, Adam. He’s not in the film a whole lot but I liked how Johannes Roberts used his real-life deafness to build a ton of suspense, as Adam was unable to hear the terror that surrounded him. It made things frustrating and nail-biting at the same time, which I appreciated. Victoria Wyant stood out as mean girl Kate, having the best one-liners and just standing out from the more nicer characters. She also had one of the best horror moments in the film with Ben. Speaking of Ben, actor Miguel Torres Umba did the motion capture for the chimp and I thought he did an amazing job. While it’s obvious the cast and crew wouldn’t allow a real animal to perform the things Ben does in the film, I never questioned whether Ben was a real monkey or a human portraying him. Super impressed for sure.
THE FINAL HOWL
2026 is starting out in the right way as PRIMATE is a solid start to the horror genre this year. While the characters aren’t really much to discuss about, the premise of having humans try to survive against a rabid chimp makes up for it, as the film is a thrilling ride right from the opening minutes. Tense, suspenseful, gory, well acted and directed, PRIMATE may not make you go fully bananas but it’s definitely some monkey business worth checking out either in theaters or down the line on streaming.
A savvy and free-spirited surfer is abducted by a shark-obsessed serial killer. Held captive on his boat, she must figure out how to escape before he carries out a ritualistic feeding to the sharks below.
REVIEW
Many, many years ago, I would host an annual “Animal Summer” on this blog - highlighting some films that focused on animals doing some dastardly things. Besides October, it was probably my favorite part of the year for reviews because I’m such a sucker for animals-run-amok movies. But I’ve gotten away from it for a long while now, as I seem to only sporadically be reviewing things these days. But 2025’s DANGEROUS ANIMALS makes me want to reconsider, because this movie was more fun and sinister than I was expecting.
Jai Courtney [in probably what may be my favorite role of his] plays an Australian shark tour guide who, due to childhood trauma from surviving a shark attack, lures tourists in the middle of the ocean to murder them and feed them to sharks while videotaping the entire thing. One night, he kidnaps a young surfer [a game Hassie Harrison] who he plans on videotaping her murder. But she proves to be his biggest challenge yet, since she’s more predator than prey. While DANGEROUS ANIMALS may be marketed as somewhat of a shark movie, the title really refers to Courtney’s Tucker and Harrison’s Zephyr - two people who may be playing the predator and prey roles respectively, but are truly a match for one another in ways that they’re just as much sharks as the animals swimming in the ocean.
Courtney steals every scene as the film’s dynamic and sinister villain. While good-looking and charming, the actor gives off right away that something is quite not right with Tucker. And the film wastes no time showing what a psycho he is, killing people on his boat and then putting a harness on certain victims to lower them with the sharks to see them get chewed up while he records it all on a camcorder. Tucker even watches the murders during breakfast, admiring his work as if he was Steven Spielberg. Courtney also has a memorable dance scene that I’m sure will be GIF’d to death.
Harrison holds her own against Courtney, playing a strong-willed young woman who refuses to be a victim. While a standoffish and kind of emotionally cold character, Harrison still manages to make Zephyr likable due to her intuition and willingness to do anything to survive. The moment Zephyr realizes she’s in a death trap, she does anything and everything she can to figure out her escape. Harrison gives Zephyr a lot of strength and manages to be as large of a personality as Courtney’s Tucker, despite the size difference. The two actors play perfect foils for one another.
I also liked the romance angle, as it actually enhanced the tension in the film. Zephyr’s one-night-stand [a charming Josh Heuston] is the only character who realizes she’s missing and uses detective skills to figure out her whereabouts before it’s too late. The discovery leads to a thrilling third act, which makes you root for the protagonists more than you probably already had.
DANGEROUS ANIMALS is directed by Sean Byrne, the man responsible for two awesome movies - 2009’s THE LOVED ONES and 2015’s THE DEVIL’S CANDY. Byrne shoots a beautiful film that’s dark, even if the cinematography is bright and colorful. Every frame, every character interaction, every chess move Tucker and Zephyr make against each other - they all matter and you’re rewarded at the end for how it all comes together. The sharks look great and the gore is pretty gnarly when it does occur. I appreciated the serious tone [for the most part], as a lot of modern shark films come across as silly or unrealistic. Byrne seems to have a lot of respect for these beautiful creatures and I appreciated it.
All in all, DANGEROUS ANIMALS is one of my favorite horror films of 2025 at the moment. It’s a simple, yet engaging thriller that focuses on the true crime aspect of the human cat-and-mouse game of survival, with sharks used as a plot device and murder weapon of choice. Hassie Harrison makes for a great Final Girl, while Jai Courtney is at his best here as a charming, yet demented villain that will probably gain some sort of cult status.
Starring:Theo James, Tatiana Maslany, Christian Convery, Colin O’Brien, Adam Scott, Elijah Wood, Rohan Campbell, Sarah Levy, Osgood Perkins
Genre -Horror/Comedy/Supernatural
Running Time -98 Minutes
Plot:
When twin brothers find a mysterious wind-up monkey, a series of outrageous deaths tear their family apart. Twenty-five years later, the monkey begins a new killing spree forcing the estranged brothers to confront the cursed toy.
Review:
Building upon the success he had with last year’s horror hit LONGLEGS, Osgood Perkins joins James Wan and Stephen King with adapting King’s short story, THE MONKEY. While LONGLEGS was meant to unsettle its audience with a supernatural true crime vibe [as well as an out-there performance by Nicolas Cage], THE MONKEY takes the opposite approach by making a dark joke out of its premise for laughs. The film’s dark humor approach towards the film’s death scenes and overall look on the idea of grief and moving on from trauma will most likely divide moviegoers expecting something more serious in its commentary.
Personally, I had a lot of fun with THE MONKEY. While not as clever or sophisticated, the film reminded me of the FINAL DESTINATION series with its bizarre set ups to the demises of the movie’s characters. The use of a cursed toy monkey causing all this unpredictable chaos is a neat idea, although I would have liked to know more about its origins and why it was so intent on hurting people while growing attached to others. Maybe that’s in the short story, I don’t know.
The humor comes from the characters, who are extremely quirky and pretty much say whatever is on their minds without holding much back. Death is almost treated as a matter-of-fact joke that’s so messed up, you have to laugh about it. No one really takes any of the characters dying all that seriously. Hell, even a church pastor gives a sermon that feels more like a stand up routine than an actual eulogy. Even a montage of people dying within a week to unbelievable deaths is treated as something that normally occurs in this universe. While I’m sure many will not connect with any of this, I felt it made THE MONKEY an entertaining viewing experience. Considering how dark the world has been in 2025 so far, it was refreshing to smile and chuckle over the ridiculous ways people died and how others approached them. For a thin plot - it’s really just a toy monkey terrorizing twins over 25 years - it carries some important themes pretty well.
Osgood Perkins’ direction continues to impress. Great pacing and editing, the quirky tone maintains throughout, and the death sequences hit. THE MONKEY is a lot gorier than I was expecting it to be, considering Stephen King adaptations aren’t known for being gory horror movies. The use of both practical and CGI effects are used very well. And I liked that the film looked kind of grungy, yet popping with vivid colors [mainly red] for a lot of the film’s short runtime. His direction for LONGLEGS is probably stronger overall, but Perkins shows that he can be visually playful in terms of sound design and striking edits. It feels like a long episode of Tales From the Crypt and I enjoy that vibe.
The cast is also very good. Theo James has a great voice for narration, while also giving two different performances as twin brothers [one nerdy and the other more of a bully]. I thought he played both the introvert and insecure brother, as well as the more evil and deranged brother very well. Christian Convery plays his younger versions believably well also. I also felt that James shared nice big brother/father chemistry with the more grounded Colin O’Brien.
Always nice to see some familiar faces as well. This includes a wonderful performance from Tatiana Maslany as James’ quirky mother, as well from an almost unrecognizable Rohan Campbell as a young man who takes drastic measures to get his hands on the toy monkey. Also enjoyed the cameos by Adam Scott, Elijah Wood and Oz Perkins himself. Everyone seemed to be playing against type and having fun with it.
It’s bananas how my two favorite films so far in 2025 involve apes [I see you, Robbie Williams and BETTER MAN]. Looking forward to what Perkins brings us with KEEPER later this year.
In this episode, I joined Matt Poirier as we look at the Troma cult classic, DEF BY TEMPTATION. Before that, we look at CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD [which has now been released in theaters] and what 2025 could look like for Marvel Studios. Then with the film, we get into how we each found this gem, what about it works so well, and then look at highlights.
When the “Heart Eyes Killer” strikes Seattle, a pair of co-workers pulling overtime on Valentine’s Day are mistaken for a couple by the elusive couple-hunting killer. Now, they must spend the most romantic night of the year running for their lives.
REVIEW
Slasher films about Valentine’s Day have always seemed like a fun and good combination for decades. 1981’s MY BLOODY VALENTINE pretty much started the trend, featuring a memorable killer in Harry Warden in his coal miner’s outfit and pick-axe. It was even brought back in the 2009 3-D remake to similar success. We’ve also had 2001’s VALENTINE with its cherub looking Cupid killer, as well as Hulu’s Into the Dark anthology series that featured two horrific Valentine’s tales to varied success.
It should be no surprise that 2025’s HEART EYES successfully brings both horror and Valentine’s Day together in a fun way. The film would totally fit right in the late-90s/early-00s post-SCREAM nu-slasher revival, while also working as a spoof or satire on romantic comedies with all the tropes and cheese firmly in place. The simple premise pretty much involves the hulking Heart Eyes Killer [or HEK for short] traveling to a different city each year to murder happy couples for reasons unknown to only him or her. HEK arrives in Seattle, only to catch main protagonists Ally and Jay fake a kiss in front of Ally’s ex-boyfriend out of jealousy and mistakenly making them targets for the killer. Romantic tropes, slasher goodness and on-the-nose needle drops ensue.
HEART EYES doesn’t bring anything new to the slasher table, pretty much bringing what MY BLOODY VALENTINE had kind of done for a modern audience. But the film does these old tricks very well, giving you exactly what you would want in a modern slasher. Besides a lack of nudity, the film doesn’t really shy from the violence. While nowhere as gory as something like TERRIFIER, there are some nice gooey death sequences in HEART EYES. People get impaled and slashed by daggers. A victim gets crushed while hiding inside a wine juicer. There’s also crossbow action, as well as a sick looking decapitation that earns the film’s R rating. I thought the effects were handled very well.
Unlike other Valentine’s Day horror, HEART EYES also acts as a sweet rom-com that makes you root for the two leads to get together at the end if they manage to survive the night. Ally and Jay love the same type of coffee, bump heads [literally] at the same time, work in the same profession and manage to understand each other even if Ally [who is still not over a bad breakup] tries to sabotage any chance for love. And when they come together to survive HEK’s rampage, you watch their bond grow and it feels satisfying to watch them fall in love. That’s due to a smart and strong script that fleshes out these two characters, making them very likable and understandable when it comes to their individual perspectives. Add in a supportive and sassy best friend and a sarcastic police department and you have characters you care to watch for 97 minutes.
If I did have a main gripe, it’s probably HEK’s reveal in the final act. I partially got it right, but the entire reveal felt like the writers [mainly HAPPY DEATH DAY’s Christopher Landon] just wanted to be wacky and make up something to shock and surprise people. No one would guess the entire thing correctly since a lot of it was never hinted at or established like in other slasher mysteries, making it seem like an idea that was thrown at the wall to see what would stick. I appreciate how progressive and modern the reveal is and I thought the action during the conclusion was quite good. But the reveal itself didn’t connect with me because it came out of thin air.
The direction by Josh Ruben is energetic and well thought out in terms of set pieces and sound design. The film is never scary and not meant to be, but the romantic comedy aspects are solid and the tone maintains throughout. The Heart Eyes Killer is used very well, having some creepy moments from time to time. I thought their mask having night vision through the heart eyes was a neat touch that I wish more was done with. The death sequences and gore were shot really well. It’s not the most dynamic or memorable film visually, but Ruben did a very good job keeping it all together and maintaining a fun tone that I’ve seen a lot of other filmmakers have trouble with. Maybe it feels too much like the current SCREAM films, but it’s still well made.
What really won me over is the acting. I think both Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding are wonderful as the two leads, Ally and Jay. Holt is adorable, has nice comedic timing, and makes her a cool Final Girl who takes charge when she needs to. Gooding, no stranger to slashers due to his association with the current SCREAM sequels, is extremely charming and funny as hell in terms of his facial expressions and line delivery. Honestly, I think Gooding would make a fantastic romantic lead for a rom-com because he has all the tools to pull it off effortlessly. I also enjoyed the supporting performances by Devon Sawa and Jordana Brewster, playing two very different detectives on the HEK case. With Sawa’s bad-cop named Hobbs and Brewster’s more good-cop named Shaw, that obvious joke does present itself - with Brewster’s no-selling of it making it even funnier. And special mention to Gigi Zumbado as Monica, Ally’s best friend. She’s not in the film as much as I would want her to be, but Zumbado makes every scene she’s in funny and memorable.
Also, a big shout out on the soundtrack. With songs like “Lonestar” by Amazed, “Please Don’t Go” by KC & the Sunshine Band and “You Can’t Hurry Love” by The Supremes, this film has a solid song list.
THE FINAL HOWL
HEART EYES doesn’t reinvent the slasher wheel, but it’s still a fun time for those looking for a good Valentine’s Day horror film to watch. It also surprisingly works as a cute rom-com, just with a serial killer murdering happy couples [whether they know they’re in one or not]. The story is simple and straightforward, yet clever with an obvious wink-and-nod at certain tropes for both horror and rom-com genres. The script also presents likable characters, including two main characters you can’t help but root for in getting together by the movie’s end. This is helped greatly by the charming performances by both Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding, who share a ton of chemistry and play off each other extremely well. Josh Ruben also handles the gory sequences nicely, while maintaining a consistent tone that balances the horror with the romance. While the reveal itself didn’t exactly excite me or win me over and the film has this SCREAM feel you can’t escape, I think HEART EYES is a worthy watch during Valentine’s Day week for any horror [or even rom-com] fan.
Lon Chaney Jr. - Lawrence “Larry” Talbot/ The Wolf Man
Claude Rains - Sir John Talbot
Warren William - Dr. Lloyd
Evelyn Ankers - Gwen Conliffe
Ralph Bellamy - Captain Paul Montford
Patric Knowles - Frank Andrews
Bela Lugosi - Bela
Maria Ouspenskaya - Maleva
Genre -Horror/Supernatural/Werewolves
Running Time -70 Minutes
PLOT
After his brother’s death, Larry Talbot returns home to his father and the family estate. Events soon take a turn for the worse when Larry is bitten by a werewolf.
REVIEW
Considering the first big horror film of 2025 is Leigh Whannell’s adaptation of THE WOLF MAN, I figured it was the perfect time to go back to when the werewolf film became mainstream. While Universal Studios’ WEREWOLF OF LONDON from 1935 was officially the first feature-length werewolf flick, that film bombed at the box office at the time although it has now gained a cult following and even a hit song inspired by it. It took six years for werewolves to be cool and engaging for moviegoers, with 1941’s THE WOLF MAN becoming a huge hit and inspiring multiple sequels, spin-offs and even remakes along the way.
While the 1941 WOLF MAN is definitely a product of its time, the film still holds up for the most part and continues to inspire werewolf lore to this day. Probably the most iconic aspect of this classic horror film is the make-up of the title character. While very primitive compared to what would come along much later in films like 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING, the prototype for those later looks begin here. Yes, the Wolf Man looks less like a real wolf, and more like a regular man who hasn’t shaved for years and probably in good need of a dentist. But for the time, this was pretty impressive make-up work and probably horrified audiences.
THE WOLF MAN also has some thick atmosphere and cool locations going for it. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the story, using the setting quite well, especially at the end where the Wolf Man is hunting within the forest as he chases his love interest while others [including his father] chase him down. Even during the daytime scenes, there always seems to be a sense of dread and bleakness that the characters can’t overcome. Wagnner showcases through the use of fog and mist at night, while main character Larry Talbot encounters strange characters who deal in the mystical arts. There’s a level of spook all around THE WOLF MAN.
And while it may look goofy to many today, the transformation scene is still quite impressive considering this was done in 1941. It’s just a simple series of dissolves with actor Lon Chaney Jr. being shown with more werewolf makeup on in each frame. But again, 1941 audiences probably ate this up and were terrified by this metamorphosis. I honestly prefer this to much of the CGI transformations we get today, as I would rather have a werewolf look like this than look like a cartoon character. But that’s just me, I guess.
Also quite simple is the story written by Curt Siodmak. The narrative is easy to understand on paper, as it’s pretty much a man’s struggle to deal with his animal instincts when he’s bitten by a werewolf. Larry Talbot is already treated as somewhat of a black sheep within his own family, struggling with relationships with his father and those close with the Talbot family. His issues are made worse when he has no control over his new werewolf persona, killing people and stalking an engaged young woman who has refused his advances.
While Larry is a problematic character in a lot of ways, especially in how he doesn’t listen to his love interest Gwen [who is an engaged woman in love with another man], he’s really the only character we follow throughout. He’s the only character we care about because he has depth and is the only one who struggles with anything major in THE WOLF MAN. You want him to reconcile with his father. You get upset when people tell him he’s mentally ill because he believes in werewolves, to the point where he claims to be one himself. You wish he could have a chance with Gwen, who is sweet on Larry but faithful to Frank. Larry is a complex character in a simple narrative. Unfortunately, none of the other characters come close to having any depth or interesting arcs besides maybe fortune teller Maleva, who pops up whenever she needs to bail Larry out of a werewolf situation. Most of the other classic Universal Monsters films have supporting characters you can identify with, but THE WOLF MAN suffers from not having many. Pretty tough to do that when your movie is only 70 minutes.
And while the story is simple, you can take a lot of thematic subtext from THE WOLF MAN. Is this film about male puberty and sexual repression? Are we dealing with topics of duality, like a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde situation? Is this a story about mental health and mental illness? Is Larry dealing with paranoia, anxiety, depression with everyone around him treating him feel lesser because of it, to the point where he has to transform and take it out on people as a mindless animal? Is this just a film about good and evil, or love and rejection leading to terrible things? There’s so much psychological analysis you can make out of this film, which makes it timeless in a way. THE WOLF MAN may be a monster film on the surface, but there’s a much deeper interpretation of the narrative underneath it all.
Siodmak’s biggest contribution to werewolf lore are all the elements he brings to the table here that quickly become incorporated in other mainstream werewolf movies. We have the weakness of silver. Werewolves have the mark of a pentagram once they’ve been bitten. There’s even the famous quote about men turning into wolves as “wolfsbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.” Like George A. Romero would do with zombies in the late 1960s, Siodmak formed the werewolf tropes as we know them today.
The acting is perfectly fine here. The biggest impression is obviously Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man. At times, his performance is a bit awkward. But for the most part, he carries himself quite well and makes Larry a sympathetic character with goofy charm. Chaney Jr. also looks great in makeup, which makes him ideal for this dual role. Even better is Claude Rains as Sir John Talbot, Larry’s father. His performances are always top notch whether it’s in horror or something like CASABLANCA. The man brings class to every movie he’s a part of and here’s no exception. I liked his chemistry with Chaney Jr. Cool to see Ralph Bellamy here, even though he doesn’t really get a whole lot to do. Same for Bela Lugosi, who is gone as quickly as he appears. Maria Ouspenskaya is pretty great as Maleva though, bringing an air of mysticism to the proceedings. A good cast, even though a lot of them aren’t given much material to work with.
THE FINAL HOWL
While not the best Universal Monsters film ever made [my nod goes to 1935’s THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN], the original WOLF MAN is still pretty damn good all these decades later. Curt Siodmak crafts a simple [maybe too simple?] story that introduces a lot of the werewolf tropes that would continue to be implemented in werewolf movies to this very day. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the narrative with nice atmosphere and a spooky mood in the last half, while highlighting the use of makeup and dissolves to showcase the werewolf transformation. It may look hokey now, but it probably wowed audiences back in 1941. The actors are fine, mainly Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains and Maria Ouspenskaya. I wish the supporting characters had more depth because you don’t really care for them [Chaney Jr.’s Larry Talbot has the only real arc]. And the film may be a bit too short at seventy minutes to give the actors more to do. But THE WOLF MAN is a classic for a reason and still maintains a charm that will continue to make it resonate for many moons to come.
