Blog Archives
Run (2025)
I’m going to do something I rarely if ever do, and that’s requesting a bit of homework before you delve further into this specific review. If you haven’t, please read my review for writer/director Uwe Boll’s 2026 grisly thriller Citizen Vigilante first. I’ll even provide the link. It doesn’t even have to be my review, though it would be appreciated of course. Familiarize yourself with this surprise xenophobic hit of a movie and then come back here to read about Boll’s 2025 effort, the generically-titled Run. It’s fair to gather an unfavorable opinion of Boll’s views on immigrants from Citizen Vigilante, which posits that thousands upon thousands of Europeans are being killed by merciless immigrants who refuse to assimilate with their poisonous cultures and attitudes, the kind of movie where a guy just slices a mother’s throat in the opening seconds while walking because why not? It’s a vile, disgusting movie that panders to the worst elements of the worst people, glorifying a racist vigilante that massacres an entire family for the sins of their teenage son. But I don’t need to remind you because, of course, you read that review. The discourse turned into an examination on Boll himself, appropriate since he was the writer and director and even dedicated the movie to the “countless victims of immigrant violence.” The most obvious interpretation was that Boll was beholden to this rotten anti-immigrant ideology. Perhaps he is. However, after having reviewed 29, now 30, of this man’s movies and written extensively about them and him, I had some doubts. It turns out Run is exactly why, as it stands as a stark refutation of the worst of Citizen Vigilante.
Forgive me, but I’ll be comparing Run and Citizen Vigilante throughout this review because I feel they are insightful mirrors for one another and demanding the comparative treatment. So, once again, if you haven’t yet, please read a Citizen Vigilante review so you’re caught up, dear reader. Thank you kindly.
Run opens in a harrowing if familiar situation ripped from years of human interest headlines. We open on a boat heading out to sea. It’s filled with migrants from all countries looking to escape their home countries to avoid political persecution, imminent violence, or simply to start anew in a better place. They’re desperate people. They’re scared. They’re being exploited by the men in charge of the boat, whom we’ll learn later are charging up to $20,000 a person for their clandestine services. These men are also brutal when questioned and stab several of the people on the boat and throw them overboard. It’s grim and upsetting and this is Boll’s introduction for the audience to the plight of the immigrants. It already begs further questions of what they’re escaping if they’re willing to endure this terrifying trip.
The boat eventually does arrive onto the Italian coast (though really scenic Croatia) and from there the movie is split among an ensemble of storylines: 1) Anna (Amanda Plummer) is an ex-pat American who stumbles upon a pregnant immigrant, Selena (Hannah Balogun), hiding in the bushes after fleeing from the local police, and offers her refuge; 2) Ismael (Oscar-nominee Barkhad Abdi) is a Somali immigrant who has given everything to seeking political asylum and a new life; 3) Eddie (James Russo) and his daughter Julia (Kristen Retton) are American ex-pats and have run a business in town that has been going downhill and they’re running low on options to salvage their impending financial ruin; 4) a local police officer, Cappi (Daniel Sauli), struggling to do his best, watches over his aging mother who lives with him, and keeps up with the influx of immigrants in town; and 5) the pair responsible for the boat ferrying (Sammy Sheik, Michel Qissi) who are looking to get in good with a local mobster (Costas Mandylor).
From its opening scene amidst the boat, I found myself leaning a little closer to the screen, eager to see if this more empathetic approach would be met with sincerity throughout. It was! Run is a consistently compassionate examination about the modern-day immigrant experience, especially upon trying to work through the often byzantine system of bureaucracy to be counted and approved for asylum or migration status. It’s an open-hearted look that refuses to view these people as “invaders” or “vermin,” and instead looks at them as the desperate and vulnerable human beings they are. I thought that Run might follow a similar plot trajectory of 2007’s The Visitor, where our lonely, older, white American befriends an illegal immigrant, grows as a person, then has that person ripped away from the cruel indifference of the immigration and asylum system, only to learn a larger lesson through their personal experience. Run kind of follows that path but not as closely as I would have predicted. Selena gets taken by Officer Cappi around the 40-minute mark, not really enough time to fully develop the unexpected relationship between her and Anna. From there, the rest of her storyline is Anna trying to negotiate for the release of Selena by scrounging up thousands of dollars to bribe the local officials into letting her loose. There’s an engaging urgency and desperation there that can mirror what some of the immigrants experience as forces with more entrenched power, and the ability to abuse that power, are placed in opposition to freedom.
The American family is the mouthpiece for our more xenophobic perspective, but over the course of the movie Boll always showcases them as being in the wrong, as the angry assholes who have lost sight that even they were immigrants too. The cranky father figure, Eddie, says he served thirty years in the military and knows firsthand how “these people” behave. Anna calls him out, saying he should then acknowledge the potential culpability the U.S. government/military and other larger bodies could have in supplanting civil order/local autonomy for profit. The second half of the movie completely dumps all over Eddie’s worldview and refutes so much of Citizen Vigilante, down to its racist core premise, that I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Spoilers ahead, but it’s worth it, trust me. At one point, a man hiding along the shore is discovered and in his panic he grabs a teen boy and holds him hostage, placing a machete under his chin. He just keeps screaming “I want free” in English and he looks completely spooked. He is also dangerous, as he slashes a guy in the face for getting too close. Sitting out to sea is the American family, and Julia gets an idea. She takes her speargun and swims out to the shore, coming up from behind the machete-wielding hostage scenario. She takes it upon herself to intervene and fires the speargun, which goes right through the immigrant’s chest, killing him. However, it also injures the boy being held hostage… and the boy dies. Julia is shaken up from the results, never intending to kill the boy, and yet her vigilante act caused an innocent boy to get killed. Then she’s taken by the police, ostensibly for a witness statement, but she’s arraigned instead for manslaughter. Beforehand, she’s been viewed as the more level-headed of her family, the one trying to assess their problems and deal with them. Boll sets her up as, for lack of a better term, “the good one” of her family, and then she does this, and not only that, she’s offended that she would even be charged with a crime. Her blithe entitlement and dismissal of her actions and responsibility is truly telling. Boll is indicting her sense of privilege at being able to float above consequences because she was white and well-intentioned even when it came to vigilantism. She tried her hand at being a vigilante and made the matter worse. Check that, Citizen Vigilante.
It gets even more explicit in the tragic finale (still spoilers, but it’s worth it). Eddie’s response to his daughter being arraigned for manslaughter is further evidence of his reactionary projections to scapegoat immigrants for all the ills of the world. Rather than legally disputing her arraignment or finding money for bail, he and his compadre fashion a stockpile of Molotov cocktails and ammo. They drive to the immigration/refugee shelter, and they mercilessly unload, killing innocent human beings for the crime of being on the other side of a fence. They murder dozens, and this murder isn’t covered in glory or tacit approval from Boll, it’s treated as an act of terror and doom. They even kill the local cops who are trying to put an end to their massacre, which shows how far their allegiance to law and order actually goes. I was reminded of Citizen Vigilante where the protagonist (Armie Hammer) also mows down room after room of police officers doing their job, bringing a killer to justice, though he at least says, “I know you’re just doing your jobs but please let me murder others with impunity.” It’s fascinating to me that the presented hero of one movie could just as easily be the presented villain of another movie without a change in their ideology. The fact that these movies are released a year apart from one another is stunning.
Lest you think I’m going to give Boll a pass because his film falls closer to a political ideology that matches my own way of thinking, there are still myriad issues plaguing Run. The storylines can feel arbitrary with how abrupt we jump from one to another and they don’t interconnect as much as they could, allowing for a wider berth of perspective shifting. The attention paid on the pair who steered the boat and them getting into the mob is completely underwritten to the point that they could have been eliminated. Some of the character choices can equally be arbitrary, like when Anna ushered Selena out of her home mere minutes before her brother is going to arrive and pick her up. Why not wait for confirmation before leaving the sanctity of the indoors? The local officer is initially presented as a down-to-Earth figure but then takes a villainous turn, being the one holding Selena hostage and insisting on the thousands of dollars as ransom. If he’s going to take this dramatic heel turn, we should spend more time with him dwelling on his actions, trying to justify them to himself, or even simmering in guilt and fear over how far he may have gone and can he salvage his integrity. The political commentary isn’t subtle in the least, though this does not bother me as we live in extremely unsubtle times. Still, having characters utter dialogue that’s clearly underlining the messages can be a bit much, like when a local official ruefully shakes her head and says, “I’m sorry. You did everything right but you’re going back home.” I also think it ends about three minutes later than it should. There’s a rather perfect ending moment that echoes the beginning of the movie and shows genuine character changes. Boll continues past that for questionable reasons, perhaps trying to establish the point that even if these immigrants find employment, they’ll still be looking over their shoulders in paranoia for potentially ever. Even so, the very ending scene is confounding.
I wouldn’t quite qualify Run as a good movie, or at last a traditionally good movie, but it’s actually okay, especially given the filmography of its writer/director. It serves as a possible eye-opener for audiences about the troubled experience many immigrants face in their desperate dash for a better life, and while giving voice to a plurality of political viewpoints and frustrations, Boll’s movie is always siding with the side of the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. In a minor way, he has done justice to their stories. Now, that brings up a salient question regarding Citizen Vigilante. I concluded my review of that film theorizing that perhaps the movie was indeed a grift of Boll’s, serving up wish-fulfillment agitprop to despicable people who see the world through its hateful lens. I think Run is perhaps compelling evidence that my theory might be right. Here’s the rub: whether you’re genuinely racist or merely pretending to be, when you make racist propaganda, it still exists. You’ve still created harmful art that comforts the horrid beliefs of racists, and you don’t get a pass for that because you don’t actively believe in that ideology. You have still contributed to it. Boll doesn’t get a pass merely because I doubt he favors the xenophobic dogma of his vigilante murderer. He didn’t have to make it in the first place, or he could have made it a more explicit critique of the right-wing zealot who demonizes immigrants for any crime real or imagined. He could have done a lot more movies like Run. So, congrats Uwe, on making a fairly cogent and resonant political drama about immigrants. It’s a shame that your other movie about immigrants will overshadow this one completely. Enjoy that money.
Nate’s Grade: C+
First Shift (2024)
Notorious film director Uwe Boll is back, baby, from his semi-retirement. Not only that, he has stumbled upon a hit, something decidedly uncommon in the man’s multi-decade independent filmmaking career, especially since he faded from the outer rings of the studio system in the late 2000s. I’m writing this after the release of 2026’s Citizen Vigilante, another surprisingly popular movie for Boll, though popular with the worst people and for the worst reasons. I was unaware that Boll had shed his retirement, so now I’m catching up with some of his latest films, and 2024’s First Shift was his return splash. It’s a cop drama actually filmed in New York City, a bit of a change for the more threadbare and mercenary director. However, when this little movie debuted on streaming for Paramount Plus, it opened as the number two movie and stayed in the streamer’s top ten for an astonishing twenty weeks, nearly half a year. Clearly, this movie caught on with audiences and Boll has already planned two more installments, as well as a potential First Shift TV series. When I read this information I pumped my fist, not necessarily cheering for Boll’s success, not that I have anything against the man’s fortunes improving, but because all through my watch of First Shift I kept remarking, “This feels like Boll’s attempt at a cop show.” Lo and behold, that might have just been the plan all along, and considering Paramount is the home of a plethora of CBS long-running crime procedurals with little variation in their formula comforts, he might have struck gold.
The plot is fairly simple. Veteran cop Detective Deo Russo (Gino Anthony Pesi) likes to be alone, and then he gets assigned a new partner, Angela Dutton (Kristen Renton). He’s grumpy and cynical and she’s sunshine and optimism. He likes to keep to himself and she’s an open book, to go with her non-stop chatter. Over the course of their first shift, they’ll spend twelve hours traversing New York City, resolving various crimes including a mob hit and a personal episode of violence with Dutton’s family.
After 29 Boll movies and counting under my watch, I must say that, to my full academic analysis, First Shift is actually mostly enjoyable. To a point. I’ll get to that later with some significant spoilers over the last twenty minutes. However, this is a crime thriller that eschews a sense of gritty realism for something far more breezy and light-hearted without being too flip or glib. The pervading feeling of the movie is just something familiar and nice, a soothing balm that tells you even when the officers are confronting a literal knife-wielding maniac, that things aren’t going to get too heavy. This is a world of cops and officials that seems ripped from the cozy confines of the network TV procedural, the world of NCIS, Bones, In Plain Sight, Castle, Hawaii Five-O, Monk. The crimes are never too grisly and the overall tone of the show is mirthful and suffused with bickering and snappy banter (“This city is my new home,” with the ready reply, “Your new home smells like piss.”) from a bunch of professionals more prone to rolling their eyes than getting into fistfights. It’s a distorted reality that’s ready-made for comfort viewing, and it mostly works. I enjoyed the introduction of the team from the typically been-there-seen-it-all boss, Lieutenant Walden (Tia Dionne Hodge), whose wisecracks actually got me to chuckle. I appreciated the unpredictable areas the banter could head, including both officers trying their best to define what a sexual act was named after a particularly popular Little Debbie treat could be. Most of all, I appreciated that Boll understood the tone he wanted and implemented it from the start. It’s such a light, pleasant feeling that I found my attention drifting, not because I was bored but because it was a familiar sensation that put me at ease.
That doesn’t mean everything snapped together with precision. For a movie just under 90 minutes, it feels a little stretched to get to that running time. The opening three minutes are devoted to watching Russo’s morning routine including making a protein shake. I kept waiting for some added detail, like he’s sneaking booze into his shake’s recipe, but alas, it was just a protein shake. There’s plenty of moments in the car with the cops that just feel like Boll was riding in the back and said, “Go on and improv,” and they just riffed for ten minutes and he cobbled together his favorite bits. It’s an ongoing impression throughout the movie, with scenes feeling a bit more loping in their rhythms, allowing certain scenes to feel aimless, drifting past the point being established. I didn’t mind so much because the stakes were low and the vibes were pleasant, but it did feel padded. Do we need to see an old man walking down the store aisles so extensively before he’s ultimately attacked? If this was designed in the TV procedural format, there would be a brevity to some of these plot points. I did find the behavior of Dutton to be a bit of a reach at points. Her posting of TikToks live from the station seemed rather unprofessional and something she’d be dinged for. It gives the impression of someone unfamiliar with the restraints of police work, which made me initially think Dutton wasn’t a transplanted cop from Atlanta but some civilian riding along for research, like with Castle, before that show long exhausted the premise of why a mystery novelist would be so indispensably integrated in the L.A. police force. The larger mob plot is also muddled, as there is an introductory scene establishing our Bad Guy getting back against an underling who betrayed him. However, before the end of the movie, this Bad Guy is hastily removed to introduce a different Bad Guy Boss. If this was the case, why didn’t we just begin with the man at the top if he’s the one who actually matters?
Unfortunately, the last twenty minutes of First Shift are a sharp tonal disconnect that seriously harms the good vibes of the movie, and one that requires extensive spoilers, so if you seriously care about whether or not a Uwe Boll movie experience will be pure for you, skip ahead to the next paragraph, dear reader. Earlier in the movie we get a couple quick flashes of a bearded man growing in agitation. He seems to have some substance abuse issues and the deterioration of his marriage. It isn’t until the final act that his storyline really surfaces with clarity. This man happens to be Dutton’s brother, an Iraq War veteran suffering from PTSD and drinking. His wife is preparing to leave him and take away her son, his stepson, so what’s a mentally unstable man to do? He blames the stepson for poisoning the relationship with his wife, pushing her to leave, and he throttles the child and suffocates him with a pillow. He then also kills his wife and himself. Take a minute to catch your breath, reader. That’s a lot, and especially for a movie that had an entire storyline about taking care of an elderly man’s dog while he recuperates and tricking their commanding officer into buying the dog’s lavish lunch. This murder-suicide family annihilator plot is far too dark and serious for a movie that, thus far, had been more whimsical and light. It completely crashes the tone of the movie. It’s an attempt by Boll to trauma-bond his two lead characters, but it really feels more like a trauma dump for the audience. Both of the cops just blurt out their feelings and personal failings at high volume, speeding over the character development that should unite them. It’s clunky. It’s also an unwelcomed and miserably dour turn for a movie that cannot support that level of dire realism.
In the final minutes of First Shift, it cuts to additional footage and promises a Part Two, kind of like the end of Kevin Costner’s Horizon: Part One previewing a trailer for its forthcoming Part Two. We still have never gotten Horizon: Part Two and it’s been two years and counting since it was pulled from the release calendar. I don’t know if this was always the plan or Boll was adding an additional tease to capitalize on the unexpected groundswell of audience interest. In October 2025, Boll had officially wrapped New York City filming for the two sequels, titled First Shift: Vengeance and First Shift: Redemption, which seems a shame because Second Shift and Third Shift were right there. The TV series is still in development. In replicating the familiar, low-stakes, ensemble character workplace cop procedural, Boll might have stumbled upon a new echelon of success for his career. If he can reassert the tone that made the movie a successful if disposable innocuous cop procedural in movie form, then I think the First Shift sequels could be modestly entertaining. However, if the shocking downturn that the film takes in its climax is an indication of the direction ahead, then the good vibes might be dead after all. Still, for the man’s return to the world of cinema, First Shift is a cut above for Dr. Boll.
Nate’s Grade: C+
The Worst Way (2026)
I was contacted by Melvin M. Claybrooks, the writer/director of an Ohio-made indie, The Worst Way, with a request for a professional review and constructive criticism on his debut film. I’m always happy to provide what I hope is a helpful and insightful analysis of people’s creative collaborations, as movies are so much work, and sometimes they work but, as often I’ve found in my many years sifting through Ohio-made indies, very often they might not. It’s good to analyze why. When the director told me his movie encapsulated the genre of “erotic psychological drama,” I’ll admit that part of me became a little wary. Perhaps it’s having a wife who has read plenty of books with varying levels of spice who refuses to read romance novels written by men, but I’m wary when men are the chief proponents of eroticism simply because the Male Gaze is long established to be a default setting after, oh, a century of movies. Still, I was willing to judge The Worst Way on its own artistic merits, hopeful that any initial genre misgivings might fade away. They never did.
The Worst Way is ostensibly a love triangle, so for better analysis, let’s focus on each corner of this messy relationship. First things first, our leading lady, Luna (Skyylie Jeter). Our introduction to her is with an opening party that parlays into some alcohol-fueled games of old, like Truth or Dare and Spin the Bottle. It’s somewhat curious that adults would gather to play these games in their, I’m assuming, twenties and maybe thirties, but hey, maybe it’s nostalgic. At this party, she meets Orlando (Shawn Johnson), who swears they’ve met fifteen years prior as teenagers (given that timeline, I’m assuming these characters are at least pushing thirty if not in their 30s now). He went by David then, and this reunion triggers old memories likely romanticized from being so long ago in the past. This is a fine setup, a man from her past has returned and they’re feeling one another out as to who they are as adults and whether they may still have a connection. Except the next scene has Luna going home to her drug-dealing criminal boyfriend, Ryan (Timothy Hightower). Again, this is a familiar setup for relationship dramas, the unfulfilled character tempted by someone new. Our helpful narrator informs us that Ryan and Luna’s relationship seems one of convenience. He supplies the drugs, they get high, they have sex, and things are fine. We’re told by our narrator that after Luna stopped using drugs, though, that she recognized the sex was not so good and her relationship was little more than transactional. Given all this, we can understand why Luna might be looking for a different man, especially one who presents himself with a fancy apartment and multiple investment properties. Oh, did I also mention that Ryan is abusive, has pulled a gun on her, choked her, and repeatedly threatened to kill her if she were to leave? This seems pretty clear-cut as far as where she will eventually go, maybe even enlisting Orlando to kill Ryan for her, like a modern neo-noir.
Except that’s not what really happens. It’s confusing because her new option presents a multitude of reasons to leave, but she doesn’t. You could argue she’s afraid to leave, but the script is either trying to present a more nuanced portrayal of the psychology of leaving an abusive, controlling, predatory relationship, or it’s just muddled writing that loses sight of the character. Not only does Luna hem and haw over which man she should ultimately choose, she keeps giving Ryan more chances and incredulously defends him to her non-plussed friends: “He didn’t hit me, he choked me. There’s a difference.” Now, people are complicated and often don’t do what’s best for them. People often stick it out in toxic relationships, or are drawn to them, for a myriad of psychological and circumstantial reasons. Some people wrongly think they don’t deserve any better. Luna does not strike me as a person who feels her worth is less. This could be intriguing to explore, the contradictions of what we know we want versus what we know we should do. That can be the stuff of great drama and insight. I don’t think The Worst Way gets there. As presented, Luna is a bored woman with a high sex drive and a serious case of indecisiveness. You might end up screaming at the screen because this decision goes unanswered until the very end.
I’ll examine the merits, or lack thereof, of both paramours in my later paragraphs, but for now we’re focusing on Luna. Is she ultimately compelling to be our protagonist? Not really. Once Orlando appears, the story becomes a repetitive game of adult musical chairs, with her going back and forth to each man, swearing fidelity. Again, this can work in adulterous dramas, but it doesn’t feel like we’re getting to know Luna any better as a person. Maybe she enjoys the attention too much, and I think part of her enjoys the jealousies that she can instigate, which is why she refrains from making a choice. However, even as the movie escalates in its second half, Luna isn’t any more involved. Strangely, she becomes the third or maybe even fifth most prominent character in the last 40 minutes of the movie, as the story focuses its attention completely on the escalating war between Ryan and Orlando. It’s genuinely surprising how absent Luna is for much of the second half of the movie. To me, this feels like a tacit acknowledgement that there just isn’t enough going on with her character if she can be sidelined so readily. Given this, she comes across less like a fully-dimensional character and more like a plot catalyst to spur the men to fight. Thus the extensive attention paid to her pleasure feels more exploitative and effectively redundant.
Let’s next examine the bad boyfriend, Ryan. There’s not a lot to go on here. He’s a dealer with rage issues and rampant paranoia, even if he has good reason to be paranoid. He’s a stock villain, written simply to provide a negative impression so we understand why she wants to leave. Except she doesn’t. Is he improving as a character? Does he have goals? Does he show different sides? Does he have a personal secret that he even keeps from Luna? No to all of that. He’s merely the Bad Boyfriend. He’s meant to be dumped for someone better, typically a more well-adjusted, thoughtful, and secure character. Now imagine in a rom-com or Hallmark movie or whatever relationship drama you want to recall, if that bad boyfriend character established early stuck around for the whole movie and our heroine was having a really protracted and exasperated time trying to make a decision. There isn’t enough here to justify his continued involvement and competition for her heart. It’s not even like he’s providing something Orlando cannot, like if their sex life was more passionate or adventurous. I suppose Ryan’s run-ins with law enforcement might provide a lift of danger and excitement for her, but that seems contrived. It’s no shock then when the violent man with jealousy and anger issues plots violent and angry retribution. The fact that he’s an ongoing competitor in this love triangle is baffling and really a further indictment on Luna as a character.
That leaves us with Orlando, who has a personal history tracing back to Luna’s teenage years. It seems he was her first everything, so she says. First love, first boyfriend, and the implication is also that she lost her virginity to him. It’s one of the movie’s better jokes that she can’t recognize him because he “looks so different” from the flashbacks because he was played by a different actor. Now a grown man, he seemingly has a cushy life-style built from a legitimate business. He’s not bad with physical intimacy either. And he doesn’t abuse her or threaten to kill her. Because this love triangle feels so unbalanced, I started wondering what sinister revelations could come from Orlando to make him less enviable. I started wondering if this swanky apartment he takes Luna to was actually his because he still works as a barber. No shame to barbers, but I doubt many people could afford that kind of place, and he tells Luna he has multiple investment properties, so is all this phony? Is this going to be like The Great Gatsby and his appearance of riches and status are a carefully constructed fantasy to win over the girl that got away from his past, someone he no longer really knows as an adult and now symbolizes more to be possessed? Not really. I wondered if maybe he was going to be too sexually transgressive for Luna. Their first encounter has him set a bowl on the floor below her while he services her. When she asks him why he did this, he shrugs, takes the bowl, and literally waters his houseplants with her sexual fluids. That is… something.
Having three characters fight for romantic dominance when they should all go their respective ways isn’t a bad formula for a movie. However, the execution hinges on the audience finding these characters interesting, compelling, or at least there being enough surprises to keep us watching. I don’t know if The Worst Way can provide the rest in the wake of its unfulfilled lead trio. The screenplay involves too many scenes of characters talking through the circumstances, resetting the stakes and dynamics for an audience in case we might forget, the thing we complain about Netflix movies over. I would say that these are unnecessary recaps, but the editing can also be rather peculiar. There are several fake-outs, including a main character death that’s merely a dream. When you have characters repeating plot events without providing new insight, multiple characters sitting down to summarize the movie, and then you have multiple fake-out fantasies and dream sequences, then maybe this story isn’t quite as tight as it could be. The fact that you have a narrator means you should be able to skip the less important stuff, though it does raise the question how our narrator would know all these events if Luna wasn’t present for them, unless the whole thing was a fictional ruse.
Now I’ve gone this long into the review without talking about the production values because, as a low-budget indie film done primarily with local talent, there needs to be a sliding scale of expectations given the natural limitations of the production. Many of the scenes are composed exclusively as shot-reverse shot compositions with little coverage, likely for efficiency rather than as some grand visual design. The camera and lighting quality are perfectly acceptable. The sound design, also a repeated issue for many low-budget indies, is solid. I find that many shortcomings from a production standpoint can be forgiven if I’m simply hooked on the creative ingenuity, storytelling, or acting. Not every movie needs to look like a sleek David Fincher thriller. Some of the sets are quite good, like that swanky apartment with large windows of a city-wide vista (come to scenic Toledo!). I really liked the cutting back and forth from Orlando and Luna as adults to them as teenagers lying on the grass, faces illuminated by fireworks. That’s cinematic stuff, and I wish the film had played around more visually with its sense of memory. The main acting runs the gamut from stiff and limited to competent to promising. I found the best actor to be Hightower as our villain. He offers more degrees of pomposity meant to be lampooned that make his performance more entertaining. I actually think the movie’s last 40 minutes, where it abandons Luna’s perspective, is the most entertaining and successful part of the movie. While Ryan and Orlando are still characters with limits, their war of machismo has a tit-for-tat that feels like actual story progression. It’s also where the movie opens up several of Ryan’s friends as supporting characters, and I enjoyed them. I like that one of these guys is preaching caution. Another guy is promising to leave for good to live overseas with his girl, just after all this. At that point, I found myself more invested in Ryan’s buddies than anyone else in the movie, so it was kind of working for me.
For me, there’s a narrow line between something being erotic and something being exploitative, but I suppose, much like sexuality, it really depends on what someone is looking for (the old adage “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” can also apply to eroticism). Erotic thrillers had their heyday many decades ago and feel like a dated remnant of the past, but that doesn’t mean cinema must be chaste and lack any passion or sensuality. It is, after all, a medium for the senses. From my subjective perspective, the erotic nature of the movie just felt like slightly longer sex scenes that weren’t exactly sexy (remember the well-placed bowl for the man’s plants?) but then they weren’t exactly that memorably transgressive (except the plant thing, obviously) or button-pushing either. The emphasis on physical connection could have opened up these characters in meaningful ways, from what desire denied and desire fulfilled are doing to each of them. It’s just that when you place so much narrative emphasis on your main three characters in a romantic triangle, you’re making a bet that the audience is going to find these people interesting or at least the dilemma compelling. The Worst Way is far from the worst, and eager fans for something more daring or adult could potentially find some purchase here, but it was a drama that felt a little too underdeveloped with characters unworthy of your investment. Because of the limitations of the three main characters, as well as the lack of psychological analysis, I found them mostly just bodies on a screen, occasionally bumping into one another for violence or pleasure, but rarely ever compelling.
Nate’s Grade: C-
Citizen Vigilante (2026)
In 2016, notorious film director Uwe Boll announced his retirement from the movies, and for a while it seemed like it would stick. He settled into being a surprisingly successful restaurant owner and seemed comfortable with leaving directing behind. Still, as someone who had watched and reviewed 27 Boll movies and written over 48,000 words on the man’s oeuvre, I had my doubts. I even said in my review for the 2019 documentary about his career, “I also don’t think Boll will stick with his retirement. Much like Kevin Smith and Steven Soderbergh, other filmmakers who swore retirement, I think this period will be but a breath, a pause until Boll finds something that inspires him.” Well, it looks like what inspired him was making his own even-more-racist version of Death Wish. Originally titled The Dark Knight, until the lawyers got involved, Citizen Vigilante is Boll’s most prominent movie in nearly two decades. He’s actually injected himself into the culture wars and gained a whiff of relevancy that’s long eluded him. Citizen Vigilante is being hailed by rightwing audiences and pundits as “the movie woke Hollywood would never make.” Elon Musk posted the entire movie on Twitter, which is technically piracy. It became the number-one movie for digital platforms like Apple and Amazon. I’ve watched Citizen Vigilante and I can say with full confidence…welcome back to the Worst of the Year film lists, Uwe Boll. We’ve been saving a spot for you in your absence.
Michael Sanders (Armie Hammer) is an ex-Army officer living in “Europe.” Where in “Europe” you might ask? Unclear, though probably Germany. I raise this because the movie literally opens with a title card that just tells us we are in “Europe,” not a country or a city but the continent. In the opening minutes, we also see an immigrant stab a nice lady in the neck for no reason. The news informs us that immigrants and migrants have been coming to “Europe” and wreaking havoc, terrorizing God-fearing, tax-paying citizens with their foreign cultures, foreign languages, and depraved sensibilities. It’s in this setting that the people need a hero. It just so happens Michael stalks the streets of “Europe” as the Vigilante Citizen, finding those who have exploited the “European” systems of justice.
Let’s take three scenes that I think are emblematic of the thinking behind this whole endeavor as well as the impression of our problematic protagonist The first follows Michael as he heads to the hospital to talk with a survivor of rape and assault. However, on the way there, a trio of teenage hooligans board his bus and refuse to pay the fare, to the consternation of the beleaguered bus driver. Michael agrees to pay their fares and sits down beside them. He then lectures the trio of teens on macro-economics, explaining how their breaking the law and refusing to pay bus fare eventually contributes to a larger cost the rest of society has to pay. To no one’s surprise, the teens seem unimpressed, and later in the movie will be hilariously harassing one kid just sitting at a bench. These teen hooligan characters are so devoid of believability that they exist merely as an older generational boogeyman (“You can’t go out at this hour… there’s teens! And they have… attitude!”). Anyway, he ventures into the hospital and talks with the poor woman who was gang-raped and beaten. He asks her a series of questions about her attackers and says he’s there to seek justice. However, he purposely manipulates her by indicating the judicial process is slow and will require her to relive all of her trauma, and she doesn’t really want that, does she? Instead, he argues, he could provide his own justice on her behalf. To no surprise, she chooses the latter. Way to prey on this woman’s fears to be given permission to do what you really want to do, hurt bad people. Do you think he would have actually respected her choice if she chose to side with the court system? I doubt it. He might pretend to be serving unmet justice, but he’s looking for access to his blood-lust by any means. Another bewildering example of this is when he’s kidnapped a judge to lecture and execute, and to prove some point about the docility of innocents, he literally drives into oncoming traffic, forces a car to crash and roll over, and presumably kills an innocent motorist. What was that guy’s sin, huh?
Another telling moment is when he’s walking the halls of a brothel, which literally looks like a general office hallway. Granted, since we’re in “Europe,” who’s to say that there couldn’t be an entrepreneur making unorthodox use of their building space? Regardless, he propositions one woman ($15 for sex and $30 for more than one position). They go into her office/bedroom and have at it. Now, I thought Michael was patrolling this location because the women were victims of sex trafficking and he was going to free them from their terror. I wasn’t expecting him to merely partake, and partake he does, though at no point does Michael ask her to role play cannibalism. However, during sex, he is distracted because he sees mold spots on the ceiling. He explains to her that this is a hazard from too much moisture, as if she’s the one in charge of the upkeep of the dwellings. He then reveals he’s actually the landlord of the building and he came for a “surprise inspection.” He then tells her that he will, indeed, pay her the thirty-dollars and flips her over for some more sex (you better believe this guy is into choking). What a modern gentleman. Despite his “generosity,” Michael is more concerned about the building upkeep than these women, again, who could be suffering from trafficking and lacking agency or the choice to leave. I guess since it might not be some immigrant responsible for their torment he’s decided to overlook this possible oppression.
The last telling moment is when the police storm his apartment. Through a series of security cameras, he anticipates their imminent arrival and hides behind a metal shield with thin openings for two automatic rifles to stick their barrels out. He warns the armed officers that he understands they’re doing their duty but advises them to leave. They obviously do not. He then massacres them all from behind his shield wall, awkwardly handling each rifle with one arm, magically shooting every one of these officers. Then again these guys all stand in the open and do not move for cover, so maybe they weren’t the top of their class. They then send in more guys who also get massacred. Firstly, did these new guys not learn anything from the last batch of sacrificial offerings? Does nobody maybe just plan for a long-term siege and wait him out considering they know he’s stuck behind his little wall? The other telling aspect is that Michael shows no compulsion in killing these officers. He would say he warned them, but he also acknowledged they were doing their jobs, and for that he has declared they must die. So Mr. Law and Order doesn’t care so much about said law and order if it impedes his vigilante hobby. I would argue this fact should make the character less appealing to certain conservative audiences but after January 6th, perhaps taking their violent fantasies out on law enforcement when it stops them from doing whatever they want to do is their new definition of “backing the blue.”
As a whole, I think all of these scenes really paint a picture as to the character of Michael, the self-styled Vigilante Citizen, who says he’’s the protector of the people, but I think he’s really more just a guy who likes violence and finds flimsy moral justifications to enact it. Still, that could have been somewhat interesting to explore as a character study, but that’s not what Boll is interested in. This movie transforms completely in its final twenty minutes into a dehumanizing and racist diatribe (spoilers to follow). He tracks one of the rapists down and it happens to be a teenager from the Middle East. So Michael decides to hold the entire family hostage and blames them all. What did this kid’s teen sister have to do with this? Or his mom and dad? Mom says her culture has conditioned her to blame these scantily-dressed European women for any sex crimes brought against them, but then is she not also a victim of bad thinking? Is she so irredeemable in her perspective that she could not change her mind over time? Should she be sentenced to death for having bad thoughts? If you open that up, where do you even stop? Michael coaxes the kid to call his friends and tell them to come over so they can be executed one-by-one, but what verification is there in Michael’s alleged hunt for justice? He’s shooting people as they arrive, some of whom he never even sees their faces, so how can he verify these are the culprits? What if some guy just walked in? What if one of these guilty teens brought along an innocent friend? Who’s to say that the Middle Eastern kid even sent the message to the correct people. Ladies and gentlemen, this ugly incident of mass execution by way of racism is the movie’s climax. It made me feel not just bad but scathingly unclean, especially knowing some will pump their fists in celebration, point to the screen, and holler, “Damn right my dude!”
This is only the second movie for Hammer since 2022’s Death on the Nile, the last time he graced a Hollywood studio production. Boll is known for welcoming actors on the fringes and people Hollywood has turned a cold shoulder to, so it makes sense for him to swoop up Hammer. And you know what? He’s as convincing as this sort of character was ever going to be. Hammer still has screen presence, and even though this is schlocky genre nonsense, the man still brings something to the role. I want to respect that but I also find it hard to respect a role that is so blatantly xenophobic wish-fulfillment propaganda.
Considering the vile politics of Citizen Vigilante, and considering it literally ends with a dedication to the “thousands of murder and rape victims from immigrants,” it’s worth bringing up the question whether or not Boll believes any of the messages of his movie or if he’s merely pandering to people that do. Other critics have commented that Boll has had conservative leanings given some of his earlier films like Postal, and I must say, as the world’s leading expert on the cinematic offerings of one Dr. Boll, I disagree. Now, obviously I can’t look into the man’s heart and know what he truly feels about this subject, but now after watching 28 of the man’s movies, I feel like he’s at least a quirky neighbor that I’ve gotten to better know. This is the same man who made a movie about the genocide in Sudan (Attack on Darfur), the same man who lambasted the prison system for its abuses (Stoic), the same man who denounced the greedy fat cats of Wall Street (Assault on Wall Street), the same man who early in his career made a movie denouncing gun violence in schools (Heart of America), and the same man who crafted a nihilistic Vietnam War movie that condemned the very idea of war (Tunnel Rats), which still happens to be his best movie. Despite his recent output’s fascination with self-righteous spree killers (Rampage 1-3), I don’t think Boll really leans rightward. That brings up the alternative: this is a calculated grift aimed directly at racists. This I can believe, as Boll will chase after any audience that might provide him enough funding to move onto the next project and the next. Does that make the movie worse or does that make the movie a secret screed against this diseased way of thought? After all, the main character is a U.S. citizen living in “Europe,” making him… a violent and dangerous immigrant. I’m putting too much of my own thought into what is ultimately a thoughtlessly grimy vigilante thriller, but after 28 Uwe Boll movies, it’s hard not to pontificate. Unless you’ve been dying to see a certain selection of people die onscreen, steer clear of Citizen Vigilante at all costs.
Nate’s Grade: D-
How to Make a Killing (2026)
After the magnificence of 2022’s Emily the Criminal, I would watch anything by writer/director John Patton Ford. Inspired by the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets, we follow Glen Powell (The Running Man) as the disowned grandchild of a wealthy family who schemes to gain his multi-billion inheritance. It just so happens he’s last in the line of succession, so he plots to kill his seven family members standing in his way of the life he covets. Given the premise is based on calculated murder, there are generally two ways to do this story that would work. The first was what I expected, an eat-the-rich satire where each of the family members is cartoonishly evil and we savor their executions. The second is a trial of the soul where our protagonist discovers that killing is harder than it seems and that these people, targets he’s projected his hatred onto, are more complex, which causes him to question whether he should continue in his deadly pursuit (the route that last year’s No Other Choice). How to Make a Killing doesn’t really do either, which made for a frustrating engagement. The assorted family members, beginning at cousins and then going into aunts and uncles, is played as buffoons but I kept thinking, “Well, they’re obnoxious, but do they really deserve to die? Would I feel entertainment at their deaths?” Their wickedness wasn’t exaggerated enough to get me salivating their demise, including several that are just lumped together as a quick montage. But these family members aren’t really fleshed out either, challenging our main character’s biases and grievances against people he’s never really known. As a result, the characters are under-written ideas of people, lacking depth to be contemplative and lacking garish ferocity to be irredeemable. Nor does the movie use this as a point of challenge against its protagonist’s skewed priorities. He’s trying to “earn the life he deserves,” but midway through, he already achieves this with a well-paying job, a good woman who loves him, but it’s not enough for him, and yet this conflict isn’t really examined either. It all makes for a tonally wish-washy movie that needed more refinement to nail its execution, in all manner of speaking.
Nate’s Grade: C+
Disclosure Day (2026)
The prospect of Steven Spielberg returning to the world of aliens and summer blockbusters seems like a match made in heaven, the answer to the prayers of millions of eager moviegoers. Disclosure Day, based on a story Spielberg has been developing for decades, is all about forces trying to alert the world that aliens indeed do exist. The primary figures are Dr. Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor), a government whistle-blower on the run, and Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt), a local TV meteorologist who is suddenly speaking in foreign tongues, reading people’s minds, and even appearing as different people in the perception of others. Both are on a collision course to find one another and discover a repressed shared past as children. It just so happens there are a lot of armed paramilitary goons who want to stop them.
Disclosure Day is an old-fashioned Spielberg popcorn thriller, for better and for worse. Let’s focus on the good first. It’s an easy movie to get on board with, as the plot moves almost immediately from the start and it becomes one extended series of chases and escapes up until the very end, which makes for an exciting movie that has a definite sense of forward momentum. Does it always make sense? Do you care about the characters? Well, we’ll get more into that later, because right now we’re celebrating what works with Disclosure Day. It’s been eight years since Spielberg made a big-screen blockbuster action-thriller (Ready Player One), albeit it’s been twenty years since he made a great one (2005’s War of the Worlds). He’s been more prone to introspective or technically adventurous filmmaking choices of late, so to have Spielberg readopt the blockbuster mantle, and with aliens no less, feels like a thematic homecoming for the man who defined modern cinema over the last fifty years. He’s always been a little squishy and corny in his approach, and that can certainly be welcomed during trying times such as we find ourselves in (hopefully things have settled and improved when you’re reading this in the future). It’s a familiar yet old-fashioned model for a modern blockbuster that Spielberg helped perfect, so to have him return to this mode and have fun can be rewarding, especially for longtime fans giddy that the master is coming back to the world of extra terrestrials. Spielberg can still position his camera and visual arrangements like nobody else, and just immersing yourself in a masterful cinematic storyteller’s whims can be transporting and uplifting even if you’re not exactly on the same wavelength. In short, it’s gratifying to just experience Spielberg operate in his blockbuster space considering the man is almost 80. Who knows if we’ll ever get another one of these kinds of movies again, so there’s something thematically fitting for the master to return to his roots for added social commentary and sentiment.
I had more problems with the old-fashioned qualities of the movie that didn’t feel like they connected for me and connected to a realistic depiction of our modern-day. The problem with a movie set in the present-day that concerns the revelation of alien encounters is that it’s hard to get a plurality of Americans to believe anything no matter if it’s scientific and correct. Just recall the COVID outbreak at the turn of this decade where people couldn’t even agree on things like masking preventing the public spread of viral infection and vaccines being a life-saver. We had people literally eating horse paste and drinking silver nitrate because charlatans told them to do so. The crux of Disclosure Day rests firmly on the world believing the public disclosure of aliens, presented none other than through network evening news. It’s a bit outdated to think that enough Americans, let alone the world, would hold faith in mainstream network news in our increasingly splintered and information silo-ed era. There are people this week who claimed one political party was controlling the weather to the embarrassment of the other political party, and you’re going to tell me these people are going to believe in the existence of aliens because it happens to be presented by TV news? That’s a bit naive, but I think Spielberg could have sidestepped this by having the movie set in the 1980s or 1990s. It would have been more believable, and holding onto collective faith in humanity coming together in times of crises would be more aspirational rather than, you know, remembering that some people rejected minor inconveniences that could save lives like they were tyrannical affronts to liberties. I don’t know about you, but my ultimate faith in humanity has only lowered when it comes to collective action and shared sacrifice in the name of the greater good.
Brushing aside my own cynical modern perspective, the conspiracy itself, and the machinations of the participants, is kept so frustratingly vague with arbitrary solutions. The movie is populated by two clandestine forces, one looking to divulge the existence of aliens and expose the coverup, and other looking to maintain that coverup. You can easily label them Good Guys and Bad Guys for all the complexity provided. That’s fine. The teams can be generic stock roles as long as our main characters are interesting and well-developed. Unfortunately, our main characters feel easily forgotten, often dropping in and out of the movie for unknown reasons and miraculously reappearing in the exact right moments. There’s a climactic showdown where Team Bad Guys is literally going to shut off the power to the TV news station because that will completely stop the flow of information (it’s not like people would just record with their phones and upload to social media). Then all of a sudden, a character that hasn’t been seen for twenty minutes, is just there, and they have a magic alien device that they know will… restore the power. As a climax, it just feels so goofy, outdated, and sloppy in its clumsy plotting. The bad guys have the power to inhabit other people’s minds and control their bodies, so why aren’t they doing this all the time? Once you start introducing alien technology without any clear definition or limits, it basically becomes a magic wand that can provide whatever the user, or the screenwriter, desires in that moment. It’s an obvious narrative cheat. There are occasions where this power can be diverting and fun, like an invisible escape that doesn’t make much sense but was at least entertaining to experience. However, because so much of the story elements are under-developed, it makes the ultimate showdown unfulfilling.
Another hindrance is that many of the characters feel more as tools of the story to get it from Point A to Point B rather than fleshed-out people. Not every character in a genre thriller needs to feel three-dimensionally accurate, but they need to feel interesting, at least enough to make us care or be curious. Daniel Kellner is the biggest dud for me. I genuinely like O’Connor as an actor and found him mightily compelling in last year’s Wake Up Dead Man, but he’s given so little to work with here. Being the point man on exposing a conspiracy should be plenty, and given the harrowing circumstances of constantly having to look over your shoulder it should provide plenty of mental conflict and second-guessing, showcasing different aspects of who this person can be. Instead, he’s less a character than a figure in motion, the person everyone else is chasing after. He’s more plot device than person.
Margaret is the more interesting character as she’s undergoing a mysterious change that she is struggling to recognize, but halfway through that confusion gives way to godhood, as she becomes essentially a superhero with powers of convenience. No matter what trouble she gets into, the script goes into a cheat code to get her out with a new alien power of contrivance. At some point, she stops even questioning or reflecting on these changes and just goes with it, which feels like the characterization simply giving up. It’s a shame because there’s great drama in the existential and personal crisis she was experiencing. I liked her revulsion at being worshiped as a religious icon once she could appear as people’s dead loved ones. Honestly, a whole different movie could have explored the psychological ramifications of that power and the needs of others to see and talk to departed loved ones one last time, to seek affirmations and closure, all against her own sense of agency with a power she feels has hijacked her identity. In the end, these two characters are mainly here to help convey the message, a human game of intergalactic telephone.
The biggest problem for me, besides the lackluster characterization, is that the most interesting part of this movie is its unsaid implications. I am less enthralled by two competing factions fighting over the alien conspiracy and more interested in how the world responds to the momentous revelation that we are not alone. I kind of wish that Disclosure Day’s Act Three had been its Act One, and rather ending on whether or not the world would discover the truth about little green men, the movie confirmed it and then said, “For the next 90 minutes, we’re really going to dig into how this affects people and changes society.” That’s the movie I want to see, the what comes next. The film briefly explores the spiritual ramifications as one character, a former nun, tries to square her faith with the reality of other intelligent life in the wider universe. Is that revelation comforting and confirmation or conflicting and confusing? I really wish the screenplay had gone further in that exploration, something akin to Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End, which richly examined the upheaval to societies and personal identity. I suppose I was looking for more of what happens after Disclosure Day rather than leading up to the big disclosure, and I doubt I’m alone.
I will also be spoiling the exact ending because I believe it deserves unpacking, so if you would like to remain spoiler-free, please skip to the next paragraph, dear reader. Alright, with that out of the way, the climax hinges upon the news about aliens being disseminated to the public. It’s a little strange that so much of the climax is merely watching the footage with our characters on the sidelines. In fact, the emotional point of emphasis is placed on a new character, a news anchor played by Courtney Grace, who narrates the footage and its implications in real time. Her performance might be the best in the movie (Blunt is good, folks, but let’s pump the brakes on those “career-best” declarations) as she shows restrained and nuanced emotion trying to process the amazing and perspective-shifting revelation. It’s just strange that so much is placed on a brand-new character so late into the movie. Regardless, what stupefied me was that after all this the good guys literally roll out an elderly alien being in a wheelchair. What? You had a literal living, breathing, well more like rasping-alien (don’t want to cast aspersions, but maybe this alien adopted smoking in his time planet-side) and you just keep him at bay? Your whole goal is to raise awareness about the existence of aliens and you literally have an alien to prove the existence of aliens. Why did everything have to hinge on these two adults realizing they were given special powers as kids? Why did they have to wait 30-plus years for these powers to manifest? Why didn’t aliens just give adults these powers rather than children to wait on their maturation? Could the old alien not learn one of Earth’s languages or at least how to type? We have magic devices that can generally do anything but the creators of these magic devices cannot conceive of something to resolve a predictable language barrier? If the script were stronger or the characters engaging, my brain wouldn’t be consumed with these questions.
Reluctantly, Disclosure Day fits squarely in the fulcrum between good and not so good, teetering between one direction and the other. It’s got high production values, good actors, and Spielberg cooking in the sci-fi/action/thriller realm. It’s enjoyably more tactile with its action set pieces, of which some are exciting and visually inventive. Others are just characters getting overlooked in plain sight, and this is before they introduce magic invisibility. However, the promise of the movie is never truly fulfilled from a story awash in underdeveloped characters and themes, arbitrary and overly convenient plotting, and a resolution that feels less than satisfying and more confusing in execution and implication. I genuinely wish that Disclosure Day was more about the aftermath of the news rather than the reaching of the disclosure itself. Even a middling Spielberg thriller can still have more entertainment than the best of many filmmakers, so I’m sure many filmgoers can find something to enjoy, but they’re just as likely to find something that sticks in their proverbial craw, that they chew over for days, and question why it couldn’t be better.
Nate’s Grade: C+
Over Your Dead Body (2026)
Based on the 2021 Norwegian film The Trip, we have a very War of the Roses-style duel between a bickering married couple, each trying to kill the other. Dan (Jason Segel) is a has-been director stuck filming “pop-up” ads. Lisa (Samara Weaving) is an Australian actress still trying to catch her big break. They plan a romantic weekend getaway with a cabin in the woods, a steak dinner, and a side of chloroform and tasers. Each reveals their scheme to kill the other and collect the insurance. They battle each other and the violence is exaggerated cartoon slapstick rather than off-putting. The screenplay keeps things lively with a structure that keeps doubling back, providing a new perspective or revelation to re-evaluate where this twisty narrative goes next. That’s when Over Your Dead Body is fun, elevated by the screwball energy and animosity of Segel and Weaving really going at it. It wouldn’t be a Samara Weaving horror/comedy if she didn’t get drenched in blood at some point. Then a group of antagonists are introduced and the movie transforms. Now the dark comedy seems to dissipate into general menace, the jokes become more forced and far between, and the violence loses its comic absurdity and just feels icky. I felt my interest lessening as it became less funny and set up our feuding couple to work together to escape their new antagonists. It becomes a bit too conventional. This structure could have worked, but I think it’s the mismatched tone that dooms this movie for me. It reminds me of the tone-shattering ugliness of the violence in Pineapple Express. I’d rather the couple continue arguing over the failings of their marriage than watch somebody get a lawnmower to the face or the threat of rape as public entertainment. This is a movie that needed a few more drafts to calibrate the tone and comedy to better maximize what it starts with. Over Your Dead Body is marriage counseling by way of home invasion thriller and, like its main characters, it’s a messy marriage of tones that needed further reflection and examination of its core problems.
Nate’s Grade: C+
Backrooms (2026)
I’ve been a fan of horror movies since my high school days. I’ve literally watched hundreds of them over the decades and find myself more drawn to them of late, perhaps a reflection of the horrors we seem to be processing in our daily lives from the deluge of current events, scandals, and moral failures. I will often feel discomfort, dread, and tension from horror and suspense movies, but it’s rare for me to feel genuine terror, to be afraid to the point where I could be haunted afterwards with the threat of nightmares. It takes a lot to get to me. It’s been maybe ten years since a horror movie really unnerved me and got under my skin. Backrooms is that movie. I was deeply affected and jarred from this little liminal horror movie. That’s the highest praise I can offer, and the fact that a 20-year-old director is responsible for that is amazing. Even if you have no knowledge of the popular YouTube series, dive into Backrooms.
Based on the creepy pasta Web series, Backrooms is set in 1990 and primarily follows two characters. Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is the owner of a failing furniture store with plenty of personal baggage over his failed marriage and unrealized career as an architect. His therapist, Dr. Mary Kline (Renate Reinsve), has her own parental trauma she’s trying to work through. One day Clark discovers a strange doorway to another dimension in the basement of his furniture store. It’s a seemingly endless hallway reminiscent of an open-spaced office building, and Clark decides he needs to explore this strange new space, but can he make it back, will he hold onto his sanity, and are there malevolent forces inside this space to avoid?
The strength of Backrooms, as a concept as well as a feature film, is how it taps directly into your limbic system to communicate that everything is just inescapably wrong. Everything looks wrong, everything sounds wrong, you worry that another turn of another hallway is only going to bring about further ruin, and so every additional second in this inter-dimensional space makes you want to retreat. It has the living contours of a nightmare world where there is a lack of concrete details, where things are approximating real-life but just a means off, little uncanny differences or limitations that alert your brain that things are not as they should be. There are small examples, like a chair with five legs instead of four or a stop sign with its writing backwards, and then there are more arresting imagery, like chairs sinking into the floor like sand, or a series of telephone poles increasingly bending forward like a splayed rib cage. Exploring a world of these distortions leads to deeply fascinating and also unsettling imagery that can lead to a suffocating atmosphere of unease. It makes for a rather entrancing experience of analogue, dead mall aesthetics that have a subliminal pull that draws you innately while making you feel off-balance. Like the definition of the uncanny, it takes the familiar and mundane and distorts it into something truly eerie.
But this is more than just a 100-minute extension of the short-form YouTube videos. Director Kane Parsons has certainly leveled up his craft in his film debut. This is a weird world he’s intimately familiar with, but the big-screen jaunt is carefully made to be inclusive and adapted like an actual movie. There’s work here on characters using the Backrooms as an exploration of their unresolved personal traumas, for Clark his rage against a world and the people he felt have failed him, for Dr. Kline her oppressive and mentally ill mother. I like that it’s never clarified whether or not Dr. Kline’s mother was just crazy or whether she too became aware of the Backrooms dimension and was trying to protect her daughter. There are hints of larger lore but the movie isn’t drowning in it, just like there’s some basic explanation given to this dimension and its rules, just enough to satisfy without going into too much explanation. This was my main issue with 2019’s Us, Jordan Peele’s creepy and thrilling nightmare about dopplegangers revolting, and also a movie that shattered its own credulity once it attempted to provide a logical explanation. Not everything that’s strange in a movie needs a thorough explanation. We can readily accept the unbelievable on its own terms. There are more traditional horror movie elements, like jump scares, frantic chases, and the Big Scary Something Coming to Get You, but Parsons makes them all work. There’s a jump scare in this movie that didn’t just make me jump but made me gurgle something unintelligibly in response. There are several agonizing setups of characters contemplating journeying through tight or slanted or altogether ominous spaces and I was shrinking in my theater chair, dissolving in the simmering anxiety, and repeating “no” a lot. The use of found footage is perhaps the best in any movie in a decade. Even at the young age of twenty, Parsons shows not just a knack for creepy imagery but on how to craft and escalate suspense set pieces, how to build and punctuate a suffocating atmosphere, while also balancing characters, story arcs (learning acceptance and accountability!), and metaphors (a concrete hand print she carries with her from childhood!) and themes without losing sight of the core scares and their appeal. Parsons has already proven that he’s the real deal and he’s not even old enough to legally drink in the U.S. yet.
There’s an interesting meta commentary here about the junky iterative process of generative A.I., though this is speculation on my part, though I find it founded in logic within the movie. We’re told repeatedly that the Backrooms doesn’t create things as much as it recreates from its surroundings and the memories of its participants. There’s a reason most of what is explored is a reflection of the furniture store it’s attached to. Except it cannot get things exactly right. Clark explains it like describing a dog to an alien that’s never seen or known the reference and then having the alien create what it thinks a dog would be; the larger shape and idea might be there but the details are inexact or incorrect. For me, this corresponds with the rise of generative A.I., where it tries to replicate real-life but is often prone to strange hallucinations, like human bodies with peculiar joint hinges, extra fingers, or smoothly elastic skin. There’s also very Backrooms-esque visuals of furniture being eaten by walls and floors. Generative A.I. is limited to only replicating what it has been fed, and it often spits back something that looks alien, missing those crucial details to seem real. There’s a memorable tracking shot in the movie that descends floor after floor, and we witness the same room layout go through round after round of regeneration and distortion, getting further and further from the original source with each iteration. What begins with a recliner and windows becomes chairs sinking into the floor, the outlines of windows against solid walls, and finally nothing. Parsons doesn’t have to be explicit but the pointed commentary can be found on A.I.’s limits.
I don’t know about you but if I discovered a portal to another dimension, I don’t think I’d take it upon myself to go exploring. I understand why the movie does so because, well, we need a movie, and that discovery is where the horror lies, and it makes sense for Clark since it’s a reflection of his own memories and unfulfilled ambitions. I get it. However, if this was real-life, I would immediately retreat after confirming that, yes, this strange doorway indeed exists. Perhaps I’ve seen enough spooky movies or it’s just an overabundance of caution in my nature, but I would definitely stay home and let someone else become the latest lost entity to the siren song of human curiosity. Somebody else can be monster chow.
The origins of the Backrooms predates Parsons and his popular YouTube experimental shorts, but it was he who really popularized it and took it to another level, and now with his film debut, Parsons has done something remarkable. It’s not just the bold announcement of a new cinematic voice. It really feels like this movie could be the start of something monumental, a tide-changer along the lines of John Carpenter’s Halloween. He’s not the first filmmaker to explore liminal imagery and dream logic, as we’ve seen from Severance, to The Stanley Parable, to the entire career of David Lynch. I can already hear some Hollywood studio exec saying, “Gen-Z kids, they love them their liminal spaces,” or some kind of erroneous lesson from the runaway success of Backrooms. Get ready for a flood of imitators exploring minimalIst abandoned spaces. I was entranced and deeply disturbed by this movie to the point where I kept shuddering even after the credits rolled. It’s not because of shock value or emotional manipulation, it was because Backrooms got to me, unnerved me, and shook me up, in a way no movie has for a long time.
Nate’s Grade: A
28 Years Later (2025)/ The Bone Temple (2026)
While not officially 28 years after its release in 2003, you’ll have to settle for only 23, comes a sequel to the zombie outbreak that kicked off a resurgence in zombie media in the 2000s. 28 Years Later is a far more experimental and meditative and genuinely surprising and surprisingly poignant sequel than I think many fans were expecting. They thought it was going to be more like a father/son (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Alfie Williams) coming-of-age zombie hunt and weekend of survival. It is that, but it’s also a meditation on life, death, family, nature, and how we respond to grief. Director Danny Boyle returns, for his first film since 2019’s Yesterday, and screenwriter Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Civil War) returns, and together they provide a sequel that attempts to answer what society might be like growing up in this new dystopian world. The movie can get weird, with old movies and archival footage thematically mixed into scenes, Boyle’s camera in constant nervous anticipation, an active member of the hunt, and the use of an iPhone rig to provide Matrix-esque bullet time effects for zombie head shot splatter. Garland has also come up with some interesting zombie evolution over those ensuing three decades of development (granted I thought since the “zombies” were infected living people that you just had to wait them all out to die from dehydration). It seems like a father/son adventure thriller, and it’s quite good at being that, but then it transforms into something unexpected, giving mom (Jodie Comer) the spotlight as she confronts the reality of her physical and mental maladies. From there, the movie becomes this beguiling and thoughtful examination on grace and grief, on processing loss and finding a sense of stability in an unstable world. Ralph Fiennes appears late as a former doctor who seems a little crazy, the grave-keeper to an impressive monument built from thousands of human bones. It’s such a welcomed surprise for a movie replete with them, a movie that refuses easy categorization and wants to do something meaningful than just being a zombie action/thriller.
Even more unexpected was an immediate sequel and continuation a mere six months removed from 28 Years Later‘s wide release. The Bone Temple is divided into two stories, both holdovers from the prior film. Spike (Alfie Williams), the son going on his own journey of self, has been conscripted into a weird and violent gang, The Jimmies, lead by Sir Lord Jimmy (Jack O’Connell), the twisted grown-up version of the child seen in the harrowing prologue to 28 Years Later. He’s a sadistic leader who also tells his followers he’s the son of Satan. Then there’s Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) who we initially thought of as menacing but becomes the most humane caretaker in this post-apocalyptic landscape. The two male figures serve as competing responses to unmitigated tragedy, one retreating to religion as a tool for meaning but it’s really exploitation and manipulation through violence and fear, and the other devoting himself to science and making the world just a little more liveable through empathy and trial and error. Dr. Kelson develops an unexpected friendship with one of the big Alpha zombies, “Samson” (Chi Lewis-Parry), after he discovers this behemoth, who was ripping spines out in rage fits in the previous movie, is seeking out relief through the doc’s morphine darts. Dr. Kelson ponders whether or not there is a chemical compound that could bring back the humanity to the infected. The difficulties with communication do not deter the good doctor, and these paths cross in a climax where the Jimmies come to think of Dr. Kelson as the Dark Lord himself. The movie is consistently interesting, further building out this new damaged world began in 28 Years Later. Nia DaCosta (Candyman, The Marvels) takes over as director and offers a more patient camera, forcing us to dwell in the moments, both horrific and moving. There are torture sequences, long demented monologuing, and questions over the tenacity of human connection despite incredible obstacles, and yet the movie is both more a straightforward horror-thriller than its predecessor and a more focused human drama about loss and holding onto one’s sense of dignity and empathy. It lacks the visual fireworks of Boyle’s style, and I found Sir Lord Jimmy to be more tiresome than interesting, but The Bone Temple is an effectively engrossing lateral sequel that slowly builds Garland’s world a little wider. Now I’ll actually have a third 28 Years movie to look forward to that hopefully won’t take 28 (or 23) years..
Nate’s Grades:
28 Years Later: B+
The Bone Temple: B














You must be logged in to post a comment.