Author Archives: R.L. Terry

Unknown's avatar

About R.L. Terry

Ryan “Professor Horror” Terry teaches film studies and screenwriting at the University of Tampa. He holds graduate and undergraduate degrees in film and media studies. He has regularly published film reviews since 2014 and has been a featured speaker at Tampa Bay Comic Con, Spooky Empire, and the historic Tampa Theatre. His work has appeared in both political and entertainment magazines.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Disney+: the Movie. The latest installment in the MCU feels like a Disney+ episode or show idea that was artificially inflated into a feature film. Captain America: Brave New World neither has the intrigue of an espionage thriller nor the excitement of a superhero movie. The plotting unfolds in a manner reminiscent of a serialized television series, evidenced by disjointed scenes that could very well function as individual episodes respectively. The movie is also plagued with gross levels of slapdash, uninspiring CGI that take an already vapid story and reinforce the one-dimensional delivery. From beginning to end, the pacing issues are evidenced by the diegetic momentum that ramps up then fizzles repeatedly causing any modicum of suspense or urgency to diminish as soon as it forms, resulting in a mitigation any potential of a cinematic spectacular.

Sam finds himself in the middle of an international incident after meeting with President Thaddeus Ross. He must soon discover the reason behind a nefarious global plot before the true mastermind has the entire world seeing red.

Captain America: Brave New World exemplifies the trend of blurring the lines between television and cinema. The long and short of it is: the significant influence the MCU TV shows have had upon the theatrical releases. This observation is two-fold (1) screenwriting and (2) technical achievement. While the former is the more significant problem, the latter is the easiest to identify. Specifically, the movie’s color grading, shot composition, and digital effects are nearly indistinguishable from MCU streaming series on Disney+. Unfortunately, this blurring of the lines between cinema and television results in a lack of the grandeur typically associated with MCU theatrical releases.

The latter could be more forgivable is the former was of a higher caliber. While writer Rob Edwards has certainly demonstrated his gift for screenwriting in previous Disney films (the Academy Award nominated Treasure Planet, being one), the other two writers have primarily worked in Disney+ television–and it shows–in spades. The plotting, pacing, character development (or lack thereof, as it were) is straight out of Disney+. The lack of urgency and stakes are also problematic, as well as the near absence of the “fun” factor. I will be the first to acknowledge that I don’t typically care for comic book or superhero movies; that said, even I will admit that the the first two phases of the MCU were (mostly, anyway) fun popcorn movies. Not the case with this latest installment. If the movie wasn’t going to be fun, then it should’ve been intriguing or spellbinding–not the case either. It’s pretty average all the way around.

I will forever be a champion for practical effects–even practical effects that are supplemented with CGI. But this movie screams TV-budget CGI the whole time. This is particularly true in the rather anticlimactic showdown. You cannot replace the way real light bounces off real objects into the camera lens, and this movie demonstrates the danger in relying heavily on CGI in an attempt to wow the audience. The strength of a picture should be in the plotting, subtext, and character development–not in the CGI. Since the movie was not going to lean into the fun factor, the CGI should’ve been dialed way back.

Even though it was wonderful to see Harrison Ford on the big screen again, he appeared to have been experience little fun while making this movie; furthermore, the performance was pretty well phoned in. Likewise, Anthony Mackie was not himself as Sam. This Sam was greatly lacking in charisma and wit. While his performance may not have been as phoned-in as Ford’s, there was still a flatness to the performative dimension. Danny Ramirez, however, did appear to be having fun on this movie, and I would’ve liked to have seen him given more to do in order to draw me into the story.

Captain America: Brave New World struggles to distinguish itself as a cinematic experience, with its disjoined plot, production quality, and lack of meaningful character development, resulting in a movie that appears to have far more in common with a Disney+ television series than with a feature motion picture.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

HEART EYES horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Slashtastic! Heart Eyes is the don’t miss holiday horror movie this Valentine’s season. Whether you’re a romantic or a cynic, there is something in here for everyone. The blend of romance and horror will, like Cupid’s arrow, find its way to the heart of slasher fans. Move over Coal Miner to make room for a new killer on the Valentine’s scene. Directed by CollegeHumor’s Josh Ruben and written by Christopher Landon (Happy Death Day), Michael Kennedy (Freaky), and Phillip Murphy (Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), Heart Eyes seamlessly blends cliches from both romcoms and slashers, resulting in a movie that is sure to find its way onto rewatch lists every Valentine’s Day.

A masked maniac with glowing, red heart-shaped eyes returns every Valentine’s Day to terrorize unsuspecting couples.

The screenwriting is efficient and effective, and wastes no time in drawing audiences into this properly paced story. The kills are over-the-top–almost campy–and the romanic comedy bits are cheesy–in all the best ways possible. But this movie isn’t just about thrills and kills, because the central characters are surprisingly well-developed, and you’ll be rooting for their survival. So sure, some of the plot beats are formulaic, but this is a formula that has worked for over four decades, and demonstrates that genre movies have a timeless quality–a charm–about them that keeps us coming back for more screams.

Much like we saw with 2023’s Thanksgiving, Heart Eyes does the slasher right. Not only does it check off all the boxes for a classically written slasher, it also checks off boxes for a romantic comedy. Perhaps the movie leans more into its horror genes than it does its romcom genes, but it still strikes a well balanced genetic sequence for your entertainment pleasure. Starting with a classic romantic comedy opening, but as soon as it steeps for just the right amount of time, then upending it with a campy and gruesome slasher sequence, informs audiences precisely that for which they are in store for the rest of the movie. It sets the tone right up front, so you’re willing to buy everything else the movie throws at you.

The plotting is both sound as does the slasher reveal right. Yes, in hind sight you can make the observations that Heart Eyes took from this or that slasher, but that’s the beauty–it follows the formula but still keeps it engaging. Never once did I feel that it failed to keep my interest–even when I called the identity of HEK. I liked that this movie felt like classic slasher. We get it all: a big event that kicks everything into gear, a central character with a well-defined external goal driven by an internal need, and a character of opposition. This movie benefits from solid screenwriting and a director that seeks to entertain first and underscores the superstructure with thoughtful material for conversations about romance and relationships in the subtext. The stakes are high: survival! And throughout the movie, the stakes are raised, reminding us that no one is safe and even our final girl can be injured or killed.

Both of our central characters are well-developed. Olivia Holt’s Ally and Mason Gooding’s Jay are relatable and compelling. Are the characters particularly deep? No. But are they sufficiently developed to give these slasher characters human dimension? Yes. Both are strong and vulnerable. Furthermore, Ally feels like an “everyman” that is thrown into a situation in way over her head, but the setup is quite believable. I also like comedic irony in that she works for a jewelry company but has grown disillusioned by romance after being dumped by her boyfriend. Perhaps you work for a company that advocates for or sells something of which you are now cynical. Alternatively, Jay may come off overly optimistic and idealistic, but through that, we also learn that he as fears and vulnerabilities too. My point is, the principle players in this slasher are written with dimension, so you are rooting for their survival.

The most memorable slashers have a trademark mask, weapon, or sometimes both, which is the case with the Heart Eyes Killer (HEK). I’ve no doubt that HEK will find a place amongst the pantheon of slasher icons. After a long time of no new entries into that circle, we had John Carver added in 2023 and now HEK. Heart Eyes is a horror movie made by slasher fans for slasher fans, and its refreshing to see that the horror staple is still alive and well. Through movies like Thanksgiving and Heart Eyes, modern audiences are reminded that genre movies can be just as entertaining or thoughtful as the arthouse movies that are slowly becoming the mainstream. Funny–the movies that used to be the mainstream (i.e. slashers) are slowly finding their way into the arthouse cinemas, while the prestige pictures that used to be confined to the arthouse cinemas are slowly becoming the new mainstream.

Thematically, the movie explores disillusionment in and with romance. From an opening scene that underscores the realization that images captured by a camera are not always reflexive of reality to the cynicism that can grow out of broken relationships to accepting that an idyllic romance may just be possible, it’s all in this movie. Through the apparatus of the slasher, the writers and director are able to explore love and romance in a variety of ways that are rather poignant.

If your idea of a Valentine’s date is dinner followed by a scary movie, then this movie fits the bill! It works as both. Happy Valentine’s Day!

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

COMPANION horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A wild, albeit predictable ride. New Line Cinema’s Companion, written and directed by Drew Hancock, is an entertaining cautionary tale on how ultimate control, ultimately corrupts. Moreover, the film provides a thoughtful critique on the (in this case) deadly consequences of attempting to exert that desire for ultimate control over an individual, thus rendering mute their unique individuality. The film also paints a provocative portrait of the relationship between humanity and artificial intelligence (and androids) by establishing a seemingly controlled environment that then devolves into one of chaos. This progression reflects the overarching theme of attempts at ultimate control by underscoring the illusion of the ability to exert ultimate control over the human spirit, even if that “humanity” is housed within an artificial intelligence. Hancock’s screenplay is lean and mean, and nicely balances the horror elements with both lighthearted and dark comedy. Even though many of the plot beats were predictable, the movie still succeeded in remaining engaging and fun–just goes to show that there is a beauty to genre movies.

A weekend getaway turns bloody and violent when a subservient android that’s built for human companionship goes haywire.

Hancock’s film effectively blends elements of horror and comedy to explore contemporary anxieties surrounding individualism, artificial intelligence, and the ethical implications of control for the purposes of subjugation. Audiences are challenged by the plot and characters to reflect on the moral responsibilities involved in the creation and control of artificial-sentient beings. By prompting the audience to consider the consequences, the film is positing questions concerning the very nature of humanity and the desire and limits of control. Furthermore, the film demonstrates that when given seemingly ultimate control, that primal desires for ultimate control surface, thus reminding us that we have to learn to be generous, kindly, and altruistic because we are naturally born rather selfish and self-centered. Ultimate control, ultimately corrupts. Without reasonable checks and balances, the results of absolute control can be negative and quite possibly even deadly to the human spirit.

As artificial intelligence increases in human-like problem solving and expression, we have to ask ourselves how far will be go to both create and control artificial intelligence as it slowly approaches android-like technology. Will androids be controlled like a typical robot or mindless automaton or will they be granted sentient status like Data on Star Trek: the Next Generation‘s critically acclaimed episode “The Measure of a Man”? Without derailing from my review of Companion too much, I am reminded of this outstanding Trek episode that actually does a much better job of addressing topics of autonomy and control than Hancock’s film. The episode critiques the idea that beings created for a (even at one time, pre-determined) purpose (especially artificial ones) can be controlled or owned. Data’s ability to choose his own destiny is at stake. Captain Picard argues, in the trial that is convened to determine Data’s humanity, that intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness make someone a sentient individual, not merely their biological nature.

Where I feel that Hancock’s film falls short is in its social commentary is the limitations it places on itself in its expression of the themes with which it underscores the plotting and characters. For the greatest impact, it should have been more consistent in the exploration of ultimate control over a seemingly sentient individual. Instead of crafting a film that could be more broadly applied, Hancock’s story falls into the trap of being too focuses on a overly generalized stereotype of particular individuals versus crafting a narrative that was more broadly concerning itself with depicting robbing sentient beings of their individualistic humanity–their free will. The sharpest criticism is clearly aimed at one particular character (and the demographic they represent). But eventually the idea of control over an individual snares another group. And for a moment, there was hope that Hancock was extending his critique to be more inclusive, but it returns to being focused on the original demographic group. This extension would have been a reminder that anyone can find themselves drawn to how far one can push the limits of control over a lover, friend, or other platonic, professional, or romantic relationship. It’s a trait that runs through everyone, and we have to learn to control our innate selfish and self-centered behaviors with which we are born.

While I have some reservations in the consistency and accuracy of theming in the film, Companion remains a solid horror films that serves as a reminder of the consequences of exerting ultimate control over an individual. The pacing, plotting, character development, and technical elements work together very well to keep the audience entertained on this wild ride.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

PRESENCE horror film review

Posted on by
Reply

It’s, well, interesting. As soon as I saw that David Koepp was the screenwriter, I was instantly intrigued. While I’m hit or miss with Soderbergh, I’m generally hit with Koepp. But, I find this film’s apparatus to be more interesting than the story itself. While Presence is ostensibly a ghost story, it derives much of its intrigue–not from its narrative–but from its formal and technological apparatus. Soderbergh, known for his experimental approach to filmmaking, employs an innovative first-person perspective; however, this stylistic choice, coupled with Soderbergh’s meticulous control over framing, lighting, and movement and Koepp’s minimalist screenplay, resulted in elevating the film’s formal qualities above its forgettable plot and one-dimensional characters.

In short, the film is about a family that moves into a suburban house and becomes convinced they’re not alone.

The film unfolds through the perspective of an unseen spectral presence, effectively turning the camera into an active participant rather than a passive observer. This shift from traditional storytelling to experiential cinema foregrounds the act of seeing and being seen, inviting viewers to consider their own complicity in the voyeuristic aspects of horror. The film’s reliance on long takes and fluid camerawork creates an unsettling sense of omnipresence, emphasizing the medium’s ability to manipulate space and perception.

While Koepp’s screenplay is serviceable in its exploration of haunted house tropes, it often feels secondary to the film’s preoccupation with its own form. Koepp’s screenwriting is characterized by minimalistic dialogue and a structure devoid of conventional plotting. Rather than relying on his penchant for exposition-heavy scripts, Koepp wrote a screenplay that relied primarily on subtext and visual cues, thus inviting the audience to experience the story through mood versus visually-driven stimuli. The film’s thees such as literal and metaphoric isolation, family dysfunction, and the effects of trauma, feel much more like scaffolding for Soderbergh’s technical experimentation than an actual story. Koepp’s unconventional screenplay paired with Soderbergh’s experimental filmmaking results in a film wherein the mechanics of cinema take precedence over traditional storytelling.

Ultimately, Presence is most compelling when considered as an exercise in film form rather than a compelling story itself. The filmmaking apparatus generates a more profound engagement than its plot and characters, which hurts the potential this film had given its pedigree of talent. Soderbergh and Koepp crafted a film that is less about a haunted house and more about reimagining the voyeuristic capabilities of cinema itself. By leveraging cutting-edge camera systems and post-production techniques, Soderbergh set out to blur the line between observer and observed, in an attempt to create an uncanny sense of intimacy and detachment, but it failed to stick with this critic long after the credits rolled.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

WOLF MAN (2025) horror movie review

Posted on by
1

Underwhelming. Leigh Whannell’s second remake of a Universal Monster classic has about the same depth as a puddle of water and keeps your attention about as much. No mistaking it—there are some brilliant ideas all throughout this movie, but the connective tissue is simply non-existent. Clearly this movie is Whannell’s attempt at infusing a thoughtful family drama about generational trauma and broken relationships into the monster movie formula, but the screenwriting fails to support this attempt. Whannell has previously demonstrated that he can successfully remake a classic whilst retaining the soul of the original and adding a layer of modern sensibilities, because that is exactly what he did with the critically acclaimed and box office success of The Invisible Man in 2020. Also, would somebody please send Julia Garner a great screenplay? She is a phenomenal actress; but ever since she finished Ozark, she hasn’t been offered a cinematic vehicle in which she could best shine. She’s still the best choice for a Madonna biopic. But I digress. 2025’s Wolf Man certainly had the potential and pedigree to be an entertaining, thoughtful, and exhilarating horror movie, but the screenwriting simply isn’t there to support it. However, I’m sure it’ll make for a great Halloween Horror Nights house later this year.

Blake and his family are attacked by an unseen animal and, in a desperate escape, barricade themselves inside a farmhouse as the creature prowls the perimeter. As the night stretches on, however, Blake begins to behave strangely, transforming into something unrecognizable that soon jeopardizes his wife and daughter.

Despite Whannell’s ambitious reach, his Wolf Man remake fails to capture the innovation and depth of the original (1941) and the popcorn entertainment of the 2010 remake. While it boasts a rather strong performative dimension and effective moments of terror, the film struggles with strategic plotting, thematic clarity, and consistent execution of film craft. From beginning to end, there are setups without any payoff and many filler scenes that pad an anemic narrative. Moreover, the first and third acts feel truncated in exchange for a protracted second act that lacks any meaningful character or plot development. This is one of those horror movies that has all the bones of a great and entertaining story, but the moments wherein the pot and characters should steep are nearly non-existent. It has all the markings of a first draft screenplay. And with Whannell’s name all over the billing from writer, to director, to producer, this film suffers from what plagues so many film’s these days: lack of accountability. I’ve said it before, most directors are not writers and most writers are not directors. There are of course exceptions, but I’d like to see more writers and directors working together instead of feeling that one has to be both in order to be taken seriously as an auteur.

One easy example to cite (that isn’t a spoiler) is something that happens at the very beginning of the film that spotlights recurring setups with lack of payoffs. As 12 year old Blake is walking with his domineering father through the woods, his father makes a big deal out of some mushrooms in which Blake was interested, noting that many mushrooms are poisonous. The degree to which Blake’s father draws attention to the mushrooms sets up the Chekhov’s Gun storytelling device–or rather–appeared to have set the stage. Nope. Those mushrooms never come back into play for the duration of the movie. Whannell should have either found a way for those mushrooms to payoff in the showdown or should have not drawn acute attention to them at the beginning of the movie. Why am I spotlighting this? Because it’s indicative of the recurring weak screenwriting mechanics that plague this movie.

You may have heard that many critics and fans have negatively criticized the wolf man’s appearance. I may not be able to speak positively of the movie’s story and characters, but I do feel the need to come to the movie’s defense here, because the movie is called Wolf Man, not An American Werewolf in London. Looking back to Lon Chaney Jr.’s iconic Wolf Man (designed by the legendary Jack Pierce), he was designed to be a wolf-like man, not a werewolf in the traditional sense. Thematically, it represented then (and still represents in this latest iteration), the “monster” within each of us that has to be controlled. I respect Whannell’s decision to keep with a variation of Jack Pierce’s original concept of the Wolf Man, and I feel that it works very well for this movie.

An area where this movie shines brightly is in the exquisite sound design. From the immersive sounds of nature in the forest to the changes in Blake’s sense of auditory processing, the sound mixing and design are fantastic. Of all the moments demonstrating strategic and effective sound design, where Whannell’s direction demonstrates the greatest thoughtfulness, is in the moments wherein Blake’s human senses begin to transition to canine senses. Aside from this transition faltering to allowing for room to develop, the idea of dramatizing this for the audience was innovative and paid off dramatically.

Even though I am an advocate for experiencing cinema in the cinema, this is one of those movies for which you should wait to be added to Peacock–which will probably be very soon.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry