Tag Archives: slasher

PINOCCHIO UNSTRUNG horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Gloriously unhinged.

There is a profound difference between watching visual effects and watching craftsmanship, and the latest twisted fairy tale from the filmmakers behind Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey may not possess the screenplay necessary to become a horror classic, but it does possess something increasingly rare in contemporary filmmaking: artistry you can literally see with your own eyes. Every puppet, animatronic, prosthetic, and practical effect reminds audiences that movie magic isn’t created by algorithms or render farms. It’s created by artists with paintbrushes, carving tools, strings, latex, wood, and imagination.

About: A wooden doll named Pinocchio embarks on a violent crusade to carve itself into a real boy, one piece at a time.

Within minutes of the opening credits, it becomes obvious this is a film made by people who genuinely love the craft of filmmaking. The opening title sequence immediately establishes that philosophy, using light, shadow, carved wood, and puppetry before transitioning into a remarkable prologue staged with two-dimensional articulated wooden figures reminiscent of Lotte Reiniger’s The Adventures of Prince Achmed. It’s an inspired artistic decision that immediately distinguishes the film from countless independent horror productions that simply chase gore.

And yes…there’s plenty of gore.

When the violence embraces the exaggerated, cartoonish sensibilities of 1980s splatter films, it’s gleefully entertaining. Occasionally, however, the filmmakers push the violence toward a level of realism that becomes less fun than uncomfortable. Those moments feel at odds with the otherwise playful tone established throughout the picture.

The screenplay itself is considerably less inspired. Character development is minimal, dialogue rarely rises above functional, and the narrative exists primarily as a framework upon which to hang increasingly inventive practical effects. Yet unlike Pooh: Blood and Honey, Pinocchio Unstrung rarely feels cynical or mean-spirited. It delights in twisting familiar fairy tale iconography without ever suggesting contempt for the source material.

Robert Englund’s vocal performance as the Cricket is a delightful bonus for horror fans, and the filmmakers sprinkle affectionate nods to A Nightmare on Elm Street throughout the production. They’re playful rather than distracting, another reminder that this is a movie made by lifelong horror enthusiasts.

But the real stars are the effects artists.

Not since the golden age of Jim Henson productions like The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth has puppetry been employed with such confidence in a genre film. Likewise, the animatronic work recalls an era when creatures occupied physical space alongside actors rather than existing exclusively inside computers. Watching these creations come alive inevitably brings Jurassic Park to mind—not because the scale is comparable, but because the same tangible sense of craftsmanship is present.

That appreciation only deepens during the film’s unusually generous post-credit sequence, which abandons the traditional Marvel-style tease in favor of something far more rewarding: an extended behind-the-scenes look at how the effects were achieved. It plays less like a sequel setup than a Blu-ray special feature celebrating the dozens of artists responsible for bringing this bizarre vision to life. Ironically, those few minutes may be the movie’s greatest triumph.

While Pinocchio Unstrung never develops into a compelling dramatic experience, it succeeds magnificently as a celebration of practical filmmaking. In an era increasingly dominated by digital imagery, this film proudly wears the fingerprints of its creators. You can feel the hands of the artists in every frame. And for that alone, it’s worth seeing.

Listen to the full conversation with fellow critic Sean Boelman HERE. You can also find it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Ryan is the morning host on WLRH Public Radio in Huntsville, AL and host of the show  ReelTalk  “where you can enjoy the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” 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

SCREAM 7 horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

There is a difference between resurrecting a franchise and reviving its pulse. Scream 7 understands that distinction.

There is a difference between resurrecting a franchise and reviving its pulse. Scream 7 understands that distinction. This seventh installment aligns far more closely with Scream 2–4—with the 1996 original remaining peerless—than with the tonal divergence of entries five and six. It is not an attempt to eclipse the original nor to extend the reboot-era mythology. Instead, it is a recalibration: a deliberate return to the structural mechanics and tonal balance that once defined the series—brutal yet playful, self-aware yet grounded, meta without collapsing into parody. It restores the rudimentary whodunit spine, re-centers the franchise’s emotional trinity, and reasserts consequence in a narrative space that had begun to flirt with immunity. It may not reinvent the mask, but it remembers how to make it frightening—and fun—again.

The premise is straightforward: a new Ghostface emerges in the quiet Indiana town where Sidney Prescott has built a life beyond trauma. When her daughter becomes the next target, Sidney is pulled back into the cycle she has spent decades surviving. The simplicity is intentional. This is not a mythology-expanding installment. It is a structural restoration.

When I wrote about the original Scream in 2020, I emphasized how Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson fused satire and sincerity—how the film functioned simultaneously as genre critique and legitimately tense mystery. And in reflecting on Scream 4, I argued that the franchise’s survival depended on maintaining that balance between irony and genuine stakes. Scream 7 understands that lineage. It does not reinvent the formula; it reasserts it.

The humor is sharper than in the previous two entries, and the dialogue once again flirts with meta-awareness without dissolving into self-congratulation. More importantly, the whodunit framework returns to prominence. Scream has always been more mystery than massacre—a slasher disguised as a parlor game. Here, suspicion lingers. Motives matter. The audience is invited to participate again rather than merely observe. That interactive quality—so essential to the original—has been restored.

The kills are similarly recalibrated. They are decisive, occasionally shocking, and refreshingly unwilling to protect characters based on audience expectation. Supporting players are bloodied. Familiar faces are not insulated by nostalgia. The film reinstates a fundamental rule: no one is safe. In doing so, it restores tension that had softened in recent installments.

At the center of this recalibration is the reaffirmation of the franchise’s trinity: Sidney Prescott, Gale Weathers, and a classically-derived Ghostface presence that evokes the psychological intimacy of earlier entries. Strip Scream to its essentials and it has always revolved around those pillars. When they are foregrounded, the franchise regains coherence.

If Scream 4 was the franchise’s first major recalibration, Scream 7 feels like its long-delayed mirror. The fourth installment ushered Scream into the digital revolution—interrogating self-made celebrity, the commodification of trauma, and the toxic symbiosis between violence and visibility. It marked the franchise’s pivot from analog to digital, from landline terror to algorithmic notoriety.

Scream 7, by contrast, gestures toward cultural correction. In a late-2020s climate increasingly skeptical of hyper-digital performativity and increasingly nostalgic for tactile authenticity, this installment feels almost deliberately analog in spirit. The satire is restrained. The violence has weight. The mystery mechanics are foregrounded. If Scream 4 bridged the franchise into the digital age, Scream 7 gently guides it back toward its roots. Both are recalibrations—but pulling in opposite technological directions.

It would be naïve to ignore the production context that shaped this film. Melissa Barrera’s departure following her public political statements altered the series’ trajectory and necessitated a creative reset, with Kevin Williamson returning to write and direct. Freedom of speech is foundational—but not without professional consequence within corporate filmmaking. The result is a film structurally distinct from what entries five and six were building toward.

More concerning than the controversy itself is the critical climate surrounding the film’s release. Its unusually low Rotten Tomatoes score reads less like a measured assessment of craft and more like a referendum on production politics. Evaluated on narrative mechanics, tonal discipline, and franchise coherence, Scream 7 is far from a failure. It is focused, structurally sound, and far more aligned with the franchise’s DNA than its aggregate score suggests.

This return to form may also be more culturally resonant than some critics assume. There is a growing appetite—particularly among younger audiences—for analog aesthetics and classical genre storytelling. Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving proved that an original slasher can thrive in the 2020s. Scream 7 demonstrates that a legacy slasher can endure by remembering what made it compelling in the first place.

In retrospect, Scream 7 may not be the boldest chapter in the franchise—but it may prove to be one of the most necessary. It restores the mystery spine. It reinstates consequence. It reminds us that Ghostface works best when the blade cuts both ways—satire and sincerity, humor and horror. The original remains untouchable. But longevity in horror does not come from constant reinvention. It comes from understanding when to sharpen the knife rather than redesign it.

And sometimes, survival is less about evolution than about reclaiming your identity.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media and host of the show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” 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

I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (2025) horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

“What are you waiting for, huh, what are you waiting for?” the hook-handed slicker-wearing slasher is back and knows what you did last summer in the reboot/sequel (or rebootquel) of the 1997 all-star classic slasher I Know What You Did Last Summer. While this throwback slasher is certainly entertaining, with just the right amount of nostalgic charm, the Jennifer Kaytlin Robinson written-directed addition to the series falters in making the bold choices needed to truly respect and adhere to the slasher formula, resulting in lower stakes and missed opportunities for horror excellence. No mistaking it, there is a lot to enjoy in 2025’s IKWYDLS, but what could’ve been perhaps as rewatchable as the original, fell victim to playing it too safe. However, this movie does offer a glimmer of hope, much like 2023’s Thanksgiving, that the slasher can be just as entertaining in the 2020s as it was in the 1980s and 90s.

When five friends inadvertently cause a deadly car accident, they cover up their involvement and make a pact to keep it a secret rather than face the consequences. One year later, the past comes back to haunt them as they learn someone knows what they did last summer. Stalked by a mysterious killer, they soon seek help from two survivors of the legendary Southport massacre of 1997.

Despite my negative criticism of two aspects to the storytelling and plotting thereof, which I cannot effectively analyze without going into spoilers, Robinson’s IKWYDLS succeeds where many (if not most) rebootquels fail when revisiting a classic movie (or franchise)–this is particularly true of horror movies. 2025’s IKWYDLS leans into the original (and even 1998 sequel) just enough to establish meaningful narrative and setting connections but still expresses a new story. Other than a glaring missed checkbox and another more nuanced narrative element perpetuating a toxicity found in modern media, this movie checks most of the boxes for a classic slasher and throwback-style horror movie without it feeling lazy or uninspired. Instead of repeatedly hitting us over the head with “hey remember this from the original,” it strategically places these homages and references in places that drive the main story forward.

Even the most memorable line from the original (which was actually a fan-suggested change that was initially met with opposition yet became THE line and moment most remembered from the original movie), “what are you waiting for, huh, what are you waiting for?,” was used incredibly well in this movie. For those that, like me, may watch the original IKWYDLS every Fourth of July, there are other nods to the original that are lurking in the background or shadows, but will add a little extra enjoyment in watching 2025’s IKWYDLS.

Three of the central characters from the original movie and one from the 1998 sequel do make appearances in this entry into the series. Two are rather signifiant, whilst the two others are little more than cameos. Still, getting to see them reprise their roles to varying degrees was huge in connecting the events of this film to the events of 1997. The connection is somewhat meta in that, among other dynamics, there is an obnoxious true crime podcaster that is traveling to Southport to cover the 1997 killing spree by the hook-handed slicker-wearing slasher in the quaint fishing village near Wilmington, NC (in reality, much of the original movie was filmed in Wilmington). But it’d be inaccurate to characterize this movie’s connection to the original being completely meta. It’s a nice balance between staying true to the movie world but connecting it to our real world. 2025’s IKWYDLS parallels characters to the original, but in ways that work for this story and not merely as throwbacks to the original.

Avoiding spoilers, I want to touch on the three negative criticisms I have of this movie, as best as possible. Firstly, there is a bold choice made by past slashers that is ultimately non-existent in this movie. The whole time, I am waiting for that moment–to truly drive up the stakes and ratchet up the suspense–and just when I think Robinson is going to play it too safe, she delivers it–or so I think. Then, she undoes the bold choice that I felt she made in order to more closely follow the tried and true slasher formula THAT WORKS (if the formula works, don’t change it). This move is necessary for a variety of reasons that I cannot get into without giving too much away, and Robinson fails to deliver. Consequently, this movie also devalues and even ignores a key character type that is (again) a crucial component of the slasher formula. Secondly, Robinson’s screenplay perpetuates a dangerous stereotype in contemporary media that not only works against crafting a realistic portrait of a collection of characters but also lowers the stakes because there lacks reasonable emotive and social connections. Even slashers have both redeeming and unredeeming characters.

Lastly, Robinson clearly panders to GenZ. One thing Kevin Williamson’s Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and The Faculty taught us is that you can write a movie that appeals to young people without pandering to them. Taking notes from that, screenwriters can write something aimed at 17–24 year-olds that, those of us that are older, can still enjoy watching as well.

If you are a slasher fan, then I still recommend watching 2025’s I Know What You Did Last Summer, because it feels like a summer movie and reminds us of why the slasher is such a tentpole in the history of horror movies.

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” 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

DANGEROUS ANIMALS (2025) horror movie mini review

Posted on by
Reply

Sufficiently fun. Dangerous Animals is the kind of horror movie that is sufficiently fun and entertaining once, but not a movie that commands a rewatch. The premise is fantastic: a serial killer that kidnaps young tourists (usually young women) and feeds them to sharks as he uses a old VHS camcorder to capture the victim’s demise. Dangerous Animals takes inspiration from other movies such as Shark Night (2011), Cabin by the Lake. and even The Silence of the Lambs. Between truncated first and third acts, is a protracted second act that foils any suspense, tension, or proper pacing setup in the first act. Performatively, the film is quite good; had it not been for the compelling and entertaining performances, the movie would’ve fallen quite flat for me. Like with many indie films, the cinematography and editing outclass the screenwriting. The evidence of thoughtful directing is there, but its potential is hampered by the poorly paced and structured screenplay. This feels like a short film idea that was augmented to fit a feature length runtime. Without giving it away, there is a particular scene about a third of the way through the movie that is straight-up an homage to an iconic scene from Silence of the Lambs, which I really appreciated. Releasing on the 6th of June, if you enjoy shark and/or horror movies, then its worth checking out. But like I said, for me, as sufficiently entertaining as it was, it isn’t one that I am going to rewatch anytime 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

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