#Horror Film Analysis

[screamingeyepress]

Ever wondered what happens when an escaped mental patient on PCP crashes your Thanksgiving? Dive into the madness of "Home Sweet Home" (1981). Wanna read Buttonface's review? Check it out here: https://www.screamingeyepress.com/review/home-sweet-home-thanksgiving-horror/

[captaingimpy]

Review of Longlegs (2024)

Longlegs is a standout in the supernatural psychological thriller genre, directed by Oz Perkins, son of Anthony Perkins, known for his iconic role as Norman Bates in Psycho. This familial connection brings a deep appreciation for classic horror and a distinct visual style to Longlegs. The film stars Nicolas Cage in a career-defining role as a mysterious serial killer, alongside Maika Monroe as…

[theomenmedia]

Time Cut Trailer Breakdown and Analysis

Dive into the early 2000s with a twist of horror! Netflix's 'Time Cut' trailer breaks down time travel like never before. Will Lucy save her sister from a masked killer?

Link to the full story: https://www.theomenmedia.com/post/time-travel-meets-slasher-horror-time-cut-trailer-dissects-early-2000s-nostalgia

[katabay]

PAGLUIB

way back in like. march?? I took a stab at writing some kind of kabitserye type of story but it was a mess: it kept veering off into murder mystery drama territory because I was reading a lot of murder mystery novels around then and it Wasn't Good because I hadn't tried writing mysteries, let alone murder mysteries, before lmao

I did write a handful of short mystery stories since then, so next year I might take a stab at this idea again now that I'm no longer jumping head first into a genre pool I don't know how to swim in :)

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

“Late Night with the Devil” feels like the spiritual sequel to “NOPE”. In both movies, the issue seems to be spectacle.

“NOPE” was about people’s obsession with watching spectacle and the lengths they’ll go to capture it. Anytime you look up to watch the spectacle - the monster - you die. And other characters died from their pursuit of the monster.

“Late Night with the Devil” was about how the desire for spectacle makes us ignore common sense and safety. Jack Delroy could’ve stopped the show, but because he saw the potential for ratings, he kept the show going. And it didn’t help that the audience kept wanting more and more, despite how dangerous the show was getting.

If we get one more horror movie about this subject, maybe we can call it the Spectacle Trilogy. Or the Curiosity Killed The Cat trilogy.

[mistandshcdow]

spoilers for a24’s heretic

the best thing about heretic is its untraditional final girl. going in, i expected sophie thatcher’s sister barnes to be the final girl; after all, she spends her time on screen matching mr. reed intellectually, and is given more visual importance through framing. but heretic subverts that expectation by having chloe east’s sister paxton, not barnes, be the real final girl. sister paxton is hyper-mormon, socially awkward, but the movie treats her like a human being rather than a stereotype, challenging the audiences perception of her as naive and sheltered as the final act reveals her to be equally as intelligent and capable as her companion.

the movie’s tagline “QUESTION EVERYTHING” is particularly well chosen as it extends to the framing the filmmakers set up. it seems they’re telling us sister barnes is the survivor, it seems like it’s telling us that god is not real. despite a large part of the film being dedicated to disproving religion, the movie asks you to even question the questioning—especially in the final moments as sister paxton, dying and desperate, prays despite saying it’s probably not going to help. her prayer is answered by barnes miraculous resurrection, saving her life and allowing her to escape.

heretic shows the power of faith in an untraditional and subversive way, giving an otherwise odd film premise a lot of weight.

[geekgirl750]

Random details I noticed in Scream after watching it for the umpteenth time.

First:

Stu has a dog?!

In the final confrontation scene in the kitchen before Stu brings out Sidney's dad I noticed that there was a note written on the white board behind him

Here it is in more detail, although the quality isn't the best as I had to screenshot the scene from YouTube:

When I paused to read it in the actual film I was able to make out most of the note except for the small writing in the upper right (Which I think is either a phone number or date) but I'm pretty sure the note reads:

"Hi Stu, Sorry we missed you today. We'll be back Sunday. Be good! Love mom & dad. P.S. feed the dog."

The last line I wasn't sure about because it was blurry but I matched the note from this shot to the shot where Stu is sitting at the desk on the telephone and sure enough the last line is "P.S. Feed the dog"

So basically, Stu canonically has a dog which I think is super funny because it makes me wonder where the dog was during the party and what type of dog it is.

It also makes more sense for the dog door in the garage that Tatum tries to crawl through to be put there for the Macher's family dog rather than the cat.

Side tangent head cannons:

The orange cat we see run out before Tatum is killed in the garage belongs to Stu's sister Leslie and has a basic name like Marmalade or Garfield

Stu is 100% a dog person and hates his sister's cat because its tried to scratch him on a number of occasions and now he's lowkey afraid of it

That's why when he's left home alone he doesn't really watch the cat and lets it do as it pleases. (His sister is adamant that the cat is indoor only but Stu is kinda careless lets the cat roam free outside through the dog door)

The Macher's family dog is either a basic crusty ass white dog that belongs to his mom and has a ridiculously fancy name like Princess or Dutchess

Or the dog is something small and hyperactive like a Jack Russell that Stu used to play fetch with and run around with in the backyard as a kid

Like I said before I feel like the Machers aren't super creative with naming their pets. If the dog is a boy his name is probably Max or something like that.

Okay second thing:

I never noticed this but you can see Randy dancing with/ flirting with a girl at the party when Sid and Tatum first walk in

And then later that girl is being led away by a different guy so I guess Randy struck out twice that night lol

(Also peep Stu and Tatum flirting/ kissing in the lower left)

Thirdly:

In the garage scene after Ghostface first cuts Tatum's arm she stumbles backwards and bangs into a bike

This is more of a head canon than anything but I noticed that the bike is more feminine in coloring (shades of red and purple) so it makes me wonder if it belongs to Stu's mom or maybe his sister.

Lastly,

The layout of Stu's house makes no sense!

So I'm going to make another longer post about this because I spent like an hour last night comparing shots from Scream 1996 to shots from Scream 5 to get an understanding of the Macher house because it's almost labyrinthian in it's layout, especially the upstairs, but I'm pretty sure there's no way that house has 3 bedrooms if Stu's sister is supposed to be canon.

Anyways, here are a couple details I noticed that I thought were interesting:

I think the house has an intercom system! You can seen what looks like speaker/receiver on the wall behind the lamp in Stu's room as Sidney runs by it.

Lastly,

The Macher house has a back stairwell!!!

So I've watched this movie a bunch of times and I always thought that there was a door in the kitchen that led directly to the garage but that's NOT TRUE!

When Tatum goes to get the beer for Stu you can see that the kitchen is connected to the dining room and off the dining room is a door that leads into a laundry room/ mud room.

To Tatum's right you can see what looks like an ironing board and then a set of railings/steps which I'm assuming is a back set of stairs that leads to the upper floor.

You can see again in the reverse shot that the door that gets locked behind Tatum isn't actually the kitchen door but the door to the laundry room in between the garage and the kitchen .

Seeing this changed my whole perception of Tatum's death scene because I was always like how did no one see Ghostface sneaking around the party, whether it was Billy or Stu, and not realize when he goes back inside after killing Tatum rather than leaving through the garage. Now I think it's because whoever was Ghostface never actually cut through the party at all.

HE WENT UP THE BACK STAIRS!

And the layout of the laundry room would have hidden him from view of the kitchen as he would have behind the wall and out of sight.

I want to go more into detail about the logistics about how I think Billy and Stu got around the house as Ghostface as well as the entire layout of the house in a second post because I think the set design is so interesting but for now these are just some cool things I noticed that I wanted to share.

[min0uet]

respectfully, if they fucked nasty onscreen in the movie it'd have been Less homoerotic

[harpersbizarresketchbook]

FINALLY!

Check out my stab (har har) at some deep-dive horror analysis zines.

[spectrasgothiccinema]

Exploring Jonathan Shaw’s Potential Future in the Terrifier Series

In the Terrifier series, Jonathan Shaw, the younger brother of protagonist Sienna Shaw, plays a pivotal role, especially in Terrifier 2 and Terrifier 3. His character arc intertwines deeply with the narrative's exploration of trauma, resilience, and the supernatural.

Jonathan's Fate in Terrifier 3

In Terrifier 3, Jonathan's fate is shrouded in ambiguity. He is last seen in his dorm room, and subsequent events suggest he may have fallen victim to Art the Clown and Victoria Heyes. Sienna is presented with a disfigured head, purported to be Jonathan's, but the evidence is inconclusive. The head's flesh is peeled off, making identification difficult, and the only link to Jonathan is a pair of glasses placed on it by Victoria, who has previously lied about the head's identity. This leaves room for doubt about Jonathan's actual fate.

Screen Rant

Director's Insights

Director Damien Leone has addressed the off-screen nature of Jonathan's presumed death, acknowledging fan reactions and suggesting that the character's fate is intentionally left uncertain. Leone emphasizes that his characters are unpredictable and not to be trusted, hinting that Jonathan's story may not be concluded.

Entertainment Weekly

Potential for Redemption or Resurrection

The Terrifier series delves into supernatural elements, particularly with Art the Clown's enigmatic nature and apparent immortality. Jonathan's deep connection to the lore, especially his understanding of Art's demonic essence and the significance of the pale girl as a vessel, positions him as a character with potential for further development. Given the series' thematic focus on resurrection and the battle between good and evil, it's plausible that Jonathan could return in future installments, possibly undergoing a redemption arc or playing a crucial role in confronting the malevolent forces.

Conclusion

While Terrifier 3 leaves Jonathan Shaw's fate ambiguous, narrative clues and directorial comments suggest that his story may not be over. The series' exploration of supernatural themes and the character's integral role in the overarching narrative provide fertile ground for a potential redemption or resurrection arc in future films. Fans will need to await further installments to see how Jonathan's journey unfolds.

[captaingimpy]

The Watchers (2024) – A Dark Dive into Irish Folklore and Trauma

Directed by Ishana Night Shyamalan in her feature debut, The Watchers explores Irish folklore through a lens of psychological horror, offering an atmospheric and introspective take on trauma, isolation, and identity. Starring Dakota Fanning as Mina, a 28-year-old artist, and Georgina Campbell as Ciara, the film takes place in the haunting forests of Western Ireland. Mina, after being stranded,…

[joe-spookyy]

Dude tell me your thoughts about Daniel Cain + any headcannons??

hi what greatest ask i’ve ever received because all i ever have are thoughts about daniel cain. sorry this is gonna be an essay. um.

tldr - dan cain is a super fascinating character (especially when you read him as queer) and his high empathy makes it difficult for him to make the hard but necessary choices found often in the medical field, but easy for him to be manipulated by those he thinks can help him do the most Good. also he is not immune to herbert west. full post under cut and it’s pretty good you should read it.

ok first off he is literally JUST like me for real. but second. i really think he’s a fascinating character no matter how you read him. his empathy is Soooo high and it affects literally everything he does - sometimes for the worse cause he’s a doctor and honestly cannot afford to be getting this upset every time he loses a patient. but it’s part of him, which i think makes him a super interesting counterpart to herbert. he’s so distinctly Human and he cares so much about the people around him, and he’s a horrible doormat/people pleaser. this is, obviously, not at all like herbert. narrative foils oooooh. when i met bruce abbott he told me he thinks dan is a “spineless worm”, which may be technically true, but i think the way dan is so easily convinced to go along with herbert is because of this heavy empathy. he wants to do everything within his power to make things better, and what could really be better than conquering death? how much pain could he stop just with that?

because of that, i think it makes SO much sense that it was so easy for herbert to initially manipulate him into working together. plus i also think later on in the films his feelings for herbert get in the way of his judgement to. an incredible extent. herbert just has to ask and dan will immediately be at his every beck and call. hes like a dog. he wants out but he can’t stop coming back to herbert. i struggle to find any other way to explain why he’d still be living with herbert after the first movie - after all, herbert kind of did kill everything dan ever loved (girlfriend, cat, legitimate medical career). and i think these things affected him on a really deep level (which. yeah. obviously) but the way he acts in bride is so indicative of what that kind of trauma does to a person and it’s fascinating to me. he projects so hard on to gloria because of how guilty he felt for not being able to save meg. he shuts down in a lot of the more serious situations. sure, he did have his little going into shock moment in the first film, but it’s a reoccurring thing in bride. he doesn’t seem to have such a strong moral code anymore, but that empathy is still there - even though what he’s doing with herbert and their little bride project isn’t quite morally Right, all he really has left is herbert and he is dying for a way to get back to the normalcy that herbert has pulled away from him. and yet, he’s never able to really Leave. he can’t move out, he can’t stop helping herbert, he can’t really get meg back as much as he tries. but he’s too far down the rabbit hole to really care at this point. he just cares about getting what he loves back.

and sure. did he abandon herbert at the end of the first movie for meg? yeah. did he abandon herbert at the end of the second movie for francesca? also yes. did he rat herbert out to the authorities? yes (but that’s a character choice i simply cannot get behind he would not do that shit after everything he still does obviously love and care about herbert if he was gonna be a narc he would have done it after the first movie herbert didn’t even do all that much wrong in the second movie like come on he was just getting creative. whatever. anyways.) now, his choice to save meg in the first movie makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. he assumed herbert was dead (which. not a bad assumption tbh) and meg was his girl - it makes a lot more sense to save her than someone he hasn’t known for nearly as long. but when he chooses to escape with francesca and leave herbert behind, it’s a little bit jarring. he’s obviously gotten close with herbert. they still live together, they bicker like a married couple, and if we’re being honest he kind of follows herbert’s every command. again. like a dog. and plus! they just created life together in a quite homoerotic fashion!!! why in the world would dan fumble this?? well, i think i can explain it. herbert represents a lack of societal normalcy. think like doctor praetorius in the bride of frankenstein. herbert’s heavily queercoded, he actively defies god, he kills and he disrespects the dead and he’s terrible socially and he shoots up drugs (sorta) and he is all about medical malpractice. this is the opposite of what someone like dan SHOULD want. dan’s straight passing (or straight if you want to read him that way which i don’t recommend cause otherwise this analysis doesn’t make as much sense), kind and friendly, and wants a good, normal career in the medical field. and he loves his perfect girlfriend. meg (and later francesca) represent these “good” and “normal” things that dan wants and is expected to want. herbert, again, represents the opposite. so for dan to choose herbert and save him over either meg or francesca, he would be choosing to step away from the life he is “supposed” to live, the socially acceptable life. people are already suspicious of him and west as we see in the novelization of the first movie, and to save his visibly queer strange little “roommate” over the woman he’s supposed to love would have certain implications that would draw dan away from this life of normalcy that he wants so badly. but most importantly. herbert always comes back. he’s a part of dan that can’t be escaped.

well. that was a lot. headcanons. umm. i think you probably got a lot from the novel i just wrote but here’s more.

- i loveeee the dan starts smoking after meg dies hc

- i don’t believe he ratted on herbert. i think they’re still working together making freaky shit to this day. even as old men.

- i know i just said queer the whole time i was talking but he’s bisexual and you aren’t allowed to disagree with me. herbert’s gay though. emphasizes the differences between them - dan CAN choose that “normal” life but herbert can’t.

- i think he ends up needing glasses as he gets older. he wears em to read in the first movie and i think his vision declines.

- also he goes grey earlier than herbert imo cause of all the stress. herbert makes fun of him for this but herbert’s hairline is. ummmn. less powerful. so dan has ammo to fight back.

- i don’t think he’d ever be able to get a cat again after rufus. or really any pet. i don’t think he trusts himself not to damage everything he touches

- i think he’s a huge talking heads stan. you could argue this as canon because of the stop making sense poster above his bed, but i think he’s a super fan. and maybe i’m projecting. so what.

- no matter how many times herbert does it or offers it to him, he refuses to take any of the reagent.

uhh. yeah. sorry that this post is so long i hope it is sufficient to what you were looking for. thank you sincerely so much for asking this was the most fun i’ve ever had. bless up.

[michaelinprogress]

something about how the first thing Owen sees from The Pink Opaque is one of the girls saying “They can’t hurt you if you don’t think about it” and how he took that to heart and lived his entire life Trying Not To Think About It.

[sbblake]

Apostle (2018)

Aka, one of my very favorite horror movies <3

[tissues-world]

as a film major I am very much enjoying what the dnp crafts video has done to everyone

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

For my first thought about “Saw X” (once again, highly recommend), I’m really impressed with how the movie managed to make their concept work. It’s mainly because the story of “Saw X” is really hard to pull off.

Not a lot of movies and shows can portray the kidnapper/torturer/evil mastermind as the protagonist while the victims are the main villains. Because, obviously, no one wants to be rooting for a character who is tormenting other people. It’s like making a version of “Squid Game” where you’re supposed to root for the VIPs, that’s a hard sell.

But, there are the rare few that manages to pull this off. “Hard Candy” is one of the best examples of this since the victim is a pedophile murderer while the torturer is Elliot Page. “Don’t Breathe” is an accidental example since even though we’re supposed to root for the victims, they’re not so easy to side with since they’re burglars who robbed a blind man.

So “Saw X” had a tough sell since we’re supposed to be on Jigsaw’s side for once. But honestly, I thought they nailed it. Not only are the victims horrible people (scammers who prey on the terminally ill), the story doesn’t force you to like John Kramer. John is entirely unapologetic about his actions as Jigsaw and the movie doesn’t try to justify him, especially by having Amanda question John’s choice of putting Gabriella into a test (she was a drug addict). Instead, the story naturally puts you on John’s side by focusing on his internal dilemma; fighting his cancer.

The first third of the movie was entirely devoted to John dealing with his cancer and how he was dreading that he was almost out of time. It humanizes John and makes you feel really sorry for him, even knowing who he is. What I like about this is that it’s not forced sympathy because the audience has known about John being a cancer patient for over a decade by now. Focusing on John’s disease and mortality makes sense is what I’m saying.

Even Jigsaw’s friendship with the little boy Carlos makes sense since John wanted to be a father. The one thing that people can say was a little forced to make you sympathize with Jigsaw STILL has precedence in the series, which is really rewarding for people who’ve watched every “Saw” movie. Nothing felt out of place for John’s character, it’s like a legit tribute to the character.

So when you learn that the doctors were all scam artists, it’s natural to side with John since:

1) They did it to themselves

2) You feel for John since you watched at least 30 minutes of him trying to fight the disease

3) You feel angrier towards the doctors since they’re arguably worse people than John

4) The lead doctor reveals that she knew John was Jigsaw and continued the grift anyways, so they have really no excuse

It’s like “Don’t Breathe” again, where both sides are horrible people, but the more sympathetic one gets to be the hero. And I’m all for it, because fuck medical malpractice/grifters.

(Side note: I feel like another way the movie got us on John’s side was that he stayed true to his word. If you pass the test, you get to live. During the movie, he makes sure Diego survived since he passed and asked that Gabriella be taken to a hospital after she freed herself. It’s honor, but in a fucked up way, which is appropriate for the character)