Onslaught-The Right Horror Movie for the 2020s

 

Onslaught

2026

Director-

Adam Wingard

Cast-Adria Arjona, Reginald VelJohnson, Blake Kennedy, Drew Starkey, Dan Stevens, Michael Biehn, Rebecca Hall, Alex Pereira, Tyler Hall, Dave Campbell

            The trailer makes the film look like an updated version of the Jean Claude Van Damme film, Universal Soldier, and plot wise that’s close enough. Onslaught however, takes the idea of government created super soldiers and moves it out of the realm of the action film and turns it into a dark slasher. The final girl in the film is Adria Arjona, who Star Wars fans will know as Bix from Andor.

            To sum it up, a trio of engineered killing machines attack a small town. Why? Because they’re there.

            All horror, regardless of when its made or where its made, plays on (or preys on) the anxieties of its audience. Some of these anxieties are universal. Most people have a fear of the dark so most horror films take place in the dark. Most people have a fear of death so most horror films feature lots of death.

            But some anxieties are culturally specific to a time or place. Only the Japanese, the only people to have been atomic bombed, could create Godzilla. The horror of Universal Monsters disappeared in the 1950s and was replaced with giant atomic mutated monsters (people were afraid of the new power that had been unleashed) and the alien invasion film (fear of communism). Zombie movies prey on our fear of infection and contamination. When someone in a zombie movie is infected and turned into the walking dead, its playing on our anxieties about HIV, ebola, Covid, hepatitis or whatever the germ of the day is. You see where I’m going with this.

            In the post 9/11 post Columbine world of the 21^st Century, a new genre of horror has developed. It has no name but its instantly recognizable. It can best be described as “bad things happening to people for no reason.” Home invasion films are a great example of this. Why were these people murdered? Because they were at home.

            In John Carpenter’s original 1978 Halloween, Michael doesn’t have a reason why he’s killing everyone. He just is, and that's what makes him scary. There is no meaning to it. And when his mask is knocked off, he is revealed to be some guy that we’ve never seen before. The idea that Michael is after Lori Strode because she’s his sister is an idea that was added after the fact in Halloween 2. But in the original, Michael is just killing people because he can.

            In today’s world of daily (yes daily) mass shootings anyone is just as likely as anyone else to get murdered. It’s a roll of the dice. And that’s the anxiety that the new genre of horror preys on. Horror usually has a kind of instructive morality attached to it (if you do bad or act stupid you die). In gothic horror, curses follow families because of some past sin. In 80s slashers, teens would have sex or do drugs and then get killed. If you go down stairs to check out the strange noise you will die.

            Likewise, these movies offered the viewer a default sense of safety. If you don’t go to Crystal Lake, Jason won’t get you. If you don’t read from the magic tome, the demons won’t get you. But this isn’t in line with the modern world where you or your children can catch a bullet or shrapnel in a school, church, restaurant, theater etc.

            And this is the fear that Onslaught preys on. People become murder victims for no reason other than they were there.

Onslaught also mixes in another feature of the modern world; military fetishism.

No, I’m not talking about veneration of the military. Throughout its history (with the sad exception of Vietnam) Americans have typically respected and honored uniformed service members. What I’m talking about is the sub-culture fascination with military aesthetic. People decking themselves out with Punisher skulls, camo, and military grade fire arms without any concept of duty to their fellow citizens. And since almost everything that a US infantryman uses (with the exception of truly automatic weapons) is readily available to civilians, anyone can deck themselves out with body armor, night vision and an AR with all the attachments.

Think back to the January 6^th riots. How many rioters were wearing gear that 20 years ago you would have only seen on active duty personnel in a war zone. Think back to the ICE raids earlier this year. 2 years ago they would have looked like cops. Now they’re decked out in the same gear as private military contractors.

20 years ago, if you saw someone walking down the street with an assault rifle, you’d know to run because something bad was about to happen. Today that might simply be someone exercising their rights in the most in your face way they can imagine. I routinely see people in Walmart and the grocery store with hip holsters, shoulder holsters, etc. You can’t tell who is there to shop and who is there to murder until they pull their gun.

Onslaught captures this perfectly by giving us a trio of villains that could easily be special forces commandos, or members of your local white supremacists group, or maybe just the DLC skins for a Call of Duty game.

In short, when you can no longer tell who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, the world gets a lot more frightening.

Onslaught gives us a strange world with Nazi scientists, S&M clubs and government conspiracies. But all of this is the periphery. The main story and horror is that of regular everyday folks dying brutally at the hands of people they’ve never met for no reason other than they were there.

The Good- The foley artists deserve an Oscar, for real. You’ve got the sounds of firearms, bullets hitting flesh, blades hacking away flesh, chainsaws, crashes, explosions and it all sounds bone crunchingly real.

The Bad- the movie needed another 30 minutes. It teased us with a strange world lurking outside the main story and we needed more of that.

            In summary, mix Michael Myers with Call of Duty and wash it down with some hallucinogens and you’ve got Onslaught.

Jaws: A 50 Year Retrospective

 

Jaws: A 50 Year Retrospective

1984

Director- Steven Spielberg

Cast- Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss, Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton

            The 1970s produced many films that deeply effected pop culture, and the popular consciousness, of the world. The Godfather put the phrase “make you an offer you can’t refuse” into the popular lexicon. Saturday Night Fever made stars out of the Bee Jees and pushed disco into the forefront. Enter the Dragon introduced both Bruce Lee and the martial arts genre to legions of mainstream movie goers who would have otherwise been ignorant of both. The Exorcist terrified millions and helped begin the Satanic Panic that grew to full strength in the next decade.

            Smokey and the Bandit, Grease, Apocalypse Now, Superman, Rocky, (and the Rocky Horror Picture Show), and Alien are all products of the 70s and each had a profound impact on culture in general and movie making in specific. But of all the films from that decade, only Star Wars could be said to have had a greater impact on the cultural zeitgeist than Jaws. Only Star Wars could be said to have had a greater impact on movie making than Jaws.

            Jaws is turning 50 years old. A half century is a long time for any movie to remain relevant much less popular. Today, movies receive copious amounts of publicity during Oscar season, their accompanying celebrities making the media rounds, and a year later no one remembers most of those films, much less talks about them. So how is it that Jaws maintains such a prominent place in our minds, five decades after its premiere.

The Effect on the Movie Industry

            Before Jaws, the trend for most movies was to be released in a few theaters and then released to a gradually increasing number over the weeks that followed. This was intended to capitalize on the effect of positive critical reviews and audience word of mouth. In a time before the internet, getting word out to a large audience was both problematic and expensive so time was expected to do both. Wide releases were reserved for films that weren’t expected to do very well (that way they could make as much money as possible before word of the film’s poor quality had time to spread).

            Jaws had received such positive audience reaction in test screenings that the studio opted to buck their usual trend and go for a wide release (for its time) of almost 500 theaters in its opening weekend, and they spent the money to promote it. Their gambit paid off. Jaws cost them $9 million to make and it brought in $100 million in its first 2 months (it should be noted that only the absolutely most profitable movies stay in the theater for 2 months today). It spent 3 consecutive months as the number one film in America and its initial theatrical run brought in $123 million, almost 14 times as much as the film cost (it received another theatrical run in 1976 and again in 1979 upping that total by another $10 million). And these were just the American numbers. The film began circulating worldwide in December of 1975 and broke records everywhere (again we must remember this was before the internet where a film can be spoiled or outright stolen mere minutes after its release).

Over the years, across multiple releases, the film has made almost half a billion dollars. The effect on the studios was instantaneous. Not only did they see the value of a wide release and its accompanying media blitz, they saw the value of a summer release as a prime money making opportunity (before Jaws, winter was thought to be the most profitable season). The modern day summer blockbuster wouldn’t exist without Jaws.

Of course, one negative aspect of this vast pay off was that every studio wanted its own golden goose, it’s on Jaws. Hollywood has always been a business, but being profitable wasn’t sufficient, movies needed to be blockbusters! This financial lust was increased a few years later by the global domination of Star Wars. The modern day trend of spending hundreds of millions in the hope of making a billion, can be laid squarely at the feet of Jaws and Star Wars.

The Effect on Popular Culture

            It wouldn’t be accurate to say that Jaws caused mass hysteria. It would, however, be accurate, to say that Jaws caused a mass anxiety. In the same way that Psycho created fears about taking a shower, Jaws created widespread fears about getting in the ocean in general and sharks in particular. A morbid fascination with sharks appeared that is still with us today.

            The news reports anytime, nationwide, that someone is “attacked” by a shark even though these encounters rarely result in serious injury and even more rarely result in death. This is worth noting because our mass media doesn’t treat other animal encounters this way. Literally thousands of people are bitten by venomous snakes in the United States every year, yet these rarely make even the local news. And you are exponentially more likely to be killed by insect stings than a shark attack, yet news of a wasp sting won’t even make it down the street much less across the country. After a shark “attack”, news shows will air pieces about what you should do if you encounter a shark. It would save many more lives if they did a segment on avoiding mosquito bites, but the fear of shark attack seems to connect to us on a primal, instinctual level.

            If you think about it, a shark bite really shouldn’t qualify as “news”. Sharks live in the ocean. When humans go into the ocean, an encounter with a shark should seem like a possible outcome. In other words, a shark attack at the mall, now that would be news, but a shark attack in the ocean not so much. But if a surfer in California gets a bite on the leg, people from South Dakota to Alabama will hear about it. This morbid fascination began with Jaws.

            Besides creating an anxiety about sharks, Jaws served as a good reminder of our perilous place in nature. Now, Jaws did not create animal horror. The Birds (1963) and Willard (1971) are great examples of nature horror that preceeded Jaws (not to mention Moby Dick). The 1970s are filled with movies of humans vs nature (frogs, bees, bears, worms, rats, pigs, rabbits, whales, snakes, dogs, bats, ants, and spiders all received horror movies in the decade). But even a cursory review of the nature horror genre will reveal that sharks exponentially outnumber the rest in cinematic appearances. That can be attributed to Jaws.

            So all of these things explain the importance of the film, but they don’t explain why the film is still popular and having an impact all these decades later.

The Appeal of Jaws

Right off I should point out that there are a lot of differences between Jaws the movie and the Peter Benchley novel that it was based on. I’m talking now strictly about the film. The appeal doesn’t lie in the plot, which could be summed up in one sentence as “3 men set out to kill a shark that is stalking a coastal town.” There is no twist ending. The movie is exactly what you think it’s going to be.

The special FX, likewise, aren’t the key to its success. The mechanical shark, brilliantly constructed, looks good but it doesn’t look great. Certainly, George Lucas created much more convincing FX just a few years later in Star Wars.

The appeal isn’t the story but how its presented. This starts with John William’s score at the beginning of the film. John Willaims is the most recognizable film composer ever. It probably wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that modern audiences are more familiar with his works than those of Mozart or Beethoven. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, and Superman all feature moving overtures. Jaws on the other hand begins with just a few simple notes, played over and over, building in volume and tempo. A true mark of its elegant genius is that people who have never seen Jaws immediately know the theme when they hear it. Marketing firms spend millions of dollars trying to create commercial jingles that don’t achieve a fraction of the cultural penetration of the theme from Jaws.

Spielberg also does a tremendous job of slowly building tension in the film, not showing too much too quickly and leaving a lot to our imagination. Most of the techniques that he used in Jurassic Park (for example, seeing the reaction on the character’s face before we see what they are reacting to) he first used in Jaws.

The real appeal of Jaws though is in its characters and themes which are timeless.

            There are four prominent characters in Jaws: Brody, the everyman police chief who is the first to realize the true nature of the horror stalking the town; Hooper, a young oceanographer assisting the chief in his investigation; Quint, an aging fisherman willing to hunt down the shark; Vaughn, the mayor of the town that’s trying to keep the nature of the horror a secret lest a panic ruin the town’s financial success during tourist season. Timeless themes are explored through the interaction of these characters.

The Themes of Jaws

 Generational and Class Conflict

            Hooper and Quint are the only two characters who have an inherent understanding of the threat that they are facing though they are approaching it from different points of views. Hooper is a young man representing education but also wealth and privilege.  Quint is a much older man representing experience but also blue-collar values. Brody, the everyman, has to be the common sense peace maker between the two, bridging education and experience so that the problem can be solved.

Abuse of Power and the Burden of Responsibility

            Audiences in 1975 would defiantly have seen a parallel between Mayor Vaughn, covering up the truth about the shark, and the Watergate scandal that had shocked the country a few years earlier. But Vaughn could very easily be any politician, painting the grass green and telling people that there is nothing to worry about even as evidence to the contrary mounts. Global warming, pandemics, and artificial intelligence are all modern day problems that politicians typically downplay despite the prevalent warning signs.

            Jaws ,though, doesn’t take the low road of “us vs them:” or “don’t trust the government.” It presents a more nuanced view. It could easily be argued that Vaughn is the real antagonist of the film because if he had supported Brody, no one else would have died after the initial victim. But Vaughn is burdened with the responsibility of the town’s well being and is willing to delude himself and hope that the problem goes away. Brody, as the police chief, also represents “the system” and seems eager himself to believe that the danger has passed until Hooper convinces him otherwise.

The Consequences of Hubris

            A theme that Spielberg would explore more fully in Jurassic Park is the danger of believing that we can control nature and our unshakable belief that our knowledge is complete and therefore infallible. Hooper and Quint know the truth and despite their expertise, Mayor Vaughn ignores them both. But even Hooper and Quint are so convinced that their way is best that neither man is willing to respect the expertise of the other until desperation leaves them no other option.

Conclusion

            Jaws has attained a prominent place in popular culture with its exploration of timeless themes and its masterful execution. If you’re like me, its become mandatory summertime viewing. But if you haven’t seen it, or you haven’t seen it in years, set aside 2 hours this summer and witness a truly important film that changed culture and film making forever.

Wolf Man (2025)

 

 

Wolf Man

2025

Director- Leigh Whannell

Cast-Julia Garner, Christopher Abbott, Matilda Firth, Sam Jaeger

            The movie begins with an anecdote about a sickness in the Pacific northwest that drives people mad, a sickness that the local indigenous people call “the face of the wolf.”

           The story follows the Lovell family, who are having a hard time functioning as a unit. The husband, Blake, gets news that his estranged father, who has been missing for years, has finally been declared dead. Blake talks his wife into joining him, along with their daughter, as he goes to collect his father’s things from his incredibly remote home.

            Things quicky go South when Blake is attacked by a werewolf and the rest of the movie revolves around his wife and daughter having to deal with the unravelling and metamorphosis of their husband/ father over the course of a night.          

            First off, the movie probably shouldn’t have been called Wolf Man since it has nothing in common with its namesake. The 2010 Wolfman was a petty faithful remake of the original with the same setting and essentially the same plot. Frankly, giving this new movie that name just hurts it, as it inevitably draws a comparison to films that it shouldn’t be compared to (maybe they should have just called it Face of the Wolf).

            Being that it’s a Blumhouse film, there have been some horror “gatekeepers” that have been scoring it for months. It does suffer from some of the same problems as many other mainstream horror films, but it does have some things to recommend it.

The Bad- The plot could be summarized as “Generational family trauma and werewolves that represent the generational family trauma.” I don’t why so many modern horror films feel compelled to go down this lane. Maybe it makes Gen Z viewers feel more at home, who knows.

            It also has that terrible new style “realistic” dark lighting where its hard to see anything. Now it’s, not as bad as Aliens vs Predator Requiem (nothing is that bad), but if you’re going to stream the movie at home, you better do it at night with the blinds down.

The Good- A fresh new plot! Most werewolf movies tend to fall into one of two types. Type 1) where the protagonist is a schmuck that gets bit by a werewolf and the movie follows their gradual descent into lycanthropy (The original Wolfman and American Werewolf in London being the best examples). Type 2) where the werewolf is the antagonist with an unknown identify and the protagonist spends the movie trying to discover who is the werewolf (The Howling and Silver Bullet being the best examples).

            This movie is neither. We know who the werewolf is pretty much from the start, but the focus is more on the family’s reaction to it. The film also gives us some interesting POV as we see and hear the world changing gradually in the mind of the unfortunate werewolf-to-be. It also eschews all the tropes of the genre; wolf’s bane and full moons are nowhere to be found.

            It’s a very small-scale movie; a small cast spending most of the film on one set. It also has a (comparatively) small budget for a main stream film.

            Don’t watch it if you’re expecting a timeless werewolf classic.  But if you are a werewolf fan looking for a new take on the genre, it’s worth your time.

The Substance

 

The Substance

2024

Director- Coralie Fargeat

Cast-Demi Moore, Margaret Qualley, Dennis Quaid

            Demi Moore plays Elizabeth Sparkle, a Hollywood star who was once all the rave but now finds herself becoming irrelevant the older she gets. These feelings are intensified by her boss (Dennis Quaid) who only sees value in someone young and pretty.

            Elizabeth finds out about an underground medical procedure that will supposedly create a younger, hotter, perfect version of herself, but with some vague stipulations. The procedure creates Sue, a young sexy girl with a near perfect body. The stipulation is that Sue and Elizabeth can’t exist together and their continued existence requires them to voluntarily relinquish control to each other in a seven day cycle.

            The movie is a kind of feminist Jekyll and Hyde but rather than focusing on the psychological implications of good and evil, it is a body horror focusing on the self-loathing that can come with decrepitude, especially for someone that has derived much of their self-worth from attractiveness.

            Pretty early in the film, you’ll notice the copious amounts of nudity and in your face sexuality, especially with Sue. But its not gratuitous. The overt, almost candy coated, sensuality is juxtaposed against images of increasing decay, creating a powerful effect on the viewer. Good horror is supposed to conjure up strong feelings and The Substance does that. It elicits arousal and revulsion in tandem.

           If you’re not familiar with “body horror”, the genre focuses on our relationship with our bodies; the biological, physical space that we occupy. The horror, rather than coming from an external source like a serial killer or a monster, comes from the loss of control of our own biology. Made famous by the films of David Cronenberg and Frank Henenlotter in the 1980s, the genre often uses mutation, mutilation or infection as the mechanism of horror. Our fears of disease and our fascination with botched plastic surgeries are real world examples of body horror at work in our lives.

Most body horror involves one or a few fantastic elements inserted into an otherwise mundane world. The Substance uses an unrealistic scenario to highlight our very real obsession with youth and beauty, as well as the extent that people are willing to go to hold onto them, even if only for a little while longer.

            It’s a very small-scale movie, basically a two woman show, creating a more intimate knowledge of the characters. Having said that, if you get the chance to see it on a big screen, I’d encourage it. The movie is very much visually oriented, getting much of its power from the images rather than the narrative. Fans of body horror will find a lot to like about The Substance. Even if you’re not familiar with that genre, the film will still create a lasting impression that will stick with you long after you’ve finished watching.

Dreamscape: A 40 Year Retrospective

 

Dreamscape: A 40 Year Retrospective

1984

Director- Joseph Ruben

Cast- Dennis Quaid, Max Von Sydow, Kate Capshaw, Christopher Plummer, David Patrick Kelley, George Wendt, Eddie Albert, Peter Jason

            Alex (Dennis Quaid) is a psychic who squanders his gifts leading an irresponsible lifestyle, supporting himself by gambling on horse races. He gets recruited into a secret, government funded project to enter people’s dreams. The project is ran by Max Von Sydow (Flash Gordon, Needful Things, The Seventh Seal), a pure scientist only interested in the exploratory possibilities. Behind him is a shadowy government figure (Christopher Plummer) who wants to use the program for spying and assassination.

The President of the United States is plagued by dreams of nuclear annihilation and is brought to the dream program for help with his nightmares. Alex is aided by a scientist (Kate Capshaw) and opposed by another psychic, Tommy Ray (David Patrick Kelly), a sociopath who is training to be a dream assassin.

Dreamscape was a highly original movie for its time with an all-star cast. But four decades later, how well has it aged? Does it still hold up and what is its place in film history?

Dreamscape was one of the first movies to be released with the PG-13 rating (right after Red Dawn, which was the first). Actually, it feels very much like the dark fantasy films that Disney was making in the late 70s and early 80s, films that would scare the crap out of you but didn’t have sex or too much violence. There's no nudity and minimal violence, so I think the PG-13 rating must have come from the disturbing imagery, which one might expect from a movie that takes place in dreams.

The special effects are all practical and still look pretty good, especially the Snakeman, a cobra headed monster that haunts a child’s nightmares. The dream world is a combination of post-apocalyptic landscapes and German Expressionism architecture.

The thing that really holds up are the performances. Max Von Sydow  was charismatic in any part and Christopher Plummer always played great Bond level villains. David Patrick Kelley, though, steals the show as the sociopathic Tommy Ray. David made a career of playing memorable villains. He’s probably best known as the gang member Luther, from The Warriors. Slightly younger fans might remember him as T-Bird in The Crow. Both of those villains, however, were chaotic. Tommy Ray is calculating and ice cold.

Given the fertile material that the dreamworld offers, its surprising that more films haven’t dipped into the premise of Dreamscape. Probably the best-known examples of similar movies are the supremely disturbing The Cell (2000), the Japanese anime Paprika (2006) and the Christopher Nolan thriller Inception (2010). Compared to those, Dreamscape blends some of the disturbing imagery of a horror film with science fiction concepts but also introduces elements of a political thriller via a plot to kill the President.

Something that sticks out to me after a recent viewing is how unlike an 80s movie it seems. The 80s fashions are toned down and there is no 80s music. This prevents the movie from feeling quaint and dated like a lot of other movies from the era.

Dreamscape won’t leave you scratching your head like Inception and it certainly won’t leave you needing therapy like The Cell. It walks a a middle ground, a little bit scary, a little bit thrilling, but still entertaining, even after 40 years. And though it was PG-13 by mid 80s standards, it has no nudity and minimal profanity or gore, so it’s a good film if you’re trying to put together a Halloween playlist suitable for younger viewers.