Editorials
‘Truth or Dare’: Who Did it Best?
There can only be one winner.
For those who don’t know, two horror films titled Truth or Dare were released back-to-back in 2017/2018.
Syfy distributed the 2017 film, directed by Nick Simon, and starred Cassandra Scerbo, Brytni Sarpy, and Mason Dye.
(Some Stranger Things fans will recognize Mason Dye immediately as he played Jason in ST4.)
Whereas Blumhouse produced the 2018 release, which Jeff Wadlow directed, and starred Lucy Hale, Tyler Posey, and Violett Beane.
(Lucy Hale would later go on to star in another Blumhouse film, Fantasy Island, in 2020.)
At their heart, both Truth or Dare films have the same premise: college kids being subjected to a deadly game of truth or dare with a demon. But which film did it better?
To declare a winner, we will examine seven relevant components of the films and award a point to whichever movie excelled in each category. The movie with the most points becomes the ToD champion.
1. The Rules of Truth or Dare
Who followed the rules?
The film distributed by Syfy saw the classic party game being played in written form, as players draw cards that say truth or dare objectives. Additionally, dares are allowed to be “shared” amongst the participants.
Meanwhile, the Blumhouse film played “two truths and a dare” which dictates “dare” be automatically chosen if preceded by two truths in a row.
While both films took certain liberties to make the classic party game fit their cinematic needs, Blumhouse gets the point as truth or dare rarely appears in written form and typically tasks one specific player with answering the question or doing the dare.
Point: Blumhouse
2. Chill Factor
Who made the scariest movie?
The 2017 film directed by Nick Simon saw doors opening mysteriously on their own, nooses materializing from the ceiling, and in one particularly spooky scene, the ghost corpse of a player who lost, delivering the terms of the next dare. The ghost scene worked well and would have been welcome to make more of an appearance in the movie.
Meanwhile, Blumhouse’s horror game involves a demon that smiles a little too wide when it possesses people and a handful of dead bodies. It’s fun to watch, but the 2017 film has more elements of horror.
Point: Syfy
3. Message Delivery
Which demon had a better presentation?
One thing is for certain. The demon of 2017’s Truth or Dare worked tirelessly to present the dares to people. While in the Blumhouse film, messages from the demon can appear in various ways, such as handwritten on a flyer, in the form of street art, or carved into a player’s arm, all these messages are hallucinated by the player. The demon did not scrape “truth or dare” into the side of a car.
Meanwhile, the demon in 2017 pulled out all the stops. Sometimes it would talk through the TV or telephone, The Ring/Samara style. Then at other times, the messages would appear more elaborately, such as: scratched into a record, a hundred note cards falling from the ceiling, and swirled in a bedsheet. One moment saw a collection of sheet music that the demon must’ve painstakingly glued together to write its truth or dare message in blood across the pages.
Despite Syfy’s Truth or Dare demon’s best efforts, hallucinating the messages was a better form of delivery as only the player involved could hear them. Bonus points for the fact that the distorted faces of friends convey the messages.
Point: Blumhouse.
4. The Intensity of the Dares
Which film had more horrific commands?
The demon in Blumhouse’s film has a flair for drama. Most of the truths/dares in the 2018 movie involved divulging secrets between friends and causing rifts in their relationships.
Two of the dares that one of the main characters is subjected to as the film approaches its climax are “Get it on with the guy you have a crush on” and “Tell your best friend a secret” (paraphrasing). Meanwhile, in Syfy’s film, someone is dared to “remove seven living body parts” (not paraphrasing).
It seems like one of these demons is operating from Hell, and the other is operating from high school.
Point: Syfy
5. Playing Smart
Which film saw characters make more informed, intelligent choices?
When it comes to wise decisions, 2017’s Truth or Dare takes the cake. From the opening scene, viewers see that players will utilize a multitude of methods to make the dares survivable. One victim covers herself in baking soda paste after being dared to dump acid on her head, hoping that the baking soda would help neutralize the effects of the acid. Furthermore, both movies have a med student on their team, but only Nick Simon’s film utilizes his medical knowledge.
Meanwhile, in 2018’s film, not only did they get into this mess in the first place by drunkenly following a stranger to an abandoned monastery in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, Mexico, but the execution of the dares was also disappointing.
For example, in one scene, a girl is dared to walk the perimeter of a roof until she has drunk an entire bottle of alcohol. Rather than drinking the bottle all at once to minimize her time on the rooftop, she drinks slowly, giving the alcohol ample time to be absorbed by her system, thus making her drunker and keeping her walking longer.
Lucy Hale’s character starts playing smart right at the end, and Syfy’s characters have moments where they could’ve made better decisions, but all in all, the Syfy players tried to play a more clever game.
Point: Syfy
6. Evil’s Origin
Why did the characters end up in this predicament?
At first glance, 2017’s Truth or Dare appeared to operate under the same pretexts as 1408. “It’s just an evil…” game. But the film takes a turn when the victims meet up with the sole survivor of a game that was played thirty years before. The survivor, played by Heather Langenkamp, explains the origin of truth or dare.
Despite the sheer horror star power provided by the appearance of Langenkamp, the explanation as to how this game of truth or dare happened fell flat. While receiving a Langenkamp cameo is always welcome, the film would’ve been better off by remaining ambiguous about the origin.
Blumhouse’s ToD origin story was more thought out, with the evil having been summoned by a young girl who was bent on using it for defense, but then lost control and had to make a sacrifice to put the evil back in its bottle. When the bottle was destroyed, the evil was unleashed once more.
Point: Blumhouse.
7. How Truth or Dare Ends
Who created a more memorable and shocking ending?
A movie can be either saved or eviscerated in the way it wraps everything up. While the final scenes of the Syfy film are decent, Blumhouse stuck the landing perfectly.
At first, it seemed like this film would follow the route of so many before it, where evil gets put back in the bottle, but at the last minute, it didn’t.
We are treated to the scariest presentation of the demon yet, as the creepy smile on Violett Beane’s face feels eerily reminiscent of Jennifer Carpenter’s face when possessed in The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Moreover, Lucy Hale’s character made two wise decisions back to back. First by tricking the demon, and second by… well… if you haven’t seen it, I shouldn’t ruin it for you.
It was a brilliant, albeit horribly selfish, move on her part. Well done, Blumhouse.
Point: Blumhouse
The Winner Is…
The points are tallied, and we have our winner. By the narrowest of margins, Blumhouse’s Truth or Dare (2018) wins.
While Syfy’s film was scarier, had smarter characters, and more intense dares, Blumhouse’s movie had a better ending, more iconic delivery, a better origin story, and stayed true to typical Truth or Dare gameplay.
Special recognition for Nick Simon’s film is in order as it is a low-budget TV movie, and it still managed to score close to the film produced by a titan in the horror industry.
Editorials
‘Candyman’ Turns 5: Why Nia DaCosta’s Film Still Haunts America
The United States spent most of this year celebrating its 250th anniversary. There have been parades, fireworks, and endless reminders of what the nation wants us to think are its founding ideals. Yet anniversaries are as much about what we choose to remember as they are about what we choose to forget. There is another anniversary this year. Five years ago this month, Candyman was released. The fact that both that film and America are sharing an anniversary this year may have been an accident, but that makes it no less significant.
Released amid another national reckoning over race, Nia DaCosta’s film asks a question that every celebration of America ought to confront: Is it possible to commemorate this nation without fully reckoning with the violence woven into its history? More than a sequel to a horror classic, Candyman is a meditation on the ghosts that haunt America because it has never fully reckoned with the past that created them.
How the Original Candyman Confronted America’s Racial History
The original Candyman understood this. Released in 1992 and set in the almost post-apocalyptic urban decay that was Chicago’s Cabrini-Green housing projects, Bernard Rose’s film arrived only months after the L.A. Race Riots, a moment when this country was coming to terms with the way the country’s relationship with Black folks was shaped by decades of segregation and racism.
Most audiences saw a supernatural slasher about a hook-handed killer summoned by saying his name five times into a mirror. But beneath the horror was a far more unsettling story. Candyman was about the lingering consequences of America’s racial history and the way white America has sometimes turned Black suffering into myth instead of confronting the systems that produced it.
The film’s true horror was never simply Candyman. It was the realization that monsters can be born from histories a nation refuses to face. That is exactly where the 2021 film expands the original’s vision.
Nia DaCosta’s Candyman Turns One Ghost Into Many
Bernard Rose’s Candyman explored the legacy of a single act of racist terror. Nia DaCosta’s film argues that the tragedy wasn’t confined to Daniel Robitaille, the man who became the monster. The 2021 film posits that Candyman is not one man but many.
Daniel Robitaille was lynched for loving a white woman. Sherman Fields takes on the mantle of the supernatural slasher because he was beaten to death by police after being falsely accused of harming a child. Anthony McCoy ultimately becomes part of the same legend. Their stories span generations, but they are connected by a nation that repeatedly produces the same injustice under different names at different points in history. The genius of the sequel is that it transforms Candyman from an individual ghost into a symbol of America’s recurring racial violence.
Candyman Shows How History Repeats Itself
History, the film suggests, is not something that happened once. It is something that keeps happening. That is why Candyman is one of my favorite films to teach in my Film and Philosophy course.
Students walk into class expecting a horror movie. They leave wrestling with questions about history, memory, and justice. We spend little time talking about jump scares or gore. (Because, let’s be honest, there is not much of that in the film.) Instead, we ask why some histories become legends while others are forgotten, what societies owe their victims, and whether a nation can ever move forward without honestly confronting the violence that shaped it.
The Horror of Remembering What America Wants to Forget
A good horror film reveals what we fear. What makes Candyman great is how it reveals what we would rather not remember. That is what haunted me the first time I saw it, long after the credits had rolled.
Five years after its release, Candyman remains one of the most unsettling movies in recent years because the history it confronts is not safely behind us. The original film understood that America’s racial violence could not simply be buried, while the 2021 film showed how easily that violence can be reproduced across generations.
Its Unquestionable Legacy in Horror
As America celebrates 250 years, Candyman reminds us that commemorating the nation’s founding requires remembering all this country’s history, including the parts that make the celebration uncomfortable.
We cannot exorcise a ghost by refusing to acknowledge why it exists. Perhaps that is the film’s most important lesson. The past does not haunt us because we remember it. It haunts us because we don’t.
Editorials
The Perfection of John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’
Sometimes it feels borderline ridiculous to gush about John Carpenter’s The Thing as much as I do. It’s gotten to the point where when I’m asked about my favorite horror film by both friends and strangers, a little bit of embarrassment tinges my expression as I answer; it feels so obvious and rarely surprises anyone. Saying I love The Thing when people expect me to bust out an obscure foreign horror film or a cerebral thriller makes me feel like a rosy cheeked child with a propeller hat and a giant lollipop. “Wow, you love one of the most popular horror films of all time, congrats!”
But it’s just the truth. The first film of John Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy”, all three of its films are among my favorites. But The Thing has a special place in my heart. It shaped my taste in horror, my taste in most media in general, to be honest. It’s become the gold standard, 10/10 baseline test for the vast majority of my reviews; it is a perfect film, so I judge other films against it. And it’s one of the few movies I have to run back to and watch yearly like clockwork (usually when I’m spending a part of winter tied to the couch). It is, in all regards, the perfect film. If it isn’t the perfect film, then it is at the very least the perfect sci-fi horror film.
So, what exactly qualifies The Thing for literal perfection? It’s a high bar to clear. This article, as informal as it is compared to most of my editorials, is an attempt to explain it.
Even if Carpenter Isn’t the Goat, His Team for The Thing Was
As far as crews go, John Carpenter’s The Thing had the cinematic equivalent of the ’96 Chicago Bulls behind it. We’re talking about an amalgam of some of the most talented people to ever grace the silver screens with their work, boasting alongside John Carpenter two of the heaviest hitters in all of cinematic history: Dean Cundey, and Rob Bottin. Now, we can debate all day about whether John Carpenter is the greatest of all time when it comes to horror directors. Personally, I’m just as liable to say Cronenberg, Del Toro, or Hooper as I am to say Carpenter.
But the key factor to remember here is that Carpenter is the coach, not the star player; the Phil Jackson, if you will. Yes, he is the visionary who directed a near perfect cast of players and composed a tale of pure, apocalyptic paranoia. More importantly, he put together and coordinated the team that would make his vision manifest as reality. And if Carpenter is Phil Jackson, Rob Bottin is the team’s Michael Jordan here, the greatest of all time.
(And to all my Lebron fans, I love you, but you have to sit down for this analogy.)
The Legend of Rob Bottin
Bottin’s story is borderline unbelievable, but it’s the best way to explain how abnormally skilled he is and what he brought to the table for Carpenter. At age 14, Bottin became an apprentice to the at-the-time GOAT Rick Baker after sending him a letter seeking an autograph while sharing his creature designs. He was a quick study under Baker, joining him on the ’76 King Kong and Star Wars, before bouncing to Carpenter’s The Fog and then iconic werewolf picture The Howling.
When he reunited with Carpenter in 1982, he now had 6 classic films under his belt and was moving like an FX bullet train. From ages 22 to 23, he worked on The Thing for 57 weeks in both pre-production and on set. Nearly 24/7 for 400 days, Bottin’s all-gas no-brakes work ethic made The Thing at the cost of his own health, and it resulted in him being hospitalized with pneumonia. He survived and went on to make Robocop. And at least one of your favorite films.
Because no conventional disease or weaponry can kill Rob Bottin.
The Thing Still Features Horror’s Best Practical Effects
Okay, that last bit might be hyperbolic, but the man sincerely put his life on the line to make special effects that haven’t been topped since. Not the best effects in just horror history, or science fiction history, but effects that haven’t been topped in any genre for over 44 years. Not by his mentor Rick Baker, not by Screaming Mad George, not by Alec Gillis (though shoutout to him for his criminally scrapped work on The Thing (2011), and even more criminally ignored work on Harbinger Down). I love Dawn of the Dead, believe me, I do, but he certainly isn’t being beaten out by Tom Savini’s body of work. And that isn’t to disrespect and say that all of the artists that I just mentioned are bad, they’re the best in the game! But Rob Bottin was just that much better.
This inevitably invites the counterpoint: “But it wasn’t just Bottin! Stan Winston and his people were the ones who worked on the Dog Thing to give Bottin’s crew a break, and that’s the best monster in the movie!”. To which I say: look me in the eye and tell me the Dog Thing sequence is better than the Palmer Thing sequence. That’s not even counting the Norwegian Thing, both Norris Things, and the absolutely masterful final creature work that was the Blair Thing. The only reason Bottin and his people didn’t win Academy Awards for their work was because they got jumped by E.T., The Dark Crystal, Conan the Barbarian, and Blade Runner all at the same time at the Oscars. It’s just a consequence of being released during the best year for movies ever.
Okay, Now We Can Talk About Dean Cundey
But of course, these effects are then supported by another true legend: Dean Cundey. Selling people on Rob Bottin being the greatest effects artist of all time, isn’t nearly as difficult as advocating for Cundey, who despite an impressive catalog of filmography, slowed down in the back half of his career. He’s often overshadowed in conversations when it comes to The Thing; it’s always talk of Carpenter’s directing, Bottin’s effects, and Ennio Morricone’s incredible soundtrack up front, and rarely any of Cundey’s work. He isn’t spoken about in the same breath as John Alcott or Michael Ballhaus, cinematographers whose work is associated with prestigious cinema because of their proximity to great directors.
Cundey might not be the director of photography your Martin Scorsese’s or Paul Thomas Anderson’s went running to, but I would be lying if I said I didn’t think he was the most important cinematographer in horror history, just for his work with Carpenter and Spielberg. He helmed three of the most influential films in all of horror with his lighting and camera operating: The Thing, Halloween, and Jurassic Park. The man’s fingerprints are automatically on the cultural DNA of all slashers, most practical effects-driven horror films, and the biggest gateway horror franchise in film history.
The Dream Team That Made The Thing Perfection
Cundey has gone on record saying that despite Carpenter’s input, he was effectively given free rein to light and frame The Thing. The man didn’t just know how to shoot effects to make them evoke true disgust from the audience, he was able to manipulate every aspect of the shot to terrify. His sixth sense cinematography wasn’t just for lighting and playing with shadows, but for the speed of camera movement, the power of his blocking, and for having a complete grasp of communicating texture and temperature.
And temperature is the soul of The Thing. John J. Lloyd’s production design of the research station and the great white expanse around it feels just as bone chilling as the film’s antagonist, thanks to Cundey. There isn’t a single flat shot in the thing, not a moment that doesn’t feel dynamic, and it’s because of Dean Cundey.
Now, all this being said about Bottin and Cundey, they are far from the only ones who synthesized this structurally perfect organism of a movie. Every bit of Todd C. Ramsay’s editing splices the film’s scenes together to move perfectly in-time. David Lewis Yewdall’s sound design and how it gave a voice to the horrors on screen will be etched into people’s brains forever. The point is that everyone, every single person who had a hand in making the film, helped make the movie flawless.
Like the cells of the thing from another world, each crew member on John Carpenter’s The Thing moved in concert with the next, in unison, to create the greatest sci-fi horror of all time. So, is it any wonder why 40 some years later, the film still has us all captured?


