Reviews
‘Scary Movie’ (2026) Review: Fresh Rememberslop
Scary Movie is the kind of comedy I can only describe with the word “despair”. It’s not mind-bogglingly bad, or heartbreakingly cruel. But it is a cold reminder of one of the bigger, worse changes in the cinematic landscape from the mid-2010s onward. A change that scarred over rather than healed nicely. Of all the casualties of the shift in cinema over the past decade and a half, no death has been as sad or slow as that of the mid-budget comedy.
Sure, you’ll get a Naked Gun reboot once in a while. You might even get your Nirvana: The Band: The Show: The Movie occasionally; that is to say, a brilliant bit of lightning in an Orbitz bottle that’s hard to forget. But because of the perceived financial risk of comedies since the late 2010s, there’s been a sort of genetic bottleneck for the quality of these films. If it isn’t an IP sequel, it’s a vanity project or a low-effort release. You might get something great, but more often than not, you get Coming 2 America (2021). You get Bride Hard. You get The Breadwinner. And if you’re especially unlucky, you get Scary Movie.
What Is Scary Movie (2026) About?
In a direct parody of Scream 5 (and every other big horror movie of the past 4 years), legally distinct Ghostface is back for vengeance. And it isn’t Deputy Doofy this time! Our bloodthirsty killer is here for Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris), trying to use her estranged daughters as a way of luring her back to—
It’s the Halloween reboot too. It’s not just Scream. Look, all the people from the first one are back. We got Regina Hall, Marlon and Shawn Wayans are in it. Keenen Ivory Wayans even wrote on this one, the brothers have creative control again. Isn’t that what you wanted? Cheri Oteri is in it! That’s something, right? You guys liked her on SNL? Well, I did.
Anyway, that’s the movie. It’s “People and Things You Know: The Movie”.
You Can Be Low Brow, But You Still Have to Be Funny
And it’s not like that hasn’t been the formula for these films for the past 26 years. They’re parodies. You don’t come to the sixth Scary Movie expecting a Judd Apatow film all of a sudden. He’s a director the movie name drops in its cold open, which is ironically a testament to how frozen in time the Wayans bits are. It’s just that this time, their run back to the well has returned a bone-dry bucket.
Cards on the table: I like Scary Movie 2. I vaguely remember liking Scary Movie 3. I think it’d be difficult for you to find someone who doesn’t describe my humor as “low brow”. I’m hardly one to pearl clutch. And despite objecting to truly mean spirited or genuinely racist material, I have a pretty decent tolerance for messed up jokes.
So, understand me when I say: despite whatever marketing you’ve seen that tried to chum the waters with controversy, Scary Movie doesn’t have it. Scary Movie does not push the envelope. I don’t even know if it bought the envelope in the first place. It is a half send—no, a quarter send, masquerading as a full send.
Weren’t We Supposed to Be Crossing a Line Here?
The offensive humor that was supposed to “cross every line” as the movie’s tagline promised is, with no due respect, tepid weaksauce. I will say, there was one joke I would classify as so bad that it induced pure cringe. But that’s just due to recent events in my neck of the woods. Beyond that, the Wayans’ attempts to shock are about as electric as static. And worse off, they’re structurally just bad jokes.
I don’t really blame Scary Movie for being late to lampoon all the biggest horror films of the past decade. I don’t blame them for taking the most predictable path with jokes. I don’t blame the Wayans for rehashing old bits for nostalgia’s sake. In isolation, that’s inoffensive. But I do blame them for the incessant need to hammer the same exact joke over and over again: the “remember when”.
Remember the COVID Pandemic? Remember Hawk Tuah? Remember the “I’m Not Gay No More” Guy? Remember Kai Cenat, and Twitch streaming? Remember The Wire? It isn’t just “remember when” references to horror films; it’s “remember when” references to everything. And let us not forget the timeless musings of Tony Soprano: “Remember when is the lowest form of conversation”.
Snatching Defeat from The Jaws of Victory
This isn’t dropping a sudden hilarious parody of the Nike Freestyle advertisement as they did in 2; it’s throwing every piece of uncooked spaghetti at the wall and trying to make it stick. In what feels like a desperate desire for approval, the movie needs you to like and enjoy all these references. Because the collective memory of dated pop culture is the rickety, particle-board framework every joke is nailed to. Whereas the original films had the novelty of mocking trends in horror in the crassest way imaginable, this feels so much more generic. It’s just not as fresh, by virtue of time passed and the way it’s built.
And you know the worst part? The movie manages to have some genuinely funny moments. The last roughly ten minutes of the film are even enjoyable. It’s not like the Wayans are hacks, they still have comedic chops after all this time. Some of the sight gags are good, and some of the line deliveries even work. But then, like clockwork, they shoot themselves in the foot and try too hard to drag even those out.
As soon as something entertaining comes, it’s gone even quicker and replaced with a reference that doesn’t make any sense and bleeds dry the momentum of previous zingers. Scary Movie (2026) is a comedy that manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory constantly. It’s deeply disappointing, because the Wayans have talent that is weighed down by an inability to pick and choose when to deliver the punchline. And invariably, inevitably, the audience is left waiting for more.
Reviews
‘Luz: The Flower of Evil’ Review: A Colorful Nightmare
Luz: The Flower of Evil is a movie simultaneously charged with and mired in ambition. It’s genuinely comical how overly ambitious of a first-time film it is for writer-director Juan Diego Escobar Alzate: a microbudget, shot on location in the mountains of Colombia, character driven psychological horror film meant to explore the very nature of good and evil while also tackling cults and misogyny.
So, it’s shocking how much of it works. Not all of it works, not at all, but it is cohesive enough to serve as a surprising experience with the colorful aesthetic it employs and incredibly dark places it goes to.
What Is Luz: Flower of Evil About?
After the death of their mother Luz, three sisters in a rural cult community find their faith waning. The three are the centerpiece of an elaborate theology crafted by their cult leader father, a man who is becoming more difficult to deal with by the day. So, when he brings a mute boy into town, chaining him up and claiming he’s the people’s messiah, an already tense situation devolves into outright madness. What ensues is the slow dissolution of the cult, and the torturous end of an already fractured family.
Let this usual synopsis section also serve as a content warning: the film does depict sexual violence very early on, about 25 minutes into the film. It’s not Irreversible levels of horrifically long, but it’s also not particularly brief and still graphic content by its nature. It can be difficult to stomach, so I’m mentioning it now for those who would rather avoid that sort of thing.
A Ponderous Arthouse Folk Horror About Good and Evil
The film has shocking moments, but it’s not very interested in shock value. This is first and foremost a slow burn, a piece of arthouse folk horror that is more about bleeding out than it is about a violent demise. The most obvious comparisons are to The VVitch and Midsommar, but even that feels like an inappropriate mix, even when it leans towards Aster’s commercial darling or Egger’s colonial nightmare.
Fundamentally, Luz is a study about people who mythologize suffering and cruelty and excuse it as being driven by outside spiritual forces rather than their own decisions. It’s about deconstructing harmful religious and cult mentalities, and it wears its philosophy on its sleeve (aggressively so). Alzate creates a visually and textually fascinating meltdown of his characters and the community they find themselves within.
I would say it’s a “descent into madness” if it didn’t feel clear that the characters were already in a tailspin right at the film’s outset. The script, especially through its second act, starts to feel repetitive and a little simplistic, with a somewhat anticlimactic ending and dialog that starts to feel less naturalistic and more tedious. But it’s an interesting dissection of a family, even if it’s rough around the edges.
Hyperreal Sense of Color, But Shaky Directing and Writing
The film’s most obvious and striking feature is its hyperrealist palette, bearing a rich Technicolor aspect that permeates throughout the entire runtime. Colorist Felipe Martinez U paints the mountainous countryside with such vibrancy, a simple but very effective contrast to the dying days of a cult the story centers on; bleak, muddy times, punctuated by vibrant nature all around. Aesthetically, it’s pretty clearly visually inspired by the early works of Pedro Almodóvar and the visual warmth of Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man.
Even the naturalistic tendencies of Terrence Malick make an appearance here, though how much of that is just in the gorgeous location scouting and how much is actually emulated by Alzate is up for debate. All around, the film lacks polish. The camerawork is amateurish in some ways, slightly cramped and occasionally uninspired in its framing. Sometimes the oversaturated look of the film can feel a little saccharine and heavy, but the pop of color here feels purposeful enough that I can forgive it as being highly stylized rather than trying to mask the weak points of a first-time director.
Is Luz: The Flower of Evil Worth the Watch?
In the search for great Latin American horror, Luz was an odd duck to stumble upon to be certain. But I’m a champion of strange birds with a lot of character, so you do the math.
Luz: The Flower of Evil is a struggle of a film, hard to watch at points despite how visually appealing it can be. It’s a brutal, bleak piece of psychological folk horror that certainly has a thin audience and will test the patience of even those the premise appeals to. But it does have as much substance as it does style, even when it treads into murky waters, and for that I think it’s worth the watch.
Film Fests
Fantastic Fest: ‘Ghost in the Cell’ Review
If you’re not watching Indonesian horror, you’re missing out. The region is producing some of the craziest genre movies around right now, thanks in no small part to the efforts of writer-director Joko Anwar. His latest, Ghost in the Cell, which celebrated its North American premiere at Fantastic Fest 2026, combines everything we love about the filmmaker’s work—supernatural scares, inventive kills, and gnarly gore—along with a strong vein of comedy and political satire.
What is Ghost in the Cell About?
Ghost in the Cell centers around Dimas (Endy Arfian), a journalist whose life falls apart after he tries to run a story on corporate corruption and mysterious worker deaths. Wrongfully convicted of the horrific murder of his boss, Dimas finds himself with a one-way ticket to Cell Block C, where he quickly meets a colorful cast of prisoners—the good, the bad, and the seriously nasty. Among the good guys, there’s Anggoro (Abimana Aryasatya), who is constantly getting into trouble for defending fellow inmates, and Six (Yoga Pratama), who claims he can see people’s auras.
As if Dimas’ situation couldn’t get any worse, his arrival seems to trigger a series of brutal killings in the prison. Bodies are showing up mangled beyond recognition and displayed in positions that wouldn’t look out of place in Hannibal. It soon becomes clear that Dimas isn’t behind the murders, which begs the question: what did he bring in with him?
Anwar Embraces Horror-Comedy Whole-Heartedly
Prison is a scary place, and Anwar makes great use of the setting, with the action moving from the dingy showers where predators lurk to the bleak cellblock where inmates are at the mercy of their captors and the cafeteria where rival gangs eye each other up with ill intent.
But for all the human misery contained within the film, Ghost in the Cell is ultimately a horror-comedy, one that isn’t afraid to lean into broad slapstick and quippy dialogue when it wants to raise a chuckle. The tonal shifts can take a little while to adjust to, especially if your previous experience with Anwar comes from his more serious horror outings like Impetigore. This might be a problem if the film wasn’t actually funny, but Ghost in the Cell has enough laugh-out-loud moments to make you forget about any whiplash.
Ghost in the Cell Is a Genre-Bender to the Max
Comedy isn’t the only new flavor that Anwar has tossed into the mix. In Ghost in the Cell, dance sequences and martial-arts fight choreo sit side-by-side with some of the most extreme gore scenes seen outside a Terrifier movie in recent years. Then there’s the eerie way the spirit presents before it kills (trypophobia sufferers, beware) and the extensive critique of political corruption, power, and inequality. It’s an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach that shouldn’t work on paper, but under Anwar’s assured hand, it does.
It helps that for all the slapstick, the film lands a surprisingly earnest message, amplified by its vast ensemble cast. Dimas and Anggoro at times feel like main characters, but everyone in Ghost in the Cell has a big part to play, and that’s the point: in seemingly impossible circumstances, there’s strength in unity.
Ghost in the Cell Is an Endlessly Entertaining Blend of Goofiness, Heart, and Gore
If you’re looking for nonstop scares, you won’t find them in Ghost in the Cell. What you will find is a delightful blend of horror, comedy, and action that is apt to leave you grinning from ear to ear.
The film doesn’t skimp on the gore, throwing flesh and fluids at every surface. But it’s also charmingly goofy, with a cast that doesn’t take itself too seriously and a script that’s all too happy to devolve into a comedic dance scene when it feels like the spirit might strike. In every sense, Anwar is doing the most, and the end result is a film where there’s nary a dull moment in sight.


