Reviews
Wait, ‘The Club’ Is a Secret ‘Prom Night’ Sequel?
I like to consider myself something of an expert on the Prom Night franchise. So imagine my surprise when I discovered the 1994 movie The Club. To be fair to me, it’s unassuming on the outside. No reputation. No major stars (Sons of Anarchy’s Kim Coates is the biggest name by far). Less than 150 reviews on Letterboxd. However, it turns out that this movie was originally meant to be the fifth Prom Night movie.
This makes sense. The franchise more or less immediately established itself as an anthology series of random stories set at prom. The fact that The Club is a standalone wouldn’t have made it feel out of place as a sequel.
Anyway. Apparently, EP Peter Simpson decided during pre-production that the Prom Night name had pretty much gone bust. He opted to strip the new installment of every outward sign that it was connected to Prom Night. But as any completionist horror fan knows, the vagaries of producers mean nothing when it comes to marathoning a franchise. Naturally, I watched The Club at the first available opportunity.
Before we break it down, here’s a quick plot summary. It’s prom night 1993, which is taking place in a giant castle for some reason. At midnight, time stops and five teenagers are tormented by ghost John Rotman (J. H. Wyman). Why? The Devil is testing them by making them face their greatest fears. Those who either kill others or die by suicide get to join “the club” and help the Devil do this. It’s like Herbalife for Satanists.
So Is The Club a Prom Night Movie?
As it stands, the Prom Night franchise isn’t very cohesive. In any given installment, you’re dealing with Jamie Lee Curtis, a horny ghost, killer ice cream, or a maniac priest. However, I have developed a rubric for judging if a movie is a “proper Prom Night.” This is because, disparate as they are, all four original movies consistently feature the following key elements. (I’m not counting the in-name-only 2008 remake, nor should anyone.)
- It features the line “It’s not who you go with. It’s who takes you home.”
- The cast includes Brock “Son of Peter” Simpson.
- It is set primarily on prom night.
- It is set at Hamilton High School.
- The score was composed by Canadian horror maestro Paul Zaza.
Unfortunately, The Club only meets two of these five criteria (3 and 5, if you’re keeping track). It doesn’t feature the “it’s not who you go with” line, to its enormous detriment. Poor Brockie was left out of this one. And it is set at “Eastern High.” This indicates to me how serious Peter Simpson was in his intention to scrub away any traces of Prom Night. However, the signature scent of the franchise isn’t entirely eradicated.
A viewer must open their third eye and really channel the rhythms of the franchise, but I felt it. I felt it in the “abotes” and “soreys” from the Canadian stars failing to hide their accents. I felt it in the direction from Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II’s “additional photography by” legend Brenton Spencer. In the quippy killer who was clearly attempting to recapture the magic of Mary Lou from parts 2 and 3. I also saw it in the face of J.H. Wyman. Before playing John in The Club, he rather memorably had a crucifix thrown through his chest in Prom Night IV.
Does it count as a Prom Night sequel? At the end of the day, no. But it’s like a nicotine patch for franchise addicts.
How The Club Stacks Up Against the Prom Night Quadrilogy
The Prom Night quadrilogy had diminishing returns from the high point of Hello Mary Lou down through Prom Night IV. The best I can say is that The Club continues that arc nicely, by being pretty rough to sit through. It’s a weirdly incoherent venture that challenges itself to make the wrong narrative decisions at every turn. Whenever a scene is unclear, they simply repeat it, presumably in the hope that it’ll make sense a second time. Reader, it never does.
It’s a grimly tedious affair, for the most part, joylessly trudging through mediocre scene after mediocre scene. And several of the scenes that aren’t mediocre are downright nasty. Not in a “that was effective horror” way, but in an “ew, 1994 sure was a different time” way. Especially when it comes to the fears that the women in the cast need to face. It seemingly suggests that direct threats of physical abuse or sexual assault upon them are somehow their own character flaws.
So that sucks. Thankfully, the movie has a few saving graces. For one thing, the castle setting provides some decent horror atmosphere from time to time. And while Wyman’s post-Freddy comic villain is exhausting, he channels Robin Williams by cramming multiple vibes into a single character. Whenever he hits upon “Christian Slater from Heathers,” he manages to be compelling for a few minutes at a time. Then there’s Kim Coates, who is non-stop compelling as a hyperbolically evil slimeball guidance counselor.
Otherwise, The Club doesn’t have much to offer, beyond the fact that the male leads are very mid-1990s hunky. That goes a long way for me, personally.
All in all, I’m not sorry I watched it. But let’s be honest. You’re reading Horror Press, so I assume you have taste. You probably would be sorry if you watched it.
It’s very interesting when critics cover Part # of a franchise without having seen the previous entries. I’ve personally seen critics who flat-out say that Part 2 or 3 doesn’t make sense without having seen the previous film. And therein lies the problem: film critics who refuse to admit they haven’t seen EVERYTHING. But does the hard work rely solely on the film critic (or the general viewer)? Should a sequel (or third in a trilogy) drop in heavy context clues for someone who is just now tuning in? I think the answer falls somewhere between those points. Of the many reasons, that is one of the main reasons I was able to enjoy The Barn Part III so much. Let’s dig into it.
Some time ago, Pastor Josh Harper (Courtney Gains) assumed he had rid the world of evil. He was dead wrong. Well, hopefully just wrong. His nephew Kyle (Tristan Olsen) and friend Megan (Amanda Byrne) accidentally re-unleash the evil; Josh must attempt to vanquish it. Again. There’s just one big problem…the Fall Festival is going on, and damn near the entire town will be in attendance. What can go wrong?
Can You Review PT. 3 Without Seeing PTS. 1&2?
Before we really get into it, I think we should jump back to the point I was making in the intro. I have seen tons of posts, screenshots, and scenes from The Barn franchise over the years. For some reason, I’ve never gotten around to seeing the films. So there was a sort of internal struggle when deciding whether or not to cover The Barn Part III. Would I watch it just for fun? What if I didn’t like it? Sure, I could review the film on its own merits, disregarding moments that don’t make sense to a first-time viewer. But that felt disingenuous. After writing a weighty pros and cons list, I figured, what the hell. Let’s give it a watch! It turns out that was the right decision.
Co-writers Justin M. Seamen and Zane Hershberger do an excellent job of balancing fan service and, surprisingly, first-time viewers. There are definitely moments where I felt a bit lost, though I was able to put the pieces together based on context clues after sitting with the film for a few hours. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I saw enough (as a first time viewing of the franchise) to understand how we got to this point in the franchise. Moreover, it made me more motivated than ever to go back and watch the first two films. If The Barn Part III is this gory, then I can only assume there’s a similar level of gore to the first two.
Strong Script, Stronger Kills
Hershberger and Seamen tell a tale that’s not overwhelmingly original; evil is raised and must be stopped by the good people. It’s a race against the clock, fast-paced creature feature/slasher. It’s hard to really reinvent the wheel there. And somehow, Herhshberger and Seamen manage to make you feel like you haven’t really seen anything like it before. Even during moments of slightly cheesy dialogue, the script’s tone stays beyond consistent that it just all feels right. To me, that feels very rare in this subgenre of film. Rather than being nothing but conduits for buckets of blood, the characters in The Barn Part III exist within their story purpose while still feeling fully fleshed out.
Much of The Barn Part III’s enjoyment comes from the delightful performances of the film’s lead cast. Courtney Gains takes the reins from Will Stout as Josh Harper, and Gains is wonderfully charming. Much of his screen time is shared with Night of the Comet’s Kelli Maroney, who is still an absolute blast to watch on the screen. But it’s one of The Barn Part III’s co-leads, Amanda Byrne, who steals the show. It’s hard to believe this film is Byrne’s debut feature acting role. She really gives it her all, and you can feel it through the screen.
The Barn Part III Is a Practical Effect Gorefest
Enough edging. Let’s get into the actual meat and potatoes of The Barn Part III: the kills. Simply put, Justin M. Seamen and Zane Hershberger struck gold. I’ve seen way too many slasher films/creature features, so this isn’t hyperbolic…The Barn Part III has some of the most insane, captivating, and bloody kills I’ve seen. Especially for an indie film. Whatever the budget was, the film looks like it was more expensive than that.
I have a feeling that there is a heavy crossover between fans of this franchise and Joe Bob Briggs, so let me put it to you this way. The Barn Part III has it all: bisections, dissections, full-body degloving, mini killer pumpkins, pitchfork-fu, shotgun-fu, vine-fu…and that’s just scratching the surface. Besides transporting me to a time and place that I hold dear to my heart, the late 90s and early aughts, this film just checked every single box for me. I can only hope the first two do the same.
The Barn Part III is a violent, practical effects-filled rollercoaster that doesn’t let off the brakes from the jump. To me, this feels like the proper send-off to a franchise I’m new to, and it’s giving me severe FOMO. Full of insane kills and a charming main cast, The Barn Part III is neck and neck for best of the fest for me. Do yourself a favor, gas up your tractor and get to The Barn as soon as possible.
Among the straight up schlock horror movies of 2026, Onslaught tactical breaches in and holds the perimeter as the top dog. Despite being hailed by fans and cast alike as a spiritual successor to Wingard’s 2014 cult classic The Guest, the similarities are skin deep. This low-budget action horror film feels much sleazier, goofier, and more melodramatic than anything that feature had to offer. But if you like to drink the B-movie bottom shelf liquors of the cinema world, Onslaught has that taste you’re going to love getting genre drunk on.
What Is Onslaught (2026) About?
Out in the New Mexico desert, an abandoned military base now houses even darker secrets. Inside a government contractor black site, the sinister Nazi mad scientist Dr. Hans Kammler (Dan Stevens) works to perfect a trio of heartless, mindless, and soulless soldiers. They feel no pain and take no prisoners, and that’s how Kammler likes them.
When the project inevitably breaches containment, as all mad science experiments are wont to do, a small trailer park called the Windy Oasis ends up on their southbound warpath. The on-site manager for the park, a traumatized veteran named Celeste (Adria Arjona), is soon forced to defend her young daughter and surviving neighbors from the ruthless revenants.
If You’re Expecting Something Serious, Expect Less
Dan Stevens’ returning collaboration with Wingard and writer Simon Barrett is basically the full extent of what this movie shares with The Guest. Outside of the deranged super-soldier premise, of course. His first appearance on screen immediately proves that; Stevens comes in hot wearing some of the messiest fake old man hair and makeup of all time, before crawling on all fours like a dog to indulge in his heel fetish with his domineering wife (played in a small supporting role by Rebecca Hall).
It’s a flashing neon sign from the outset that the film is taking itself only somewhat seriously. And if you approach it with the utmost seriousness, you’re probably going to have a bad time.
Onslaught’s Nihilistic & Stylistic Composition Doesn’t Have Time for Contemplation
Despite its premise being about literally conscienceless jackbooted thugs killing the civilian population of the country they’re supposed to be defending, not much thematically comes of it. Onslaught is oddly flat, bordering on one dimensional, in trying to make any sort of thoughtful dialogue or commentary about our current or even past state of affairs as a nation.
The film is frontloaded with as much as you’re going to get out of it: an opening credit sequence that is the anti-government, anti-military equivalent of those overstimulating “Little Dark Age” edits that loser right-wing groypers love. It speedruns the American government’s brutality throughout the past 75 years and juxtaposes it with the Third Reich over the course of a roughly 3-minute song. Sadly, we need the rest of the runtime for gratuitous action involving bullets, boobs, and chainsaw blades. It just can’t be helped.
The movie doesn’t particularly have time for good dialogue, strong character development, or flashy sets either. Onslaught is simple and honest in its approach; it’s the kind of nasty, mean-spirited, action grime that even Cannon Films would have seen as a bit much to produce back in the day. It takes place in a handful of locations, with as few extras as possible, and a lot of explosive squibs and gory kills to make up for its flawed performances. It’s got time to bleed, sure, but no time to bleed deeper meaning or substance.
Wingard’s Toy Box Is Chock Full of Carpenter Inspiration and Retro Vibes
One must imagine Wingard happy playing in this realm. The film is certainly a success on his part in terms of bringing those retro vibes and simplistic storytelling beats to the present day. It really does feel like a bloody, small budget video store pick that snuck its way onto the shelf of a Blockbuster sometime in the ‘90s, even if its modern photography betrays that big clamshell case energy.
Surgically implanted into the film are visuals and musical stylings whose bloodlines trace plainly to Carpenter’s filmography; Assault on Precinct 13, Vampires, and The Fog are the loudest, though certainly not the only parties present. How well those strains of genuine brilliance mesh with the cheaper sensibilities of the film is certainly in question. At its best, it has shots and scenes genuinely evocative of the greatest films of the era Wingard and Barrett are conjuring. At its worst, it’s basically screaming “we shot too much footage of these soldiers mogging and aura farming to not put it in the film”, leaving things clunky to transition and sometimes looking silly.
Onslaught Is a Messy Little Midnight Movie in the Making
Then again, silly is the best thing this could be. Maybe I just give it too much grace for the fun I had with it. Onslaught might be guilty of a few cinema war crimes, not the least of which is a truly grating performance from its comedic support character. But it’s never boring, and it certainly doesn’t overstay its welcome. Beloved midnight movie with mass appeal in the making? Perhaps a bit unpolished and messy for that status. But an instant classic among those who love seedy action movies? Much more likely.
