Reviews
‘The End of Oak Street’ Review: The Summer Blockbuster You’ve Been Waiting For
David Robert Mitchell’s The End of Oak Street has only committed one crime: premiering this late into the summer movie slate. Hot off the heels of The Odyssey and Spider-Man: Brand New Day, one can only hope Oak Street won’t be lost in the noise of August’s bigger releases. Because those who go to see it will have the pleasure of witnessing one of the few movies this year to actually capture the feeling of those classic Hollywood blockbusters that made Steven Spielberg a household name. And indeed, it’s the blockbuster we’ve been waiting for.
What Is The End of Oak Street About?
The End of Oak Street follows the Platt family: mother Denise (Anne Hathaway), father Greg (Ewan McGregor), and kids Audrey and Brian (Maisy Stella, Christian Convery). Don’t forget their beloved dog, Starbuck (played by newcomer Brisket). Though they blend into their suburban confines as a typical family, turmoil bubbles as Denise and Greg’s strained marriage begins to take a toll on their children.
But soon, an even bigger problem begins to plague Oak Street. Mysterious flashes of light and sound that explode in the night, the largest of which culminates in the entire neighborhood being transported through time and space: from 1982 to the prehistoric era. As dinosaurs and other megafauna wreak havoc, hunting down the unprepared humans brought to their time, the Platt family struggles to figure out how they’ll stay alive and if they’ll even be able to find a way back home.
David Robert Mitchell’s Writing and Directing Make for A Certified Home Run
For those who have been starved for a truly great big-budget dinosaur film given the slow death of the Jurassic Park franchise, you really can’t ask for more than this. Writer-director David Robert Mitchell, the mind behind It Follows and Beneath the Silver Lake, has returned to mix sincere family-drama with a thrilling science fiction survival film. Oak Street blends a lot of heart into its gloomier aspects, at turns funny, dark, charming, and frightening. It runs the emotional gamut and keeps you pinned to your seat as Mitchell constructs a rich interior world for the Platt family that is grounded against the fantastic situation they’re thrust into.
They’re not revolutionary characters, not by a long shot. An emotionally distant father and a mother looking for purpose beyond a suffocating home life, rebellious kids who are impulsive and scared, it’s nothing new. The script writing isn’t bombastically clever. But it is incredibly compelling thanks to the naturalistic dialogue and on-screen chemistry between the four actors. The realistic struggles of the family, driven by phenomenal performances from Hathaway and McGregor first and foremost, balance against the more thrilling elements of the film and keep it from tipping over into mere spectacle.
80’s Suburbia Meets Cretaceous Terror in The End of Oak Street
When it zooms out from the family dilemma to indulge in that spectacle, though, it’s a visual feast and a half. Mitchell crafts an aesthetically luscious setting for the drama to take place in by melding 80’s suburbia with Cretaceous jungles. The blend of modern and primeval elements makes for a deadly and breathtaking environment, constructed with some incredible production design and wonderful digital effects.
Those effects never get old as we see the world beyond the block, and the same can be said for its numerous monstrous reptiles that populate it. Each new one the film pits the family against is more dangerous than the last, and they all look phenomenal. They have genuine weight and impact on screen, and if you even had to ask how, of course it’s Industrial Light & Magic doing their strongest cinema sorcery yet again.
Mitchell and Gioulakis Are On Their Photography A-Game
Mitchell and returning cinematographer Michael Gioulakis weave the camera through the neighborhood in a slick fashion, moving through buildings and yards deftly. They block every chase sequence and dinosaur encounter with immense style, resulting in some especially creative sequences. The locations feel purposeful, and the way the camera swoops and dives around is adventurous and legitimately energized. The dynamic camera work pairs with editing that’s snappy and perfectly paced, leaving just enough room to breathe between its exhilarating moments of prehistoric peril.
The End of Oak Street Is a Must-Watch Blockbuster
By its final scenes, Oak Street cements itself as a new favorite of the year. Big stars bringing bigger and more heartfelt performances, big budget effects that actually manage to wow you over and over, and a big entertainment value that reminds you of how even the simplest stories can generate a feeling of true adventure. The End of Oak Street is endlessly impressive and will revitalize even the most fatigued theatergoers this year.
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.
