Reviews
‘The X-Files: I Want to Believe – Vrach Frankenshteyn’ Review
The act of cutting and stitching can grant new life to a long dead prospect, or it can unleash a monster. Dr. Frankenstein understood the stakes, as does any filmmaker aiming to salvage the unsalvageable. The X-Files creator Chris Carter hopes for a celebratory resurrection – or at least the chance to right some cinematic wrongs – with a recut of his 2008 movie, The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Hulu dropped this new version on August 14 under the appropriately cobbled-together title, The X-Files: I Want to Believe – Vrach Frankenshteyn. Carter insists it’s the edgy cut he’d always envisioned, untainted by notes from studio executives who wanted a sanitized PG-13 summer blockbuster.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe Gets a New Cut
If you’re not a die-hard X-phile, you could be excused for not even remembering the 2008 version of I Want to Believe. The box office bomb was released six years after the original show’s divisive series ending, in which Mulder and Scully depart from their X-Files post and become fugitives hunted by the FBI. Despite the open-ended nature of the TV finale, I Want to Believe was touted before its initial release as a Mulder-Scully reunion that would serve as a one-off case: the film would contain no references to the show’s ongoing mythology, which involved a convoluted alien conspiracy. This approach was welcomed by many fans who admired the scope and style of the first X-Files feature film, 1998’s Fight the Future, but longed to see a cinematic version of the show’s scary standalone tales like “Beyond the Sea” or “Home.”
Why the Original I Want to Believe Failed
Alas, the 2008 film is a plodding mess. Co-written (with Frank Spotnitz) and directed by Carter, the movie sees Mulder (David Duchovny, in all his deadpan glory) and Scully (Gillian Anderson, with all her understated power) co-habitating and keeping a low profile. Despite their fugitive status, the FBI enlists their help to find a missing agent. “All is forgiven,” the characters note, before it’s back to monster-chasing business as usual. Their only lead: Father Joe (Billy Connolly), a convicted pedophile priest who claims to have psychic visions. Scully’s outrage at his involvement leads her to a crisis of faith, while Mulder (and eventually the movie itself) has the stone-faced gall to encourage patience and sympathy for the sex offender. His visions eventually lead the duo to a Russian organ transporter running medical experiments to stitch together a new body for his ailing husband.
I Want to Believe Struggled as a Horror Movie
Even if I Want to Believe were a pristine thriller in the vein of Seven or Insomnia, its dour subject matter would still have sullied its chances against the competition: in the summer of 2008, the box office was dominated by crowd-pleasing juggernauts like Iron Man and The Dark Knight. But the movie is far from pristine. Its leaden pace makes it a chore for fans and newbies to withstand. Horror-wise, it lacks any monster-movie iconography or moments of unbearable dread. We’re a far cry from anything approaching the icky reveal of the sewer-dwelling Flukeman or the shiver-inducing antics of Satanic substitute teacher Miss Paddock.
I Want to Believe is devoid of the storytelling prowess, philosophical grit, stylistic innovation, and mordant humor that the show exuded at its peak. To top it all off, Carter populates the movie with bizarre directorial choices, including a moment in which Mulder gazes upon a framed photo of George W. Bush as the X-Files theme plays in the background, apropos of nothing. With its tonal muddle and meandering script, the movie was enough to make even the most dedicated fans question their belief in the franchise.
Chris Carter Returns to The X-Files
From 2016 to 2018, Carter revived the show for two seasons, which further served to frustrate longtime fans and newcomers with clunky creative choices. Since then, The X-Files has shown few promising signs of life, but it’s been awakened from the grave with recent news that Ryan Coogler, director of Sinners, is developing a reboot series. It appears that Carter has leveraged the newfound interest in the franchise to make this R-rated director’s cut a reality. But despite the writer-director’s claims that it’s gorier than the theatrical version, bloodthirsty horror fans are likely to shrug. The most notable additions of “gore” include a few new shots of dismembered body parts and headless corpses. These images feel more narratively functional than anything, dramatizing the “modern day Frankenstein” plot instead of just alluding to it in reams of expository dialogue.
How Vrach Frankenshteyn Improves the 2008 Movie
Crucially, though, the film feels tighter. It’s 7 minutes shorter than the original cut, and scenes are now edited at a more staccato, thriller-like pace. Much of what’s missing involves tender character moments between Mulder and Scully. Two of their smooches have been nixed, along with half of a scene that involves late-night cuddling between the paranormal-fixated paramours. References to the characters’ backstory have also gotten the chop, including nods to Mulder’s long-lost sister and Scully’s son she gave up for adoption. Mercifully, this new edit streamlines a tedious subplot involving a young boy whose dire illness Scully goes to great lengths to treat.
Mulder and Scully Remain the Film’s Greatest Strength
The slashing of these character-centric moments might sound ill-advised or even sacrilege to fans who believed Mulder and Scully’s potent onscreen chemistry was the only redeemable element from the theatrical cut. Surprisingly, it all works. Duchovny and Anderson do commendable work in conveying the pathos of all the heartache the duo has endured – their shared glances do more heavy-lifting than any of Carter and Spotnitz’s ham-fisted dialogue.
The X-Files Recut Still Has Major Problems
Still, all the recutting in the world can’t save the film from its inherent design flaws. Mulder and Scully are apart for far too long. Scully’s subplot with her young patient is a snooze, since it keeps her away from the X-File at hand. And that X-File is generic at best, homophobic at worst. The so-called “modern Frankenstein” wants to build a new body for his husband, whose connection to Father Joe plays into eyeroll-y stereotypes around trauma victims and queer people. In both 2008 and 2026, it all feels like something that would land on the reject pile in the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit writers’ room.
Is Vrach Frankenshteyn Worth Watching?
While the original I Want to Believe is all but unwatchable, Vrach Frankenshteyn feels more like perfectly serviceable streaming fare. With Coogler’s much-anticipated reboot, many curious genre fans are checking out the show for the first time, working their way through all eleven seasons. If these newcomers wish to include I Want to Believe and the revival seasons in their binge-a-thon for sheer completists’ sake, they’d be well-advised to watch Vrach Frankenshteyn instead of the original: it’s a re-animated cinematic corpse that isn’t quite as beautiful as the Bride of Frankenstein, but it’s not quite dead-on-arrival either. If nothing else, at least it leaves that inexplicable George-W.-Bush-photo moment on the cutting room floor.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe – Vrach Frankenshteyn is streaming on Hulu and Disney+.
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.
