Reviews
‘In the Mouth of Madness’ Review: Sam Neill’s Finest Hour
Do I need to belabor the point any longer that I love John Carpenter movies? The Thing is a perfect film, and my personal favorite horror movie. Likewise, Prince of Darkness is nearly perfect, and my favorite offering to bring to friends looking for recommendations. But of the three entries in Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy”, In the Mouth of Madness is the scrappy underdog.
The outclassed one with a lot of heart, the one I just keep coming back to, even if it lacks the cinematic strengths of its siblings. At the very least, it’s the one I quote the most. Sam Neil angrily yelling “This is not reality!” is basically on a hotkey in the neural soundboard of my brain.
It has this irreplicable essence to it that makes it a really special film to me even if it isn’t the best of the three. The Thing and Prince of Darkness are haymakers to the jaw, expertly delivered pieces of horror that really left an indelible mark on the genre. But In the Mouth of Madness is a sucker punch that still surprises all these viewings later.
What is In the Mouth of Madness About?
Inspired by the stories & real-life fame of Stephen King and heavily inspired by the Cthulhu mythos of H.P. Lovecraft, In the Mouth of Madness follows insurance investigator John Trent (Sam Neil). He’s a man with a bloodhound’s nose for sniffing out fraud and a stone-cold skeptic disposition. He’s the only man for the job that the massive publishing company Arcane needs done.
Their star author and the preeminent of pop literature, Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), is on the lam with a copy of his next book, “In the Mouth of Madness”. Cane’s fans are, quite literally, going feral for it and causing widespread riots in anticipation. And as the pressure is on for Arcane to deliver, Cane is nowhere to be found.
Though Trent believes it’s all a ploy to advertise the book, he and Cane’s editor Linda find themselves traveling to a small New England town pinpointed by clues left on the covers of his books. Not only does the town of Hobbs End turn out to be real, but it’s also exactly as described in the novels. And as the stay in town goes on, Trent has the misfortune of getting an especially immersive look at Cane’s work and what it can do to people.
He realizes far too late what the author’s magnum opus means for the rest of his readers come release day. And like the ending of roughly half of Stephen King’s books, nobody is going to like what happens.
This Is What an Actual Hidden Gem Horror Film Looks Like
In the Mouth of Madness lacks a lot of the obvious charm of its sister films. But I think the underwhelming response to Madness at the time of its release, and its failure to ever hit a bigger audience in the years following it, is really a byproduct of being eclipsed by other Carpenter projects. Being the least impressive of the trio, it’s still better than most horror movies in general. Even the worst Olympic qualifying athlete outclasses 99% of humans on Earth when it comes to what they do, and Madness is very much in the same boat.
It’s not the best of the three, but it’s certainly the best horror of 1995, no contest, and even defensible as being the best of the 90s in general. It’s impossible to look at it and say that its effects are better than either those of The Thing or of Darkness. But it’s also undeniable that its practicals are still better than most horror movies, even most modern releases. Its story is muddled structurally, with a second act that feels like an onslaught of awesome visuals and undercooked editing. But it still manages to capture the exact feelings of cosmic despair and disorienting horror that it aims for. It is a fantastic film through and through, but it never really got the chance to shine, and that’s a shame.
The Greatest Sam Neill Performance of All Time?
The biggest shame of all is that this film holds what is almost certainly the best Sam Neill performance of all time. We lost a tremendous talent in Neill with his passing, and I instantly knew there was no film I wanted to talk about more or performance I loved better from him. Yes, better than Doctor Alan Grant in Jurassic Park. Better than his turn in both Anderson’s Event Horizon and Żuławski’s Possession. The latter of which is an incredibly hard bar to clear if you’ve seen it, but what can I say? Neill, as he was wont to do, outdid himself here.
Acting opposite the legendary Jürgen Prochnow as Sutter Cane, Neill’s John Trent is still such an incredible standout. All of the film’s very solid dark comedy and horror, all of its best moments, are carried by Neill’s fine-tuned character work. He carries the entire film on his back, and I feel fairly confident in saying there is no other actor that could have done it this well. Starting the plot as a steely eyed detective, bordering on a noir character with his mannerisms, there’s a quiet change that creeps up on you as the film progresses. You get to watch him slowly melt under this supernatural influence, as the stress turns an iron clad person into the putty plaything of something much bigger than himself.
Sam Neill Truly Shines
Seeing his confidence, his idea of being totally in control, dissolve into wet tissue paper is so incredibly fun. The small cracks become bigger and bigger thanks to his expertise, and by the final scene of the film he brings it home with one of the most incredible reactions to close a horror movie on. His performance is burned into my brain; it’s sticky like molasses. Neill’s time on screen as John Trent is a testament to his dynamism and force of personality as an actor that wormed its way into my brain a decade ago and hasn’t been forgotten since.
In the Mouth of Madness Is an Endlessly Rewatchable Movie
There are individual lines and scenes throughout it that I sincerely wish I could see again for the first time just to hear them fresh. Though at the same time, it’s a movie that just becomes more and more fun to revisit. The events of the movie, especially its ending, resemble their sister film Prince of Darkness: muddy on a first watch through, so it benefits from repeated passes.
But each watch does actually feel like you’re taking something new from it, be it a new interpretation of the ending, a better understanding of the story, or a new appreciation of its characters. So, whether it’s your first time seeing it or a revisit of this actual hidden gem, I can wholeheartedly say that In the Mouth of Madness is most definitely worth the watch.
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.
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.
