Reviews
‘Buddy’ Review: Casper Kelly’s Mascot Horror Swings Wide
Casper Kelly’s Buddy is a wide swing in the mascot horror genre if there ever was one. The film is a spin on Barney & Friends mixed with the Candle Cove creepypasta and Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared, and it feels just as overstuffed as that would imply. Drawing on a well of analog horror influence and deadly nostalgia, Buddy focuses more on the vibes than on piecing together a great story.
Those who know Kelly for his previous works, the viral short Too Many Cooks most notably, will recognize that this is statistically on brand. But still, the vibes here certainly do hit thanks to some inspired and authentic set design, some incredibly wild dark comedy, and a refusal to ever pump the brakes on the metaphysical and practical effects horror throughout its runtime.
What Is Buddy (2026) About?
It’s the children’s show no one remembers: It’s Buddy. With the guidance of the magical unicorn plushy Buddy (Keegan-Michael Key) and his human friends, a group of kids learn, grow, and play together in The Park. But after one of the kids disappears suddenly and with little coherent explanation, their friends Freddy (Delaney Quinn) and Wade (Caleb Williams) begin to suspect something is wrong with Buddy. Is it sickness, or something darker making him more aggressive?
As the kids begin to show resistance in going along with the usual song and dance of the show, cracks in Buddy’s façade begin to form. When the mask shatters, the remaining kids are forced to go on the run after their cuddly friend has a murderous meltdown.
Can Buddy Stand Out in An Age Filled with Mascot Horror?
So, in an age where we’re tripping over stories of demented children’s entertainment mascots left and right (Five Nights At Freddy’s getting popular enough to have its own real-life attraction), what does Buddy bring to the table? Well, for one, a good deal of sincerity. The film rarely lampshades the premise or pokes fun at itself, opting to play it straight in a way that makes it far more charming and dramatically resonant than it would have been as a more irony poisoned horror comedy.
Yes, the premise is inherently comedic; it’s a controlling orange unicorn with an inclination to extreme violence and lascivious tendencies. Some of its best moments are straight out of a MeatCanyon video. It’s juvenile, but the fact that the movie doesn’t wink and nod at itself is a saving grace when it does decide to make full on jokes or focus on the drama. Ducking and dodging the trappings of a self-aware meta film allows the movie not only to be funnier, but to be genuinely more disturbing in the few moments where it manages to unsettle.
Perfect Production Design Emulates Children’s Show Aesthetics to a Tee
It doesn’t hurt that the film’s set design perfectly emulates the retro, live action children’s show aesthetic it’s recreating. The juxtaposition is excitingly jarring to say the least, and the effort exceeds the baseline one would expect from something as crude as Anti-Barney humor. Its very prismatic palette is filled with colorful and memorable sets, serving as a great backdrop for the menacing chase the kids are forced into by Buddy. There’s also a great contrast between the sugary, bright television set world and the jump into reality around the midpoint of the film as the B-plot unravels. This all serves as a visual flex for how much care was put into designing the vibrant wilderness that makes up the imaginary world.
Like Kelly’s Previous Films, Buddy Is Buzzing with Unrealized Ideas
The more you think about that imaginary world and Buddy himself, however, the more likely you are to focus on the film’s flaws; flaws that make for a bloated third act and a somewhat unsatisfying closer. The finer details of how this fictional world came to be are hardly explored, especially given the vague ending that begs the question. The dialogue and little exposition we do get can be clunky at points. While its implications are chilling with the abstract questions they pose in those final shots, they’re only that: implications.
This was also the downfall of both of Casper Kelly’s previous feature-length endeavors, the Adult Swim Yule Log specials. They suffered from lots of ideas buzzing around a really simple, really effective central notion. And the exact same can be said of Buddy: those ideas that swarm start to feel less like the concerted effort of a hive and more like a buzzing distraction pulling in different directions. It’s haphazard at best, and while the budget goes on the loose with some special effects surprises in store for those who stick with it, it’s hard not to want something more cohesive and concrete out of it.
If you meet Buddy on its level, it’s by all means a success as a practical effects horror doused in rainbow aesthetics and drenched in pitch black comedy. The narrative it does deliver is messy, and thematically, the film is threadbare. But as far as dumb, fun midnight movies with a dedication to their craft go, Buddy definitely gets the job done by the time the credits roll.
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.
