Reviews
‘The Hole in the Fence’ Review: Where the Rehearsal Ends
This is the most emotionally exhausting film I’ve covered for HORROR PRESS, and I knew this would be tricky to write about. Most of my reviews are positive, fun, and full of jokes about my boss keeping me handcuffed to a computer. Even if the movies are grotesque, I can have fun with them.
There is no fun to be had here.
That isn’t to say The Hole in the Fence is a bad film, far from it. But it was a hard-to-watch experience that pulled tight on my muscles until the end credits hit.
A Dark Tale of Abuse and Conspiracy
Just a quick warning: child abuse, CSA, and racism are a core part of this movie, so please proceed with caution if you are particularly sensitive to these topics.
The Hole in the Fence is a foreign psychological thriller centered on Centro Escolar Los Pinos, a combination summer camp and catholic school retreat, where we follow a group of young boys whose wealthy families pay for them to be taught by abusive “professors” that worked with their fathers. While they’re supposed to learn how to be moral, upstanding men built for high society, they are instead immersed in fear and interpersonal violence when a hole in the fence draws speculation and conspiracy among the children over local villagers and their intentions for the camp. All hell breaks loose.
Toxic Masculinity and Colonialism
Many reviewers will rely on the good old standby of kids getting cut loose and going wild, Lord of the Flies, as a point of reference for this film. I think a better parallel is Soft & Quiet, a movie I didn’t enjoy but understood the appeal of: it’s a gut-wrenching experience that never pulls back from how depraved people can get when spurred on by mob mentality and a victim complex. While that movie tackled the uncomfortable result of fascism being popularized in small cells as American citizens become ever more atomized in our current age, this movie discusses the precursor to fascist (and, more overtly, colonialist) strains of thought in Mexico’s upper class.
The Hole in the Fence is ultimately about performances that ingrain those thoughts, rehearsing for a spot in oppressive positions. Not a literal song and dance, but the kind of performative action taken by insecure people to try and uphold a toxic system. The Hole is essentially weak men performing violent strength for boys under the guise of guidance, and boys performing that toxic masculinity to impress onto other boys the idea that they’re men; most importantly, everyone in the school is “performing” colonialist superiority over the indigenous village neighboring them. After all, it is the want of the ur-fascist that the enemy should be both weak and strong, that they must be terrorized as punishment for being both.
Climax and Questions of Morality
The film’s climax, with as few spoilers as possible, is the boy’s final rehearsal to terrorize others, and act on their teachings. The question then is if the children even know where the rehearsal ends and reality begins, which is in and of itself a horrifying question to ask.
One of the film’s boldest creative choices is that it has no true main character to follow through with this degradation of innocence. An argument can be made for several characters, chiefly the heavily wounded Diego (Eric David Walker). Still, the film bounces from moment to moment with no particular protagonist because it works best thematically for it. No one person creates the system, no one person can stop it, and no one perspective is enough to encompass it.
The child actors do surprisingly well in portraying this rapid decline over the vague course of a few weeks. They range from sympathetic and quiet like Eduardo (Yubah Ortega), to downright despicable, like the bloodthirsty head of the pack Jordi (Valeria Lamm). That’s not even touching upon our professors, the most intimidating of which is Professor Monteros (Enrique Lascurain), who fuses feigned sincerity with this dead-eyed resentment for the boys that underpins his every word in a very skin-crawling kind of way. It’s a true-blue ensemble cast of future greats and current actors that need more recognition.
Cinematography: A Thriller Shot Like a Horror Movie
The best aesthetic description I have for the film’s cinematography is that it’s a thriller shot like a horror movie, all the while taking inspiration from the likes of Terrence Malick of all directors. Which, on paper, sounds like a hot mess, but ends up looking great. There’s lots of smooth camera work and gorgeous shots of nature, both on location in Mexico and in Poland, for the exteriors. It isn’t particularly inventive or slick, but it doesn’t have to be; if there’s one thing the movie does very satisfyingly is give you a sense of scale and purpose of environment that the boys and their captors (because, in the end, that is what they are) are immersed in.
Regarding issues I have with the film, there are some curious line choices that undercut other themes and bring up strains of thought that distract from the primary message (hint: the mystery of the white-collared raven that the professors discuss). Despite how good the actors are, one or two takes have some slip-ups or improvised dialogue that can be distracting. Some scenes linger a bit too long, and the occasional heavy-handed symbolism will pop up occasionally.
A Bleak but Brilliant Masterpiece
Still, overall, The Hole in the Fence succeeds in its goal: forcing you to see how the sausage is made, with every agonizing turn of the crank displaying abusers grinding down their victims to make more abusers.
Is The Hole in the Fence a masterfully made thriller that fully deserved its Ariel Award and Oscar nominations? Absolutely, ten times over. Is it rewatchable? That depends on if you ever want to experience a film as bleak as this more than once. I will undoubtedly be as tense as the first go-around if I revisit 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.
