Connect with us

Reviews

‘Last Night in Soho’ Review: Can Edgar Wright Make Giallo Magic?

Last Night in Soho dazzles with its 1960s aesthetic and strong performances from Anya Taylor-Joy and Diana Rigg, but falters with pacing and an unnecessary epilogue. Read our full review for insights on Edgar Wright’s horror film, its Giallo-inspired visuals, and mixed writing.

Published

on

At first glance, Last Night in Soho contains almost everything a film fan could want. We have a new Edgar Wright film after a four-year-long waiting period, Anya Taylor-Joy back in the horror genre for the first time since her film debut in 2015’s The Witch, Diana Rigg’s final performance, and a delightful 1960s mod aesthetic. While all these work on the film’s behalf, I personally sensed something lacking. It is a fun ride, certainly worth watching at least once, but it left me wanting a bit more.

Aesthetic Brilliance

Aesthetically, Last Night delivers. It’s beautiful in terms of cinematography, editing, and especially color. You can see the influence of Italian Giallo flicks from the ‘60s and ‘70s, as well as that of Bob Fosse’s Oscar-winning 1972 film adaptation of Cabaret. We see the striking color schemes of the Giallo and the seedy underbelly of a glamorous life like that in Cabaret.

The sound design of the film also served it well. The soundtrack, full of swingin’ British ‘60s tunes, set the mood and grounded us in the respective worlds of the characters. The score was usually subtle enough to add tension without distraction, except for during scenes of action. Even if you’re not familiar with the ins and outs of sound design (I’m not an expert myself), you’ve probably noticed this trend in horror movies: the bass gets very heavy, perhaps even distorted, when the climax of tension draws near. Look at your favorite jump scare for an example of the building of tension to the crescendo at the moment of reveal. When a heavy bass is overused, though, it loses its power. Every scene of conflict in Last Night in Soho, to my recollection, amplifies the bass and, therefore, downgrades the tension.

Acting Highlights and Shortcomings

In terms of acting, we get a surprisingly complex role out of Terence Stamp, a riveting send-off for Diana Rigg, and a true femme fatale in Anya Taylor-Joy. I was also pleasantly surprised by Matt Smith’s performance as the nefarious Jack, a manager for rising talent in the 1960s. He yelled quite a bit in Last Night, but he made his rage convincing, unlike his delivery as the Doctor in his three seasons of Doctor Who. But that’s a discussion for another day.

When it comes to Thomasin McKenzie, however, she was a bit of a letdown. McKenzie’s character, Eloise, the protagonist, is well written with the capacity for nuance. Unfortunately, I could only detect a few obvious expressions on her face: shock, anger, confusion, excitement. Throw in some glimpses of subtler emotions, and you get the whole actress. It could very well be that her over-the-top acting was an homage to the women of Giallo films, but it didn’t work well with the more natural performances of the rest of the cast.

Pacing and Plot Transitions

Moving on to the writing of the movie, I have mixed feelings. The dialogue was smooth and natural, which is, of course, essential for a film. The plot moved from conflict to conflict swiftly, and while it worked for most of the story, the shift from good times to horrifying turmoil was too quick. Over the span of 24 hours, equating to just a few minutes of screentime, there is a complete reversal of fortune. We’re at the height of bliss one night, only to be plunged into the nadir of despair the next. As a trailer for the movie states, sometimes it really only takes one night to change your world. The jarring shift didn’t work for me, but considering that the film clocks in at an hour and 56 minutes, I’m not sure how much more of a slow burn we could get.

Final Thoughts and Recommendation

Perhaps some time could have been saved by leaving the final scene on the cutting room floor. The scene played like an epilogue, and one that I’ve seen many times to boot. Coming from a prose fiction background, I’ve been steered away from epilogues by editors, readers, and fellow writers. They’re not frequently well received. How many times can we say we’ve really gained something, whether a new understanding or important information, from a scene of the aftermath of a story? When there’s a proper resolution, as Last Night in Soho almost provides, readers and viewers often don’t need or want an epilogue. The final scene wrapped up one loose end, which was appreciated but overall, it felt contrived.

Don’t get me wrong, Last Night in Soho is well worth watching at least once. I simply wasn’t blown away as some critics and audiences seemed to be. There were some jewels of brilliance, but they weren’t polished to their full potential, such as the inversion and complication of the Madonna-Whore Complex. Still, go to your local cinema, support the film and theater industry, and form your own opinions.

Advertisement

Amanda Nevada DeMel is a born-and-raised New Yorker, though she currently lives in New Jersey. Her favorite genre is horror, thanks to careful cultivation from her father. She especially appreciates media that can simultaneously scare her and make her cry. Amanda also loves reptiles, musicals, and breakfast foods.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Film Fests

GenreBlast X: ‘The Barn Part III’ Review

Published

on

A corn-headed creature wields a chainsaw in The Barn Part III

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Onslaught’ Review: Wingard Returns with Schlocky Goodness

Published

on

Onslaught Still Image

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria