Reviews
‘Malibu Horror Story’ (2023) Review: A Terrifying Masterpiece
Malibu Horror Story follows a group of paranormal investigators trying to find clues about a group of teens who went missing in a cave deep in the woods of Malibu. The group of paranormal investigators soon learn they are going to get more than they bargained for. Malibu Horror Story acts as a mockumentary while playing more into the found footage aspect than the other films we’ve discussed this month. If I had to pick the scariest film we’ve discussed for Found Footage February, it would be incredibly hard to choose between Malibu Horror Story and Horror in the High Desert.
Rounding out our little dive into found footage from the 2020s is another mockumentary with a bit more of a found footage angle than the last two films we discussed. Now, it should be noted, that I’ve been repping this film since I saw it over two years ago at Panic Fest. Writer/director Scott Slone was even kind enough to invite me to the New York premiere at the New York City Horror Film Festival. Moreover, Slone took the time to sit down and chat with me for almost two hours and was one of the first filmmakers I ever interviewed.
The Journey of Malibu Horror Story
His 2023 film Malibu Horror Story not only killed on the festival circuit, but mainstream audiences dug it as well. Malibu Horror Story is an encapsulation of tenacity and drive. The film was conceived and mostly shot over ten years ago, and happened to fall into a bit of development hell. Reshoots would take place sporadically over the next handful of years, until 2022 when it was [nearly] finished and thrust into the festival world. The film I had the opportunity to see at NYCHFF would be the completed project. Seeing two iterations of this film, and learning how it went from an idea to a finished product 10+ years later, isn’t just impressive, it’s inspiring.
Malibu Horror Story follows a group of paranormal investigators trying to find clues about a group of teens who went missing in a cave deep in the woods of Malibu. The group of paranormal investigators soon learn they are going to get more than they bargained for. Malibu Horror Story acts as a mockumentary while playing more into the found footage aspect than the other films we’ve discussed this month. If I had to pick the scariest film we’ve discussed for Found Footage February, it would be incredibly hard to choose between Malibu Horror Story and Horror in the High Desert.
Scott Slone’s Innovative Found Footage Style
Slone finds a perfect blend between tropey-found footage scares and slow-building terror. Even the scares that we’ve seen done before are fresh, with Slone putting his spin on them. What’s crazy is some of the things Slone does in this film would have been wholly original and never seen before…if it came out in 2012. That’s not meant to be a slight on Slone whatsoever. Instead, it shows he is a pioneer of found footage. I cannot imagine the [bigger] impact Malibu Horror Story would have had on the genre had it been released when principal photography was initially completed.
Malibu Horror Story gives us a brilliant performance from character actor Troy James, in a truly terrifying performance. Everything that Troy James does is horror gold, especially for someone like me who is freaked out by contortionism. James’ movements are clear and concise, you can feel his character within his movements. It also helps that Troy James appears once the investigators, and teens, are confined to the claustrophobic cave setting. While part of the cave was a set, you can’t help but feel you’re watching a group of investigators trapped deep in an authentic cave. It’s just one of those things that amps the brilliance of this film up a notch.
Why Malibu Horror Story Deserves a Wider Release
While Malibu Horror Story did get a limited theatrical run, which makes it the fourth time I’ve seen the film, there’s not much information about a physical/VOD release, which is a damn shame! This is a rare film that is just as much fun to watch alone in your house as in a room full of excited festival-goers. Hopefully, we’ll be getting a physical release at some point here soon. But if there’s one thing I know about Scott, it’s that he’s definitely not done scaring audiences anytime soon.
Reviews
‘Them That Follow’ Review: A Bleak and Brilliant Thriller
From Blood Shine to now, I’ve really been eating my words with my “don’t like cult horror” attitude. Maybe all I needed was a gigantic break from the hundreds of cult-based horror films that were being churned out. Or, maybe the subgenre just needed some space to find its footing? Anyway, imagine the shock on my face when I was researching snake-based horror films and came across Them That Follow, starring Walton Goggins, Olivia Coleman, Kaitlyn Dever, and *checks notes* Jim Gaffigan!
Lemuel (Walton Goggins) is the pastor of a snake-fearing religious group, tucked away deep in the Appalachian mountains. His daughter, Mara (Alice Englert), is set to marry Garret (Lewis Pullman), a man she seemingly has no interest in. As their young love comes into question, Johnny Law starts breathing down their necks. With her best friend Dilly (Kaitlyn Dever) on her side, Mara questions everything she’s known about her life thus far. Will she go forward and marry a man she may not even love? Or, will her former fling, Auggie (Thomas Mann), win her affection and get her to leave this awful life behind?
A Slow-Burn With Style
Writer/directors Brittany Poulton and Dan Madison Savage bring a wholly unique feature to the table with Them That Follow. At first, the film’s meandering and lackluster pace is grating. WHEN will something happen? WHAT will move this story forward? Slowly but surely, Poulton and Savage’s story serpentines its way into nihilistic horror. If you have zero control over your life, what kind of life is it? Them That Follow is a harrowing, albeit slow, exploration of grief in a way that “elevated horror” typically fails at doing. Rather than forcing audiences into its grief, Poulton and Savage craft an excellent story around it.
Them That Follow explores not just grief, but groupthink. In a world where deeply religious political parties storm pizza restaurants with automatic weapons and kill in the name of their god, this film acts as a harsh mirror. YOU may not be aware that groups like this exist…they do. One of my favorite articles is written by someone who embedded himself in a Q-adjacent cult as he chronicled just how broken some of these groups are. (I wish I could remember the title/author, sorry!) Them That Follow does an incredible job at visualizing some of the things I read in that article. Those who believe Lemuel see nothing wrong with letting one of their friends get bitten by a venomous snake and slowly drift into a quiet death in the name of their god.
Outstanding Performances and a Surprising Cast
What really excited me about Them That Follow is how wonderfully miserable the cast is. Never have I seen people portray misery as entertainingly as this cast. Walton Goggins embodies his violent optimism in a way I haven’t seen him do before (though I haven’t seen Justified). Olivia Coleman is brilliant as always. But it’s everyman comedian Jim Gaffigan who really caught my eye. His performance is subtle and refined, something I didn’t think he could pull off. And if you ever thought you would see the day where Jim Gaffigan and Olivia Coleman play husband and wife on screen, you’re lying.
It’s not until the final act that the film goes from stagnant (positively) forwardness to amped up energy. I was concerned Them That Follow wouldn’t nail an interesting stinger, but Poulton and Savage wrapped a bloody brilliant bow on the end of this gift. I did wish they had gone in a different, less realistic angle to the film’s ending; something more grotesque. But I can’t fault them for leaving the film grounded in a reality that is justified and believable. Not all films like this have to end with a supernatural, Lovecraftian twist. And for that, I tip my ten-gallon hat to them.
Why Them That Follow Deserves More Attention
Them That Follow was an incredible surprise, and a wonderful change of pace for what cult-based horror films typically are. With a stacked cast, brilliant writing, and stunning performances, I’m shocked more people haven’t stumbled across this film. It utilizes its snake-based horror well and doesn’t vilify those slithery sneaks in a way many snake-based horror films do. At the very least, watch this film to see what it would be like if Olivia Coleman and Jim Gaffigan were married.
Reviews
‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ Review: Fanservice Wrapped in Mess
I have no illusions that Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 entertained me due in no small part to personal bias. There was genuine enjoyment to be had for how silly and fun it was and enjoy it I did. I, of all people, am not immune to nostalgia. But there’s no mincing words: the second outing at the cinemas for creator Scott Cawthon’s behemoth horror franchise is, in no uncertain terms, a movie of mixed to low quality. It’s kind of bad. And that’s okay.
Its effects are simultaneously better and worse, its dialogue ranges from alright to atrocious, and its performances are all over the place. The premise it runs with, remixing the second game with its shiny new Toy versions of the Fazbear Entertainment gang, is a fun time fueled by fan service and busting at the seams to try and accommodate it all to an under two-hour runtime. But it’s messier than the backrooms of the pizzerias it takes place in.
A Remix of Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 (And Others), Heavy on Fanservice
This time, the primary antagonist puppeteering a cast of aggressive animatronics is literally a puppet; the Marionette, a scorned victim of the previous film’s antagonist William Afton. Slain and bound to the very first restaurant Afton started, a group of ghost hunters unleash its evil when a recording of their show goes horribly wrong. It’s up to Mike (Josh Hutcherson) and Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail) to try and seal it away again, or risk their lives being torn apart by the supernatural once more.
For the game fans this film was crafted for, it will satiate any lore craving they might have. Well, at least until the third film, when Mike will combat oxygen deprivation that causes him to hallucinate phantom animatronics (no, that sentence is not a joke, that actually happens). There are tidbits of foreshadowing for sequels, confirmations of theories, retcons, and somewhat amusing cameos. For everyone else, you’ll get a good laugh and the occasional scare, but you will have a plethora of questions.
The Screenplay Has Been Springlocked
The script for this sequel is riddled with oddities, nothing characters, and genre cliches that are in a quantum state of “good because it’s hilarious” and “bad because it’s genuinely bad” depending on who is delivering them. The story isn’t always predictable just because of the adaptation factor it relishes in, but its dialogue is undeniably silly and hamstrings what could otherwise be good performances with a need to rush along lore and forced character development.
Hutcherson’s go around as Mike this time is phoned in, and it doesn’t help that he wasn’t given anything to work with other than being a stereotypical single father figure to his kid sister. It’s not all bleak; Lail does actually deliver the film’s best bits in a genuinely frightening dream sequence delving into Vanessa’s backstory. She also gets a few fun final girl moments, but hasn’t reached the level of iconic that would garner calling her a scream queen; we’ll see if that changes in 3 given the radical shift in character she goes through here.
Great Villains Hamstrung by an Imperfect Script (And Effects)
Piper Rubio is once again fit to her role as Abby, though the character she’s playing is oddly one note for a child who is psychic friends with the ghosts of dead kids. The brief voice lines for the animatronics by guest stars garner little in the way of memorability, but long-time Freddy voice actor Kellen Goff does manage to make a solid impact with the one or two lines he receives.
While we’re on the topic of those new fiendish animatronics, they are much better than anticipated. Their practical puppetry bases and how they’re composited with the CGI isn’t bad at all, with game designs translating well and moving nicely. The Marionette’s myriad forms, however, do feel exceptionally goofy despite the terrifying concept of a slithering octopoid puppet ghost with no concrete skeleton. They’re the lowlight of the film’s effects, but it’s kind of endearing how silly they look.
The biggest victim of the film, however, is Freddy Carter. He plays the creep factor of his character up to a thousand in a way that absolutely would work with better writing and a darker tone. But he’s shackled by the lore implications of being a character people have been waiting for, in a way that feels more offensive to the story than the constant easter eggs. Every word that leaves his mouth feels comically bad, laden with exposition or just outright limp and cold linework.
We Underused Matthew Lillard Again (And Skeet Ulrich This Time Too)
Which is a shame, because our minor villain does get to have fun. Matthew Lillard’s brief screen chewing time in the sun as William Afton once more is delightful, playing a deranged killer in a yellow bunny costume with all the glee that visual would indicate.
Skeet Ulrich as fan favorite character Henry Emily, however, doesn’t get nearly enough time to shine. Despite being a perfect casting for the role and delivering a convincing turn as a grieving father, he’s relegated to just delivering a plot device that gets 30 seconds of screentime. Here’s to hoping the next film reunites the Scream alums, allowing the long-time rivals of the game to finally cross paths.
Can Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 Be More Than Fan Service?
I suppose the constant reiteration of that last point is important to address: the current train of thought is that hopefully, eventually, the kinks will be worked out as far as the Five Nights at Freddy’s films go. Though I’m not holding my breath.
There are no reservations that this is, first and foremost gateway horror for younger audiences, with a nostalgia barbed fishhook to sink into in older fans as well. My humble prediction is that almost all of these films will remain roughly the same level of quality (middling to poor), the same level of frightening (more than you’d think and much less than you’d hope), and the same level of entertaining for the segments of the population it hits for (a fairly fun time).
And maybe that’s enough. To simply be entertaining gateway horror is fine, I don’t think there’s a screaming necessity for these to be masterpieces. This movie is kind of bad, and that’s okay if all you need is some fleeting entertainment or to see your favorite game adapted to film. But films with this much franchise potential should be treated as all others. They can be strong horror films with great iconography rather than features beholden entirely to that iconography.
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 fails to wow in any particular department other than being “for the fans” and much of its unintentional humor. Still, there’s a glimmer of hope here in its silvery eyes that this can all be something more down the line.


