246) Ghostwatch (1992)

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies (Part IV)

"What's it like living in England's Amityville?"

Director

Lesley Manning

Cast
Michael Parkinson - Himself as the Host
Sarah Greene - Herself
Mike Smith - Himself
Craig Charles - Himself
Gillian Bevan - Dr. Lin Pascoe
Brid Brennan - Pamela Early
Michelle Wesson - Suzanne Early
Cherise Wesson - Kim Early
Keith Ferrari - Pipes

"Ghostwatch" is a little-known showcase in televised horror, perhaps at least in the U.S. Not so much in the U.K. 

It's a Halloween activity that turns an otherwise ordinary BBC investigation into something considerably more unsettling.
The show is a faux-live investigation presented as a special report and hosted by British talk-show host Michael Parkinson. It's something along the lines of the 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast, but on TV.
It first aired on BBC1 in the U.K. on October 31, 1992.
And it's pretty much what I expected it to be. That is, it's something "scary" to tune into on Halloween night.
The storyline behind "Ghostwatch" clearly draws inspiration from the famous Enfield poltergeist case, which supposedly took place in the U.K. back in the 1970s. The case was the basis for the 2016 sequel "The Conjuring 2," which is, in my infallible opinion, the only worthwhile movie in the "Conjuring" franchise.
Anyway, like the Enfield case, the story in "Ghostwatch" revolves around a single mother and her two young daughters. It's presented as a live BBC television broadcast investigating reports of an alleged haunting at the home of Pamela Early (Brid Brennan) and her two daughters, Kim (Cherise Wesson) and Suzanne (Michelle Wesson).
The three claim they're being tormented by a relentless spirit. So, the BBC is there to investigate live and see what's really going on.

While Michael Parkinson is at the BBC studio, co-host Sarah Greene spends the night with the family, providing moment-by-moment coverage as disturbing, unexplainable spooky stuff gradually increases in frequency, suggesting that the haunting is real.
Mike Smith is in the studio with Parkinson, supervising phone calls from members of the public who want to comment on the ongoing haunting investigation.
The ghost supposedly residing in the Early home is an entity called "Pipes" because it seems to love banging on the pipes inside the house.
The television investigation uncovers a dark history of the house, including claims that a child murderer who lived during the Victorian era died there.
As the investigation pushes through the night, viewers call into the show to report sightings of Pipes hiding in the background of various scenes during the broadcast, as well as strange activity in their own homes. The paranormal activity eventually spreads beyond the house, revealing that the entire broadcast may have been manipulated into becoming a nationwide séance.
The situation spirals, leading to Sarah Greene disappearing inside the house. The ghost or ghosts somehow make their way into the studio. So now the BBC becomes haunted, and the broadcast ends with Michael Parkinson falling under the influence of Pipes.
Happy Halloween!
Outside of "Ghostwatch" being, well, a thing that exists, there's not much to take away from it. It's like a Halloween decoration.
It starts off with just enough supernatural suspense to captivate me and pull me in. But it makes a feeble attempt to throw in a twist midway through, lest the whole thing become another news-magazine gimmick.
One thing it does succeed at, somewhat, is exploiting the what-if factor behind ghosts and hauntings. What if these hauntings and poltergeists are actually real? It's effective.
Among the most laughable and irritating things on TV these days are those insufferable ghost-hunting shows.
There are so many of these reality ghost shows on TV and streaming platforms. All they have going for them is the "what-if" factor. Outside of that, they're all the same. Dull. Doubtful. Laughable. And all the while, they're claiming to be experts on something they admit is unknown.
These shows conveniently feature paranormal activity in every episode. I've only met one so-called paranormal investigator in my life, back when I was writing for a newspaper. This guy said that finding actual paranormal activity, even in allegedly haunted locations, is damn near impossible. And he used the same nonsense they use on TV, with all manner of recording devices and electronic toys.

At least "Ghostwatch" doesn't try to be anything other than what it is: a more-or-less entertaining (I'm being generous) spooky television special designed to leave audiences a little uneasy when they go to bed.
Still, it kept me invested from beginning to end. I wanted to see where the story went.
I heard about "Ghostwatch" from the YouTube channel "The Cobwebs Channel," which features entertaining lists of horror movie recommendations categorized by subgenre.
Even TV can be frightening, and I'm not referring to the news. "Trilogy of Terror" from 1975 comes to mind, as do those paranormal segments that used to be featured on "Unsolved Mysteries." I loved watching those. They definitely made an impression. And they were scary.
"Ghostwatch" strikes me as a one-time program that understands that. It attempts to be a frightening TV experience, and it succeeds at times, especially in those instances when I had to rewind because I thought I saw someone standing in a reflection or appearing in a random scene who wasn't supposed to be there. Well done, in that regard.

Despite it being a Halloween funhouse experience, it deserves a rightful niche somewhere in the corridors of television horror history. 

245) Kwaidan (1964)

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies (Part III)

 

Director
Masaki Kobayashi

Cast

The Black Hair

Rentarō Mikuni - the Samurai
Michiyo Aratama - the First Wife
Misako Watanabe - the Second Wife

The Woman of the Snow
Tatsuya Nakadai - Minokichi
Keiko Kishi - the Yuki-onna

Hoichi the Earless
Katsuo Nakamura - Hoichi
Tetsurō Tamba - the Samurai in Armor
Takashi Shimura -  the Chief Priest

In a Cup of Tea
Kan'emon Nakamura - Kannai
Noboru Nakaya - Heinai Shikibu
Osamu Takizawa - the Author/Narrator
Nakamura Ganjirō II - the Publisher

I have to give a huge amount of credit to Japanese filmmakers for making horror movies with such enthralling plots often so carefully put together like a fine tapestry. They seem to take the art of filmmaking, even horror movies, very seriously and with every bit of attention to detail. A lot of Japanese horror movies are crafted artfully and meticulously. Even when it comes to many of the Godzilla movies, Japanese filmmakers seem to give their films a lot of depth. Case in point, the 1964 horror anthology film, "Kwaidan."
It was directed by Masaki Kobayashi and taken from a screenplay by Yoko Mizuki.
I wouldn't hesitate to call "Kwaidan" a horror movie masterpiece.
This is one of the eeriest, most reverential, dignified, and captivating anthologies I have ever seen.
Watching this, there is certainly a sense of awe and historical reference that left me thinking I would be a huge jerk if I said anything negative about it.
"Kwaidan" tells four separate ghost stories that are taken from Greek/Irish writer Lafcadio Hearn's collections of Japanese folktales.
These haunting stories depict love, betrayal, pride, and spiritual consequence in a relatable way. Then they use these themes to tie the living with the dead.

"The Black Hair"
In this first tale, a samurai (Rentarō Mikuni) leaves his devoted wife (Michiyo Aratama) and heads to Kyoto so he can marry into a rich family. As he leaves his wife behind in tears and miserable loneliness, the samurai hopes that by marrying into a rich family, he'll improve his social standing and actually become somebody important and highly regarded.
He manages to find another wife, (Misako Watanabe) who can make all that happen. However, that marriage turns out to be a complete disaster, and not what the samurai was hoping for.
Disgraced, the samurai returns to the home where he left his first and more dedicate wife. Surprisingly, she welcomes him back with no ill feelings. The house, however, certainly hasn't been tended to very well during his absence.
It seems almost too good to be true. When the samurai awakens the next morning, he discovers that his first wife, who welcomed him back joyfully, is actually long dead. Her decaying corpse has been lying next to him during the night.
The samurai tries to escape, but his wife's long and gorgeous black hair entangles and subdues him.
It's an unsettling and emotional start to this anthology with its depiction of the horror of regret. It's a story that centers more on the dread of irretrievably losing something so precious rather than just being a spooky tale of regret.
Not only does the samurai find himself haunted by his wife, but he's also more keenly haunted by his own guilt and his longing for the good he had in his possession until he threw it away of his own free will. His is a longing for his own past. Now, it has become a source of torment.

"The Woman of the Snow"
This story begins during a terrible snowstorm up in the mountains. A woodcutter named Minokichi (Tatsuya Nakadai) witnesses a beautiful woman kill his elderly companion. Well, that beautiful woman is actually a yuki-onna, or a snow woman (Keiko Kishi), a supernatural entity linked to blizzards or whatever other severe winter conditions happen to occur. Though beautiful, the yuki-onna is a ruthless entity that kills unsuspecting people. Well, almost ruthless.
After she kills his companion, the snow woman turns her attention to Minokichi. However, she's taken by his handsome and youthful appearance, and spares his life.
However, she makes him swear never to tell anyone that she appeared to him and killed his companion. If he lets the cat out of the bag, figuratively speaking, she'll return to take his life.
Years roll by. Minokichi hasn't told a soul about what he witnessed during that snowstorm.
During those years, he finds himself a beautiful wife named Yuki and, together, they make a nice little family.
However, this little slice of heaven they made changes when Minokichi makes a pair of sandals for Yuki. He even places a little red ribbon on them.
He tells Yuki the ribbon symbolizes her young and gorgeous features. How precious!
Later, while watching Yuki sitting in candlelight sewing a kimono, Minokichi is reminded of the snow woman. He can't help noticing a resemblance.
So, he tells Yuki about what he saw all those years ago during that mountain snowstorm.
He didn't keep his end of the bargain, and now he has to pay the penalty. Yuki reveals herself to be the snow woman. However, she still can't bring herself to kill Minokichi or the children she had with him.
The fragility of a promise and the burden of secrecy are at play in this story. I like this story because, when it comes to horror, I’m drawn to that one thing in a horror story that disrupts a character's peace of mind in an otherwise peaceful existence. To me, that simple element is frightening. I picture that one horrific detail weighing on a character’s mind as something like a blemish or worm bothering one's conscience . It’s there in their mind. Amid all the joy and good things that surround them, the knowledge that this one bit of evil is still a part of their life keeps coming back every once in a while.
In this case, it’s the knowledge that evil, murderous, supernatural snow women exist, and that Minokichi can’t do anything about it or tell anyone what he has seen. That knowledge becomes a kind of secret burden he carries with him for the rest of his life. But there’s another tragedy here: love is stronger than the monster of the story, at least for a time. Minokichi manages to keep his life, but his true love is gone forever. And, in a strange twist, she wasn’t even exactly what he thought she was all those years. He loved her, lived with her, and built a life with her, all while unknowingly living alongside the very thing he had once feared. Tragic all around.
By the way, this story seemed very familiar to me. In fact, as the story progressed, I knew right away where I had seen this same story depicted before.
Anyone who's familiar with the 1988 horror anthology "Tales from the Darkside" will recognize this as the same plot as the story "Lover's Vow" with James Remar and Rae Dawn Chong.

"Hoichi the Earless"
This segment seems original yet familiar to me. I mean, I feel like I've seen a story similar to this third segment, "Hoichi the Earless," depicted someplace else, but at the same time, it strikes me as original. I get that originality from how reverentially deep the segment goes into old Japanese history, particularly the Battle of Dan-no-ura, which occurred in 1185.
In this segment, Hoichi (Katsuo Nakamura) is a blind musician who is a master at playing the Japanese lute-like string instrument called the biwa. He lives in a Buddhist temple and is known for how well he sings a chant called "The Tale of the Heike," which tells the story of the Battle of Dan-no-ura.
So much so that Hoichi is summoned by a mysterious samurai to perform this song for an audience of nobles, including the samurai's lord. The samurai instructs him not to tell anyone about this request.
Hoichi agrees. So, during the night, the mysterious samurai leads him to a strange court where he sings "The Tale of the Heike."
One of Hoichi's caretakers notices his late-night absence.
The samurai returns the following night to take Hoichi back to his lord and the nobles in the court to sing the tale once again.
His caretakers try to protect Hoichi, who doesn't realize the samurai, his lord, and the nobles he's playing for are actually spirits of the dead. To protect him, they write Buddhist scripture all over his body. Weird, I know. But that's what they do. This writing makes Hoichi invisible to the ghosts. But the monks he lives with forget to write on his ears. That means the ghosts can see Hoichi's ears floating around.
The samurai takes Hoichi's ears and leaves him...earless.
There's a real eeriness about the way this segment depicts the persistence and longing for the past, which the ghosts that seek out Hoichi are longing for. They're trapped in this ongoing recollection of the battle Hoichi sings about. They have him singing practically on repeat. It's like the ghosts are the haunted ones who can't escape their past of war, even in death. Their haunting won't let them rest in peace.
History and storytelling are doing the haunting, but history is still treated with the reverence it deserves.
This story is steeped in an almost sacred sense of history. The ghosts of the past demand to be remembered, while the living struggle to keep from being overtaken by it.

"In a Cup of Tea"
In this last segment, as told by a storyteller, a writer tells the tale of a samurai named Kannai (Kan'emon Nakamura) as he waits for a visit from his publisher.
While Kannai is waiting, he stops by a teahouse for refreshments. As he serves himself tea, Kannai suddenly starts seeing a random face of an unknown man in his cup of tea.
As disturbing and weird as this is, Kannai still drinks his tea, face or no face.
When Kannai and his publisher meet, the man whose face he saw in his cup of tea appears to him. He says his name is Heinai Shikibu (Noboru Nakaya).
Kannai tells others about what he witnessed, but of course they don't believe him.
Later that night, three spirit attendants of Shikibu manifest themselves to Kannai and then end up dueling each other.
However, the story deliberately ends without a formal conclusion. It ends with the eerie and unsettling image of the storyteller trapped inside a big jar. The story is left unresolved forcing the audience to use their imagination as to how the scenario ends. Uncertainty is one of the most haunting aspects of life. It can really bend a person in half, twisting their stomach with anguish. And that's what the audience is left with after this purposely unfinished segment. With the reverential historical tale told in song, this segment feels like the centerpiece of the film.

My thoughts
"Kwaidan" isn't just a spooky ghost movie. It's a substantial series of tales that's quite an experience. The frightening aspects go deeper than just seeing people haunted by spirits. These ghosts carry with them memory, guilt, broken promises, and uncertainy.
While I think a horror movie ought to depict the defeat of evil, this movie's ending on abrupt uncertainty rather than giving the audience a neat explanation gives a final and lasting haunting. It certainly works. The audience needs to regain its footing after the last segment.
One of the things that makes "Kwaidan" so effective is its atmosphere. Although every story is obviously constructed on a soundstage, the artificial sets give these worlds an uncanny feel. 

Reality seems to border the strange, dreamlike spiritual realm from which the ghosts cross over. The painted skies, semi-unnatural landscapes, stark colors, and theatrical sets distort reality just enough. The atmosphere becomes more and more unsettling as the stories progress. It's as if the audience is looking at a world that exists only a few steps away from our own, with the ghosts just on the other side of the curtain.
The human actions of the characters somehow invite the respective supernatural consequences.
The spirits in this movie are more than just souls of the dead. They act as metaphors.
This movie goes above just being a supernatural scare for a movie night. It gives the audience so much to take away in regard to human actions and supernatural consequences.
Some of the ghosts evoke pity more than fear. And, actually, it's the human frailty and weakness that drives each story. It's this human corruption that evokes the supernatural intrusion, for lack of a better word. All of this is depicted near flawlessly. It goes beyond conventional scares. It utilizes an amazing, almost dreamlike atmosphere throughout each tale. It's almost meditative in regard to our actions and what those actions may lead to. It doesn't pull any punches about it. The movie is certainly blunt in its depictions. 
Out of all the paranormal horror movies I've watched, this one is the most impressive.

244) 1408 (2007)

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies (Part II)

"Hotels are a naturally creepy place."

Director
Mikael Håfström

Cast

John Cusack - Mike Enslin
Samuel L. Jackson - Gerald Olin
Mary McCormack - Lily Enslin
Tony Shalhoub - Sam Farrell
Jasmine Jessica Anthony - Katie Enslin
Len Cariou - Mike's father


Horror writer Stephen King observed that hotels are naturally creepy places. How true that is. When I was a kid, hotels were a huge added bonus to the vacationing experience. Now, I'm kind of wary of hotels. Basically, I see everything in a hotel room as dirty. Everything has been used by hundreds of strangers before me. How many people have slept in the bed I'm sleeping in? How many people have used my towels to dry off their bodies and heads of hair? Did someone sit on the couch in my room bollock naked just to get a laugh at the thought that someone will sit in that same spot later? And these considerations come no matter how luxurious a hotel I'm staying in might be. Honestly, I don't stay in fancy hotels often. I'm willing to settle for a La Quinta or a Drury Inn. At least the Drury Inns have complimentary cocktails and complimentary dinners aside from the standard continental breakfasts.
Still, I can be paranoid about hotel rooms. On the other hand, it's best not to think about these kinds of things.
If only hotels would count hauntings as being part of their many amenities. I guess some do? It's usually the inns and motels that could use a gimmick to attract clientele. Free Wi-Fi. Free breakfast. Weight room. Hair dryer. Pet-friendly. Free on-site parking. Some rooms available with full complimentary poltergeist activity. Children under 12 stay free.
The 2007 movie "1408," based on the short story by Stephen King found in his book "Everything's Eventual," is a gem among paranormal horror flicks.
In this movie, John Cusack plays author Mike Enslin, whose catalog of published works deals with supernatural topics. His books include "Ten Haunted Hotels," "Ten Haunted Lighthouses," and "Ten Haunted Graveyards."
He stays at these "haunted" locations, conducts his paranormal research with all the usual ghost-hunting gadgetry, and yet doesn't believe in any of the things he writes about. Basically, he puts in a lot of work for something he doesn't really believe in. The big catch of his trade arrives when he receives a postcard from an anonymous source telling him not to stay in room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York City.
Of course, to Mike, it's an invitation to some great source material.
His intrigue spikes when he calls the Dolphin to book 1408, but he's told immediately that it's "unavailable" no matter what date he tries to book it for.
Thanks to Mike's publisher, Sam Farrell (Tony Shalhoub), and the publishing company's attorney, there's a legal loophole that if a hotel room is unoccupied, the hotel must give it to a paying customer upon request.
Just before checking in, the Dolphin's manager, Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), pleads with Enslin not to stay in 1408. Despite bribing him with expensive merchandise and a free stay in a nearly identical room, Enslin still insists on staying in 1408 for one night, just as he does with all the other haunted locations.

John Cusack as Michael Enslin in "1408."

But Enslin won't budge. He refuses to dupe his readers. Olin knows, however, that no one lasts more than an hour up in 1408. 
That's what Enslin quickly realizes within an hour of checking into the room. In that time, he realizes he should have heeded the advice on the postcard... whomever sent it. Maybe the room sent it? 
The evil that's staying in the room with Enslin seems to resemble the ghosts of his own past. His stay becomes an emotional breakdown once he has to wrestle with the evil as it uses memories of his deceased daughter, Katie, as well as his walking out on his wife after Katie's death, and his loss of belief in God.
"I've lived the life of a selfish man, but I don't have to die that way," he admits to himself.
There's something I like about this movie. Seldom, if ever, does a movie's creep factor stay with me to the point of making me wary of doing something or going someplace in particular...like a hotel room. That's thanks to one line in this movie: "Hotels are naturally creepy places."
My initial thought when I saw this movie shortly back in 2007 was that it would just be a jump-scare flick about a haunted hotel room. But it digs deeper than mere scares and creepiness. It's a story of a luxurious haunted hotel room. However, whatever resides in the room and prevents guests from leaving pulls its paranormal fireworks from within the guests themselves.
I read the short story just before writing this review. In the short story, just like in the film, room 1408 is the antagonist that pins the main character, Michael Enslin, against himself while nudging him around like a kid tormenting a bug.
But the attacks aren't just a scare here and an unusual happening there. The room attacks Enslin personally, digging into what he values most and tormenting him with his own memories, regrets, religious and supernatural skepticism, and emotional wounds.
That's well depicted in the movie, giving the haunted room emotional weight rather than making it just another ghostly gimmick.
It also gives the audience insight into Enslin and why he suddenly dedicated his life to writing about haunted locations after his young daughter dies. He claims he doesn't believe in God, and yet he's chasing entities he claims he doesn't believe in. Obviously, he does, as Enslin is really on a mission to get back at God for taking his daughter. Casting off faith and belief isn't enough of a revenge tactic against God. Enslin has to put in all his time and effort to convince himself and others that God doesn't exist, but nothing spiritual does either. 
"1408" is really a masterclass in showing and not telling.
King embraces uncertainty in his short story, making everything within Mike Enslin's reach inside room 1408 unreliable—the telephone, the room's door, and even time. He leaves Enslin with nothing to depend on.
I love how the movie doesn't make the monster thoroughly explained. It leaves a lot of ambiguity around whatever is in 1408. But whatever it is, the audience gets to sit and watch what it can do.
One scene sets this aspect off nicely.
When Olin realizes Enslin isn't going to bend on staying in 1408, he gives him the room key. To Enslin's amusement, the key is an actual key and not a magnetic card like hotels now hand to their guests.
"Most hotels have switched to magnetics. An actual key. That's a nice touch, it's antiquey," Enslin says.
"We have magnetic cards also, but electronics don't seem to work in 1408. Hope you don't have a pacemaker," Olin replies.

John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson.

Throughout the movie, Enslin often talks into a small voice recorder he carries around with him when on an assignment for his books.
Enslin speaks into his voice recorder, "General manager claims that the phantom in room interferes..."
"I have never used the word 'phantom,'" Olin cuts him off.
"I'm sorry. Uh, spirit? Specter?"
"No, you misunderstand. Whatever's in 1408 is nothing like that."
"Then what is it?"
Olin leans in and whispers in his ear, "It's an evil f**king room."
The short story gives a bit more insight.
"There are no ghosts in 1408 and never have been. There's something in there—I've felt it myself—but it's not a spirit presence. In an abandoned house or an old castle keep, your unbelief may serve you as protection. In room 1408, it will only render you more vulnerable," Olin tells Enslin, begging him to reconsider.
I'm only on the second movie for this thread, and already I'm bending the rule with this review. The movie, like the short story, centers on something paranormal, but there's not really any ghosts except those of Enslin's past.
It's fitting that Enslin is a writer as the movie is his entrapment in his own mind. Writers are odd people because, among other oddities, they linger way too long in their own thoughts and considerations trying to craft clever ways to describe otherwise obvious truths and mundane observations. Writers generally love to artful ways of imposing their own ideas into truths and spaces where they don't necessarily belong. I'm probably doing that right now. It's like writers have to outperform the last guy.
And in typical King fashion, no one escapes their terror in the ideal way, and not without some kind of scar—external or internal, or both.
"1408" is a redemption movie. Evil inadvertently ignites a path back to God for Enslin. He ventured into evil despite being warned not to do so. He then got himself trapped. And that evil tried its darndest not to let him go. Even the skeptical Enslin turns his frightened and desperate glance to God and says, "You win."
Lastly, "1408" manages to turn the song "We've Only Just Begun" by the Carpenters into an unsettling experience. Nice move, movie!

243) Burnt Offerings (1976)

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies

Introduction

Halloween season is back, and with it comes another thread of horror flicks. That means it's that time of year when I dedicate the month of October to a specific genre of horror and thriller films. 

Last year, I watched a bunch of 1980s horror movies, one movie from each year of the decade, and commented on each one in a string of reviews I collectively called, "Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge!" 

The year before that, I dedicated October to vampire movies. Before that, it was the Leprechaun movies. And before that, I watched the first 15 Godzilla movies. This year, I'm going all in on paranormal horror, or haunted horror. Ghost flicks! Call it what you will. I'm referring to movies that involve ghosts depicted in some way or another so long as the movies are clearly about ghostly hauntings. 

Make no mistake. The antagonists in these movies I'm watching for this thread are spirits. Not zombies. Not demons. In fact, I'm intentionally staying clear of demonic/ occult movies. They're not vampires either, or any other form of the living dead. They're just...dead! 
When it comes to movie monsters, I'd have to say ghosts are my personal favorite. The "what-if" factor when it comes to ghost stories and hauntings is captivating. But don't worry. I'm not one to actually attempt to conjure up ghosts, nor do I have any desire to. 

I don't need ghosts flying around my house, opening my fridge and cupboards at 3 am, moving my car keys six inches to the left, using my checkbook to write bad checks, knocking on walls for no obvious reason, calling my name from the basement when I get up during the night to go to the bathroom, and doing whatever else ghosts do because they won't get a job and have to rub it in my face.

When it comes to the paranormal, the whole thing is more mysterious than outer space. Once someone's in the spiritual realm, there's no coming back. 
When the body and the soul are separated from each other, both things are considered disturbing. People are repulsed by dead bodies. And ghosts freak us all out. 

Plus, the term "haunted" is as quintessential a Halloween gimmick more than anything else. It's a term that can be slapped on anything just to make it Halloween-appropriate. Haunted houses. Haunted malls. Haunted Cadillacs. Haunted hospitals. Haunted dolls. Haunted bowling alleys. Haunted office supply stores. Haunted computer passwords. Haunted hamster cages. Haunted utility closets. The list goes on! 

This year, I have a sizeable list of titles, and many of those films I really want to watch. Since I'm starting this thread in May, instead of just picking out 10 titles I'm going to work through as many titles as I can get to and then post whatever I finish. Maybe it'll be 10. Maybe it'll be more. Maybe less.

There's a lot of good titles I could start off with, but I think this one is perfect. "Burnt Offerings" from 1976. 

The REVIEW

"The house takes care of itself." 

Director

Dan Curtis

Cast
Karen Black - Marian Rolf
Oliver Reed - Ben Rolf
Lee H. Montgomery - Davey Rolf
Bette Davis - Elizabeth Rolf
Burgess Meredith - Arnold Allardyce
Eileen Heckart - Roz Allardyce
Dub Taylor - Walker
Anthony James - the Chauffer


I'm starting off the creepy season with a supernatural horror flick I've had on my "gotta watch" list for years. That's no exaggeration.
"Burnt Offerings," directed by Dan Curtis and based on the Robert Morasco novel, is a movie with a haunted house as its main character. And it's a haunted house that studies its inhabitants while it haunts them.
But it's not just haunted. The house seems to be alive.
"Burnt Offerings" attracted me primarily because of the big names attached to it. The film stars horror legend Karen Black, Oliver Reed (each time I see Oliver Reed, my mind goes to his performance as Bill Sikes in "Oliver!"), Bette Davis, and Burgess Meredith. And what's even better, at least for me, is that the movie was filmed at the Dunsmuir House in my hometown of Oakland, California.
The Dunsmuir-Hellman Historic Estate, built by rich coal magnate Alexander Dunsmuir in 1899, is a huge house that's been seen in other popular movies, such as "Phantasm" (1979), the James Bond flick "A View to a Kill" (1985), and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" (1993).
I used to attend the Scottish Highland Games at the Dunsmuir House back when I still lived in Oakland. I have a fondness for the house and its grounds. They're absolutely gorgeous! The location is perfect for a movie like "Burnt Offerings."
There's dread hiding beneath the surface of such a beautiful home, bubbling and waiting to erupt. The creepy uneasiness wafts through the entire story, growing stronger, little by little, from the beginning. 

Oliver Reed and Bette Davis in "Burnt Offerings."

In this movie, Marian Rolf (Karen Black), her husband, Ben (Oliver Reed), their son, Davey (Lee H. Montgomery), and Ben's mother, Elizabeth Rolf (Bette Davis), move into an old mansion for the summer at the too-good-to-be-true price of $900 for the whole summer. The home's owners, brother and sister Arnold (Burgess Meredith) and Roz Allardyce (Eileen Heckart), ask the Rolfs to take care of their elderly mother, who remains locked in her bedroom upstairs while they stay. Marian loves the house and is eager to spend the summer there. Ben, meanwhile, is uncomfortable and doesn't want to stay. Of course, Marian talks him into it.
As far as the Allardyces' mother goes, all the Rolfs need to do is leave meals outside her door each day. That's all.
While the house is livable, it's certainly in need of repairs.
Strange events begin occurring, which doesn't sit well with Ben. However, Marian is all right with overlooking these oddities because she loves staying in the house so much.
Among these strange occurrences is the house actually repairing itself. Various injuries and mishaps coincide with the frequency of the house's self-repairs. Each time one of them gets hurt, something in the house is restored all on its own.
The more it does this, the more it feeds on their life force.
Meanwhile, Marian leaves the Allardyces' mother her daily meals outside her locked bedroom door. She also attempts to speak to the mother through the door, but the mother never responds. However, the meals are being consumed. Surely someone is secretly living in the bedroom.
Meanwhile, Ben starts having nightmares and hallucinations of an eerie chauffeur (Anthony James) in black clothes, sunglasses, a pale face, and a wide grin, whom he first saw in his youth driving the hearse at his mother's funeral many years ago.
This grinning chauffeur often appears to him at random times.
The family certainly suffers as a result until Ben realizes what's going on and what the house is really doing to them. It's not something coincidental. And it doesn't take long before he understands what the house actually wants.
But his wife is so taken by the house that she can't, nor does she want to, escape it. When the paranormal happenings reach their peak, and Ben and Marian realize they absolutely need to go, only one issue remains: What are they to do about the mystery woman locked in her bedroom whom they haven't actually seen the whole time?
I love the premise of this movie. And I love that the house is a crucial character in the story.

Right away, "Burnt Offerings" gives off sinister and foreboding vibes as soon as it begins.
It's Burgess Meredith and Eileen Heckart who give the story that initial ominous tone. And with Oliver Reed's character suspicious and cautious about staying there right from the start, only to be talked into it by his wife, the mood is perfectly set for the rest of this paranormal horror movie.
There's a similarity between this movie and Stephen King's story, "The Shining." Both stories have a husband, wife, and young son staying in an eerie and unsettling inn or hotel where a hidden evil lurks, preying on them slowly.
"The Shining," though, wasn't published until the following year. And Stanley Kubrick's famous movie based on King's novel wasn't released until 1980. Still, I definitely picked up on some "Shining" vibes as far as the general premise goes. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.
Lately, I've been thinking more about movies, horror and otherwise, that center on the subjects of family, isolation, and familial struggles.
As far as "Burnt Offerings" goes, it's a family up against an evil house. The house is the antagonist, whether it's haunted or simply an evil home. Something unseen and sentient is there with the family. It's the monster in the movie. It thrives little by little on their pain. And both Marian and Ben seem to transform under its influence.
The movie doesn't tell. It shows. My curious mind wanted more explanation, as the movie leaves plot points open to interpretation.
Maybe there's some deeper meaning in that premise regarding family secrets or a family's desire for wealth that leads to their deterioration. Or maybe it's simply a creative idea for a horror film.
The chauffeur adds an extra bit of perplexity to the whole thing.
There's certainly some personification of death, and of the fear of death that's always looming.
This chauffeur drives a hearse, after all. I mean, that's a little on-the-nose! Am I right? Of course, I'm right!
He also appears to Ben, whether in his memory or as an apparition, in moments of helplessness and tragedy, and when Ben recalls his personal trauma.
And when he shows up, an unnerving, predatory, and somewhat mocking grin grows on his pale face.
If the house is the killer, he must be the collector!

Anthony James as the Chauffer in "Burnt Offerings."

Overall, the movie has a slow feel and expects the audience to let their imagination fill in the spaces while conjuring up fear and uneasiness.

Bette Davis's supporting performance gives the impression that she has enough experience to recognize these occurrences. Having the legendary Bette Davis in such a grandmotherly role gives the family's experiences substance and uneasiness.  

And Burgess Meredith! I haven't seen a single one of his performances I didn't like. Versatile isn't a big enough word when it comes to Burgess Meredith. 
The movie doesn't throw the scares in the audience's face. It trusts the audience enough to let their minds help with the scary parts. Is there really a mother staying in that locked room upstairs? What was the deal with the Allardyce siblings? What is actually possessing the house? And while that may give the impression that the film lacks impact, it's the way a story is meant to be told—by showing rather than telling.
It's a good movie to kick off this thread with.

242) Obsession (2026) - New to horror

"I'll be anything you want me to be."

Director
Curry Barker

Cast

Michael Johnston - Bear
Inde Navarrette - Nikki
Cooper Tomlinson - Ian
Megan Lawless - Sarah
Andy Richter - Carter

There is, in the movie "Obsession," a reflection of the type of isolation that modern society has found itself in. 

The popularity of this movie, which somehow garnered a lot of attention despite being up against Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated alien flick, "Disclosure Day," is very telling of just how much this movie gets to its audiences.
In an age increasingly dominated by spectacle, technology, and artificial/digital connections, audiences evidently gravitated toward a movie whose appeal lies in something much more intimate, unsettling, and difficult to categorize. "Obsession" feels almost like an anomaly. It wasn't a big production. It has a small cast. Its budget was approximately $750,000.
Upon its opening release in May of this year, it earned over $17 million domestically at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo.
"Obsession" feels like an original movie, but its story feels pretty familiar, as if it has been told before.
It strikes a chord with audiences because it centers on loneliness. Its popularity may say as much about the audience watching it as it does about the movie itself. Perhaps modern audiences aren't looking to be blown away by another mega-blockbuster spectacle like "Disclosure Day." Instead, it seems they're looking for something that reflects themselves.
As I've mentioned before, horror movies more often than not reflect the societal anxieties and fears of their respective decades. I'll get to that in detail after I finish writing this review. Few fears are more unsettling and emotionally moving than loneliness.
Things such as digital communication, political polarization, and even the decline of a shared popular culture, which conservative commentator and filmmaker Matt Walsh calls the "death of the monoculture," have brought about this wave of loneliness and isolation among a lot of people. It's an unraveling of social connections.
"Obsession," directed by YouTuber Curry Baker, is a tale similar to the Monkey's Paw, with some "Romeo and Juliet," "Fatal Attraction," "Frankenstein," "The Twilight Zone," and a dash of "The Exorcist" to taste. Even so, it still taps into something that should be recognizable and blatantly obvious about our modern society.
Even with that said, "Obsession" still has something that's very much its own.
In this movie, lovestruck Baron Bailey (Michael Johnston) — "Bear" to his friends — is head-over-heels in love with his friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette).
Bear and Nikki's friends and coworkers, Ian (Cooper Tomlinson) and Sarah (Megan Lawless), know how much he loves Nikki. But Nikki doesn't realize it. Or does she?
Bear wants to tell Nikki how he feels, but doing so might wreck their friendship. Maybe it won't? It's a gamble the likes of which a majority of audiences can surely relate to.

Inde Navarrette and Michael Johnston in "Obsession."

Instead of manning up and just letting her know, he's too apprehensive. She sends out vibes that she also has feelings for him, but then sends out signals indicating that she doesn't want a relationship with anyone.
On a whim, and in an act of desperation at its most ridiculous, Bear purchases a novelty wish-maker called a "One Wish Willow." It's supposed to grant the person who uses it only one wish.
So, Bear wishes that Nikki will love him more than anyone in the world. Then he breaks the "One Wish Willow." And it works. Nikki falls in love with him, but in the worst possible way.
Her affection for Bear starts off as a consuming obsession that can only intensify.
While it seems like a dream come true for Bear, he quickly feels trapped by her jealousy, attachment, violence, and emotional blackmail.
Just as Bear wanted a relationship with Nikki and got it in a supernatural way rather than an honest way, he becomes desperate to get out of it.
Obsession" turns unhealthy attachment, the desire to be loved, and what happens when someone tries to control another person's affection into a supernatural horror story in a way that is neither ridiculous, over-the-top, nor campy. The general premise of a boy in love with a girl is very relatable. And to make it into a nail-biting tale about loving someone versus loving the idea of someone deserves applause.
I love the realism behind the fantasy within this all-too-familiar scenario of unrequited love, or the uncertainty of whether or not someone we fall in love with, with what feels like a solid and unmovable love, shares those same feelings.
Heaven knows I've been in such a scenario. And there's absolutely no doubt that when that happened, somewhere within my hopes and imagination, I wished I could just wave a magic wand or say the right words, and that object of my affection would immediately like me back. No doubt that kind of thought has crossed the minds of millions of other hopeful young men and women at least once in their lifetime.
Well, what if that actually happened? We can see, without rose-colored glasses, what that might actually look like.

There are a few well-known movies somewhat similar to "Obsession" as far as the story's control-disguised-as-intimacy-or-affection plot point is concerned.
The movie that comes straight to mind after seeing this is the 1990 movie "Misery," based on the novel by Stephen King. That's certainly a story of infatuation and love turning into imprisonment.
"Fatal Attraction" from 1987 is also similar insofar as the actual obsession trope goes. However, "Fatal Attraction" is about someone becoming obsessed with someone else, whereas "Obsession" has someone making someone else obsessed with them.
I'm also reminded of the 1997 movie "Wishmaster." That movie is about getting precisely what you wish for, but with terrible consequences. In "Wishmaster," the supernatural forces that make the wishes come true interpret those wishes in horrific ways.
In "Obsession," with his initially innocent wish, Bear is trying to take on powers that don't belong to him by controlling Nikki's emotions.
By doing this, Bear ends up bringing destruction and chaos.
He starts to really doubt whether it's actually love. And that's the big question: Love or infatuation?
The latter is really the anti-love in that it's utterly selfish. The obsessed person projects their own desires onto another person. They don't actually love the person for who they are. Rather, they love their own idea of the person they're infatuated with, convincing themselves that they love them. It's a regrettable and easy fault to fall into.
The acting is absolutely amazing. Michael Johnston has to portray a character who second-guesses his decision rather quickly, and then second-guesses his own doubts as he does love Nikki. But his forced relationship brings misery and fear. Meanwhile, Inde Navarrette has to be both in love and terrifyingly smitten. She has to go from a likable character to a terrifyingly overbearing girlfriend more and more as the story progresses.
But even though Nikki acts obsessed, she's really going through all the motions of being completely in love, with random and short-lived moments of lucidity, only to be taken over again by what Bear initially wished for. It must have been difficult for both actors to portray constantly conflicting emotions throughout the story and to do so convincingly.
They also have to convince the audience that no person would be sincerely happy or satisfied with someone who loved them by force. Their performances are nothing short of amazing.
I'm sure "Obsession" will find a popular and respected place in the genre. Between this movie and another that came out this same year, "Backrooms," I think it'll be regarded as a decade-defining horror film. And Bear's terrible wish will be one heard around the world.

Fear through the decades

A scene from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). 

Silent-era horror, which spread from approximately 1895 to the first talking picture "The Jazz Singer" in 1927, reflects upon themes of death, spiritualism, the unknown in general, and industrialization, as seen in films like "The House of the Devil" (1896), "The Haunted Castle" (1897), and "The Bewitched Inn" (1897). 

This was a perfect era for someone to film the earliest adaptation of, perhaps, the most famous of ghost story ever told, "A Christmas Carol," British filmmaker Walter R. Booth did turn "A Christmas Carol" into a movie called "Marley's Ghost." 
This very early period is best known for a genre called trick film. This genre, developed by French filmmaker Georges Méliès, was designed to show off and wow audiences with novel special effects they had never seen before. So, ghosts and the supernatural were certainly well-fitted subjects for trick films.
As the 1920s rolled around, the subject of ghosts and the supernatural morphed into fears of invisible threats and invasive outsiders, as well as psychological fears stemming from the aftermath of World War I.
"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920), "Nosferatu" (1922), and "Faust" (1926) scared audiences during this period.
The 1920s ended with the beginning of the Great Depression. The film industry was booming at the same time that societal anxiety over widespread unemployment, poverty, industry, and social decline was growing, thanks to that lingering sense of uncertainty.
Horror became a mix of looming monsters and scientists practicing their evil deeds without moral restraints.
"Frankenstein" (1931), "Dracula" (1931), and "The Invisible Man" (1933) came out during this decade. This was the era of the Universal Monsters, including these three iconic monsters. And these monsters  came from foreign far-off places. 
Monsters transitioned rather well into the 1940s as World War II waged on throughout the decade.
America was certainly fearful of foreign invaders, along with the general paranoia over whether those around us were friends or foes.
So, the idea of monsters transitioned more into monsters hidden among us, perhaps disguised as ordinary people.
"The Wolf Man" (1941), "Cat People" (1942), and "Dead of Night" (1945) come to mind when I think of 1940s horror movies.
Things really changed once the U.S. bombed Japan and World War II ended. Things got really atomic in the 1950s. In fact, that era of horror, much of which melded with science fiction, is often called the "Atomic Age". By the way, I've read a lot about this kind of stuff. Does it show?
Anyway, this is the era when giant mutant monsters began attacking cities and towns.
"The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" (1953) is such a perfect example of atomic horror, if anyone were to ask me. 

Godzilla (1954)

I would be terribly negligent (oh, yes...I would) if I didn't mention that the "King of the Monsters" himself first arose from the depths of the ocean thanks to hydrogen bomb testing, and first attacked Japan in 1954. Obviously I'm referring to Godzilla. Over 70 years later, they're still making Godzilla movies. 

Alien invasions were also a huge problem in this mesh of horror and science fiction back in the 1950s. So, alien flicks such as "The Thing from Another World" (1951), "It Came from Outer Space" (1953), "Invaders from Mars" (1953), "The Blob" (1958), and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) were just as frightening as giant-monster movies. There were a lot of these sci-fi horror/thriller flicks in the 1950s. But in my opinion, a lot of these movies were gimmicky.
Horror really took a dark turn as social upheaval, loss of faith, and attacks on conservative values sprang up in the 1960s. Horror became more plausible. Evil moved out of the dark castles and scary old mansions of Europe and moved in right next door.
Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960) and "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) really cap the sixties with that premise.
That realism and plausibility became even more pronounced in the 1970s, especially as Americans were losing faith and trust in American leadership. It seemed that institutions were failing society. There were even radical changes occurring in the Church. Nothing seemed as dependable as it used to be. But evil was still real.And it was very plausible. 

So, horror got real, and filmmakers loosened a lot of restraints.
"The Exorcist" (1973), "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (1974), "Jaws" (1975), "Halloween" (1978), and "Alien" (1979) show how scary horror can be when given the chance. This era also introduced the trope that police can't always protect us and our neighborhoods.
When the 1980s came around, realism stuck around to a certain degree, but fantasy made a sort of comeback into horror.
While confidence seemed to be restored in our political system (the Reagan years, baby!), consumerism, materialism, body transformation, suburban anxiety, and the sins of our parents from the 1970s took over.
So, films such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984), "The Fly" (1986), "Hellraiser" (1987), and "Child's Play" (1988) were released during that period.
When it comes to the 1990s, I have trouble putting my finger on what the horror genre was trying to convey. Cold War anxiety seemed to fade a bit throughout the decade.
The Los Angeles riots took place in the 1990s, as did the Waco, Texas, siege—events that led to distrust of and heavy criticism toward law enforcement and government leadership.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984)

The suburban paradise of the 1950s and 1960s was long gone. Neighborhoods deteriorated, traditional family structures and ideas were far from what they used to be, and youth violence and gang activity continued to rise all thanks in large part to the Great Society agenda of Lyndon Johnson—a sorry failure, indeed.
"Candyman" (1992), "Scream" (1996), "The Sixth Sense" (1999), "The Faculty" (1998), and "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) came out during all this turmoil.
America's fears and anxieties shifted considerably after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Between 2001 and 2010, Americans seemed to think hard about random victimization, survival tactics, foreign threats, and surveillance. The world saw what unsympathetic, raw evil was capable of. Catastrophe can happen anywhere, anytime, unexpectedly!
And this certainly was reflected in the genre, with films like "Saw" (2004) and "Hostel" (2005).
That brings me to 2010 to 2020. The internet. Political polarization and division seem to be interwoven in our current social climate. The beginning of modern isolation also came about quickly, thanks in part to the introduction of the smartphone and social media. Constant accusations of racism. Radical progressivism taking over normalcy. And I did mention the internet, didn't I?
"Get Out" (2017), "Hereditary" (2018), "Midsommar" (2019), and "Us" (2019) were, perhaps, the biggest horror titles from that decade. These films depict isolation, societal polarization, and alleged racism.
So, here we are now in 2026. We're inundated with isolation as we all struggle to pry our eyes off our phones. And we're witnessing the scary reality of AI and the uncertainty it brings. One of its side effects is that it has brought about a large distrust of almost everything. It's as though we're continually being lied to. Scammers are constantly calling us or trying to get us to click on something. It's difficult to tell what's legitimate and what's not sometimes.  

As a society, we've already been struggling with a lack of trust in others. Everyone seems to be out to scam us.
Now, we can't even believe our own eyes. What's real? What isn't?
Our phones are such a convenient escape from reality. Trust in others isn't what it used to be. 
I don't think we've ever been this isolated. 
And two horror movies were released this year that press that painful wound of loneliness in our society in ways that seemed to strike a nerve. One was "Backrooms," which I'll get to later. The other is this one—"Obsession."

Not a Review Necessarily - My 'Carrie' trailer reaction

Summer H. Howell as Carrie White in the upcoming miniseries "Carrie." 

Horror writer Stephen King's first novel, "Carrie," published in 1974, is getting a new movie. I don't know what to write that would best convey how unenthused I am. It's been done already. More than once. 

Well, it's not just a movie. It's a miniseries. And the trailer for this new adaptation of King's story dropped July 25th. 

I have to add that it seems Stephen King miniseries are more often terrible or mediocre at best. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand those that are actually good. 

"Salem's Lot" from 1979 is one of the best vampire movies I've seen. "The Stand" from 1994 is also pretty good. And "11/22/63" is certainly worth checking out. My wife even liked that one, and she's no Stephen King fan. "Welcome to Derry" which is based on characters from King's "It" was alright. Not mind blowing but I tuned in to finish the whole series. I'll throw in the series "Castle Rock" which is based on multiple stories by King just to give the good list a solid five titles. The second season was better than the first. 

But it's easier to remember the awful ones - "The Tommyknockers" (1993), "The Langoliers" (1995), "The Shining" (1997). That's "The Shining" with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay. It was certainly underwhelming. And "Rose Red" (2002) was, as I recall, boring. 

"Carrie" is about a 16-year-old high school girl named Carrie White, living in Chamberlain, Maine, who has the power of telekinesis. She's mocked and ridiculed at school. And she lives with her overly zealous religious mother who thinks everything about her own daughter is an abomination before God. Fast forward to the infamous prom scene where some bullies dump pigs' blood on her, and all hell breaks out. Audiences have seen it over and over again, even if they didn't read the book. 

The first adaptation of King's novel, and the most well known in the horror genre, is director Brian De Palma's 1976 movie of the same name starring Sissy Spacek as Carrie. and Piper Laurie as her fanatical mother. John Travolta also stars in a supporting role along with William Katt.
In 1999, "The Rage: Carrie 2" was released as a direct sequel to De Palma's movie. Directed Katt Shea, the sequel stars Emily Bergl as Rachel Lang who is the younger half-sister of Carrie. Like her older half-sis, Rachel also possesses telekinesis. It was released in theaters and panned by critics. 

In 2002, a made-for-TV version of "Carrie" was released and premiered on NBC. It stars Angela Bettis in the lead role along with Patricia Clarkson as Carrie's mom. Like most other Stephen King made-for-TV stuff, it bombed. 

And then in 2013, a third adaptation was released starring Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianna Moore. I saw this in theaters when it was released. Despite the good acting, I found it poorly cast. Chloë Grace Moretz does not strike me as an unpopular girl at school. She has all the characteristics of being the kind of high school teen other students would be fumbling over themselves to vote for as prom queen. She doesn't seem like the kind of teenage girl who would have any trouble finding a date to the prom, neither. But she was cast as Carrie. Though her acting was great, the role didn't fit her. 

This new adaptation of "Carrie" is directed by Mike Flanagan and starring Summer H. Howell in the title role alongside Samantha Sloyan as her mother.

While the trailer looks like it'll be more of the same, all I really can say is that it better add something new to the prom, the likes of which hasn't been seen in previous adaptations. 

Maybe the acting will be phenomenal. Maybe as a miniseries, "Carrie" will be an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Still, based on the trailer, I'm not holding out for anything even partially mind-blowing. I don't know anything about Summer H. Howell, but I will say she does seem to fit the part of Carrie White. She certainly does way more so than Chloë Grace Moretz. 

Director Mike Flanagan is, I'll say, a decent director. He directed "The Haunting of Hill House" (2018) which I enjoyed. He also directed the Stephen King movie, "Doctor Sleep" in 2019 which is based on King's novel sequel to "The Shining." And I thought it was a well done! It's also not the only other King IP that Flanagan directed. He did "Gerald's Game" in 2017 which I watched but I don't remember much about it except the ending. 

And speaking of Flanagan's horror movies, he did the movie "Oculus" also in 2017. That was a pretty well put-together film. So, maybe "Carrie" will be a great series. I'm still not waiting with shaking anticipation to see it. Why? Well, it looks like more of the same.  

Too often, Hollywood producers, who are often too stupid to realize how out-of-touch they are, often mistake familiarity for demand. Just because audiences recognize the title and maybe have a nostalgic love for an IP like "Carrie" doesn't mean they're asking for another version of the exact same story again and again. But, as I said, Hollywood is painfully out-of-touch.  

Maybe I'll watch it should someone else recommend it.

The series is scheduled to premier October 7, 2026 on Amazon Prime. I'll probably be tuning in to something else. 

241) Children of the Corn (2023)

"I think the little ones have been breathing in too much rotting corn fungus."

Director
Kurt Wimmer

Cast
Elena Kampouris - Boleyn Williams
Kate Moyer - Eden Edwards
Callan Mulvey - Robert Williams
Bruce Spence - Pastor Penny
Stephen Hunter - Calvin Colvington
Erika Heynatz - June Willis
Anna Samson - Sheila Boyce
Andrew S. Gilbert - Sheriff Gebler
Joe Klocek - Calder Colvington

The film "Children of the Corn," based on the short story by horror writer Stephen King found in his 1978 book "Night Shift," is one that still seems to be referenced even by people who may never have seen it. Who hasn't driven through a small town that seemed eerie, and someone tossed out a reference to "Children of the Corn."

Somehow, the 1984 film directed by Fritz Kiersch has managed to tarnish the veneer of most, if not all, small rural American towns. Norman Rockwell might still be spinning in his grave. But I'll come back to the aftermath later. 
The first "corn" film adaptation, which I wrote about a few years ago on this blog, was the 1983 American supernatural short film "Disciples of the Crow."
Then the 1984 movie came out, followed by a string of sequels: "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" (1993), "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" (1995), "Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering" (1996), "Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror" (1998), "Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return" (1999), and "Children of the Corn: Revelation" (2001). 

These subtitles kill me. Why not "Children of the Corn: Extra Butter" or 'Children of the Corn: Ear Today, Gone Tomorrow," or even "Children of the Corn: Please Stop Planting So Many Sequels?"
Anyways, after all of those sequels came the SyFy original movie "Children of the Corn" (2009).
That was followed by two stand-alone films, "Children of the Corn: Genesis" (2011) and "Children of the Corn: Runaway" (2018). That's a lot of corn! 
That brings us to the 2023 adaptation I'm writing about. Interestingly enough, this movie is the third film adaptation of King's original story and the first in the string of movies since the 1993 sequel to receive a theatrical release.
Getting back to the story's influence on the image of small American towns, especially those in the Midwest, "Children of the Corn" has associated rural isolation with danger. 
Religious communities now seem a little more suspect. Cornfields seem menacing. In popular culture, the distinction between rural backwoods Americans and supernatural evil cultists can sometimes become blurred.
And thanks to "Children of the Corn," along with films like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974), horror has embraced the trope of "don't stop in the little town" as one of its major staples. The story and the movie helped lay the groundwork for both roadside thrillers and folk horror.
But give the horror genre enough time, and eventually everything innocent becomes a source of terror.
So, after all that, on to the 2023 remake.
This adaptation certainly takes plenty of liberties with King's short story.
The movie is set in the farming town of Rylstone where failing corn crops have pushed the community toward financial ruin.
However, the cornfields are somehow influencing the town's children.
The story begins with a gruesome murder that shatters the already struggling community. Afterward, a young orphan girl named Eden (Kate Moyer) leads a violent band of children who turn on the adults with no remorse or restraint. They do whatever Eden tells them to do.
Eden, along with her band of merry young'uns, believes they are carrying out the will of a supernatural entity they call "He Who Walks."
The number of adults in town quickly dwindles. It's up to one teenage girl, Boleyn Williams (Elena Kampouris), who has been trying to save the adults, to stop Eden and the supernatural monster festering within the cornfields once and for all.

Kate Moyer as Eden in "Children of the Corn."

Aside from "Disciples of the Crow" and this remake, I've only seen the 1984 film. It contains some genuinely creepy moments, not to mention an unforgettable atmosphere and an eerie performance from John Franklin as the disturbing child preacher, Isaac. Unfortunately, it all builds toward one big, corny, and stupid ending.
This remake tries to become an unforgettable horror experience but never quite reaches that goal.
The dialogue is flat and unconvincing, and the CGI effects look about 15 to 20 years behind the times.
However, Kate Moyer really carries this movie. She was only 12 years old when she starred in it, and her performance is easily the film's greatest strength. Moyer fully embraces the stone-cold, self-righteous, and utterly unsympathetic nature of Eden. She gives the character an intimidating presence that dominates nearly every scene she's in. It's a remarkable performance that just might surpass John Franklin's Isaac in terms of sheer menace.
The 2023 film is certainly more disturbing and graphic than the 1984 version. While the original relies more heavily on unsettling atmosphere and creepy children, this remake leans into brutality and shock.
Sadly, everything feels both underdeveloped and rushed at the same time. The movie simply wants to get to the scares so audiences feel they've gotten their money's worth before the credits roll. It's a cheap thrill.
There are themes of rural decline, failing leadership, and perhaps even generational conflict, all set against the backdrop of small-town America. Unfortunately, none of these ideas receives much exploration. Instead, the film rushes from one horrific moment to the next.

For anyone familiar with King's story, and the 1984 adaption, this remake could easily be a prequel film. King's story takes place 12 years after all the adults in the town (Gatlin in the book) are killed. 
From the looks of things, Hollywood is still making—and remaking—movies based on Stephen King's works.
Personally, I think King's best years as a writer are behind him. The last truly worthwhile adaptation I remember watching was the eight-episode miniseries "11/22/63," based on King's novel of the same name and starring James Franco, which streamed on Hulu in 2016.
The last King novel I genuinely enjoyed was "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" (1999).
I tried reading "Sleeping Beauties" (2017) and "The Institute" (2019), but I struggled to get invested in either one.
Around 2016, as I've mentioned before on this blog, King experienced something of a renaissance. A sudden wave of adaptations hit theaters, thanks in large part to the enormous success of "It" (2017) based on his novel of the same name.
That renaissance has since tapered off, although several of his previously un-adapted stories have continued making their way to the screen.
"The Long Walk," based on King's 1979 novel, was released in 2025.
"The Monkey," based on his 1980 short story, was also released in 2025. That one wasn't too bad.
"Children of the Corn" feels like a respectable attempt, but it misses too many marks to be considered one of the better or more memorable Stephen King movies. At the same time, Kate Moyer's performance makes Eden worthy of being remembered as one of the franchise's most memorable villains—perhaps even more so than "He Who Walks" or Isaac from the original film. Sadly, despite its efforts, "Children of the Corn" ends up being just another remake.