Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Review: Curry Barker’s ‘Obsession’

Published

on

Review: Curry Barker’s ‘Obsession’

Vague Visages’ Obsession review contains minor spoilers. Curry Barker’s 2025 movie features Michael Johnston, Inde Navarrette and Cooper Tomlinson. Check out the VV home page for more film criticism, movie reviews and film essays.

For the past decade, it seems like every buzzy horror movie has cared more about heavy-handed allegories for grief and unprocessed trauma than actual scares. You could blame the paradigm-shifting success of Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook (2014), but her film is effectively creepy at face value. It’s harder to view many of the horror directorial debuts which arrived in its wake, bearing an obvious influence, as anything more than belabored metaphors. Obsession, the feature directorial debut of YouTube sketch comedian Curry Barker, feels like a breath of fresh air in this regard, as the filmmaker doesn’t attempt to make an explicit thesis statement on a weighty topic. In a time where a horror movie needs to be about overcoming trauma to be taken seriously, a low-budget shocker like Obsession can be nasty and nihilistic on its own terms.

Obsession isn’t all guts and no brains, however, as Barker’s screenplay incorporates subtle satires of two dusty character tropes: the unwittingly toxic Nice Guy and the Manic Pixie Dream Girl of his fantasies. In Obsession, Michael Johnson portrays Bear, a music store employee pining after his co-worker Nikki (Inde Navarrette), who seemingly views her admiring colleague as a little brother, rather than a potential beau. One day,  Bear purchases a “One Wish Willow,” a discontinued novelty product from the 1980s which grants a single wish to anybody who breaks it in half. That same night, he fails to ask Nikki out when driving her home, and then wishes that she would love him more than anyone in the world. Immediately, Navarrette’s character becomes co-dependent, often unable to leave her house due to an overwhelming need to please Bear. It’s a classic Twilight Zone-style premise about being careful what you wish for.

Obsession Review: Related — Review: Chandler Levack’s ‘Mile End Kicks’

Advertisement

Barker has admitted that The Simpsons’ “Treehouse of Horror” series directly inspired Obsession, specifically a season 3 segment in which Homer gets a monkey paw. However, Bear’s poor wish-making decision isn’t positioned as a cautionary tale, and the character is never let off the hook for wanting to exert control over a woman’s emotions. This is a depiction of a man who lacks the self-awareness to comprehend his domineering, misogynistic impulses, but it’s not an overbearing commentary on toxic masculinity, as Barker keeps any social views firmly in the background so the protagonist can gradually become aware of the havoc he’s created on his own terms. Bear isn’t given the chance to atone for his sins, and everybody in his orbit suffers a fallout from the emotional torture he unleashes. With a protagonist like that, Barker more than earns the right to succumb to his most mean-spirited impulses.

Obsession Review: Related — Review: Joachim Trier’s ‘Sentimental Value’

There’s an admirable simplicity to Obsession’s high concept. The wish can’t easily be reversed — you only get one wish, even if you buy more — and the director even makes fun of the idea that there would be further lore behind the device, with a phone number on the back of each pack leading to an ominous dead end. During a first watch, my mind went back to Richard Kelly’s The Box (2009), another modern riff on The Twilight Zone, where a married couple learns they’ll be given $1 million if they press a button in a mysterious box, even it will kill two strangers. The director lapses into full conspiracy thriller territory by revealing that the protagonists could eventually be the next victims, thus building out lore that connects their fates to various shadowy government agencies. A weaker iteration of Obsession would have followed those same impulses, refusing to accept the characters’ fates as granted and bending over backwards to develop convenient plot loopholes to save them. Barker’s screenplay is effective because it stays true to established rules, never deviating from Bear’s self-imposed path.

Obsession Review: Related — Review: Cole Webley’s ‘Omaha’

Advertisement

Johnston and Navarrette are both excellent in the lead roles, with the latter performer standing out for sustaining an intense caricature of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype, highlighting how an Annie Wilkes-style sociopath (see the 1990 film Misery) lurks just below the surface of a romantically idealized trope. This is also aided by a plot which never lets viewers forget that Nikki acts against her will, as she momentarily snaps back to reality before being dragged back to her sunken place of servitude. Navarrette’s character is drawn far richer than any trope, simplified to aid a man’s power fantasy. The cruelest, most mean-spirited action emerges when Nikki’s agency is robbed, ensuring she still receives punishment alongside the man who wished for it. But every toxic, coercive relationship has collateral damage, and Barker paints this in stark extremes without pausing the horror to reflect and make his commentary overt and overbearing.

Obsession Review: Related — Review: Chloé Zhao’s ‘Hamnet’

Obsession refuses to underestimate the emotional intelligence of the audience and refrains from spoon-feeding viewers monologues about abuse and trauma. These themes have always been inherent within the horror genre, but the past decade of over-explaining them has proved a hindrance to anything which could be positively shocking. Obsession reminds moviegoers that the most effective way to approach dark topics is to experience them on your own terms.

Alistair Ryder (@YesitsAlistair) is a film and TV critic based in Manchester, England. By day, he interviews the great and the good of the film world for Zavvi, and by night, he criticizes their work as a regular reviewer at outlets including The Film Stage and Looper. Thank you for reading film criticism, movie reviews and film reviews at Vague Visages.

Advertisement

Obsession Review: Related — Building the New Queer Canon #10: Elliot Tuttle’s ‘Blue Film’ and Tackling Society’s Ultimate Taboo

Categories: 2020s, 2026 Film Reviews, Featured, Film, Folk Horror, Horror, Monster Horror, Movies, Psychological Horror, Psychological Thriller, Supernatural Horror, Thriller

Tagged as: 2025, 2025 Film, 2025 Movie, Alistair Ryder, Curry Barker, Film Actors, Film Actresses, Film Critic, Film Criticism, Film Director, Film Explained, Film Journalism, Film Publication, Film Review, Film Summary, Horror Movie, Journalism, Movie Actors, Movie Actresses, Movie Critic, Movie Director, Movie Explained, Movie Journalism, Movie Plot, Movie Publication, Movie Review, Movie Summary, Rotten Tomatoes, Streaming, Streaming on Amazon, Streaming on Peacock, Thriller Movie

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: CHUM – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: CHUM – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: June 5th, 2026 / 09:01 PM

CHUM movie poster | ©2026 IFC

Rating: Not Rated
Stars: Alice Eve, Eric Michael Cole, Elle Haymond, Sarah Siadat, Johnny Gaffney, Lisa Yaro, Jim Klock, Vince Jolivette, Stephen Oliver
Writers: Jonathan Zuck and Joe Leone, story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik
Director: Jonathan Zuck
Distributor: IFC
Release Date: June 5, 2026

CHUM is the latest entry in the shark-obsessed-psycho-with-a-boat subgenre. It also meshes, perhaps coincidentally, with the 2024 sharks-but-no-psycho-ruin-a-Mediterranean-destination-wedding SOMETHING IN THE WATER.

Advertisement

Our narrator is Roy (Jim Klock) who, in the opening sequence, loses his wife to an enormous Great White in the sea off Malta. He begins by saying in voiceover, “You took her from me.” This is followed by a monologue about how much Roy loves his wife and includes the line, “Her scream lost in the roar of the sea.”

There isn’t anything particularly wrong with the line, except that we see the whole incident and then some – CHUM is very gore-friendly in all its shark attacks – and the woman is already underwater when the attack occurs. There’s no scream.

So, are we supposed to think that Roy’s imagination is playing tricks, or that director Jonathan Zuck and his co-writer Joe Leone, working from a story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik, aren’t paying close attention to what they’re doing? 

Roy says he spent his life on the ocean, but “when you took her, I learned something new.”

Then we cut to a wedding banquet, where proud father Reginald (Stephen Oliver) is toasting his daughter the bride Tina (Alice Eve) and her groom Tom (Eric Michael Cole). Also in attendance are Tina’s irritable younger sister Sadie (Elle Haymond), bridesmaids Rachinda (Sarah Siadat) and Britney (Lisa Yaro), and Eric’s bro-ish best man Rick (Johnny Gaffney).

Advertisement

It’s a beautiful setting and a good-looking group, but it doesn’t take long for us to realize this union may not last. Tina and Tom have had a bitter fight about something that they seem unable to resolve. Tom winds up sleeping on the beach near the tide line, while Tina passes out on their hotel room bed in her wedding gown.

The nature of the dispute turns out to be one of the best aspects of CHUM. It’s real, it’s not the clichés that we too often get about onscreen marital disputes, and it’s wholly plausible that the timing is such that the couple haven’t had to confront it earlier.

Unaware of trouble in paradise, Rick has arranged a boat outing for the wedding party (sans Dad). Tina and Tom don’t want to go, but Rick guilts them into it – renting the boat for the day cost him a fortune.

The proprietor of The Tipsy Mermaid, Captain Mackey (Vince Jolivette), welcomes the six passengers aboard. He assures shark-averse Britney that there have never been attacks in these waters.

This again makes us wonder what’s happening on a meta level. We can see that The Tipsy Mermaid is out by the same coastline that we saw in the opening, so we know there’s been at least one shark attack here. Is Captain Mackey uninformed or lying?

Advertisement

A little later, we see that the microphone on the communications panel is severed. Our minds leap toward sabotage, but – spoiler alert – no, it’s just shoddy upkeep on The Tipsy Mermaid.

In reality (and easy to Google for Mackey or anyone in the group to who knew they’d be going out to sea that day), while they are rare, there have been shark attacks off Malta.

Furthermore, Tom, who is meant to be an expert on these matters, asserts that Great Whites are strangers to these waters, but are being driven north by climate change. It’s laudable that CHUM makes climate change part of the plot (and not just because of where the shark is), but again, there is a whole actual (albeit declining) subspecies of Great Whites in the Mediterranean.

We’re trying to figure out how all this will link up with Roy and what he’s learned, and we get to that, although perhaps not the way we expect, which is another CHUM asset.

Except for when the shark needs to interact with humans and/or vessels, the animal looks realistic, like footage of a genuine Great White. We also get a variety of fish in the underwater shots, which is a nice touch.

Advertisement

But there are the common-to-the-subgenre tropes of the shark looking way too big every time she breaches and eating way too much. Also, sharks do not growl.

One key aspect of this subgenre is how intrigued we are by the human villain. Here, the link between motivation and action doesn’t stack up well against that of comparable characters (e.g., Quint in JAWS or Bruce Tucker in DANGEROUS ANIMALS).

As these kinds of movies go, CHUM is moderately diverting, but it’s easy to see where it could have been better.

Related: Movie Review: CAROLINA CAROLINE
Related: Movie Review: THE SUMMONING
Related: Movie Review: BACKROOMS
Related: Movie Review: SPEED DEMON
Related: Movie Review: PRESSURE
Related: Movie Review: PASSENGER
Related: Movie Review: I LOVE BOOSTERS
Related: TV Review: GREAT PERFORMANCES: STAGEBOUND
Related: Movie  Review: OBSESSION
Related: Movie  Review: LIFEHACK
Related: Movie  Review: IS GOD IS
Related: Movie  Review: AFFECTION
Related: Movie  Review: ITCH!
Related: Movie  Review: HOKUM
Related: Movie  Review: ANIMAL FARM
Related: Movie  Review: OVER  YOUR DEAD BODY
Related: Movie  Review: LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY
Related: Movie  Review: HAPPY HALLOWEEN
Related: Movie  Review: NORMAL
Related: Movie  Review: FACES OF DEATH
Related: Movie  Review: EXIT 8
Related: Movie  Review: READY OR NOT 2:  HERE I COME

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Advertisement
Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie Review: CHUM

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

Published

on

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

It just isn’t sure what, exactly.
Photo: Giles Keyte/Amazon MGM Studios/Everett Collection

There’s a maybe half-hour stretch of Masters of the Universe that takes place in the real world, and I have no idea why. It isn’t something the original He-Man and the Masters of the Universe cartoon felt compelled to do. The ’80s TV show, which was conceived of as an elaborate commercial for a Mattel action-figure line, was about the adventures of Adam, a brawny pageboy’d prince who transformed into the equally brawny hero of the title when he held his special sword aloft and intoned some magic words. Adam may have been half-Earthling on his mother’s side, but that was just a biographical footnote — he was an avowed citizen of Eternia, a planet where sword and sorcery elements exist alongside sci-fi ones like fighting robots and flying ships. It’s a setting made up of a bunch of shit a kid might like, mashed up together with no concern for internal logic, and the new movie can’t help but start there, too, even though that messes up its whole premise. Masters of the Universe kicks off with an introduction to Eternia in all of its kid–safe–Frank Frazetta glory, summarizing lore about the Sword of Power and its osteal resting place, Castle Grayskull, before exploring the angst of young Prince Adam (played as a child by Artie Wilkinson-Hunt), who’s small for his age and easily pushed around during weapons training. Then it flings Adam off to Oklahoma City as a refugee from the attacks of perpetual villain Skeletor (Jared Leto, allegedly), and it becomes clear that no one involved in this project has a clue how to make a tolerable product out of this aging IP.

That’s the bar everyone involved in this movie was aiming to clear, and I’m not just saying that because the “fan screening event” I attended began with a heartwarming speech from a Mattel executive about how “Masters of the Universe was one of the most important brands we wanted to bring to life” (he mentioned Travis Knight only after a long ode to their corporate producing partners). The script for the movie, which is credited to Chris Butler, Aaron Nee, Adam Nee, and Dave Callaham, feels overwhelming, like something hastily patchworked together from different passes at the story over the years, rendering some aspects repetitive and others nonsensical. Take that sojourn in Oklahoma, in which we see a grown Adam, played by Nicholas Galitzine, go on a failed date, go to his job in human resources, and go home to the apartment he shares with a roommate. There was obviously an earlier version that started here, presenting Adam as either the exiled prince of a fantastical kingdom or an office drone who made up a grandiose backstory for himself to cover up the trauma of his parents’ death. But because the movie leaves no question about our hero’s identity, the Earth interlude is not just pointless but confusing. Like, what happened when a 10-year-old dropped out of the sky with no record of previously existing? Was he adopted, and does he have any investment in the people who raised him? And why does it take him so long to find a sword that appears to have been right down the block the whole time?

Advertisement

It’s possible to make a real movie out of the most dire of corporate circumstances — even a toy line, the way Greta Gerwig did with Barbie, and the way that Knight himself, best known for heading up the stop-motion studio Laika, did with the improbably charming Transformers spinoff Bumblebee. But Masters of the Universe isn’t a real movie. It’s a bunch of half-realized, semi-contradictory ideas accrued over years. It takes the rough shape of a comedy without ever really landing a joke, up to and including the potentially great one that Eternia warriors “Fisto” and “Ram Man” aren’t actually named that, that those are just the childish labels given to them by Adam as a kid. It never decides whether it’s fan service for nostalgic adults who’ll get some juice out of a cameo from Dolph Lundgren, star of the notorious 1987 Masters of the Universe movie, or an action-adventure for kids (Alison Brie, as henchwoman Evil-Lyn, is the only cast member who seems consistently aware she’s in a comedy). It cast Leto as its big bad, despite his reputational baggage and the character’s computer-generated skull for a face, then excised the actor from all promotional events. What was the point of shelling out for his participation in the first place? (He does trill his “Rs” impressively, I guess.)

Its action sequences are marked by endless pratfalls as Adam sorts out his He-Man powers and also endless pratfalls as his former weapons teacher Duncan (Idris Elba) tries to recover from his years as a depressed drunk. This gives their scenes together the feel of two different drafts that were document merged incorrectly. (As Duncan’s hypercompetent daughter Teela, Camila Mendes is left to roll her eyes.) The movie never really decides whether its source material is to be mocked or to be approached with a more wry affection. Worst of all, Masters of the Universe is under the impression it has something to say about masculinity without deciding what that is, exactly. It’s not difficult to see how Knight and company arrived at this thesis, when working with a main character who transforms into a bulgy warrior in a loincloth wielding, as Skeletor himself points out, an incredibly phallic weapon. But it’s exasperatingly impossible to sort out how the movie delineates good masculinity from the toxic kind. The movie wants to free up its hypertough characters to talk about their feelings but also has a clear contempt for the HR speak it presents as the alternative. In his regular-guy garb, Adam acts humiliatingly out of place at the gym and then weird on a date with a model-beautiful woman, despite looking like a handsome if charmless actor who’s been training intensely for months. In his He-Man form, Adam makes a show of reluctance about embracing brute force, then rips his foes’ arms off and beats them to death.

Masters of the Universe ends by making fun of the blunt moral lessons the original animated series punctuated its episodes with but couldn’t come up with even a joking conclusion of its own if pressed. There’s something appropriate about the movie coming out in the wake of two horror movies from 20-something YouTubers that have been setting box-office records. Obsession and Backrooms may not be perfect, but they are both, thrillingly, the visions of their respective young auteurs, while Masters of the Universe belongs to no one — a project engineered at enormous cost from the needs of IP.

See All

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

Published

on

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

An innocent family ends up killing an unwelcome guest and has to escape the wrath of law enforcement. Ever since George Kutty walked out of that under-construction police station, a slew of films capitalising on the Drishyamwave have made their way to our screens. Titles like Bharathanatyam 2: Mohiniyattam, Revolver Rita and last week’s release, Blast, ruminate on the basic throughline of a family that has inadvertently or has been forced to commit murder. Director Pandiraaj’s latest flick, Parimala and Co., starring Jayaram and Urvashi, also follows suit. Except, here, the one murdered isn’t just the unwanted visitor, but also screenwriting, the anticipation of watching comedy films, and your patience.

The story follows the murder of Varghese (Sandy Master), a crooked goon who has been eve-teasing a young woman named Madhumitha (Ananthika Sanilkumar), and has been a cause of trouble to her sister, Parasakthi a.k.a Sakthi (Sanjana Krishnamoorthy), mother Sudhandhiram (the ever-impressive Urvashi), and father Parimala (an underserved Jayaram). The twist here is that nobody really knows who killed Varghese. While the members of the Parimala family are busy pointing fingers at each other, Inspector Empurumaan (Mysskin gives his all, as always) begins to investigate the case.

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

The chinks in armour appear much earlier, in how the writer fails to even convince us that one of these seemingly innocent members of the family is the killer. Even the first major narrative step in the story — the decision to murder Varghese — feels rushed and unconvincing. Parimala goes to great lengths, including approaching the police, to save them from the troublemaker, but what leaves you scratching your head is how instantly this innocent middle-class family (and a UPSC trainer father) broach the idea of killing off a human being. And how calmly they take the idea that one of them could have killed off someone.

But it is with a heavy heart that I say that these initial portions feel like great writing when compared to what is to follow. With every following scene, Parimala and Co. only ends up more trite, bafflingly amateurish, and outright yawn-inducing. Much of the film moves in a routine pattern. Show a scene at the Parimala house that vexingly tries to make you laugh. Now cut to introduce some random detail about the gangster world. Yogi Babu rags the Parimala family; now a minister threatens Mysskin. Parimala does this; a new potential villain does that. And collectively, the film feels like a mash-up of already ill-conceived scenes glued together like pulled hair on a rag doll.

Parimala and Co.

Director: Pandiraaj

Cast: Jayaram, Urvashi, Sanjana Krishnamoorthy, Mysskin

Advertisement

Runtime: 138 minutes

Storyline: After a notorious gangster is mysteriously murdered, a middle-class family finds itself entangled in a web of suspicion, secrets, and a police investigation

Nothing makes any sense, and you stop caring about what would happen to any of these characters. What was the whole point of the trip to Palakkad? What does Varghese’s mother, Sengamalam, have to do with the story? What’s the point of the siblings of Parimala and Sudhandhiram? Firstly, what was the point of any of the character-specific details, like the love-hate equation between the sisters or the fact that a housewife is named Sudhandhiram, when they don’t get sentimental pay-offs or find a callback in the plot? Well, the biggest curveball the director throws is that even the titular Parimala family eventually ends up feeling inconsequential to the story.

Given how many details — like the water tank being full all the time due to overuse of the motor, or a girl drinking wine for cosmetic reasons, or how Sakthi always forgets to switch on the switch while charging her mobile — never find any utility in the thriller narrative, it makes one wonder if this was an attempt at imbuing the story with real quirks. If that’s the case, Pandiraaj has chosen the most ill-fitting project to do so. At the end of the day, what really bothers one is how incredible performers like Urvashi, Jayaram and Mysskin end up getting the raw end of the deal. While Mysskin has truly grown to become one of the most sought-after character artists, Jayaram and Urvashi offer a few glimpses of comedy gold (like a scene set in the living room that also features Mysskin), further making one wonder the potential Pandiraaj had in his hand.

Urvashi in a still from the film

Urvashi in a still from the film
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

Parimala and Co. ends with a dull stretch about the horrors of drug abuse that screams tokenism, and if anything, this is a film that would make you want to drink, either a hot cup of coffee or a shot of vodka, to forget and forgive.

Advertisement

In life, sometimes, all that can go wrong will go wrong, and we are bound to think of Murphy. You might end up in a place where anything you touch turns for the worse, and this is precisely what happens to the Parimala family and Varghese — but I am also sad to report that this is what has happened to the Pandiraj-directed film as well.

Parimala and Co is currently running in theatres

Published – June 05, 2026 11:00 am IST

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending