Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Shelby Oaks’ Review: Neon’s Hodgepodge Horror Lets Chris Stuckmann Take His First Stab at Haunting

Published

on

‘Shelby Oaks’ Review: Neon’s Hodgepodge Horror Lets Chris Stuckmann Take His First Stab at Haunting

Whether you want a job done right, or just done right now, do it yourself. That’s the fearless edict uniting first-time feature filmmaker Chris Stuckmann and his headstrong final girl Mia (Camille Sullivan) in the winding mystery of “Shelby Oaks.” 

An ambitious horror exploration born of the found footage format, which honors genre but rarely attempts to subvert it, this spooky procedural unearths a new kind of cold case for Neon — this one, fittingly acquired on the heels of the viral “Longlegs,” still running away with the box office now in its second week. When four internet ghosthunters known as the Paranormal Paranoids find trouble in an abandoned town, three turn up dead and the last (Sarah Durn) is never discovered. 

'TWISTERS,' from left: Glen Powell, Daisy Edgar-Jones, 2024. ph: Melinda Sue Gordon /© Universal Pictures /Courtesy Everett Collection

Who took Riley Brennan?” graffiti across the surrounding Ohio area wants to know 12 years later. It’s very Derry and just one of many warm details that make Stuckmann’s universe, smartly but subtly shaped by EP Mike Flanagan, feel closer to a Stephen King joint than a “Paranormal Activity” successor. 

The police and public might be useless here, but Mia won’t give up. She doesn’t know if she believes in ghosts; what she does know is that her sister isn’t a liar. A true crime documentary picks up where the grainy footage recovered from the victims’ camera leaves off — examining the dead investigation through the eyes of a dogged loved one operating outside of a broken system. Something similar could be said of Stuckmann who, as a history-making champion of the Kickstarter campaign (his scrappy feature raised more than $1.3 million online), pulled off a small miracle getting his movie made this way. He’s a YouTube talent himself, known for complex video criticism and a deep love of genre. Using a story by him and his wife Samantha Elizabeth, Stuckmann makes his impressive but imperfect debut backed by a built-in fanbase already appreciative of his film philosophy.

Killers aren’t always afforded the opportunity to explain themselves, and after a movie review goes live, directors even less so. Stuckmann has made a poetic career out of appreciating the magic of production, graciously and methodically considering how a totality of factors impact what ends up on screen. Through his impassioned YouTube channel, which was founded in the very internet hey-day the “Shelby Oaks” opening recalls, Stuckmann has spent years bravely beating back cinematic shit-posting. Instead, he’s repeatedly emphasized his love of all things The Movies — rarely if ever lobbing “bad” criticism at anyone — and his mosaic-like feature reflects that affection back ten-fold. To critique his film then, it seems important and fair to say upfront that its existence is a good thing. As plainly put as a review this early can be (most audiences won’t see “Shelby Oaks” until sometime next year): Chris Stuckmann can indeed make a movie and, all things created equal, he should probably make more movies. That’s even truer if he’s able to keep his admirably pure production pipeline protected from business-minded studios.

Now, the hard part. 

Advertisement

As aggravating in its logic gaps as it is frustrating with its stop-and-go propulsion, this confused debut effort knows what it wants to be (a dryer, more cynical “Lake Mungo” maybe?) — but it isn’t that. There’s tremendous promise in the first twenty minutes, which in a bit of meta commentary has Stuckmann writing dialogue for news anchors who quietly mock viral creators and question whether Riley’s disappearance was somehow still just a hoax. (Shout out, lonelygirl15, long may she vlog!) And yet, much like a first-time marathon runner, the writer/director gets off to a stronger start than he can maintain. After a jaw-dropping opening, a collapse in the tension arrives mid-way through the second act — somewhere between Mia and her husband’s (Brendan Sexton III) second or third fight about vigilante justice and the baby they’re not having — and the suspense never recovers. 

Cops are rarely the answer to, well, anything, but it would do wonders to have absolutely anyone helping Mia get her investigation under control. Alone for most of the movie, Sullivan isn’t given nearly enough scene partners (blink and you’ll miss Keith David) and Mia wastes tons of screentime silently spinning her wheels. “Shelby Oaks” is the kind of movie that will show you montage after montage of old photographs, dream journals, and library documents — allegedly poured over by Mia for more than a decade — and then seriously ask you to join in her surprise when she inexplicably starts to piece together the facts she already had in evidence. 

The scares face diminishing returns too as Mia’s decision-making betrays her as an inconsistent, if not outright dimwitted, hero. Running through nightmarish scenes ranging in genre reference from hixploitaiton to gothic romance, the stunning surroundings photographed by cinematographer Andrew Scott Baird almost cover up for Mia’s baffling lack of intellectual direction. But what real person, pray tell, has their sister go missing for more than a complete Chinese zodiac cycle, only to spur of the moment visit a derelict prison… with an almost dead flashlight… in the middle of the night? The scene is pretty, but she seems like a moron.

It’s those obvious loose ends that allow “Shelby Oaks” to devolve into an unmotivated pursuit of an unremarkable character. The fault doesn’t lie with Sullivan (she does what she can!), but as Mia’s behavior makes less and less sense, her sister’s story grows equally confused. Pops of comedy suggest a self-awareness to some of the script (yes, at least one character will acknowledge that saying the name “Paranormal Paranoids” is orally atrocious) and yet there aren’t enough jokes throughout to classify it as a horror comedy. Toss in some well-intentioned but ill-conceived “Hereditary” inspiration that’s nothing if not gravely serious and for-the-love-of-funniness stops working as a believable excuse.  

That said, it bears repeating, Stuckmann should make movies. “Shelby Oaks” was obviously written by a critic, one with a near-legendary knowledge of the pop culture archives, and it’s directed with a palpable confidence that could lead to better things. Doubling-back to that marathon metaphor, Stuckmann finishes his race only somewhat worse for wear. He manages a beautiful final shot that, no matter what comes before it, is fun as hell and hints at what we’ll no doubt someday learn this freshman filmmaker does best. Easily the smartest journalist-turned-producer working in horror today, Stuckmann is going to be even better when he leaves “Shelby Oaks.”  

Advertisement

Grade: B-

A Neon release, “Shelby Oaks” debuted at Fantasia Fest 2024. It’s expected in theaters next year.

Movie Reviews

‘Hoppers’ movie review: Big ideas and smart emotional beats fuel a great adventure

Published

on

‘Hoppers’ movie review: Big ideas and smart emotional beats fuel a great adventure

In cinema logic, sharks, especially great whites, make excellent characters in animation. From Bruce in Finding Nemo to Mr Shark, the master of disguise in The Bad Guys, these apex predators turn their great gummy mouths with many pointy teeth into jolly good fellows.

In Hoppers, the 30th animation film from Pixar, there is a great white called Diane (Vanessa Bayer), who, despite being a scary assassin, has such sweet, shining eyes and a warm smile that one cannot help but grinning back.

Hoppers (English)

Director: Daniel Chong

Voice cast: Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Jon Hamm, Kathy Najimy, Dave Franco

Storyline: A fierce animal lover uses a new technology to converse with animals and save their habitat from greedy, self-serving humans

Advertisement

Runtime: 104 minutes

We first meet Mabel (Piper Curda) as a little girl trying to set all the animals in school free and being sent home for her pains (and also because she bites one of the teachers trying to stop her). Her busy mother drops Mabel with her grandmother (Karen Huie) who shows her the peace and quiet that can be hers if she only stops to listen.

The glade where grandmother Tanaka teaches her this valuable life lesson becomes a special place for Mabel. Years later, after her grandmother has passed, 19-year-old Mabel is a college student and still fighting for animal rights.

Matters come to a head when the mayor of Beaverton, Jerry Generazzo (Jon Hamm) plans to blow up the glade to build a freeway. Mabel tries to get signatures from the citizenry to stop the freeway plans, but that comes to naught as people quickly turn away from the zealous Mabel.

Frustrated, with no recourse in sight, Mabel chances upon a beaver making its way to her university’s biology lab. First worried that her biology professor Sam (Kathy Najimy) is doing some unspeakable animal experiments, Mabel is nonplussed to find that Sam, with her colleague Nisha (Aparna Nancherla) and graduate student Conner (Sam Richardson), have developed a revolutionary technology to transfer human consciousness to robot animal.

Advertisement

Mabel uploads her consciousness into a robot beaver and sets off to thwart the mayor. Seeing the world from the animals’ perspective gives Mabel a unique point of view. Hoppers has jokes, chases, largeness of heart and solid science — not consciousness-switching with robot animals or flying shark assassins but the fact that beavers are the environmental engineers of the natural world.

The voice cast is wonderful, from Bobby Moynihan as the beaver king, George to Dave Franco as Titus, the prickly butterfly who becomes the insect king after Mabel accidentally kills his mum — the Insect Queen, played with terrifying grandeur by Meryl Streep.

The animals are delightfully delineated, from the spaced-out beaver, Loaf (Eduardo Franco) to Ellen (Melissa Villaseñor) the grumpy bear. The animation is lovely, with each of the animal and human characteristics clearly outlined. From the mayor’s grasping to Sam’s brilliance, Mabel’s fervour to Loaf’s stillness, and the different animal monarchs’ regality, it is all given marvellous life.

ALSO READ: ‘The Bride!’ movie review: Maggie Gyllenhaal’s glam-goth Frankenstein can’t hold its stitches

The “pond rules” ensure that the animals are not completely anthropomorphised — a sticky point in animation films where carnivores and herbivores hang together without even a sneaky licking of lips!

Advertisement

Smart, funny, exciting, honest, and touching, Hoppers is the kind of film you can watch with the bachcha party and elders alike, with a happy grin. And then there is Diane of the red, red lips and sparkly white rotating teeth — yes, Hoppers boasts that level of detailing.

Hoppers is currently running in theatres

Published – March 06, 2026 07:08 pm IST

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

Published

on

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

The satirical romp Josie and the Pussycats (2001) is a fun movie. But is it a great rock ‘n’ roll movie?
Eh, not so fast on that second one. Welcome back to Glide’s quest for what makes a good rock ‘n’ roll movie. Last month, we looked at Almost Famous, a great launching pad because it gets so much right. And every first Friday, we’ll take another look at a rock ‘n’ movie and ask what it means in the larger pantheon. This month, the Glide’s screening room brings you Josie and the Pussycahttps://glidemagazine.com/322100/almost-perfect-why-almost-famous-sets-the-gold-standard-for-rock-movies/ts. The film is a live-action take on the classic comic-and-cartoon property of a sugary, all-girl rock trio that exists in the world of Riverdale, a.k.a. fictional home of the iconic Archie Andrews.

But this Josie has next to nothing to do with Riverdale and is instead a satire of consumerism and ’00s boy bands. A worthy target, and a topic that has stayed worthy in the quarter-century since Josie dropped. The film was not a hit, but it has become something of a cult classic (like many movies featured in this series).

The plot is fairly simple. Wyatt Frame, an evil corporate type, is making piles of money off boy band Du Jour. They start to wise up to his evil scheme and have to be… taken care of. Frame needs a new group to front his plot, which revolves around mind control to push consumer culture. Enter Josie and the Pussycats, who are about to have a whirlwind ride to the top. And along the way, foil a plot with tentacles so far-reaching they have ensnared… Carson Daly?

Josie is a fun, clever movie, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to say about real rock ‘n’ roll, unless you want to simply accept a perspective that it’s just another cynical consumer-driven product. Even that is an argument that can be made, as long as you’re willing to ignore underground and indie scenes and passionate artists making amazing music.

And it is true that this is a theme of Josie. The band triumphs at the end via their authentic music. But it somehow doesn’t feel authentic, which makes it something of a hollow victory. Let’s consider the criteria already established for a good rock ‘n’ roll movie, and how Josie delivers on that front. The first is in the characters department. The film dodges the previously established Buckethead Paradox, which states that “The real-life rock stars are so much larger than life that you can’t make up credible fictional versions. There is no way someone like Buckethead would come out of a writer’s room and make it to a screen.”

Advertisement

For better or worse, Josie dodges the Paradox by essentially embracing it. The characters themselves are cartoons, and there’s no effort at realism. Given that intent is a huge part of art, it seems unfair to call these characters “cartoons” as a criticism, and it should probably be a compliment. At the same time, they aren’t particularly memorable, which is not a great quality.

And—as a bonus—Tara Reid is perfectly cast as drummer Melody Valentine. Josie was a few years after her turn in Around the Fire (1998), an unintentionally hilarious classic that plays like a jam band afterschool special from the producers of Reefer Madness (look for this amazing film in an upcoming piece).
The acting in general is good, with Rachel Leigh Cook as Josie McCoy and Rosario Dawson as bassist Valerie Brown rounding out the band. And Alan Cumming almost steals the show as sleazy corporate weasel Wyatt Frame.

The character of Wyatt is the film’s funniest riff on a rock ‘n’ roll archetype: the sleazy, corporate manager accompanied by assorted crooked accountants. From Colonel Tom Parker to Albert Grossman to The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle. It’s all about the benjamins. Which is where the music comes in. If the music is good, that’s what makes it worth it. And Josie’s music has aged particularly well. It’s well-recorded, produced and executed. The songs are particularly catchy. The vocals are by Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo. Much of the soundtrack sounds like a lost album from The Muffs, and one wonders why Kim Shattuck wasn’t involved.

There’s an argument that power pop was never supposed to be dangerous, and that the Muffs aren’t dangerous either. Fair on the surface, but they played real punk clubs and came from a real scene. There’s not even a hint of that in Josie. So an argument that they play pop punk (which they kinda do) is really lacking the punk part.
And it was produced by Babyface, of all people. While that doesn’t seem like it should lead to great rock ‘n’ roll, sometimes preconceptions are wrong.

That said, this is a very commercial product and sound—as catchy as it is—so maybe it’s not a misconception. Maybe the right question to ask is whether it’s all too perfect? And that’s what gives this ostensibly rock ‘n’ film a smoothed-down edge? After all, the basic ingredients are there. But part of what makes good rock good is that it feels actually dangerous. Maybe there are some actual subversive messages, or a genuine counterculture scene. And Josie simply isn’t that film. The soundtrack is fondly remembered enough that Hanley appeared live and performed the songs at a screening in 2017. That appearance also included the film’s stars Cook, Dawson and Reid.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that while Cook and company obviously lip sync to the songs in the film, their performances are credible. They went through instrument boot camp, so they pull off the parts.

In the end, the film is primarily a satire of consumer culture. And even more strangely, is loaded with actual product placement. Clearly, the joke was intended to “hit harder” with real products, but having Target in the film constantly makes it feel like more of what it is parodying than a parody. Where’s the joke if the viewer actually pushes to shop at Target while watching the film? And if the filmmakers actually took money (which they almost certainly did)?

And perhaps that is the lesson for this month: a great rock ‘n’ roll movie needs to have something to say about the larger meaning or culture of the music. And while Josie may have a lot to say about culture in general, and it may say it in a fun and likeable way, it’s just not very rock ‘n’ roll. There’s no grit. Now, does it have some things to say about being in a band? Yes, though they are arguably true of most collaborations.

If someone in a hundred years wanted to understand early 21st century rock, Josie and the Pussycats is a bad choice. It doesn’t show the sweat of a performance or the smell of beer. But it’s a great choice for anyone looking for a light-hearted, fun watch with a great soundtrack. We could all use some sugar in our lives these days.
Join us again next month, when we’ll look at one of the inspirations for Josie, A Hard Day’s Night, the legendary first film from The Beatles

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

Published

on

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

After six TV series from 2013 to 2022, which caused a worrying surge in flat cap-wearing among well-to-do men in country pubs, Peaky Blinders is now getting a hefty standalone feature film, a muscular picture swamped in mud and blood. This is the movie version of Steven Knight’s global small-screen hit, based on the real-life gangs that swaggered through Birmingham from Victorian times until well into the 20th century. Cillian Murphy returns with his uniquely unsettling, almost sightless stare as Tommy Shelby, family chieftain of a Romani-traveller gang, a man who has converted his trauma in the trenches of the first world war into a ruthless determination to survive and rule.

As we join the story some years after the curtain last came down, it is 1940, Britain’s darkest hour and Tommy is the crime-lion in winter. He now lives in a huge, remote mansion, far from the Birmingham crime scene he did so much to create, alone except for his henchman Johnny Dogs, played by Packy Lee. Evidently wearied and sickened by it all, Tommy is haunted by his ghosts and demons: memories of his late brother, Arthur, and dead daughter, Ruby, and working on what will be his definitive autobiography. (Sadly, we don’t get any scenes of Tommy having lunch with a drawling London publisher or agent.)

But a charismatic and beautiful woman, played by Rebecca Ferguson, brings Tommy news of what we already know: his malign idiot son Erasmus Shelby, played by Barry Keoghan, is now running the Peaky Blinders, a new gen-Z-style group of flatcappers raiding government armouries for guns that should really belong to the military. And if that wasn’t disloyal and unpatriotic enough, Erasmus has accepted a secret offer from a sinister Nazi fifth-columnist called Beckett, played by Tim Roth, to help distribute counterfeit currency which will destroy the economy and make Blighty easier to invade. Doesn’t Erasmus know what Adolf Hitler is going to do to his own Romani people? (To be fair to Erasmus, a lot of the poshest and most well-connected people in the land didn’t either.)

Clearly, Tommy is going to have to come down there and sort this mess out. And we get a very ripe scene in which soft-spoken Tommy turns up in the pub full of raucous idiots who cheek him. “Who the faaaaaack is ‘Tommy Shelby’?” sneers one lairy squaddie, who gets horribly schooled on that very subject.

Advertisement

In this movie, Tommy Shelby is against the Nazis, and he can’t get to be more of a good guy than that. (Tommy has evidently put behind him memories of Winston Churchill from the first two series, when Churchill was dead set on clamping down on the Peaky Blinders.) The war and the Nazis are a big theme for a big-screen treatment and screenwriter Knight and director Tom Harper put it across with some gusto as a kind of homefront war film, helped by their effortlessly watchable lead. Maybe you have to be fully invested in the TV show to really like it, although this canonisation of Tommy is a sentimental treatment of what we actually know of crime gangs in the second world war. Nevertheless, it is a resoundingly confident drama.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is in out on 6 March in the UK and US, and on Netflix from 20 March.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending