A rundown of horror movies of 2025: Companion

 
I watched this one on Valentine’s day with a good friend. It is sorted under “science fiction thriller” or “dark comedy” more often than “horror”, and maybe that means I shouldn’t include it here. Genre is fluid, however, and mutable and to me the movie’s terror is central to the story.


Companion

Happy couple Iris and Josh join friends of his for a getaway in a remote villa in a sprawling forest. The cheerful if a little awkward atmosphere devolves into chaos after the death of one of them reveals secrets kept.


Spoilers from here on out


As the second trailer reveals, Iris is a robot Josh has purchased to be his girlfriend. She is unaware of this fact and believes both herself and her relationship with Josh to be real. It becomes clear very fast that Josh does not consider her real. He plans to have her kill a man and rob his house and ultimately blame it on faulty code within her.

Iris wakes up. Iris escapes. Iris fights for her life.

The movie can easily be read as an allegory for abusive relationships. Iris is there for Josh’s entertainment and enjoyment, is literally and legally an object. Sophie Thatcher does this great thing where her expression is empty whenever she isn’t actively smiling at him, which shows beautifully how she only exists in relation to what he wants from her.

When Josh set the parameters for her character and abilities, he set the slider for intelligence all the way down, showcasing how insecure he is and how much he doesn’t want her to be a partner. Later when Iris has control over her sliders and slides it to the top, she’s not even genius-level smart, just college educated, but he couldn’t even stand that.

After everything he did, Josh makes her sit at the table, unable to respond or move, forces her to light her hand on fire, and makes her listen to all his grievances. Ending with ‘you don’t know how hard it is for people like me’. (A line that made me say ‘says the conventionally attractive white guy’ out loud in the theater; but that’s the point, right?)

When she confronts Josh in the end, it is to tell him that he no longer controls her (a mechanic from the company removed the part of the code that makes her do what others say). She kills him in a way that is satisfyingly brutal; automatic bottle opener to the temple.

Josh’s whole attitude towards her is just the endpoint of how dismissive he is of those around him in general (dragging an unwitting friend into it, planning a murder in the first place). He is portrayed as self-centered and overestimates his abilities to such a degree that he doesn’t consider the consequences of his actions and thus gets everyone killed. Iris, on the other hand, starts out with manipulated memories and (programmed) rose-tinted glasses that get rudely ripped off her. During the movie she struggles with the realization that Josh never actually loved her, just what she could do/be for him. Only when she accepts that Josh could never see her as a person and would only ever continue to treat her the way he did, can she break away.

The world might be dangerous for her, but that doesn't matter, because she is free.

A rundown of horror movies of 2025: 28 Years Later

Apparently this blog mostly gets used for seasonal posting. This year Halloween I will present to you a rundown of the horror movies I’ve watched in the theater so far this year. It’s been a glorious horror year and more’s to come. Let’s review!

Starting with my least favorite.

28 Years Later

 

28 years after the outbreak of a rage virus that turns humans into mindlessly aggressive beings, the UK is quarantined off from the world (a fact that leads to some hilarious moments with a stranded Swedish soldier). 12-year-old Spike grows up in this environment on an island connected to the mainland by a causeway only accessible during low tide. When his mother grows ever sicker and the relationship with his father strained, he decides to brave the mainland and its unknown dangers in order to find help for her. What he does find is more than he could’ve imagined.


Spoilers from here on out


This movie was a major letdown for me. Possibly because the trailer was so fantastic and promised atmospheric and deeply unsettling horror. Both my friend and I were unsure if the movie wouldn’t be too scary for us and both of us sat in the theater afterwards asking ourselves “that’s it?”. There’s many things to be said about this movie, but for brevity’s sake, let me summarize my thoughts compliment-sandwich-style where I start with something I like about the movie before I mention something I dislike, and so on before I end on something I like.

• Maybe it’s cheating to mention the trailer, but I’ve come back to it since and I still really like it. Having a recording of Rudyard Kipling’s poem Boots play over eerie visuals was an inspired choice. Despite the disappointment of the movie the trailer hasn’t been ruined for me.
• The last couple of minutes, when a gang of tracksuit-wearing weirdos gleefully kill the infected in a stylized action-comedy routine, came so out of left field and fully took me out. The rest of the movie is mostly somber and serious and this is something else entirely. I’ve since learned that this movie is just the start of the trilogy and these people will become more relevant in future installments but that knowledge doesn’t make their appearance feel any less disjointed for this movie.
• Alfie Williams, the actor playing Spike does a great job with what he’s got. He’s fully believable on screen, keeps the movie as together as possible and holds his own against seasoned actors. Good on him.
• On at least three separate occasions we see the "alpha" infected pull a spine out of a body by the head. By the third time it happens, you are fully desensitized to it. The whole gruesome display would’ve had more impact if we’d just seen the result before we see it happen once. I know this is probably the least issue with the movie but it bothered me because it was such an unnecessary waste of horrific imagery. 
  
• The bone temple is such an exquisitely macabre set piece. That doesn’t change when we find out that it is made not with ill intent but love and care for the dead as a funeral monument. Instead it becomes eerily beautiful. I enjoyed the subversion of expectation here, that something that looks so ominous is actually positive.  
• The fact that there are "alpha" infected now, for whom the virus acts like steroids making them stronger and bigger (their dicks too!) and giving them power over birds??? Seemingly?? Sorry, that’s just stupid. Stuff like that fits in with comedic movies like Army of the Dead but you want us to take this one seriously, right? Right??
• Big fan of how the community Spike is from is more than a little cultish with their training the kids to become killers and revering of killing and adherence to specific rules. I like how it first seems calm and homely to Spike but once he’s been to the mainland and comes back, it starts to unravel. Wish they would’ve done more with that.
• I understand that there’s a plan behind this. I get that Danny Boyle, the director, and Alex Garland, the writer, didn’t just throw stuff at the wall in the hopes something would stick. And still it felt like that to me. There’s references to this and that, violence and isolationism and trauma and coming-of-age and religion and Jimmy Savile of all things. Some of it worked, and some of it didn’t but the bigger problem, in my opinion, is that the whole movie lacks cohesion and ends up being somewhat of a nothing burger with at times wonderful moments.
• Aaron Taylor-Johnson was there. I always like seeing him in movies.

In lieu of starting online fights: Not everything that has rich people in it is Sucession

 Hey now, has this ever happened to you? You are innocently scrolling social media, looking at memes, cute animal videos and the occasional comment on some of your favorite media, when suddenly an opinion crosses your feed that's so unbelievably wrong it seems the OP is posting from a parallel universe. Because surely, surely, if you had both watched the same movie/show, surely, they could not have reached a conclusion this eccentric. It itches in your fingers, you start typing up a reply, you simply have to set the record straight. But then you remember. Starting fights online is generally a huge waste of everyone's time and efforts. People aren't likely to try and see things your way, no matter how clearly and persuasively you explain. The most probable outcome is just huge amounts of frustration on your part. It's simply not worth it. Especially over something as ultimately inconsequential as a media opinion. And still. OP was so wrong on the internet. You cannot let that go unremarked. So what are you to do?

Mostly, I just rant to a friend. We commiserate and pick apart why exactly the opinion was bad and then we congratulate each other on being the only ones with correct ideas. But I realized that I have this blog and I don't utilize it nearly as much as I want to. Thus, without further ado, I'm starting a series where I elaborate on opinions I read on the internet that I heavily disagree with. 

Disclaimer: Obviously, obviously, I do not think I have the correct opinions. These are, after all, opinions still. I do believe the statements I will be discussing here to be based at least partially on flawed logic or a misunderstanding of the media, but that doesn't mean I'm right all the time or even about these. Just in case the irony wasn't clear.

No. 1: Not everything that has rich people in it is Succession

The first statement I will be discussing is the following: "The Gentlemen [the show] is Succession if it was bad".

This is fascinating to me, because it would have never occurred to me to compare these two shows whatsoever. 

Now, I've watched and liked both shows. And I agree, Succession is the better show by many metrics. So, I understand if OP didn't like The Gentlemen. You can see Guy Ritchie's signature style of storytelling everywhere (even if the show has more than one female character and less homoeroticism than his movies usually have). That's not for everybody. But it makes absolutely no sense, in my opinion, to compare these shows in this way.

In The Gentlemen Eddie Horniman gets called back to England because his father is dying. After his death, Eddie inherits the family estate as well as the title of Duke instead of his irresponsible older brother. The same older brother owes a large sum of money (although, 8 million would be peanuts to anyone in Succession) to a drug dealer and when he causes even more trouble, Eddie is forced to join forces with a cannabis producer who grows her product under his estate. 

When in Succession, the patriarch of the Roy family and CEO of a media and entertainment conglomerate, Logan Roy, suffers a stroke, the struggle for the control of the company begins and the characters start to destroy themselves and each other for the money and the power that would bring.

Succession is (despite what some other very wrong people might claim) a scathing critique of capitalism and the people propagating it, specifically the America-brand of hyper-capitalism that sucks everyone participating in it in until there's nothing left. Almost every single one of the characters is awful in one way or another, they cannot escape the draw of their abusive family dynamics that mirror the abusive dynamics of the capitalist system. It is a drama with dark comedic elements.

In The Gentlemen meanwhile you are supposed to think the two main characters are cool and badass. You are supposed to root for them and they are, through narrative decisions, mostly in the right in their actions.  It's also not about capitalism at all really. It's not presenting capitalism and the people participating in it in a positive light, it's only concerned about money as a means to an end not and end in itself. The Gentlemen is about keeping your family safe with the cleanest hands possible. It's about the allure of a criminial underbelly and how far you are willing to go. It is an action comedy. 

The specific point the post was belaboring had to do with the - excellent - choice of Succession not to have an employee character who works for the Roys and is loyally supportive of them, while The Gentlemen has a gamekeeper that looks after the Horniman estate and is devotedly on their side throughout. Again, it is useless to compare the two because the context is different. On the one hand, the gamekeeper lives on the estate, he's personally invested and connected to the family, and a trusty butler/housekeeper/groundskeeper is a staple in stories about the British nobles; on the other hand everyone in Succession works for the company - some long-standing, some not - and while they also are in part involved with the family, they, as well, are shown to prioritize their own self-interest as is fitting for the thematic through-lines of the show. 

Therefore, while it is utterly fair to not want to watch or else not enjoy watching a show that - at least in part - looks at criminal enterprises or British aristocracy with kind eyes, you do have to acknowledge that it has very little in common with the withering insights into US-American capitalism of Succession.   

In the end, it's like saying "Game of Thrones is Lord of the Rings if it was bad". Those two things aren't the same. 

 

 Edit: The specific post crossed my dash again and thus reminded me that OP called The Gentlemen "one of those Eat the Rich shows". And that's just simply not true. As I have elaborated up above, you, the viewer, are meant to emphasize with the main characters here, you are meant to want them to make money. They are meant to come off as cool and likable. What are you on OP? 

Favorite Quotes of 2024

As another collection from the novels I read last year, I present to you some of my favorite quotes. They are my favorite either because they express something in beautiful language, are profound in context or stuck with me throughout.

Enjoy!

 "I remember this: the way she stood and looked at me, half raised her arms and then dropped them as though uncertain of her welcome, and the way I ran towards her anyway, the bright reality of her, and felt such wide white blinding love and relief that all other memories from that day disappeared." - Our Wives Under the Sea, Julia Armfield

"My body is a world full of tectonic inhalation and exhalation, volcanic heartbeats, oceans of blood, electrical storms of nerve endings. And my mind is that world's chief city." - The Odyssey Problem, Chris Willrich in The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2023

"... and you breathe in memory. The weight and mortality and the sensible shoes are just costume, falling away, and your real selves rise up, briefly, dancing rosy and naked, in the middle of the subway car." - White Houses, Amy Bloom

"Run isn't quite accurate. Their legs don't move. Their still-twitching feet don't touch the ground." - The Penelopiad, Margaret Atwood

"I like to think of my brain like that, tangled up in my skull. The idea that my brains could be untangled, straightened out and thus refashioned into a state of peace and sanity was a comforting fantasy. I often felt there was something wired weird in my brain, a problem so complicated only a lobotomy could solve it - I'd need a whole new mind or a whole new life." - Eileen, Otessa Moshfegh

"Amber gazes at me. Her eyes are the same waxy green color as the mile marker. 'You're my house, Del.'" - A Bird Sings by the Etching Tree, Nicole D. Sconiers in Out There Screaming

"But here it is, now, and here I am, too. And this train - very real, very concrete and travelling fast - is tearing us together. Close your eyes." - Assembly, Natasha Brown

"I turn back to survey the view. Even up here, I feel it against my skin, the thumping nationalism of this place. I am the stretched-taut membrane of a drum against which their identity beats. I cannot escape its rhythm. Everything awaits Monday - New York, then back in the office. For the rest of my life these Mondays loom loud, thudding and crashing, crescendoing on to me, tearing through -" - Assembly, Natasha Brown

"I remained leaning on the window, with a thirsty longing to plunge myself into the blue-moon mist, this dew and perfume and silence, which seemed to vibrate and quiver like the stars that strewed the depths of heaven." - A Wicked Voice, Vernon Lee, in Weird Fiction: An Anthology

Top 4 novels I did not like that much

I don't want to be so mean on my blog and generally I have positive things to say about the novels I read since I know that just because something wasn't for me, does not mean it isn't for anyone or that it lacks in quality at all.

So, without further ado, here are the 4 novels that I read this year that did for some reason or other did not connect with me.

1. Greenwood - Micheal Christie

 

In a desolate future a woman works in one of the very last forests on earth. When she finds out a forgotten bit about her family's past, the reader takes a journey through family history, step by step from 2038 all the way to 1908, before traveling back to 2038, stopping at the same stations.

The concept is innovative, I'll give the novel that. Also it's beautifully written and touches on worthwhile issues. It's just that from the summary and quotes I assumed it would be hopeful (and I believe that was the author's intent, too) but by god did it feel extremely depressing to me. Almost all the characters lived miserable lonely lives and died miserable lonely deaths, which apparently await us all as the first trees in the last forest, too, become infected. 

2. Dust - Hugh Howey 

 

Dust is the third and final installment in the Silo trilogy, which now has a TV adaptation. In a post apocalyptic future what is left of humanity lives in Silos underground. Over the course of the trilogy the truths the Silo head tells the population are put into question and a rebellion is formed that works to uncover what was kept hidden. In this last novel, the characters must reckon with the lies they were told and find a way forward when their tentative peace is destroyed.

At this point I was just so bored by everything being so very bad all the time. For example, a child character is all but kidnapped and forced into child marriage for a chapter before she escapes. It took me all the way out of the story. I do think the ending is beautiful, though.

3. The Penelopiad - Margaret Atwood

 

Down in Hades, Penelope tells her story. From being chosen as a consolation price over her experiences during the Trojan war and after. 

I usually enjoy these types of perspective shifts, ancient Greek story telling, and Margaret Atwood, but little elements in the way this shift is executed bothered me. The way Helen was portrayed in particular rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that Penelope is an unreliable narrator, trying to position herself as the protagonist of the story, but still, Helen as this manipulative cruel being who causes destruction for the fun of it felt not good to read.

I do like the regular interludes of the maids in different poetic styles, who are killed at the end of the story. Giving those who are not only sidelined but condemned a voice and a humanity is interesting to me.

4. All That's Left in the World - Erik J. Brown

 

In this novel two boys, who lost everyone once dear to them, have to navigate a post apocalyptic society, find safety, find themselves, and find each other.

While I had actual criticisms about the other novels on this list, this one only did not hit me as I thought it would. Likely, I am simply too old for this, as it is a YA story. I truly did like the development of the boys' relationship and their different perspectives on the apocalypse.