Tag Archives: Independent film

CAPSULE: A BLIND BARGAIN (2025)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY: Paul Bunnell

FEATURING: , , , Lucy Loken, Annalisa Cochrane

PLOT: A Vietnam veteran heroin addict gets hustled into a scheme where his aging ex-actress mother will be a test subject of Dr. Gruder, who promises to reverse aging with some highly unconventional treatments.

Still from A Blind Bargain (2025)

COMMENTS: Dominic Fontaine (Jake Horowitz) is a Vietnam veteran now residing in 1970s southern California, and he’s got a few problems. He’s down on his luck, caring for an aging mother, has a heroin addiction, and owes money to mobsters who regularly deliver a few kicks to his ribs to urge him to speed up his payment plan. That convergence of obstacles drives him through the lobby doors of the Gruder Institute and right into the care of one Dr. Gruder (Crispin Glover), with a stop to meet flirty intake nurse Ellie Bannister (Lucy Loken), who takes Dominic’s blood and signs him up for methadone treatments. Luckily, indie audiences are already familiar with heroin recovery practices thanks to Trainspotting. But A Blind Bargain is a quite different movie, where the drug addiction takes a back seat to the other kinds of weirdness going on. (It is also the second movie I can think of, after Naked Lunch, where bugs and drugs fit into the same plot.)

Turns out that analysis of Dominic’s sample shows that his mother’s blood would be valuable for research—valuable enough that the Gruder Institute offers $500 per pint (in 1980 dollars). Dominic’s mom, Joy (veteran actress Amy Wright), who thinks she’s going for spa treatments, happens to be a has-been actress who yearns for her old silent film days. She’s an easy sell for a treatment that restores her youth. From this set-up, we advance into an unpredictable labyrinth of character interactions and a typically gothic mad scientist story.

I should mention that A Blind Bargain is an attempt at remaking / reclaiming an infamously lost film of the same title, released in 1922 as a silent feature starring . Since I haven’t seen the original (and likely never will without a time machine), I can’t comment to how much of this is faithful to the original script and how much is invented this time around.

For weird movie fans, Glover alone could be enough of a reason to see it; he invests every line and gesture with his unique eccentricity like the master character actor he is. Jake Horowitz is notable as well; infinitely watchable with his steely blue eyes and Zig-Zag-man beard, he plays a convincingly desperate sad-sack without making him a sniveling wimp or a conniving scoundrel. Amy Wright came all the way from Synecdoche, New York to show she can still act circles around the best of them. The early pacing is perfect, with a tempo that takes just enough time with each scene to let us absorb the plot, such that you’re carried right past the odder scenes before you can ask too many questions. The editing, between eccentric old-school screen wipes and music that punctuates the playful quirkiness, hints that we’re in that humor-horror canyon where the movie can make a little fun of itself.

That said, despite a few drug-inspired hallucinations and some impressively off-kilter lines and even dashes of magical realism, the story never ramps up into truly weird territory. I sat waiting for a big shock, an alarming gross-out, a horrifying revelation, but all I got were mildly unexpected moments. The ending is upon us before we’ve quite digested act three, and a great deal is left unexplained,  especially romantic tensions that suddenly pop up between several characters. Mad science and body horror are frequent topics in our archives, with many movies that quaff a bigger shot of madness than this one does. Be that as it may, this film seems to be everything its creators intended. A Blind Bargain is comfort quirkiness for the film festival crowd, lovingly made with a zesty pace and a dedication to freaky medical practitioners everywhere.

A Blind Bargain is in limited release at the time of this review. We’ll let you know when it’s widely available.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“Writer/director Paul Bunnell has made a trippy, bonkers and unconventional horror thriller with stylish cinematography, but it’s also tedious and exhausting.”–Avi Offer, “The NYC Movie Guru” (contemporaneous)

APOCRYPHA CANDIDATE: INTERFACE (2021)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Recommended

DIRECTED BY:  Justin Tomchuk (AKA )

FEATURING: Voices of Justin Tomchuk, Libby Brien, Christa Elliot

PLOT: A lone man and a pink shape-shifting parasite wander and reminisce in the aftermath of the Philadelphia Experiment.

Still from Interface (2021)

WHY IT MIGHT JOIN THE APOCRYPHA: Interface has a dreamy vibe from start to finish, uncanny and uneasy in the vein of ‘s works.

COMMENTS: Interface is not your typical, shallow Adult Swim-style surrealism, even if it may seem like it at first. A melancholy and sense of existential dread infuses every scene. Something uncanny lurks in the movie’s corners, and it isn’t just the monster accompanying our protagonist in his wanderings.

The setting is an alternate version of the aftermath of the Second World War, in which the Philadelphia Experiment had unforeseen consequences. (For those that do not know or remember, the Philadelphia Experiment is an urban legend about a hypothetical U.S. Navy teleportation experiment). Many sci-fi movies— especially B-movies—have been inspired by this story, most notably Stewart Raffill’s The Philadelphia Experiment from 1984.

Interface approaches this narrative more subtly than previous adaptations, recalling a dream and a work of pure surrealism. We follow, for the most part, two survivors of the Philadelphia Experiment, a lonely man unable to grow old and die and the shape-shifting monster that accompanies him everywhere. The lonely man wanders aimlessly, a soul trapped in limbo, while the accompanying parasite uses him as a host for its own survival.

There are clear symbolic undertones. The protagonist represents modern man, trapped in guilt and grief after catastrophic event (WWII). The parasite works as a personification of the negative emotions consuming him. A lyricism underlies the grotesque absurdity of the situation, highlighting the personal and collective trauma.

Memories of the past, as well as scientific attempts to restore that past, are interspersed throughout the movie. The focus, however, remains on our hero and his attempts to move on with his life (or his death). The uncanny, retro digital animation—recalling movies of the 80s and 90s—adds to the uneasiness of his situation. The melancholic soundtrack, composed by the director, does the same.

For the art lovers out there, there are a plethora of visual references to paintings, especially surrealist paintings, like Rene Magritte’ s “The Son of Man” or ‘s entire oeuvre. Even seemingly random abstract shapes in between scenes recall Kandinsky. These Easter eggs showcase Tomchuk’s wide range of influences and rich intellectual background.

“Interface” started as a web series, and it is still available on Youtube in its entirety for free; you can also rent or buy it on VOD for an ad-free experience that puts a little money in the filmmaker’s pocketbook (and even less in ours). Alternatively, you can purchase a Blu-ray or VHS version directly from the director for a more immersive retro experience.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“…meditative, philosophical, atmospheric, surreal, imaginative, fantasy-sci-fi animation that brings to mind Mamoru Oshii at his most enigmatic and bizarre with a light sprinkling of Miyazaki.”–Zev Toledano, The Worldwide Celluloid Massacre

CAPSULE: RETURN TO SILENT HILL (2026)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY:

FEATURING: Jeremy Irvine, Hannah Emily Anderson

PLOT: A painter’s drunken dreams and a mysterious note lead him to the ghost town of Silent Hill, where he searches for his lost ex-lover amidst the eternally smoldering ruins.

Still from return to silent hill (2026)

COMMENTS: Aficionados will tell you that “Silent Hill 2” is one of the greatest video game stories ever told. I trust them, but this adaptation by Christophe Gans, returning to the Silent Hill series after a highly disappointing middle installment from another director, does nothing to support their claim. (Evidence of it faithfully recapturing the look of the game, on the other hand, is much stronger.) What we get here is a gilded but mediocre psychological horror that never explains why it needs to be set in the rapidly deteriorating “Silent Hill” universe—except for the fact that it’s a spooky locale.

And indeed, the film is at its best when it’s merely prowling about the town, encountering swarms of beetle-like insects, headless zombies squirting acid from a torso orifice, and spider-like corpses. It’s fun just sightseeing: the ashy gray streets and the eerie hallways of the town’s dilapidated tenements have a bleak beauty. But even Silent Hill’s essential hauntedness is starting to have diminishing returns. The series’ signature monster, Pyramid Head, is scary—terrifying, in fact—the first time you see him. Three movies in, he doesn’t have the same impact. Unlike in a game, this lumbering behemoth is never a threat to catch a protagonist.

Irvine and Anderson are competent leads whose main virtue is that they’re easy on the eyes. The supporting cast does not stand out, and it seems that most of their characters have been cut for time (Eddie serves no purpose in this plot, and could have been left out entirely). Akira Yamaoka’s evocative music again features. The star, such as it is, is the production design and visual effects.

The plot is the biggest issue. Yes, the movie will get weird, but only in that tired “the borders between reality and hallucination start to blur” approach that now seems to animate 5-10% of low and mid-budget horrors. The info drops explaining James and Mary’s generic love affair hardly create a strong emotional rooting interest, and the backstory of the mysterious cult isn’t developed enough to create a meaningful plot engine. In a nod to the video game’s multiple possible resolutions, the movie has conflicting, contradictory endings. The technique doesn’t work at all in the context of a movie adaptation, particularly for people who’ve never played the game. Don’t Return to Silent Hill in theaters. If you do, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Walkout note: the only other people in my theater, a couple, walked out with fifteen minutes left to go.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“…between unnecessary lore changes and a lack of thematic heft in some of its storytelling, the filmmaker’s return to the franchise is a weird mix of exciting recreations, gorgeous visuals and disappointing execution.”–Grant Hermanns, Screen Rant (contemporaneous)

CAPSULE: THE THING WITH FEATHERS (2025)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY: Dylan Southern

FEATURING: , Sam Sprueli,

PLOT: After the loss of his wife, a widowed man comes in contact with a mysterious human-sized crow.

Still from The Thing with Feathers (2025)

COMMENTS: Dimly-lit interiors and catatonic acting clarify from the beginning that this will be a grim watch. And it is, as we follow an unnamed man, dealing with complex emotions after the passing of his wife, struggling with denial while trying to care for his two sons and to find comfort in his work as a comic artist. This is not a realistic tale, but an allegorical and elliptical one, with gothic flourishes as a human-sized crow gradually makes his appearance.

The narrative, based on Max Porter’s novel “Grief is the Thing with Feathers,” is divided into four chapters, each dealing with a different perspective. The first, focusing on Dad, remains close to typical horror conventions, with its slow-burning atmosphere culminating in a series of violent confrontations with the aforementioned crow. The intensity of one of those encounters is underlined by an excellent 360°  shot. The aggressive, grotesque bird mocks our hero for his self-pity, and evens becomes physically violent, while calling him generic names like Sad Dad and English Widower. At the same time jump cuts bring us back into reality to create an ambiguity regarding the nature of the crow, which could just as well be a figment of the protagonist’s imagination.

The next chapters focus on the bird, the kids’ perception of the events, and a new demon plaguing the family’s home, seemingly an enemy of the crow. Events are open to interpretation as different monsters come to symbolize different aspects of the mourning process, drawing, through allegory, a distinction  between grief, as a healthy way of dealing with loss, and total nihilistic despair.

We don’t have the most original and unique premise here. The central metaphor isn’t exactly something we haven’t seen before. However, thanks to a competent main performance by Benedict Cumberbach and an emphasis on dimly-lit interiors, the execution doesn’t completely disappoint. For fans of art-house psychological horror, in the vein of The Babadook  and similar movies distributed by A24, this is an okay recommendation.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“…the perfectly cast Cumberbatch effortlessly moves between fever dream, painful reality and apparent hallucination with every cell in his body present in the character… It’s a strangely beautiful, well paced and moving film…”–Annete Basile, Film Inc (contemporaneous)

CAPSULE: V/H/S HALLOWEEN (2025)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

V/H/S Halloween is currently available for purchase or rental on video-on-demand.

DIRECTED BY: , Anna Zlokovic, Paco Plaza, , , R.H. Norman

FEATURING: David Haydn, Samantha Cochran, Natalia Montgomery Fernandez, Teo Planell, Lawson Greyson, Stephen Gurewitz, Carl William Garrison, Jeff Harms

PLOT: Six VHS found-footage style shorts themed around Halloween night.

Still from V/H/S Halloween (2025)

COMMENTS: Caspar Kelly throws down a metaphorical gauntlet statement for horror anthologies when he has a costumed pirate proclaim, “All candy is lame. Corporations have taken all the creativity out. We’ve had the same main candy bars for decades. The variety pack has no variety.” Will this variety pack have genuine variety? Kelly certainly does his bit (we’ll circle back around to it), but despite an interesting mix of new and established directors, at the risk of further mixing a metaphor about mixes, it’s a mixed bag.

This anthology opens with Bryan Ferguson’s contribution, supposed internal footage of a corporation focus-grouping its newest product, “Diet Phantasma,” across a field of very unlucky test subjects. This story (which is a stretch as a Halloween entry; it could have fit into any of V/H/S‘ previous 7 outings) is cut up and stretched across the length of the film. Although lead David Haydn’s arrogant disdain for the fates of his subjects lends the story some humor, the decision to chop it up was wise, since it gets repetitive: different gore effects are the only thing distinguishing the central episodes. The ending isn’t the big score you might have hoped for, either, but it’s passable. Paco Plaza, who co-directed the 2007 Spanish found footage zombie movie [REC], is a natural choice for this series, and his ofrenda en español is one of the stronger entries. It’s built around an ultimately predictable seance premise, but with some unexpected effects (including eyeball vomiting).  Debuting director R.H. Norman offers a well-characterized but well-worn tale of an amateur neighborhood haunted house that turns into a real haunted house after the purchase of a cursed prop. Perhaps the biggest surprise is Alex Ross Perry, the indie director best-known for his literate dramas and comedies (and, around here, for his experimental debut.) His “Kidprint” may not make much too much sense (what really is the market for this film-your-kid-for-identification business?), but the ending is unexpectedly brutal—more so, considering that we don’t think of Perry as a horror director. For better or worse—and to be clear, I didn’t find it one of the better entries—Perry is the one who dares to “go there.” (Kelly, whom we’re getting to, does offer some transgressive comedy, but his grossout gag isn’t on the level of “Kidprint”).

Anna Zlokovic’s “Coochie Coochie Coo” is from another new director, and the first full-length short after the soda pop introduction. Although it has naturalistic acting from the two leads and an unusual maternal theme for its boogeywoman, it plays like an instant cliché. Two high school senior girls want one last night of trick or treating before seguing into adulthood. They end up trapped in a mysterious haunted house full of eerie characters, jump scares, and the camera reliably glitching at tense moments. It’s a competent, but ultimately safe way to begin the series.

But Zlokovich’s short brings us, in a roundabout way, to Kelly’s “Fun Size,” the anthology’s weirdest and most divisive segment (we declare it the Peanut M&Ms of the grab bag, although some more traditional minded horror viewers complain it’s candy corn). This comic relief horror, placed in the dead center of the anthology, almost seems to start as a direct parody of “Coochie Coochie Coo” (which says more about how obvious the opener is than about any deliberate plan on Kelly’s part.) Both feature overage protagonists, almost identical  “Aren’t you a bit old for trick ‘r treating?” lines, and a bit about a candy bowl left in the open with a sign “one per person.” Of course, Kelly takes the premise in a crazy direction with the discovery that the unattended bowl contains candies no one has every heard of: “Snipp%rs,” “Larry Find,” and some unpronounceable varieties.  It turns out this candy is not only weirdly named, but also, um, weirdly shaped. When the 20-somethings try to take extra candy, they’re sucked through the bowl and down into a factory where they learn the secrets of how these confections are truly made. “Fun Size” includes about as many layers as a film this short will allow: parody, satire, horror, and a subtextual theme about fear of commitment. In a full-length Kelly movie, this segment would merely be an introduction that spun off into weirder and weirder meta-commentary.  It’s entertaining, especially by the standards of this format, but if anything, “Fun Size” leaves the audience wanting more. Kelly needs to make a feature-length Halloween movie to complement his two Christmas horror films. (Then a Thanksgiving movie, then a Valentine’s Day one…)

Though far from “elevated horror,” if you’re looking for a common theme to V/H/S/ Halloween, it’s a general anti-corporate sentiment, whether the commodity being foisted on us is ethically questionable soda pop or ethically questionable candy. Of course, pretty much every independent movie ever made has a general anti-corporate sentiment, so that’s not a lot to hang your hat on. Instead, I’d recommend the latest V/H/S solely based the clever goof of “Fun Size,” with the supporting features ranging from acceptable to mildly interesting. If nothing else, at least they’re a varied bunch—even if some of the variation comes in expected flavors.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“It’s a mixed bag, sure, with a handful of duds, a few near-masterpieces, and a lot of inspired weirdness in between… sometimes, the real treat is just watching ambitious horror filmmakers cut loose and make something wild, no matter how messy it gets.”–Nicolas Delgadillo, Knotfest (contemporaneous)