Just caught the new R.L. Stine's Pumpkinhead on Tubi - For day 20 (im trying to catch up lol) of my 31 days of horror, its perfect Halloween viewing for the younger horror fans in your life! 🎃

This 2025 Tubi original nails the "gateway horror" vibe - genuine scares , a solid young cast, and enough creepy atmosphere to feel like a real horror movie without being too intense.

This film is actually "good" its fairly well written in that it isn't afraid of darker consequences and doesn't always wrap things up neatly - a refreshing approach for kids' horror that teaches young viewers that in scary stories, the monster doesn't always lose, making a it a cooler experience for young teens.

Full review with the official trailer is live now - check the source link for my complete 3/5 star breakdown!

The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) ★ Watched 14 Oct 2025

The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) is a cheap, boring reboot of Hammer’s series that recasts the Baron with a bland leading man and drops Peter Cushing, the only anchor these films had. According to the internet, this is supposed to be a “black comedy,” but that’s a Tommy Wiseau–style dodge, and the comparisons to The Room don’t stop there.

There’s a scene where Frankenstein’s assistant suggests they switch to more ethical experiments. Victor pretends to agree, asking him to hold some electrical equipment… then kills the assistant by switching it on when he stupidly complies. It plays like the horror equivalent of “Oh hi, Mark,” except that scene in The Room at least conjures unintentional laughter. Another highlight is when the creature attacks a little girl. She cries to her father that he hurt her, and after the monster's apparent demise, she’s suddenly sad and says he was “a nice monster, really.”

In terms of production values, the film is bargain-bin even by Hammer standards. The “monster” looks like a circus strongman with an oddly shaped head; you’d never call him a monster if the script didn’t insist on it. He doesn’t even show up until more than an hour in, and then his death—like most of the film’s key events—happens offscreen.

Another example is a scene that implies Victor plans to kill an old man for his brain, then it just cuts to the funeral. Did Frankenstein kill him? Did the man die naturally? Who knows? The sound design in the old man's final scene is so bizarre; complete silence (not even a musical score or ambient noises) while the old man is talking. I thought something was wrong with my device until the dialogue returned, confirming this was meant to show Frankenstein “zoning out.”

This Movie Had No Business Being a Fear Street Film

This movie feels like someone at Netflix wanted to create a cheesy 80s prom slasher and slapped the Fear Street name onto it just to draw attention. It doesn’t feel like a true instalment in the franchise but rather a standalone script awkwardly retrofitted to fit into the Fear Street universe. Despite the original trilogy’s flaws, I genuinely love it. But with this new entry? There’s just nothing to like. This surprised me because it had the perfect recipe of elements that I would typically enjoy. The defence I have heard for this film is that it’s supposed to be silly and unserious; however, as a lover of silly, unserious horror films, this movie doesn’t excel in this category either. I’m going to split this review into two parts: one through the lens of a Fear Street movie and the other through the lens of a standalone film.

As a Fear Street Movie

Let’s start with its place in the Fear Street franchise, or lack thereof. I’m aware that this movie is a loose adaptation of the R.L. Stine book of the same name however when you’ve established a cinematic universe for a franchise the ay the original trilogy did you can’t blame people for expecting the next movie to AT LEAST be slightly connected to the other movies but this isn’t.   The original three films wove a mythology where Shadyside and Sunnyvale weren’t just backdrops, they were the heartbeat of the story. The curse, the socioeconomic divide, and the supernatural possession linked to a single family; these things defined the universe. Even in 1978, set at a summer camp, those core themes remained present and driving the narrative. Here, those towns are just window dressing. Sarah Fier, once a looming and omnipresent force, is barely even mentioned outside of a little be of high school graffiti..

The original trilogy set up a rich mythos with several other killers whose stories could’ve been explored. So why was this the next film chosen? Yes, it’s loosely based on an R.L. Stine book, but it feels more like someone wrote a generic 80s slasher, then retroactively connected it to Fear Street just to sell it. The film ignores the core rules of the universe: in this world, murder stems from supernatural possession. Having people or families killing for no reason, with no link to the curse, breaks that logic entirely.

Also, in the other 3 movies, we got some pretty cool kills, including one of my all-time faves with the breadcutter kill. I cannot recall any of the kills in this one at all; they were all forgettable, which is a major letdown. 

As a Standalone Movie

Even if you ignore its connection to Fear Street, it still doesn’t work. On paper, it has everything I’d want: an 80s setting, a prom night massacre setup, and a fun subgenre. But it’s flat, forgettable, and uninspired. I don’t mind a silly, over-the-top slasher. I like those kinds of movies, but they need to be fun or at least visually engaging. This is neither. I don’t find most of the jokes to be funny, and the motives for the killing were supposed to be a bit satirical, but I caught myself audibly groaning at it; it's just been done so many times before. We don’t even get a unique-looking unmasked killer. I swear I have seen this killer several times before. Why not make him go over the top? It seems they wanted to lean into comedy? Why not make his disguise a ridiculous baby blue tuxedo and an 80s cookie mask? Lord knows the '80s loved their plastic Halloween masks.And if you're going to set a movie at an 80s prom, make it look like the 80s. The dresses look like early-2000s deadstock. Throwing on some sparkles and polyester doesn’t make it era-accurate. They didn’t even try with the hair — not a single teased do? I’ve seen better '80s recreations on TikTok. Netflix isn't known for period precision, but they managed to pull it off decently in 1978 and 1994. There’s just no excuse here. You had the perfect setup to have so much fun with 80s fashion, and you did less than the bare minimum. It comes off like the filmmakers didn’t even really care.

Final Thoughts

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ out of 5

____________________

                                  6.5 Sometimes the original is better

Reviewed by Comrade Kas | ★★★★☆ (4/5)

Fresh off the success of Talk to Me, the Philippou brothers return with Bring Her Back—a lean, brutal, and emotionally devastating horror film that trades jump scares for soul-deep dread. Centered on orphaned siblings, a foster mother with cultish intentions, and a resurrection ritual gone grotesquely wrong, this sophomore feature plunges headfirst into the monstrous terrain of maternal grief.

Sally Hawkins delivers a performance of terrifying volatility, while newcomer Sora Wong brings heartbreaking vulnerability to the screen. The practical effects are unflinching, the pacing relentless, and one sequence is so viscerally upsetting it may force you to look away.

Is it necessary? That’s the question that lingers long after the credits. But unforgettable? Absolutely.

A masterfully crafted, deeply unsettling experience—like a bruise you keep pressing just to feel it again.