A House on the Bayou is a 2021 fabulistic horror film written and directed by Alex McAulay. This unrated film includes the talent of Angela Sarafyan, Paul Schneider, and Jacob Lofland. Currently, the film is available to DirecTV, MGM Plus, fuboTV, and Paramount Plus.
Despite her husband’s infidelity, Jessica Chambers (Angela Sarafyan) wants to make things work on her terms. John Chambers (Paul Schneider) seems keen on building back that trust. However, during their family getaway meant to mend the relationship, they are a long way from okay. Unfortunately for them, their bayou seems to bring unwanted locals who grow more malicious and push them further. Yet, the graver the situation, the more suspicious the circumstances.
What I Like
As a sucker for modern fables, I enjoy the concept of a mysterious bayou as a setting. Bayou themselves seem mystical, barring the mosquitos. While I feel like there could be more, considering the natural environment, it creates some of that mystical allure.
Jacob Lofland’s Isaac makes for an interesting antagonist, adding layers of mystery that give the actor a lot to work with. Adding to the performances are Angela Sarafyan and Paul Schneider themselves, who play off each other and have interesting arcs.
Paul Schneider’s John, specifically, plays a manipulative and passive-aggressive husband admirably–if such a word is appropriate. The most interesting scenes are how he effortlessly poisons their daughter against the mother. It can be so subtle I thought it was unintentional, but it is certainly intentional.
Advertisement
Tired Tropes or Trigger Warnings
I indicated that John is manipulative. While it makes for an interesting character, those with similarly toxic relationships under their belt should keep this in mind.
While Lia McHugh plays her role to perfection as the daughter, Anna Chambers, she really has little to work with. The character is little more than a moody teen.
What I Dislike
A House on the Bayou doesn’t attempt to impress you with any special effects or mysticism, which is fine in theory. However, the film could have used more mysticism to add to the point. I imagine this may stem from a low budget, but there are ways to add mystery and atmosphere on even a micro-budget film.
A few poorly designed scenes lacked depth or context, missing those key elements to make sense.
The fable itself could have used more build-up. A House on the Bayou opts for explaining everything at the end, which never feels satisfying. The story becomes shallower because of this decision, where dropping hints and withholding information remains a more effective strategy. The tired line of “show, don’t tell” comes to mind.
The chemistry, or lack thereof, between Lia McHugh and Jacob Lofland’s characters makes their subplot vastly underwhelming. I don’t blame this on the performance but on the writing and perhaps Anna Chambers’ already underwritten character.
As a horror film, A House on the Bayou is lacking. While it has its moments, you will likely struggle to flinch at the scenes. I suppose it strives to unsettle you with the concept, but this lacks that effective execution that makes something like Midsommar so revered.
Advertisement
Final Thoughts
A House on the Bayou has an interesting concept but lacks the resources to commit to anything exceptional. There are other potential fabulistic horrors to choose from. However, with a 1-hour and 28-minute runtime, the film knew the story it told and directed it without needlessly dragging on. In fact, it might have needed to add a little more for those earlier-mentioned scenes. The selling point would likely be Paul Schneider’s performance, though most performances are strong enough. It is an overall functioning film with little more to add than that. (2 / 5)
Zeth received his M.A in English with a focus in Creative Writing at CSU, Chico. As a human writer, he published in the 9th volume of Multicultural Echoes, served on the editorial board of Watershed Review, and is a horror reviewer for Haunted MTL. All agree he is a real-life human and not an octopus in human skin.
Fascinated by horror novels and their movie adaptations, Zeth channels his bone-riddled arms in their study. Games are also a tasty treat, but he only has the two human limbs to write. If you enjoy his writing, check out his website.
Smile 2, a psychological supernatural horror, released in October 2024 just in time for Halloween, sees director Parker Finn (Smile, Laura Hasn’t Slept) return with a sequel starring Naomi Scott (Aladdin) as pop star and recovering addict Skye Riley. While Smile 2 boasts a talented cast, it ultimately falls short of its predecessor, offering a familiar storyline with minor variations and a predictable finale. The film attempts to introduce a new method to combat the parasitic ‘Smile Entity’, but this addition fails to elevate the sequel beyond a pale imitation of its chilling predecessor.
The Plot.
Smile 2 begins shortly after the end of the original; just six days after Rose Cotter’s death. During a short interlude scene, we watch as the now cursed Joel attempts to pass the Smile Entity on by killing one criminal in front of another. The plan backfires spectacularly, inadvertently passing the curse onto an innocent bystander named Lewis Fregoli.
The film then shifts gears, introducing Skye Riley, a singer and performer making a triumphant return to the spotlight with a comeback tour after a tumultuous past. During a candid interview on the Drew Barrymore Show, Skye opens up about her struggles with addiction and the devastating loss of her boyfriend in a car accident. Her sobriety journey, however, faces a severe setback when she seeks pain relief from her old high school friend, the unwitting Lewis Fregoli. In a chilling turn of events, Lewis takes his own life while Skye watches, passing the Smile Entity onto her. Unaware of her new cursed existence Skye gets on with rehearsing for her tour, but she begins to notice that strange things are happening. People are smiling at her in an unnatural way and she becomes the target of anonymous attacks and aggressions. When text messages begin to arrive from an unknown number, Skye decides to get some answers.
Highlights.
Let’s not beat about the bush. I found Smile 2 difficult to finish and was struggling at about the hour-and-a-half mark to stay awake. That being said it’s worth watching because everyone needs to see the 3-minute scene of the ‘smilers’ chasing Skye through her apartment. This was possibly the creepiest thing I’ve seen on a screen. The buildup, the synchronicity of the movement of the actors and their positioning, the camera work, and the lighting. I have rewatched it several times and it doesn’t get old. If you are only interested in watching this, fast forward to the 123-minute mark and get ready to be impressed.
Drawbacks.
Where do I start?
My primary concern with Smile 2 is its striking resemblance to its predecessor. The narrative follows a familiar pattern: an attractive woman fleeing a supernatural force, grappling with hallucinations, experiencing a mental health decline, and culminating in the revelation someone close to Skye was the Smiling Entity after all. This repetitive structure diminishes the film’s impact.
Advertisement
While the introduction of a new method for shedding the entity initially offered a glimmer of hope this concept wasn’t fully realized. It just served to add names to the line of people that the entity has infected in the past.
Furthermore, the film’s pacing suffers from excessive focus on Skye’s musical career. Scenes showcasing her stage rehearsals and music videos, while intended to establish her identity as a performer, feel unnecessary and detract from the narrative momentum. Yes, we understand she’s a performer, you told us, you don’t need to prove it. These scenes appear to artificially inflate the film’s runtime, suggesting a lack of confidence in the core story.
The Final Take.
Ultimately, Smile 2 fails to expand upon the established lore of the franchise. The film’s conclusion feels contrived, with a blatant setup for a third installment. Hopefully, if a ‘Smile 3’ is inevitable, the creative team will bring fresh ideas and avoid simply retreading familiar ground.
We’re back again with Goosebumps The Vanishing, episode two. A story too big for one episode, apparently.
Or, maybe this is just a nod to the fact that Stay Out Of The Basement was a two-part episode in the original 1995 show. Either way, after seeing this episode, we could have kept it to one.
The story
We begin this second episode with Anthony investigating the parasitic plant taking over his body. Rather than, I don’t know, going to the hospital, he’s decided to phone a colleague and send her some samples from the bulb he pulls out of his arm with a handheld garden trowel.
Meanwhile, Devin is having his own worries. He’s haunted by what he saw in the sewers. So, he gets CJ to go with him to investigate. What they find is more of the tendrils of the plant that dragged him down through the manhole last episode.
Advertisement
I sure would have liked to see more about that.
Instead, we see Devin pivot to flirting with a newly single Frankie. Because teenage hormones I guess.
Meanwhile, Trey is having a terrible day. First, his girlfriend leaves him. Then, Anthony breaks his car window.
Needing a way to deal with his frustration, Trey decides to break into the Brewers’ basement. There, he starts wrecking up the place. Until he meets the plant creature and has an unfortunate accident.
What worked
The big difference between this episode and the last is the increased gross-out factor. This episode had some straight-up cringy moments. From the tendrils waiving from Anthony’s arm to the whole goat he brings home to feed his new pet, this episode was skin-crawling gross in the best way possible.
Advertisement
The series is called Goosebumps, after all.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, that’s where my praise ends. This episode, unlike the last, just wasn’t that great.
To start with, there was a lot of unnecessary drama between characters who are not in danger of being eaten by a plant from the inside out.
I especially disliked the focus on the Frankie/Trey/Devin love triangle.
Now, I don’t hate it. This part of the story adds extra emotional depth to the show. We can see why Trey would be especially incensed by his girlfriend falling for the son of the neighbor he’s feuding with. But it would be more enjoyable if it wasn’t so cliche and dramatic.
Advertisement
I hate the way Trey tried to gaslight Frankie. It makes me dislike him when he should be a sympathetic character. I hate how whiny Devin is every time he talks to Frankie. And I hated the impassioned speech Frankie gives after Devin asks her why she was with Trey.
Listen, I understand what we’re going for here. Devin and Cece are not struggling financially. They’re doing alright, and their new friends here in Gravesend are not. We kind of got that without Frankie claiming that her socioeconomic status is why she’s dating a bully and gaslighter. It felt out of place. It felt like pandering. It certainly didn’t feel like something an eighteen-year-old would say. I hated it.
Finally, there was a moment near the end of the episode that irritated me. I don’t want to give too much detail because I wouldn’t dare ruin an R.L. Stine cliffhanger. But, well, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I get that we’re watching a show about a carnivorous plant that is going to wreak havoc on this family and neighborhood. I understand the suspension of disbelief. Some might even say I am a little too generous with it. So I can buy into a teenager being absorbed by a plant and turned into a monstrous version of himself.
I can’t buy into what happens at the end of this episode. It doesn’t make sense with the rules established. It certainly doesn’t make any sort of scientific or logical sense. It is a lazy moment meant to further the storyline but threatens the structural integrity of the season.
Advertisement
All in all, this wasn’t the best episode of Goosebumps. But it’s only the second episode. Honestly, the season has plenty of time to go either way.
The movie monsters always approach so slowly. Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. It takes forever for them to catch their victims.
Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – It takes forever for them to catch their victims. And yet no one ever seems to get away.
As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… And yet no one ever seems to get away. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it?
Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it? The movie monsters always approach so slowly.
Robot Dance from Jennifer Weigel’s Reversals series
So my father used to enjoy telling the story of Thriller Nite and how he’d scare his little sister, my aunt. One time they were watching the old Universal Studios Monsters version of The Mummy, and he pursued her at a snail’s pace down the hallway in Boris Karloff fashion. Both of them had drastically different versions of this tale, but essentially it was a true Thriller Nite moment. And the inspiration for this poem.