Fifty years ago, Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre exploded into horror history—blunt, brutal, and absolutely unforgettable. Now, a new documentary is digging beneath the screams, the chainsaws, and the sweat-soaked madness to explore just how influential this film has been on the genre and its lasting legacy in horror.

Lightbulb Film Distribution has officially announced the UK & Ireland release of Chain Reactions, a feature-length documentary that explores the cultural scars left behind by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre—arriving on DVD and Digital on October 27.

Directed by Alexandre O. Philippe (Lynch/Oz, The Origins of Alien), Chain Reactions offers a unique look into the creative legacy of one of horror’s most infamous films. Featuring insight from five iconic voices in the genre—Patton Oswalt, Takashi Miike, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, Stephen King, and Karyn Kusama—this is not just a documentary about the making of Chain Saw. It’s a close-up on what it did to us. This isn’t just a film that scared people—it scarred them. Fifty years on, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre still radiates unease like heat off asphalt. It’s not nostalgia—it’s a trauma you return to. A roar in the dark that reshaped horror from the inside out.

Chain Reactions doesn’t treat the film like a relic. It treats it like a saw that’s still revving, unpacking how Hooper’s grindhouse nightmare rewired the genre with rusted metal, human skin, and pure, unapologetic dread. It didn’t modernize horror. It mutilated it—and nothing has been clean since.

With never-before-seen outtakes from the original film and festival credentials that include Venice, BFI, Sitges, MIFF, and Night Visions, expect a documentary that’s as intellectually sharp as the saw itself.

“Chain Reactions takes a deep dive into one of the most significant independent films of all time and is a must-watch for horror fans,” says Lightbulb’s Commercial Director, Matthew Kreuzer. “As a huge fan of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which I first watched on a beaten-up VHS tape, it’s a dream come true to work on this project.”

Check out the trailer for Chain Reactions below and get ready to step back into the madness—and remember why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre might just be one of the most powerful horror films ever made.

The article Chain Reactions Digs Deep Into the Madness Behind The Texas Chain Saw Massacre appeared originally on Horror Facts.

If you’ve never been afraid of something coming out and grabbing you while you’re on the toilet, you soon will be.

Well Canada, get ready to be scared of using the bathroom, as Scared Shitless is about to make sure you never trust a toilet again. This isn’t just another creature feature—it’s the kind of horror-comedy where the monster comes up through the pipes and gets you when you’re most vulnerable.

Directed by Vivieno Caldinelli (Seven Stages to Achieve Eternal Bliss) and written by Brandon Cohen, Scared Shitless is equal parts biological horror, dirty humor, and guaranteed to make you lose control of something when it officially comes to Netflix Canada on October 14.

The film follows a plumber and his germophobic son who get called in to deal with a problem in an apartment building’s pipes… problem being, there’s a genetically engineered, blood-hungry nightmare crawling through the sewer system—and it’s not clogging, it’s consuming.

What begins with bad plumbing turns into full-blown nightmare fuel, as toilet bowls become tunnels from hell and a clogged drain becomes the least of your worries.

The cast includes Steven Ogg (The Walking Dead), Daniel Doheny, Chelsea Clark, and Mark McKinney (Superstore), all trying to survive a building-wide infestation that doesn’t knock before entering and definitely doesn’t care about your renter’s insurance.

Producer Lewis Spring shared this about the project:

“When we set out to create Scared Shitless, we wanted it to be both outrageously funny and genuinely scary. It’s a story that’s as much about facing your fears as it is about surviving a plumber’s worst nightmare. We’re thrilled that Canadian audiences on Netflix will be able to experience the film, and we hope they enjoy it as much as we enjoyed making it.”

Scared Shitless starts streaming in Canada on October 14, just in time to make your Halloween a little messier.

So on October 14, make sure you: Check the pipes. Check the bowl. And whatever you do—don’t sit down.

The article Scared Shitless Is Coming to Netflix Canada – and It Does Not Flush Easy appeared originally on Horror Facts.

It’s been 25 years, and Dogma is finally coming back to the big screen. Not a moment too soon. For years, this movie has been stuck in distribution hell, a legendary piece of cinema that you couldn’t find anywhere without resorting to a grainy bootleg on a hard drive. But now, it’s getting a glorious 4K restoration, a theatrical re-release in the UK and Ireland on November 7th. They’re calling it Dogma: Reesurrected, which, for a movie about fallen angels and the fate of all existence, is a pretty damn good name.

For those of you who weren’t old enough to buy a ticket in 1999 (or were still a gleam in your parents’ eye), Dogma is Kevin Smith’s magnum opus of blasphemy. It’s a road trip movie with a killer cast—Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as two banished angels who are basically the ultimate celestial frat boys. They find a loophole in Catholic dogma that could wipe out all of creation, and it’s up to an abortion clinic worker (Linda Fiorentino) to stop them. Along the way, she picks up a crew that includes a prophet, a muse, the last living relative of Jesus, and Chris Rock as the 13th apostle. Oh, and Alan Rickman as the Voice of God. And George Carlin. And Salma Hayek. It’s a cast so stacked it’s a wonder the whole thing didn’t collapse under its own weight.

But it didn’t collapse. It sparked controversy, got a big middle finger from the Catholic League, and became an instant cult classic. And honestly, that’s exactly what it deserved. Dogma isn’t just a movie about two idiots trying to get back into heaven; it’s a funny, irreverent, and surprisingly heartfelt look at faith, doubt, and belief. It’s the kind of movie that could only be made in the ’90s, and it’s a shame it’s been so hard to watch for so long.

Now, thanks to Vertigo Releasing, you can see it in all its 4K glory. Kevin Smith himself calls this restoration a “resurrection,” and he’s not wrong. It’s a chance for a whole new generation to see this classic the way it was meant to be seen: on a big screen, with a crowd of people who are laughing at the same jokes and probably getting yelled at by some old guy who thinks they’re going to hell.

So mark your calendars for November 7th. Don’t miss your chance to see God’s favorite mess back in cinemas, resurrected and ready to piss off a whole new crowd of uptight critics.

The article God’s Favorite Mess: Kevin Smith’s ‘Dogma’ is Back, and it’s 4K as Hell appeared originally on Horror Facts.

The stench of stale coffee and crushed hope. That’s the real star of this flick. You’ve got three pathetic morons trapped in a shitty diner at 2 AM, and instead of just doing their fucking job, they decide to play detective with some quiet-ass customer. You will spend every minute after their first stupid decision wanting to punch every single one of them. You know what’s coming, and it’s a bloody, glorious trainwreck.

TAKE OUT: A Greasy Spoon Slasher That Serves a Heaping Pile of Stupid

Let’s get one thing straight: Takeout is a Tubi Original. That ain’t a fucking accolade, it’s a warning label. This is the cinematic equivalent of a greasy, lukewarm burger you find on the floor of a gas station bathroom. It’s probably gonna give you something, but you’re too goddamn desperate for a quick fix to care. This ain’t high art, it’s low-rent, single-location bullshit, and thank fuck for that. There’s no pretense here, just a whole lot of bad ideas and enough fake blood to drown a fucking cat.

The premise is so beautifully, brutally simple it makes my head hurt. You’ve got three diner employees who, after a long night of flipping burgers, think playing private eye is a good way to kill time. They’re so bored they’re practically begging for a serial killer to end their miserable lives. You will spend half this movie screaming, “DON’T FUCKING GO IN THERE, YOU IDIOT!” and that, my friends, is the only goddamn point. This flick isn’t about clever twists or a master villain. It’s a slow, agonizing crawl that turns into a frantic, gory sprint. It’s a cheap thrill, and it gets the job done.

The Direction and Performances: More Crap, Less Polish

Jem Garrard, the director, knows exactly what kind of movie she’s making. She’s not trying to reinvent the wheel. She’s just making sure the wheel is covered in blood and spinning as fast as it fucking can. The tight, claustrophobic feel of the diner works, and the camera loves to linger on the dark corners, building a tension that’s way more effective than a lot of other pretentious horror flicks out there.

The cast, a mix of unknowns and who-gives-a-shits, does what they’re paid to do. N’kone Mametja and Deoudoné Pretorius carry the film, but it’s really the dynamic between these three clowns that holds the first half together. Their frantic, bone-headed decisions are what drive the plot forward. You’ll hate them for it, and that’s a testament to the actors for making you care, even if you’re rooting for their swift and painful deaths.

The Theme: A Side of Soul-Crushing Boredom

The real terror here isn’t the killer. It’s the soul-crushing despair of a dead-end fucking job. These kids aren’t hunting a serial killer because they’re heroes. They’re doing it because it’s the most exciting thing to ever happen to them. This whole bloody mess is just a side effect of them being bored out of their fucking minds at 2 AM. It’s a cautionary tale about what happens when a craving for something to do becomes a craving for a bloody grave.

So, is Takeout a masterpiece? Not even close. It drags a bit in the beginning, and you’ll want to punch the main characters at least a dozen times. But as a simple, no-frills slasher, it delivers the goods. It’s the kind of movie you put on when you’re craving a bloody, greasy mess without all the frills.

Sammy’s Final Word

Takeout is a solid, bloody waste of time. Don’t go in expecting the next Hereditary. Go in expecting a stupid, greasy, good time, and you’ll get exactly that. It’s a 5.0/10 on the horror scale. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s exactly what it is, and it doesn’t give a flying fuck what you think.

If you want to watch Takeout you can check it out over on Tubi.

The article Takeout (2025) Tubi Original Review appeared originally on Horror Facts.

By Sammy – HorrorFacts.com’s resident VHS archaeologist, whiskey-soaked nostalgia gremlin, and proud owner of a bootleg copy that still has the original NBC commercial breaks (RIP Gary Coleman)

🎬 INTRO: WHEN NBC THOUGHT A HEADLESS HORSEMAN MOVIE NEEDED A LOVE QUADRANGLE

Listen up, you pumpkin-spice degenerates—we’re diving into The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1980), the made-for-TV abomination that somehow convinced Jeff Goldblum, Meg Foster, and Dick Butkus to share a screen. This isn’t Tim Burton’s gothic nightmare or Disney’s animated classic—oh no. This is the other one. The one where Ichabod Crane is a skeptic (??), Brom Bones is a Chicago Bears linebacker cosplaying as a colonial-era fuckboy, and the Headless Horseman shows up for roughly 30 seconds of screen time.

As someone who once hosted a “Drink Every Time Goldblum Stammered” party (RIP my liver), I’m here to tell you this movie is a beautiful disaster—a tone-deaf, slapstick-infused, snowbound mess that somehow aired on Halloween night alongside Gary Coleman cracking jokes about decapitations.

🌲 THE PLOT: WASHINGTON IRVING’S STORY, BUT WITH 80% MORE DICK BUTKUS

Ichabod Crane (Jeff Goldblum):

• A skeptical schoolteacher (???) who falls off roofs, gets treed by dogs, and delivers Shakespearean quotes to widows who just want to mend his pants.
• Peak Goldblumness™: All stammering, Adam’s apple bobbing, and zero survival instincts.

Brom Bones (Dick Butkus):

• A bullying himbo who hates schoolteachers (but loves Katrina Van Tassel, aka Meg Foster’s hypnotic eyes).
• Spends 90% of the movie failing to scare Ichabod and 10% dressed as the Headless Horseman (badly).

Katrina Van Tassel (Meg Foster):

• The town’s most eligible bachelorette, who somehow falls for Ichabod after he buries her in snow.
• Her chemistry with Goldblum? Nonexistent. Her chemistry with the camera? Electrifying.

The Headless Horseman:

• Barely in the movie.
• Shows up for one chase scene that’s so poorly lit, you’ll wonder if the crew forgot to pay the electric bill 89.

Sammy’s Take:
“It’s like The Andy Griffith Show had a baby with Tales from the Crypt—if the baby was raised by wolves and never taught pacing.”

🔪 WHY THIS MOVIE IS A CINEMATIC CRIME SCENE (AND WE LOVE IT)

1. GOLDBLUM VS. THE SCRIPT

• Plays Ichabod as a clumsy skeptic (the exact opposite of Irving’s superstitious dope) 79.
• Delivers lines like “Parting is such sweet sorrow” to a widow who doesn’t get the reference.
• Reportedly never mentions this film in interviews (smart man).

2. DICK BUTKUS AS BROM BONES

• A former NFL star cosplaying as a colonial-era jock.
• His acting range? “Angry” and “More Angry.”
• Shoutout to the scene where he cradles Goldblum like a baby (???).

3. THE LOVE… QUADRANGLE?

• Ichabod likes Katrina.
• Katrina kinda likes Brom (but also Ichabod?).
• Brom likes Katrina (but also hates Ichabod).
• Thelma Dumkey (a new character) likes Brom (???).
• Result: A romantic subplot so convoluted, it makes Twilight look like Pride and Prejudice.

4. THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN IS A CAMEO

• 30 seconds of screen time.
• No flaming pumpkin.
• No covered bridge chase.
• Just… there. Like a Halloween decoration someone forgot to take down.

5. THE REAL VILLAIN: WINTHROP PALMER

• The previous schoolmaster, who may or may not be a ghost (or just insane?).
• Spends the movie lurking in windows and cackling like a Scooby-Doo villain.

🎃 LEGACY: THE FILM THAT TIME (AND GOOD TASTE) FORGOT

• Aired on NBC in 1980 with Gary Coleman hosting (RIP).
• Critics called it “boring”, “confusing”, and “a waste of Jeff Goldblum”.
• Fans remember it for the VHS cover (Goldblum in a tricorn hat = iconic).

SAMMY’S VERDICT:
*”This isn’t a good adaptation—it’s a time capsule. A weird, snowbound, Goldblum-infused relic of ’80s TV. Watch it for the nostalgia, stay for the moment Dick Butkus growls ‘I hate schoolteachers’ like he’s auditioning for Predator.”*

— Sammy
Currently trying to unsee Dick Butkus in breeches

🔥📺 PS: IF SOMEONE INVITES YOU TO A “HALLOWEEN MOVIE NIGHT” AND PUTS THIS ON… RUN FASTER THAN ICHABOD. 📺🔥

🥃 FIND ME:

• Yelling at my TV during the “food fight” scene
• Live-tweeting my descent into madness @SammyDevil
• Haunting eBay for the original NBC broadcast tapes

Stay spooky. Stay confused. Stay the hell away from Sleepy Hollow. 🔪

The article THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW (1980): JEFF GOLDBLUM, MEG FOSTER, AND A HEADLESS HORSEMAN WHO CLEARLY DIDN’T GET THE MEMO appeared originally on Horror Facts.

There are certain rules you must follow if you plan on surviving a horror movie. These aren’t suggestions—they’re essential guidelines you need to follow if you ever hope to make it to the end of the film among the living.

Stray from these rules, and it’s a safe bet you’ll just end up as another nameless camper, wild teenager, or forgettable friend rounding out the killer’s body count.

So be warned—and follow these instructions carefully—because your life depends on it.

Rule #1: If you’re getting laid, you’re getting slayed.

If you had sex in a horror movie, congratulations—you’re dead.
If you sold your virginity for a six-pack and a weekend in the woods, well—thanks for showing up. Sorry your role was so short.

The second someone strips down and gets under the sheets, it might as well be the sheet they’re going to place over your body at the morgue, because if you do the deed, prepare to bleed.
We all know horror is synonymous with its response to sin—it sniffs it out, stomps on it, and usually plants an axe in its chest.

And don’t give us that “times have changed” line. Final Girls might party now, but the sex-to-body-bag ratio hasn’t improved.
Because sex in horror isn’t just taboo—it’s a death sentence. The moment you unzip your pants or pop off your top, your number’s up.

Rule #2: If you’re the Final Girl’s boyfriend, start saying your goodbyes.

If you’re in a situation where all your friends start dying around you, and you suddenly realize you’re dating the most wholesome girl in town—then it’s time to start seeing other people.

Because you’re not dating a person. You’re dating a horror plot device. She’s the Final Girl. And you? If you think you’re going to survive this horror story—I hate to break it to you—you won’t.

Best-case scenario: you get a dramatic death scene. Worst-case? You become part of her trauma arc and no one even remembers your name by the sequel.

Now, there’s always a chance that if you’re dating the Final Girl, you might be the killer. Either way, you’re not going to survive.

Rule #3: The killer never dies the first time. Ever.

This should be one of the most important rules to follow in horror—because if we know anything, it’s this: the killer never dies the first time.

You can shoot them, stab them, electrocute them, burn them alive, run them over with their own getaway car, drop them off a rooftop, and even impale them on a fence post—guess what? They’re not dead. They’ll be back in the next scene, looking even more pissed off and now somehow immune to physics.

Because horror villains aren’t people. They don’t bleed out. They don’t expire. They respawn.

These things don’t die when they’re killed. They die when the runtime ends—and even then, you’re looking at a post-credit jump scare, a sequel tease, or a reboot in five years where someone finds their mask and says, “He was never gone.”

Lesson here? Never assume it’s over. Always double-tap. Triple if needed. And maybe—just maybe—don’t slow-walk away in dramatic lighting while you cry into your own relief. That’s how you earn a knife in the spine… again.

Rule #4: If you’re in a horror movie, the car won’t start.

Everybody knows car keys don’t work in horror movies. Either you can’t get the car unlocked in time, or when you finally slide into the driver’s seat with shaky hands and a prayer—the engine’s dead.

No clicks. No turnover. Just silence, followed by the sound of your inevitable demise closing in.

Because that would be too easy, wouldn’t it? If you managed to drive off and leave the killer in your rear-view mirror, safely behind you while you barrel down a dark highway toward freedom—what’s the fun in that? There’s no suspense in functioning transportation.

And let’s just say by some miracle it does manage to start? You’ll swerve off the road. Or slam into a conveniently placed tree. Or hit the one pothole in the world that folds your tire like paper. Or better yet—that same killer will already be in the backseat. Waiting.

Horror cars don’t save you. They delay you. They lull you into thinking you might survive. They bait you into pressing the gas right before something bursts through the window and drags you out.

So the next time you run for your car in a horror movie, just know: you’re not escaping. You’re entering your aluminum tomb. It’s not an exit. It’s just a coffin with leather seats.

Rule #5: “Yes, absolutely. Run upstairs.” Said no one with a functioning brain.

There is a killer in the house. You are not armed. The front door is open. And yet—congrats, you chose stairs. Why? Because some part of your brain decided, let’s go up instead of out.

Running upstairs is one of horror’s dumbest and oldest clichés. You don’t gain ground—you trap yourself. Now it’s you, a couple of bedroom doors, and one flimsy bathroom lock. Good luck fighting off Jason with a curling iron.

And we all know how this ends: with you climbing out a window onto the roof and either dangling off the gutter or sliding off the edge.

Either way, enjoy your broken ankle.

Rule #6: Say “I’ll be right back” and that’s the last we’ll see of you.

This crucial and vital rule comes courtesy of Randy, our horror aficionado in Scream.

The second someone utters this death curse of a line, they might as well call it a wrap on breathing—because as we all know, unlike Arnold, you won’t be back.

There’s a good chance you’ll wander off into some dark and isolated place like the garage, the basement, or worse—go outside. Either way, this is the last time anyone’s going to see you alive.

So go ahead. Say the words. Foreshadow your own death. Because if you can’t follow this simple rule… it’s probably because you’ve never seen a single horror movie.

Rule #7: That strange noise? Let it kill someone else.

You know something’s out there. You know there’s a killer on the loose. And yet—for some reason—someone hears a strange noise outside, or an eerily haunting voice drifting up from the clearly haunted basement, and still says the words:
“I’m going to check it out.”

What are you doing? You’re not Freddy from Scooby-Doo. You don’t need to investigate.

Checking out weird noises in a horror movie is like everything else on this list: a sure-fire way to become the next addition to the body count. You’re not being brave. You’re being bait.

So, the next time you hear something—don’t go looking. Be the one who turns around, locks the door, and gets the hell out of there.

If you’re hearing growling from the attic, assume Satan’s already subletting.

Rule #8: If your partner’s haunted… congratulations, you’re now single.

If your partner foolishly decides to bring home a cursed heirloom they found at an estate sale, starts watching blurry VHS tapes alone in the dark, or strange scratches start appearing all over their body—face the facts. They’re either cursed, or they’re about to be possessed.

And guess what? You don’t help them. You ditch them.

Haunting is contagious. You’ll either be next or wind up as their first victim when they go full Linda Blair on you.

You saw Paranormal Activity. You know what happened to the guy who stuck around after learning his girlfriend was being stalked by a demon—yeah, he died.

So if your significant other suddenly starts speaking in tongues?
Dump them and run.
Because this isn’t a rom-com.
It’s a horror movie.
And you’re next, lover.

Rule #9: Why hide… when it’s called cardio?

When someone is chasing you—through the streets, through the woods—why are you stopping?
Hiding isn’t how you survive. It’s how you become the next person stapled to the obituary wall.

Because let’s be honest—we’ve all seen horror movies. How many of these psychos are even running? Half of them do that slow mall power-walk thing.
And yet somehow… they always catch you.

Why? Because you either barricaded yourself in a closet to sob quietly, or you’re outside frantically pounding on someone’s door, hoping someone inside will come to your rescue.

Then comes the game: trying to mask your breathing, praying you don’t make a sound, sweating through your soul while the killer stands on the other side of the thin door you chose as shelter.
And spoilers: they always find you. Always.

So just like Zombieland taught us—first rule?
Cardio over cowardice.
Because running won’t always save you…
…but hiding never will.

Rule #10: Never. And this cannot be stressed enough… go to a cabin in the woods.

If you find yourself in a remote cabin in the woods, I want you to look around and take in your surroundings—because that’s where you’re going to die.

No good ever comes out of staying at an isolated cabin. The only thing guaranteed is that, one by one, all you happy campers are going to get picked off—either by whatever demon inhabits the walls, or the backwoods cannibals that live in those woods.

Because nothing good comes from packing up for the weekend and heading to a place where your phone doesn’t work, there’s no one around for miles, and you passed the last gas station with a phone about thirty minutes ago.

So, you’re not going on a retreat.
It’s a slaughterhouse with booking fees.

Rule #11: Why go back? No seriously… WHY go back?

You barely escaped with your life, but suddenly you start growing a conscience.
Your friends are back there. You got away. They didn’t.

But instead of celebrating the fact that you outran death itself, you decide you need to go back and rescue them single-handedly.
Because clearly, you did so well the first time around.

If you go back, best case—you get caught, and now you’re not saving anyone.
Worst case? That sweet taste of freedom you had is replaced by the copper taste of your own blood filling your mouth.

You don’t go back.
You don’t look back.
Because that’s where the killer is.

Rule #12: Listen to the creepy gas station guy. He’s right. Always.

Whether it’s a creepy-looking dude at a gas station—one eye, four teeth, and smells like something already died—or some wise old woman who’s seen everything that goes on in this town, either way, the moment they give you an ominous warning like “Bad things happen up there,” take the hint.

Quit the road trip. That’s horror telling you to make a U-turn.

No one ever says, “Beware that Days Inn.”
You know what they do tell you is haunted? That old camp where a bunch of kids were killed the year before. That abandoned farmhouse. The crumbling church in the middle of nowhere.

Do you know why?
Because they are.

So the next time someone tells you not to go there—because there’s a death curse—don’t go there.
This isn’t hard, people.
Just avoid the places where people are being murdered.

Rule #13: Go Ahead. Be the Hero. See How That Works Out.

You know who gets killed in every horror movie? The hero.
No, seriously—the person who jumps in to save the day, and foolishly shouts “Go! I’ll hold them off!”

The only thing you’re doing is giving that person enough time to get away while the killer makes you their next victim.
Because that’s all that’s going to happen.

And let’s be honest—this is horror, not a rescue mission. You’re not being selfless. You’re being stupid. You’ll charge into the fray with only your false bravado and sense of nobility while the killer’s holding an axe. Guess who’s walking away from that?

So, if you hear blood-curdling screams coming from outside, you do not need to check it out.
You do not need to investigate.
You do not need to prove how brave you are.

The hero never survives the credits.
You don’t die a hero. You just die.

Survival in a horror film is never guaranteed—but making stupid decisions and breaking these rules? That guarantees something else entirely. It guarantees you’ll end up as another nameless face in some masked psychopath’s kill count. Whether it’s your blood on the cabin walls or your body left in the woods for someone else to find, the result is the same: you didn’t listen.

You don’t get points for effort. Horror doesn’t care if you meant well. It doesn’t care if you were the nice one, or the smart one, or the one who “was just trying to help.”
It only cares if you followed the rules.

So if you find yourself thrown into a blood-soaked story with no way out…
remember what’s waiting at the end for the ones who ignore the warnings.

Just try to stay alive long enough to be part of the ending credits.
Good luck. You’re going to need it.
And most importantly—follow your own rules.

The article The Rules You Must Follow to Survive a Horror Movie appeared originally on Horror Facts.

You know the story.
The slow-moving van. No windows. Just pure menace on four wheels.

The Man in the White Van takes one of the oldest suburban legends—the kind most people outgrow—and stretches it into a tense, quiet thriller based on actual events. There are no jump scares, no masked killers. Just dread. A Florida town. And a girl who knows something’s wrong long before anyone believes her.

This one doesn’t sprint. It creeps.
And if you’re not paying attention, you won’t notice it’s parked outside your house until it’s already too late.

Spoilers Below

If you’re still the kind of person who checks the rearview mirror every time a white van pulls up behind you… this review’s for you.

The Man in the White Van opens with a chilling message. The year is 1970, and we see a woman walking to her car and take off, as a white van slowly follows in pursuit. Pulling over for only a moment, before you can yell “lock your doors,” she’s gone in an instant—proving that this van isn’t content to just lure you inside. The man in this van takes what he wants.

The story picks up in Florida in 1975 with Annie, a teenage girl who doesn’t fit into her mother’s idea of “proper.” Annie is the type to say what she thinks, and would rather spend her time riding horses than doing the same things as her older sister Margaret.

Along with being different from her sister, Annie also has a tendency to embellish the truth—often just enough that no one really believes her when it matters. Which becomes a problem. Because someone’s watching her.

The van—the same one we’ve seen lurking around since the opening—starts showing up in Annie’s life. First at the gas station. Then at school. Then parked outside her house. Annie knows something’s wrong. But her parents don’t buy it. Her sister just thinks she’s being dramatic. And nearly everyone else? Completely useless.

Between flashes of other years—other girls—and the slow unraveling of Annie’s day-to-day life, the tension builds to something less like a teenage fantasy and more like the icy hand of death slowly tightening the noose. And as Annie starts to figure out the van isn’t going away, the people around her start realizing she might not be making it up after all.

From there, things escalate. The van gets closer. The watching gets bolder. And Annie ends up fighting for far more than just recognition.

What starts as small-town paranoia becomes something real. It’s not a story. It’s not in her head. It’s just waiting for the right moment to strike.

And when it does? Annie and those around her will learn that sometimes that vehicle behind you, really is following you.

The Man in the White Van is a very loose adaptation of the true story of serial killer Billy Mansfield Jr., who was discovered to have been active in Florida in the mid-’70s.

Despite being based on a true story, this film is very sparse on any real details.

The film tries to build suspense at times—having Annie stalked by this mysterious white van—but for a movie about a killer, it really does feel more like Attack of the Slowly Creeping Van. It shows up. It watches her. It doesn’t do much else for a while.

In the flashbacks inserted throughout the film, we see the killer abduct his victims with brutal efficiency. But with Annie, suddenly he’s content to take days. Slowly stalking. Constantly watching. This aspect of the slow burn does work well to build tension. But these moments are often undermined by too many fake-outs. Why build suspense only to immediately let the air out?

Still, the tension continues to rise. The killer gets bolder. The van gets closer. And even when the momentum falters, the film finds its footing again.

Where The Man in the White Van spends its time—and wisely so—is building Annie’s character. She’s an outsider in her own home, different from her family, uninterested in conforming. Through that lens, the story roots us in her perspective. A girl being watched by something no one else believes is real. That quiet fear is the heart of this film.

Ali Larter and Sean Astin, on the other hand, bring very little to the overall story outside of falling into the standard “don’t believe your kid” parental stereotypes. They’re here. They add weight. But they’re not doing much heavy lifting.

So yes—it takes its time. The story stumbles and walks more than it sprints, shambling along like a slow-moving killer. But when the burn finally comes to a boil, the tension is palpable. You feel Annie fighting for her life.

The problem is… the killer isn’t exactly terrifying. Even with all the dread and build-up, he comes off surprisingly inept. It’s hard to fear someone who gets taken down that easily.

Despite this, when Annie’s life is truly on the line, the film pays off. Slowly. But enough. We care about her because we’ve been walking beside her the whole time. And while Margaret spends most of the film being easy to hate, once the sisters are locked in a battle for survival, that dynamic shifts in the right way.

When the horror shows up, though, it still hits lite. You’re bracing for something brutal—it’s been building to it—but when it arrives, it’s underwhelming. Mostly because the end sequence resolves faster than it should’ve. And the killer? He literally just stands in the path of a moving vehicle.

And don’t even get me started on the police response time. That might have been the most unrealistic part of the whole movie. It felt like the cop showed up seconds after someone picked up the phone.

The ending tries to tie things into what’s actually known about the real-life case—showing one of Mansfield’s documented victims, and the raid on his property during the credits. That part hits.

But for a movie about a serial killer? It feels lite. A slow burn that simmers for most of its runtime, finally starts to boil—and then immediately shuts the stove off.

This silent stalker on wheels creeps onto DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital September 29th, from Kaleidoscope Entertainment.

The article The Man in the White Van Knows Where You Live—But Doesn’t Rush to Get There appeared originally on Horror Facts.

Love can make a person do crazy things.

But what if that person was already fitted for a straitjacket instead of a tux?

In the new horror-comedy Borderline, starring Samara Weaving, we see what happens when someone will literally do anything to be with the woman of their dreams—even if it means stalking, kidnapping, and forcing her to marry them.

Be warned: this is no rom-com.
It’s what happens when love becomes obsession.
A film filled with wedding vows, hallucinations, and an RSVP to absolute madness.

Spoilers Below:
You’ve been warned.
Now make sure you’ve got something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue—and if you have any objections… speak now or forever hold your peace.

Borderline opens at what appears to be the end of this whirlwind “love” story. We see Sofia happily marrying her stalker, Paul—leaving us to question and wonder, how in the hell did this just happen? Did crazy really get the girl? Is this more of a Stockholm syndrome situation?

But this is only a glimpse into the messed-up future.
So if this is the end, let’s see how we get there.

We’re taken back to the beginning of the story, where we’re properly introduced to Paul—the film’s resident stalker and psychopath. A man who believes Sofia, the multi-talented actress and singer, is in a relationship with him. A man who is clearly deranged.

And it doesn’t take us long to learn that this crazy is also dangerous. Paul shows up at Sofia’s place to profess his undying love… by asking for her hand in marriage. Is this our meet-cute moment? Or is it the moment we realize Paul isn’t just delusional—he’s violent?

Because in an act of full-blown insanity, he stabs Sofia’s bodyguard, Bell, then casually makes himself at home inside her mansion. After all, in his mind… he already lives there.

Cut to six months later. Sofia is now dating Rhodes, a professional basketball player—who, we later learn, unbeknownst to him, is actually a pawn in a twisted behind-the-scenes Hollywood deal. And to make matters worse? He wasn’t even the first choice.

At the same time, we’re hit with the revelation that Bell survived the attack and is now coming back to work. And if you needed more proof that Paul was a different brand of broken—we also learn that he called the cops on himself that night.

It might look like everyone’s lives are getting back to normal. But really? It’s the calm before the storm.

Because Paul has escaped the Mental Hospital he’s been safely locked away in for the past six months.
And this time… he didn’t come alone.

He managed to break out with fellow patient Penny Dorson—a woman who might actually be more dangerous than Paul. And together, along with a third accomplice, J.H., the three of them are plotting to give Paul his happy ending.

But before they can do that, all the players need to be in place. After all, you can’t have a wedding without a bride or a complete wedding party. And you definitely can’t have a ceremony without someone to officiate.

So, the plan is simple: make the guest list, eliminate the obstacles, and kiss the bride—whether she wants to or not.

That means breaking into Sofia’s—again, this time holding her hostage—by a deranged Penny, who seems more hell-bent on doing a duet with her than actually seeing her marry Paul. That also means kidnapping Bell and his family, and a poor, unsuspecting priest.

In the process, we learn that Paul’s obsession started years ago—during a Sofia concert where his girlfriend collapsed and died. From that night forward, he didn’t just see Sofia as a crush. He saw her as replacement. Delusion, grief, and obsession all rolled into one nightmare no one saw coming.

And if things weren’t twisted enough? Paul is so far gone down the rabbit hole that he starts seeing everyone as Sofia—including Rhodes.

So, when the ceremony starts, who will be in attendance? Who will be standing up at the altar? And after both parties say “I do,” who will be left alive to throw the confetti?

Because this is certainly going to be one hell of a wedding—where the words “till death do us part” take on a whole new meaning.

When one sees Samara Weaving’s name on a title card, it’s safe to assume at this point you know this movie is about to be batshit crazy, and you know no one is coming out clean or with their sanity—if they even survive at all.

We’ve seen it in her films—Mayhem, Guns Akimbo, Ready or Not, even The Babysitter.

So when writer/director Jimmy Warden—the same twisted mind behind Cocaine Bear and The Babysitter: Killer Queen—needed a lead to carry this brand of chaos, there’s no better person to turn to than his wife, Samara Weaving, the queen of insane horror comedies.

The only issue with Borderline and this brand of crazy is that it feels like the film steps on the gas early… but never floors it.

Early on, the energy is unpredictable—in a good way. Mostly thanks to Ray Nicholson, who plays Paul Duerson like he’s this close to stepping into full American Psycho territory. It’s crazy hiding behind a smile, and it’s working.

But following that, it’s like the film is trying to save its gas. It’s not idling, it’s still driving at insane speeds, but something about it takes the edge off—and I feel that’s largely due to Samara Weaving, who delivers a different approach than we’re used to. She plays a role that is not suited for her, and it’s only later in the film when Samara rips off this almost egotistical persona and lets loose that the film hits its stride. It’s like, why would you cage something you know can go full boar? And by the time you let it out, the film’s more than three-quarters done.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its moments where the chaos spikes—usually anytime Penny (Alba Baptista) is on screen. She makes Paul’s crazy seem dull in comparison. It’s clear she gets the assignment. It’s a film about a stalker trying to marry his obsession—give me insanity.

Which she brings in spades. Whether it’s attacking a security guard, kidnapping a priest, or—in a real WTF moment—breaking out into a duet with Weaving to sing a Meat Loaf song. It’s also her insanity that brings out the best performance in Weaving. To the point it becomes “I would rather watch a movie about these two” over Paul.

Where the film stumbles hardest is in how far it lets Paul fall. His obsession with Sofia becomes so detached from reality that he starts seeing everyone as her—including Rhodes—while not even recognizing the actual Sofia.

While admittedly this does make for some funny scenes at the wedding (like him telling her, “Ma’am, I need you to sit down, this isn’t your day”), this moment is ridiculous by design—played for laughs, and while it mostly works, it also strips the character of some narrative punch.

And that’s the problem—this movie could have gone way further off the rails. It hints at it. It teases it. But it rarely turns the dial all the way up. With the exception of Penny, it coasts on crazy.

Now, to be fair—maybe that’s intentional.

Borderline is loosely based on the real-life Madonna stalking case from the ’90s, during which a stalker threatened to kill her if she didn’t marry him. And taking that into consideration… yeah, that tracks.

Especially since Rhodes is clearly giving off Dennis Rodman vibes. I mean, hell—the dude literally has yellow hair like Rodman used to sport, and at times, he’s wearing women’s clothing—including a wedding dress.

Either way—whether it was designed to live in a version of reality or just didn’t have the ability to turn the dial all the way up—Borderline is still a film that will leave you spiraling down the aisle.

It’s stupid. It’s absurd.
And it’s packed with just enough WTF moments to make it the kind of movie you absolutely want to watch with friends. The more, the better.

So while this is unlikely to be the movie you remember Samara Weaving getting married in, it sure as hell needs to be on your list somewhere. So make sure you RSVP to this wedding and bring your plus one—because this is one wedding bouquet you’re going to want to catch.

Borderline is currently available on iTunes, Amazon, Google, Rakuten, and Sky Store.

The article RSVP to Madness: Borderline Is One Hell of a Wedding Invitation appeared originally on Horror Facts.

The Unholy Alliance of Myth and Money

Let’s get one thing straight: the names Ed and Lorraine Warren are now cultural bedrock, permanently etched into the global psyche. They aren’t just figures from a few dusty case files; they’re the architects of a modern mythos, a ghost-hunting power couple whose work was as much a spiritual crusade as it was a shrewd business venture. The New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR), which they founded in 1952, was touted as the oldest ghost-hunting organization in the region, a claim that helped establish their credentials from the jump.¹ Ed, a self-proclaimed demonologist, and Lorraine, a self-described clairvoyant, positioned themselves as devoutly Catholic heroes locked in a never-ending spiritual war against a world of malevolent entities.¹ They weren’t just investigating; they were fighting evil, one case at a time, for the sake of innocent families.⁴

This isn’t a fan letter; it’s a deep dive. This report rips back the curtain on the sensational stories to reveal a complex history built on belief, skepticism, and a genius for public relations. Their case files, once the fodder of local tabloids, have since been transformed into a globally recognized cinematic universe that’s grossed billions.⁵ This transformation begs a crucial question: How did a handful of controversial case files become the foundation of a modern media empire?

The timing of their rise was anything but coincidental. The 1970s exploded with a fascination for the occult, largely thanks to the monster success of the novel and film The Exorcist.⁸ Suddenly, the public had a ravenous appetite for “real-life” horror. The Warrens, with their established brand, stepped into the spotlight and delivered. They offered a narrative that spoke directly to a world hungry for tales of spiritual evil, framing demonic possession as a tangible threat and a grim warning for a secular society. They were masters of media engagement, turning press conferences and book deals into a feedback loop that solidified their status as paranormal authorities.⁹ The Warrens weren’t just lucky; they were commercially savvy, strategically capitalizing on a burgeoning market for a very specific kind of ghost story.

The Battle for the Narrative: The Smurl Haunting and Its Cinematic Retelling

The Smurl Case: A Deep Dive into a Troubled History

The alleged haunting of the Smurl family in West Pittston, Pennsylvania, provides a perfect case study for understanding the deep criticisms leveled against the Warrens and their methods. The Smurls—Jack, Janet, their four daughters, and Jack’s parents—claimed to be at the mercy of supernatural forces between 1974 and 1989.¹⁷ Their ordeal allegedly began with minor phenomena like doors opening on their own and foul odors, but it quickly escalated to a terrifying ordeal.¹⁵ The family claimed they were tormented by physical and sexual assaults by an unseen entity, with incidents including their 75-pound German shepherd being thrown against a wall and a daughter being pushed down a flight of stairs.¹⁷ Jack Smurl also claimed a succubus entered the living room and raped him while a baseball game played on the TV.¹⁹

The Warrens were called to investigate in 1986, where they concluded the family was being tormented by four entities: a harmless elderly woman, a young, violent girl, a man who had died on the property, and a “very powerful” demon that used the other spirits to terrify the family.¹⁷ According to Ed Warren, the demon targeted the Smurls because they were “The Chosen,” meaning people who were specifically picked by demons to be haunted.²⁰

The sensational claims were met with immediate skepticism. Professor Paul Kurtz, chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), labeled the story a “hoax, a charade, a ghost story”.¹¹ Kurtz also pointed to a less dramatic, more grounded explanation: Jack Smurl’s medical history.⁹ Jack had undergone brain surgery in 1983 to remove fluid, a procedure linked to a past bout with meningitis that left him with “short-term memory loss” and other “cognitive impairments”.¹¹ Psychologists noted that people often turn to demonology as an explanation for the tensions in their lives.¹⁷ The Smurl family’s decision to decline a recommendation from Kurtz that they undergo psychiatric exams only fueled the suspicions of a hoax.⁹ Moreover, a priest who spent two nights at the house reported that “nothing unusual happened” during his stay, and when the Smurls moved out in 1988, the next tenant stated she “never encountered anything supernatural while living there”.¹⁷

Despite claiming to be exhausted and tired of the constant media bombardment, the Smurl family, along with the Warrens and journalist Robert Curran, co-authored a paperback book version of their story titled The Haunted just months after the media circus began.¹⁷ The book was criticized by reviewers for being one-sided and poorly written.¹⁷

The Hollywood Treatment: The Conjuring: Last Rites

As the final mainline installment of the Conjuring franchise, The Conjuring: Last Rites is based on the alleged Smurl haunting.¹⁵ The film centers on the family in a fictionalized version of West Pittston, Pennsylvania.¹⁵ However, the film is not a documentary but a piece of entertainment that “blend[s] fact with horror storytelling”.⁸ A director noted that the creative priority was to give the fictional Ed and Lorraine Warren a “proper series sendoff”.⁸

This dramatic re-telling takes significant liberties with the real case by adding fictional elements for heightened terror.¹⁶ For example, the film introduces a cursed mirror that follows the family and is connected to a previous Warrens’ investigation from 1964.²⁴ In the film, a light fixture falls on a daughter, another vomits shards of glass and blood, and a character named Father Gordon dies by suicide after being attacked by a demon, none of which happened in the real case.²⁴ The film also features the Warrens’ daughter, Judy, as a psychic who helps conclude the case, a plot point that has no basis in the real-life haunting.¹⁷

A Pattern of Controversy: Other Case Files

The Warrens’ rise to international fame was built upon a handful of other high-profile cases, many of which have been heavily disputed or outright debunked.

• Annabelle: The story of the Raggedy Ann doll, which the Warrens claimed was manipulated by an “inhuman presence,” served as a foundational narrative for their brand.¹ However, the account was reportedly “refuted by eyewitnesses, investigations and forensic evidence”.¹ The true nature of the events remains a subject of debate, but the Warrens’ sensationalized narrative is the one that has endured.
• The Amityville Horror: This case is arguably the most famous example of a Warrens-endorsed haunting that has been widely discredited. While the Warrens “defended [the story] as genuine for many years,” a lawyer named William Weber confessed in 1979 that he, author Jay Anson, and the occupants of the home “invented the horror story over many bottles of wine”.¹ Further debunking came from forensic investigations that found no evidence for claims such as cloven hoof prints in the snow, as no snow had fallen on the night in question.¹²
• The Enfield Poltergeist: The cinematic portrayal of this case suggests the Warrens played a central role, but critics and a parapsychologist who investigated the events alongside the Warrens, Guy Lyon Playfair, claim they were involved “to a far lesser degree than portrayed in the movie”.¹ Playfair stated that the couple “turned up once” uninvited and were even refused admittance to the home.¹ He also claims that Ed Warren saw the case as a potential financial windfall, telling him “the Warrens could make a lot of money…out of the case”.¹
• The Snedeker Case: The Snedeker family haunting, a story about a former funeral home infested with demons, provides a definitive point of fact in the debate over the Warrens’ credibility. Horror author Ray Garton, who wrote the account of the case, publicly questioned the veracity of his own book.¹ He stated that the family, who were dealing with serious problems like alcoholism and drug addiction, “couldn’t agree” on the details of the story, forcing him to invent dialogue and fictionalize the narrative to create a cohesive account.¹ Garton’s admission serves as a powerful refutation of the Warrens’ claim that the Snedeker case was a “true story” and provides a clear example of how their “investigations” were, at times, based on fabricated accounts.

The Warrens’ Methodology and the Skeptical Counterpoint

The Warrens’ approach to paranormal investigation, as described in their own accounts and by others, relied heavily on subjective and non-empirical methods. A central component was Lorraine’s self-professed clairvoyance, a psychic ability she used to perceive spiritual presences and assess the nature of a haunting.² For the Warrens, her “readings” were a form of evidence in and of themselves. Their organization, the New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR), is characterized by critics as a “research” body in name only, as its methods were not those of genuine scientific inquiry.¹⁴

According to skeptical investigators who examined their work, the Warrens’ process was driven by a “predetermined conclusion which they adhere to, literally and religiously”.¹ When confronted with a case, their immediate assumption was that the activity was of a demonic nature. Lorraine Warren herself articulated this worldview, stating that skeptics like Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella failed to understand their work because “they don’t base anything on a God”.¹ This statement reveals a fundamental conflict: the Warrens’ methodology was not a dispassionate search for truth but an effort to reinforce a specific spiritual and religious worldview.

The current iteration of the NESPR, now led by their son-in-law Tony Spera and daughter Judy Spera, continues this legacy, maintaining the Warrens’ faith-based approach to paranormal research.¹³ This perpetuation of a non-scientific methodology underscores the fundamental incompatibility between the Warrens’ brand of spiritual inquiry and the principles of empirical evidence.

A significant challenge to the Warrens’ credibility comes from the detailed investigations of scientific skeptics. In 1997, the New England Skeptical Society (NESS), led by Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella, examined the Warrens’ evidence and concluded that it was “all blarney”.¹ Their analysis, based on a tour of the Warrens’ museum and a review of their evidence, revealed a consistent pattern of misinterpretation and a failure to consider alternative explanations.

The NESS provided a structured refutation of the Warrens’ purported physical evidence. They found that the couple’s photographic “proof” consisted largely of light anomalies and hazy blobs that were easily explained by common photographic artifacts. These include “flashback” (the reflection of a camera flash on the lens), light diffraction, and the “camera cord effect,” where a camera cord or strap reflects the flash, creating the appearance of a ghostly apparition.¹ The NESS was able to reproduce these effects, demonstrating a clear and repeatable natural explanation for the Warrens’ alleged “ghosts”.¹⁴

Similarly, a video the Warrens claimed showed a man “dematerializing” was analyzed by a professional video company and found to be a simple “wipe” effect, created by stopping and resuming the camcorder’s recording.¹⁴ The NESS concluded that the Warrens and similar groups support a pseudoscience that begins with an a priori assumption of the paranormal and dismisses all naturalistic explanations without genuine investigation.¹⁴

The Challenge of Anecdotal Evidence

Beyond the photographic and video evidence, the vast majority of the Warrens’ work was supported by eyewitness testimony and personal stories. They were known to be captivating storytellers who had a “ton of fish stories about evidence that got away”.¹ While compelling from a narrative perspective, such accounts are not considered reliable by the scientific community.

The unreliability of anecdotal evidence stems from the fallibility of human memory and perception. A scientific counter-explanation for many paranormal experiences is the phenomenon of hypnagogia, a state of consciousness that occurs during the transition from wakefulness to sleep.¹⁴ Hypnagogic hallucinations can include feelings of pressure on the chest and body paralysis, which some individuals might interpret as a demonic attack or sexual assault.¹⁴ This was offered as a possible explanation for some of Jack Smurl’s claims, a phenomenon Ed Warren appeared to be unaware of at the time.¹⁴ The reliance on stories, rather than on independently verifiable facts, exposes a key weakness in the Warrens’ methodology and demonstrates a preference for a compelling narrative over a factual one.

From Case File to Cinematic Universe

The Business of Haunting

The most significant component of the Warrens’ legacy is their transformation from local tabloid figures into the foundation of a media juggernaut. This shift was fueled by the multi-billion dollar success of The Conjuring universe. The franchise has grossed a combined $2.5 billion against a total budget of $263 million, establishing itself as the highest-grossing horror franchise in history.⁵ The staggering financial figures provide a compelling case for the causal link between the Warrens’ storytelling and their enduring cultural status. The following table illustrates the financial performance of key films in the franchise.

The Conjuring Universe as a Myth-Making Machine

The films are not documentaries but a carefully crafted narrative designed to elevate the Warrens’ status as heroic spiritual warriors. A producer for the films has acknowledged that they “blend fact with horror storytelling,” and a director noted that their priority was to give the fictional Warrens a “proper series sendoff”.¹⁵ This means that the cinematic universe selectively uses and reframes the Warrens’ cases, often exaggerating their involvement or creating entirely fictional plot points.¹ For example, the films portray them as the central figures in the Enfield case, despite the documented fact that their role was minor and uninvited.¹ This artistic license transforms the Warrens from controversial investigators into beloved pop culture icons.⁴

The financial success of this cinematic narrative has created a powerful feedback loop. The profitability of the films provides the resources to produce more, which in turn introduces their “true stories” to a new, broader audience. This audience is often more receptive to the heroic, polished narrative presented on screen than to the debunking literature.⁵ The Warrens, therefore, win the public relations battle, and their legacy becomes defined not by the scientific community but by the entertainment industry. The truth becomes secondary to the franchise’s profitability.

Legacy, Allegations, and Enduring Questions

Contradictions of Character

The Warrens’ public image as a devoutly religious and pious Catholic couple is starkly contradicted by serious personal allegations. In 2017, Judith Penney accused Ed Warren of a 40-year sexual relationship that began when she was a minor, at age 15.¹ Penney further claimed that when she became pregnant, Lorraine Warren persuaded her to have an abortion, arguing that a public scandal could “ruin the Warrens’ business”.¹

These claims stand in direct opposition to the Warrens’ carefully curated image. Further supporting the contention that they were image-conscious, Lorraine had a contractual clause written into her film deal with New Line Cinema stipulating that she and Ed could not be shown “engaging in crimes, including sex with minors… or sexual assault”.¹ This contractual demand reveals that the Warrens’ brand was not founded on objective truth but on a carefully managed, commercially viable narrative, and that their public relations strategy required them to actively prevent the public from learning about damaging information.

The “Transcendental Temptation”

The persistence of belief in the paranormal, despite overwhelming debunking evidence, can be understood through the philosophical concept of the “transcendental temptation,” coined by Paul Kurtz.³ This idea suggests that humans have a natural inclination toward “magical thinking” and supernatural explanations for the unexplainable. The Warrens masterfully capitalized on this temptation by offering simple, spiritual explanations (demons) for complex, often tragic human problems that may have had medical, psychological, or socioeconomic roots.⁸ Horror author Grady Hendrix noted that the Warrens, with “no training and no clinical background,” would “tell you it’s a demon, and walk away with book and movie contracts,” providing a convenient explanation that bypassed more difficult, and less profitable, truths.⁸

An Enduring Influence

Despite the widespread criticism and allegations, the Warrens’ influence on modern pop culture is undeniable. Their stories have become a staple of the horror genre, influencing ghost-hunting culture and introducing the concept of “spiritual warfare” to a new generation of filmmakers and audiences.⁴ The massive commercial success of

The Conjuring universe has ensured that the Warrens’ brand of spiritual investigation, regardless of its factual basis, will continue to be told and retold, solidifying their place as enduring figures in American popular culture.

A Final Assessment

In synthesizing the evidence, it becomes clear that the legacy of Ed and Lorraine Warren is less a testament to provable paranormal phenomena and more a masterclass in media relations, commercial savvy, and the power of narrative. Their success hinged on their ability to provide a compelling, supernatural explanation for events that often had more mundane, and tragic, real-world explanations. The contrast between their unwavering claims of spiritual combat and the consistent lack of objective, verifiable evidence is a central theme of their story.

The final judgment on the Warrens’ place in history is not that of objective scientific investigators, but rather of master storytellers who understood and exploited a cultural need for meaning in the face of tragedy and the unknown. Their legacy is not found in the “demonic” artifacts in their museum or in any provable instance of paranormal activity, but in the enduring power of the narratives they created and the entertainment empire they helped build. Their life’s work serves as a powerful case study of how a faith-based worldview, when skillfully commercialized, can transcend the facts to become a self-sustaining and globally recognized myth.

Works cited

• The Conjuring: Last Rites – Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conjuring:_Last_Rites
• Ed and Lorraine Warren – Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_and_Lorraine_Warren
• The Controversial Story Of Ed Warren And His Wife Lorraine, accessed September 13, 2025, https://allthatsinteresting.com/ed-warren
• Paul Kurtz – Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kurtz
• Moral Arcs, Redemption, and ‘The Conjuring’ – Juicy Ecumenism, accessed September 13, 2025, https://juicyecumenism.com/2023/09/11/__trashed/
• The Conjuring Universe – Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conjuring_Universe
• Conjuring Franchise – Box Office Mojo, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdown/sd171767300/
• THE CONJURING IMPACT – Issuu, accessed September 13, 2025, https://issuu.com/denofgeek/docs/den-of-geek-magazine-issue-011/s/28510837
• The demons in ‘The Conjuring’ movies may not be real — but the family tragedies are | Utah Public Radio, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.upr.org/2025-09-05/the-demons-in-the-conjuring-movies-may-not-be-real-but-the-family-tragedies-are
• Who are The Conjuring’s Ed and Lorraine Warren and why are they …, accessed September 13, 2025, https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/conjuring-true-story-ed-lorraine-warren-110630604.html
• The Alleged Smurl Family Haunting, Part 1 | Morbid | Podcast …, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTP68JswXc
• Smurl Haunting: The True Story Of ‘The Conjuring: Last Rites’ – All That’s Interesting, accessed September 13, 2025, https://allthatsinteresting.com/smurl-haunting
• The Amityville Hoax – NY Ghosts, accessed September 13, 2025, https://nyghosts.com/the-amityville-hoax/
• About – NESPR, accessed September 13, 2025, https://tonyspera.com/about/
• Hunting the Ghost Hunters – The NESS, accessed September 13, 2025, https://theness.com/hunting-the-ghost-hunters/
• ‘The Conjuring: Last Rites’: The True Story of the Smurl Haunting, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.biography.com/movies-tv/a65961683/the-conjuring-last-rites-true-story-smurl-haunting
• Is ‘The Conjuring: Last Rites’ really based on a true story? Unpacking the terrifying Smurl haunting and skeptics’ claims, accessed September 13, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news/is-the-conjuring-last-rites-really-based-on-a-true-story-unpacking-the-terrifying-smurl-haunting-and-skeptics-claims/articleshow/123746109.cms
• Smurl haunting – Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurl_haunting
• This $825 Million Horror Franchise Has 1 Final Chance to End Its 12-Year Run on a High Note (& I’m Not Sure It Can) – CBR, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.cbr.com/the-conjuring-final-chance-to-end-on-high-note/
• Smurl Family Haunting – NESPR, accessed September 13, 2025, https://tonyspera.com/smurl-family-haunting/
• The Smurl Family Haunting – Philly Ghosts, accessed September 13, 2025, https://phillyghosts.com/the-smurl-family-haunting/
• en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurl_haunting#:~:text=They%20claimed%20that%20the%20premises,family%20members%20on%20several%20occasions.
• The Real Horror Behind ‘The Conjuring 4’: Inside the Smurl Family Haunting, accessed September 13, 2025, https://usghostadventures.com/uncategorized/the-real-horror-behind-the-conjuring-4-inside-the-smurl-family-haunting/
• Book Review of The Haunted: One Family’s Nightmare – Paperback Swap, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.paperbackswap.com/reviews/details.php?r=VXg1a1FBU1JXckN1dDYxOHRoMGF5a1pERzJNQ2JBV3hJaWQrRHNSM05tOUZXdXltSElodEk5OXZ5VWp6QmduMQ==
• The Conjuring: Last Rites Ending Explained – Is This Really the Last Movie for Ed and Lorraine Warren? – IGN, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.ign.com/articles/the-conjuring-last-rites-ending-post-credits-scene-explained

The article The Warrens’ Legacy: A Critical Analysis of Belief, Commercialization, and Cultural Impact appeared originally on Horror Facts.

If you thought Cujo was bad, Coyotes is what happens when Cujo brings friends—and they’re starving. Only this time, it’s not one deranged puppy, it’s a pack of pavement-stalking monsters who don’t bark. They swarm.

From Cocaine Bear writer Jimmy Warden and director Colin Minihan (What Keeps You Alive), Coyotes is a no-holds-barred horror-comedy siege thriller set during a windstorm in the Hollywood Hills—where nature stops knocking and just kicks in the door.

The story follows the Stewart family—Scott, Liv, and their daughter Chloe—who find themselves completely cut off after the storm knocks out power, takes down their cell service, and crushes their escape plan along with their SUV. Their home becomes a high-ground death trap with no signal, no neighbors left to call for help, and a fast-approaching predator problem with way too many teeth.

These aren’t your “occasional trash can tipper” coyotes. According to Minihan, the film “had bite. It had chaos. And most importantly, it had fun.” And the chaos comes in the form of a scar-faced alpha coyote and his four-legged death cult who start picking off the neighbors like it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet… and the buffet forgot to lock the gate.

The cast includes Justin Long (Barbarian), Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns), Katherine McNamara (Shadowhunters), Brittany Allen (Dexter: Original Sin), Mila Harris (Mary) and Norbert Leo Butz (A Complete Unknown).

This film is what happens when nature bites back—and brings friends. This thing aims to make you laugh, then gut you. Then laugh again. It’s The Purge but with teeth and fur. It’s home invasion theater with the very real concept that you are no longer top of the food chain.

Coyotes will premiere at Fantastic Fest on September 20 and open in theaters nationwide on October 3.

Check out the trailer for Coyotes below, but make sure to lock your doors before you do—and just pray that they stay closed because evil is on the prowl tonight and your house might be its next stop.

The article Coyotes: When Nature Attacks—and Brings Backup appeared originally on Horror Facts.