You've all seen The Gambler, I hope? No, no, not the Mark Wahlberg film: the 1974 James Caan/ Paul Sorvino one, one of the darker films to come out of American cinema at that (already cinematically pretty dark) time, directed by Karel Reisz and written by now-#MeToo-tainted filmmaker James Toback, loosely adapted from Dostoevsky. It's about a college professor (Caan) whose gambling takes on the mien of compulsive self-destruction that impacts everyone around him. It's a fascinating, unpleasant, wallowing-in-it kind of film with a grim-as-hell ending (unlike that of the bizarrely feelgood Wahlberg version), but it contains what for me is one of the most memorable lines in American cinema history: Paul Sorvino -- you know him from Goodfellas, at the very least -- is a mob-affiliated friend of Caan's who is delighted that Caan talks one of his students into throwing a basketball game. Caan has promised it will be just the one time, but Sorvino laughs in his face, in a "what are you talking about" manner, and quips, "Once you ain't a virgin, you're a whore." Or words to that effect.
I think of this line every time a small-time horror filmmaker is recruited into the big leagues. They almost never come back: time and again, original independent filmmakers in America end up making big Hollywood genre productions never to make an original independent film again. It's not always horror, either: Justin Lin and Doug Liman are two filmmakers who made very fun early films (Better Luck Tomorrow and Go!, for instance, though there were others) then got sucked into the machine and spent the majority of their subsequent careers making big budget Hollywood shlock (though they may have since emerged on the other side and done smaller more personal projects; I don't pretend to have followed either of their careers closely, but if they "picked up where they left off" at some point, I haven't heard about it). Occasionally you get someone like Sam Raimi, who retains some element of his voice even in his bigger films and does stay fairly close to his roots with his smaller ones, but more often, you get people like Gareth Edwards, who make a genuinely interesting and unusual smaller-scale film (Monsters, in his case) then end up making Godzilla movies or Star Wars movies or Jurassic World movies or.... I do often see those films, and sometimes even enjoy them, but I also feel acutely aware that something has gotten lost. Like, imagine if David Lynch had scored a massive hit with his version of Dune, which was definitely his deal with the devil, and then went on to work for Marvel or such, never making Blue Velvet or any of his other later films? You end up almost grateful Dune failed.
Maybe I'm the only film enthusiast who thinks this way. I like those little independent films, though: small-scale genre cinema that takes risks and caters to a small audience who understand rather than the widest audience imaginable, using cinema to express something genuine and personal. Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift is a very entertaining, well-crafted movie, but Better Luck Tomorrow is a movie you can actually care about, a film that is personal and unique and idiosyncratic and loveable in a way that none of the later Lin work I've seen is. There are dozens of similar mainstream Hollywood filmmakers like this, who command respect and budgets and wide-scale distribution (Kathryn Bigelow, anyone?), the only films of whose I truly love & care about were made early on, before the mainstream noticed them.
I mean, I guess it's not very nice to be implying that many of the most successful filmmakers in America are "whores", but... they have millions of dollars (and in some cases Oscars) with which to console themselves... and the point stands: once you're working on that level, it isn't very likely you'll decide mid-career to go back to the world of genre from whence you came. We're never going to get a Near Dark or Blue Steel out of Bigelow again, no matter how many Oscars she wins...
So when I've been following a filmmaker with interest, and they suddenly switch to the big leagues, I feel some measure of despair. In recent years, the biggest case in point has been Adam Wingard. I liked and respected all the early films of his I got to see: A Horrible Way to Die, You're Next, The Guest, and his contributions to the V/H/S franchise. The best of them is probably The Guest, made in 2015 on a budget of $5 million, earning half that back, seen by very few people when it came out: a small, effective genre film about a soldier with secrets who shows up at the door of the widow of a platoon mate. It sure got him noticed by someone, small or not, because then came his Blair Witch reboot, a massively-distributed commercial movie which seemed to me at the time also to be a wholly unncessary career-move mediocrity, which (though also made relatively cheaply) was much more widely distro'd than anything he'd done before and made $45 million dollars, sounding the alarm that he was going to disappear into the majors, like so many other indy filmmakers before him. Maybe it holds up better to second viewings but I have absolutely no interest in finding out: it was the "ah fuck, we've lost him" moment.
I skipped Death Note, but it's no surprise that it had a budget of $40 million dollars, eight times what he'd made his previous two films on. Then his next two movies were Godzilla Vs. Kong films with estimated budgets (saith Wikipedia) between $130 and $200 million. I actually enjoyed both of those movies, when I got around to seeing them, but what about the Adam Wingard who made those three fresh, interesting indy films I'd learned his name with? ...What was it Quint sang about the Spanish ladies? "Never no more shall we see you again?" Maybe he'd end up helming a Marvel movie, or working with Spielberg, or...?
Bah.
I was really, really happy to learn of Onslaught, a return to small-scale horror filmmaking (budget is $15 million) set in the same fictional universe, he says, that The Guest and You're Next are in. He had had a successful dalliance with the big time and RETURNED HOME to make his own kind of movie again: a gory, comic-bookish, kinda-disreputable genre film about psycho super-soldiers laying siege to a small town. Yay!
If this makes sense: I loved the film, and must confess that it is not that great, which only makes me love it more. Its comic book aspects are kinda wacky (the film's mad doctor wears the most ridiculous costumes imaginable! The mad doctor in The Human Centipede dresses more conservatively!); it doesn't make great use of Michael Biehn (though it's sure nice to see him working again); its characters could be developed more, so we care about them, rather than just wondering how and when they'll get killed; it squanders a very interesting setup where a character discovers she knows one of the film's, uh, "monsters", which you really think will prove a much bigger plot point than it turns out to be; and it leaves a vast number of doors open for sequels (there are no post-credit scenes, but the narrative of the film does continue, in the form of visual elements on the screen while the credits roll; stay and attend to them). Also, the super soldiers, while cool, are also ridiculous, looking kinda like a cross between the leper ghost pirates of The Fog and particularly buff, heavily-armed CHUDs. (In the sense of Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers; I think the term has since taken on other meanings online?). The film does actually provide an entertaining backstory for some of its super-soldiers, like, one of them is nicknamed "Crybaby" because he wept when murdering civilians; but then it does nothing with that backstory, never mentions it again. As small films go, in terms of what it accomplishes, this one is small indeed. It's like something you might rent on VHS from the Rogers, one of those horror movies the store has exactly one copy of on the New Arrivals wall: a small, silly, cheesy little movie that's going to top no-ones best-of lists for 2026.
But this ends up meaning I love it more. I actually hope there's a sequel. I hope it's enough of a hit that Wingard will be able to continue on this trajectory, eschewing the big budgets and huge exposure and making dozens of other fresh, original little films, cheesy genre fare or not. Which might actually happen: even though Onslaught isn't great, it is still totally enjoyable and effective if you take it on its own terms. I guess I can also live with it if Wingard's next film is a $200 million dollar blockbuster, as he has proven that he has the capacity to come back from those, and his Godzilla stuff is at least kinda fun (compared to Gareth Edwards, say), but he can make, what, 13.333 Onslaughts for the cost of a Godzilla vs. Kong? Do it!
Welcome back to the little leagues, Adam! I missed you, and Erika and I both had lots of fun tonight.
... and as for my readers: go see Onslaught! If you want more fresh little original films than megabudget mass appeal franchise ones, this is an opportunity to cast your vote. And you WILL have fun, even if you note some of the missed opportunities and find yourself chuckling at how silly it all is: there are a couple nice kills, some imaginative gore, and an enjoyable central relationship between an ex-mililitary female soldier and her daughter, trying to survive the onslaught of the title.
Oh, and remember Reginald VelJohnson, the black cop in Die Hard? He's in it, too!
And one of the maybe-good guys is on MDMA for the whole film, which is pretty fun: there's a scene where he enters the aftermath of a massacre at a convenience store and heads straight for the smashed cooler so he can chug a bottle of water amidst the carnage. Ha!
Never seen that in a movie before.












































