Blumhouse Continues Carrying The Horror Flag Year Round to Theaters and Streaming

While we might not enjoy and recommend every movie by Blumhouse, we continue to admire and appreciate their efforts in the area of horror. It’s a genre, outside of power players like Stephen King, that doesn’t get as much mainstream attention and love (although we could argule the last decade it’s been better).

There are plenty of horror fans out here like me and it’s good to know there are studios like Blumhouse that are championing the genre.

But after a decade of hits — Paranormal Activity, The Purge, Get Out — Jason Blum’s company Blumhouse Productions finds itself no longer chasing theatrical releases, especially as AMC and Regal struggle during the pandemic. Instead, streamers are coming to him, and the best part: they believe horror is a year-round affair. In many ways, Blum has often been ahead of the curve—and the scary, spooky, and violent movies he’s released on shoestring budgets might be the best signal of where streaming is going next.

Hollywood turned its nose up at horror — now streamers are racing for the next big scare – The Verge

Yes, Blumhouse keep carrying the horror torch. Any good horror stories you’d like to see them make into films? I can think of a few horror stories that probably aren’t in consideration, but will mention here (in no particular order):

  1. Swan Song by Robert McCammon
  2. The Wolf’s Hour by Robert McCammon
  3. Dweller by Jeff Strand
  4. Dead Sea by Tim Curran

If you’re a reader, then the books above are all recommended.


Theaters: Nov 13, 2020

Vince Vaughn has been showing his acting versatility. He does more than the sarcastic comedy role. I was a bit surprised — in a good way — by the brutal nature of his participation in Brawl In Cell Block 99, and now he’s starring in a horror-comedy vehicle from Blumhouse called, Freaky.

…can’t say director Christopher Landon doesn’t have a vision. With Happy Death Day and its sequel, the filmmaker mined a comedic concept for horror (without excising the comedic component). Now, he’s doing it again. Freaky takes the body-swap gimmick popularized by Freaky Friday and asks what might happen if a bullied teen girl switched bodies with a hulking serial killer.

Freaky trailer: Freaky Friday, but horror

The official trailer:

Character running from slasher says, “You’re black, I’m gay, we are soooo dead!”

This looks pretty entertaining and the release date, although happening after Halloween, seems well-placed.

Blumhouse, at least from attempts (not always execution) is just knocking it out of the park with horror subgenres, remakes, anthologies, they’re all over the horror map making the studio a name to reckon with in the space. Looking very forward to seeing this one, you?

Freaky is opening wide in theaters on Friday the 13th, November 2020

20+ Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island Reviews – Completely Redoing Tattoo’s Character and Other Attrocities

Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island⭐️⭐️

We can’t blame Blumhouse for asking, it’s Sony for giving it up with almost zero quality control.

Jason [Blum] wanted to keep working with me. He heard that I had this idea, and being the master producer that he is, he went to Sony and he said, “Can I have the rights to Fantasy Island?” They said yes. They gave it to him.

How Fantasy Island Reimagines the Classic TV Show | Den of Geek

Thanks a lot, Sony for just giving up the IP without any sense of quality control. Blumhouse gutted the TV show and gave us a shell of what it once was.

Before I can get into specifics with this critique, you best know SPOILERS follow. If you don’t want the film to be spoiled (pretty difficult, actually), then bookmark and come back … now.

… you’ve been warned SPOILERS AHEAD ….

Blumhouse leaves the filmmakers alone — for better or worse

On one hand, you can applaud Blumhouse for having a reportedly hands off attitude. They set a budget and let the filmmakers make the movie. That’s amazing creative freedom, if the movie doesn’t suck.

Apparently, Sony is also hands off with their IP. Respectfully, I’d suggest with IP somebody should be test screening these films a little better.

The fantasies aren’t that good

There are four fantasies and none of them are spectacular. Let’s take them one at a time.

Woman who wants to get revenge on a childhood friend. Then she gets the chance to do that, but wimps out. She steps off the plane complaining about the lack of Wi-Fi on the island and doubts the fantasies are real and then her fantasy seems real. She also is the one with the lamest twist of all the fantasies.

Two brothers who want to party it up and yet are then attacked by a gang of thugs.

A man wants to honor the life another man in the military who fell on a grenade.

Woman who wants to change that one mistake she made, by saying yes to a man she loved instead of no. Then she gets that fantasy and has a child.

It’s like we’re checking all the cliche story boxes versus telling anything that fresh and new. Or, heck, if you can’t do that, then go back in time and retell some of the best episodes of the TV series.

Then there’s a bonus fifth guy running around all Rambo on the island, because he doesn’t want Roarke to know what he’s up to. Ok, yeah.

These were pretty average to bad fantasies.

Why Explain The Origins of the Island?

I’m still reeling, still trying to understand why it was necessary to explain how Fantasy Island works? And the whole fountain of fantasy water idea was dumb. So Roarke has guests drink the tainted water and then their one fantasy is fulfilled? How does the water “just know” to only issue one fantasy per person?

We didn’t need the origin story. The mystique surrounding the island was enough to make it all work. Also, when you make Roarke so absolutely tied into the process, he doesn’t have the man of mystery vibe working either. Making him a pawn to the island’s power just weakens a character that is supposedly in charge of the island. This is so completely out of the character played by Ricardo Montalban I don’t even know where to start.

Wait, it’s Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island. In parallel reboot world, Roarke can be weak and strong whenever he wants to be. O…k.

Tattoo isn’t a midget, he’s a gay Chinese man with a tattoo that says, “Tattoo”

Can’t make up this stuff. What were they thinking when they took a gigantic crap all over the legacy of Herve Villachaize?

Not a midget (that’s what Herve referred to himself as). It’s a full height man. Why not give this role to another little person?

Why gay? Herve was not only heterosexual, he was hyper heterosexual. Known for his strong sex drive which today might register as sexual harassment toward his co-workers and guests on the show. There’s nothing wrong with gay people, don’t even go there with me, but making an iconic straight character gay is saying what exactly? We can do it, just because we can? Stupid and wrong. Let’s not make established straight characters gay and vice versa.

Chinese instead of French. Herve was French, so why make his character Chinese? Maybe it would be different to find a little person that was French like Herve, so fine, maybe a little person that is Chinese. But a normal height Chinese man? How about a normal height French guy? How can we screw up this character tribute so badly?

Again, you just can’t make out how horrific this treatment of Herve Villachiaze is in this movie. Let’s just dance on his grave while we’re at it, Blumhouse. You should be ashamed. Seriously.

Reviews by Others

A lot of these reviews of Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island by others are unfavorable. Rotten Tomatoes critics have it sub 10% rotten, but audiences are treating it a little better.


  1. But Why Tho? (5/10): “is everything you want and expect from a theater Blumhoudr film. It stumbles a bit but winds up where you need it to.”

Not Recommended

  1. Andrew Reviews: “But it’s an intellectual property that can be exploited, and it’s being packaged for the young lovestruck souls on Valentine’s Day by furnishing watered-down PG-13 horror that only ever elicits predictable jump scares and a cheap lugubrious aesthetic (an eerily slow camera that always implies a forthcoming scare, ear-splitting sound design, and a terribly on-the-nose score).”
  2. Becky Tyler Art & Photography: “This film is so abysmally bad I wasn’t even going to bother with a review after I watched it yesterday, but if this review keeps anyone else from wasting their time then I guess writing this is worth it.”
  3. CULT FACTION: “Within the script is a great movie plot that somehow got manipulated into a presentation that more resembles Love Island than Fantasy Island.”
  4. Drew’s Writing Loo: “….is clearly aiming for absurdist B-movie enjoyment, but that’s a tough invitation to accept when the choppy tone seems just as lost on the cast as it is to the audience.”
  5. Dyl’s Movie Stuff (1/10): “…is so very dumb and embarrassingly unscary. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one.”
  6. Flag of Ulysses: “It works marginally better as a mystery in the film’s latter half but it comes at the expense of over-explaining and completely demystifying the very premise of the titular island and its enigmatic overseer, which the original series wisely never did (to my best recollection).” (ed. one of the few to title it as Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island)
  7. Halloween Year Round: “It’s everything that a remake should be…at least in theory.  In practice, this film wastes its immense potential on annoying characters and a plot that completely falls apart when you approach it with logic.”
  8. High Contrast / Nate Blake: “Despite the presence of smartphones, social media and a cast that’s just a bit more representative than you would have seen on ABC four decades ago, this is mostly a lazy transplant, not a worthwhile re-imagining. If only I could go to an island where lame remakes didn’t exist.”
  9. Jordan Peterson / Movie Minutes: “It’s when all those seemingly disparate stories start to come together down the back half of the film where things get messy. The more fascinating elements that make Fantasy Island what it is quickly give way to an overarching narrative that is more convoluted, formulaic, and exhaustively dull.”
  10. Jaedennoel / Keithlovesmovies: “Other than a few references to the original television series, Fantasy Island will surely disappoint fans of the television series which could have lead to a whole other demographic viewing the film.”
  11. Keith & The Movies (2/5): “…does nothing to justify its existence. It’s just a blob of fairly interesting ideas pasted together and thrown out for consumption. And you can bet Blumhouse is already eyeing a sequel.”
  12. Nightmare on Film Street: “…the reality here is, Fantasy Island is a sightly miss of a movie. The malefic update has a lot of creative potential on paper. The film just so happens to lose steam whenever it comes time to gel everything together.”
  13. Ready Steady Cut: “Not enough of Fantasy Island lands in this precious space of engrossing idiocy to go down as some kind of cult classic midnighter or anything, but it’s at least a high note to end on for a film that is mostly otherwise just an obvious misfire.”
  14. Red Mango Reviews (5.5/10): “I’m sure the age 13-17 crowd and people who don’t watch ACTUAL horror movies will get a scare or two, but for me, this movie was an overly bloated story with WAY TOO many sub-plots and an ending that you’ll see coming a mile away”
  15. rogerinorlando / Movie Nation (2/4): “The moments of peril seem like “Saw” outtakes, and the big “EXPLANATION” could bring Harlan Ellison back from the grave for another lawsuit.”
  16. Society Reviews (1/5): “It is a shame that Fantasy Island fails on the only interesting concept the movie had going for it but at the end of the day, this proves to be just another low budget horror film with little effort given both in front and behind the camera.”
  17. The Jam Report / Doug Jamieson (1/5): “Sadly, there’s little enjoyment to be found with Fantasy Island. It’s as uninspiring as the horror genre gets. You won’t be scared. You won’t be terrified. And you sure as hell won’t be entertained.”
  18. The Monster Lady (4/10): “The storyline, “twists” and character deaths were way too predictable and it felt as though the movie dragged on with trying to make the character backstories complex. There were a lot of random plotholes with how the island and fantasies operate, but honestly I stopped caring halfway through”
  19. Voice of the Hwy: “If crimes against cinema merited prosecution, Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island would go directly to death row. “
  20. Zach’s Zany Reviews: “Never, ever have I’ve seen a great concept to a feature film, let alone one from an old television show, be so terribly fucked up in its execution. I mean, where to start?”

Linked above and wondering what would be the cool thing to do next? Commenting once in awhile is always good. If you have the trackback/pingback come to your site then just approve it because after people read your review then they can come here and follow links and read someone else’s review.

Did I miss your review? Use the comments to tell me about your movie-related/review blog and I’ll follow. I like following movie-related blogs and pull quote from my reading list as well as other new blogs shared, liked and discovered.

Happy movie watching!

Remake of The Thing to be based upon new material from original author

Here we go … again. Another remake upon a remake. It’s horror, so another familiar face, Blumhouse, is involved.

Sacrilege! That was my first reaction to the news of trying to soft reboot and retell …

The Thing (1982) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️½ 

John Carpenter’s horror masterpiece, which is based on The Thing from Another World (1951), the black and white adaptation that has its own 50s eerieness … both are adaptations from a novella by John W. Campbell Jr.

Most recently they tried with a prequel to The Thing 2011 and that version flopped (I haven’t seen it yet). I’m not a fan of prequels in general. We know what’s happening, so it takes a lot of wind from the sails of the story. Alas, this is what they do in Hollywood, they would rather try to cash in on known properties versus taking chances on adapting or telling new stories.

Then I learned there was literally more to the original story. A recently unearthed novel-length version of the classic novella Who Goes There? by John Campea, Jr. called Frozen Hell. Hmm.

Back in 2018, John Betancourt announced the discovery of a novel-length version of the classic novella, and he took to Kickstarter to fund the release of the novel, titled Frozen Hell.

Universal and Blumhouse Developing New Version of ‘The Thing’ That Will Adapt Long Lost Original Novel! – Bloody Disgusting

Betancourt is working on a sequel. I was intrigued by who found the original draft by Campbell? Wikipedia had the answer:

In 2018, it was found that Who Goes There? was actually a shortened version of a larger novel previously written by Campbell. The expanded manuscript (including an entirely different opening), titled Frozen Hell, was found in a box of manuscripts sent by Campbell to Harvard University. The discovery was made by author and biographer Alec Nevala-Lee, during his research on a biography of Campbell and other authors

Wikipedia: Who Goes There?

The question is if Campbell himself who became an editor never saw fit to release the expanded version, is it worthwhile? Just because a longer version exists, doesn’t mean the story ever needed to be longer. Maybe the editing to the classic novella was best as is.

The Thing (1982) by John Carpenter

This is what new movies based on older properties seem to chase. Usually unwisely, because the vast majority of remakes despite some making money, are pale imitations to earlier, better movies.

This all leaves me with more questions than answers, but there is some curiosity.

The Thing From Another World (1951) boasts an “electrifying” monster

Will the new screenplay follow Frozen Hell? The early reports are that this is the plan. It could deviate further, which is my suspicion, thus using Campbell’s original manuscript as a marketing tactic instead of a legitimate need to revisit and use the story.

Why is Blumhouse adding their name in FRONT of Fantasy Island?

The red pen is mine, the logo is from the Sony/Blumhouse official movie website

Am surprised that nobody is talking about Blumhouse adding their name in front of the title of the iconic TV show Fantasy Island … as if to suggest they now own this creative property.

Do they?

It wasn’t that way until recently when all of a sudden it just appeared. Some websites are now referring to it (Cinemablend, IMDB) as it appears on the official website as Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island.


I get branding, and Blumhouse has had some really good movies, so I don’t mean to make this about their company in particular, but I no more would want to see: Disney’s Star Wars or Disney’s Iron Man, so why the heck is Blumhouse putting their name before something they didn’t originally create?

Heck, Rod Serling didn’t even do that with The Twilight Zone, and he did create it!

And furthermore, Sony is a much bigger name. Why not make it Sony’s Fantasy Island?

I don’t get this advertising at all. Anybody who has seen the preview or trailer fully understands that this is a remake/reboot/whatever by Blumhouse and Sony. Somebody please explain the need for adding this to the title.

Blumhouse didn’t create Fantasy Island. It bought a license to make some kind of reboot or horror film based upon the original 70s TV series. It doesn’t belong permanently to Blumhouse, at least as far as I know, so why are they putting their name in front of it? They are like the intellectual renters, using the space for X period of time — perhaps only this one movie, but if it does well, maybe a sequel or two.

They certainly didn’t create Fantasy Island, that belongs to the late Gene Levitt. Have to wonder what he’d think about this? Or maybe the other two big names pictured below who are no longer with us…

Maybe Sony and Blumhouse paid more to be able to add their name to the title thinking this additional branding will put more butts in the theater seats, but I’d argue for fans of both Blumhouse and Fantasy Island that this is not a positive move.

And if it starts something with other studios thinking this is some genius marketing move, it’s opening pandora’s box on advertising.

This odd branding exercise aside, I’m very much looking forward to seeing what Blumhouse has created with the movie. I’m just surprised that nobody else is raising a stink about this. Maybe they are, the internet is a big place and I’m noticing something others have already said was a questionable practice.

Hopefully this doesn’t become a regular occurrence from film studios. When advertisers can buy top billing in movie title space, that’s going to be a real bummer (Imagine if there was: Colt 45’s The Godfather or Budweiser’s Animal House … sigh)

Do not whore out titles, please.