Once, I made a group mad when – in offering my opinion of 1991’s The Silence Of The Lambs – I simply said that I wished we had spent more time alone with serial killer Buffalo Bill and his captive, young Catherine Martin.
Now, based on their response, you’d think I had deliberately run over someone’s puppy. When something as benign as wondering what the time spent by captive and captor might’ve looked like almost brings a crowd to blows, you know that something was seriously amiss. It wasn’t as if I said that I didn’t like the picture – nothing could be further from the truth – and, yet, here I was having my character assassinated for merely suggesting that there was ample room for even greater examination of what makes people tick in a two-hour motion picture. Of course, I realized that wasn’t what the film was about on a textual level; but all I wondered was how these two individuals might’ve related to one another in those darkest of times. Did they constantly bicker? Or might there have been moments of misplaced affection?
I bring this up today because 2025’s Blood Shine reminded me of my curiosity that went uninvestigated in 1991’s Silence, a sentiment that would likely rile up the same people but, likely, for many different reasons. For example, how can a virtually unheard of 2025 independent chiller that was probably conceived and shot on a negligible budget in any way resemble an Academy Award-winning event picture – a film even preserved for the ages in the U.S.’s National Film Registry since 2011 – from over three decades ago? (Can you hear their disdain for me? I can.) My response would be, “Well, that’s not what I said. Dummies.”
To be blunt, I am saying that Shine – for better or for worse – had moments of authenticity that conjured up what I found was previously absent from Silence; and maybe – just maybe – some good can come from such an association.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In her remote country home, a religious zealot takes a young filmmaker captive, claiming her sadistic rituals will change him into a god.”
The point of any story – good or bad – is to resonate with viewers.
This effect can be achieved in multiple ways. Firstly, the storytellers present something which reminds us of ourselves or something we’ve been through. This connection between fictional people and us easily evokes the same feelings we experienced when we did it on our own. Second, the tale spinners give us faces who are enduring trials, tragedies or traumas not so much like ours but ones relatable enough that we connect with how the sufferers might feel, what they might do, and how they might respond. Life is a process, and how folks endure it means something. Lastly, as viewers watch the players grow and achieve results against the odds, the audience empathizes with how the journey led to this specific destination. We take trip in unison – we walk together – and both the characters and the audience realize fulfillment – again, good or bad – as a consequence of the time spent together.
Well … 2025’s Blood Shine – a creative collaboration between Emily Bennett (who also stars) and Justin Brooks – offers little to none of the above in my humble opinion. That isn’t a complaint, but it is an observation founded in criticism. At no time did I see anything of myself in it. At no time could I directly relate to these characters, other than to say that I was still interested in them as creations. (Characters matter to me but never quite as much as the central story.) And, frankly, I was more than befuddled with a goodly portion of where and how it all ended up in the manner in which I did … yet I walked away somehow surprisingly engaged and impressed with nearly the whole affair.
Confused? So was I.
The point I’m making here is that while I may have no laudable traits that might lead me to feel sympathy for a pair of closeted sado-masochists magically or mystically finding balance in their shared epiphanies, I can still see the value in the story being told and the two folks telling it. In fact, the performances here from Bennett and David Call (as aspiring screenwriter Brighton West) are almost eerily pitch perfect, so much so that I’m damn worried about how they might live their private lives now. (I’m kidding … but a little serious.) Both manage to intimately undress their characters in ways other than removing their clothes –that, too, does inevitably happen, with even bloodier reveals – and I’m absolutely astounded that I haven’t seen them in more work. To her credit, Bennett evokes an almost 40’s noirish composure in a place where even the most ardent femme fatales would necessarily flee for their lives; and she strategically balances this smoldering against West – who has a vastly deeper professional profile – in his guise of a budding Hollywood narcissist who couldn’t see a bad idea if it were staring him right in the face.
Yes, yes, yes: I get that it sounds like I’m complaining. I’m not. Far from it. I found a good deal of their 90-minute film downright intoxicating … and I rarely drink. Blood Shine is filled to the brim with A-C-T-I-N-G, and it was very, very, very good. That doesn’t often happen in Horror much less Horror-adjacent works – and it’s even rarer when the project is certifiably independent – but when I see it I get almost goddam giddy. I want to see professionals work in these films, and both deserve a nod for what they accomplish together in this.
Structurally, Blood Shine works as a lock box story. In this world, its characters are entirely off the grid and left to their own devices, which here amounts to little more than locks and chains, one well-sharpened kitchen knife, and some old school videotapes. The obvious advantage is that such a assembly paves the way for actors to collaborate on moments big, medium, and small without there being space available for distractions. It enhances the intimacy of their words and actions – i.e. insults sting more, slaps sound louder, a simple touch speaks volumes, silence is damned deafening, etc. – and directors Bennett and Brooks monopolize a handful of settings to keep everything focused on people, not so much the spoken prose. (Words matter, yes, but we see that deeds matter more.) About the time audiences realize that both principles have kinda/sorta fallen under the spell of some unnamed cult televangelist who preaches his messages via a series of VHS cartridges (ask your grandparents, kids), you can see where it’s headed … and that rarely ends with happily ever after.
And if there ever were a face perfect for an outdated cult televangelist? Why, it would belong to Larry Fessenden. Thankfully, he was available, and he’s in the film. It might be little more than an extended cameo, but it’s handled brilliantly.
Where the difficulties arise with Blood Shine is that it’s a film whose makers didn’t quite know how to begin or end. (I know, I know, I know. Shut up and hear me out.) As much violence and blood and intimacy are packed in between those two end posts, Bennett and Brooks’ script flails about trying to both set and leave its dangerous stage. In a perfect world, there might be a brilliant but occasionally gruesome 60 minute episode of some unappreciated anthology series in here. As the released cut stands (at 90 minutes), I just can’t make heads or tails of its head or its tail, a shame when so much of what rests within is so damn compelling.
Unless I’m bad at math, there’s not one but two faux beginnings – an opening sequence which amounts to little more than a body being dragged, followed up with a second one which may or may not be a short film masquerading as a clumsy but clever ‘gotcha’ insert – before Brighton West truly takes the stage. While I can appreciate one false start, two seems inflated; and perhaps more of this screen time should’ve gone elsewhere. Frankly, Brighton’s set-up was spot on; but I would’ve loved to know a bit more about Clara (Bennett). We get little background on her besides what’s absolutely necessary here (there’s little to glean from her moments of dancing in the woodlands, too), and I can’t help but wonder about the true inciting incident that put her on a path to seeking solace in isolation. I can speculate, but I hate doing that. If there was more, then apologies because I missed it.
Additionally, Blood Shine’s destination leaves much, much, much more to the imagination than I feel it should. So much of the Horror is grounded in the visible chess match between these two players – what Clara asks of Brighton, what he does as a response, how this inevitably pushes the two into each other’s arms, etc. – so dumping viewers off in the realms of the Fantastic seems like a ploy in search of a motivation. Were all of these cult members who showed up real? Were they figments of our couple’s imagination? Fessenden’s arrival was plausible enough, but am I to believe that every other character in the film was part of some grand videotape cabal? Good grief! How about a little clarity, writers? That finale was the type of scene that, frankly, would have me plucking my eyes out … and, if you’ve made it this far you’ll understand why I logically can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t say more.
Definitively, what Blood Shine did best was offer up a creepily brilliant extrapolation of Stockholm Syndrome in the real world (as opposed to what Hollywood might make of it).
Both Clara and Brighton look the part of intelligent and attractive normies on the outside. So, as happens in film and life, it’s entirely natural for them to be increasingly drawn to one another. The twist here is that the attraction isn’t owed to those obvious superficial looks – which are good – but precisely because of these unstated inner flaws, these unconfessed hungers, these unrealized desires. Both are seeking to fill the respective holes in the souls; so both can’t resist the sultry chemistry as it manifests in viciously uncharacteristic ways.
Seeking an escape from her fear of not-so-much attack as much as it is the threat of subjugation, Clara has grown fixated on a cultish religious sect which promises delivery from nothing specific but a deliverance, nonetheless. On video, all Fessenden promises is ‘the Light,’ and it’s an oath so nebulous it can be anything the true believer wants or needs it to be. In contrast, Brighton has found himself immersed in the lecherous Hollywood lifestyle, one where penning the latest and greatest shock films means playing ‘casting couch’ with the loveliest emerging scream queens of a generation. So neither is chasing redemption – as most religions offer – so much as they’re wanting release; and release – in whatever form it takes – oft times comes at a much higher cost than redemption.
In this universe, these two have no other choice but to find one another as that’s the only means for which they can reach fulfillment. Both eventually wear the captor’s hat. Both surrender to the requirements of captivity. Where some might dismiss this as little more than Clara being ‘the Yin’ to Brighton’s ‘Yang,’ I’d argue that – while true – what’s left out in that observation is the fact that both have found equilibrium under the banner of a cult, both have surrendered to their Stockholm Syndrome. They’re living gloriously as a result of that singular yet shared embrace.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Blood Shine is not going to be for everyone. Its central story involves a tremendous focus on self-harm; and there’s no denying the obvious embrace of a sado-masochistic existence. Of course, these moments – while bloody and disturbing – are directly linked to the characters; so though some could argue such moments are gratuitous, I’d push back, insisting that their exhibition is entirely predicated on the characterizations. It’s never treated as a glamorous choice but rather an extension of what two people need to find connection and closure. Consider yourself suitably warned: this isn’t for the faint of heart.
Blood Shine (2025) was produced by Paper Street Pictures and Zeus Pictures. According to the supplied press materials, the film will be available widely on digital platforms beginning on August 21, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds were very, very good. (Screenwriter Brooks does double-duty here as cinematographer, and I will say that there were a few scenes with some curious framing choices – not sure I’d agree – but only one – the opening sequence – felt entirely unnecessary.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I saw this one via streaming, so there were no special features to consider.
Recommended, but – once more – this will likely be a bit divisive with some … much like my observation regarding The Silence Of The Lambs was received by a few. (See above)
The problem with stories structured like Blood Shine (2025) is (A) they dangerously take you nowhere or (B) they put you where somewhat self-aggrandizing storytellers drop you off so you can speak amongst your friends and make what you want out of an ambiguous closing scene. (Don’t even try to tell me you know definitely anything because there’s far too much wiggle room, and I’ll damn well suggest the contrary.) After a flawed set-up, this tale purrs solidly right up until its ‘Make Your Own Adventure’ ending – a misstep that damn near spoils it in much the same way M. Night Shyamalan has been ruining films for years – and I’ll forever curse Bennett and Brooks for fumbling the ball when they could’ve (and should’ve) crossed the goal line.
When everything else was this good, there’s no excuse for leaving anyone else in the dark.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Blood Shine (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Now, based on their response, you’d think I had deliberately run over someone’s puppy. When something as benign as wondering what the time spent by captive and captor might’ve looked like almost brings a crowd to blows, you know that something was seriously amiss. It wasn’t as if I said that I didn’t like the picture – nothing could be further from the truth – and, yet, here I was having my character assassinated for merely suggesting that there was ample room for even greater examination of what makes people tick in a two-hour motion picture. Of course, I realized that wasn’t what the film was about on a textual level; but all I wondered was how these two individuals might’ve related to one another in those darkest of times. Did they constantly bicker? Or might there have been moments of misplaced affection?
I bring this up today because 2025’s Blood Shine reminded me of my curiosity that went uninvestigated in 1991’s Silence, a sentiment that would likely rile up the same people but, likely, for many different reasons. For example, how can a virtually unheard of 2025 independent chiller that was probably conceived and shot on a negligible budget in any way resemble an Academy Award-winning event picture – a film even preserved for the ages in the U.S.’s National Film Registry since 2011 – from over three decades ago? (Can you hear their disdain for me? I can.) My response would be, “Well, that’s not what I said. Dummies.”
To be blunt, I am saying that Shine – for better or for worse – had moments of authenticity that conjured up what I found was previously absent from Silence; and maybe – just maybe – some good can come from such an association.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In her remote country home, a religious zealot takes a young filmmaker captive, claiming her sadistic rituals will change him into a god.”
The point of any story – good or bad – is to resonate with viewers.
This effect can be achieved in multiple ways. Firstly, the storytellers present something which reminds us of ourselves or something we’ve been through. This connection between fictional people and us easily evokes the same feelings we experienced when we did it on our own. Second, the tale spinners give us faces who are enduring trials, tragedies or traumas not so much like ours but ones relatable enough that we connect with how the sufferers might feel, what they might do, and how they might respond. Life is a process, and how folks endure it means something. Lastly, as viewers watch the players grow and achieve results against the odds, the audience empathizes with how the journey led to this specific destination. We take trip in unison – we walk together – and both the characters and the audience realize fulfillment – again, good or bad – as a consequence of the time spent together.
Well … 2025’s Blood Shine – a creative collaboration between Emily Bennett (who also stars) and Justin Brooks – offers little to none of the above in my humble opinion. That isn’t a complaint, but it is an observation founded in criticism. At no time did I see anything of myself in it. At no time could I directly relate to these characters, other than to say that I was still interested in them as creations. (Characters matter to me but never quite as much as the central story.) And, frankly, I was more than befuddled with a goodly portion of where and how it all ended up in the manner in which I did … yet I walked away somehow surprisingly engaged and impressed with nearly the whole affair.
Confused? So was I.
The point I’m making here is that while I may have no laudable traits that might lead me to feel sympathy for a pair of closeted sado-masochists magically or mystically finding balance in their shared epiphanies, I can still see the value in the story being told and the two folks telling it. In fact, the performances here from Bennett and David Call (as aspiring screenwriter Brighton West) are almost eerily pitch perfect, so much so that I’m damn worried about how they might live their private lives now. (I’m kidding … but a little serious.) Both manage to intimately undress their characters in ways other than removing their clothes –that, too, does inevitably happen, with even bloodier reveals – and I’m absolutely astounded that I haven’t seen them in more work. To her credit, Bennett evokes an almost 40’s noirish composure in a place where even the most ardent femme fatales would necessarily flee for their lives; and she strategically balances this smoldering against West – who has a vastly deeper professional profile – in his guise of a budding Hollywood narcissist who couldn’t see a bad idea if it were staring him right in the face.
Yes, yes, yes: I get that it sounds like I’m complaining. I’m not. Far from it. I found a good deal of their 90-minute film downright intoxicating … and I rarely drink. Blood Shine is filled to the brim with A-C-T-I-N-G, and it was very, very, very good. That doesn’t often happen in Horror much less Horror-adjacent works – and it’s even rarer when the project is certifiably independent – but when I see it I get almost goddam giddy. I want to see professionals work in these films, and both deserve a nod for what they accomplish together in this.
Structurally, Blood Shine works as a lock box story. In this world, its characters are entirely off the grid and left to their own devices, which here amounts to little more than locks and chains, one well-sharpened kitchen knife, and some old school videotapes. The obvious advantage is that such a assembly paves the way for actors to collaborate on moments big, medium, and small without there being space available for distractions. It enhances the intimacy of their words and actions – i.e. insults sting more, slaps sound louder, a simple touch speaks volumes, silence is damned deafening, etc. – and directors Bennett and Brooks monopolize a handful of settings to keep everything focused on people, not so much the spoken prose. (Words matter, yes, but we see that deeds matter more.) About the time audiences realize that both principles have kinda/sorta fallen under the spell of some unnamed cult televangelist who preaches his messages via a series of VHS cartridges (ask your grandparents, kids), you can see where it’s headed … and that rarely ends with happily ever after.
And if there ever were a face perfect for an outdated cult televangelist? Why, it would belong to Larry Fessenden. Thankfully, he was available, and he’s in the film. It might be little more than an extended cameo, but it’s handled brilliantly.
Where the difficulties arise with Blood Shine is that it’s a film whose makers didn’t quite know how to begin or end. (I know, I know, I know. Shut up and hear me out.) As much violence and blood and intimacy are packed in between those two end posts, Bennett and Brooks’ script flails about trying to both set and leave its dangerous stage. In a perfect world, there might be a brilliant but occasionally gruesome 60 minute episode of some unappreciated anthology series in here. As the released cut stands (at 90 minutes), I just can’t make heads or tails of its head or its tail, a shame when so much of what rests within is so damn compelling.
Unless I’m bad at math, there’s not one but two faux beginnings – an opening sequence which amounts to little more than a body being dragged, followed up with a second one which may or may not be a short film masquerading as a clumsy but clever ‘gotcha’ insert – before Brighton West truly takes the stage. While I can appreciate one false start, two seems inflated; and perhaps more of this screen time should’ve gone elsewhere. Frankly, Brighton’s set-up was spot on; but I would’ve loved to know a bit more about Clara (Bennett). We get little background on her besides what’s absolutely necessary here (there’s little to glean from her moments of dancing in the woodlands, too), and I can’t help but wonder about the true inciting incident that put her on a path to seeking solace in isolation. I can speculate, but I hate doing that. If there was more, then apologies because I missed it.
Additionally, Blood Shine’s destination leaves much, much, much more to the imagination than I feel it should. So much of the Horror is grounded in the visible chess match between these two players – what Clara asks of Brighton, what he does as a response, how this inevitably pushes the two into each other’s arms, etc. – so dumping viewers off in the realms of the Fantastic seems like a ploy in search of a motivation. Were all of these cult members who showed up real? Were they figments of our couple’s imagination? Fessenden’s arrival was plausible enough, but am I to believe that every other character in the film was part of some grand videotape cabal? Good grief! How about a little clarity, writers? That finale was the type of scene that, frankly, would have me plucking my eyes out … and, if you’ve made it this far you’ll understand why I logically can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t say more.
Definitively, what Blood Shine did best was offer up a creepily brilliant extrapolation of Stockholm Syndrome in the real world (as opposed to what Hollywood might make of it).
Both Clara and Brighton look the part of intelligent and attractive normies on the outside. So, as happens in film and life, it’s entirely natural for them to be increasingly drawn to one another. The twist here is that the attraction isn’t owed to those obvious superficial looks – which are good – but precisely because of these unstated inner flaws, these unconfessed hungers, these unrealized desires. Both are seeking to fill the respective holes in the souls; so both can’t resist the sultry chemistry as it manifests in viciously uncharacteristic ways.
Seeking an escape from her fear of not-so-much attack as much as it is the threat of subjugation, Clara has grown fixated on a cultish religious sect which promises delivery from nothing specific but a deliverance, nonetheless. On video, all Fessenden promises is ‘the Light,’ and it’s an oath so nebulous it can be anything the true believer wants or needs it to be. In contrast, Brighton has found himself immersed in the lecherous Hollywood lifestyle, one where penning the latest and greatest shock films means playing ‘casting couch’ with the loveliest emerging scream queens of a generation. So neither is chasing redemption – as most religions offer – so much as they’re wanting release; and release – in whatever form it takes – oft times comes at a much higher cost than redemption.
In this universe, these two have no other choice but to find one another as that’s the only means for which they can reach fulfillment. Both eventually wear the captor’s hat. Both surrender to the requirements of captivity. Where some might dismiss this as little more than Clara being ‘the Yin’ to Brighton’s ‘Yang,’ I’d argue that – while true – what’s left out in that observation is the fact that both have found equilibrium under the banner of a cult, both have surrendered to their Stockholm Syndrome. They’re living gloriously as a result of that singular yet shared embrace.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Blood Shine is not going to be for everyone. Its central story involves a tremendous focus on self-harm; and there’s no denying the obvious embrace of a sado-masochistic existence. Of course, these moments – while bloody and disturbing – are directly linked to the characters; so though some could argue such moments are gratuitous, I’d push back, insisting that their exhibition is entirely predicated on the characterizations. It’s never treated as a glamorous choice but rather an extension of what two people need to find connection and closure. Consider yourself suitably warned: this isn’t for the faint of heart.
Blood Shine (2025) was produced by Paper Street Pictures and Zeus Pictures. According to the supplied press materials, the film will be available widely on digital platforms beginning on August 21, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds were very, very good. (Screenwriter Brooks does double-duty here as cinematographer, and I will say that there were a few scenes with some curious framing choices – not sure I’d agree – but only one – the opening sequence – felt entirely unnecessary.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I saw this one via streaming, so there were no special features to consider.
Recommended, but – once more – this will likely be a bit divisive with some … much like my observation regarding The Silence Of The Lambs was received by a few. (See above)
The problem with stories structured like Blood Shine (2025) is (A) they dangerously take you nowhere or (B) they put you where somewhat self-aggrandizing storytellers drop you off so you can speak amongst your friends and make what you want out of an ambiguous closing scene. (Don’t even try to tell me you know definitely anything because there’s far too much wiggle room, and I’ll damn well suggest the contrary.) After a flawed set-up, this tale purrs solidly right up until its ‘Make Your Own Adventure’ ending – a misstep that damn near spoils it in much the same way M. Night Shyamalan has been ruining films for years – and I’ll forever curse Bennett and Brooks for fumbling the ball when they could’ve (and should’ve) crossed the goal line.
When everything else was this good, there’s no excuse for leaving anyone else in the dark.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Blood Shine (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed