Episodes

  • Ep. 112: Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez’s "The Blair Witch Project" (1999)
    Jan 10 2026

    A map lost, a legend found, and a final image that still sets nerves on edge. We crack open The Blair Witch Project with a mix of reverence and skepticism, exploring why a film with no score, almost no gore, and a monster you never see became a horror milestone. Julie joins Chad, Mike, and Sam to share first-watch memories, theater lore about audiences who thought it was real, and the marketing sleight of hand that turned rumor into rocket fuel long before social media.

    We dig into the nuts and bolts of the scares: the weaponized ambiguity, the way darkness and sound design conspire to make the trees feel alive, and how the infamous basement corner communicates more terror in a second than most films manage in an act. Our panel also challenges the film’s weak spots—the breathless narration, the endless shouting, and a third-act sprint that trades tension for noise. We ask whether found footage is inherently a one-and-done experience, compare Blair Witch with Paranormal Activity, The Ritual, and other entries in the subgenre, and debate how modern tech would change the stakes unless you grant the witch a signal-jamming mood.

    Behind the scenes, we surface production choices that shaped its realism: guided improvisation via daily notes, deliberate sleep and food deprivation to fray nerves, and town interviews that blur documentary and performance. Those decisions gave the movie its raw texture—real annoyance, real disorientation, and a geography that feels discovered rather than staged. Love it or roll your eyes at the map-in-the-creek moment, Blair Witch remains essential horror literacy, a reminder that what you don’t see can haunt the hardest.

    If this breakdown hits your horror sweet spot, follow the show, share the episode with a friend who swears the corner shot still gets them, and leave a quick review so other genre fans can find us.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 9 mins
  • Ep. 111: Anthony Waller's "An American Werewolf in Paris" (1997)
    Jan 3 2026

    The howling you hear isn’t from the monster—it’s from fans watching a beloved classic get saddled with a clumsy sequel. We dive into An American Werewolf in Paris and sort the few effective frights from an avalanche of awkward humor, rubbery CGI, and logic that faceplants off the Eiffel Tower. We set the scene with a spoiler warning and a tart “Sinister Sip,” then get honest about why a meager 7 percent score feels fair: the chemistry is flat, the jokes miss, and the tone wanders between frat gags and faux-goth moodiness.

    We compare what made the London original sing—sharp timing, grounded performances, and practical effects that respected the shadows—against Paris’s bright lights and louder is better approach. That contrast becomes a lesson in horror-comedy craft: reveal less to scare more, let the music accent the mood instead of drowning it, and trust character choices to build tension rather than forcing chaos with car pileups and nightclub gross-outs. Still, we call out the sequences that almost redeem it: a strobe-lit attack that hides the seams, a flickering flashlight stalk through tunnels, and a few practical blood beats that feel tactile, if brief.

    Along the way, we share production notes and trivia: early CGI experiments that haven’t aged well, lion-inspired creature design, a scrapped werewolf-baby ending, and Julie Delpy’s candid reason for signing on. We also untangle head-scratchers like Eiffel Tower physics, non-silver bullets, and accent roulette. By the time we score watchability, the verdict is unanimous and blunt. If you’re revisiting werewolves, start with An American Werewolf in London or even Silver Bullet. If you’re here for the trainwreck, we’ve mapped the wreckage so you don’t have to.

    If you enjoyed this breakdown, follow the show, share it with a horror-loving friend, and leave a quick review. Your support helps more listeners find smart, funny genre talk without the fluff.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    48 mins
  • Ep. 110: Wes Craven's "Scream 2" (1997)
    Dec 27 2025

    A packed preview screening. A masked crowd turned frenzy. A sequel that dares to out-meta itself while sprinting toward the next kill. We dig into Scream 2 with clear eyes and a full notebook—what still chills, what creaks, and why the twist loses oxygen on rewatch. From the opening Stab chaos to the theater-stage showdown, we trace how Wes Craven’s follow-up balances genuine tension with winks at horror rules, and where those winks become crutches.

    We trade first impressions and revisit fatigue, then spotlight the set pieces that still work: the cop car crawl that forces Sidney to climb over Ghostface, the glassed-in sound booth sequence, and Sarah Michelle Gellar’s balcony fall that lands like concrete. We also call out the sequel’s weak seams—overcooked music cues, video-gamey stab sounds, a cafeteria serenade that ages like milk, and a swarm of red herrings that blur mystery into noise. Along the way, we unpack sharp one-liners, the movie-within-a-movie Stab, and Liev Schreiber’s unnerving Cotton, whose every smile reads like a threat.

    For the trivia lovers, we bring receipts: the rush from Scream’s release to Scream 2’s production, box office muscle, script leak rumors, and casting what-ifs that might have changed the vibe. Then we compare revenge motives across franchises, weigh the film’s meta commentary against its own trope pileup, and land on honest watchability scores—great for first-timers, shakier for veterans. Hit play for a lively breakdown of copycat killers, media spectacle, and the thin line between homage and habit. If you’re into slasher analysis, sequel autopsies, and horror history, this one’s for you. Enjoy the ride, then tell us: does Scream 2 hold up?

    If you like the show, follow, share with a horror-loving friend, and leave a quick review—it helps more fans find us.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    46 mins
  • Ep. 109: Michael Cooney's "Jack Frost" (1997)
    Dec 20 2025

    A serial killer collides with a chemical spill, reforms as a wisecracking snowman, and turns a quiet town into a slushy crime scene. That’s the outrageous hook behind Jack Frost (1997), a holiday horror curiosity that splits our panel right down the middle. We dig into what makes camp work—resourceful effects, punchy pacing, and knowingly silly kills—and where this movie fumbles, from cotton-ball snow and wobbly camera setups to a bathtub sequence that crosses a line and derails the fun.

    We start with expectations and tone. If you press play for so-bad-it’s-good energy, you’ll find moments worth cheering: the fast, grisly chemical dissolve; the axe handle lodged down a throat; and the anti-freeze solution that leads to a memorable final toss. The slowed-down Christmas carols add a smart, eerie vibe without shouting. But the editing and continuity strain the illusion, and the script leans on puns that yo-yo between grin and groan. We unpack how budget constraints can breed creative kills while also spotlighting choices that feel lazy rather than playful.

    Then we ask the tougher question: when does camp turn cruel? The infamous bathroom death reframes earlier innuendo as something mean-spirited, and we call out why that matters. Horror can provoke; good satire can bite. But shock without purpose breaks the pact with the audience. By comparing Jack Frost to small-town terror done right—Gremlins for mischievous chaos, The Blob for mounting dread—we map the line between joyous mayhem and tasteless spectacle.

    If you’re building a holiday horror marathon, we’ll help you decide where this one fits. Come for the laughs, stay for the craft breakdown, and hear why our ratings range from “never again” to “party watch with drinks.” Enjoy the ride, then tell us: camp classic or coal in the stocking? Subscribe, share with a horror-loving friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find the show.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    50 mins
  • Ep. 108: Holly Dale's "Blood & Donuts" (1995)
    Dec 13 2025

    A moody vampire wakes up in a donut shop, the mob runs out of henchmen, and David Cronenberg delivers the most quotable line in the movie. We took the listener-suggested Blood and Donuts for a spin and found a late-night oddity that’s equal parts fog machine, love story, and lo-fi punchline—and somehow never fully commits to any of them. If you’ve ever wondered how a film can be too gentle for horror and too stiff for comedy, this is your case study.

    We walk through what works and what wilts: the melancholy vibe, a few lines that actually sing, and a handful of moments so bizarre they become instantly shareable (yes, the pigeon scene and that lemon-juice torture bit are real). Then we dive into what drags it down—anxious “suckling” in place of feral feeding, watery blood and wobbly VFX, a soundtrack that bounces from thrift-store oldies to budget grunge, and a tone that can’t decide between wink or bite. Cronenberg’s bowling-alley boss speech about “leaving a mark” is a standout, but it also highlights how the rest of the movie misses its rhythm.

    You’ll get our spoiler-friendly breakdown of tropes, the moments we actually laughed, and the scenes that might stick with you for the sheer audacity. We also point to better routes for your vampire fix—from operatic menace to clean, well-timed parody and scrappy Canadian cult picks that land their jokes. Come for the roast, stay for the craft talk on why horror comedy is harder than it looks and how a clearer point of view could have turned a donut-shop curio into a cult staple.

    If you’re digging the show, follow us on Instagram at @ScreamStreamPod, visit screamsandstreams.com for episode info and film lists, and don’t forget to rate, comment, and subscribe. What’s your favorite so-bad-it’s-good vampire moment? Share it with us.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    56 mins
  • Ep. 107: Wes Craven's "Scream" (1996)
    Dec 6 2025

    A quiet town, a ringing phone, and a voice that knows your name—Scream still hits like a cold draft under a locked door. We dive straight into that iconic opener and trace how Wes Craven flipped the slasher on its head without losing the thrill: self-aware teens who know the rules, killers who bleed and blunder, and a meta script that lets us play detective while the body count rises. From the first “What’s your favorite scary movie?” to the party that spirals into chaos, we unpack why these set pieces still work and where the film shows its 90s seams.

    We trade favorite lines, cringe at the moments that didn’t age well (that garage door death, the principal’s face-touch), and celebrate the beats that endure: the 30‑second delay in the news van, the clever bedroom door jam, and Red Right Hand pulsing through the streets of Woodsboro. Neve Campbell’s grounded Sidney gives the movie its spine, while David Arquette and Courtney Cox sharpen the film’s humor and tension. Matthew Lillard’s gleeful mania and Skeet Ulrich’s brooding presence turn the final reveal into a messy, unforgettable showdown.

    Along the way, we stir up the Woodsboro Snapple cocktail, compare trope bingo cards, and share production nuggets—from Roger L. Jackson’s unseen voice work to the opening scene’s real 911 calls. Whether you grew up browsing video stores or found Scream on a streaming scroll, this rewatch argues why the film still claws its way to the top of the slasher pile: it respects the audience, loves the genre, and isn’t afraid to cut through its own myths. Hit play, then tell us your pick for most rewatchable moment—and if you’d still answer that phone after dark. If you enjoy the show, follow, rate, and leave a short review to help fellow horror fans find us.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    51 mins
  • Ep. 106: Gilbert Adler's "Bordello of Blood" (1996)
    Nov 29 2025

    A vampire bordello hidden in a funeral home should be wicked fun. Instead, Bordello of Blood stumbles between snickering one-liners, rubbery effects, and a finale that finally shows the movie it could have been. We crack it open with a candid look at why the humor wears thin, how the horror gets undercut, and where the chaos behind the scenes bleeds onto the screen.

    We start with the promise: a Tales from the Crypt setup that winks at camp and invites gleeful excess. Then comes the letdown. Dennis Miller’s constant ad-libs pull the film off its rails, character arcs vanish under punchlines, and the “chosen blood” thread never pays off. Still, there are glimmers—gooey holy-water kills, a super soaker arsenal, and a brief run of practical effects that feel satisfyingly gnarly. The soundtrack teases swagger early and returns for a Ballroom Blitz finale that almost redeems the ride.

    We dig into the production drama: budget cuts to fund the star, weekend-only shooting windows, rewrites to appease cast demands, and night scenes filmed with precious little night to spare. It explains the uneven makeup, spotty ADR, and why scenes feel stitched together rather than staged. For context, we stack Bordello of Blood against sharper genre blends like From Dusk Till Dawn and The Lost Boys—two films that balance dark humor, kinetic action, and character beats without treating every line like a rimshot.

    Come for the candid breakdown, stay for the best-worst one-liners, and leave with a clear verdict: this is a short, sometimes amusing curio that’s better as a case study than a midnight staple. If you’ve got nostalgia or a soft spot for 90s horror misfires, press play; if you’re after tight horror-comedy, we’ve got better recommendations ready. Enjoy the episode, then hit follow, share it with a horror-loving friend, and leave a quick review to help more listeners find the show.

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    54 mins
  • Ep. 105: Alejandro Amenábar’s “Thesis” (1996)
    Nov 22 2025

    A film student chasing the anatomy of onscreen violence, a campus full of secrets, and a tape no one should ever see—Amenábar’s “Thesis” has the DNA of a great thriller. We pull the story apart scene by scene, from the cafeteria meet-cute that frames two opposing worldviews to the hidden tunnels where academia and exploitation collide. You’ll hear why one of us tapped out on the pacing while another defended the premise, and how a few smart sound choices briefly turn suggestion into genuine dread.

    We get granular about craft: overlong chases that bleed tension, thunder that sounds like sheet metal, and matches that illuminate impossible spaces. Then we spotlight what actually works—blacked-out footage that lets your mind do the worst, a silhouette reveal that lands, and a rare moment where dueling soundtracks say more about character than the dialogue does. Character logic takes a beating, though. We talk through Angela’s wavering instincts, the too-handsome suspect broadcasting danger, and the way desire fogs judgment until it’s nearly fatal. Along the way, we measure “Thesis” against leaner cousins like 8MM and Videodrome to show where its media critique connects and where it stalls.

    If you’re curious about the roots of late-90s media horror or Amenábar’s first steps toward the atmospheric confidence of The Others, this conversation gives you the context, the quibbles, and the few moments that truly chill. Come for the snuff-film ethics, stay for the trope autopsy, and leave with a clear sense of whether this slow-burn thriller deserves your time. If you enjoy smart horror talk with strong opinions, hit follow, share with a friend, and drop your rating—what’s your watchability score for “Thesis”?

    Head to www.screamsandstreams.com for more information related to our episode.

    Show More Show Less
    52 mins