Review

Obsession (2026) Review

Moments of shock and entertainment drowned out by mediocrity

Silhouette of Inde Navarette standing on the porch of a house at night, looking at a car with Michael Johnston in it.
Inde Navarrette standing ominously in Obsession.
jeff, published May 19, 2026

Considering the hype around this film, one could not be blamed for assuming Obsession would stand toe to toe with modern horror greats like Bring Her Back, Hereditary and Midsommar. Sadly, Obsession ended up being a relative disappointment in almost every way but its cinematography. Shockingly amateurish acting, coupled with a shallow script full of obvious moments, rare scares, and a premise based on a rather surface level critique of infatuation and male expectations in dating. Obsession has its moments of shock and entertainment, but they are mostly drowned out by mediocrity.

Reading other reviews, it’s clear that this film attracted a very wide audience— most of whom don’t especially like horror movies— so it isn’t that surprising that general audiences are attempting to attribute elevated horror status to yet another mediocre Blumhouse production. Still, the most shocking part about this film is that it has somehow garnered more praise and conversation than recent films which actually deserved it, with Bring Her Back being the most recent.

Where Bring Her Back featured a slow burning, scathing intensity and masterfully creepy atmosphere that was built from a foundation of strong world building, mystery and the strength of its characters and atmosphere, Obsession seems content with cheap shock value schlock that still does a poor job of being either truly horrifying or genuinely funny.

The acting here is also only serviceable at best, with the first act of the film featuring acting that would be more at home in a Hulu original, not very far from the amateurish acting of MTVs Scream series. There’s an odd rhythm to the dialogue that feels more like a mistake than an intentional style, one that leaves much of the films dialogue feeling awkward and oddly sparse.

The main character of the film, Bear (played by Michael Johnston), certainly did his best with the simplistic dialogue he was given, but his character still comes across like a caricature of an incel, and his character never changes or gains confidence throughout the entirety of the film. Frankly, there are no character arcs at all, and no real moments of humanity here. Bear is simply there to represent an idea that plays into the general theme of the film— that guys like Bear are simply infatuated with beautiful women, and they don’t actually care if the women have agency or personality. It’s a fine theme, but Johnston’s acting stays practically the same throughout the film, with little range or believability.

Nikki, played by Inde Navarette, begins the film as the breezy cool girl, who’s definitely too cool for Bear. She would always view him as a friend, and Bear certainly knew that, although his infatuation kept him hopeful that she would one day come to love his awkward, socially inept self. Navarette has received heaps of recognition for her role as Nikki, but I just don’t see it. She doesn’t have the scream queen energy or chaotic genius of Mia Goth, or the mysterious cool of Sofie Thatcher, and even beyond her own admission of her inspirations, you can clearly tell that she’s studied Pearl and Hereditary religiously for this role. Like most elements of this film, her performance is a shallow version of the films which came before it. While some of her more creepy scenes rose to the occasion (especially her ability to oscillate her voice and act out possession), I do not see the same genius that so many other reviewers clearly believe they’ve witnessed in her performance here. She’s got promise as an actress, but she definitely needed a weightier script to work with. Shock value just simply isn’t enough, and neither is hiding in a corner screaming for half the film.

While the script and characters are certainly nothing to write home about, the cinematography and directing here are actually quite good. For a debut film, there was clearly a promising aesthetic vision here, and the camera work and technical aspects were certainly much better than most Blumhouse offerings. Still, the entire film was absolutely hampered by an uneven feel and disappointingly simplistic script.

This may be the biggest chasm I’ve ever seen between reviews and the quality of a horror film, at least since Weapons, and I’m sure my review won’t do me any favors.

Don’t believe the hype.

Score

Second opinions:

“Barker can clearly craft a 'vibe'. It's the other aspects of writing/directing/editing that leave the movie wanting. Crowd pleaser for woman haters and man haters alike. So if it's a crowd pleaser, cut down the runtime. The ever-so-common problem of a director being too precious with the edit. And it's such a shame because as repetitious scenes and bits fall flatter and flatter, it reflects poorly on the actors for the general audience, not the director. Struggling with tone, the movie felt like more of a comedy than a horror. Strange, because it was marketed as a very It Follows inspired film. Perhaps there is a much leaner 70 minute horror edit in here. I adored the cinematography and lighting. Inde standing in the doorway with the spooky eyelight was iconic. Production design even in the mundane scenes felt completely authentic and immersive. There are many details that you'd normally see from a passionate student filmmaker, so it's nice to see it in the theater for a change. A Bear living in his dead grandmother's house? Inde showing up to Grandmother's House in a Little Red dress. Direct references to Hansel and Gretel? Clever stuff. Speaking of student filmmakers, the audio was peaking during several of Inde's screams, but I don't know if that was just my theater.”

Leave a comment on Instagram or  Letterboxd