"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Heart Eyes

Last year there was a well-reviewed Valentine’s Day slasher movie playing in theaters. Normally I’d be all over that shit, but I boycotted for political reasons. You see, the production company behind it, Spyglass Media Group, were the assholes who fired the star of SCREAMs 5 and 6 from SCREAM 7 for posting about the Gaza genocide. (And being against it.) I grew up on ‘80s horror sequels, so obviously I can roll with the loss of a main character and the derailing of a storyline, but doing it for that reason was too much. They not only fired her but smeared her as having written anti-semitic hate speech and “false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion.” I’d say they’re fucking cowards for not having publicly apologized yet, now that it’s a couple years later and the genocide and ethnic cleansing continue, but I suspect they have no guilt about it whatsoever.

I think back to 2003, when the band then known as the Dixie Chicks got into trouble for saying they were against invading Iraq and embarrassed to be from the same state as George W. Bush. If there had been a SCREAM 4 in the works at that time and then one of the stars criticized the war and got fired for it, I’m positive SCREAM would’ve been dead to me then. So it’s dead to me now. I love my “horror franchise” completism bullshit but not enough, it turns out, to stomach something like this. That’s just my personal decision for myself, I’m not telling anyone else what to do.

For that Valentine’s Day movie though I decided it was okay to watch and review now because I didn’t pay money and it’s not vying for box office dollars. So here’s my right-on-time late review of HEART EYES, which is directed by Josh Ruben (WEREWOLVES WITHIN) and written by Phillip Murphy (HITMAN’S WIFE’S BODYGUARD), Michael Kennedy (IT’S A WONDERFUL KNIFE) and Christopher Landon (HAPPY DEATH DAY, FREAKY, DROP, was going to direct SCREAM 7 but left after the firing). It’s about an infamous murderer known as the “Heart Eyes Killer,” who kills couples on Valentine’s Day, and the idea is to combine a slasher movie with a romantic comedy. In my opinion they were partially but not fully successful with each side of that coupling.

The cold open is emblematic of the movie’s strengths and weaknesses. It’s a funny scene about a wedding proposal to a would-be-bride (Lauren O’Hara) so ready for it she mouths parts of it, including the “will you marry me” part, like Ed Wood backstage at his play. Then the music is interrupted by her suitor (Alex Walker)’s “Pony” ringtone and he argues with the guy he hired to film the proposal from a distance. Ruben has said his reference point for the romance parts is Nora Ephron; it certainly looks much more cinematic than it would if it were a Hallmark movie (director of photography: Stephen Murphy, Atlanta, Mr. & Mrs. Smith). When they’re suddenly attacked by the H.E.K. the kills are extravagant and the music (composer: Jay Wadley, I’M THINKING OF ENDING THINGS) is heart-pumpingly bombastic. For me, though, there’s a tonal issue: we start the movie with a few minutes of laughing at these ridiculous cartoon dipshits, now we need to turn on a dime to accept them as real, vulnerable humans in danger and fighting for their lives in a serious situation. This sort of thing can work, but I’m having trouble with it here.

And that continues to be an issue. I do think Ruben and company ultimately want us to take the murders and the love story seriously, but they don’t have the discipline to let go of the jokes or the performances that will undermine their success. The romcom meet-cute has to be pushed to parodic levels of silliness – Seattle advertising person Ally McCabe (Olivia Holt, TINKER BELL AND THE LEGEND OF THE NEVERBEAST) and handsome stranger Jay Simmonds (Mason Gooding, Y2K, SCREAMS 5-7) are confused by somehow having the same ridiculously complicated coffee order, then they awkwardly flirt and embarrass themselves with clumsiness to the point that his nose is gushing blood from an accidental head butt. And of course the barista (Esaú Mora) has to be a sarcastic jerk to them the whole time. You know how those service workers are, at least in movies.

The convoluted-coffee-order joke is so hacky it didn’t even occur to me until now that it must’ve been a Seattle joke, as is a bit with flannel-wearing teens credited as “grunge girls.” But I will give them a freebie on that. Seattle is a pretty popular setting for romances (SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, SAY ANYTHING, SINGLES, 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, numerous Hallmark Christmas movies) and sometimes also in horror (THE CHANGELING, THE RING, DEATH NOTE, MALIGNANT, M3GAN), so it’s a fitting choice for this mash-up. Many of those use Vancouver for Seattle, this one was somewhere in New Zealand. My problem isn’t that it doesn’t feel like the real Seattle, but that it doesn’t feel like the real world. The news doesn’t sound like news, the people don’t sound like people, again you can get away with this but there are limits. You gotta get something that feels true in there. I don’t think this gets the balance quite right.

Ally runs away from Jay in embarrassment, as her Supportive Best Friend Monica (Gigi Zumbado, THE PRICE WE PAY) explains, “She’s getting fired today!” Still reeling from a break up with douchey hunk Collin (Ben Black, BLACK CHRISTMAS 2019), she built an entire advertising campaign around a theme of couples dying together (Bonnie and Clyde, Romeo and Juliet, etc.). A terrible idea that seems even worse now that the Heart Eyes Killer has struck Seattle. Her cartoonishly southern and sassy boss Crystal Cane (Michaela Watkins, WANDERLUST) blames her, but doesn’t fire her. Instead she has to work with a cocky freelancer being flown in to come up with a new campaign. And of course that’s Jay.

Jay invites Ally to dinner to discuss their plans, then he tries to hit on her, and she’s not going for it. Not getting along at first is part of the romance formula, and it sort of works here, as it usually does, though again I think in trying to show they’re in on the joke they go a little too broad, make him a little too much of a jerk to seem like the same character when he starts being charming. The instigating romcom event is that they run into Collin and his new girlfriend on the way out, so they kiss and pretend to be dating. It’s also the instigating slasher event, because the Heart Eyes Killer is watching, and he targets couples. So they have to keep clarifying that they’re not a couple, even as they seem to be becoming one. That’s clever, I like that.

Holt does a good job with the awkward front, dorkily telling them “Happy V-Day!” But wouldn’t it work better if Collin was a perfectly normal ex-boyfriend who didn’t work out but doesn’t make her look like a total jackass for having any interest in him? I figured the choice to make him awful meant they needed to make us hate him so we would enjoy seeing him get killed later. But no. Not the case.

One advantage to combining these genres is it moves pretty quickly from the wacky deceit to the chasing, running, hiding and fighting. As soon as Ally realizes she loves Jay he becomes a suspect in the killings. The movie acts like we might believe it’s him, but I sure didn’t. Then again, Billy got blamed pretty early in SCREAM.

During the section set at a weirdly abandoned police headquarters I kept wishing Zoe Bell’s character from MALIGNANT would show up. There’s a pair of homicide detectives played by Devon Sawa (ESCAPE PLAN: THE EXTRACTORS) and Jordana Brewster (THE FACULTY). I think the joke that their last names are Hobbes and Shaw but they don’t think that’s funny might work if one of the actors wasn’t an actual Fast family member. To me it’s not that far off from the “joke” in SCREAM 3 where people point out that Carrie Fisher’s character looks like Carrie Fisher. But Sawa and Brewster are two actors who are always game, they’ve shown themselves to be valuable in even the most lowbrow material, and I enjoyed seeing them in these roles. Though they’ve both been in horror movies it feels more like casting solid, perhaps under-appreciated veterans than making a genre reference.

HEART EYES reminds me of the post-SCREAM era of slick studio horror, during which there was already a pretty fun/stupid Valentine’s Day one called VALENTINE. And later MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D. I think I liked both of those a little better than this, but they’re on a similar level, and that’s a positive. I like this sort of crap. The killer wears an inexplicable but cool looking mask (designed by Tony Gardner, THE DARK BACKWARD). It looks like it’s sculpted out of plastic or something, and it literally has red heart-shaped lenses, which are revealed to light up and be equipped with heat-vision! Or was it night vision? Now I can’t remember. But he uses a crossbow (cupid reference) and murders people at places associated with love and romance: a winery, a drive-in screening of HIS GIRL FRIDAY, a carnival, a chapel. He also has advanced fighting and knife throwing skills – why not?  There’s a good practical/digital effects mix, including a shot that seems inspired by that one memorable shot from the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake. (The one in the van.) There are some fun, funny kills, which is not always the case even in some of the better slasher movies these days, so I have to respect it.

It follows the whodunit format of slasher, which I usually think of as the SCREAM style, but obviously it goes back earlier, including to the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE. Some of what happens I saw coming from far away, but that’s okay. You never guess all the details. Here is a NON-SPECIFIC SPOILER BUT STILL A SPOILER: there’s more than one killer and it’s kinda funny that they explicitly spell out which ones did which killings, instead of letting fans speculate, as with the SCREAM movies.

They’re already planning a sequel and I suspect it will be the SCREAM format that we follow the same leads, who will not die, and they get stalked by a rotating gallery of copycats. Whoever they may be, the Valentine’s Day and romance themes do lend themselves well to slasher movies, since broken hearts, jealousy and feeling left out are standard backstories for killers. Detective Hobbes assumes the killer is an incel, a modern concept but it could arguably apply to Jason, Leatherface, Jacob Goodnight, and many others.

I don’t think HEART EYES lives up to the potential of its premise, and I hope its producers go broke and have to become baristas and deal with coffee orders even more complicated than Ally and Jay’s. And I hope nobody ever tips them, even one time. But I am a fair man so I will admit that this is a reasonably entertaining movie with some good aspects, so it’s decent enough Valentine’s Day horror viewing if you’re in the market for something like that.


P.S. If you read my review of BLUE MOON you may remember me writing about how the methods of making Ethan Hawke look short were devised by his friend who scores the movies he directs and who also is the son of the guy who wrote the book PUMPING IRON is based on and invented paintball, and the brother of the first women’s snowboard champion. That guy’s name is Latham Gaines and he plays Nico, the aforementioned cameraman who’s first person killed in HEART EYES. A funny character with a good death. 2025 was his year I guess!

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 12th, 2026 at 5:13 pm and is filed under Reviews, Horror, Romance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

20 Responses to “Heart Eyes”

  1. I kind of hated this one. As a SCREAM-esque glossy slasher it’s, shrug, fine, but christ, do I hate this style of comic acting. I’ve described it in the past as Doritos acting because it wouldn’t be out of place in a commercial where a couple of broad caricatures have 30 seconds to convince you that their entire life revolves around this particular snack food, but I’ve also started to think of these kinds of characters as Internet People. They don’t act like real people or say things that real people say, or even things that people in movies say. They say things and act like sentient Internet comments. They represent points of view and ways of behaving that no one has ever actually encountered in life but screenwriters assume must really exist because they’ve read sarcastic comments mocking them on the internet. I’ve seen this style of comedy take over many genres, and it has really started to irk me. If dull, dreary A24 self-seriousness is one flame burning away the candle of my tolerance for contemporary American cinema, this bullshit is the flame at the other end.

  2. My friends at Rotten Tomatoes call this “ A mixture of gory slasher and sweet rom-com that ingeniously nails both formulas,” and that may be laying it on a bit thick, but I am among the apparent majority of critics and fans who had a blast with this one.

    I can’t really quibble with the criticisms on a factual basis, it’s just that I see them as a feature-not-bug for this sort of thing. There absolutely is a late 90s to early 2000s sitcom / rom-com / studio slasher feel to this, which makes it goofy and fun, and there’s a solid-looking killer dispatching people in sometimes interesting ways, and a pretty charming Mason Gooding performance. I liked it better than THANKSGIVING or HELL-FEST (both of which I liked), so, it did something right for me.

  3. As someone who had their life changed by Scream (among other things, it was one of the key films that made me want to / believe I could be a screenwriter), I just want to acknowledge I have also walked away from the franchise for the same reason.

    (Neatly, I was away was at the UK college that I now sometimes *tutor* screenwriting at when I heard what Spyglass had done to Melissa Barrera. Also laughed my ass off when Ortega left them in solidarity a day later too)

    Which is also the reason I didn’t see this. I did then later see the opening scene online… and hated it. You nail the tonal issue – I happen to believe that even goofy stereotypes in these things don’t deserve horrible deaths we are supposed to laugh at – which seemed to be the vibe they wanted? It was a disappointment coming from the keystrokes of Langdon, whose Freaky I enjoy very very much.

    Anyway, I have found it very morally easy to walk away from the franchise that I loved and that I’ve enjoyed every film of thus far. I’ll probably give Scream 7 a go in a couple of years when I can pick up a blu-ray second hand. Spyglass don’t see a penny from me.

  4. Would like to chime in that I have also cut off the SCREAM franchise on moral grounds. It was not a hard decision, though, because the last two were trash. Still, I’d probably continue getting them at the library if not for the absolute fuckery of the producers.

    Skani: See, I don’t think it nails the 90s/00s romcom vibe at all. I watch a lot of those movies, and none of them have performances as broad and grating as these. Maybe the difference is that all of those had actual movie stars in the lead roles. Movie-carrying charisma is something you don’t miss until it’s not there, and suddenly you have to suffer through 90 minutes of some generic twentysomething who is aggressively NOT Meg Ryan trying to pull some Meg Ryan shit.

  5. Majestyk, I already had plans to watch this with my boys this evening (their first watch, my second), so, I will report back on how it holds up / whether you have successfully poisoned this film for me. I am moody about these things, so it’s anyone’s guess whether I’ll turn on it or double down. So much depends on whether I am having fun which is mood + expectations + do I enjoy myself. Whatever comes of second watch, I did enjoy myself the first time.

    Having said that: A movie with a killer with a mask with night vision heart shaped eyes advertises itself as pretty ridiculous, which isn’t a get out of consequences free card, but is a “okay, no one’s entering this arrangement with any illusions about what we’re after here.”

    And I really did enjoy Gooding in this and even had a genuine “ this guy flew under my radar in SCREAM but has genuine ‘it’ factor charisma here” reaction.

  6. Maybe I’m a sucker for anything that has a lot of quickly-delivered dialogue, but I liked this a lot more than I expected. I would agree that its balance of tones doesn’t work as well as it could, as it seems more focused on plot tropes of romcoms and slashers than tone management. I’ve dug all of Josh Ruben’s movies so far, though SCARE ME is still my favorite.

  7. I was not expecting it to be dead serious with that premise. I just don’t think they got the comic mixture right. I think a more deadpan approach would have made both the humor and the horror (not to mention the romance) land better.

    On a side note, I also feel personally assaulted by the choice of HIS GIRL FRIDAY for the drive-in scene. That’s one of my favorite movies, and it has nothing in common with any of the romcom tropes this movie is satirizing. There is no meet-cute, no sassy best friend, and no comical misunderstanding that keep the lovers apart. It’s as deeply unromantic as a romantic comedy can get. They don’t even share a kiss in the whole running time. It’s about two people so smart and so mean and so devoted to their work that they could never possibly be happy with anybody else, not a couple a drips shoved together because they’re the two prettiest people in the movie. I’d have accepted IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, the actual source of 90% of the modern romcom’s DNA. Leave HIS GIRL FRIDAY out of this. It’s barely even the same genre.

  8. Second watch verdict is in — it’s still very good! Boys liked it a lot, too, across the board. My only complaint is it’s too darkly lit at several points.

  9. In theory, this is actually a pretty fun genre mash-up. And the overall outline of this story could work brilliantly. But I have to agree with Majestyk that tonally it doesn’t hold up. They threw in too much broad comedy into their romance/horror film. It’s the third wheel ruining the date.

    And I had a very similar reaction to the His Girl Friday. It actually took me some time to figure out that its inclusion was supposed to be a meta-reference to the fact that the film is one-part classic romance because it’s not at all your classic romance film. And to really rub the salt in, the main character says something along the lines of, “This is actually a pretty good for an old movie.” Of course it’s “pretty good.” It’s a fucking classic!

  10. To be fair, I think what Melissa Barrera posted was pretty stupid.

  11. @ Daniel: In what way, that calling out a mass murder is “stupid” when Hollywood bigwigs are okay with it, or that she didn’t phrase it in a way that disallowed disingenuous assholes to twist her words into a smear campaign?

    I thought HEART EYES was fine, and I liked it more than Ruben’s other films, but some of the jokes in it are pure pain. I was expecting broad, and I was expecting things to get pushed too far for my liking, but I wasn’t expecting it to be even goofier than WEREWOLVES WITHIN. Everything is so broad and overplayed–the romance, the Grand Guignol murder sequences, the characters–not just the comedy bits, so why not give it a fucking rest?

  12. @Andrew
    Well, it was mostly the timing of it. She was fired from Scream on November 2023. From what I understand, she did a series of social media posts on Gaza, but the articles that covered it specifically pointed out the one where she wrote she’s been looking for information on the Palestinian side for weeks, meanwhile the western media only show the other side, and we should deduce for ourself why.

    She also linked to an article from Jewish Currents titled “A Textbook Case of Genocide” by Raz Segal. So I guess she did manage to find at least one article in the western media that shows the Palestinian side after all.

    The article is by a Jewish Holocaust and genocide historian, and it was published on October 13th, a week after October 7th. Amongst the claims, Segal’s article mentions international law and UN definitions of genocide, which are all points that pro-Palestinian people like to make, but after December 2023, when the ICJ started their case against Israel, I think there was plenty of international law specialists in the media explaining that calling something a genocide is not as much of a hop, and a skip as some people would like.

  13. I don’t know, daniel. I felt she was very clearly right at the time. You seem to be saying that she was not technically correct yet?

  14. Yeah, I would say that technically she was wrong at the time. Israel had the right to retaliate after October 7th, and later, after continued bombings and ignoring provisional measures, I’d say it’s fair to call them genocidal.

  15. It seems like a reach to be mad at her then. Also me and pretty much everybody I talked to about it at the time should also have been fired and called stupid because we also thought it was a genocide and then were later right that it was a genocide.

  16. I’m not mad at her, I just think it sounds dumb. Even Segal’s article, I’m definitely not a genocide historian, but if you look at his numbers, he writes that Israel killed more than 1,800 Palestinians in a week, that’s 0.1% out of 2,000,000, and they dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza. They want to genocide them so bad, but they need at least three bombs to kill one Palestinian. Like, really? That’s a textbook case of genocide?

  17. I have a buddy who worked on a movie with various people involved in SCREAM VI (including MB) and – take with a pinch of salt – the backstory is even more unpleasant.
    Apparently, all of this took place during contract negotiations for SCREAM VII. The actors wanted more money, the producers wanted to pay less. When the Gaza posts came out, the latter tried to use it as leverage over MB; “Do the film for less, or we’ll fire you and say it was for your anti-semitic posts.” She didn’t play ball, they followed through on their threat.

  18. I can’t imagine being so callous in a public forum about the deaths of 1800 innocent people in a single week. That’s roughly 250 people a day. That’s more than my entire high school graduating class. Yet you clearly care more about some actress using a word imprecisely. You’ve turned incalculable human misery into a snarky discussion of semantics.

  19. To quote the numbers from Segal’s article again, the other side did 1,000 Israeli civilians in a day. So I guess you’re right, I did, my bad.

  20. I really don’t care for Israel or what they’re doing but the idea of them killing 1,800 in that week and calling them all innocent is pretty funny too. They did have targets. And then also forget that’s about the number that got killed by Hamas right before.

    As for this movie, it was pretty good. Not great, broad, but good.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>