Reviews
“What We Do in the Shadows” Season 5 Review – FX’s Vampire Comedy Still Feels as Fresh as Ever
Trips to the mall, pride parades, and political aspirations keep Staten Island’s most unique undead busy with a strong season of supernatural soul-searching.
“People can be real parasites…”
The vampires in What We Do in the Shadows are hundreds of years old and while the audience has only been privy to a minuscule fraction of their existence, it’s funny how five seasons can begin to feel like an eternity. Five seasons can be a crucial period for any television series, let alone one that benefits from the limitless nature of vampires and other paranormal creatures, where what worked in the past now wears thin. After four full seasons, What We Do in the Shadows has already touched upon and remixed all of the mainstream vampire tropes. A less confident series would return to the comfort of what’s previously worked, like the safety of a coffin, but What We Do in the Shadows fearlessly forges forward with newfound enthusiasm. This latest season is a satisfying reminder of what made the show successful in the first place, but it also strives to build new relationships and character dynamics through bold, serialized storylines. What We Do in the Shadows’ characters are at their oldest and beginning to show their age, yet this season feels fresher than ever.
It’s difficult for any series to feel fresh five seasons in and What We Do in the Shadows deserves credit for how much these episodes disrupt the status quo. This season is particularly confident when it comes to finding new scenarios for these characters to explore instead of just a retread of what’s worked in the past. A group trip to the mall, for instance, is a playful, low stakes way to kick off the season that’s both familiar and fresh. The same can be said for the vampires’ exposure to a Pride Parade or a night out drinking “with the boys,” and the wild tangents that are born out of this mundanity.
One of this seasons’ greatest strengths is its ability to find new ways to surprise audiences, especially when it feels like the show is about to retread old ideas. This might be What We Do in the Shadows’ most genuinely vicious season. There are some extreme displays of violence that translate into absurd sight gags that feel like a response to the show’s mission to continually top itself. It’s a new element that works well and one that might have felt too cold in the show’s earlier seasons, even if a black sense of humor has always been in What We Do in the Shadows’ DNA.
This season of What We Do in the Shadows challenges itself and its genre in major ways, but this compulsion to prove oneself also carries over into every character. This is most prominent with Guillermo’s struggles to accept whether he’s finally worthy of the vampire label, but also in Colin’s quest to prove himself in office, Laszlo’s acceptance of his subpar hypnosis skills, or The Guide and Nadja’s revelation that they do deserve female friendship. Some of these breakthroughs come across as glib. Nevertheless, it’s still powerful to see these vampires get a better hold on existence and what it means to live their best lives, even if they’ve been dead for centuries.
What We Do in the Shadows continues to double-down on Guillermo and his arc is definitely the most dynamic this season. He physically experiences the greatest changes and this season is all about him proving if he can make it as a vampire, whether he is one or not, and what a privilege that title holds. Guillermo’s metamorphosis is a fun subversion of his existing power dynamic that allows his relationship with vampirism, self esteem, and friends to continue to develop even if it still recycles the same broader ideas. Guillermo faces the ultimate betrayal and this relationship grows more complicated than ever.
Guillermo’s struggle isn’t made public, yet Nadja finds herself at a similar crossroads once she investigates a hex in her present that has ties to her family and her neglected past. Nadja’s Doll also returns in a very satisfying manner and this season gives her some of her best material in the series. It’s continually amusing how strong of a combination she and Nadja are, especially when they’re out in public. This season pushes their bond to incestuous new supernatural places. Oddly enough, Nadja’s pursuits tie together with Colin’s decision to find purpose through politics.
Colin’s bid for Staten Island comptroller is a fun way to complicate the season and riff on the past. It’s a move that’s reminiscent of Nadja’s vampire club or the group’s efforts to take over the Vampiric Council. This leads to unique use of Colin that feels distinctly different from the Baby Colin shenanigans that took over season four. Colin’s energy vampire antics also lead to an exceptional sequence where he’s put on trial by the grander energy vampire bureau. This interlude includes truly sublime casting that’s made up of some of the wettest blankets in comedy.
The core cast’s chemistry remains effortless, but it’s encouraging to see relationships further evolve through fresh pairings. This season gets a lot of mileage out of Guillermo and Laszlo’s interactions, as well as Colin- and Nadja-driven stories. No combination of characters in What We Do in the Shadows is a disappointment. However, the series prides itself in its experiments to see what unexplored dynamics might work. This season even brings back some familiar faces who haven’t been seen in years, but to great effect and in a manner that feels justified. All of the episodes’ scripts are as sharp as ever, but Marika Sawyer and Paul Simms really deliver standout work. The dialogue never feels lazy even if certain storylines don’t necessarily pop or feel derivative of the past.
What We Do in the Shadows remains deeply comical, but this season also digs into thought-provoking and emotional conflicts for the cast. The inherent loneliness of these characters has been baked into the series from the start, but these new episodes reflect upon some heavy betrayals–particularly when it comes to Guillermo and Nandor–that explores imposter syndrome and a paranormal peer pressure that’s snuck up on Guillermo all series. It’s really smart to transform Guillermo’s journey to become a vampire into a coming of age narrative where he better understands himself and his body. Some of these developments do seem to come at the expense of seasons’ worth of vampire hunter character building. However, this feels like the right obstacle for Guillermo to overcome before he’s finally able to embrace a new life as his best self.
The ambivalence behind having everything at one’s disposal also triggers some compelling introspective material this season from Kristen Schaal’s The Guide, who experiences her own mid-afterlife crisis, so to speak. It’s funny that so much of this season involves The Guide’s efforts to indoctrinate herself in the vampires’ clique and become their official fifth member, but Anthony Atamanuik’s Sean becomes much more of a natural supporting player this season without even trying. This season leans on Sean a lot more, which pays off and finds greater value in this odd relationship. If anything, this season proves that everyone is just waiting for their moment to shine.
Five seasons in, What We Do in the Shadows proves that it still has lots of life coursing through its veins and plenty more to say. This is encouraging considering that a sixth season has already been guaranteed. It’s entirely possible that this vampire comedy will remain this sharp after six seasons, but it’s likely time for What We Do in the Shadows to begin to consider its eternal twilight before it finally feels ancient. What We Do in the Shadows has all of the ingredients to be an all-time comedy classic thanks to consistent storytelling and committed performances. Here’s hoping that it doesn’t stay out too late and burn up in the harsh light of day.
Editor’s Note: This review is based on the first four episodes of Season 5.
‘What We Do in the Shadows’ Season 5 premieres July 13th on FX with back-to-back episodes, and next day airing on Hulu.
Reviews
‘Hungry’ Review – Finally, a Film Brave Enough to Call Out Hippos for the Monsters They Truly Are
When it comes to the animal attack subgenre of horror, there’s a hierarchy of sorts with the wildlife in question. Killer shark movies are easily the most ubiquitous, while alligators/crocodiles, dogs, bears, and snakes probably lead the rest of the pack.
It’s often worth paying attention, though, when a filmmaker targets a more atypical animal threat, including the likes of Jonathan King’s Black Sheep or Juan Piquer Simón’s Slugs. A new contender rumbles its way onto the screen this month, and while we all grew up thinking hippos are rotund cuties, the truth is far more frightening – this hippo is Hungry.
Sistine (Madison Davenport) and her best friend, Hannah (Olivia Bernstone), are enjoying a vacation in New Orleans, hoping to drown out their troubles back home. They sign up for an early morning bayou tour known for its alligator sightings and are joined by four other tourists and the boat’s skipper, Rodrigo (Michel Curiel). An uneventful trip sees Rodrigo take the group off the beaten path, but when an animal in the water capsizes their boat, the group finds themselves trapped in the swamp by something unexpected and deadly.
It’s a hippo. There’s a hippo in the bayou, and it’s not happy about all these pesky people.
From Joy Houck’s Creature from Black Lake to Walter Hill’s Southern Comfort to Adam Green’s Hatchet, the movies have warned us time and again not to go into the swampy bayous of Louisiana. Those cautionary tales are appreciated, though, as bigfoot, inbred hicks, and undead serial killers are a very real threat. But hippos? In the bayou? Well, that just seems silly.
And yet, Hungry plays its blubbery, big-toothed threat with deadly seriousness, and it’s all the better for it. “But Rob,” I can already hear some of you saying, “just yesterday you reviewed the new shark attack film, Chum, and said it suffered from taking itself too seriously. What gives?” For one thing, you’re misquoting me, but more importantly, the reference there was more of an observation on the animal attack subgenre successes as a whole. The “fun” ones tend to succeed more often than their more serious counterparts, but a dramatic and thrilling time can still be found with filmmakers who know what they’re doing.
Chum may be serious, but it’s also poorly written/performed, lacking in any degree of tension, devoid of personality, and so on. By contrast, Hungry lets its suspense build on the backs of engaging characters, good performances, and believable writing. Only one of its ensemble is obnoxious – a major feat for this kind of film – but even then, their motivations are both well-written and understandable.
The rest of the characters are people you’d be happy to see survive the night, and rather than looking forward to the next kill, director James Nunn and his cast leave us uncertain and nervous about who’s going to go belly up. The nervous business traveler wanting to get back to her kids? The family of three celebrating lost loved ones while on their vacation? Joaquim de Almeida’s Walker, an old hunter, is introduced saying, “The only cute hippo is a dead hippo,” so you pretty much know where he’ll end up.
To that end, the film teases out its hippo’s first appearance until well into the ninety-minute running time. We get ripples and splashes, but it’s only around the midway point that we get our first real look at the beast, and it looks fantastic. Nunn goes on to show the hippo in all its glory, and it’s a convincing antagonist brought to life through practical prosthetic effects and digital work. From the ear twitches to the beast’s giant maw opening wide with awe and malice, the hippo’s presence feels part of the action. There’s a tangible nature to it, something practical effects excel at while digital effects sometimes fail to convince of, and both succeed here with quality work from all involved.
While we get brief exteriors early on and some visually appealing drone shots, the bulk of the film unfolds on what looks to be a highly believable, set-dressed water tank (but could very well be an actual location, in which case, kudos to the team). It’s wholly convincing as a section of the bayou, complete with shoulder-high water and arching, twisting trees emerging into the sky. The film was shot in Malta, which is, coincidentally, where Chum was filmed as well.
Nunn, who also wrote Hungry, is now ten films deep into a fairly interesting career as a genre filmmaker. He’s made four movies with Scott Adkins, three of which are certified action bangers (with 2016’s Eliminators in particular being an underrated gem). He dipped a toe into the animal attack subgenre back in 2022 with the aforementioned Shark Bait, and it’s clear he learned some lessons from that endeavor, as its first hour is an engaging, attractively shot feature that sinks fast as soon as its poorly rendered shark becomes a lead character. Hungry improves on every aspect of that film, with its biggest step up being in regard to the effects.
If there’s an area or two where Hungry lacks bite, it’s in both its gore and its ending. There are numerous kills here, but the nature of the attacks and the choices made by Nunn mean none of them result in gory assaults or outcomes. We’re shown the torn apart corpse of an alligator early on, but most of the human kills see them attacked and dragged underwater, leaving nothing but a blood spill behind. Similarly, while the ending encounter satisfies, it still feels like it should have been a bigger confrontation. Neither of these aspects really hurt the film, but a bolstering of the gore and ending antics would have definitely upped the film’s ultimate entertainment value and rewatchability.
When all is said and done, Hungry is a genuinely solid animal attack film that succeeds in making its creature threat thrilling, entertaining, and, dare I say, educational? Title notwithstanding, the film acknowledges that hippos are vegetarians, meaning the five hundred or so people they kill every year – a true fact! – are slaughtered not out of hunger, but out of spite, self-defense, or a desire to play “land orca” while tossing around us fragile humans like we’re little more than seals in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Characters are grounded and engaging, the film moves well between suspense, character beats, and action, and the effects used to bring the hippo to life are highly effective and never feel like distractions. Drop those expectations of a Hungry Hungry Hippo romp, and settle in for a terrific little survival thriller about an angry, angry hippo instead.
Chomp chomp.
Hungry releases in select theaters today, June 3, before arriving on VOD on June 23, 2026.
You must be logged in to post a comment.