"Obsession" (2026) is a Gen Z horror hit

“Obsession” hasn’t earned a classic status: When it comes to movies, people will buy into a marketing narrative just to experience it themselves, but that alone isn’t enough to call a movie an all-timer. If box office returns and cultivated hype automatically constituted a place in the pantheon of great films, Curry Barker’s runaway horror hit “Obsession” would deserve to be called a new classic — but they don’t, and “Obsession” doesn’t. Though that hasn’t stopped audiences and critics from making constant comparisons between “The Exorcist” and “Obsession.” As of this week, the film has surpassed “The Exorcist” in worldwide box-office gross (before inflation). Some cinephiles tout the film as a modern classic, measured against the standard “The Exorcist” set, and more formal writing draws worthy comparisons between Linda Blair’s unforgettable performance and newcomer Inde Navarrette’s work in “Obsession.” But all of these praises are missing a key point in determining which movies can be deemed true classics, something that “Obsession” never quite manifests: a sharp yet unexpected correlation between the film and the world it’s released into. 

Barker’s film, about Bear (Michael Johnston) who makes a wish on a cheap novelty toy for his crush, Nikki (Navarrette), to fall in love with him, has occasional flashes of shrewdness. A product of the YouTube generation, Barker has an innate understanding of how technology affects our modern mores. This knowledge supplies his screenplay with a sturdy base on which he crafts his story of parasocial fixation and all its consequences. But just because a movie is relevant doesn’t mean it’s eternal. “Obsession” is a pulpy, prodigious summer hit that checks boxes without posing any new questions. It’s a film that observes without commenting. And it’s that lack of curiosity for the world it exists in that will ultimately keep “Obsession” from competing with the true classics. It’s fair to say that “The Exorcist” is not just a horror classic, but an all-time classic in the history of cinema. 

And if you look at other films that share that distinguished stature —“Citizen Kane,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “The Social Network,” “Rear Window,” to name a few— it becomes somewhat easier to find the cultural throughline they all share, that irresistibly magnetic aspect that makes them classics. “Citizen Kane” posited that all media moguls are driven by a lust for power that stems from an irreparable brokenness. “The Wizard of Oz” reminded viewers of the necessity for imagination and metaphor at the end of the Great Depression and dawn of a new war. “The Social Network” prophesied a new era of digital media pollution at the hands of an antisocial egomaniac, updating “Citizen Kane” for the world’s next tectonic shift. “Obsession,” on the other hand, wags its finger at projecting a fantasy onto your crush. Doesn’t exactly measure up to the enormity of the classics, does it? “Obsession” is a classic for the digital era, which is to say, a movie whose “classic” status is as ephemeral as any internet trend.

“Obsession” wags its finger at projecting a fantasy onto your crush. Doesn’t exactly measure up to the enormity of the classics, does it? It boasts two great lead performances, and its shoestring budget makes the entire production all the more impressive. But clever craftsmanship and a talented team aren’t enough to call something timeless. Barker’s screenplay is sorely lacking the imagination and ambition needed to stake its place among the true classics, horror or otherwise. Throughout the film, as Bear witnesses the violent repercussions of his tossed-off love wish, Barker continually gestures at the story’s significance. It’s not enough for a film to explain its meaning; it must also say something about that message and its broader significance to stare down the “classic” label. “Obsession” never manages to say anything that hasn’t been said in five more interesting ways by other recent films, several of which were released this year. 

I found “Obsession” to be somewhat misogynistic in its execution, but I don’t think its popularity is a bad thing at all. But popularity isn’t enough to define a classic. And though a film’s contextual significance is an important part of determining what is and isn’t a timeless movie, applicability isn’t everything, either. The fact is, only time can cement a true classic. For all its immortal ideas and all those outsized news reports of people fainting, “The Exorcist” could’ve faded from memory if so much of what came after didn’t prove to be a cheap imitation. Perhaps the same will be true with “Obsession”; Curry Barker’s copycats will try and fail to interpret the trials of dating when personality is a facade, and I’ll be left eating crow. But judging by Barker’s shallow screenplay, I doubt that it will be too long before someone digs deeper, striking an unassailable, solid-gold classic. Source: salon.com