Redux: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Redux #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast: 

Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Fred "Freddy" Krueger), Johnny Depp (Glen Lantz), Ronee Blakley (Marge Thompson), John Saxon (Lt. Donald "Don" Thompson), Amanda Wyss (Christina "Tina" Gray), Nick Corri (Rod Lane), Leslie Hoffman (Hall Guard), Joseph Whipp (Sgt. Parker), Charles Fleischer (Dr. King), and Lin Shaye (Teacher) Written and Directed by Wes Craven.

Review: 

Editor's note: while the original review was roughly on point for 257 words (as opposed to the usual "not great" reviews that I have slowly re-done over the past few years), it is obvious this one needed a re-doing anyway after eleven years. Enjoy.

In his life and career, Wes Craven made twenty feature films as a filmmaker, with all but one that belonged to the horror or thriller genre. The Cleveland native had been raised in a strict Baptist family while studying philosophy and writing at Johns Hopkins University before becoming a filmmaker rather than stay on as a teacher; he stated that seeing To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) was the film that "changed his life". His first major effort came up with The Last House on the Left (1972) that was wildly controversial and successful. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) was mildly successful while his first two features of the 1980s in Deadly Blessing (1981) and Swamp Thing (1982) were deemed fine. But it was this film (his fifth as a filmmaker) that really put him at the forefront. Craven had several inspirations for this film, such as the real-life stories covering "Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome", in which newspapers were covering the sudden death of Hmong refugees who had fled Laos (and other Asian countries) to America in the midst of war that saw them suffer nightmares and die in their sleep. Several studios rejected the screenplay except New Line Cinema (as operated by Robert Shaye), which at the time was mostly known as a distributor. As one already knows, the film (made on a budget of $1.8 million) became a franchise, even though Craven had really intended for it to end on a strange evocative note (apparently, the one they came up, involving a door with effects-use came about after brainstorming ideas with Robert Shaye that was quoted by Craven as having "amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."). Craven rejected doing the 1985 sequel (which didn't even have a returning cast member besides Englund) but he did return to collaborate on the third film and Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Craven died at the age of 76 in 2015. The series even went through the usual cycle of getting "remade" for modern audiences, although that 2010 remake (as directed by Samuel Bayer with Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy) is currently the last movie with the name to be released, even with the rights reverting back to the Craven estate.

It really is a movie all about facing reality, which actually works wonders at the hands of Craven for likely his best directing effort in terms of horror craftsmanship. It is funny, for all the times I've re-watched Halloween (1978) over the years, I forgot how good A Nightmare on Elm Street was in terms of its place among slasher movies, since it features a killer threat that isn't merely a lumbering presence (complete with having a cool supporting presence in an established actor). Sure, the bodycount and characterization of its lead threat would get further complicated in later films, but nothing touches the original in entertaining terror. Imagine being trapped in a dream that just won't end, one that seems very real and very much in one's conscious in terms of boogeymen. For his performance, Englund (cast because David Warner had scheduling conflicts after being cast originally) was inspired by Lon Chaney's monster performances alongside Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), which extends to the way he approached using his claw (in one interview, he stated a goal to "be mildly erotic", since we are talking about a dream invader). The strange thing is that the remake strived to have the makeup resemble third-degree burns (as based on photographs seen at the UCLA Medical Center) more closely and yet the first film probably did it best when it comes to terror, which features a few moments in shadows (alongside the other stuff, of course). It is tremendous how a performance can really work so well in making a capable villain, where he moves with theatricality to make a terrifying predator in ways that were not surpassed in the sequels to come. Saxon already was a presence in horror movies such as Black Christmas (1974) after years spent in Italian films and Westerns. Saxon has that familiarity factor where we just go with whatever he is playing, whether that involves authority figures or not (interestingly, he and Englund each wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film, which didn't come to pass); Blakely has the other side of the coin in fairly established presences (Nashville, for example) that actually does pretty well in conniving complicity (I roll with that final shot because, well, the hook was going to be weird regardless of how it went). Langenkamp had minimal film/TV experience but fit the bill of what Craven envisioned for basically an every-girl. It just clicks with her in terms of reactive timing and curiosity that is easy to roll with in confronting fear that stands starkly among most of the final folks in a slasher (her subsequent key appearances in the 3rd and 7th film were well deserved, one would say). The rest of the cast may be disposable lambs, but they at least are neat to go along with for a bit (Depp being a future star in the decade must've sure been a hell of a surprise, suffice to say). It manages to do so well with its budget through the execution of its crew and director in crafting an enjoyably spooky time in the play between fantasy and reality that isn't diminished by its subsequent franchising (for example, the gore went beyond blood out of a bed but probably doesn't have a fraction of the enduring power). Craven crafted a damn good classic that seemingly gets better upon re-watching for its craft on display, which is the mark of being one of the best slashers of its time that is a worthwhile statement to muse about four decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Hands of Orlac.

Review #1896: The Hands of Orlac.

Cast: 

Conrad Veidt (Paul Orlac), Alexandra Sorina (Yvonne Orlac), Fritz Kortner (Nera), Carmen Cartellieri (Regine), Hans Homma (Dr. Serra), Fritz Strassny (Paul's father), and Paul Askonas (Servant) Directed by Robert Wiene (#261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari)

Review: 

If you remember, Robert Wiene directed one of the most notable expressionist movies of its time. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), with Conrad Veidt as one of the stars, is also one of the most notable horror features in the pre-1930 era, when horror was in loose definition for films. The German-born Wiene got into acting in the early 20th century before directing and writing by 1913, with Fear [Furcht] (1917) also serving as an early horror feature to go along with Genuine (1920). Wiene continued to make films on a regular basis until 1933, when Nazis took power in Germany. He made one further film in exile before dying of cancer in 1938 at the age of 65. This film (originally released as Orlacs Hände) was released as a production from Austria as an adaptation of Les Mains d'Orlac, a 1920 French novel by Maurice Renard. Two further films were adapted from the book: Mad Love (1935) and The Hands of Orlac (1960), although there have been a number of unofficial adaptations that cribbed elements from the book such as Hands of a Stranger (1962) and Body Parts (1991).

If one is thinking they are going to get a strange and eerie horror feature involving a man wondering what to make of his newly transplanted hands...you will get something, but one should temper their expectations. It is more of a psychological feature with the barest of horror elements (while not being an Expressionist work either), moving at a pace that will see just how one's patience goes on the strength of one good actor and well-enough cinematography for 90 minutes. Veidt is the best part of the film because of how he elevates what would be a bland character in lesser hands and makes it one with tortured patience and vulnerability that keeps you invested in seeing where the pain lies with him. He may seem a bit overwrought when it comes to looking at silent performances, but it works with what needs to be shown here. Kortner makes a sinister showing to make the buildup more than just a glacier-pace, because there isn't exactly much to really describe about the movie about "killer" hands besides a grouchy parent, since we know that our lead isn't exactly a killer (but Kortner doesn't have too much time anyway). This kind of overshadows the others such as a withering Sorina or Strassny being an old nut, but at least the movie is respectably done from start to finish. The train wreck that is in the beginning of the film is handled in sprawling detail I do think the second half works a bit better than the first when it comes to getting down to business, but its attempts at a tidy conclusion does seem a bit too convenient (strangely, Berlin had one quibble in its censorship authority: not the idea of a guy going nuts due to having "killer" hands, but a sequence talking about making molds of fingerprints from wax). So yes, the movie is a psych-out scare rather than a body count movie, and that will work out for others better than others when it comes to imagination and patience, and I think it ends up doing just fine in that regard. It may not be as particularly creeping as its title might suggest, but you could still have a decent time regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, here's a blueprint of the month to guess on: the decades of the 1910s to the 2010s gets one film featured to review before the cycle repeats itself again (of course, the 1910s may be hard to repeat...)

So yes, a film from the 1920s gets followed by one from the 1930s, so enjoy the guessing.

Pearl (2022).

Review #1893: Pearl.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Pearl), David Corenswet (The Projectionist), Tandi Wright (Ruth), Matthew Sunderland (Pearl's Father), Emma Jenkins-Purro (Mitsy), and Alistair Sewell (Howard) Directed by Ti West.

Review: 

“If ‘X’ is about the way this auteurist era of independent filmmaking is affecting people, ‘Pearl’ is sort of about the old Hollywood way that affected people. The way in which they enrich each other is all a part of the craft of the filmmaking. I wanted to do something where all of the crafts of the movie were their very apparent charms.”

I'm sure you are familiar with X (2022). Well, if you are not, that is okay, because that was one of the films that slipped by my radar. It was a slasher film directed, written, co-produced, and co-edited by Ti West that apparently had homages to slasher films of the 1970s such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), with Mia Goth as the star. After the production had wrapped, West started work on utilizing the script idea he and Goth had developed together, with the inspiration coming from his eagerness to direct movies during the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, with A24 being the production company for both ventures; had A24 not been interested in the idea as it was in terms of being made right after X (such as with budget), it would have been done in black-and-white, so one gets a movie with a color scheme meant to evoke Technicolor. Pearl takes inspiration from the works of Douglas Sirk while being shot as if was Mary Poppins meeting Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This is the ninth film from West, who started doing his own films in 2005, for which he has written all of them alongside serving as editor and producer on most of them.

I really dug this film, which is interesting consider the fact that this is a "prequel" to a film released in the same year. It makes me want to look at what X did with how film affects certain people in certain ways, and it makes me wonder how the film teased at the end (titled MaXXXine) will go, because now I have great interest in what West and company want to do. It isn't often that one sees a movie that has both an enthusiasm about making a horror feature and the proper execution to actually go where it wants to go without relying on becoming a mockery or copy in nostalgia. It manages to be unnerving and charming at the same time with its musings on what desires and wants can do to a person. The unraveling of one's grip on reality becomes part of the horror itself, you might say (since there isn't that many speaking parts in the film, one expects a good balance there, which is proven correct). It has its sympathies for the devil without dwelling on cheap tricks; hell, don't take my word for it, Martin Scorsese thought it was quite disturbing. 

Goth had gotten her start in films with Nymphomaniac (2013), but X was her first starring role. She pulls off such a wonderful performance, one that any actor would love to invest their time with. This is a role that requires someone to put all of their emotion into it, one where you can see the heart on their sleeve in sensitivity, one that we are firmly invested in their journey regardless of how much you know about X or whatever you think you know about the endgame. She can make antics with a scarecrow completely believable and fitting to what is needed in that particular scene just as well as when she delivers a monologue near the ending about her fractured self-identity, which she handles like a champ. Awards season (led by neutered folks, no doubt) probably won't give Goth consideration for recognition, but viewers of quality horror certainly will, and I think that might be just enough to make this a really useful recommendation. The other actors do just fine with what is required in their presentation of reality as seen by our focus that is either on crushing parental guidance or others. Wright was actually the intimacy coordinator on X, and she does well in dream-crushing steeliness while Sunderland doesn't have any audible words and has to succeed on expression. The self-absorbed outsiders that round out the cast also do well in matching with Goth with what is needed in self-expression, such as trying to show a dirty movie or trying to make nice after a failed audition. As a whole, the 102 minutes go off without many hitches, building its cheery macabre nature with the right touch of execution and a wonderful performance by Goth that makes a solid origin story of a crack-turned-chasm killer that could make a case as one of the best times to spend watching a horror movie this year. It might not be perfect, but it may be perfect for re-watch nights over the next couple of years, so that might be just enough for some.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

SURPRISE! A double-header to start off a new October of Horror enjoyment. You will see plenty of features throughout the month that go from the 1910s to the 2020s from October 1 to November 7 (yes, another Halloween - The Week After is coming). Enjoy the show, folks.

The Devil's Rejects.

Review #1756: The Devil's Rejects.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), William Forsythe (Sheriff Wydell), Ken Foree (Charlie Altamont), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Leslie Easterbrook (Mother Firefly), Geoffrey Lewis (Roy Sullivan), Priscilla Barnes (Gloria Sullivan), Dave Sheridan (Officer Ray Dobson), Kate Norby (Wendy Banjo), Lew Temple (Adam Banjo), Danny Trejo (Rondo), and Diamond Dallas Page (Billy Ray Snapper) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009))

Review: 

I will give credit to Rob Zombie in one aspect. Anybody who can generate enough interest to get a bunch of folks interested in making horror movies with familiar faces and premises that border on halfcocked and half-original for over two decades certainly merits curiosity. At least this time around one will not be able to see the film as just some sort of offbeat take on horror films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), if only because Zombie has decided to take inspiration from other features that range from Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to Badlands (1973). The art of the grotesque has taken its talents to the road, you might say. Technically speaking, it is superior to House of 1000 Corpses (2003), even though the only thing those film have in common is Haig-Moseley-Zombie as the main focus (i.e. no weirdo travelers or even the use of Karen Black, who apparently demanded too much money to return to the role now played by Easterbrook). Experienced horror folks will be right at home with a film like this, one that rolls with brutal swings without having many hitches in its step. Zombie has a knack for making the detestable come off as curious, which I suppose helps when trying to do a psuedo-70s movie (I say this since one really does have to put on a few blinders again when trying to buy this as 1978), complete with a selection of songs that differ from the earlier approach of having Zombie doing his own music (which is fair on its own, but sometimes you need old-time music).

What can I say? If you deliver a fine time with people worth caring about or creepy scenarios with a useful payoff, you have the formula for what a good amount of folks want in horror, and this movie manages to accomplish that in spades by improving on what had been done before from Zombie (and the films he dabbles in cribbing from) that proves gruesome and curious at the same time. It makes for an interesting 107-minute run-time, that much is for sure. If you like seeing Sid Haig in a demented role that inspires a few dark chuckles, you will certainly get what you want here; the best scene might be when he is "borrowing" a car and he asks a kid why they aren't too fond of clowns....so he lets him go and tells him he better have a good reason when he comes back (or...oh hell, you know). Moseley follows along with a terrific role of brutal effectiveness, one that can equally serves as the mark of a devil's servant along with dutiful straight man to this cadre of eccentrics, who can go from bloody events to wanting ice cream in a few minutes. S. Zombie certainly has improved on the wicked allure from two years prior with an added sense of menace that means there is no weak link among the main folks when it comes to unbalanced tools unlike anybody you've seen before. Think about it: we are following some very violent folks for most of its run-time, and yet the folks we are watching are fairly interesting in those moments spent together that muddles the line of what you might usually see from films in the genre, particularly when contrasted with the other side of the coin in the pursuer and the one being pursued. Forsythe (told to base his character as a combination of Lee Marvin and Robert Shaw) certainly homes in the right sense of demented rigidity that makes him a worthy piece to the proceedings, a tool of obsession that has a few moments to let out worthy enjoyment, particularly with the setup for the climax. Foree does pretty well in amusing relief, resonating well when paired with Haig for a few interesting lines together, while the others in the supporting cast are fair for what is needed. Honestly, while I appreciate the build to the climax when it comes to throwing the depravity on its head, I think it nearly stumbles with its resolution (remember that it wasn't exactly just three folks in the last one...), but I do think the final shot will likely resolve that doubt for the most part. If you are squeamish when it comes to certain kinds of horror, it won't prove much for your fancy, but I am sure you know where you want to see in your horror movies anyway. The next film in the series (called the "Firefly trilogy" by some folks) would not happen until 3 from Hell (2019), but at least one knows that The Devil's Rejects has managed to fare well as when it comes to the curiosity of this being the most interesting work that Zombie accomplished in his first few years as a director in executing depraved sequences with useful timing and folks to hold it all up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 27 films that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's near eleven-year history for concentrated writing about horror; sure, there will be a handful of horror-ish movies covered in the next few months, but suggestions are always welcome. 

The Ring Two.

Review #1755: The Ring Two.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel), Simon Baker (Max Rourke), David Dorfman (Aidan), Elizabeth Perkins (Dr. Emma Temple), Gary Cole (Martin Savide), Sissy Spacek (Evelyn), Ryan Merriman (Jake), Emily VanCamp (Emily), Kelly Overton (Betsy), James Lesure (Doctor), and Kelly Stables (Evil Samara) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring (1998))

Review: 

"To me, I wouldn't look upon myself as a horror film maker somehow. But whenever I make horror movies, ideally I would like my audience to be really scared and to keep the scariness inside them at least for a few hours, or possibly a day or so. That happened for Ringu, or the American version."

Sure, there are a few ideas you could do when it comes to a horror movie that involves people watching a tape and dying seven days later. Of course, in trying to draw from the double-edged sword of being the sequel to an Americanized remake of a Japanese horror film, one can see where the clichés may fall in, but it is striking to see that this came from the director of the original theatrical feature that started it all with Hideo Nakata. Actually, Nakata wasn't the first one in mind for the sequel, since he actually had wanted to venture past being known as a horror filmmaker (he did a handful of dramas in his native country). It should be noted that he appreciated the 2002 remake that had been done by Gore Verbinksi, one that certainly had more room to expand on what had been done before while standing on its own. After attempts to bring in Noam Murro (a commercial director) failed, Nakata was tapped in. It should be noted that a short film called Rings is included with the DVD of this film, featuring Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, and Kelly Stables that deals with a cult of kids that like to share the experiences they have with the tape (which if you remember has to be passed on to someone before a week is over)...of course no one has apparently seen day seven, but I'm sure you know where that would go, as the story for the short film closes with the opening scene of the theatrical film. Of course, the only ones to return from the last one is Watts, Dorfman, and Stables (well, she was the stunt person for Samara, but now she replaces Daveigh Chase in playing the overall character). Nakata really thought that this triangle of characters would hold up for a script he believed was "very simple but very strong" (one that would be different from his own Ring sequel, which he had done in 1999, just to remember). Ehren Kruger returned to write the script for this film (having done the 2002 film); Nakata would not return back to the Ringu series until Sadako (2019), incidentally.

It is maddening to see just how much of a letdown this movie is, one that seems to be the bastard son of good intentions and studio notes. The aforementioned short film (16 minutes) is both a blessing and a curse, because it actually proves more intriguing than the feature film (110 minutes) that comes after it. No seriously, the premise of the short film seems more interesting to make a feature out of rather than the collection of clichés that come from the overall movie; imagine having folks that are trying to play chicken with death. Instead, the feature has shifted its focus from a killer tape to a hodgepodge that seems reminiscent of The Exorcist more than anything (at least that didn't have CGI deer). Trying to escape just doing a re-hash of what happened before has only resulted in a hollow experience that does nothing particularly new or particularly worthy enough to care, particularly since the triangle just can't keep interest up to begin with. This isn't to say that Watts does a terrible job, but she seems constricted here, mired in a mystery readily apparent to the audience way before the character figures it out. Dorfman is mildly interesting, but the moody tension that had been present the first time around just doesn't stick as well here; the case worker segment is an especially apparent waste of time in that regard, since it wastes Perkins in a shocking amount of time (hell, it uses Cole for just one scene...for attempts at humor!). Baker has the apparent charisma of television static on a clear night, while Spacek is more amusing in her one-note scene than anything. As a whole, most of this proves quite pointless, from its attempts to building lore that doesn't really go far to having its interesting scenes start and end the film (the climax certainly doesn't leave much to draw from the well, at least). There is nothing here that seems readily tense or interesting enough to hold an entire experience, and it perhaps is not surprising that there would not be another sequel in the American line for over a decade. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The circle of five reviews in three days is nearly complete. Halloween - The Week After Part 3 ends the same way 2020's version ended...with a Rob Zombie movie...The Devil's Rejects.

Halloween Kills.

Review #1752: Halloween Kills.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle (Michael Myers / The Shape), Judy Greer (Karen Nelson), Andi Matichak (Allyson Nelson), Will Patton (Deputy Frank Hawkins), Anthony Michael Hall (Tommy Doyle), Robert Longstreet (Lonnie Elam), Dylan Arnold (Cameron Elam), Charles Cyphers (Leigh Brackett), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers), Carmela McNeal (Vanessa), Michael Smallwood (Marcus), Omar Dorsey (Sheriff Barker), and Jim Cummings (Pete McCabe) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018))

Review: 

The amusing thing to consider about a film like this is that this is the twelfth of these Halloween films, and there are various perspectives to look upon in the sequels that attempted to follow the original 1978 film. Think about it: You could watch merely the 1978 feature and its 1981 sequel only...or you could watch those along with four-five-six....or you could skip those and watch the 1998 film set 20 years later (along with the Resurrection sequel)...or you could watch the remake series...or you could skip all except the first film and watch the intended "new trilogy". Honestly, the more surprising thing is that the 2018 film was meant to be shot back-to-back with a sequel, but they decided to wait and see if folks liked it first. Of course, I will point out that for a split second I really thought that film would be the end of the series (this ended right about the time I actually started writing that review)...could you imagine? Hell, after seeing Halloween II (2009), it actually would have been the second in a row that tried to leave no room for a sequel. While I do watch the 2018 film alongside the 1978 film near the holiday season, I can certainly see the stark differences that might have made others skeptical about its merits; technically speaking, each film seems to represent the decade they were made in quite weirdly, and only the original seems to have proven the most effective in its shock factor, particularly in its ending. Of course, times have changed to where certain films now can either be seen in theaters or streamed simultaneously (which I believe is a terrible mistake).  

Unfortunately, the door was blown open for more movies, and now one knows that we are seeing a trilogy of films following (and in some ways worshipping) the original, which is honestly a bit ridiculous to me. You can imagine what that means for the middle film of its trilogy. But hey, even average films deserve an ounce of congratulations, so props go out to the filmmakers to making an unintentional tribute to all of the mediocre Halloween sequels (particularly the fourth) that they had ignored the first time around. If one thought Halloween H20: 20 Years Later was the pinnacle of cliché with Curtis & company, this probably surpasses it. Sure, the body count is considerably higher (roughly over two dozen), but that doesn't mean the quality of writing (as done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and Green) has improved from anything seen before, as if no one has ever learned to simply run away and keep running for decades. Simply put, this is a movie made for filler, where only one or two scenes could be kept with the rest to skip around when it comes to following along whatever story the series wants to pass around the bend this time. Sure, there are a few death scenes that might be thought of as creative or interestingly destructive, but the overall arching plot is limp and not enough to cover 105 minutes, particularly when one already knows how it is going to end, full of avoidable possibilities. Oh sure, one knows the main trio is going to be separated, but it doesn't mean they have to see their interesting qualities diminish (this applies especially to Curtis, seemingly trapped in reprising Halloween II (1981) all over again). Greer and Matichak are okay, but there just isn't enough for them to really do here (at least when compared from the last one), and the lingering obsession with looking back to the past (and lines that reek of stuff said in a trailer) doesn't help in that regard. At least the 1978 scene is interesting to look at in terms of "fill-in material" (which means Patton gets something to do besides sitting in a room), complete with a semi-effective effect. Unfortunately, Hall only manages to do marginally better than the last attempt to reprise the role of Tommy Doyle (which had Paul Rudd 26 years prior): a bunch of meaty clichés does not make an interesting presence. Richards, Cyphers, and Stephens all get little moments for folks to go "oh hey, I remember them!", which I guess is suitable in the cynical sense (you know what that means). Technically speaking, the idea of a town being gripped by fear over stuff that happened years ago is an interesting idea, but the mob stuff comes off more as something to mock (the fourth film had something similar, which also included Michael's antics with a gun, incidentally) than to actually say something. As a whole, it doesn't really matter how many folks get to be terrorized by the main character, does it? The important part is to wonder just what can only really do with a shape of evil beyond sequel-making that just seems him come out of being beaten down again and again. While fear may build up terror for interest, one can't find anything worth building beyond mediocrity here, one that only has gore to offer up.

Welcome belatedly to Halloween - The Week After Part 3. Honestly, saying that I was busy isn't going to help, but "better late than never" is the one I will go with. Horror continues on regardless, so let's make it something from the decade I forgot about last month...

Next Time: Blair Witch (2016).

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Halloween II (2009).

Review #1751: Halloween II (2009)

Cast: 

Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Malcolm McDowell (Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers; with Chase Wright Vanek as Younger version), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), Brea Grant (Mya Rockwell), Howard Hesseman (Uncle Meat), Angela Trimbur (Harley David), Mary Birdsong (Nancy McDonald), Daniel Roebuck (Big Lou), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Howard Boggs and Seymour Coffins), Sylvia Jefferies (Misty Dawn), Bill Fagerbakke (Deputy Webb), Richard Brake (Gary Scott), Dayton Callie (Coroner Hooks), and Margot Kidder (Barbara Collier) Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007) and #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember a film like this. After all, it isn't like there are numerous timelines to consider for a series involving the exploits of a masked killer slowly going around and mowing folks from a little town called Haddonfield (which may or may not involve more than one sibling of the Myers family). Well, sort of. Not only was this the last Halloween film for nine years, it was also the second and final feature in Rob Zombie's interpretation of Michael Myers with his offbeat style of filmmaking, which is covered in plenty of gritty violence (and shots) alongside certain narrative and casting choices (and yes, Weird Al). Honestly, it has probably been too long since I watched Zombie's original attempt at re-inventing the series (six years), but the one point that stuck with me is in how sloppy it ended up being with actually being a meaningful different step from what had been done in the past eight Halloween films in trying to make the character scary again (the cynical answer would have been to not make one for like ten or twenty years in order to make folks forget). Its interpretation of Myers in origins is still ridiculous to ponder, if only because I am reminded that it was essentially an extended segue of what had happened before (which took less than fifteen minutes) that took away the mystique of what was merely just a force of nature, with John Carpenter even saying as much when asked about it years later. Of course, I do wonder if it felt so ridiculously built in overt "edginess" like its sequel ends up being, what with the whole "Charlie Manson on someone's wall" thing. Hell, would it surprise you that each film had an unrated Director's Cut - given the offbeat track record of Dimension Films, who can blame him? 

Zombie apparently wanted to kill everybody off in this film, as if to seal the idea of no third movie (the second movie made $39 million back on a $15 million budget, but an attempt at a "3D" film came and went), with producer Malek Akkad giving Zombie his blessing to try and not follow the rules that he had put for the previous film; in that sense, only Myers in the main trio seems to not be affected in terms of Zombie wanting to go...Zombie (sure, hallucinating seems different, but...no).  Of course, there is one thing to consider: the original Halloween II (1981) wasn't very good (of course, the family angle, thought of by Carpenter and Hill, was later called "foolish" by Carpenter himself), so what do you expect from this film? The movie differs considerably depending on what you see: the Theatrical Cut is 105 minutes long while the Unrated Cut is 119 minutes, which includes alternative footage to go with re-cuts, with the most notable difference being that the Laurie character spirals downward right from the jump (as opposed to being less off the bend in the Theatrical version, which had the setting as one year later as opposed to two)...and of course the ending is altered. You know you are not on a good track when you start with a dream sequence. Regardless if it is there to add suspense, gore, or whatever, it is the easiest moment to generate eyerolls in preposterous-ness. If the first film managed to have plenty of brutality while perhaps being at the cost of suspense, you sure won't see much change here. Being an uncompromising film only works if I actually care about what is going on. The strangest thing is this: it somehow manages to be more interesting than the original remake...but it also is easier to make fun of, one for folks who want to see how much a director can go up their own...you get the idea. If Zombie wanted to make a trashy movie with weird aspects completely different from what was, he surely accomplished it with an assortment of aspects that I'm sure you will all "appreciate", such as weirdos talking about adventures with corpses, Margot Kidder playing a psychiatrist, music at a concert that will make you appreciate listening to Zombie's stuff instead, the aforementioned white horse, and a movie where the only folks to like are either because of camp value (McDowell) or in small amounts (Dourif and Harris). This is the kind of movie that is perfect bait for even the smug to pick at, particularly ones who don't care to look into the psyche of every main focus. The problem is that I fit into the latter category, but I do fit into the category of making fun of terrible movies, so there is that. Besides, the last interesting idea that this series ever had was the climax of Halloween 4...which was two decades ago.

Taylor-Compton does what she can with material that surely must be interesting to consider depending on which version you see: one where she eventually goes nuts, or one that is pretty much nuts from the drop. It just so happens that it isn't as interesting as the movie thinks it is in actually latching on to her perspective, which mostly involves screaming. Strangely enough, Halloween (2018) would try its own angle in the eyes of trauma with Laurie, which I imagine has inspired its own curiosity and detractors. Oh look, a Rob Zombie movie with Sheri Moon Zombie, who would have ever guessed? Hell, she randomly shows up time to time as a hallucination (which when paired with "hobo Michael" is quite the contrast) that results in bemusement more than anything. True, one probably can't imitate Donald Pleasance and his character of Dr. Loomis for very long without seeming pale. So, why not have McDowell play him like he was Dr. Phil? It is amusing in a cynical way, if only because McDowell seems exactly the type to play an odd role in a movie teetering on the edge of mismatched-ness, but his scene-chewing in the name of ego is far more interesting than hearing a plethora of one certain curse word to go along with boring folks in edgy stuff (of course, his turn in the climax is probably a bit too late). What I mean about "edgy" is that there are certain times when the movie seems to be trying to make a point about how an attack affects everyone around them...it just ends up with the resonance of a "uh huh, that's nice dear." Dourif and Harris are experienced enough with these kind of movies, and that is likely why they probably resonate better than most of the folks present here, in that they actually rate well to the generic stuff present without being crushed by it. Well, of course, there is Mane to consider in whatever he is meant to be doing with the whole derelict composure thing with Michael, which is more amusing than anything (in a series full of offbeat scenes with the character to begin with). As a whole, Halloween II is a mess, one made by Zombie with the intent of saying...something...about the dynamic that comes from a killer and his target that seem more alike than at first glance while looking on the shift of all involved since that one terrible night on Halloween. Of course, Halloween (1978) succeeded best not because it tried to explain anything, but because it executed shock in a way that had not been seen by audiences of the time. Halloween II (2009) only accomplishes the notion that having an offbeat flawed interpretation of its main character is still a flawed interpretation, regardless how much curiosity one has for a "different" follow-up when compared to the other features past and present.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars. 

Happy Halloween. I'm sure you folks are having a wonderful time in the holiday season, and I hope you enjoyed seeing 23 reviews in 31 days. Of course, we're not quite done yet with horror, so sit back for Halloween: The Week After Part 3, which will cover horror films as it says on the tin (until November 7th). Who knows what should come up...

Next Time: Halloween Kills.

Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Final Destination.

Review #1749: Final Destination.

Cast:  

Devon Sawa (Alex Browning), Ali Larter (Clear Rivers), Kerr Smith (Carter Horton), Kristen Cloke (Valerie Lewton), Daniel Roebuck (Agent Weine), Roger Guenveur Smith (Agent Schrek), Chad E. Donella (Tod Waggner), Seann William Scott (Billy Hitchcock), Tony Todd (William Bludworth), Amanda Detmer (Terry Chaney), Brendan Fehr (George Waggner), and Forbes Angus (Larry Murnau) Directed by James Wong.

Review: 

“I was actually flying home to Kentucky and I read this story about a woman who was on vacation in Hawaii and her mom called her and said ‘Don’t take the flight tomorrow, I have a really bad feeling about it.' She switched flights and the plane that she would have been on crashed. I thought, that’s creepy- what if she was supposed to die on that flight?”

Oh sure, throw a wrench into the horror film with tinges of the supernatural, that is sure to work out. Technically speaking, having no visible murderer is probably the logical step in trying to make new horror films in the new 21st century without relying on all of the clichés from before. The idea came from Jeffrey Reddick, who was an employee of New Line Cinema for years (working in the worldwide marketing department). A horror fan growing up in Kentucky, he was so gripped by A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) that he actually wrote a brief script revolving around a sequel (sending it to New Line Cinema's chairman Robert Shaye, who encouraged him to keep writing). With the script that became this film, it had actually started as an idea for a spec script for The X-Files, but it was the advice of a work colleague that persuaded him to try and make it into a film script (which was done as a spec script sold to New Line). After working with producers Craig Perry and Warren Zide in developing the script for sale, James Wong and Glen Morgan (a writing pair who had written for the show) were brought in by New Line to produce and direct, and they became involved with re-writing the script in order to have it be made as a film; Wong was quoted as wanting to do for "planes and air travel what Jaws did for sharks and swimming". Four follow-up films followed in the next eleven years (2003, 2006, 2009, 2011), with a potential for a sixth in the near future.

Sure, they wanted to do something that makes you weary about planes like Jaws for sharks, and I guess the build-up to the plane sequence is the most interesting part of the movie in terms of claustrophobia. They wanted to make the entertainment value in the ride and not so much in the outcome that supposedly respects its audience. Honestly though, the ride just is not that interesting to go with, mostly because a ride is only as good as the amount of distractions that get in the way (besides, I am reminded of William Castle when it comes to "ride movies", and he knew how to make a gimmick count). With a movie like this, there are just too many distractions for me to appreciate the movie as anything other than a very average movie that either could have been manipulated for dark laughs or something weirder - the only respect that comes out is that it respects folks who want the easiest deaths possible with the bare minimum of suspense. Honestly, the biggest problem with the movie is that you could probably think of a better movie with the bare ideas presented here than what actually has come from something that probably thought more about the death scenes than what really could have been an interesting way to make a movie about someone cursed with the knowledge of impending death. Of course, my interpretation probably doesn't differ much from the intended idea: instead of having a lead character that looks like a freak to some of the folks (as opposed to say...thanking him?), how about just making him an actual weirdo right from the jump? Or hell, why not a series of deaths that could actually be interpreted as something beyond obvious "accident" material (i.e. more than just a guy slipping on water)? Think about it: a dude goes around telling you the plane is going to explode and a bunch of folks get snared into not dying: what better way to test out fate than by putting them to the test (and it would probably help without having bumbling FBI agents)?  Instead, one is stuck with a middling movie that goes through all the motions with the bare minimum of suspense, which thinks it is clever with the use of John Denver references every now and then (naming your characters after horror directors only works if you aren't thinking about the directors, incidentally). Cardboard cut-outs getting killed with Rube Goldberg-type deaths is still cardboard cut-outs getting killed. The curse of knowing the potential for death could have made an interesting movie, really. That, or maybe it really was something suited for television. Sawa, to his credit, gives it his best for a generic movie, filled with lingering confidence that for the most part keeps on the level with the whole "well, I saw death but I dare to not go insane" thing; simply put, he could be less polite. Larter is also alright, gripped with a sense of knowing that comes from the generic outcast role (incidentally, she would be the only returning actor for the sequel). Smith might be flat, but at least the character is semi-interesting when it comes to one scene near the climax involving trying to get out of the cycle of death (at least, until its end note). Technically, the best performance is from Todd, who has exactly one scene to go and talk about death and runs with it (which includes saying "mack daddy", somehow), which I guess helps out if one needs exposition. The others are pretty flat, in that clichés only work if the ride is fun. It isn't really, but that probably plays into my weird creep theory (the only one who reacts in any interesting way is someone who shows irritation when two of the survivors fight, which is immediately followed by them dying); Cloke is the only adult among teenagers (a loose term, but it checks out), and she has the least to really do besides the death scene (look, you can't spoil a movie that only has a finite bodycount among seven); when you are wondering how much more you could have involving Scott as comic relief, you might have a problem. Roebuck and Smith stumble with the blandest of possible procedural clichés (which only reminds me of how this might have played out before 2001). As a whole, it is a slasher movie with all the middling clichés from before except the part where there is a visible slasher figure. Sure, it has a few decent effects and ideas, but as a whole, making a silly horror movie with one neat trick is still making a silly horror movie, no matter how much gloss you put on it. While I undoubtedly will look on the follow-up films at some point, I can only hope they found better ways of trying to make the ride count for something beyond what they did here.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Saw (2004)

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).

Ring (1998).

Review #1747: Ring (1998). 

Cast: 

Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryūji Takayama), Rikiya Ōtaka (Yōichi Asakawa), Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Yuko Takeuchi (Tomoko Ōishi), Hitomi Sato (Masami Kurahashi), Daisuke Ban (Dr. Heihachiro Ikuma), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura), Masako (Shizuko Yamamura), Yōichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Yutaka Matsushige (Yoshino), and Katsumi Muramatsu (Kōichi Asakawa) Directed by Hideo Nakata.

Review: 

There are a variety of ways one can approach Japanese horror (also referred to as J-horror), but the most important thing is to try and remember the distinctions that come from looking at horror from a different country, particularly when a handful of these films have ended up being remade for Western audiences. Oh sure, there are movies like House (1977) that have endured without other cloying hands, but one focus lingers through a variety of these films in their focus on the supernatural along with Japanese folklore (whether involving ghosts or spirits), and films like Onibaba (1964) and Kwaidan (1965) are some of the numerous examples of the genre at its most ambitious. Of course, we are here to talk about Ring, so let us get on with it, particularly since it would be one of numerous films to find itself turned into an Western product like its counterparts in Dark Water (2002), Ju-On: The Grudge (2002) and others. The film arose from a novel of the same name, written in 1991 by Koji Suzuki. That book was successful enough to be followed by two further novels to form an initial trilogy with Spiral (1995) and Loop (1998), while Birthday (1999) was a short story collection; S (2012) and Tide (2013) was written by Suzuki as a new series of Ring novels. The first adaptation of the book was actually in 1995 with a television production that premiered on Fuji TV. The screenwriter for this film is Hiroshi Takahashi. Now, here's some fun confusion: the film would be followed by a plethora of sequels...including one that was released at the same time at this film. Yes, Spiral (1998) was released at the same time as this film as part of the strategy of Toho (distributor) in the hopes of increased revenues, which shared the same producers along with four castmates (Ban, Sanada, Matsushige, Nakatani) but with different directors/writer (unrelated to this, there was another production made in South Korea with The Ring Virus in 1999). Unlike Ring, Spiral was a failure, but a sequel would be constructed with Ring 2 (1999), which brought Nakata and Takahashi back that ignored Spiral while featuring several of the cast from Ring. Ring 0: Birthday (2000) was a prequel that had the same writer from the first two Rings based on the aforementioned 1999 book. Sadako 3D (2012) was a sequel...to Spiral, and it was followed by Sadako 3D 2 (2013); Sadako (2019) is based on the last novel of the series. Oh, and there were a bunch of other media such as manga and television...and an American remake (but you already knew that). 

Nakata did not initially spring to becoming a horror director, although he watched films like The Exorcist or the Amityville Horror series during his days in high school; he watched even more films in university, quoted by him as roughly 300 films a year during his studies, and he went to work for Nikkatsu studios after he had done his exam-work, where he worked a number of years as an assistant director. It was his work on Don't Look Up [Joyurei] (1996) that attracted interest from producers, and it was Koji Suzuki himself that asked him to direct Ring (who saw the way he worked on the other film). Ring was made for roughly $1.5 million dollars while having a production time of roughly five weeks (there was a pre-production period of three/four months); he noted one key difference in that the novel was a horror-mystery novel with a key device being a psych-meter being used to try and solve the mystery (along with changing the gender of the main character) to go with no shots of anyone actually dying (i.e. no details of the process like in the book). So, one is instead making a movie benefitting from urban legends...which sounds like something seen in Candyman (1992); this is merely an observation about perspectives in filmmaking, since Nakata studied various methods of story-telling that ranged from Kabuki theatre to The Ghost of Yotsuya (1959) to ancient histories and traditions in Japan, such as Onryō ("vengeful spirit") or the exploits of alleged clairvoyant Chizuko Mifune. So, yes, a movie about folks who hear about a tape that supposedly curses you to death in a week if you see it (in a certain resort in Izu) could have seemed quite silly if in lesser hands, particularly since this is a film that doesn't try to go with gore. Of course, it is the benefit that the film doesn't go with cheap tricks that makes Hideo Nakata's Ring work effectively as it does, as it manages to be quite eerie and riveting in its composition that leaves a good deal of things to the imagination of the viewer for effect that will likely work well for horror folks regardless if they see the film before or after the American version, which share distinct similarities and differences (namely in their methods of revealing certain details). Matsushima and Sanada (likely familiar for his action roles) make for a fair duo together when it comes to balancing curiosity and lingering fear that keep the film on its toes for 96 minutes when it comes to reasoned drama with each other (at least when one isn't thinking about who has mystical powers anyway such as the quiet Otaka), no matter which one you end up liking more. Of course one would remember the performance of Rie Inō when it comes to those brief moments involving Sadako, complete with an unnerving sequence in the end that doesn't even require much more than simple movement. The cursed tape has an interesting effect with being shot on 35mm that had some stuff added to look grainy, which works out pretty well in shuffling one's nerves and curiosity. It also  extends to the slow build in narrative threading (some concrete, some not) that plays on one's expectations and pre-conceptions with a sense of spirituality that made it a refreshing standout in its era, particularly with its final shot and lines that seals things quite carefully. If one is looking for a calmly paced horror film that grabs curiosity with a few resourceful techniques and solid tension, one could be right at home with a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Mummy (1999). 

The Lost Boys.

Review #1745: The Lost Boys.

Cast: 

Jason Patric (Michael Emerson), Corey Haim (Sam Emerson), Dianne Wiest (Lucy Emerson), Barnard Hughes (Grandpa), Edward Herrmann (Max), Kiefer Sutherland (David Powers), Jami Gertz (Star), Corey Feldman (Edgar Frog), Jamison Newlander (Alan Frog), Billy Wirth (Dwayne), Alex Winter (Marko), and Brooke McCarter (Paul) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth, #217 - Batman Forever, and #218 - Batman & Robin)

Review: 

“Warner Bros. took a big chance with this movie, and with me, because they really didn’t know what the heck I was doing."

The 1980s must have been an interesting time for horror fans to see come out on the screen, particularly for folks who wanted to see a fresh rendition of the vampire. They certainly got their money's worth with this spectacle, one that definitely owes as much to MTV as it does to Peter Pan. There were a sea of movies with vampires in that era (and, of course, a great one with Nosferatu the Vampyre in 1979) such as The Hunger (1983), Fright Night (1985), Lifeforce (1985), and even The Monster Squad (1987). But when it comes down to lingering influence, one can't ignore the lasting endurance of The Lost Boys, which inspired filmmakers such as Joss Whedon. The original idea came from James Jermias, a grip at the time on studio lots that had read Anne Rice's 1976 novel Interview With the Vampire (which if you remember had its own adaptation in 1994), which led him to think about Peter Pan and the idea of vampires that could come out at night to fly without growing up (hence the title). He wrote the screenplay with Janice Fischer in 1984, but their idea involved pre-teens rather than adults (for example, the Frog brothers were written originally as eight year old Boy Scouts and the character of Star was a boy). The following year resulted in the script being sold for a fair sum with plans to have Richard Donner direct, albeit with a re-write. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to do a fresh draft, but Donner would not be around to direct, since Lethal Weapon soon was offered to him. Enter Schumacher. If you remember, he had gotten his start in Hollywood as a costume designer before dabbling into screenwriting with Car Wash (1976), with directing coming in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) before having his first notable hit with St. Elmo's Fire (1985), which had been produced by Lauren Shuler, who recommended Schumacher for this film. If it wasn't for the fact that he developed ideas of his own upon seeing the script (which he described as "Goonies Go Vampire", complete with a cave), he would have turned it down...instead, he found inspiration involving teenaged vampires with motorcycles (for his part, he believed vampires to be a metaphor for oral sex), one that he tasked to make the "coolest vampire movie ever made" (in his words). At any rate, the film is generally considered one of Schumacher's most enduring works, which included a few more horror films in a three decade career before his death in 2020.

Honestly, it did take me a while to buy into this film, mostly because one has to remember that Schumacher really seems to have a fascination with getting pretty shots that might as well have been edited for a music video before getting on with creeping weirdness. But it always manages to keep you drawn in with the characters of the night with a curious charisma to go with wonderful design and effects that make for a fun time. Sure, it is a horror film, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few tinges of humor to ride along with the experience in offbeat characters. Of course, one has to start with the lead in Patric, who actually had to be convinced repeatedly to do the film; he does a fine job here, one that has to balance calmness with eccentrics at every turn that either want to party or take him. Haim matches him just as well, probably best exemplified by the scene where one finds out the other is a vampire with a mirror and all one can say is that they are going to tell on 'em to mother. Wiest is the general straight-laced one of the main triangle that we are introduced to, and she makes it count with useful grace that is warm to follow on the side when not thinking too much about creeps at night. Undeniably, the highlight of the film is Sutherland, who has the most presence among the vampire cast-mates despite not having as many lines as the others; regardless of line count, he gives it his all in evocative charisma in a way that hadn't been seen in a vampiric lead in quite a bit of time, one that oozes along with carefree life befitting the requirements needed for a creeping film of wild living in the night. Feldman and Newlander make a worthy pair of offbeat hunters, selling it beat by beat in half-hearted chuckles. The same can be applied to Hughes, who actually might be my favorite presence in terms of his stubborn approach to everything that includes various traits such as "going out to the country" by turning on the ignition and doing nothing and acting stoic when it comes to the climax with vampires formerly around him. Others do well in smaller focus such as a hazy Gertz and a ruffled Herrmann, but one will find plenty to keep interest for 98 minutes. It moves with the mood of a glossy project with appropriate music trimmings (such as Tim Cappello performing "I Still Believe" in full detail and sax) and a worthy look that I think hits most of its marks with the right touch of effectiveness without becoming a cliché of the youth.

 

The film was a fair hit on release, making back its $8.5 million budget three times over while being a considerable video hit. There were ideas of doing another Lost Boys film with Schumacher involved (with his suggestions being one set during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and a "Lost Girls" film), but they never came to pass; instead, two direct-to-video sequels came with Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) and Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010), which each featured just Feldman and Newlander returning to their roles. Sure, The Lost Boys might be an acquired taste for folks that have their own preferences for vampire horror (with or without tinges of humor), but when it comes to glossy roaring chaos, no one is better suited for such material than Schumacher, and he milks it all for what is needed in curious entertainment. In a decade with a handful of re-inventions, one can't go wrong with The Lost Boys for a fresh take on the desires that comes with eternal youth and bloodlust in all of its weird trappings.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Candyman (1992).

Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Review #1741: Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Dr. Anton Phibes), Robert Quarry (Darius Biederbeck), Valli Kemp (Vulnavia), Peter Jeffrey (Inspecter Trout), Fiona Lewis (Diana Trowbridge), Hugh Griffith (Harry Ambrose), Peter Cushing (Captain), Beryl Reid (Miss Ambrose), Terry-Thomas (Lombardo), John Cater (Superintendent Waverley), and Gerald Sim (Hackett) Directed by Robert Fuest.

Review: 

Admittedly, watching Vincent Price in an American International Pictures production is like catnip to some folks. It sure is hard to resist seeing him in a worthy production, which if one remembers went pretty well with The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971). The success of that film generated a hasty demand for a sequel, which would have Price return alongside supporting characters Jeffrey and Cater. The film was written by Robert Blees and Robert Fuest, with the latter also serving as director; the script however required a mediator in producer Louis M. Heyward, since the writers did not see eye-to-eye (as one might see from writers to directors). If you remember, the original film was quite interesting in its madcap ghoulishness, complete with Price in one of his most memorable roles (complete with a gramophone voice). Of course, how does one follow a movie involving revenge being done with murders inspired by the Plagues? Well, fiddling with the original is one step, which they do with a voiceover in the beginning that now has the title character aiming to bring his wife back from the dead...after he is restored from when he had replaced his blood with embalming fluid. Oh, and a specific alignment of the planets with the Moon apparently has brought him back. Well, yeah, I guess if this had been a movie in an earlier decade, one could have probably tried to pull a fast one on the audience by just pretending nothing happened (or something). Anyway, if you wanted to see Phibes, I guess focusing on him trying to bring life works...until you think as to why would that be the case if he already got revenge on the doctors who operated on his wife when she died (with him getting in a car wreck while getting home) - of course, I forgot to mention that the earlier film was set in 1925 (which means the sequel is set three years later in 1928). Well, I guess he could also have wanted revenge for the fact he had to come up with a whole new face and voice, and I guess at some point in time he really did just think to himself, "what if I had a hidden temple in Egypt?" Screw it, the important part is that Phibes has returned and is ready for interesting times with designs that maintain the art deco feel from before without too many deviations (of course Kemp is replacing Virginia North as the silent Vulnavia, who had been harmed in the first-forget it), complete with filming done in Spain for the desert scenes.

Of course the simple plan of bringing back his wife from the dead AND finding a river that will give them both eternal life is not so easy, mostly because of the other lead actor in Quarry, playing someone just as interested in the secrets of life. This naturally leads to why Phibes goes around and enacts a new series of inventive ways to curtail the expedition with death, whether involving getting killed by hawks or killed with sandblasting. Honestly, the way that the deaths happen probably reflect the quality of the movie: not exactly as good as before, but still curious enough to work interest well; it may not be very scary, but I guess it will work out for those already comfortable with the usual AIP aims. Price lingers a bit less than before with this film, and while it may not exactly hone all of his tendancies of memorable acting, he still makes it work with sly engagement that keeps us on his side despite everything just as before (accompanied by a silent Kemp, who does fine). Quarry was evidently groomed by AIP to be a replacement for Price (as mentioned by Heyward in an interview, who also felt his career was being mangled), as evidenced by his star roles in both Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) and The Return of Count Yorga (1971), with AIP having served as distributor for each. While Quarry never quite got the star turn he might have merited from more work (as AIP turned away from straight horror in the decade), he at least gives his all in obsessive determination, one whose morality has slipped away faster than his life for intriguing curiosity, playing a fair straight man to all the campy stuff that goes around; besides, he gets to share a scene with Cushing and play ruthless - imagine that; Lewis plays the assuring lead lady that gets the last line (at least if you don't count a singing Price) for a fair chuckle. At any rate, it is also fair to see Jeffrey and Cater again, as they bumble around a bit in trying to step on to the case that results in a few useful cracks, such as one scene involving them coming onto the peculiarity of an organ being brought onto a ship (one that saw a man get killed and put into a giant bottle in the water), which also involves Terry-Thomas being brought in for a chuckle. The conclusion probably saves the movie, in that it is worth it just for the amusement of seeing just who gets what they deserve from their actions (and of course, a song); while the film was fairly successful, the idea to do another film ran into problems in coming up with a suitable script that never materialized.. As a whole, it is a bit more campy the second time around that results in a decent engagement of time (88 minutes) with useful enough imagery to make it worth it in my mind. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Also, let me get a note out of the way. In case you didn't know, the Houston Astros are set to compete in the American League Championship Series for the fifth time in five years. As such, I am hoping for a great series that leads to further play in October (and November...?) for the team that starts tonight. 

Go Astros!