Blue Steel (1990).

Review #2361: Blue Steel.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Officer Megan Turner), Ron Silver (Eugene Hunt), Clancy Brown (Detective Nick Mann), Elizabeth Peña (Tracy Perez), Louise Fletcher (Shirley Turner), Philip Bosco (Frank Turner), Richard Jenkins (Dawson), Kevin Dunn (Assistant Chief Stanley Hoyt), and Tom Sizemore (Robber) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark)

Review: 

"What was interesting to me was kind of a heretical, irreverent look at a particular moment in time. You have this woman who's a police officer. And believe it or not, that was very difficult to get made because the police officer was a woman. I was asked to make her a man, and then we could get financing. I said no, the whole point of making this was that she was a woman. It seems so strange today to think of that as being an obstacle, but it was a big obstacle."

The road for what became Bigelow's third feature film is a tricky one. According to Bigelow, Universal Pictures had tried to develop a movie that would be about gangs in East Harlem that had her interested in writing and directing that had come after Walter Hill had been in the process of setting up a producing deal there around the time of Streets of Fire. Years later, Oliver Stone apparently was interested in doing a project but about South LA gangs...and then he got involved in Salvador and Platoon while she did Near Dark. Long story short, Stone liked that film and was interested in doing whatever she wanted to do next, complete with being producer, and Bigelow sent him, well, the script for Blue Steel, which eventually came around with Stone and Edward Pressman producing. I wonder who exactly came up with what in the script for the film, since Bigelow shares the writing credit with Eric Red; they had previously written Near Dark (1987) together, although Red has apparently labeled the script as basically a "female version of The Hitcher". Apparently, the climax of the film (you know, the gun fight) would've had Curtis nude, but she said no to that, being quoted as saying "Everyone would be watching my breasts flopping around instead of watching the scene." Bigelow in the past was quoted as having an interest in "treading on familiar territory", describing Blue Steel as a "mutation that maybe implies a different genre". The movie was released by MGM in the wake of Vestron Pictures' impending doom as a company, and the movie made a small amount of money while Bigelow next directed with Point Break (1991).

Some reviews of the time compared the movie to Halloween (1978) because of the whole boogeyman thing and having Curtis, I guess, but I don't seem to remember the part in the earlier film where the lead became a cop. But what we do have is a weird movie, one that is entertaining but stupefying in its execution to varying levels of effectiveness that tries to play two different angles: the plight of a (woman) cop that has to come to terms with who they really are when faced with rough surroundings...and also a nut that has an obsession with her and, well, things that lead him to want to shoot again and again. Technically speaking, the movie is kinetically interesting in general action while dragging along at 102 minutes to a conclusion that will befuddle the viewer in its certain positioning (ambiguity or overwrought, you might wonder) while seeming digging new ways to throw itself in melodrama. But how many films do we let certain things fall by the wayside because of our relative enjoyment, anyway? Is it nitpicking to wonder where the line should be drawn with a movie where a robbery takes place but somehow the guy in the front of it thought he saw a knife rather than, well a gun*. But Curtis does hold the film together with a generally tense performance that shows the struggle that arises with her position that only is solid when she essentially plays nice in the box she is constrained to, and that's without even mentioning her interactions with the other side of the coin of someone trapped in the strange world of struggling with their position and place. We the audience know what we know, so if someone can badger her about her method the way they do in one particular scene, imagine how is in an actual active scenario. If you're not with her and her charm that comes through even in the plight around her, then, well, the rest of the film goes down with her, for better or worse. Silver is mostly effective in evoking tension, albeit with a few obvious beats (bad enough he carves names into bullets, does he need to have voices in his head and also spout lines about death?) to go with the newfound power of a gun, which I'm sure could be interpreted in different ways**. The scenes the two share with each other are curious enough to make a worthy enough cat-and-mouse game to a certain point, being more interesting in the start and close rather than the holding down that comes with stretching things out. Brown moseys about with a casual charm, albeit with late usefulness in the long run, since it is more a movie of doubts and moods that might as well be a dreary dream. You don't exactly get much time to spend with Bosco and Fletcher[*] besides the bare minimum that comes with semi-resolved (?) family tension either. By the time the movie moves to its endgame around Wall Street, you have a movie that is frantic enough to possibly override the inevitable quibbles because it has a committed director and star that want to make an entertaining thriller. In a sea of varying effectiveness when it comes to women-leading action movies, Blue Steel is at least a solid enough recommendation to seek out for the ride it goes on in the curiosity about the nature of power and, well, the thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I don't want to pick all the way to hell, but probably the most ridiculous idea is that our lead comes to her parents, sees a fresh bruise on her mom, arrests her dad but decides in the middle of a conversation with him in the back of the car to just...let him off with a warning to not be who he is anymore. Or something. 

**Something something Freud something something penis. Actually, I wish my memory was a bit better, because I swear it isn't too particularly hard to find a movie about someone finding a gun and deciding to mosey around the city with it. Instead, I keep wondering why I haven't watched Gun Crazy.

[*] Bosco was a Tony Award winning actor for 1989, while Fletcher, well, you know her Academy Award-winning role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but for me, her performances as Kai Winn on the massively underrated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was probably just as cool.

The Fog (1980).

Review #2312: The Fog (1980).

Cast: 

Adrienne Barbeau (Stevie Wayne), Tom Atkins (Nicholas "Nick" Castle), Jamie Lee Curtis (Elizabeth Solley), Hal Holbrook (Father Patrick Malone), Janet Leigh (Kathy Williams), Nancy Loomis (Sandy Fadel), Ty Mitchell (Andrew "Andy" Wayne), Charles Cyphers (Dan O'Bannon / Dan the Weather Man), James Canning (Dick Baxter), John F. Goff (Al Williams), George Buck Flower (Tommy Wallace), Regina Waldon (Mrs. Kobritz), Darwin Joston (Dr. Phibes), Rob Bottin (Blake), and John Houseman (Mr. Machen) 

Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, #1298 - They Live, #1479 - Big Trouble in Little China, #1605 - Starman, #1874 - Assault on Precinct 13, #2130 - Vampires)

Review: 

"I think the primary reason I'm making movies is to get a response from the audience, is to get the audience to go with me down on whatever path I'm trying to take them with, whether it's to make them laugh or make them jump."

Admittedly, it does feel nice to inquire further into the works of John Carpenter. The Fog was the fourth feature film of his after the broadcast of Someone's Watching Me! (1978) and Elvis (1979). Of course, the genesis for what became The Fog came a few years prior around the time of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), which had featured Debra Hill as a script supervisor and assistant editor in her first collaboration with Carpenter (with whom he wrote Halloween [1978] with). Apparently, the inspiration came when the two were promoting Assault in England and saw Stonehenge in the mist. This would collide with inspirations such as Val Lewton's films such as Isle of the Dead or I Walked with a Zombie to go along with the 1958 film The Trollenberg Terror, the Tales from the Crypt books, and the wreck of a ship called the Frollic. The Fog was written by Carpenter and Hill, who produced the film as part of a two-movie deal with AVCO Embassy Pictures, which was then followed the following year with Escape from New York (1981). The manner in which Embassy did a deal with Carpenter and Hill irritated Irwin Yablans, who apparently had a verbal agreement to produce the film and did a lawsuit. The result of this was that Carpenter and Hill wound up on working with an eager Yablans for Halloween II (1981). Prior to release of The Fog, Carpenter oversaw reshoots of the film because the original version apparently didn't work in his eyes to go along with needing to compete with horror films that would be released around the same time (with their levels of gore). The prologue alongside certain moments of gore to go with tinkering with the nature of the climax (such as showing the top of the lighthouse) are the most significant things that were done in these re-shoots. The movie was made for roughly $1.1 million and was a relative success with audiences. A remake was directed by Rupert Wainwright in 2005 (with Carpenter and Hill being producers) to tremendous failure.

 

It's interesting that the movie starts with a quote from Edgar Allan Poe’s poem “A Dream Within a Dream" ("Is all that we see or seem/But a dream within a dream?"). The faceless horror that arises from a strange ghost story (well, aside from the climax that sort of feels like a zombie film when they try to board up the church), complete with Houseman being the perfect voice to sell the opening in gentlemanly fashion. A. & A. Special Effects (as operated by Dick Albain Jr) were behind the fog effects, which they did on soundstages with fog machines that combined with various uses of dry ice, fog juice and optical effects (in one instance, a miniature of rocks, black velvet and dry ice to combine later) for what you see here. Barbeau had considerable television experience (most notably on Maude) but this was her film debut, one in which her character doesn't even share a scene physically on-screen with anybody other than her on-screen son. She still manages to pull off a strong performance here, charming and strong enough to carry the tension for sights and sounds. Holbrook is the logical choice for sobering truth in such carefully curated time on screen, one wracked with unnerving energy at seeing cracks form in his faith at the hands of a terrifying discovery (namely coordinating death). Curtis and Atkins are as familiar to us as bread with their warm presences, but (to me, anyway) that is a fun thing to have when seeing people get wrapped in terror. You do get your moments of slashing every now and then, but it mostly is a film trying to roll along with atmosphere (such as an expected on-point music score from Carpenter) and a threat of fog that can in some ways work out for suspense, by the time it gets most of its characters in line for the climax. The 90-minute runtime does end a bit abruptly, but it is still strange but enduring horror experience in which one gets bit of shock and gore at the revenge-plot play out ("six must die", as one sees). As a whole, Carpenter's fourth effort as a filmmaker managed to make an old-fashioned ghost story work out with eerie enjoyment and a solid cast that makes for a pretty good time to see play out all the way to its end. A neat little gem that ranks firmly in the second tier of Carpenter films, you won't miss with this one when it comes to calmly-built terror. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, that is a wrap on Halloween: The Week After VI. We had plenty of fun going through a historic October (45 reviews, because I just had to look for as many "different" films as possible) to go along with some useful loose ends fulfilled for this first week of November. Anyway, here is the list of candidates that just missed out on the cut of October 1 - November 7:

The Monster, The Man Who Changed His Mind, The Collector, The Gorgon, The Last Broadcast, Torture Garden, The Wolfman (2010), Quatermass 2, The Bride, The Thing That Wouldn't Die, Vampire in Brooklyn, Amazing Mr. X, Underworld 2, Friday the 13th Part 3, Frankenstein 1970, Alraune, The Plague of Florence, The Student of Prague (1926), The Bat, One Exciting Night, Wizard of Gore, Mary Reilly, Color out of Space, The Invasion, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination 3, The People Under the Stairs,  The Fly II, Van Helsing, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, It's Alive, Martin, Monkey Shines, I Vampiri, The Abominable Snowman, The Aztec Mummy, From Hell It Came, The House on Sorority Row, Vampire in Venice, Blood for Dracula, Scream Blacula Scream, Planet of the Vampires, Ravenous, The Grudge, Hellraiser II, 

Death Line, Squirm,...

...As for what might be next, well, I do have one surprise up my sleeve.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.

Halloween Ends.

Review #1906: Halloween Ends.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Andi Matichak (Allyson Nelson), James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle (Michael Myers / The Shape), Will Patton (Deputy Frank Hawkins), Rohan Campbell (Corey Cunningham), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Jesse C. Boyd (Officer Mulaney), Joanne Baron (Joan Cunningham), Rick Moose (Ronald), with Michael Barbieri (Terry), Destiny Mone (Stacy), Joey Harris (Margo), Marteen (Billy), and Michael O'Leary (Dr. Mathis) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018) and #1752 - Halloween Kills)

Review:  

Part 1: The Shape of BS

It took about a week to write this review, albeit mostly on purpose. I had a vacation coming in October because, well, it is baseball season, but I figured that a month of horror would need at least one 2022 film (as it turned out, this is the third from this year). Besides, there is plenty to talk about when refreshed and having covered thirteen films already, so let us get going. As much as I wanted to rush out a review that covered this film in quick detail in order to cover a new horror movie for the season, I think that the best way to give the film justice is in excruciating detail. No, this won't be a bit-by-bit picking of the film, but it will try to satisfy all of the angles that I'm sure will make this one of the most divisive horror movies in quite a while. If one wants to be pedantic, there have been premises suggested for Halloween films that never came to pass that I'm sure would be familiar to those who watch this film, since one of the ideas presented in the gap between Halloween films (2010-2017) involved a mockumentary where people would get slashed while a "Halloween" movie was being filmed. You could argue that the movie is meant to be bold with the way it wants to finally, finally, close the Halloween series (at least until Malek Akkad decides to make a deal with a producer besides Blumhouse to do it all over again). We have seen twelve follow-up films now, with varying "timelines". Halloween (2018), the first reboot to ignore continuity since the last film to ignore continuity in Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), was pretty fine when I saw it back in 2018, but my opinion did diminish slightly when I heard that there would not only be a sequel but then another sequel. You know why? Yes, I am still stubborn in the belief that the 2018 Halloween would have been better off as just one thing, with no attempts at baiting more. Sure, Gordon Green and Danny McBride thought about doing back-to-back movies, but you can't seriously tell me that this trilogy of films (2018, 2021, 2022) deserved to be a trilogy. How the hell does one have so little confidence in themselves to go through with this? No disrespect, but people still would've gone nuts for a back-to-back row of Halloween films. At any rate, Kills was a flat-out filler movie filled with a silly idea about townspeople going nutty that went hand in hand with silly dialogue, albeit being better as a pure slasher film. As with before, Gordon Green and McBride wrote the film, this time in collaboration with Chris Bernier and Paul Brad Logan; the ending apparently was re-shot to be more modest. The film was released both in theaters and on Peacock (yuck), and I imagine it will make slightly less than the other two in audience curiosity, but who knows.

Part II

It is amusing to think about how the new trilogy has cribbed elements of the films they ignored with II, 4, 5, 6, except the whole Myers sibling thing. For example:

Laurie enters the hospital and stays there for most of it (Halloween II / Kills) 

A town mob goes after Michael (The Return of Michael Myers / Kills)

Michael gets injured and rests underground (The Revenge of Michael Myers / Ends)

A radio shock jock talks about Michael, needles the town, then gets killed (The Curse of Michael Myers / Ends)

A weirdo Tommy Doyle (Halloween 6 / Kills) 

Michael returns to his old house to kill people who happened to live there (Halloween 6 / Kills)

A person possibly follows in the footsteps of Michael (4 / Ends). 

Of course, you could argue that Ends tries to play the trick of being like the first one in not having much of Michael Myers or perhaps serve as a new example of being the divisive "third film" such as Halloween III; Season of the Witch (1982). Halloween (1978) was a great movie, let us get this out of the way. The classic took a premise as simple as murder of babysitters in a small town and made it a great horror classic that looked and sounded great, complete with a menacing terror in "The Shape". So...how is it? You know what was a better horror sequel that tried to do a different take on the original? Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Watch that film instead. All right, you want more? Well...

Part III: Season of the Review

Halloween Ends is probably the most poorly executed of all the sequels that have come out in 40 years. I will say that it is average in terms of presentation and general filmmaking but a failure in the parts that matter most. Forget trying to call this the modern Halloween III in trying to push the boundaries of what can be done in this series, because this is just a lousy piece of dreck that makes the other one look less like hokey dreck. You thought killer masks with microchips from Stonehenge was bad? You thought Michael being a tool of a Thorn cult was bad? You thought trying to explain the psychology of Michael was bad? No, it is the idea of trying to make a movie where someone follows some of the footsteps of evil like Michael Myers that ends up being one of the most confounding misfires in this series. I think the only movie that managed to convey the terror of being killed by a shape of evil in a small town was, well, the original film. Every sequel since has either serve as a demystification of the killer or tried to amp up the gore, proving that one really can't capture lightning in a bottle twice. To be honest, the end result differed from what I really thought could have happened in this series: kill both Laurie and Michael as a full-fledged way to balance out good and evil. Granted, it would be pretty bleak, but isn't the point of doing a new "trilogy" to aim for something different? You could argue that Halloween: Resurrection (2002) and Halloween 4 came up with the death idea first, but hey, if you can do a better version of H20, then doing a better follow-up of H20 than what you got is not a hard tangent to leap to. But no, you have got to keep Curtis present and ready for another matchup of aging characters once again (box office dollars being the cynical reason). Maybe they wanted people to do think pieces about how the Rob Zombie features were better by comparison (uh, no).

Part 4: The Return of the Point

The 2018 version at least made a quality setup of an aged Laurie and Michael having their paths cross again, but it seems insulting to make a movie that tries to play with that for the last 25 minutes for a less inspiring result. The film isn't even better on a horror level than Kills, a mediocre hack of the fourth film. The slasher scenes are handled in a moderate level that falls by the wayside with bland social commentary that is not particularly clever. Who the hell thought seeing townspeople spew conspiracy theories about a killer was a particularly interesting idea? The Shape isn't exactly a hard presence to break down: he kills people without saying much of anything, he lurks in a way that may or may not be supernatural. John Carpenter aimed for "true crass exploitation", and every sequel has managed to only be just exploitation in different names. You could argue that Carpenter being involved as executive producer and music composer makes this sting less, but I imagine as long as the work and check clears, he doesn't really care (this isn't to knock Carpenter, because he obviously can do whatever the hell he wants - give him another shot at a film, you cowards!). 

Part 5: The Revenge of the Actors

Oh, right, there are actors in this movie. It relies mostly on the shoulders of Campbell, known for a handful of TV and film roles. In his attempts at trying to portray the descent of someone into madness in a love story manages to result in a bland performance. If you want to make chemistry between him and Matichak make sense, one would've actually had these two paired together earlier - as opposed to the third film of a trilogy! There is just too much of a hill for him to climb out of when it comes to trying to elevate a "new idea" that won't make you simply just watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). In short, he is only effective in bland brooding scenes that would've made him an ideal one marked for death in a crappy slasher movie. Matichak comes off as listless, seemingly stuck in autopilot mode for nothing to do besides act opposite the "bad boy" stuff, as if the dynamic between her and Curtis had been played out in the last two films (uh, no?). I do appreciate Curtis getting her last portrayal of a character without reaching 65 (as opposed to Donald Pleasance, who was past that age for three sequels while still probably being the best part of those films). There hasn't been a bad portrayal in these seven films, but I can't say that she goes out as a complete winner, because the movie fundamentally fails her when it comes to presenting her trauma and guilt (oh look, the character is depicted writing a book...kind of like how Rob Zombie's Halloween sequels (2007, 2009) had one of the leads write a book). The voiceovers used from time to time are cliche and uninspiring, and there is nothing to grab on when it comes to the inevitability of a final confrontation that is more of a wet fart of a swansong rather than something interesting. The rest of the characters are just there, mildly interesting but only reminding me that this probably could've worked as a miniseries or a mega-cut. Here are the run-times of the films: 106, 105, and 111 minutes. Yeah, I think you can take 300 minutes from these films combined and cobble it into two films, and maybe somehow make this look like a real narrative as opposed to whatever bullshit this is, which seems to think the audience is stupid. The last film thought they could play the audience like a fiddle for filler, so obviously they think they can get away with it again. Imagine having the highlight of your film being a character getting put through the grinder (unless you count the opening scene as, uh, effective). 

 Part 6: The Curse of the Conclusion

In total, I assumed when I took time to process the film that it would sound better in my mind. Some have made the argument that it is a mixed bag, one that really tries to do something different with the series besides just being a slasher film. Well, that may be true, but a pile of crap with salt in the middle still taste likes crap no matter how you try to present things. I won't go as far as others who (seriously or not) put up a petition to re-do the film, but I will say that the best way to view the film is to look at it as a parody, one that sees what happens when someone has gone so far up their own...you know where that they have lost sight of what Halloween was about. It was a haunted house movie built around a holiday dedicated to getting one good scare that Carpenter and company turned into something chilling. Gordon Green's 2018 film and the original Halloween II are probably the only interesting follow-ups since the original, but when it comes to wanting one pure good time, the original movie wins every-time, proving that the past can lurk from beyond in more ways than one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Review #1835: Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Cast: 

Michelle Yeoh (Evelyn Quan Wang), Stephanie Hsu (Joy Wang / Jobu Tupaki), Ke Huy Quan (Waymond Wang), James Hong (Gong Gong), Jamie Lee Curtis (Deirdre Beaubeirdra), Tallie Medel (Becky), Jenny Slate ("Big Nose"), Harry Shum Jr. (Chad), and Biff Wiff (Rick) Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert.

Review: 

“We should be looking to a forward-looking multiverse, because right now this universe we’re in is on a very scary path. And the multiverse is actually a really beautiful, important metaphor for right now because we need to be looking at all the possibilities, not just the one that we think we’re in. And we definitely shouldn’t be looking backwards.”

You may or may not know the directing duo of "Daniels", comprised of two directors in Kwan and Scheinert, who met at Emerson College while studying film; they did a variety of stuff together, starting with two short films in Swingers (2009) and Puppets (2010), which can be found online. They did several other things together such as television episodes and music videos (such as for the song “Turn Down for What" by DJ Snake and Lil Jon) before they made their feature debut with Swiss Army Man (2016), which evidently involves a man and a farting corpse. Scheinert directed The Death of Dick Long (2019) solo, so this in effect makes this film Scheinert's third effort and second for Kwan. When they had shown Swiss Army Man to their parents and had numerous conversations about it, the reflections of the duo on their apparent need to make something so strange to go with the difficulty of their parents in understanding it that proved an inspiration. I had first heard of the film earlier last month, but it was only in the last week of April that I had the chance to see this film in my local theater (the result of a film that expanded from an initial limited release - go figure, expand a release and people like me might actually see it rather than flock to "streaming" like a defeated sheep), and it took little time to convince myself that this might be a useful curiosity to see.

As one imagines, sometimes you must sneak in sincerity under absurdity when it comes to a journey of finding balance and understanding within beautiful chaos. This is in a movie that involves hot-dog fingers and sentient rocks, for example. But describing things that happen to occur in a movie isn't exactly a succinct answer for a movie like this, one that threads itself carefully on the matter of choices, not so much just being a movie about multiple selves, since the "chosen one" to potentially save things is possibly just the one with the most failures, for example. It results in a movie that is a hodgepodge of genres fitting for its title - action, sci-fi adventure, thriller, coming of everything, black comedy...but it really can be construed as a movie of finding the middle ground between oblivion and meaning. Yes, it has a quick pace to action scenes at times, but it never loses sight of doing some philosophy to go along with things at the end. In the end, it results in a brilliantly messy movie that maneuvers its way through 139 minutes with a warm-hearted sense of self that may very well become a curiosity to watch again and again just to think about how far the rabbit hole can go. In other words: the key to everything in a movie about family strife happening everywhere all at once is communication, complete with a family triangle that is yearning to have things acknowledged by the other. In that sense, I applaud the movie for managing to not fall into the modern trap of trying to build itself so high only to fall on its own hype, or to put it in more blunt terms, not huffing its own supply and interrupting its own flow. As such, this seems just the right kind of movie ideal for Yeoh, one that requires an actress to put on many hats (as the expression goes) in being the key focus of an organic mold of melancholy and resolve that allows for both a flurry of action sequences alongside touching moments spent with either Hsu or Quan for family interest, whether that means trying to roll with the growing sense of genre anarchy or other things. You may remember Quan from his childhood roles in films such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) and The Goonies (1985), but you might be surprised to hear that this is in fact his comeback feature, as he had actually stepped away from acting (due to a lack of opportunity for roles) for work behind the camera. It is evident fairly early that he has not lost a step here, since he proves quite endearing in keeping the balance of the film on the right level with kindness and charm in each of the three personalities he inhibits here (ranging from the husband wanting to sneak divorce papers for actual attention to the confident "Alpha" husband). Hsu provides the key center to the proceedings in terms of a family dilemma that essentially explodes into multitude family dilemma with suitable timing that taps well with Yeoh in expressing the doubts and fears that come within paths that could spring curiosity or nihilism (especially when one's trauma of disappointing a parent has sprung in two generations), and she balances well with the conflicts presented here for engaging drama that makes her a quality presence. The film is built on the main trio, but Curtis and Hong do partake in their own moments to share for interest that one would expect from veteran presences like them, whether that involves a dry auditor that draws a few amusing moments or an eccentric charmer, respectively. By the time the movie draws to its ending, it does so without becoming dripped in false notes, which works out when wanting to finish making a movie that uses the idea of a "multi-verse" as a metaphor that seems timeless and therefore right on target. Honestly, the rating for this film took a bit of time to think about, because it really is a fun time for anyone who wants to see something original in their movie experience that seems like a labor of love more than just a laborious experiment in filmmaking. It does so with a break-neck pace that rewards its viewers with a useful emotional journey that details the meaning of empathy in a weary world (or worlds, in this case) with the right cast to make a worthy adventure that may be one worth looking into again and again, a wonderfully messy mix of action and clarity. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

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.

Prom Night.

Review #1743: Prom Night.

Cast: 

Leslie Nielsen (Mr. Hammond), Jamie Lee Curtis (Kimberly "Kim" Hammond), Casey Stevens (Nick McBride), Eddie Benton (Wendy Richards), Michael Tough (Alex Hammond), Robert A. Silverman (Mr. Sykes), Mary Beth Rubens (Kelly Lynch), Pita Oliver (Vicki), David Mucci (Lou Farmer), Joy Thompson (Jude Cunningham), George Touliatos (Lt. McBride), Sheldon Rybowski (Seymour "Slick" Crane), and Melanie Morse (Henri-Anne) Directed by Paul Lynch.

Review: 

Hey, you like movies that seem like other movies? Well, you certainly will have one here with the movie: Want to think about Halloween (1978)? Or how about Carrie (1976)? Or how about phone call creeps like Black Christmas (1974)? Or maybe Saturday Night Fever (1977) is your preference...so why not a revenge flick involving prom, a masked killer, and more? Well, you might not believe this, but you get all that and more in a puddle of a slasher movie. Incidentally, if one is thinking about Friday the 13th (1980) in this discussion, Paramount Pictures actually had a choice to distribute both of those films, but Avco Embassy Pictures ended up with this film because they wanted to release it in more theaters than Paramount (over a thousand as opposed to hundreds). But let us give a little detail to its creators first, hmm? Before he went into film, Paul Lynch worked as a cartoonist and a photographer before he made his venture into filmmaking in 1968 in television. He made his feature film debut with The Hard Part Begins (1973) as one of his "people pictures". He had an idea to do a horror film after hearing about the success of films like Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left (1972). Actually, he had approached Irwin Yablans (the producer behind Halloween who had thought of the initial idea) with an idea about a killer gynecologist, but instead he was moved into doing a themed horror film instead. Although he has continued to direct since this film, this is likely the most notable one most would know in his line of work, which involved a handful of films done in his native Canada along with countless television series work. The film had two writers: the story was done by Robert Guza Jr while the screenplay was by William Gray.

Keep in mind, there are numerous red herrings presented here, since one gets to follow along with numerous folks in its multi-faced presentation of high school weirdos that just happens to have a total body count of seven. So what does it involve you may ask? Well, there is a group of four children that get into an accident involving a dead body that think to hide their involvement from everyone...six years later a raspy voiced person (who just happened to have see what happened) calls each of them up and targets them for death. Of course it also just happens to be the same time that the man accused of being the killer has escaped the asylum...oh, and of course the whole "revenge at prom" thing is also present to go with a potential suspect in a janitor that likes to look at the folks. Oh hell, you'll have a good guess who it is if you pay attention to a certain bit of minutes in the beginning/end before it reveals itself. If you can believe it, Leslie Nielsen is here in one of his last serious roles (since this was the year of Airplane!, remember). Unfortunately, he doesn't have much to really do despite the high billing, since he kind of disappears for the middle of the film (it doesn't help that there were a few scenes removed from the theatrical version). At least Curtis helps out, albeit with acting and dancing. Granted, the role seems a bit too tailor-made for her, as if it should have been someone who wasn't already familiar with stuff like Halloween, but the perception at that time was that it was a B-movie; apparently the role was meant to be played by Eve Plumb (known for The Brady Bunch) before Curtis piped in with interest (of course, this decision also helped with securing financing, so there's that). What I am saying is that it all seems a bit too familiar, despite the fact that she is probably the best presence in the whole film (because she is the most caring of these weirdos). It's funny to think about: she was also the best of the "teenage" actors in that aforementioned Halloween film, which had more trouble with its loopy dialogue but managed to do more with its atmosphere to endure as a classic. At any rate, both of those films (along with the 1980 releases of The Fog and Terror Train) helped developed her image as a "scream queen", which works to the film's advantage in lasting legacy (one wonders what would have been with Plumb, but...). Stevens is kind of dull, but given the whole "oh hey, remember six years ago?", I guess that is better than if he was simply trying to hide away. Benton gives the all in trying to distract the usual horror stuff with melodrama that is pretty silly but "worth it", considering other highlights being Rybowski being a weirdo in a van to go with Mucci's tough guy act (and of course, the whole fight and head thing).

Of course, the film doesn't really have that much gore in it, as intended by Lynch to avoid a gratuitous feeling. It should be pointed out that the best scene however, is the one that Avco added later: a head-rolling scene involving the disco and screams. This is just a weird movie, one that has a variety of episodic moments that eventually get around to mysteries: by the 30th minute, you haven't seen someone get harmed, but you will have seen a cafeteria fight where a guy gets attacked in a ski mask. Oh, and you get a dance sequence by the time an hour has passed, because this was done around the era of disco. Honestly, I am fine with the music, because if you want to make a horror film that tries to not look like a cheap Canadian production, go big or go home (of course, if you are intending to see it, try to find a good looking version, since I initially found a version on the Web that looked really murky, but thankfully there are better ways to see it, which also includes a restoration). In that sense, it might be up to one's patience about what will win out for 92 minutes. There were follow-up movies, albeit ones only loosely connected to each other: Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou (1987), Prom Night III: The Last Kiss (1990), and Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil (1992), alongside a remake in 2008, and I cannot imagine any of them matched the curiosity of the original (besides, there would be other films involving a killer knowing a secret such as I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)). For some, it might be a bit too dated to really hold interest within slashers in its era, while others will find a neat little gem involving mystery and disco that works on its own shuffle. Honestly, I found it okay enough to hold up as something to recommend, since it has just enough patience in its composition to make it all worth it.

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It's time to amp it up with the 1980s, which means more than two films for this decade and beyond with horror features...

Next Time: The Howling (1981).

original image:

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Halloween: Resurrection.

Review #1286: Halloween: Resurrection.

Cast: 
Busta Rhymes (Freddie Harris), Bianca Kajlich (Sara Moyer), Thomas Ian Nicholas (Bill Woodlake), Ryan Merriman (Myles "Deckard" Barton), Sean Patrick Thomas (Rudy Grimes), Tyra Banks (Nora Winston), Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Brad Loree (Michael Myers), Katee Sackhoff (Jennifer "Jen" Danzig), Daisy McCrackin (Donna Chang) Directed by Rick Rosenthal (#268 - Halloween II)

Review: 
"Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series." Those are the words I said about Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), which had the clearest way to defeat its main horror icon with a chop of an ax. So how does a sequel endure? (box office profits, really). Within the first five minutes of this film, it is explained that when Laurie had chopped Michael's head off, it was (get ready for this) actually not Michael in the mask, since he choked a paramedic and his larynx and had him put on the mask. It's nice to know that even in a mediocre Halloween film, its climax can still be shortchanged by some silly idea like its own sequel. It should only prove that Halloween is a scary time of year for horror films. This is especially true when it comes to horrifyingly bad films, as is the case here, which we should expect with a cliche title like Resurrection. Trust me, the shortchanging doesn't stop there, particularly with the end of the only living interesting character in this series in Curtis (who described the film as a joke, one that she was contractually obligated to do, for which she asked the character to be killed off) by the first 15 minutes. Maybe they really wanted to give a shock to the audience, but the only real scare is in how ridiculous everything turns out to be.

The characters are as cliche as they come, right down to the basic characteristics they all do. Yes, there really is a character that actually tries to apply "critical studies" theories to Michael. Guess how that works out. It isn't even worth the effort to call out the cliche things done here, because this is already ridiculous enough. Imagine casting someone slated to be the final survivor and they literally cannot scream. No joke, Kajlich had to be dubbed in post-production because she cannot actually scream. Nobody really delivers an interesting performance among the ones slated to participate in the "show", so one doesn't care all too much when they start dropping, which minimizes the tension.  Of course it also takes an hour before anybody watching might think that Michael might actually be in the house killing the contestants. If someone wanted to make a live internet horror film (complete with portable camera)s), perhaps it could've worked in making this franchise seem like it wants to do something different, as opposed to just changing the setting for where Michael hunts (which at least seems better than being at a boarding school, I guess). But the show within the film doesn't even seem that interesting to go with, what with the fake skeletons (in the midst of the shape already having killed some of the crew) and then a sequence of another person (take one guess) dressed up as Michael Myers. It is the funniest thing in the whole movie, for all the wrong reasons, where it takes the film into new lows on a horror level but raises the unintentional hilarity levels significantly. Actually, of all the people in this film, Rhymes is likely the one reason to watch this film. How many movies feature a kung-fu fight in fire? Plenty might exist, but none are as relentlessly silly as this turns out to be, which inspires plenty of snickers, particularly since this leads up to a lame cop out ending. Supposedly there were multiple endings considered, with one involving Myers popping out of a manhole and grabbing at someone. But I suppose they really needed to bait audiences further with Myers' eyes opening up suddenly. It didn't matter anyway, since despite the film making a profit (making over double its $13 million budget at the box office), a sequel did not come to pass. Instead, a remake was commissioned, done in 2007 (which was technically better). In the end, this is a movie that represents the last laugh of miserable sequels that does get one thing right: It's all being done for the money.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Halloween (2018).

Review #1151: Halloween.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Judy Greer (Karen), Andi Matichak (Allyson), Will Patton (Frank Hawkins), Virginia Gardner (Vicky), Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney (Michael Myers / The Shape), Haluk Bilginer (Dr. Ranbir Sartain), Rhian Rees (Dana Haines), Jefferson Hall (Aaron Korey), Toby Huss (Ray), Dylan Arnold (Cameron Elam), and Miles Robbins (Dave) Directed by David Gordon Green.

Review: 
On October 25, 1978, John Carpenter's Halloween came out to theaters and it soon became a hit with audiences. It's not hard to say that it was a great horror film, having plenty of thrills and scares alongside great music from Carpenter and a well-done script from him and Hill that shines even forty years (and numerous follow-ups) later. I make it a habit to try and watch the film at least once a year (I had the pleasure of doing so at a re-release at my local theater last year), preferably in October, and it seems to get better each time. I was surprised to hear that a new one of these films was coming out, but even more surprised to hear that it would be a direct sequel to the original, complete with Curtis starring and Carpenter contributing to the music (alongside his son Cody and godson Daniel Davies). This time, the writing for the film comes from Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride, and director David Gordon Green.

I didn't know what to expect from this film, since this is not the first time that a Halloween film has tried to ignore the continuity of the previous films while having Curtis return, and the result of that film (Halloween H20: 20 Years Later) was a mess. After all, this is a film series that has five timelines, with Curtis' character being dead in two of them (more specifically, stated to be dead for Halloween 4-6 and killed in Halloween H20's sequel, Halloween: Resurrection). When compared to the original, it is easy to say that this film isn't quite as great as the original film, but it is likely the best Halloween film since 1978 - for better or worse. It's clear to see how much the filmmakers embraced the original film, with certain scenes feeling like homages - one scene I can cite is a classroom scene that is inverted to show Laurie watching her granddaughter while she is in class. The acting is pretty effective all across the board, with Curtis being the key highlight. In her second go at playing a character haunted by the memories of her encounter with Myers, she plays it pretty effectively, making her obsession and preparation for a showdown as watchable as one could expect. Matichak, in her first major film role, does a pretty good job, having a certain quality to her that makes her someone the audience is willing to follow in the scenes besides Curtis. Greer plays her role with a fair amount of weariness that feels like a variation on the skeptic role for horror films - but it does play itself out decently enough, particularly due to the climax. The teenagers in the film seem to follow the tradition of the others in having them be a bit cliche - just as one would probably see coming. Castle and Courtney are certainly satisfactory enough as the lurking shape, particularly since the mask looks just right and we don't ever see his true face (despite him being without the mask for some of the first half). Bilginer, described at one point as the "new Loomis", does a fine job with showing a certain degree of obsession to his care taking role that I liked just fine. The two podcasters, played by Rees and Hall, are a bit ridiculous in their pursuit for more into the Myers story (with this pursuit for more into his nature seems awfully familiar), but at least they aren't too overbearing on the actual plot too much. The film certainly likes to have a sense of humor to it, and while it may come off as a bit distracting at times, I do think that it works more often than not to help give some levity. There are some points in the narrative that do come off as a bit strange, but on the whole the movie does get itself to a natural point without too many bumps in the road in its 105 minute run-time. The music is top-notch, not being just amped-up versions from before while feeling refreshing. The movie is (naturally) violent at times, but it is executed fairly effectively, not going overboard on gore or being over-the-top, with a body-count that will certainly fit horror tastes.

The climax of the movie works is handled pretty well, having a bit of thrill to it, with the predator and prey roles being a bit blurred this time around. Thankfully, this movie is simply not a rehash of all the greatest hits for the franchise, having a bit of depth to it. Was it something that really needed to happen? I suppose if you really desired more from this series, than the answer would be yes, particularly since a return to the roots that made this compelling in the first place is admirable. It sure didn't take me long to find myself enjoying what I was watching, and it certainly will have a place of fair enough standing among the eleven films in this series. I doubt that this is really the end for this series and its villain (even with its ending), but at least they managed to make something that was worth watching, particularly for the Halloween season, where everyone deserves at least one good scare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Halloween (1978)

Review #068 - REDUX: Halloween.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Sam Loomis), Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Nancy Kyes (Annie Brackett), P.J. Soles (Lynda van der Klok), Charles Cyphers (Sheriff Leigh Brackett), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Brian Andrews (Tommy Doyle), John Michael Graham (Bob Simms), Nick Castle (The Shape), and Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers) Directed by John Carpenter.

Review
I originally reviewed this movie on October 30, 2011, watching it on television. I remember it being entertaining to watch back then, for me movies are entertaining when you can just sit back and talk about how the movie works. Two years later, I decided to revisit this movie, which had been appearing on TV once again. Out of all the movies in the Halloween franchise, this is the best of them all, it also could be considered one of the best horror films of all time. The movie isn't perfect by any means; the beginning has a few choppy dialogue scenes where it feels really cliche, especially from P.J. Soles, who just keeps saying "totally". But the movie overcomes it with some really chilling music that makes the boring scenes more interesting. I especially love when the characters are talking and Myers suddenly appears out of nowhere, while the music adds a layer of depth. Of course it helps that the movie is also frightening with its death scene, showing little blood but using lighting and perspective to make for a truly chilling movie. My favorite scene is after one of the deaths as Myers looks at the body and tilts his head. It really is a perfect scene.

Donald Pleasence does a wonderful job as Loomis, explaining the motives (or there lack of) for Myers but also saying his lines in a tone of voice that fits the movie's tone, which is fright. Curtis is a really good screamer and a good actress here as well, she's the most interesting character to watch. Special mention goes to Nick Castle, who is the one most famous for playing Michael Myers (The Shape), though he wasn't the only one who played him, there were several others who did stunt work, but Castle is the most notable, and he would later become a movie director in his own right, with films such as The Last Starfighter and Major Payne. The movie takes its time, letting you get interested into what happens next, and it has one of the best endings that leaves you waiting for more. This is an essential movie for October, or for any month when you're looking for a scare.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.