Eaten Alive.

Review #2281: Eaten Alive.

Cast: 

Neville Brand (Judd), Mel Ferrer (Harvey Wood), Carolyn Jones (Miss Hattie), Marilyn Burns (Faye), William Finley (Roy), Stuart Whitman (Sheriff Martin), Roberta Collins (Clara Wood), Kyle Richards (Angie), Robert Englund (Buck), Janus Blythe (Lynette), and Crystin Sinclaire (Libby Wood) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce)

Review: 

"I like the unknown and strange, bizarre things. It's really weird because I've had people ask me about making these films. Do they scare you when you're making them? No, it's not at all scary. When you shoot these things and you see that they work, you're laughing, and it becomes a comedy to you."

It sure is weird to get a runaway classic on your second try as a director. In 1974, Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel wrote the screenplay to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which you already know would be Hooper's crowning achievement. However, less people might know of his next effort with this film, one that was written by Henkel, this time co-writing it with Alvin L. Fast and Mardi Rustam. The movie apparently took inspiration from the serial killer Joe Ball, who killed at least two people in the 1930s and had an alligator pit (he apparently didn't throw people in there, but "Alligator Man" was one nickname applied to him anyway) in his place in Texas. The film apparently has had several alternate titles (probably because Mars Productions didn't exactly make a killing on original release), such as "Death Trap", "Horror Hotel", and "Starlight Slaughter". Incidentally, Hooper grew up to a family that operated their own theater. Hooper had a few disagreements with producers (supposedly leaving the production before it finished), with the money that had come to do the film apparently only coming with the stipulation that he would do the film, which had a bit of handwringing in writing. However, he would keep busy in the next couple of years, directing a TV miniseries of Salem's Lot in 1979 before he got his first prominent studio film with The Funhouse (1981).

It's funny, if you make a hokey little movie with some commitment to gore or at least one energetic performance, you have my attention. Of course, this is a movie that decides to start itself off with a hooker rejecting the advances of a man trying to get behind for his services, so one has a feel that this is going to be a weird one. With a film filled with a key eccentric performance and a few sticking points of would-be and known names to go along with one strange set piece, you have the stage for a curious bit of low budget sleaze hokum. I actually kind of like this ridiculous movie. The whole film was shot on a sound stage at Raleigh Studios in Hollywood, complete with a large pool that doubled for the swamp. Hooper aimed for a "surrealistic, twilight world" with the hotel in terms of lighting, which is amusing to see play out for such a delightful exploitative film that would be right at home for people who liked, say, Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964), complete with little to really say about the characters beyond mayhem. Brand went through the gamut of acting as a heavy (Western or otherwise), tough-guy roles and the occasional lead for film and plenty of TV. Here he clearly was given the light to just go nuts and have fun, complete with getting to use a scythe at one point. He makes for a capable unstable monster worth following along with, a terror in his own square of squalor that seems to like his space and his gator. The movie isn't really that big on showing the alligator, showing it only for scenes involving, well, the body count, but I don't mind too much (others might be weirded out by one pet death, but, well....). You have your mix of actors of varying experience of familiarity like Burns (returning to work with Hooper in probably her second most known film role), Jones (in her penultimate film role), Ferrer (a career vet on the mend), and Englund and Richards (in the horror film before each became more well known, although Englund did work with Hooper twice more with Night Terrors [1993] and The Mangler [1995]). Burns probably comes out the best when it comes to reacting to terror, although there is something amusing about seeing Englund play a sleazeball with ease (Jones is more a cameo than anything). The 91-minute runtime might not be the easiest sit for everybody when it comes to weird and alluring sleaze, but there is something curious about the whole affair that keeps me going even when it just looks like a vehicle for death, mostly because that hotel set really is quite striking to get stuck looking into. As a whole, Hooper was a curious director that used his fascination with the strange and murky things to make a film that works for a specific kind of interested horror fan that goes in knowing Hooper was more than just a one-trick pony. In that sense, it might be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.

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.

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.