Desperately Seeking Susan.

Review #2186: Desperately Seeking Susan.

Cast: 

Rosanna Arquette (Roberta Glass), Aidan Quinn (Dez), Madonna (Susan Thomas), Robert Joy (Jim Dandy), Mark Blum (Gary Glass), Laurie Metcalf (Leslie Glass), Will Patton (Wayne Nolan), Anna Levine (Crystal), Peter Maloney (Ian), Steven Wright (Larry Stillman D.D.S.), John Turturro (Ray), Anne Carlisle (Victoria), José Angel Santana (Boutique Owner), Richard Portnow (Party Guest), and Giancarlo Esposito (Street Vendor) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens)

Review: 

“The city was falling apart and downtown there were aspiring artists because rent was so cheap. So I wanted to populate the film with people who were authentic to that time. I didn’t care whether someone in Kansas would recognize them, but New Yorkers would know they were New Yorkers.” 

Okay, maybe the biggest curiosity isn't the fact that this is the film that followed Susan Seidelman's Smithereens (1982). But I like the films that come after an electrifying debut feature, particularly one that is, well, packed with a few names to recognize from somewhere or another. The film was written by Leora Barish, who had been inspired by the film Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974), which in of itself had references to classic novels such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It was a script that languished for a few years before Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford found it as producers with a new company in tow. After a good deal spent in turnaround trying to get a studio to get behind it (ultimately being Orion Pictures) and a few names tossed around, the "clear visual style” shown by Seidelman with Smithereens was the one that worked to her advantaged. It was Seidelman that had decided on who would be cast as "Susan", which led her to steer away from actresses such as: Ellen Barkin, Melanie Griffith, and Jennifer Jason Leigh (it wasn't the only role with others in the running - more on that later). Instead, she went for a certain presence that lived near her at the time. Madonna had exactly two sorts of experience in film: an indie underground drama A Certain Sacrifice (which had been filmed in the late 1970s) and a cameo appearance in Vision Quest...with each not being released until 1985. As if the stars aligned perfectly, her popularity as a singer (editor note: understatement) was at a fever pitch by the time the film was finished shooting because of the commercial success of her second music album (Like a Virgin). Not surprisingly, "Into the Groove" is heard for the credits, which, well, I dig songs like this. As a whole, the film was a modest hit with audiences upon release and was even turned into a musical a couple of years later. 

Oh sure, the film is a film for Madonna to shine through from time to time, but Arquette is just as adept in proving key to a movie that is a warm tribute to the screwball comedy: mistaken identity and the ever-growing sense of amusement. It touches upon familiar aspects that come through with the experience of someone who craves adventure and finds way more than what they bargained for. Arquette (best known for the TV film The Executioner's Song [1982]) is ideal in that entertaining sense of wonder and befuddlement for antics because the frustration of being a listless housewife that (in the age of newspapers with personal ads that people looked at) we can relate with. That timing is on point through and through for a crisply amusing experience. Quinn was cast after attempts to get a few actors named Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner to read for the role fell to deaf ears. Go figure, it is probably the best relief the film has going for it, because Quinn and his sardonic charm roll right off with Arquette. And then of course there is Madonna, who practically rolls every little movement and sentence as if it was just a flick of the wrist, one for which Seidelman said was a "variation of herself...bringing her attitude to it". She exudes a certain type of aura that has that rightful sense of fun in the pleasures of charades and half-truths in the ideal apex of one acting without the weight of too much superstar status to handle playing some sort of variation of themselves, which goes hand-in-hand in chuckles when paired with that goofy (but totally believable) Joy. Blum is that ideal sense of the doofus too good for Arquette to set up the inevitable when it comes to screwball mismatches. The film manages to be patient enough for its 104-minute runtime to grant each lead their time to shine in a breezy and fairly engaging trip through a certain lens that goes to its location along with the fashion that makes it practically impossible to forget for its time. It is ultimately a solid second effort for Seidelman, packed with enough fair charm to make for a New York-style delight in screwy entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

The Postman.

Review #1603: The Postman.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (The Postman), Will Patton (General Bethlehem), Larenz Tate (Ford Lincoln Mercury), Olivia Williams (Abby), James Russo (Captain Idaho), Tom Petty (Bridge City Mayor), Daniel von Bargen (Pineview Sheriff Briscoe), Scott Bairstow (Luke), Giovanni Ribisi (Bandit 20), Roberta Maxwell (Irene March), Joe Santos (Colonel Getty), and Ron McLarty (Old George) Directed by Kevin Costner (#1497 - Dances with Wolves)

Review: 

"I always thought it was a really good movie! I always thought I probably started it wrong. I should have said something like “once upon a time.” Because it was just like a modern-day fairy tale — it wraps itself up with a storybook ending with the statue. You know, I thought it was a pretty funny movie set against the idea of a Superman — somebody stepping up. But in this case, it’s a very humble guy who's nothing but a liar — delivers mail and burns half of it just to stay alive. So, I like the movie."

This film had long been on my backburner for years for the key reason of my dad having it in his collection. Maybe there was just something fascinating about the films directed by Costner or in its post-apocalyptic action adventure (he never had Costner's third and as of now last work with Open Range (2003) but happened to have Waterworld, go figure). Perhaps this was seven years past due, but I can't imagine how "funny" it would have been to talk about a movie set in the future of 2013. Nay, now one can note the fact it has been over two decades since the release of a film regarded as a big flop with audiences, making one-fourth of its $80 million budget. Of course any film that had a variety of critique could also be spun to argue a small cult following for those who like to defend those from the mainstream. This was adapted from the novel of the same name by David Brin, which was initially composed of two parts with "The Postman" (1982) and "Cyclops" (1984) before subsequent publication as a novel. From what David Brin has stated about the book, he wrote it evidently to counteract post-apocalyptic books and films that he felt reveled in the idea of civilization falling...by making one about the last idealist in a fallen America, since he once described most apocalyptical media as "little-boy wish fantasies"...yea, okay. Plans to try and make a film started not long after publication, although Eric Roth's attempts at a screenplay resulted in a complete reworking of the whole plot and message. Years later, Kevin Costner expressed interest in doing the film, finding the original intent of a tale involving decency and hope without cynicism something that he could do, complete with hiring Brian Helgeland (writer of films like L.A. Confidential) for help with the screenplay (for which he and Roth are credited with). Brin knew that there would be a bit of material to be lost and meshed through with an adaptation, and he noted that some of the decisions made by them to be fine with him in the sense that they kept the soul of the main character and story, focusing more on the first third of the novel as opposed to other parts, since a glimpse at the plot talks about developments that occur in the novel involving talking computers and such. Brin felt confidence in Costner being the one to star and direct in the hope for a film that would feel like Field of Dreams (his wife, at a screening of said film, felt Costner would be right for a book adaptation) more so than Mad Max or the Costner vehicle in Waterworld (1995).

That comparison to Waterworld may prove more prescient to how once sees this film in its ultimate goal. That film was absurd and weird as an expensive B-movie, but it at least felt important to watch play out in its trappings of water without overstaying its welcome. In fact, there were a few crew members that referred to the production as "Dirt World" behind Costner's back. While Brin had his praises and reservations, at least one can be content with Brin not feeling cheated out of something that tried to honor a work rather than junking its material and disrespecting the author. He found it "flawed and uneven but ambitious rendition of my story", one that had wonderful moments and imagery despite flaws that looked better than the critics stated about despite its departures from the book. Of course the obvious similarity between critique and one of Brin's reservations becomes apparent very clearly: It is quite too long for its own good (one wonders just how much trust Warner Bros. had in not insisting further in trimming). You know, when Costner made Dances with Wolves (1990), at least one could say there was some reason for it to tower at three hours in length (a version that extends it an hour longer is a question for another day). This is not the kind of movie that needs to go on and on in its attempts at offering aw shucks hope in the vein of Frank Capra in a play against the type of story reminiscent of Mad Max. Simply put, this is a ridiculous little "fable", one that believes it is past those supposed wish fantasies with its self-aggrandizing that reeks of goo in more ways than one. It makes one appreciate the essence of making a simple movie with nuance and interest better that simply saying how much of a miracle it is to get one's mail. So, what does indeed occur in the apocalypse with hope? Oh, just folks with cars for names, couples who ask the mythic hero to help make a baby, and main characters that engage in Shakespeare with each other. Oh yeah, and Tom Petty basically playing himself. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, a reason to find this anything other than just "eh...?" - after all, there are some fair visuals and a sometimes sweeping music from James Newton Howard to go with passable acting. One can't exactly stick a great deal of venom into what is generally just a silly way to waste three hours. Costner was quite a busy man, starring in a variety of films that revolved from highlights like the aforementioned Wolves and The Bodyguard (1992) to controversial/dubious material like JFK (1991) and Wyatt Earp (1994) alongside Waterworld. Honestly, he should have cast someone else, because all I see is a Costner performance similar to the ones he did before without as much reach. He loiters from place to place like James Stewart, and it all comes out to sap enough to make an ego tree. Patton is okay, in the sense that one is watching community theater of Shakespeare and nut-job in one. Tate is here and there with blandness, because how does one move past dreams of elevating the art of mail delivery with wood. Williams supposedly has chemistry with Costner, in the sense that if you stick two people in a cabin together for a bit, you might see something there. That, or one just rolls their eyes. Oh, but it is pretty funny to see others get bits and pieces, such as von Bargen and his useful skeptic character acting or...Petty playing Petty, if only because it just makes me wish he also sang in the film to top the cheese on the cake (or better yet, find time to listen to an album of his in full). In all, I wish there was something more interesting presented here with this film, because there is clearly something that could be made interesting with hope through dystopia, but in the end it is just too much length and sappiness to really gel into something that means more than a flicker of light. If it (or the novel) resonates with you, all power to you - whatever works best in delivering some sort of entertainment or message within certain doom.

Next Time: Welp, it's Friday, and you want to see a film from the 21st century, I'm sure. Good, because you're getting Freddy Got Fingered.

Overall, I give it 5 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.

Movie Night: Remember the Titans.

Review #452: Remember the Titans.

Cast
Denzel Washington (Herman Boone), Will Patton (Bill Yoast), Wood Harris (Julius Campbell), Ryan Hurst (Gerry Bertier), Donald Faison (Petey Jones), Ethan Suplee (Louie Lastik), Kip Pardue (Ronnie Bass), Craig Kirkwood (Jerry Harris), Nicole Ari Parker (Carole Boone), Krysten Leigh Jones (Nicky Boone), and Hayden Panettiere (Sheryl Yoast) Directed by Boaz Yakin.

Review
Is their inaccuracies in this film? Of course, no film could even try to be 100% accurate, so mixing the facts for dramatic effect isn't too much of a bone to pick, especially with this film. Denzel Washington is an excellent actor, intense yet subdued at times, which works especially in this film. It's not too hard to make a sports film, but the film tries to transcend that, and while it doesn't always hit, it certainly hits more than it misses. The actors are all well and good, like Will Patton or even Ethan Suplee, which is surprising, I must admit. Is this any better than say, 42? Not entirely, but at least this a fine film, and it certainly is enjoyable in its own way.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.