Creed II.

Review #1165: Creed II.

Cast: 
Michael B. Jordan (Adonis Creed), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Tessa Thompson (Bianca Taylor), Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago), Florian Munteanu (Viktor Drago), Phylicia Rashad (Mary Anne Creed), Andre Ward (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler), Wood Harris (Tony "Little Duke" Evers), Brigitte Nielsen (Ludmila Drago), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert Balboa), and Russell Hornsby (Buddy Marcelle) Directed by Steven Caple Jr.

Review: 
Creed (2015) certainly was a big surprise for numerous reasons. I certainly didn't expect another installment of the Rocky series, particularly a spin-off with Jordan in the lead role and Ryan Coogler writing and directing. The result was a film that ranks up there as one of the better Rocky films, being just as good (if not better than) as Rocky II (1979). With the resulting success that came from the film, obviously a follow-up would be expected, with a good chunk of the cast from the previous film returning alongside a few new and a few familiar faces, although Coogler now only serves as an executive producer. The writing credits certainly are different this time around, with Stallone co-writing the screenplay alongside Juel Taylor while the story was done by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker. It certainly feels that Stallone wanted in some way to make a better sequel than the ones that had followed up the original, particularly III through V, and there are quite a few beats that seem a bit familiar. However, the best that can be said for this movie is that it is quite entertaining, with Jordan and Stallone headlining a fairly game cast that make the experience worth it. Jordan does a fine job in keeping things fresh and interesting that one would expect from a lead, handling himself in the boxing sequences fairly well. Stallone, in his eighth reprisal of the character, manages to retain the same kind of charm and quality as expected from him for the scenes he is in. Thompson also delivers a fine performance, with her and Jordan having good chemistry once again. Lundgren is fun to watch, being more of a character to watch this time around with a bit of grizzled depth - he's actually more interesting to be around with than his on-screen son (Munteanu, who does fine with the boxing sequences at least). The rest of the cast all do their parts just fine. The film is privy to a handful of cliches for the sports film (much like any of the previous Rocky films, although not as silly), being a bit predictable at times, although the boxing scenes are up to code once again, leaving a good punch. The run-time of 130 minutes is manageable, and on the whole I'm sure that this film will serve its purpose of entertainment just alright, working as a mostly solid follow-up to the first film while leaving room for the desire to want to see another one of these down the road.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Review #1164: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Randle McMurphy), Louise Fletcher (Nurse Ratched), Will Sampson ("Chief" Bromden), William Redfield (Dale Harding), Brad Dourif (Billy Bibbit), Sydney Lassick (Charlie Cheswick), Christopher Lloyd (Max Taber), Danny DeVito (Martini), Dean Brooks (Dr. John Spivey), William Duell (Jim Sefelt), Vincent Schiavelli (Bruce Frederickson), Michael Berryman (Ellis), Nathan George (Attendant Washington), Marya Small (Candy), and Scatman Crothers (Orderly Turkle) Directed by Miloš Forman.

Review: 
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was originally a novel by Ken Kesey that he had done based off his time working as an orderly in a mental healthy facility, for which he wrote the novel in 1959 before it was published in 1962. In the original novel, the story was narrated through the character named Chief Bromden, who found that society was controlled by some sort of system called "The Combine". A year after the novel was released, the novel was turned into a play, written by Dale Wasserman that had McMurphy played by Kirk Douglas, who had bought the rights to make it for the stage or for film. After a decade of trying to make it into a film, he gave the rights to his son Michael, who helped co-produce the film along with Saul Zaentz, with Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman doing the screenplay. The film was primarily filmed at Oregon State Hospital in Salem. Kesey was not happy with how the film adaptation came out, later suing Douglas and Zaentz for a percentage of the gross and damages for “breaking our verbal agreement and ruining the book.” He objected to the fact that the film was from the perspective of McMurphy rather than the Chief, describing it as such: "they took out the morality; they took out the Combine—the conspiracy that is America.”

At any rate, it isn't hard to see why the film is fairly enjoyable, having a certain kind of energy and pull with a fine deal of craftsmanship and interesting people to follow along with. Nicholson and his rebellious presence give a great magnetic pull for the film, bemused at having to deal with the state of the people on both sides of this mental institution that he deals with, while also having a bit of humor and will to him that makes for good entertainment. Fletcher plays her insidious role with a good degree of understated manipulation, having no sense of overblown nature nor being overshadowed by the other members of the cast, having a voice and enough presence to make this battle of wills work without too many hitches. One good scene with Nicholson and Fletcher that I can highlight is the scene where his character tries to get the television to be turned onto the World Series, where he tries to get the necessary amount of votes from the submissive ones in the ward and her attempts to assert her authority, complete with an ensuing (and amusing) act of defiance - imagining the game out loud. Sampson, who had been discovered by the producers due to his 6'7 frame, does a fine job for his acting debut, doing just alright with the small amount of lines he has while playing his part in the climax without any hitches. Dourif and Lloyd (who both had done work on the stage prior to this film) shine in their own ways, with the former's fear and willingness to try and please everyone coming out fairly well and the latter being amusing when picking on Redfield. Lassick does well with conveying panic and nervousness, and DeVito (reprising his role from the 1971 revival of the play) also does fine with brief moments to talk.

The film does take some time to show the conformity and mindless automation of the people in the ward, and for the most part the film keeps itself consistent. The fishing sequence is a bit of a miss when compared to other sequences in part because it just feels a bit too silly that kind of messes with the rest of the film's tone. It should be mentioned that the fishing sequence was present in the novel, although it has a few significant differences - such as the fact that the trip is planned in the book, for example. In any case, it's a bit of a understatement to say that the film turned out to be such a great success, being a hit with audiences while winning numerous awards, winning what is described as the Big Five categories of the Academy Awards: Best Picture (beating films such as Jaws and Nashville), Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. On the whole, the film is pretty entertaining, having an enduring spirit to it that makes it work more often than not in its 133 minute run-time. It still manages to hold up well after over forty years since its release with a game cast and an enduring spirit that makes for at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Rocky Balboa.

Review #1163: Rocky Balboa.

Cast: 
Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), Burt Young (Paulie Pennino), Milo Ventimiglia (Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Jr), Geraldine Hughes (Marie), James Francis Kelly III (Stephenson), Tony Burton (Tony "Duke" Evers), Antonio Tarver (Mason "The Line" Dixon), and Pedro Lovell (Spider Rico) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, and #597 - Rocky IV)

Review: 
Admittedly, the Rocky series has certainly had its share of ups and downs. The first three films are all pretty good sports dramas (with the first being the pinnacle), although I will say that it could've ended after Rocky II (1979) or Rocky III (1982) without any objection. Rocky IV (1985) was the pinnacle of ridiculousness, but again - end it there, and that's okay. Rocky V (1990) was (and still is) the worst of the bunch, and even Stallone expressed disappointment with the final product. Honestly, it really is a surprise that there is even a sixth film at all, considering that it was released sixteen years after the last film and thirty years after the original. It has been said by Stallone upon doing this film (for which he wrote and directed) that he would rather "...do something that he enjoyed badly, than feel bad about not doing something he enjoyed." In that respect, I find that the end result is a movie that is just fine. It isn't anything great, and it doesn't really have too much reason to exist, but it is ultimately a decent piece of entertainment that will prove itself to the audience it is trying to reach without too much struggle. It loves to do callbacks to previous films and hark back to the days of yesteryear from the series (particularly with flashbacks of scenes with Talia Shire), and it comes off more poignant than over-reaching in the final result. It is the kind of movie that perseveres just as much as the other films in part because of the pull from Stallone in the title role. With the pull of having to play a role now filled with loneliness and the search for having meaning, he steps up just fine to the task of making this character as compelling and believable as he can, being as entertaining as ever. The film does sometimes teeter on the edge of collapsing to the problem of self-parody, but it does manage to steady itself enough with some fine supporting performances. There are a few returning actors from the previous films, such as Young, Burton, and Lovell, and they are fine for the brief time they show up on screen. Ventimiglia and Hughes also do decent with their roles, being people worth following for short bursts with their interactions with Stallone while not being clunky or too cliche. Tarver (an actual boxer) is okay for the parts required of him; obviously he does better in the boxing sequences than the parts involving trying to pull a bit of drama with his character, but he at least isn't too wooden for the film nor does he make you wish someone else was in the role, for the most part. Much like before, the fight sequence proves to be the biggest punch the film has going for it, and it certainly comes out well, executed with a look and feel that reaches levels that the other films hadn't dared to try - namely, realistic sound effects and a fight that certainly feels up to the task. At 100 minutes, the film doesn't overstay its welcome too much, having a decent pace that builds to its final fight without leaving too much at the door. On the whole, it may have been a bit strange to have a sixth film to begin with for this aging series, but the end product justifies itself enough to make for a fine installment without too much objection or regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Overlord (2018).

Review #1162: Overlord.

Cast: 
Jovan Adepo (Pvt. Ed Boyce), Wyatt Russell (Cpl. Ford), Mathilde Ollivier (Chloe), John Magaro (Tibbet), Gianny Taufer (Paul), Pilou Asbæk (Cpt. Wafner), Iain De Caestecker (Morton Chase), Dominic Applewhite (Jacob Rosenfeld), and Jacob Anderson (Dawson) Directed by Julius Avery.

Review: 
I suppose the best thing to say about this movie is that it doesn't strive for greatness (or even awards) nor demand too much from its audience. It is a war/horror film that indulges in gore that satisfies in the right ways for entertainment. It is the kind of movie that would've fit just fine with horror films like The Thing (1982) or Aliens (1986) in terms of having a fair plot besides its selection of gooey villains that make it a step above what it could've been if it was made with a different amount of craftsmanship. The story comes from Billy Ray while having a screenplay done by him and Mark L. Smith while having Avery (who previously directed one other feature in 2014 named Son of a Gun) serving as director while having J. J. Abrams as a producer. The characters aren't really anything other than cliches from war or horror movies, but the actors are game enough to make them useful to follow along with (or root against, in the case of the villain). Adepo is our eyes for most of the film, and he makes the most of it like all fine leads by handling himself with enough care to go around. Russell (the younger son of Kurt Russell) plays his role with a no-nonsense approach that goes over pretty well with charm. Ollivier and the other members of the main group of heroes are fine, serving their role and function without any bumps in the road. Asbæk proves a fair menace for the material as required. The effects are a key part of what makes the movie tick along, with a good deal of them being practical (such as one involving a face) that make for a better showing than if it was just computer generated. The action sequences are pretty decent, having just a degree of intensity (particularly with the opening sequence) that keeps the movie on its toes. With a run-time of 110 minutes, the film is never boring nor too elaborate with its execution of its climax and ending. For the most part, the film is a bit predictable, with no real big twist or anything too out there (aside from what's beyond that village for the soldiers), but there isn't anything objectionable for ones with patience or curiosity in horror. There are some intense scenes with a bit of gruesomeness, not skimping out on what it takes while having a scare or two mixed in. It takes its time to show its horror tricks, but you never feel impatient in getting there. It won't be the film for everyone's tastes (such as perhaps people who might expect better from a war flick or horror), but I found that it is a pretty enjoyable movie with a fine bit of care and guts to make a fair winner. It certainly won't be a great classic for the war or horror genres, but it certainly has a place for curiosity's sake that certainly is worth a look.
 
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The House of Fear (1945).

Review #1161: The House of Fear.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Aubrey Mather (Bruce Alastair), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Paul Cavanagh (Dr. Simon Merivale), Holmes Herbert (Alan Cosgrave), Harry Cording (Captain John Simpson), Sally Shepherd (Mrs. Monteith), and Gavin Muir (Mr. Chalmers) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, and #1056 - The Pearl of Death)

Review: 
The House of Fear is the tenth film of the Rathbone-Bruce series of Sherlock Holmes movies, released seven months after the previous installment in March 1945. It would prove to be the first of three Holmes features released in 1945 - the second (The Woman in Green) was released in July and the third (Pursuit to Algiers) was released in October. The credits state that the film was based off the 1891 story "The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, although it seems the only thing the film took from it was the orange pips, which are present in letters sent to a group of men (all seven of which who have life insurance policies) living in a castle prior to their deaths, one by one. The mystery itself is a bit shaky, but at least there is some atmosphere present and a fairy game ensemble cast to push the film towards respectability, even with a collection of cliches (house on a cliff, spooky servants, secret passageways, odd villagers, etc). One wonders how to describe Rathbone playing a role that he played consistently for six years (in film and on radio) that defined him without feeling like a broken record; he does a fine job with the material he is given without feeling tired, and that's the best thing that can happen for this film. Bruce is at task to deliver the qualities expected from being the second banana to Rathbone, giving off some comic relief (most notably a bit with an owl), but at least he does play some part in the final deduction for the better. Mather plays the nervous one okay, and the other members of people in the castle are all okay, although there really isn't much of a villianous presence besides Shepherd creeping about while giving the men their letters. Hoey also does a bit of stumbling about as Lestrade in his fifth go at the role, of which he did six times, appearing in Terror by Night the following year. On the whole, it's not hard to see that the filmmakers were pretty comfortable with how they were making these mystery films as efficiently and quickly as possible (taking only a few weeks to make on cheap b-movie budgets) - with this one running at just 69 minutes. It isn't too ridiculous nor too boring to spend some time with. If you are a fan of the series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, this one will prove just fine for viewers and it works fine for anybody looking to pass some time with a film that has some good old-fashioned mystery cliches - right down to its title. The film isn't the best or worst of the series, being a middle-of-the-road kind of movie that is alright on its merits.

Next Review: Overlord (2018).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Crow (1994).

Review #1160: The Crow.

Cast: 
Brandon Lee (Eric Draven/The Crow), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant Albrecht), Rochelle Davis (Sarah), Bai Ling (Myca), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Jon Polito (Gideon), Tony Todd (Grange), Sofia Shinas (Shelly Webster), Michael Massee (Funboy), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin), and Anna Levine (Darla) Directed by Alex Proyas (#086 - I, Robot)

Review: 
The Crow is based off a 1989 superhero comic book series of the same name created by James O'Barr, which soon became an underground success. Tasked with writing the screenplay adaptation is John Shirley and David J. Schow, who were each known for their work on writing novels (cyberpunk and splatter-punk horror, respectively), with un-credited rewrites being done due to the tragic accidental death of Lee on March 31, 1993, which occurred a few days before production was set to end. Narration (along with a few new scenes) was added to accompany stand-in actors (such as Chad Stahelski) and CGI digital superimposition. The resulting product is a movie that is pretty entertaining, mostly due to its style and some fair performances, starting with Lee (in his fifth and final appearance in a film). He shows a good deal of charm and compelling nature (complete with a nice-looking costume) that dominates the screen for most of its 102 minute run-time. Wincott, although not having as much time to make up much of a villainous presence, proves entertaining enough. Hudson is enjoyable in pulling some watch-ability out of the cop role without feeling hollow, having a bit of humor to him. Davis does a fine job as well, going along well with Lee and Hudson. Although the supporting cast of adversaries are a bit routine, they aren't detrimental to the film's credit. The climax (complete with rain, naturally) is satisfactory to help cap the film, having a decent showdown that tries to make the final result a little less than easily predictable (for a vigilante hero, anyway), which works okay to a point. After all, this is a movie with a guy back from the dead who is accompanied by a crow that flies around, but at least there isn't some sort of shoehorned explanation of the origins of the title hero. The film is dark and moody with its approach, particularly with its cinematography by Dariusz Wolski that sure makes the setting come to life with plenty of fine shots to look at, reminding me of Batman (1989) and Blade Runner (1982). The film doesn't have too much in the way of a great story at times, and it can fall prey to some cliches, but I found that there are enough enjoyable moments to make this a entertaining experience. It makes for a fine vigilante film that has some fine action sequences to accompany a movie that certainly earns a cult following and at least one watch for people curious for some style and action.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Review #1159: Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Geoffrey Keen (William Hargood), Gwen Watford (Martha Hargood), Linda Hayden (Alice Hargood), Peter Sallis (Samuel Paxton), Anthony Corlan (Paul Paxton), Isla Blair (Lucy Paxton), John Carson (Jonathan Secker), Martin Jarvis (Jeremy Secker), Ralph Bates (Lord Courtley), Roy Kinnear (Weller), and Michael Ripper (Inspector Cobb) Directed by Peter Sasdy.

Review: 
Oooh, a Dracula film. October already had Interview with the Vampire and Dracula vs. Frankenstein for some vampire action, but I've had a desire to go back to the Hammer Dracula films, which I last covered in 2016. With this review, there is only two other Hammer Dracula films left with Lee in the main role (Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972), although there were two other Hammer Dracula films without Lee (The Brides of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires). In any case, I'll try to get around to those in due time. 

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) was a fine piece of entertainment, having a collection of cliches and flair that worked out to make it work for the franchise. It had a few interesting characters along with some compelling moments with a worthwhile climax. The development of the sequel certainly had a bit of a bumpy road to it, since the original intent was to not have Lee back as Dracula. By this point in time, Lee was not particularly interested in continuing to play the role for Hammer Films, although if he was given the right amount of salary, he certainly would come back. With a desire to not pay him (or perhaps tired of having to try and convince Lee to come back), the original script by Anthony Hinds featured Bates being the main villain, since he drinks the blood of Dracula before convulsing and beaten to death by the people who bought Dracula's belongings. Yes, right before Dracula perished in the previous film, he happened to encounter some random guy and perished right in front of him and he got the idea to collect not only the powder of his blood but also his cape and brooch. In any case, the idea to have Bates (infused with the spirit of Dracula) as the villain was vetoed by Warner Bros, the American distributor for these films, who wanted Lee back. He certainly seemed fine with the film, describing it as having "Good cast, good production, good story -- except that Dracula didn't really belong in it!". He wasn't too fond of having the films be made so closely with the others, and he felt that audiences grew tired of it, which he said could apply to him as well. In one account, he was apparently convinced to keep doing the role in part because the producers would tell him about the people that would lose work if he didn't keep doing the role for more films. In any case, 1970 was quite the year for him as Dracula. Not only did he play the role in this film, he also played the role in Count Dracula (directed by Jesús Franco that was released one month before this film) and Scars of Dracula (released by Hammer Films six months after the success of this film).

There isn't much of Dracula this time around, with bare dialogue but quite a few shots of Lee and his hypnotic eyes. Honestly, I could care less about the conflict between the elders and their offspring and the hypocrisy from the former - I'm more interested in the ridiculousness of the fact that Dracula is getting revenge for his servant (Bates) being killed by the group - as if Dracula suddenly cares about anybody other than himself. Actually, it's strange that he is brought back at all through a ceremony where someone drinks the mixed blood of himself and Dracula. Would Dracula have been brought back if the other guy hadn't been killed quickly by the elders? When I think about Dracula films, I don't think about scenes involving an old man drunkenly trying to whip his daughter for seeing her boyfriend, I instead think about the Count trying to somehow use people to get what he wants. Perhaps it is supposed to be a reflection on the times, but really it just inspires my eyes to wander for what should be a more interesting horror film. Lee (in his fourth turn at the role for Hammer) doesn't really have much to do, but he at least shines when he needs to show some presence. At least he speaks a few words more than he did when compared to the other films. Keen plays an unsavory hypocrite okay, but waiting for his character to be stalked by Dracula proves more interesting. Hayden, Corlan, and Blair make up the young group who encounter Dracula in their own respective ways, but none of them are too particularly interesting to follow along with. The ending is a bit ridiculous. This time around, it's not the sun, water or a stake that gets him, instead it is him being taken down by a church being restored to its sanctity and being overwhelmed by its power that makes him fall and crumble into dust. The film feels like a mess, feeling confused over where it wants to go as a film. It isn't too particularly scary nor over-the-top to make it other than just something to pass the time waiting for Dracula, though at least there is some moments of blood and gore through its run-time (95 minutes for the uncut edition and 91 for the cuts in the US release) that may prove fine for others. I found the movie to be pretty average and not quite as good as the other previous installments. It isn't the best or worst of the bunch, and perhaps it will serve its purpose if you're in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

House of the Long Shadows.

Review #1158: House of the Long Shadows.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Lionel Grisbane), Christopher Lee (Corrigan/Roderick Grisbane), Peter Cushing (Sebastian Grisbane), Desi Arnaz, Jr. (Kenneth Magee), John Carradine (Lord Elijah Grisbane), Sheila Keith (Victoria Grisbane), Julie Peasgood (Mary Norton), Richard Todd (Sam Allyson), Louise English (Diane Caulder), and Richard Hunter (Andrew Caulder) Directed by Pete Walker.

Review: 
Well, well, well, it's a horror-spoof film review in November. Like I said, some things just cross on over into the next month, and it only makes sense that it features four actors who are quite prolific in their appearances in films covered on Movie Night - you may be interested to know that this is the 20th film covered with Christopher Lee (the most for one actor on this show) and the 16th with Peter Cushing, which is fourth most. I hope you enjoy this review for a film that I've been interested in covering for quite some time.

I suppose it is the star billing for this film that attracted me most to watch it, and I suppose I had forgotten that Scream and Scream Again (1970) featured Price, Lee, and Cushing - and that proved a disappointment. But there are a few changes this time around: for one thing, there is also the presence of fellow horror icon Carradine alongside a bit more for the quartet to do. The ones to give us the pleasure of seeing four horror icons together is done by producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus for Cannon Films. This is an adaptation of the novel Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913) by Earl Derr Biggers, which George M. Cohan soon turned into a play adaptation. In any case, the original story involved characters of melodrama cliches wrapped as a mystery farce, such as crooked cops and criminals that all somehow make their way to the mountain resort named Baldpate Inn where a writer is trying to write a 10,000 word story in 24 hours to win a bet. Prior to this film, there had been six adaptations of the story, with the first being in 1916 and the last being in 1947. This time around, the bet is that an author can write a novel of the caliber of Wuthering Heights in 24 hours for $20,000.

Wrapped within its 101 minute run-time (with a screenplay by Michael Armstrong) is all of the cliches you would expect from a film like this, such as an old dark house, terrible weather, sinister secrets, and naturally, murder. In a way, the film feels like a homage to the Hammer horror films with the mood and feel, and there is a fine deal of gore to help the film go along without too many bumps. There are almost as many twists as there are deaths in this film, but there is some enjoyment to be had, mostly with the quartet. My particular favorite moment is Price, remarking to someone to not interrupt him when he is soliloquizing while in the dark house; he is neat to watch as always, having an interesting demeanor to him that endures with age. Lee remains as captivating as ever with such great imposing nature and understated charm. This was the fourth-to-last theatrical film that Cushing appeared in (along with the 24th and last appearance with Lee in a film), but he is still adept at playing his nervous role with the kind of respect one comes to expect from him. Carradine, though not given as much to do, does pretty well with his time on screen. Having these actors alone would be enough to make it a look, no matter how much the presence of Arnaz Jr and Peasgood try to mar it. Arnaz Jr isn't terrible, but I find that he isn't too particularly interesting to follow along with, having a few quips and observations that come and go as they please. Peasgood isn't too particularly better, and it doesn't really seem they have any sort of chemistry together, with their pursuit of the inevitable twists being more interesting when Price and Lee are around. While the film is pretty average at times, it never borders on boredom in part due to some of its cast keeping things afloat and a consistently decent pace. The climax is a bit of a mess, in part because it follows the tradition of the story for its main twist, complete with some sort of ham-handed lesson thrown in. In the end, the film is a decent little horror-spoof that will prove worthy enough for anyone with the patience to sit a few clunky moments that accompany the film that works in its own right to give off a few chuckles and scares. It isn't a classic by any means, but it has its own little place with horror and amusement.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wolf (1994).

Review #1157: Wolf.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Will Randall), Michelle Pfeiffer (Laura Alden), James Spader (Stewart Swinton), Kate Nelligan (Charlotte Skylar Randall), Richard Jenkins (Detective Sgt. Carl Bridger), Christopher Plummer (Raymond Alden), Eileen Atkins (Mary), David Hyde Pierce (Roy MacAllister), Om Puri (Dr. Vijav Alezais), and Ron Rifkin (Doctor Ralph) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage)

Review: 
I suppose there must have been a desire to make a new kind of werewolf film for the 1990s, particularly since this film doesn't even use the word "werewolf", as if that was somehow taboo or something. It's also clear that they really wanted to be taken seriously, since this is a romantic horror film. On the whole, the film is decent, but it doesn't really live up to the potential it could've reached, although I certainly do find some enjoyment from it, whether when trying to be a metaphor or for unintentional amusement. Perhaps this is a movie that needed more beastly nature, since the real horror that jumps out involves office politics at a publishing house. The screenplay was done by author Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, although there were un-credited re-writes done by Elaine May. Harrison was not a particular fan of the final result of the film made by Nichols, explaining "I wanted Dionysian, but he wanted Apollonian. He took my wolf and made it into a Chihuahua. I cracked up for 10 minutes and then went out into the country and stood in front of a wolf den and apologized while my dog hid under the truck." This is a strange film to spend 125 minutes with, and it does sometimes feel a bit too long.

The acting does help carry the movie well enough. Nicholson is entertaining, being watchable as ever without overdoing anything, whether when prancing around with mutton-chops or when having more energy to him after being bit. After all, this is a movie that gives him a bunch of abilities to show off as a wolf, such as being able to read without his glasses, being able to be more active in romance with his wife, jumping in the air, or having animals hate him. Pfeiffer, in a role that occasionally delves into cliches, manages to come out as someone interesting to follow along with, having a few moments with Nicholson that makes this romance seem semi-workable. Spader is excellent at playing such a smarmy character like this one, making the art of flattery and treachery that works oozy wonders each time he's on screen. Nelligan is okay, but the real highlight in the supporting cast is Plummer, who plays his domineering rich guy role with an understated touch. The special makeup effects are done by Rick Baker, who you may recognize from his work on other films, most notably An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Coming to America (1988). His effects here are pretty good, although they certainly feel restrained in contrast to the bits involving the romance or the office scenes, although at least they are given time to shine in the climax. Honestly, the movie is more fun when it doesn't feel so restrained between either being a metaphor or being actual horror/romance. One of my favorite bits of amusement comes when Nicholson's character decides to "mark his territory" at the bathroom when he's firing Spader's character, as if this was supposed to be taken seriously. Other other fun bit comes when Nicholson's character finds out that he has been cheated on by his wife through his super-scent, so he goes up to the house where his wife and the other guy are located, and he bites the other dude on the hand before going up the stairs, taking one look at his wife, and then leaves. The climax is a bit of a ridiculous one, and it isn't as effective as it probably should've been. Maybe it's the fact that there really isn't that much buildup for its showdown between its two wolves (complete with the use of slow motion), or maybe it's the fact that the film keeps shuffling between what it really wants. This is especially apparent in the scene after involving a shot of eyes mixed in with a shot of a wolf - and that's it. If you think the film will resemble something like The Wolf Man (1941), you will likely be disappointed, but I did manage to find some strange enjoyment out of how weird and energetic it is, even if it manages to muddled in ridiculousness at times. It isn't a highlight in the horror or romance genres, but it works just enough for me to win out as entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Review #1156: Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Cast: 
Heather Langenkamp (Herself / Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Himself / Freddy Krueger), Miko Hughes (Dylan Porter), John Saxon (Himself / Lt. Donald Thompson), Tracy Middendorf (Julie), David Newsom (Chase Porter), Fran Bennett (Dr. Christine Heffner), Wes Craven (Himself), and Robert Shaye (Himself) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, and #939 - Swamp Thing)

Review: 
With A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), the blurring of the lines between reality and dreams by director Wes Craven made for a great slasher film, but he had never intended for it to develop into a franchise. However, he contributed to the screenplay for the third film three years later along with Bruce Wagner, although it would have later re-writes by Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell. Craven's original concept for the film was to have Krueger come into the real word, haunting actors making a new sequel to the franchise. However, it was rejected by New Line Cinema at the time. Three years after the sixth (and worst) film was released, Craven was enlisted to write and direct a new film for the franchise, although it is not part of the continuity, since Krueger is portrayed as a fictional movie villain invading the real world with the intent for a more darker look for the character, signified with the coat and the glove, which I think looks pretty good. I found that the film's attempts to blur the lines between dreams and reality to be quite interesting, seeing the effect that making horror has on the people that helped make it. Langenkamp proves pretty interesting to follow along with again, adapting well to the gradual build of terror and creepy stuff with a good amount of charm to her - one particular favorite scene of mine is where she is on a talk show with a weird interviewer that ends with a nice little surprise - Freddy appearing and charming the audience. Englund does pretty well with the main force of terror once again without feeling tired or overdone that manages to make him feel a bit more powerful as a villain, and it is nice to see him playing himself (who comes off as a pretty nice guy) as well. 

Hughes does alright, invoking occasional bits of creepiness, although other times he comes off a bit silly - but what can you expect from a kid actor? It is nice to see Saxon and his warm presence once again for the parts he is on screen. The others in the cast are alright, with one interesting highlight being Craven himself, dumping some exposition in one scene onto the audience that feels rolled off right from a script, done pretty handily, actually. The use of footage from the first film is a bit clever, particularly since it has its own gradual payoff.  Aside from its opening sequence (which is pretty neat), the film gradually builds itself up with scares, not playing its hand until it wants to for its climax - with most of the cast helping to make the time worth it, with this being more than just a reunion film or being a "Greatest hits" kind of movie. At 112 minutes (which is still the longest run-time for a film in this franchise), it mostly justifies its length without having many unnecessary moments. The effects are done pretty well, with the climax saving the best for last in terms of creepy imagery that makes for quite the highlight. Another highlight is the sequence where Freddy dangles someone along a freeway, and the earthquake parts are also handled fine. The film works in invoking some scares while proving to be well-done entertainment that justifies its existence through some fine handiwork of terror that stands out from the other films with its own style.

I hope you folks enjoyed Halloween and the reviews that came for this month of October. There will be a few more horror films that will creep into November (yes, there managed to be a few films and reviews that couldn't be watched or written in time for a month with 19 reviews) which I hope you will enjoy as well. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Dead (1978).

Review #1155: Dawn of the Dead.

Cast: 
David Emge (Stephen "Flyboy" Andrews), Ken Foree (Peter Washington), Scott Reiniger (Roger "Trooper" DeMarco), Gaylen Ross (Francine "Fran" Parker), David Crawford (Dr. James Foster), David Early (Mr. Sidney Berman), Richard France (Dr. Millard Rausch), Howard Smith (TV Commentator), Daniel Dietrich (Mr. Dan Givens), Joseph Pilato (Head Officer at Police Dock), Tom Savini (Blades/Mechanic Zombie shot through glass/Zombie hit by truck), and Taso Stavrakis (Sledge/Fountain Zombie/Sailor Zombie/Chestburst Zombie) Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead)

Review: 
Night of the Living Dead (1968) was a great horror film upon its release, shocking audiences with its gore effects in crisp black-and-white photography that resonates in the despair and terror it showcases in its main enemy - us, as members of the dead brought back to life that eat flesh handily written by George A. Romero and John Russo. It wasn't the first zombie film, but it certainly holds an impact now for the zombie horror genre in the half century since its release. In the ten years that followed its release, Romero certainly kept busy with film-making, directing films such as The Crazies (1973) and Martin (1978), both of which are now considered cult classics. Romero got the idea to write the script from a friend's suggestion about surviving in a mall in the event of an emergency through hidden parts of the mall. This time around, the budget is slightly bigger (over $1 million as compared to the $114,000 of the original), and Romero also serves as editor again. One key help in raising funds was Dario Argento (famed Italian director of films such as Suspiria (1977)), who helped secure money to make the movie in exchange for international rights, and he (alongside a band called Goblin) would contribute the music. Subsequently, there exists different versions of the film besides Romero's final cut (which lasts 127 minutes), due to re-cuts and re-edits that Argento could make for international foreign language releases, such as a 119 minute version that takes out a few scenes with exposition and a faster pace with a bit more dialogue and gore, which was released in Italy on September 1, 1978 as Zombi: L’alba dei Morti Viventi, months before Romero released his cut in America in 1979.

In a span of roughly four months, Romero and his crew filmed most of the movie at the Monroeville Mall in the city of the same name in Pennsylvania, which they did for the time the mall was closed (11PM-7AM). The decision to have the film primarily be set in a mall proves to be a brilliant one, with several places for the characters to hide out and deal with the dead that perhaps don't seem too different from conventional shoppers, a subtle bit of satire that works pretty handy with the rest of the film, which has its bits of terror along with humor, which balances out pretty well. The main quartet of Emge-Foree-Reiniger-Ross prove to be a entertaining group to follow along with, with my particular favorite being Foree, probably the most confident of the group much like Ben from the original. Reiniger is also pretty amusing, especially when he goes down on an escalator slide. Emge and Ross are okay. Like before, the film shows the terror that would arise from an influx of the undead and what that would mean for society, from the arguments in a TV studio to conflicts in housing projects that are grim yet effective in setting up the premise without having too much exposition. There's also a bit of conflict and struggle in the fight to survive that we see from the group, particularly in the opening half, but as they warm to each other we grow to really follow these characters and enjoy their pursuits in the mall - which seems to be more than just a haven for stuff or safety. The scenes where they enjoy the mall are pretty amusing at times, and the sequence with the bikers is also handled pretty well, complete with an amusing use of pies.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is the gore effects, done so by Tom Savini, with the undead being bluish-grey with bright red blood that contrasts with the previous film that looks pretty good in his own right. The gore may not be for everyone's taste, but I found it thoroughly enjoyable, having a gruesome nature and effective feel that goes along an enemy that still manages to invoke terror. I enjoy the beginning parts and the climax better than the middle, but the film doesn't drag or feel too long - although if you want more there also exists an extended version that lasts 139 minutes, which Romero had quickly assembled to show at the Cannes Film Festival. The next film in the Living Dead series came out seven years later with Day of the Dead; all three films have had remakes, with Zack Snyder serving as director for his version released in 2004, with a few cameos from members of the original cast. It lives up to the original film not by being something completely different or going by the same beats as before, but by doing something fresh and compelling that makes this not just a great sequel but also a great horror film in general.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Review #1154: Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Cast: 
J. Carrol Naish (Dr. Frankenstein), Lon Chaney, Jr. (Groton), Zandor Vorkov (Count Dracula), John Bloom (Frankenstein's monster), Jim Davis (Sergeant Martin), Regina Carrol (Judith Fontaine), Russ Tamblyn (Rico), Anthony Eisley (Mike Howard), Anne Morrell (Samantha), Maria Lease (Joanie Fontaine), Angelo Rossitto (Grazbo the evil dwarf), Forrest J Ackerman (Dr. Beaumont), Greydon Clark (Strange), and Shelley Weiss (The Creature) Directed by Al Adamson.

Review: 
It really is better sometimes to just not take your time making a movie. This film took two years to make, with working titles such as Blood Freaks and The Blood Seekers. You may wonder if this film (written by William Pugsley and Samuel M. Sherman) was haphazardly put together with all of the random plot elements thrown together. Well, we've got Chaney playing an axe-wielding maniac, a doctor trying to cure his paralysis with a serum made from some sort of chemical in the bloodstream through the trauma of death (along with somehow curing his assistant and his evil dwarf), a part with bikers and hippies, and then there's Dracula (with some sort of grease paint and eye-shadow for makeup) somehow mixed in, who suddenly gets the idea to use the serum to give him immunity to the sunlight while bringing back the monster of Frankenstein (with the passing of a comet, no less), who looks like rotted clay. You know how classic movies seem to get re-made or done over and over again? I'm surprised no one has had a focus on improving terrible movies such as this one instead, since this would probably be a good one to make again, whether as a student film or just something for fun. Given how the film looks like it takes place in a big dark room, you might as well film everything in one big room. This is a 90 minute movie that manages to perplex its viewer with such random bits of odd moments - such as an dwarf who eats a dollar, or Vorkov and his ring that vaporizes people to ash. However, the pinnacle of lunacy comes with the fight sequence between Dracula and Frankenstein, which takes place just as the sun is coming up - although you can't really tell due to how dark everything seems to look due to the fact that they are fighting in an area with so much tree leaves and branches. The amazing thing is that they made a fight sequence that lasted less than five minutes that also proves to be incredibly one-sided and dull at the same time. Believe it or not, this was not the original intended ending for the film, which was meant to end with the two main leads (Carrol and Eisley) survived without a fight from the main villains. Instead, we are shown Dracula vaporizing "Mike", played by Adamson from the back as this scene was filmed after production had ended. Honestly, the sequence showing Dracula being melted by the sun is the only effect that sort of works, as if decay is the only thing the movie is good at showing. You may be wondering if this is the only Dracula vs. Frankenstein film out there. Technically, no. There exists a film called Los Monstruos del Terror (1970), which was known under Dracula vs. Frankenstein in the UK alongside other titles such as The Monsters of Terror and Assignment: Terror. There was also another film called Dracula contra Frankenstein (1971) that had several other titles it went by, such as Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein but also Dracula vs. Dr. Frankenstein. In fact, this film had several titles of its own, depending on the country, with my particular favorite being the reissue title in the US of Teenage Dracula - as if that makes Vorkov and his performance seem any less silly. In any case, always check your film titles, I suppose.

It should be mentioned that this was the last films for Naish and Chaney Jr, who both died two years after this film's release. It's pretty easy to see when Naish is reading off cue cards since you can see clear movement of said eyes at times when he is speaking, and the chattering of his false teeth can be heard at times - but at least he is somewhat amusingly hammy. Chaney doesn't have any lines, and he mostly just does a bunch of funny faces, but it definitely isn't him at his best. Vorkov (a pseydonym for his real name of Robert Engel, stockbroker thought of by Ackerman) is terribly wooden, invoking laughter instead of terror, particularly since there is an echo to the voice. None of the other castmates are too particularly memorable, aside from Tamblyn randomly showing up with no bearing on the plot. I do find the brief appearance of Ackerman (who serves as technical consultant) to be interesting, since he was a famed magazine editor (most notably Famous Monsters of Filmland), sci-fi writer/editor along with being a literary agent and avid collector of film memorabilia. Searching about him is far more interesting to think about than the film itself, honestly. Bloom, who played the monster for most of the film, was an accountant, but Weiss is the one with the job of fighting Dracula, lumbering his share for the schlock scene for a movie that does not have much shame. What can you expect from a production company named Independent-International Pictures? This is a terrible movie, filled with ridiculous scenes that make it a mockery among other horror films, particularly ones involving Dracula or Frankenstein - but it certainly will prove entertaining for people wanting campy schlock and not much else.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Review #1153: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Cast: 
John Lupton (Jesse James), Narda Onyx (Dr. Maria Frankenstein), Estelita Rodriguez (Juanita Lopez), Cal Bolder (Hank Tracy/Igor), Jim Davis (Marshal MacPhee), Steven Geray (Dr. Rudolph Frankenstein), Rayford Barnes (Lonny Curry), William Fawcett (Jensen, the pharmacist), and Nestor Paiva (Saloon Owner) Directed by William Beaudine (#463 - Billy the Kid versus Dracula and #535 - Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla)

Review: 
Older fans of mine will remember my coverage of Billy the Kid versus Dracula, which I covered all the way back in October of 2013, which served as part of a double feature with this film.

Admittedly, combining the genres of a western with horror could be interesting. I suppose there really must've been a push to make some cheap thrills and make a quick buck out of it while featuring outlaws from the Old West. The result is two films directed by Beaudine that were both shot in eight days while written by Carl K. Hittleman while shot at the Corrigan Ranch in Simi Valley, California. The only noteworthy thing to look at in this movie is the lab equipment, which came right from Kenneth Strickfaden, who had designed the electrical effects for Frankenstein (1931) and several other projects. It is easy to say both films are awful, but it may prove a bit difficult to figure out which one is "better" - as if one was comparing scab wounds. I could probably edit my description that I said about Billy the Kid versus Dracula and have it work now, as this is also a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Jesse James in a horror film. Let's not forget that this film not only decides to depict him as having survived the shooting by Robert Ford in 1882, but also encounter the (grand)daughter of Frankenstein. If you can believe it, this film feels like a drag with its run-time of 83 minutes, probably since it takes half of its run-time for the two main characters to meet but also due to the fact that it feels like there are two plots mixed into one, and they are both pretty boring.

Lupton is pretty wooden, not really generating sort of interest in wanting to follow his outlaw character - as reading about the real Jesse James would probably be more interesting. Onyx (in her last film role) is the one who stands out, having plenty of ham and ridiculousness that would probably be suited for stuff such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), but then again it actually makes this film seem tolerable, even if it is let down by nearly everything else. Rodriguez (also in her last role prior to her death in 1966) is okay, but the romance between her and Lupton is as stilted as everything else in this movie, not being particularly convincing (I'd also like to point out that James was married at the time of his death - to his first cousin), seeming to fill time and plot. Bolder is bland as the heavy, and the effect used to turn him into the Monster (called Igor for some reason) is awful, since the stitches (on a bald head) is rubber tape. I especially take amusement that the Monster doesn't even wear a shirt, as if that is going to make all the difference for showing strength and terror. You may be surprised that there are two Frankensteins in this film. You may be even more surprised that they are siblings, since the age difference between the two (Onyx and Geray) is 27 years. Speaking of which, Geray isn't awful, having a reluctant nature to him that is somewhat believable to go along with. Honestly, there is nothing here to watch the movie for, since there are no real big spectacles, and the parts when the monster finally comes to life are just as lame as the parts leading up to it. You would actually be better off with The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) if you want something with horror and western elements, and that was an incredibly mediocre movie. The only way to watch both this and Billy the Kid versus Dracula is on a night where you want something fast and cheap (they are both in the public domain) and don't care what they deliver as long as they give you some sort of monster and hero to watch. In that sense, they are just fine as a double feature of terror to terrorize the audience in their spooky awfulness.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920).

Review #1152: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Cast: 
John Barrymore (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde), Brandon Hurst (Sir George Carewe), Martha Mansfield (Millicent Carewe), Charles Willis Lane (Dr. Richard Lanyon), Cecil Clovelly (Edward Enfield), Nita Naldi (Miss Gina), and Louis Wolheim (Dance Hall proprietor) Directed by John S. Robertson.

Review: 
It is always interesting to look deep into the past for films, particularly with horror movies. 1920 was a particularly interesting year for horror, with this film being released alongside other horror films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Golem: How He Came into the World. In any case, this film is a pretty effective one that is worth a look for horror fans, particularly ones into silent features with a standout lead performance. The credits list Clara Beranger as providing the scenario for the film, which took inspiration from the stage play adaptation by Thomas Russell Sullivan that had first opened in 1887, the year after the publishing of the original novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. The changes from the novella for the stage play are reflected here in the film, such as giving Jekyll a fiancee and making more of a contrast between him and Hyde in their morals. This was the fourth adaptation of the work into film (the other three being done in 1908, 1912, and 1913, respectively), along with the first of three adaptations released in 1920, with one being directed by F. W. Murnau, although his film, The Head of Janus, is now lost. Barrymore shines above the rest of the cast, managing to play both roles with a clear distinction through his expressions that make for some fairly compelling drama with him. Hurst does pretty good as the counterpart to play against Barrymore for certain scenes, presenting a somewhat compelling argument for yielding to temptation in order to combat it. The other cast members aren't too bad, but the real focus stays on its star for the chunk of its 79 minute run-time, and it never really borders on boredom at any main point.

The struggle between trying to separate evil impulse and the soul is certainly something that can be worth thinking about for time after a viewing of something nearly a century old. The film takes its time to build to its big highlight - the transformation of Jekyll to Hyde. This is where Barrymore shines the most, as this was a scene without any sort of special makeup or camera tricks, being one long sequence where he turns away from the camera by hiding his face with his hands to later reveal his features of the beast, complete with face contortions from Barrymore. Of course in later sequences there is makeup used to show a pointy head and fangs, but they are well-done for the time. The Hyde sequences certainly must have proved a bit shocking for its time, adding to the entertainment factor fairly well. The climax delivers a fair and quick payoff, and on the whole the movie is a fairly entertaining one, with Barrymore being the key highlight that makes this one worth a watch nearly a century since its release.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

After Midnight (1989).

Review #1150: After Midnight.

Cast: 
Ramy Zada (Professor Edward Derek), Marg Helgenberger (Alex, segment "All Night Operator"), Marc McClure (Kevin, segment "The Old Dark House"), Jillian McWhirter (Allison), Pamela Adlon (Cheryl), Tracy Wells (Amy, segment "A Night on the Town"), Judie Aronson (Jennifer, segment "A Night on the Town"), Ed Monaghan (Russ, segment "Allison's Story"), Alan Rosenberg (Richard, segment "All Night Operator"), Richard Gabai (Dave), Loyda Ramos (Molly, segment "All Night Operator"), Kerry Remsen (Maggie), and Nadine Van der Velde (Joan, segment "The Old Dark House") Directed by Jim Wheat and Ken Wheat.

Review: 
I suppose there must be something to the task of making an anthology film come to life. Perhaps it is better fitted for television (such as The Twilight Zone or Night Gallery, for example), but the beginning parts of the film, involving the setup with a weird professor played by Zada, does help give the movie some sort of amusing start, complete with a "Psychology of Fear" college class. Honestly, you would be best off sticking to those shows I just mentioned instead. This is a film brought to life by the Wheat brothers, who had helped co-write the screenplay for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988). To properly give the film its due, I'll simply recap my thoughts on the three stories told to us, along with the wraparound parts.

The first segment, titled "The Old Dark House", seems to be destined for cliches, owing to the title that had already been used for two films, made by noted directors James Whale (1932) and William Castle (1963) that had been adapted from a novel called Benighted by J. B. Priestley. Honestly, that bit of history is more interesting for me than the actual segment, which goes nearly exactly the way you'd expect from a spooky house story. There is a twist to it, which I suppose makes it worth it, although it reminds me of a magician doing a magic trick and then pulls a jackrabbit out of the hat to mess with the audience with a chuckle. It probably doesn't hold up well on a re-watch, but it isn't anything too annoying. McClure and Van der Velde do just fine with such okay material, at least. "A Night on the Town" is easily the worst segment, in part because of how dull it is. It features a group of teenage girls who get lost and encounter a rundown gas station and are then chased...by vicious dogs. It's a bit of a tedious story, not evoking any sort of fright or even passion to it. The only thing that amuses me is the fact the conclusion, involving an explosion. "All Night Operator" is an average story, but it is likely the best of the bunch since it actually feels like an actual tale worth telling people. It involves Helgenberger (whose character has a broken leg while skiing) working at an answering service on a night shift before she gets involved with a client who is been stalked. The thing that bugs me about the segment is the ending, since it doesn't really have an ending, as opposed to how the other two segments seemed to have a natural conclusion to them. It may not be very scary (unless spooky callers really get under your skin), but it isn't too bad.

As mentioned earlier, the opening parts do help the movie get a bit of footing, with some hammy acting by Zada that is at least trying to get the movie somewhere interesting - he plays a character who likes to scare his students on his opening lecture by going through with Russian roulette (complete with makeup after faking getting shot) and messing with one of the surly kids to scare him, complete with pulling a revolver on him. What's weird is the ultimate setup: he offers private lessons when the college tells him to use textbooks for the class, and a bunch of students go to the lesson. I don't think I ever had a class in college that offered private lessons at a professor's house, but I digress. During the stories, there are shots showing the student who got scared by the professor trying to get his revenge on the teacher, which all build up to a weird showdown in the basement. The acting from the people in the wraparounds besides Zada isn't too interesting, especially since McWhirter doesn't give too much to this character that we follow for the wraparounds. You would think that she has her own story to tell, but she ultimately does not. The last trick the film plays on the audience is the worst of all - all of it was a dream. With how the wraparound segment ends, of course the film picks the one trick that undoes what just occurred on screen. Ultimately, this is a pretty mediocre movie, but the segments aren't recommendable in any sense of the word for frights or scares, being more something to watch on a lark. Nobody stands out in terms of acting aside from Zada, although that may be due to the ridiculous nature of his character, and the film is more of a tedious journey than an actual fun time. There isn't much to recommend, but if you really have a curiosity for anthology tales and cheap 80s thrills without much reward, this might be enough for you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Night of the Demons (1988).

Review #1149: Night of the Demons.

Cast: 
Cathy Podewell (Judy Cassidy), Amelia Kinkade (Angela Franklin), Billy Gallo (Sal Romero), Alvin Alexis (Rodger), Linnea Quigley (Suzanne), Lance Fenton (Jay Jansen), Hal Havins (Stooge), Allison Barron (Helen), Philip Tanzini (Max), and Jill Terashita (Frannie) Directed by Kevin S. Tenney.

Review: 
What's there to expect from a movie (written and produced by Joe Augustyn) as cliche as this? It's a horror comedy that lurks in the supernatural while also lurking with characters as typical as one would expect from people who decide to have a party at a mortuary, complete with someone deciding to mess with an old man (carrying apples and razor blades, for some reason) on the way to the party with a prank. There isn't much to the film in terms of acting, but you may get some weird amusement from the silly nature of these characters. It certainly thinks its being funny with the weird jerks that inhabit this film, which I guess makes sense given most of their fates. Havins is probably the most amusing at being surly, and Kinkade is fine at being over-the-top in spookiness. Oddly enough, the two who aren't so surly, Podewll and Alexis, are probably the dullest in the film, being the kind of do-gooders that would fit better in other teen films. The 89 minute run-time feels typical, but at least that means the film won't tire its intended audience - particularly when it goes from setting up its scenario to the horror bits that matter most. Honestly, the movie's best card to play is in its effects, which look pretty good while being occasionally haunting for a movie that certainly likes to reward itself with a good body-count to go with it. It also seems to be a movie that seems culled from other horror films, with one comparison I hear being The Evil Dead (1981), since that film had a bunch of college kids being possessed at an abandoned cabin when they release a audiotape invoking demons. At least the final scene is different from other films, ending not on the kids but on some old people and pie - for better or worse. It's the kind of movie that became a cult hit, making $3 million while being released regionally. It was followed by two sequels released in the 1990s along with being remade in 2009. On the whole, there isn't anything too special that you could probably find in other horror films, but it will provide a bargain for anyone that doesn't mind something a bit campy and ridiculous for the horror schlock. I can't say that this is a clear winner, but I can say that this is a movie that has its own little place for others to encounter and be curious for this time of year.

Overall, I give it 6 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.