Happy Halloween everyone! We’ve finally made it here, through 9 films from arguably the greatest horror franchise to ever grace the screen. It is a shame that we have to end on such a sour note.
Rob Zombie follows up the original Halloween reboot with H2. At first glance this film appears to be a direct remake of Halloween II, with Laurie in the hospital and Michael showing up to exact his revenge. However, Laurie awakens from a dream and H2 actually takes place one year after the events of the first film. Laurie is now living with the Brackett family and Michael has been missing since he was shot by Dr. Loomis. Laurie begins acting out, mirroring more of the lifestyle of the Myers family from which she came.
Meanwhile, Michael is living in the woods, recovering from the injuries he sustained in the first film.
And Growing A Ridiculous Beard
Michael begins having hallucinations of a younger self and of his mother, encouraging him to return to Haddonfield to kill again on Halloween. Michael follows the orders of his visions and begins to kill again in search of Laurie.
Now that the synopsis is out of the way, let me begin my review: this film sucks. Rob Zombie completely butchers everything that the Halloween franchise stood for and turned this film into more of the shock and gore that is his other films. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed The Devil’s Rejects and I love House of 1,000 Corpses, but this franchise is not those movies and you can’t mess with the fundamental elements of Halloween, no matter how much you want to make the film your own.
Laurie is not a reflection of her messed up family and brother, she’s exactly the opposite. Halloween in its purist form is good vs. evil; in Rob Zombie’s world everything is evil. Also, Michael Myers is who he is because his actions are inexplicable, when you start using psycho babel to explain why he kills, you kill your movie. You would think Zombie would have learned from the poor acclaim of the 4-6 films; but if at first you don’t succeed.
And where's the mask? Why the Beard?
What H2 does do well is tip its hat to Halloween II and its sequels, sometimes even at the expense of this film. In H2 the viewer is treated to Michael coming to life in the ambulance, attacking the hospital, and having a psychic connection to a relative (Laurie this time and not Jamie). The highlight of this film’s performances again were McDowell and Dourif (horror’s greatest male icon) but Scout Taylor Compton falls short of Jamie Lee Curtis once again.
Finally, not to spoil the film for anyone, but I want to speak briefly about the ending (no spoilers). I understand why Zombie ended the film the way he did, it was a cute wink that you often see in today’s slashers, but like I said before it completely ruins the mythos of the franchise.
So now we’ve come to an end of our 10 Days of Halloween. A tip of the Shatner mask to those of you who’ve stayed with us through the entire series, and I hope you enjoyed the Halloween season.
While I have enjoyed this 10 day trek through the psyche of Michael Myers, despite slogging through the miserable third and fifth installments, but I am glad it is finally coming to an end. My final review is Rob Zombie’s Halloween reboot, which fell far short of the greatness of the original. Zombie wrote and directed the film, and while it was a noble attempt to explain the inner workings of the brain of Michael Myers, he tried way too hard to make it gritty.
Halloween starts out looking at Michael’s childhood, but instead of being six, like in the original, he is a middle school child living with a Mom who is a loving stripper, his abusive father, and deadbeat sister. His fascination with killing animals eventually shifts to people, when he kills a bully, and while high off the power that he feels he kills his father and sister so that his mother can be free. He is locked up in a sanitarium and Dr. Loomis (Malcom McDowell) attempts to unlock the mysteries of his psychopathy. After 15 years of failed attempts, Dr. Loomis gives up and that night Michael breaks out of the sanitarium and returns to his hometown of Haddonfield to stalk his sister, Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton), and kill anyone who gets in his way. It is up to Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) to track down Michael and end his murderous rampage.
Rob Zombie took on an incredible task of making a more sophisticated and disturbing Myers and while it was gripping at points, especially when McDowell and Dourif were on the screen, he failed to realize that the simplicity and mystery of the psyche is what made Michael disturbing in the first film. Plus, he started off at the very beginning trying to establish that this was a “gritty” film. There was more profanity in the first five minutes than the rest of the series combined and he made very clear that he wasn’t going to pull any punches. But, he didn’t mask it (no pun intended) very well, and it seemed very forced.
The acting was pretty good, except Taylor-Compton, who fell far short of the iconic performance by Jamie Lee Curtis. She didn’t make the audience care about her and wasn’t very convincing as being scared. All the screams seemed very timed instead of spontaneous. Malcom McDowell, and I tread on egg shells when I say this, played a better Dr. Loomis than Donald Pleasance, in my humble opinion. He was less cartoonish, even if he didn’t have the classic lines that Pleasance was given in the original.
Man, I really miss working with Stanley Kubrick.
Halloween also suffered from pacing problems. While it moved fairly well up until he left the sanitarium, once Michael got out, the killing dragged on way too long to the point where I lost interest….twice. This was actually the second time I watched it. The first time, I turned it off halfway through to do something more interesting, and returned later and this time, I started watching last night, grew bored with it and decided to drag myself through the rest of it this morning.
While, overall I thought it was a decent attempt at making a gritty reboot, it had too many flaws and felt too forced to make me say that it was “good”. Pac has Halloween II to review tomorrow and I hear that it is far worse than this one, so I wince to think about what his viewing experience will be. I will probably watch it one day, right before Zombie releases Halloween III next year. I hope you enjoyed reading them and if I had to recommend films from this series to view, I would say to watch: Halloween, Halloween II (1981), and Halloween H20. Happy Halloween!!
I didn’t realize until I watched Halloween: Resurrection how lucky of a draw I had getting the even numbers of the Halloween franchise. Sure, Chris reviewed the original, by far the best film, but I wasn’t forced to sit through Season of the Witch or Revenge of Michael Myers. My good fortunes ended, however, with the 8th installment of the franchise.
Halloween: Resurrection picks up three years after H20 but not before explaining why there is a sequel to H20 in the first place. Apparently, Michael crushed a paramedic’s larynx so he couldn’t speak, dressed him up like Michael and left him to get decapitated by Laurie.
Lesson: Don't dress up like this guy for Halloween
After explaining this ridiculous reasoning for Michael’s survival, the film cuts to Laurie in a mental hospital, apparently grief-stricken over her mistake. In comes Michael, returning to kill Laurie. For a moment, Laurie gets the better of Michael and has an opportunity to end it for good. But what would we watch for the next 80 minutes? So of course Laurie tries to unmask Michael and “gets got”.
Everything from this point on is crap. The premise for the rest of the film has nothing to do with the introductory scene. Why explain what happened to Michael and Laurie at all if the rest of the movie has nothing to do with it?
You didn't know what happened to these two.
Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks run an internet reality channel and have rigged the old Myers house with cameras. They then paid six dumb college students to stay the night in the house and investigate what happened there when Michael was a child. Needless to say, Michael returns and starts picking them off one-by-one. Also, Tyra dances, Busta does karate, some unknown actress shows her breasts.
And Sean Patrick Thomas dies in yet another horror movie.
It’s getting close to Halloween now, so if you haven’t been watching all the Halloween films like we have and you can only watch one or two, skip Resurrection. The plot is dumb, the acting is terrible, and none of the terror is terrifying. This is the worst of the films I’ve reviewed …
With the premiere of AMC’s The Walking Dead coming this Sunday night, I decided to do a zombie feature article. As predictable as the fact every House episode mystery is solved between the 36-39 minute range (if you watch it on DVD), almost every zombie film will have some form of these following characters, band together to survive the zombie apocalypse.
We all know this guy; he is the every man. He usually comes from the middle class, and is usually somehow involved with law enforcement or security. He is the reluctant leader, forced into that position by lack of saner options (see: badass and panic guy). However, he is also the least interesting character most of the time. The hero hardly ever gets any mention by fans after the film because most of his time is spent telling people to calm down and is usually humorless (with the exception of Shaun of the Dead). Being the hero in a zombie survivalist party is no great honor though, because it usually requires sacrificing yourself at the end of the film to save your love interest or a lazy little child.
Chance of survival: 20% (65% if there is no child)
The Badass
Due to some childhood trauma, crystal meth, steroids, or long exposure to lead-based paint (or a combination of all of those), this rage-fueled, profanity spewing character can be your best friend or your worst enemy when it comes to a zombie apocalypse. He is handy when the zombies have found the group and they are closing in, because he will either kill them violently in slow motion or he will act as a distraction so you can make a clean get away. He is your worst enemy when you are trying to remain unseen from the zombies because he will get fidgety and will start yelling and opening fire at the worst possible time.
If he lacks a gun, a chainsaw is his secondary weapon.
He also will cause problems because since he has killed the most zombies he thinks he is the most qualified to lead the group….right into harm’s way. After a couple of days he recovers from the crystal meth and steroid abuse and realizes how terrible of a friend he has been to the group. Using what juice is left in his system, he will usually go down in a blaze of glory, deliberately sacrificing himself to save the rest of the group.
The good outweighs the bad with this character, he is a strong, albeit unstable, ally during the apocalypse.
Chance of survival: 13%
The Ultimate Survivor
The Ultimate Survivor usually is not introduced until about halfway through the film. This guy will have claimed to have been hiding out alone, killing zombies, for at least six months, even if the apocalypse just started two days ago. He will know all the ins and outs about how to defeat them, and will seem like an automatic shoe-in for leader of the outfit. While he is a loner, he will take in the struggling band of survivors, but he usually has his own disturbing agenda. He will generally have a dislike of everyone, except the hot chick who he will berate anyway, but will have ethical differences with the hero. The hero will get into an argument with the ultimate survivor, which will be less of a vocal disagreement than a staring and nostril flaring competition, which eventually leads to a fist fight or imprisonment while the zombies close in. Despite his self-proclaimed prowess at killing zombies, it will fail him somehow and he will meet a gruesome death, usually in an ironic manner, and the hero and clan will leave him to die.
Chance of survival: 0.05%
The Parent/Relative/Extremely Close Friend
The zombie apocalypse will always happen when someone in the survivalist party is with a relative, that is either their only friend and confidant, or someone they have been estranged from for years, and they are forced to take them with the group on their journey to survive. If their relative is more like a best friend they will work as an incredible unstoppable zombie killing force for 3/4ths of the film. They will have some sort of catch phrase or inside joke that was established at the start of the film that will be overused and involve either sex or bodily functions.
If the relative is someone they are estranged with, they will not work well with the group and they will bicker and argue, get in each other’s ways and air out differences when they should be focused more on killing the undead horde that is nearby. But, about 2/3 of the way through the film they will all of a sudden find common ground (probably killing zombies), and work things out. For the next 10 minutes of the film, they will become like best friends and become that unstoppable force.
Whichever type of relative this character is, it usually ends the same: they get bit by a zombie. If you happen to be the parent of The Child (see below), they are twice as likely to be eaten by zombies, leaving the hero to have to emotionally blow their face off and also be burdened by taking care of their offspring.
Maybe if we ignore them they will stop following us.
If this is not enough to make them feel bad, they will probably not be killed by the hero soon enough to stop them from killing more of their zombie survivalist friends.
Chance of Survival: 5%
The Hardened Woman/Potential Love Interest
Apocalypse’s are great for the down-on-their-luck heroes who never get any action. It is the one time that they can legitimately turn to that hot girl and say, “Well, the world is about to end…so….you know….” But, the hero never does that to someone that he hasn’t fallen madly in love with in 72 hours. What union the zombie apocalypse has started, no undead man can tear apart. The love interest, whether it is someone he just met, or someone he has pined over for a while, will be a vital asset to him because it gives him a reason to live and the only reason to step up and be the hero, until she gets him killed. She is usually the strong, yet damaged type, using rage over an ex-boyfriend or “that time of the month” to her advantage as a zombie killing machine. She will probably rack up the second highest zombie kill count of the group and play the tough girl, until the hero and her, next to an ill-advised campfire (why do they always light campfires during zombie films? I get it, they want to stay warm, but it is just pointing out their position to the zombies), will make a connection and boom chica-wow wow.
Chances are that she will survive because the hero will be much more focused on saving his piece of tail than anyone else in the group.
As soon as you meet this guy in the film, you know there is no way he is going to survive. He is a tool, and usually a prick to the hero, before the apocalypse. He is cocky, rich and will have stereotypical 80’s antagonist written all over him. All his cockiness will come crashing down when he stares into the lifeless eyes of the undead. He will become a bundle of nerves, like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. He will think he is smarter than everyone just because he is richer and of a higher class. He will not even make it halfway through the film, and will probably cost you a member of the survivalist party because he will sacrifice their safety to save his own skin. When he finally completely loses his cool, starts screaming like a little girl, and making rash decisions. These rash decisions will lead him to probably the most gruesome death of the film.
Tickle torture!!!!
They will probably stay put and in a dead pan voice yell, “Wait..no..don’t do that…we don’t want you to die and stuff…”, but as soon as he is gone, shrug and continue their journey.
Chance of survival: 0%
The Child
The best way to survive a zombie apocalypse is to be a helpless child. Sure, we all see zombie children and they are creepy as hell.
Especially this one.
But, in the film, once you are established as a solid member of the survivor group (membership is usually established through The Relative character), you are good to go. Everyone else will go out of their way to save your lazy butt from the horrible zombies you are making no attempt to run away from. The hero, parent, or love interest will put them over their shoulder or carry them while shooting or swinging their baseball bat. All the child has to do is scream to alert the party that zombies are nearby and they are good to go. Plus, it is brutal watching a child get murdered. It is apparently okay to introduce a child zombie post-reanimation, but it is not okay to introduce them before having them eaten by zombies.
Chance of Survival: 100%
If you can think of other stock characters from zombie films, leave them in the comments!
Here are some clips from The Walking Dead which premieres this Sunday at 10pm to satiate your desire for the undead!!!
My apologies for not keeping my readers informed of films that are coming out in the mid-to-late future. I tend to focus more on films that are in the development stage, or right about to come out, rather than ones that are already in production. But, here is one of my first attempts to give you a look at some trailers for films coming out next year that you may not have seen (for better or worse).
Sanctum
James Cameron produces this film, since he seems to have a desire to do anything related to the deep ocean. My theory is that with all the money he has accrued he is going to attempt to be the sole owner of International Waters and attempt to control the rights of filming anything that has to do with the ocean. While I am sure this film will be intense and feature great visuals, it looks like the acting is second-rate.
Hoping to revive his prestigious horror career, Wes Craven returns to one of his most successful franchises, Scream. Boasting new rules to parody the evolving horror genre, Craven brings back some major players from the old cast as well as some new, younger blood fresh for the killing. This new preview is promising, but after My Soul to Take, I think I need to set my expectations much lower.
This indie film, directed by Alejandor Inarritu (Babel, Amores Perros), stars Javier Bardem as a father whose life is in free fall and he attempts to pick up the pieces. It looks like Bardem is looking at at least being nominated for another acting performances and it looks like this is beautifully filmed. Babel, although not one of my favorites, did get nominated for Best Picture, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this one ends up in the running as well.
I hope you enjoyed them. Let me know what you thought in the comments!
I realize that there are very few ideas in the film and tv industry right now that I seem to be getting excited for and this piece of news I am still hesitant to be positive about.
Last month, Goodfellas writer, Nicholas Pileggi, announced that he wanted to work on a Goodfellas tv show based on the original film. He has now come out and said that Martin Scorcese will be involved in the production, much like he was in Boardwalk Empire. Pileggi had this to say about the project:
“I want to do it, Marty wants to do it, Warner Bros wants to do it,” he explained. “Of course, you can’t pick up from ‘Goodfellas,’ since we murdered everybody, or rather, everybody was murdered! There’s nobody left. But I think we’re going to figure out a way to do the early years—sort of a prequel”
While I love the Goodfellas film, I think this type of show has been done a little bit too much recently with The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. That is not to say that I don’t have complete faith in both Pileggi and Scorcese to produce a great show, but instead that it would feel redundant right now, especially if Boardwalk Empire sticks around.
C'mon! Does it look like I'm going anywhere?
Plus, in order to make this show like the original film they would need to use more “salty” language and violence, which would not fit any of the major networks. HBO already has Boardwalk Empire which leads me to believe that they wouldn’t take the show and that it would fall to another lesser premium channel. Or, that the show would get picked up by AMC, who has had a lot of recent success with shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, but if they did that they would not be able to drop the f-bomb, which shows its utmost versatility in Goodfellas.
Didn't you know that f--- is a noun, verb, and adjective?
Then, comes the matter of casting. Who could fill the shoes of the great Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Ray Liotta? This is actually the part that I am least concerned about because there has been a lot of promise shown by some of the young actors in Hollywood recently, but still it could be an issue nonetheless.
What are your thoughts? Should the Goodfellas stay dead? If not, who do you think should play the lead roles?
After a streak of Halloween films with cheap thrills, it was refreshing to see one that still had cheap thrills but had better production value. While Halloween: H20 is no classic, it still is one of the better Michael Myers films in the series.
The film opens with Marion Whittington (Nancy Stephens), returning home and finding her office was raided and that the file for Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis finally reprising the role) was missing. When she flees next door out of fear she finds the neighbor children dead and that Michael Myers has returned. Michael quickly kills her and goes off to find Laurie in California, where she is in the witness protection program, under the name of Keri Tate and currently employed as the headmistress of a prep school. On Halloween night she is finally conquering her age old fears of Michael Myers, when he returns again to finish what he started 20 years before.
Halloween: H20 gives a nod to the Scream films (which were also paying tribute to Halloween in turn) even though it had only been out for two years before that, and acknowledges that it is a film that will play in the conventions of the slasher genre. For example, there is the idiot kid that says, “I’ll be right back,” and of course Michael comes back for one final kill after everyone thinks he’s dead…etc. Also, I thought it was great how Janet Leigh (Marion from Psycho) makes an appearance, and the car from Psycho is in the film with the same license plate that has Norman Bates‘ initials on it was in there as well.
What I liked about this film is that it moved on from the whole supernatural Michael premise and the cult undertones that Halloween 5 and 6 had and it was more about the creepiness of Michael’s psychopathic nature. He is just a stalking machine, bent on killing his bloodline and anything that gets in his way. The writers decided to act as if Halloween 3-6 never happened to keep things simple, and probably from sheer embarrassment to be associated with them.
While the production value was much better, it didn’t offer a whole lot in the way of scares, and what it did offer was nothing new. There wasn’t much gore, the body count was a lot lower, and most of the kills were pretty lame, even by cheap horror movie standards. Also, I thought that the mask this time wasn’t as scary and took away some of the dread of seeing Michael Myers.
He kind of looks like Ronald McDonald's crackhead brother.
But, I think this installment had accepted its cheesiness to an extent and played with it and because it didn’t take itself so seriously, it was easier to accept than Halloween 4-6.
My favorite cheesy horror movie moment is when Josh Hartnett and Michelle Williams are running away from Michael. Granted, Michael moves slow as molasses, but these kids run down a hallway and out a window and Michelle Williams is all of a sudden completely out of breath and it is time to stop and talk about the next move, when he is still pretty much in sight of them.
Man, it is exhausting running 50 feet.
How were they that tired, that fast? If Michael Myers moves so slow, wouldn’t it behoove them to run as far away as possible since he really had no chance of catching up?
(SPOILER ALERT)
At the end of the film Laurie seems to decidedly destroy Michael by cutting off his head. This does seem very logical, seeing as they have tried only three other ways of killing him before this:
I know stabbing him didn't work the last 20 times..but...it might work this time!
What is interesting to note about this is that there is still one more film to watch before the Rob Zombie reboots. How do they have him come back from a beheading? Hmmmm…..tune in to Pac’s next review to find out.
Joe Chappelle and Daniel Farrands had a lot going against then when they began the creation of this film. Let’s recap:
Halloween 5 provided the mythos of Michael Myers with some sort of supernatural ability and explanation that killing his entire blood line would put him to rest
Jamie’s fate is not fully explained in Halloween V
Everyone (including Chris) is dying to know who the mysterious man in black is
Grunge music was really popular in 1995
All of that being said, Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myersdoes pretty well with what it has to work with. The Movie opens up with Jamie, approximately 16 or 17 given time between this film and Halloween V, giving birth to an unexplicable child. After Jamie and her newborn child escape her kidnappers, Michael is released upon the town to kill Jamie and retrieve the child.
Meanwhile, The Strode family is living in the previous home of Michael Myers, unbeknownst to everyone but their a**hole father. Next door to the Strode family lives Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd), and when Tommy overhears Jamie’s phone call to a radio program asking for help Tommy tracks down the newborn son of the now deceased Jamie (thanks to Michael of course).
Oh yeah, he gets Dr. Loomis to help him too
Are you still following me? Good. Now, with baby in hand, Tommy finds Kara Strode and her son Danny at the old Myers home and tells them to take the baby and hide in his house (yeah, next door.). Tommy suspects that some ancient curse requires Michael to kill everyone in his blood line and it occurs on Halloween because of the alignment of some stars to make a constellation that only shows up every few years during Samhain (a.k.a. Halloween).
Eventually we discover who the man in black is, the big reveal of this movie, and it is a major letdown. I’m sure it was because of the demand to tie ends from the previous film, but this movie would have worked a lot better without the cult angle. Say instead Jamie survived and like any teenager on an MTV reality show, she thinks she’s in love and gets knocked up. She has a baby and the next time the thorn constellation appears, Michael comes back to claim her and her child. This sounds much better than some cult controlling Michael, because Michael is much scarier when he appears uncontrollable (SPOILER ALERT: he is uncontrollable).
Much like the resulting blood spatter.
In an attempt to tie together all the loose ends from the previous film, Halloween 6 created some pretty glaring plot holes of its own. However, if you can overlook them this is not a terrible horror movie. The pacing of this film is much better than most, the acting in this film is not as bad as some other installments in the series (III & V to be more precise), and the suspense of Michael’s terror is at its highest since the Halloween II. I wish they would have used less light on Michael, he’s a creature of the shadows and he appears less menacing when there are bright flourescent lights on him; but now I’m nitpicking. Also, the iconic score is often replaced with guitar riffs.
It is also worth noting that this is the last appearance of Donald Pleasence prior to his passing, so the film is worth watching for that reason alone (though he’s only briefly on-screen).
Look for Chris’s review of Halloween: H2O, a film he’s sure to enjoy more than the past two Halloween films he was stuck with.
Chris’ Take: Paranormal Activity 2 was walking a very fine line with its release strategy. The success of the first film demanded a sequel and it seemed like Oren Peli decided to take the dangerous route of the Saw franchise and release its sequel within a year of the original. On top of that, the plot decided that instead of moving forward it would take a step back and explain the story from before the first one, which immediately causes it to lose some suspense. With those two factors, it seemed like an impossible task for Paranormal Activity 2 to be a success.
The film opens by introducing Katie’s sister’s family as they move into their new home in San Diego, even re-introducing Katie to the story and pointing out that she lives close by. The story then jumps to about a year later, 60 days before the death of Micah, Katies’ boyfriend. When the family thinks that break ins are occurring, they add security cameras to their home and watch several strange disturbances unfold. While the disturbances seem small at first, they increasingly grow stronger and more violent and seem to be targeted at their one year child, Hunter.
I must say that the film did a decent job creating suspense in what I thought would be an unsuspenseful prequel. I was wondering how the film would work itself out without Katie getting too freaked out over what happened to her sister’s family, but Williams and Peli did a pretty good job making a clean transition between the two stories.
Additionally, I was wondering how IMAX would create a better experience for the film and I forgot that IMAX is not only about increased picture quality, but also the sound. I saw the first film at home, which kind of makes it scarier, and I think some of the ominous sound of the demon’s presence gets removed because of that. IMAX, however, added to that and created an overall sense of dread, mimicking what it might feel like to just feel evil surrounding you.
Outside of the sound, I thought this film resorted to cheaper thrills than the first. Watching the first one sent chills down my spine watching shadows and objects move, while this one resorted to more jolting forms of fright. While they were mildly effective, some of them were just downright laughable. I did like the fact that there was access to more cameras for this film than the first, but I didn’t like the security camera look of it and preferred more of the narrow view of the hand held camera to create suspense.
After I watched the first one, I did have trouble sleeping because the demon for the most part was left unexplained, and I am going to admit that I was kind of creeped out by it. This film I thought answered too many questions and because of that didn’t seem as scary and didn’t linger with me like the first one. Overall, it was a decent film and it did overcome some of the obstacles it created for itself in the hasty production and being a prequel, but I thought that it could have been a lot better if they had just taken some more time with it. I am sure there will be a Paranormal Activity 3 and I hope it moves more forward in the story than this one did or changes its focus because even though this didn’t live up to the success of the first, it was still one of the more effective forms of horror that is out there.
Characters: B
Cinematography: B-
Directing: B
Performances: B-
Plot: A-
Thrills: B+ Overall: B
Pac’s Take:
Paranormal Activity, while not the first film in the sub-genre, will probably go down in horror history as the seminal work of the documentary sub-genre (I really wish “shockumentary” wasn’t already coined by creepers). Paranormal Activity 2 attempts to capitalize on everything that made the first movie great, and do what horror sequels are designed to do, one-up the original in terms of violence and terror. For the most part Paranormal activity 2 succeeded.
The sequel is not as scary as the original. Let’s be realistic though; the gig is up, you can’t recreate the suspension of doubt surrounding the authenticity of the original (that’s what I thought was scary). So what does the sequel do instead, it takes you back and it explains why (SPOILER ALERT if you haven’t seen the original) Katie becomes possessed. (SAFE NOW)
There are some things about this film that I thought were downright dumb and/or laughable:
The pool vacuum (laugh out loudable)
Why install cameras with DVR capability and never look at it when strange things go down?
(SPOILER ALERT) if you curse your wife’s sister, don’t live so close to her
For the most part the first two movies are sewn together quite well, there are some pretty cool haunting scenes (my favorite being the kitchen cabinets), and though the pacing of the first 30 minutes is incredibly slow once the film gets going it doesn’t let up.
Paranormal Activity 2 is not a perfect film, and it certainly is not as good as the original, but it’s my favorite horror film of the year; and until I’m able to watch Buried I don’t see another horror film on slate for 2010 that can surpass it.
Side Note: when I search for images on Paranormal Activity 2, I almost exclusively get this image. At no point during the film was this image seen on-screen. (unless I blinked and missed it)
The Halloween series at this point has reached the level of “preposterous”.
Halloween 4 only made it to the "ridiculous" level.
They keep finding new relatives that he may or may not have to kill and their attempts to destroy him seem to have run out after he has been shot, burned and exploded. What could be next to bring back the dread of Michael Myers?
Halloween 5, picks up right where Halloween 4 left off, with a bullet-laden Michael crawling out of a convenient secret tunnel, into a creek. He stumbles upon an old man, who apparently feels inclined to nurse back to health people that try to choke him, and once recovered attempts to track down his niece, Jamie (Danielle Harris), who he has developed an unexplained psychic connection with, and kill her. This time Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) has the police convinced of Michael’s evil and they come prepared, but is it enough to stop him before he massacres again?
This one has been my least favorite excursion into the Michael Myers story.
Notice how I rephrased it to exclude this piece of cinematic excrement.
The acting is sub par, even from Donald Pleasance, who seems to be overacting just to make up for everyone’s lack of skill.
"I used to have a career dammit!"
The scares and suspense seems to be gone and seems to be slipping more into the type of horror film that is ripe for parody. The only scene that seems to provide any sort of thrill is when Jamie is trapped in a laundry chute and Michael is trying to stab her through the vent.
One of the main things that I did not like was the fact that it started to develop a supernatural undertone with the psychic connection between Michael and Jamie. Halloween worked best when there was no supernatural involvement and Michael was just a psychopath who killed out of pure instinct and without remorse. Now, they seemed to be working into the story that killing Jamie would stop him from being a killer and that he could put it to rest through some sort of ritualistic ceremony.
The sad thing is that with as much as I disliked the direction this series is going, I can’t help but want to figure out what is going on with the mysterious man in black that was in the background of many scenes of the film and obviously set Michael free from prison at the end of the film. I understand that they were trying to instill fear by leaving it open ended, but all I could think about is:
"Crap, I have to watch the next one to answer the questions from this one."
Unfortunately, there is not much more to comment on for Halloween 5, it is a part of the series that is bland and disappointing on almost every level. I hope it picks up again and there is hope for my next review since Halloween H20 apparently salvaged the franchise after it had been faltering. Until next time…….(cue Halloween theme music).
Here is a link to some fun facts about Halloween 5:
After the Halloween series diverted away from Michael Myers in Halloween 3: Season of the Witch, the public demanded his return and 1988 the franchise released its fourth installment: Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers. In correspondence to its release date, Halloween IV takes place ten years after the original two films and follows the events surrounding Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), the nice of Michael Myers and daughter to the now deceased Laurie Strode (the movie suggests she and her husband died 11 months prior).
Jamie can’t sleep because of the presence of a figure in her dreams who she refers to as “the nightmare man” and she is still struggling to adjust to her new life without her mother. simultaneously, the comatose body of Michael Myers is being transported back to Smith’s Grove hospital until Michael abruptly wakes up in the ambulance, kills everyone on board and escapes.
Once he learns about the transport of Michael Myers and the accident on the ambulance en route, Dr. Loomis starts trailing Michael back to Haddonfield where he believes Michael is headed. It becomes more and more clear to Dr. Loomis that Michael is returning to Haddonfield to kill his niece, Jamie, and only Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) can stop him.
Weapon of Choice: Gun, because it has to work eventually
Halloween IV stands as probably the best sequel to this franchise with the exception of Halloween II. Though no longer aided by the hand of John Carpenter, Halloween IV still maintains the integrity of the first two films, winks to the first movie often, and at times even mimics it very well. Just as Carpenter did in the original, a lot of the suspense of Michael terrorizing Jamie and her adoptive sister comes from Michael lurking in the shadows. The action of the film takes a while to pick up but once the sun sets on Haddonfield on Halloween night the film is really entertaining to watch.
That being said, there’s a lot about this film that just makes it OK. The Halloween films are at their best when Dr. Loomis is involved as a “Van Helsing” type character, but it’s a little difficult to get over the fact that he survived the events of Halloween II. Additionally, while the gore of this film is another notch up from Halloween II, this film was made in 1988 and the kills can look a little campy (i.e. the thumb through the forehead).
The fairest way to gauge this sequel is compared to others of the franchise and other 4th installments of popular horror franchises. …The Return of Michael Myers ranks 3rd amongst the Halloween movies and for the most part surpasses all other franchises at this point in their lifespan.
Fun Fact: Danielle Harris, the actress who plays Jamie Lloyd in this film also plays Annie Brackett in Rob Zombie’s Halloween and Halloween II.
from Halloween 4, all pictures of Harris from Rob Zombie's films are NSFW
Liam Neeson looks like he is back in Taken mode, except this time he is moving even closer to being like the Bourne movies. The film is called Unknown and stars Neeson as Dr. Martin Harris who gets in a car accident and ends up in coma. When he awakes he finds that his wife (January Jones) doesn’t recognize him and that someone (Aidan Quinn) has stolen his identity. Now, it is a race against time to find out the truth behind this conspiracy. Despite the worn out premise, this film actually looks pretty good and there is rarely a Liam Neeson film that I don’t like. Plus, it looks like it will give me another character by January Jones to dislike. Here is the trailer, let me know your thoughts!
In the continuing fashion of re-treading 80’s films, comes another idea from the 80’s that should just stay there….Top Gun 2. The last couple of weeks has surfaced a lot of chatter about a sequel to the hit Tom Cruise film, Top Gun. While I am sure that the Navy will be all about this and be waiting with enlistment papers in hand to capture the misinformed viewers of this film, I for one think this is a terribly rotten idea. Let me explain why:
Top Gun fed off the good ol’ boy American swagger of Tom Cruise, cheesy one-liners, homo-erotic subtext, cold war era context, and 80’s music to make it a classic.
We didn't ask, but these guys certainly didn't even need to tell.
However, it is an 80’sclassic. Cheesy one-liners don’t fly anymore because they have become so cliché, unless used in campy horror films. Trying to replicate the music that made the first one so endearing would be a travesty and would end up sounding more like a South Park spoof.
I have to say that Tony Scott has made some decent statements about what the film will be when it is made. According to Cinemaspy.com, Tony Scott had this to say,
“I’m not waiting for a script. I’m going to do my homework. I’m going down to I think it’s Fallon, Nevada, down near New Mexico and it’s a whole different world now.—These computer geeks — these kids play war games in a trailer in Fallon, Nevada and if we ever went to war or were in the Middle East or the Far East or wherever it is, these guys can actually fly drones. They are unmanned aircraft. They operate them and then they party all night. This world fascinated me, because it’s so different from what it was originally. But, I don’t want to do a remake. I don’t want to do a reinvention. I want to do a new movie.”
So did these guys.
So, he does at least promise to make it a different type of film, but whatever happens I think it will fail. I think it would be rather difficult to make an intriguing film about fighter pilots these days since there are rarely any dogfights and air raids are pretty bland. I think if he tries to replicate the whimsy of the first one, it will not fly in the movies these days (no pun intended). I like Tony Scott as a director, but I think this is kind of an impossible task. The first one worked in its own right, but to try to make a sequel would just be a disaster.
This week is another week that features almost no new wide releases, save one, but there are several limited releases that might be worth tracking down.
Synopsis from IMDB: As a deadly battle rages over Jigsaw’s brutal legacy, a group of Jigsaw survivors gathers to seek the support of self-help guru and fellow survivor Bobby Dagen, a man whose own dark secrets unleash a new wave of terror.
Chris’ Take: I lost interest in this series after the third installment. The first one was an interesting concept and was done well, but then it just seemed to decline with each yearly installment and my curiosity for torture films was satiated. There was almost no enjoyment left in it, just sheer shock value and uncomfortability. The trailer for Saw 3Dwas probably one of the worst trailers for a film that I have seen in a while. I mean, all it did was make it look cheesy by including an audience getting 3D saws thrown at it and trapped by Jigsaw created machines. What about the film? I thought Saw was supposed to be a little bit darker and try to avoid those kinds of shenanigans. The series has lost all credibility and the only good thing I have to say about this one is, “Thank God it’s the last one.” For those of you that haven’t seen the trailer, here it is in all its comedic grandeur:
Synopsis from IMDB: A hitman tries to retire but a beautiful thief may change his plans.
Trailer:
Chris’ Take: From the trailer this looks like a hilarious black comedy, with seemingly hilariously dry performances by Bill Nighy and Rupert Everett. Also, it boasts newly Bilbo Baggins appointed Martin Freeman. But, from early reviews, this film apparently is very uneven and this remake of a French comedy would probably be better saved for DVD.
Monsters
Rated: R
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able
Director: Gareth Edwards
Synopsis from IMDB: Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border.
Trailer:
Chris’ Take: This looks like an attempt to mimic the success of last year’s District 9 and apparently doubles as a parable about illegal immigration. The early reviews have been fairly positive, although not glowing. Apparently Gareth Edwards did his own CGI for this as well. This will probably be a good bet to see for a Halloween horror/monster film rather than Saw 3D.
Synopsis from IMDB: On a business trip to New Orleans, a damaged man seeks salvation by caring for a wayward young woman.
Trailer:
Chris’ Take: This will be a film for those looking for something a little bit more serious this weekend. It looks like a very touching film about a family recovering from the loss of their daughter. Kristen Stewart looks like she will act the same like she does in every film, very understated and emo, but hopefully there will be less screaming or crying in lovelorn agony like she does in the Twilight films. Gandolfini looks like he gives a strong performance as well. While this film will no doubt probably be decent, it is not necessarily theater fare.
Inspector Bellamy #1 Recommendation for this Weekend
Rated: Unrated
Starring: Gerard Depardieu, Marie Bunel, Jacques Gamblin
Director: Claude Chabrol
Synopsis from IMDB: A well known Parisian inspector becomes involved in an investigation while on holiday.
Trailer:
Chris’ Take: This is the 50th and final film of France’s Alfred Hitchcock, Claude Chabrol, and it looks like it will be intriguing, but not for everyone. This looks like it will be along the vein of this year’s The American, it will be very slow, but very beautiful and thoughtful. Plus, since it is Chabrol’s swan song, this gets my weekly recommendation. Unfortunately, it is a limited release, so my recommendation only goes so far, but I couldn’t in good conscience recommend Saw 3D to anyone.
As soon as the credits for this film rolled up, with their cheesy 80’s special effects, depicting a digitized friendly looking pumpkin as scary music played (read: ominous tones), I said:
I immediately regret this decision!!!
I knew going into this film that it would be bad, but I had no idea that it would be this bad.
The first indication that this film would be a cinematic travesty was that it is not even a sequel to the two previous installments in the series. Not only that, it had absolutely nothing to do with them at all. There is no mention of Michael Myers, except in a brief television commercial, which was kind of lamely self-congratulatory for Carpenter. Originally, the intention of the series was that each film would be a different Halloween-themed movie released around Halloween time, but after Carpenter (who produced, but did not direct) and crew vomited this out onto the screen to the outrage of Michael Myers fans, they returned to the formula for the fourth installment.
The plot is one of the thinnest and weirdest I have seen in a while; let me break it down for you the best I can. The film opens with some unknown guy running from people who look like agents from The Matrix, but they move much slower, don’t wear sunglasses and are dumb as a bag of hammers. The guy running ends up getting a gas station attendant to take him into town and to the emergency room where he ominously tells the doctors that “They are coming! They are going to kill us all!” before he is ridiculously murdered by a robot-agent guy. The guy who is apparently the only doctor at this hospital, Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) finds the death suspicious and links up and then hooks up with the daughter of the dead guy to find out the mystery behind his death. Their search leads them to a small town whose main business is making Halloween masks. After a tour of the factory they find out that the mask company, Silver Shamrock, is using witchcraft on their masks, which will activate when synced up with a special version of their television commercial, and turn the wearer’s head into poisonous spiders and snakes. Dr. Dan and his floozie new mistress (did I mention Dr. Dan has a wife and kids who he betrayed in a moment that totally lacked passion or reason?) must stop the company and prevent a terrible problem for pest control.
Oh man! This is going to take like 3 minutes to clean up.
I’ll start by my criticism of the plot. Where the heck did this idea come from? It seemed like it was pulled from a Goosebumps story.
Except Goosebumps did it better.
I get it, they wanted to scare kids who wear masks, but why not have it meld to their face and make them demonic killers? Why snakes and spiders? When they show the one kid that it happens to, it is like 2 snakes and three spiders. Who is to say that these creatures will attack people when they come into existence? Granted there were a lot of kids wearing the masks and it is tragic that that many children would die, but that brings up another plot weakness, why would these kids buy the masks? There are only three types of masks you can buy and they were all pretty lame. There are so many other costumes out there to choose from and apparently every kid wanted the same three masks because of some terribly annoying commercial jingle.
At first, I thought he was trying to block out that annoying song.
The writers used complete lack of logic to create tension in the story. When the head of the company, Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), finds out that Dr. Dan is going to try to stop them, he doesn’t kill him immediately like he does with every single person that tries to interfere, but instead takes him on a whirlwind tour of the whole establishment, giving him a chance to escape. Then, Dr. Dan’s mistress is captured and turned into a robot person designed to kill Dr. Dan, but when Dr. Dan rescues her she helps him for about twenty minutes before it is convenient to the plot for her to be revealed as a robot and she immediately tries to kill him (only after he destroyed the entire factory). Why didn’t she kill him right away? She had every opportunity, but only waited until after all her cohorts were dead? And even assisted?
Now his head hurts while he tries to comprehend the logic.
The acting and directing was some of the worst that I have seen recently. Tommy Lee Wallace, the writer and director, makes no attempt to make any of these characters sympathetic. If John Carpenter was involved as a producer, how did he not see this film for what it was? I can’t imagine that even in 1982, when a lot less was required for horror films, that this was scary or received well.
But man, this opening credits sequence was way ahead of its time.
I am so glad that they abandoned this idea, but not before hundreds of people were tormented by its stupidity. I can’t imagine that the next film that I review, Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers, will be worse than this? Or will it? Check back tomorrow when Pac will review the next installment in our 10 day series.
One of the most incriminating opinions against the quality of horror movies over the years has been the degeneration of a franchise due to its sequels. Often times original movies are not intended to have sequels but are turned into money-making franchises at the expense of their quality; this often begins with part II. Examples of this include: The Exorcist II, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, and The Hills Have Eyes II.
Is this considered horror?
This Halloween season, if you are looking for a horror movie sequel that honors the original, maintains its continuity, and gives the audience more without losing the seminal works integrity, then Halloween II is the movie you need to watch. Though not directed by John Carpenter (though he did shoot a few scenes before the release), Halloween II was written by Carpenter and maintained the primary cast members including Donald Pleasance and Jamie Lee Curtis. Keeping Carpenter on to write this sequel was the saving grace for this film because he was able to seamlessly transition from the original.
Taking place immediately after the events of the first movie, Halloween II opens with Laurie sending the children she is babysitting off for help. Events unfold just as they did in the original until Dr. Loomis (Pleasance) finds Michael’s body missing. Laurie is then taken to the hospital to be treated after battling Michael, and Dr. Loomis is escorted by Marshalls out of Haddonfield. It’s no surprise that Michael has followed Laurie to the hospital and begins his routine of stalking her and killing those who get in her way. The biggest plot element of this film is revealed to Dr. Loomis, which prompts his return to Haddonfield to save Laurie and provides motive for Michael’s desire to kill Laurie. I don’t want to ruin the film for any readers who haven’t seen it, but it’s a Halloween movie so I’m sure you can figure out what transpires from then on.
Hint: she dies.
Halloween II provides the viewer with everything they could want in a sequel. It maintains the integrity of the original by developing the original plot without compromising it, and it keeps a lot of the elements that made the original so successful. Michael is the same menacing shadow he was in the previous film, stalking Laurie and quietly killing those who get in his way (all fueled by suspense and the awesome score). Halloween II also does what every sequel is required to do, turn up the violence. There is a lot more gore in this film than the original and the body count is higher (though by today’s standards the gore is minimal). One scene that sticks out in my mind is when Michael kills off one of his victims by drowning her in a scalding hot tub, her skin peeling off her face as she’s removed from the water.
Halloween II is not as good as the original but should be considered one of the better horror sequels of all time. If you disagree I would love to hear your rebuttals in the comments. Keep reading for reviews on the next 8 Halloween movies as well as other horror movies to watch this season.
Last night, I watched one of the funniest episodes of South Parkthat I have seen in a while. The episode was called Insheeption and spoofed the Christopher Nolan film Inception. There were many funny scenes, especially when Leo and crew show up to explain the dream within a dream concept, but I have chosen a different clip to share: the one where the dream architects share their explanation of Inception to some simple firemen. If you can, find the full episode online and watch it; it will have you rolling.
I have to admit, I have only loosely followed what has happened with the filming of The Hobbit. I think a lot of that has to do with how after the first viewing of each film I kind of realized, that while cinematically they were very well done, they were just too long to really warrant another look. I know that it originally had Guillermo Del Toro directing The Hobbit and he backed out, and then the film was tossed around and the project was blackballed and actors were told to stay away from it. Now, that Peter Jackson is confirmed as the director, the film has some purpose and is moving forward nicely.
Martin Freeman
The only reason I am now commenting on this project, is that Martin Freeman has been cast as Bilbo Baggins. Who is Martin Freeman you ask? Well, he is probably one of those actors that you have seen and recognize from other projects, but never knew his name. He was the original “Jim” on the British version of The Office (although his name in there was Tim), Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Love, Actually, and made appearances in both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost‘s Shaun of the Deadand Hot Fuzz. He also has various television accolades under his belt.
I think this is the perfect pick for Bilbo. Freeman is a simple looking person, who can play someone who is in over his head very well (i.e. Hitchhiker’s). Bilbo is kind of a bumbling character with heart and that is who Freeman is best at playing. I was wondering how they were going to do the casting for him, but it looks like they got it just right.
Earlier this week, the news came out that Mel Gibson would be appearing as an eccentric tattoo artist in the upcoming film TheHangover 2. The cameo what was probably designed as a PR stunt similar to that of Mike Tyson appearing in the first film. The day before Gibson was slated to shoot, director Todd Phillips pulled the plug.
There has been a lot of speculation as to why this happened so late in the game and Phillips had this to say about it, ” I thought Mel would have been great in the movie and I had the full backing of [WB president] Jeff Robinov and his team. But, I realize filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and this decision ultimately did not have the full support of my entire cast and crew.”
According to TMZ, Phillips had let his cast and crew know that Gibson would appear in the film over a month ago and that they seemed onboard. However, the problem came when the news was released earlier this week and cast and crew members started receiving pressure from friends and family to get it cancelled. There were apparently some cast and crew members that were very vocal about it, but Phillips didn’t name anyone in particular.
The speculation is that Zach Galifianakis was one of the loudest objectors, due to a recent interview he had on a Comedy Death-Ray podcast
Galifianakis
when he said, ” I’m in a deep protest right now with a movie I’m working on, up in arms about something. But I can’t get the guys to [listen]… I’m not making any leeway.” This is obviously all speculation because he never names the film he is talking about, but he hasn’t come out and denied it either.
I think the whole Mel Gibson situation is sad. I in no way condone what he has done off the screen recently, but it is clear his life is a mess and he needs some serious help. I hate to see such a great actor go down like this, but at the same time I can’t really feel bad for him. I think that if he was signed on to be a part of the film, the studio should have stuck with it, and that they approached this the wrong way by axing him at the last second. But, other than that, I really don’t have any further comment on the situation.
Do you think this was the right move by Phillips? Should Gibson get a chance to redeem himself on the big screen?
Several sources have recently reported that M. Night Shyamalan will be teaming up with Will Smith’s Overbrook production company to produce a super-secret sci-fi adventure starring…..Jaden Smith (what a surprise)! This new Shyamalan journey will be entitled One Thousand A.E. and is being penned by Gary Whitta, who wrote The Book of Eli.
Overbrook, whose management consists of Will and Jada Pinkett Smith and a few others, has had some success producing what seems like almost exclusively Smith family vehicles (which makes sense). However, they are branching out with 31 more projects in development.
That being said, I am a little bit skeptical about this film. Shyamalan’s success recently has been underwhelming, both in the box office and critically. Although, Devil, the first part of his Night Chronicles was much better than critics and bias movie-goers gave it credit. Even though I had my doubts about Shyamalan’s involvement, I went into it with an open mind and I thought Devil was very entertaining and a pretty good film overall. Anyway, Shyamalan had a new project that he was working on that boasted attachment from such star names as Bruce Willis, Bradley Cooper, and Gwyneth Paltrow that couldn’t find a buyer and was quietly shelved. Which begs the question about what was wrong with it? Was it just a bad script? Bad timing? Lack of funds? Or was it that due to the severe backlash in the media against Shyamalan’s work that he has been black balled? Yes, I might be taking it a bit too far, but I think there is some legitimacy to that thought.
Stick with me while I state my opinion about why I think this is a bad idea. Moving on to Jaden Smith, who recently had a lot of success in The Karate Kid, but I don’t think his acting skills are quite up to par where he can carry something like an entire sci-fi film. Will Smith is great, I like pretty much all of his films, and enjoy watching reruns of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and I mean no disrespect to him, but I really don’t think his son can act and it seems like he is being forced on the industry because of his dad.
Jaden Smith looked even more robotic than Keanu Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Possibly, Overbrook found a desperate director whose name could still carry some clout at the box office, although it has been significantly diminished, who has worked with terrible acting before, and got him to agree to the project. I am sure there is a better explanation for what happened, but that is just what it seems like right now. It looks like Smith wanted someone who was available to direct and get this project going as soon as possible.
Do you think Will Smith is trying to put his son out there too much? Do you think Shyamalan can recover some credibility with this project?
Happy Halloween everyone! We’ve finally made it here, through 9 films from arguably the greatest horror franchise to ever grace the screen. It is a shame that we have to end on such a sour note.
Brian Pac Sostak
Chris Petersen
Sarah Higgins
stjerome03
Chris and Pac Take on Hollywood 
