Black Sabbath (1963)

NOVEMBER 13, 2007

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, ITALIAN
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I was going to watch Scream, Bloody Murder today, but as is often the case, Blockbuster sent me the 1970s movie with the same name, which I had already watched (and wouldn’t mind watching again, truth be told, that movie was awesome!). I don’t know why they can’t get their “doubled” titles straight, but it happens every single time. I can only hope that somewhere, someone wanted to watch the original SBM (maybe even based on my recommendation!) and got the low budget slasher from a few years’ back. And that they send it back, pronto. So, short story shorter, I watched Mario Bava’s Black Sabbath (aka I Tre Volti Della Paura) instead.

Granted, it’s an anthology movie, so I wasn’t expecting much, but it was pretty OK for the most part. The final story is terribly weak compared to the others, and much shorter than those to boot. What I liked most about the first two tales is that they didn’t feel rushed, like many anthology movie stories do. The middle tale, The Wurdalak, almost feels feature length (it’s like almost 50 minutes worth of the 92 minute movie!), and since it also co-stars Boris Karloff, is the best.

Karloff also provides the film’s bookend sequences, and I must admit, there’s something kind of odd about watching a guy speak English, which is then dubbed into Italian and given English subtitles. Anyway, in the first scene he’s apparently on the same stage that Walt Disney used to pal around with Mickey Mouse on, then at the end he is riding a horse as obvious fake trees rush by. Bava then reveals that it’s SUPPOSED to be fake, as the camera zooms out to reveal that Karloff is more or less playing himself on a sound stage.

Yeah, fine. Whatever.

I am puzzled as to why I have thus far been sort of underwhelmed with the Bava films I have seen. While none of have been BAD by any means, I must admit I was expecting more enjoyment out of them than I have had so far. I love his son’s films, and I love (his would be successor) Argento’s films, so I don’t know what the fuck my problem is. The only one I’ve been truly struck by is Shock, and that’s like half Lamberto’s movie I guess.

At any rate, I believe this finishes off the Bava Volume 1 set (at least as far as HMAD is concerned; there’s a Viking movie on there that I assume cannot qualify as a horror movie), which is good because I already got Volume 2 and I was supposed to review it for Bloody Disgusting like a month ago (let’s hope Anchor Bay calls it even with me for sending me the Hatchet prizes a full two months after the contest ended). That, coupled with my recent canceling of Netflix, means there might be a lot of Bava coming your way!!!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Monkey Shines (1988)

NOVEMBER 12, 2007

GENRE: PREDATOR, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

While Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite all time movies (not just horror) and I pretty much love the shit out of the other four in the series, I have seen relatively few of Romero’s other films. I saw Dark Half as a kid, don’t remember a damn thing about it (future HMAD entry!), and obviously I've seen Creepshow, but otherwise I’ve somehow missed everything else. And my desire to watch something that might actually be good led to finally taking in a viewing of Monkey Shines, which I bought a while back and never watched until now.

It’s a bit too long, but otherwise it’s a really solid, creepy film. Everyone knows monkeys will eventually kill us all, so to see one slowly go nuts and take out the close friends and family of one crippled dude is as terrifying as it is prophetic. Plus, the damn thing is so cute (the part where the monkey turns off the lights so the guy is forced to stop reading and pay attention to her is ridiculously lovable), even when it’s killing folks I’m still going “Awwwww” every 5 minutes.

OK, the movie's kind of weird.

Lots of they-weren't-yet familiar faces in this one too (it came out in 1988). Stanley Tucci plays an oily prick of a doctor (his reaction to being introduced to the main guy’s coach is pretty priceless), Stephen Root shows up as a rival scientist, and Janine Turner (mmm) plays the main dude’s girlfriend, who leaves him for Tucci and, obviously, is immolated by a primate for her actions.

The only thing I didn’t like about the film was the music. It usually seems to contradict the scenes it accompanies. For example, during the suspenseful and freaky climax, the score suggests romantic comedy more than anything else. Maybe this is an intentional joke, but if so it doesn’t really work.

It’s a shame Romero didn’t get to make more films in his prime, as he was always the victim of projects falling apart (usually for financial reasons) just before production was due to begin. He’s always been one of the genre’s more intelligent and interesting filmmakers, which of course, is probably why many of his films failed at the box office (including this one). The DVD is bare bones, of course, but I still recommend it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Slaughter

NOVEMBER 11, 2007

GENRE: WEIRD, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I rented The Slaughter a few days ago, and as usual I had never heard of it. I didn’t even bother reading the back of the DVD; I could tell it was a horror movie, so that’s all I needed to warrant a viewing. But as the film unraveled, I realized that no description could do this utterly bizarre movie any justice.

See, for the first hour or so, the film is a standard Evil Dead ripoff, with some light slasher elements thrown in for good measure (and, yes, yet again, fucking real estate 'intrigue'). The characters are pretty annoying, and for whatever reason, writer Jay Lee saw fit to inject the film with lots and lots of pointless sociologically and psychologically tinged dialogue. Instead of the usual drivel these types of characters usually spout out, we get debates about socialism and free speech and the like. At one point, someone points out that reading the Necronomicon-esque book out loud is the worst idea since the Bush administration (and then they clarify by pointing out they mean George W. Bush). What the hell all of this stuff is doing in the middle of a horror movie is beyond me. The same type of crap helped to make the execrable Drive Thru even worse. If it had any bearing on the plot, or even the theme, it would be fine, but using it just to try to make your characters seem a bit smarter, or as an attempt to make your film seem more relevant, is fucking stupid.

Then, something sort of strangely wonderful happens. With 3 kids left, the film suddenly becomes an ironic parody; the very type of humor I use in my (as yet unproduced) animated show Fright Reviews. The characters don’t care if they are in danger, or that their friends are dead, they begin arguing about trivial matters when they are under attack by zombies, and even ponder whether the zombies are “Romero style” or the “new, fast kind”. Had the entire film been presented in this manner, I’d probably be declaring it the best of the year, but since it comes so jarringly so late into the film, it’s just baffling and nowhere near as funny as it would be if you hadn’t watched the hour that preceded it.

Now, it’s not that the film isn’t funny before then. No, in fact it’s hilarious, albeit unintentionally so. We have a guy who gets so high that he turns homosexual, a character staring at some dirt and screaming, and dialogue like “He’s a hard worker AND he busts his ass!” We are also witness to some of the worst compositing/rotoscoping work I have ever seen in a film, low-budget or not:

Also, during the opening titles, the film has the rather strange final credit “A film by Jay Lee” in lieu of pointing out that he wrote, directed, shot, and edited it. It’s admirable that he did so much (and it IS pretty well shot, at any rate), but perhaps the film would have been improved if he hadn’t spread himself so thin. It’s certainly not horrible, but the strange tonal shift during the third act, worthless “commentary” dialogue, the pitiful CG work, and rather slow first act make it hard to recommend as anything but a curiosity.

However, if you like the humor of the final 20 minutes, please write your congressman, or any producers/agents you may know, and tell them to carry Fright Reviews.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tooth & Nail

NOVEMBER 10, 2007

GENRE: CANNIBAL, POST-APOCALYPTIC, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

IT HAS BEGUN!

Yes, another “8 Films To Die For” collection is upon us, and like last year, I managed to make it out for one of the films (hey, this site doesn’t make me a red cent, I try to limit how much it COSTS ME to keep it going!). Luckily, my choice, Tooth & Nail, was far better than the one film I saw in theaters last time around (do I really need to mention it by name, again?), though still far from very good.

The key problem with this film is how blatantly obvious the twist is. Let’s see, one of the good guys is killed by an unseen killer, even though the bad guys are a loud, unstealthy and cartoonish lot. Also, their apparent leader (Michael Madsen, once again introduced via a shot of his feet) is killed shortly after he appears. And since it’s obvious Vinnie Jones shot all of his scenes on a break from whatever Guy Ritchie movie he was filming, who will be the “big bad?” And gee, how did this quiet non-threatening blond chick (Rachel Miner, from the not as bad as I expected Penny Dreadful) manage to escape these bloodthirsty cannibals so easily? OHHhhhh......

Also, all of these people have really stupid names, most of them American car models: Neon, Viper, Nova, etc. Why, I dunno. Maybe its a Postman reference. Luckily, otherwise the film doesn't resemble that film at all. Which brings me to my biggest compliment I can give to the film – for once, though it was probably a budgetary limit and not an artistic choice, the post-apocalyptic future looks like it should: the same as it does now. I never got why, in all these “30 years from now, our world fell to shit” movies, that the engineers and designers around the world decided to completely overhaul our transportation and industrial centers, OR (as in Postman), somehow find a way to make the entire world look like a desert. Is putting an elevated subway and designing loud and garish skyscrapers really their solution to combat annihilation? No, in Tooth, the buildings and everything look like they do now, just a bit more rundown and of course, empty. Nice work.

However, they still raided the Mad Max museum when it came to designing the cannibals; even though the good guys wear standard sweaters and jeans, the bad guys took the time to design outlandish metal and leather costumes. Maybe designing them takes their mind off of being so hungry. Also, their motives are a bit unclear – they claim that they are simply hungry, but if that is the case, why do they go to all the trouble hunting their prey? Wouldn’t it be easier to wear some khakis and a polo shirt, walk up to a guy, shoot him and then eat him as you see fit? Oh well, who am I to judge Michael Madsen (who also executive produced)?

The cast is pretty recognizable, which is nice. In addition to Madsen, Miner, and Jones, we got Robert Carradine (as a professor, lol), Rider Strong (who has an odd tendency to delay his responses to other characters), and the guy who played CJ in Dawn 04, playing, well, another asshole who becomes a hero. Also, there’s a guy in the movie who looks EXACTLY like Richard Tyson, but it’s not him. Which bummed me out.

So there it is; the first of what will probably be another half dozen or so ho-hum and forgettable, if not exactly BAD, group of films, plus one good one (my money's on Mulberry St) and one god awful piece of shit.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wicked Little Things (2006)

NOVEMBER 9, 2007

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Finally, I may rest. The empty hole in my soul has been filled. Life as I know it is no longer as incomplete. Because, now that I have seen Wicked Little Things, no one can ever accuse me of not watching all eight of After Dark’s 8 Films To Die For from 2006. And of course, today marks the release of eight more, so let’s see how long it takes me to finish all of THOSE.

Like most of them, WLT, as it’s known only in this sentence, is not particularly good, but not horrible either. I do like the idea of having only children as the antagonists in what is essentially a zombie movie, but they aren’t menacing enough, and in fact by the end they are more or less the heroes.

How does that work, you might ask? Well, once again, this horror movie has a subplot about, you guessed it, real estate. The least fucking interesting thing in the world has now served as the driving force behind three horror movies I have watched this year. One more and I will be forced to add it to the subgenre list. Yes, as it turns out, the zombie kids are really after a greedy land developer guy, not so much the 3 heroines (including Scout Taylor Compton, aka fake Laurie Strode) or the local exposition- er, mountain man. They kill a few other folks while they’re at it, but I prefer 100% motiveless zombies, not ones that sort of test the waters and then decide on a course of action for the last 20 minutes.

I also like it when our heroine is likable, which isn’t the case here. Scout was a bit annoying at times as Laurie Strode, but here she’s just a plain old bitch. She whines about everything, steals food from her little sister, and mocks rednecks. Can someone cast her as someone I don’t want to punch in the stomach? I don’t know how her mother in the film manages to go the whole 90 minutes without at LEAST giving her a backhander.

Still, as the film began with some folks moving into an old house (and then looking through newspaper clippings with lots of helpful backstory), I was expecting a goddamn haunted house movie, so when some zombies showed up, however lame they were, it was a nice surprise. Also, the finale features some “don’t move or they’ll see and then kill you” action, a stock moment but nicely elevated by the fact that they continue to stand still as a victim is killed in the room above them, and his blood pours through cracks on the floor, drenching them as they remain still. Nice!

There’s a commentary track but it’s as boring as they come. Unless you really love hearing about Bulgarian film crews.

The film was directed by J.S. Cardone, who made the Near Dark/Lost Boys wannabe The Forsaken, a mostly terrible film that somehow got a theatrical release in spring of 2001 (I remember seeing it back to back with Along Came A Spider. What a shitty day at the movies). Other than a hot girl or two, the movie was pretty worthless, but it still endeared itself to me a little bit, since the lead character (Jack from Dawson’s Creek) played a guy who edited trailers. That’s me! Sort of. Sadly, Wicked Little Things didn’t have any such character for me to relate to, so I am sure I will forget every single thing about it within a few days or so. But you won’t yell at your TV or attempt to euthanize your DVD player while you’re watching the film, so in that respect, I guess it’s OK enough.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fido

NOVEMBER 8, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I must have been in traffic or something the day Fido was in theaters. What else could explain it? I remember hearing about the movie a lot in the spring, and then I sort of forgot about it. Then yesterday I am at the video store and there it is, Billy Connolly’s zombie face snarling at me. A quick check of Boxofficemojo confirms the film came out on June 15th, 2007, and eventually grossed a paltry $304,533, but I’m still a bit fuzzy as to how I missed its entire theatrical run. I live in LA! We’re a select city!!!

Anyway, I didn’t miss much. It’s an OK enough film, but a lot of the jokes seemed pretty obvious to me, and others were just recycled from other zombie comedies (including a few that were done in a short film I myself edited, 6 years ago!) or movies that satire the 50s suburban dream. There are some great jabs at the current state of “protection”, such as when a government agent happily announces that everyone will have their photo taken for protection, but they are few and far between.

In fact that’s kind of the problem with the movie: it’s supposed to be a lot funnier than it is, but it doesn’t really work as a zombie movie either. I’ve seen Shaun of the Dead so many times that I no longer laugh at 90% of the things that made me piss myself the first time around, but I am still entertained by the film. I can’t imagine watching Fido again will be a particularly thrilling experience, especially since the film barely has a narrative and instead functions as a collection of setpieces.

The film’s most interesting character is a neighbor played by Tim Blake Nelson. He has a zombie pet that subs for a lover, and he knows how to fix (or break) the collars the zombies wear to keep them in control. All of his scenes are a delight, and I wish there were more of them. Plus, I admit... I wanted to see a guy nail a zombie. Comedically.

The strangest thing about the movie is that I was consistently having déjà vu as I watched it, but yet couldn’t place any of the movies that it was somehow reminding me of. Like, it seemed like I had seen Dylan Baker play this exact same role before, but all of his roles I can think of have nothing to do with playing a somewhat assholish dad in the 50s. Likewise, the film’s main focus (the friendship between the kid and Fido the zombie) seemed familiar, but I can’t think of another film that even had domesticated zombies other than Day of the Dead (and the end of Shaun), which this movie obviously does not resemble. Weird.

Like I said, it’s not a bad movie, but they failed to milk the ideas and satire for what they were worth, settling for obvious gags and repetitive “Oh it’s funny because he’s a ZOMBIE!” type scenarios.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Mist (2007)

NOVEMBER 7, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

What the hell has happened to the world of horror? For years, there was two things you could always depend on: Dimension mucking up what could have been a good film, and good Stephen King short stories becoming pretty bad movies. But now, twice this year, a King short tale has been turned into a film courtesy of Dimension, and not only are they good, but among the best of the year. The Mist is the 2nd (after the thoroughly enjoyable 1408), and it may very well be the best wide release horror film of the year (and hell, the best limited release, Inside, is being released on DVD on Dimension Extreme! Up is down, down is up; dogs and cats, living together...)

The film begins with one of the best things I have seen onscreen in years: Tom Jane, playing a poster artist, putting the finishing touches on what is quite obviously a Dark Tower movie poster. I love the DT series more than just about anything in the world of the written word, so this literally sent shivers up my spine, even though it’s sadly quite fictional (for now, anyway) and just meant to be a little joke. NOT FUNNY, DARABONT!

I was a bit curious what changes Frank Darabont would make to the source material, if any. While Shawshank Redemption (one of the finest films ever made) stuck pretty close, at least on a storytelling level (the novella wasn’t as uplifting), The Green Mile, good as it was, was almost mechanically faithful to the source material, to the point where the film seemed a bit cold (of course, that’s the one that made the most money). So I was happy to discover that while he once again stayed faithful, he actually improved on the short story in several ways. Side characters are given more to do, the trip to the pharmacy (something that takes less than 5 pages in the 120+ page “short” story) is now a major setpiece, and, most significantly, there is now an ending. I won’t spoil it, but it should be pretty interesting to see how people react to it. I loved it, and it gave the film a bittersweet moral that the short story lacked. Hopefully the majority will see it my way (then again, I wish that for everything. God, why do you people continue to hate The Hitcher remake?!?!?). Also, the Mist’s “backstory”, only hinted at in the novel, is a bit more defined here, though it’s still barely a factor. Much like Lost is about the people, not a magic island; the mist isn’t the driving force behind the film, and so spending precious screen time explaining it (or worse, trying to “stop” it) would be pointless.

The only real OMISSION to the story was a brief, sort of nonsensical sex scene between the main character and one of the women he meets at the supermarket. It was a pretty dumb segment of the book, and Darabont was wise to remove it. Not only does it make the hero (played by Tom Jane here, faring far better in King territory than he did in Dreamcatcher) less of a dick, it also keeps the film’s pace in check, instead of stopping cold to have some guy you’re supposed to like leave his kid for a while to cheat on his wife in the manager’s office of a supermarket under siege by prehistoric spiders (holy SHIT there are a lot of prepositional phrases there).

On a technical level the film is impressive as well. Darabont carried over the crew from The Shield (he directed an episode a year or so ago), and gives the film the same sort of documentary/real feel that that show has. Not everything is in perfect focus, the camera zooms and whips around in long takes rather than carefully staged multiple angles, etc. It heightens the tension, obviously, but it also works in another way – helping to sell the effects. When things feel more real (i.e. less like a big budget movie), a giant tentacle slithering under a door will make for a far more effective scare.

As expected, Darabont gets all his actors’ A games (though Jane gets a bit over the top in his final scenes), and it’s nice to see all his regulars (Bill Sadler, Jeffrey DeMunn, Brian Libby) together again. Marcia Gay Harden (is it wrong I think she, a 50 year old classy lady, is pretty damn hot?) manages to make a truly wretched character (a Christian fanatic) compelling and even somewhat sympathetic, no small task. Andre Braugher is also good (playing Norton, who was a pudgy white guy in the book – providing another similarity to 1408), no surprise there. And Jane is one of the more interesting actors in his age bracket, so it’s always a plus when he toplines a film that has a script worthy of his talent (he usually seems to be one of those guys who get smaller roles in great films and bigger roles in crap films – see Boogie Nights and The Punisher, respectively, for examples). Hell, even the little kid is good.

I should also point out the music. There isn’t any. At least, not until the end (that I noticed anyway – if there was any before then it was quick and as unobtrusive as any score has ever been). When seen out of context, certain scenes may feel lacking due to this choice, but the film as a whole benefits greatly from it (though the score is a bit overbearing when it is finally used). Then again, when the acting and filmmaking are this spot on, a score that tells you how to feel or what kind of scene it is isn’t necessary.

Jesus Christ, I IMPLORE you; do not let this one tank at the box office. It takes real talent and effort to make a smart, thought provoking film out of what is essentially a giant monster movie, and it would literally pain me to see it trampled on by the likes of Fred Claus or whatever the fuck. Darabont easily proves that the story doesn’t have to be set in a prison in order to make a truly wonderful Stephen King adaptation, and you should reward him for his hard work. He’s one of our best filmmakers, but the failure of The Majestic meant we had to wait 6 years for him to get back behind the camera (not to mention getting burned by Lucas on Indy 4 - Indy's loss is our gain I guess). I don’t want to wait that long again. Nor do I want to have to wait till DVD to talk about the ending of the film and what it meant to me. If 1408 can pull in 80 million in the middle of summer, there is no reason in the world why this one can’t surpass 100 when there’s almost zero genre competition. You don’t want to see the year’s best horror film on DVD (or worse, a bootleg – fucking scum).

November 21st. Be there.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

With You

NOVEMBER 6, 2007

GENRE: GHOST, HAUNTED HOUSE, INDEPENDENT
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Today’s movie, With You, is another I have no recollection of adding to my queue. The Blockbuster page doesn’t even have a synopsis (nor did the little sleeve the disc arrived in). Having no idea what I was in for, I put it on, and discovered it was a no-budget, shot on video, largely amateurish ghost/haunted house movie. Complete with a DVD that has no menu other than "Play Movie" (yep, another disc without a damn scene selection menu – something I have never seen in my life and now I’ve seen it twice in the past 3 days).

Actually, it’s a haunted “other house” movie. Because, for whatever reason, the main character is harassed by ghosts not because he lives in a haunted house, but because his home is the only one that OVERLOOKS a haunted house. What the hell kind of half-assed backstory is that? It’s the first movie in which planting a few trees on a hill could have saved someone’s life.

Anyway, the film is fairly boring and not very original, but there’s a strong sense of earnestness that endeared itself to me, enough to give this one a pass. Obviously they had no money, but they made the best of it, and on a technical level, despite some pretty brutal breaking of the 180 rule, the film is made with some actual effort (i.e. no glaring continuity errors, no boom mikes, etc).

Also, it begins with the main character
making this pitiful little doodle.

There’s some puzzling screenwriting choices throughout the film though. Why is the main guy’s friend so friendly to old people? He acts like a surrogate son to what seems like half the town. Why does the town’s one cop invite a total stranger to check out a crime scene? What’s with all the talk about the lead character drinking? Why does his landlord assume that he’s “not the type of person who bathes”? And what the HELL is up with the totally homoerotic ending, which features a guy buried alive with a zombie who keeps gently biting him on the back? Yikes.

I dunno, it’s not a particularly good movie, but A for effort and all that. For a reported 30k, they made a movie that doesn’t give fellow indie filmmakers a bad name. Like yesterday’s Kaw, it’s a lot better than you’d expect considering the circumstances, so I laud their efforts.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Kaw (2007)

NOVEMBER 5, 2007

GENRE: PREDATOR
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Yesterday I walked into Blockbuster and scanned the shelves for a horror movie to watch, not really knowing what I was in the mood for. Slasher? Monster? Pretend someone is back from the grave in order to scam another person out of an inheritance (I really need to name this genre)? Then I spotted Kaw, which I had never even heard of previously. But seeing a giant bird on the box next to a “scary” font, I knew immediately that A. it was horror, and B. it would be a fun review to write. Come on, it’s fucking called KAW for Christ’s sake. It seemed like the film existed solely for me to make fun of it on HMAD.

So when I sat down to watch it today, and in a bad mood no less, I was saddened to discover that the film really isn’t all that bad. Obviously it’s no masterpiece, but I was entertained, the production value was high, it looked professionally made by people who weren’t just cashing a check, and the script genuinely surprised me in terms of who would live or die.

And Powder is in it.

The only bad thing I can really say about the movie is that the raven effects were wildly uneven. Good CG, bad CG, good editing with the real birds, bad editing with real birds... it ran the gamut. Obviously some CG is to be expected, so that’s not a real problem. But the inconsistency of the effects was pretty distracting.

Otherwise though, the film was pretty good. Whoever cast it should be commended, as not only are the actors good, but they seem natural in their roles. I hate a horror movie that casts the most beautiful women in the world as like, coffee shop owners or whatever. Come on now. But here, everyone is totally believable in their blue collar settings.

Also, there’s a pretty big cast (a dozen or so main characters), and in addition to some decent attempts at character development, it’s kind of hard to tell who will live or die. If anything, the movie sort of goes out of its way to kill off the nicer people in the movie, but not in a mean-spirited way (other than at some of the CG birds, I didn’t laugh once watching this movie, intentionally or not). Kind of like Tremors, they don’t go the usual horror movie route and kill all but two people, so it makes the attack scenes a bit more suspenseful when you know they aren’t out to simply whittle the remaining cast down to nothing in order to save on SAG fees.

Hell, they even give a decent enough explanation for why the birds went nuts. Whether it makes any scientific sense I have no idea, but I certainly don’t care either (drop a nuke into a hole a mere 800 into something the size of Texas and it will split in two and miss the Earth? Sounds good to me!). And it’s given about one minute of screen time, so even if you totally hate the ‘motive’, it’s not like it makes up the whole movie.

Now, again, this is no masterpiece. But for a direct to video movie (which I suspect may actually have been made for TV – the gore is incredibly light and there is no profanity at all) with almost no known actors or creators (and obvious script rewrites – the ‘story by’ credit is given to someone other than the names on the ‘screenplay by’ credit) I was fairly surprised at its relative professionalism and decency. I expected the worst, and I got OK. That’s more than I can say for like 75% of these “blind rents”.

So kudos, cast and crew of Kaw, for not making me angry!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Deadly Friend (1986)

NOVEMBER 4, 2007

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

As far as I am concerned, DVD took a decade to hit its peak. That would be last month, when they finally released Wes Craven’s Deadly Friend legitimately (a bootleg DVD popped up at conventions for years until Warner announced it as part of their Twisted Terror collection). The DVD is still wholly disappointing (mono sound, no extras, doesn’t even have a fucking scene selection menu), but I don’t mind. I hadn’t seen the film since I was like 8, and retained fond memories of it (if only of the film’s most memorable moments – i.e. the basketball kill) I was mighty curious to see how it would hold up now that I am older and wiser, not to mention stupider.

What I didn’t remember was how fairly goofy the movie was. It’s essentially a kid’s movie, but with insane gore. I mean, he’s got a big yellow robot; he meets cute with not only a girl but a guy (the movie’s kind of weird); fights with a neighborhood bully, plays Halloween pranks... there’s even an old woman neighbor who they all fear. It’s sort of like a less whimsical Monster House. I honestly think the target audience for this movie are folks who were kids who were allowed to watch horror movies when it came out and are now easily amused assholes. Because really, who the fuck else could possibly enjoy this movie if they saw it for the first time as an adult? But on the flipside, you couldn’t be considered a very good person to recommend it for small children, what with all the rampant gore and violence.

Jesus, LOOK at this fucking thing.

Of course, the basketball kill is pretty much the most famous scene in Wes Craven’s career; the type of thing Youtube was invented for (strangely, going by the trailer, one would assume this kill was a reshoot, as the spot shows the victim being killed by getting smashed into a door). And it still holds up (i.e. makes me laugh my ass off) as well as it did back in 1987 or so. However, there aren’t many other kills in the film (the killer robot/zombie angle isn’t even introduced until about the 2/3 mark), but there’s enough gore in them to keep gorehounds happy.

Kristy Swanson has never been better, playing an expressionless robot.

The ending is pretty astounding. Showing signs of the “What the FUCK”ity of the Craven who would make Shocker, the conclusion finds a fully formed robot somehow nested inside the corpse of the girl. It bursts through her skin, complete with big monster teeth, and presumably eats the hero (offscreen). Then we hear, for about three straight minutes, the film’s non-theme theme song, which is just some guys going “Bee-bee. Buh-buh-buh-Bee-bee BEE-BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” over and over. What the christing hell? Shocker may be the finest moment in Wes’ career (in terms of sheer awesomeness, not actual quality), but it is now abundantly clear to me that Deadly Friend laid the foundation for it.

This one’s based on a book simply called "Friend". I can’t imagine it’s anywhere near as hilarious, but I must know. Someone please buy it for me for Christmas.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Beowulf (2007)

NOVEMBER 3, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Shockingly enough, I can’t remember much about a poem I read in 9th grade, so I don’t know how much of the source material was changed/removed for Beowulf. Then again, I DO remember that the story was an oral tale that was told for hundreds of years before being written down, and has been re-translated several times since, so really, it’s kind of difficult to pinpoint what is “faithful” and what isn’t... it’s sort of like the monster movie version of a game of Telephone.

Either way, it’s still a mostly enjoyable film, which is all that matters. The CG, all motion-capture animation is some of the best ever seen on film (far less creepy and odd than Polar Express), and the action sequences rival those in any live action film of a similar nature. However, I should point out that the film’s finale seems to have been written with the video game in mind, as Beowulf has to dodge trees, time his jumps, and even locate the weak spot on the bad guy. I half expected some moving platforms or maybe a powerup to get thrown in.

As said, the “acting” is far superior to the other films of its kind. Crispin Glover in particular; you can TELL it’s him, even though he’s been deformed and turned into a trollish mumbling thing. The rest of the cast more or less looks like their real life counterparts, with the exception of Ray Winstone, who has been made to look like Sean Bean for some reason. Winstone is a fantastic actor, and although he usually plays villains, it’s certainly understandable why they would want an actor of his caliber to play what is essentially the lead role, but it IS a bit distracting that he resembles another actor so much (especially one who has played Odysseus, a character fairly similar to Beowulf to begin with).

At Comic Con, we were told the film would be R, but that is not the case anymore. Still, it’s fairly graphic for a PG-13, and there’s even some nudity on Angelina Jolie’s half snake woman thing. Also, Sean Beanstone plays an entire scene nude, and while his privates are usually obscured, I am sure the animators snuck in a frame or two of CG penis for people to enjoy on DVD.

I know it’s stretching it for horror, but I mean, come on, it’s a movie about a giant monster that runs into a dining hall and tears people apart. That’s certainly horrific, no? They can’t all be LionsGate scarecrow movies.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Buried Alive (2007)

NOVEMBER 2, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

At Screamfest, I had the not very pleasurable experience of watching Robert Kurtzman’s The Rage, a movie that should have been fun but was hampered by atrocious acting, astonishingly bad digital video, and terrible effects. Now we have a sort of polar opposite with Buried Alive. This time, the acting’s still bad, but the film looks great (actual film helps), the production value is good (albeit with some extremely poor sync sound effects), and the effects are pretty impressive. But the script is devoid of anything even approaching fun. One wishes Kurtzman applied his resources to The Rage, and left this piece of crap forever buried (it’s not a pun unless I capitalize “buried”!).

Much like yesterday’s Slashed Dreams, a big part of the problem is that NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS in it. We have ONE kill in the first hour, and it’s a almost bloodless gag, one that was done infinitely better in Wrong Turn 2 (axe down the middle) to boot. Christ, with only 15 minutes to go (including credits), the three main characters are still unaware that they are in any danger! Granted, this isn’t a necessity (you can almost say the same for Halloween), but the difference is that there’s no suspense or interesting story to keep your attention.

The back of the DVD is borderline offensive with its blatant false advertising. “A night of extreme truth or dare and wild partying gives way to sheer fright...” No one plays truth or dare, the ‘partying’ is pretty much limited to standing around drinking bottled beer, and sheer fright is kind of hard to come by when all of the horror elements occur in the film’s final 10-15 minutes. They also try to make it sound like Kurtzman directed From Dusk Til Dawn, when all he did was come up with the basic story and work on the effects along with the other KNB guys (who, no offense to Kurtzman, have done their best work in the past couple years, after “K” left to make movies like this. Bad choice dude!). “Packed with sex, shocks, and supernatural horror!” - One PG-13 sex scene and maybe 5 minutes of bland and forgettable horror scenes is hardly what I call packed.

And the characters are a largely unlikable lot – two stoner dudes, three airheads (though one gets smart like halfway through the movie for some reason), and a little nerdy dude who ends almost every sentence by saying the last word twice. “Hey guys guys.” “Where are we going going?” Etc. Sounds fun, right? Christ. In lieu of horror/suspense, Kurtzman and writer Art Monterastelli assume that an audience will have more fun watching a bitchy girl force two sorority pledges to walk like robots, stand on their heads, etc. Shockingly enough, they are completely wrong.

I should note that the ending is KIND OF a downer. Does it count as a downer if the two people we’re supposed to like/root for (but we don’t) die in a pointless scene that doesn’t really pay anything off? Sure, why not. Let’s give the movie something.

The only thing of any note about the entire film is that the two main characters are cousins who apparently never got instructed that kissing each other (at one point, right in front of her barely interested boyfriend) is kind of weird. The film even begins with a dream sequence in which they more or less make out, and then he drowns her in the tub, which ends up being just another thing that never pays off, at least that I could tell.

And poor Tobin Bell shows up. Granted, the guy’s not exactly Olivier, but whenever he shares a scene with these stiffs, it makes them look all that much worse. At least he seems to be having fun, what with his gold teeth and bandana. Like all good cameos, he more or less drifts in and out of the film at random, pulling pranks that don’t seem to make any sense once you learn he’s not the bad guy. But whatever.

Like the execrable Broken, this one comes from Dimension Extreme, a new DTV label from the worst studio in existence. I’d say they were a total failure, but three of their upcoming releases (Automaton Transfusion, Storm Warning, and Inside) are among the best of their respective subgenres of the past few years. Hopefully they’ll come sooner rather than later, before the already woeful name is completely sullied by this type of crap.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Slashed Dreams

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, HORROR? RAPE-REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

At long last, October is over! I can go back to the standard, sane, simple, single movie a day. And I feel even better about that when my daily movie is as bad as Slashed Dreams (aka Sunburst), because I don’t want to run the risk of watching another film that might turn out as boring and pointless as this one for at least another 24 hrs or so.

This may be the most plodding movie I have ever seen in my life (certainly the worst offender for HMAD). LITERALLY nothing happens in the film. Except a rape. Nice, huh? We watch 2 folks sort of shuffle about the woods for nearly an hour (swimming, frolicking, eating...) before a couple of rednecks harass them (very tamely. One of them actually seems borderline nice). Later on, they come back and hit the guy a few times and rape the girl (at least, we are told as much. It’s sort of hard to tell if the guy is raping her or just hugging her. It’s certainly the least graphic rape scene ever committed to film, so it’s got that going for it at least). Then Robert Englund shows up, philosophizes about tea, the boyfriend tries to fight the rednecks, who both run away, and then the good guys go swimming. The end. I’m not exaggerating, that’s the movie. No one dies or gets jailed for their crimes. And the heroes barely seem perturbed afterwards. You could almost remove the scenes with the rednecks entirely and the film would just seem like the filmed version of a Bartledanian novel.

As you can probably tell from that image, the movie was very poorly retitled from Sunburst sometime after Nightmare on Elm St, in order to try to give the film some cash-in value. Usually, this is certainly fine by me, but there are two problems with it this time: 1. It’s the most obvious retitling I’ve ever seen (I wish I could convey how ridiculous the little zooming animation on the green box looks), and 2. Englund’s not even the fucking bad guy! He’s some hippie (heh, OK, so maybe he is). He doesn’t even show up until the final 10 minutes or so. Come on now. This is purely a scam.

His reaction to being told that his friend was raped is pretty astounding. The boyfriend tells him she was raped, and Englund doesn’t ask anything like “Who did it?” or “Where did they go?” He just asks if the girl has had some food yet. At first, I thought he was going to turn out to be an even worse villain, but no, he just makes her some tea and then more or less exits the film again.

This movie is also stuffed with folk music, most by a female singer. Terrifying, perhaps, but not in the intentional way. If not for my little safety that I can qualify (and judge, unfortunately for the filmmakers) a film as horror if it is presented as such (which being on the Chilling Classics set certainly does), I wouldn’t even consider it horror at all. It’s Rape-NonRevenge, a thankfully obscure genre that is hopefully comprised entirely of this one sorry film.

Oh there’s a bear scene too.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tales From The Crypt (1972)

OCTOBER 31, 2007

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, BRITISH
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (BACKYARD SCREENING!)

I was all prepared to skip a “new” movie today, in honor of the date and my beloved Halloween. But someone in heaven, probably Peter Cushing himself, said that wasn’t acceptable, and for the first time in 2 years, I got out of work early enough to go do something I was invited to do on a night I had to work late, in this case, a screening of the 1972 Tales From The Crypt in my buddy’s backyard. Usually, if I have nothing to do, I get out around 7, 730 and sit around bored, but if I DO have something to do, I get out around 10 (and if whatever I got invited to started at 10, I’d get out at 11:30). It’s actually pretty amazing.

As I’ve said, I’m not too big on anthology films, but this one was pretty cool. As always, some stories are better than others, and the pacing is jarring (some stories seem longer than necessary, others seem too short to have much of an impact), but there’s a nice black humor streak running through the film which I fully enjoyed.

My favorite story was the one with Cushing, who played a nice, lonely old man who’d give toys out to neighborhood kids and take care of stray dogs. Naturally, everyone else hates him, so after making him lose his dogs, they harass him to the point of suicide. I hate watching stuff like this usually, because I feel really bad for such characters (I couldn’t even read The Pigman!), so it’s great when zombie Cushing comes back from the grave and kills one of the assholes (who looks a lot like a Brit version of perennial movie asshole Bradley Whitford). Sweet!

One of the other stories is a bit puzzling. It’s a Monkey’s Paw homage (Paw is even directly referenced), but the character who dies doesn’t seem to be a bad person like all the others. Also, the 3rd wish, that he wouldn’t die, means he wouldn’t DIE! So how the hell is he in Hell with all the others? Someone needed to take another pass at the script!

The last story, concerning some veterans who take revenge against a penny pinching bastard who’s supposed to take care of them, was completely ripped off in the execrable Hood of Horror. And not very well.

Anyway, as anthology movies go, it’s one of the better ones, but I think they had the right idea with the TV series (one episode was actually a remake of the first story, a killer Santa Claus stalking a super hot Joan Collins), giving each story the same amount of time and sticking to just one. With a film, I just get sort of bored, because the brevity of the stories keeps me from getting fully involved in the story (or stories). Oh well.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #32 - Halloween (1978)

OCTOBER 31, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2006 (THEATRICAL)

In the FAQ, which I am beginning to suspect no one has actually read (considering THREE people just this week were unaware that I truly AM watching a horror movie or two every single day, not just reviewing one from memory), I specifically point out Halloween as being a film that I won’t review, because not only have I seen it (obviously), but there are enough reviews of it on the web. But then I began doing the “October Extras” feature, and obviously I wouldn’t let the film’s namesake holiday pass without giving it another look. But, to make things different, I won’t review it or even do my usual style of write-up for the film. Instead I’ll be presenting my rambling thoughts as the film unfolds. I hope it makes sense (might help to put the film on as you read!). Enjoy (it's fucking LONG though)!

OK, here we go... Compass International... and there’s the pumpkin! Halloweens 1-5 all have really sweet credit sequences (Dimension – fucking it up any way they can), most involving pumpkins. Also the music, still the finest theme ever recorded for a horror movie. Carpenter told a story about an exec passing on the film when she saw it without the score, then came back and told him it was the scariest movie she ever saw once she saw it again with the score intact..... I never understood what these kids were saying until DVD came along (there’s a few lines in the film that suffer the same fate).... it’s kind of a stupid poem...

Holy FUCK this guy is a quick lay. Seriously, like, what, 60 seconds has passed and he’s already dressed again? Hahaha the mask POV... I saw Halloween 4 before I first saw this movie, so the great homage at the end of 4 was totally lost on me. Oh well....

HAHAHAH the total non-reaction of Michael’s mom always kills me. Just stands there, hands in her pocket... 15 years later! Loomis! I fucking HATE how they added in “storm” sounds on the new DVD... but it’s either that or watch the film in mono. Come on now.... why does he even look at the matchbook? “Since when do they let them wander around?” Hahahaha oblivious....

Wow she is a really odd panic driver.... just hit the brake, dummy!.... Another bonus of DVD, seeing the wrench in Michael’s hand when he smashes the window... “The evil is gone!” and so begins Loomis’ obsession with saying “Evil” every other time he speaks.

This is actually my favorite piece of music in the film (really soft, over Laurie's introduction), and the sequels sort of ignore this one for whatever reason. I think it’s the most foreboding, even more than the usual DUN! DUNDUN! DUN! DUNDUN! DUNDUNDUNDUNDUN... here’s the West LA neighborhood scene. When I first moved to LA in 2005 it was pretty much the first thing I did, go look at all the filming locations I could find (also where Fletch’s apartment was!)... here’s another one of those lines that I always misheard on muddled VHS, I thought Tommy was asking “Will you rape me?” Hahaha, I’m surprised Zombie didn’t have her do just that in the remake....

Ah, here we go, the first of what will be many scenes that are TOTALLY FUCKING BOTCHED when you watch the movie in pan and scan. You hear Michael breathing but you don’t actually SEE him on the side of the frame, only Laurie singing her depressing song. Goddamn pan and scan.... Dr Wynn! “For god’s sake Sam he can’t drive a car!” A line that would serve to pretty much ruin the 6th film....

Sweet, the teacher just said “Collins” (that’s me!). What the hell book is she talking about anyway? Kudos to Laurie, she can daydream and still answer the question right. Hey Michael, with his mask on, hours before he steals it. A continuity error that Rob Zombie claims is just a nonsensical plot hole that he intended to correct in his film, which had, among other things, magic walls that reappear after being smashed.... hahah smash the pumpkin! There’s the mask again.... why doesn’t Tommy notice a car following him at like 2 mph?

Here’s another part Zombie bitched about, Loomis calling from the same place Michael got his coveralls. Look around, Rob, do you see a lot of civilization? They’re supposed to be in the Midwest, and it’s the 70s. It’s probably one of the few pay phones there actually WERE from Smith’s Grove to Haddonfield. Christ. I thought I was nitpicky...

Hell with understanding what they were saying, I never even HEARD these cheerleaders until the DVD came long.... why is the dance AFTER Halloween? Oh wait, it’s homecoming, not a Halloween dance. Never mind....

I wonder what Devon Graham looks like? He should be in one of the sequels... Does Annie even LIKE her friends? She just said that talking to Laurie is just as appealing as watching a child sleep. Christ, get different friends then.... OK this part I think was a bit botched. Carpenter’s hilarious cigarette smoke aside, it would have worked better if we never saw that Michael was gone (from Annie’s POV) until Laurie got there. Maybe just me. Oh man, this part... when I saw the film in 2003 on an actual film print, the print was totally messed up, missing lots of frames and such. And so when Annie goes “Bye!” the film jumped ahead like 10 seconds, so Annie was already inside. Perfect timing!.... What the hell time do the kids in Haddonfield begin trick or treating??? It’s like 3 o clock. And what the HELL does this “superstition” line mean? Even Carpenter says he has no idea on the commentary track.

Annie says she’ll pick Laurie up at 6:30, but that scene is totally bright. Looks more like 3:30, tops. Oh well. Charlie Bowles story!!! God this part is great. Someone needs to finish the tale... OK now Laurie is sitting outside with the pumpkin, and I STILL don’t see anyone taking the picture that Jamie has in part 4.

OK now it looks a bit later, still not 6:30 late though. “He shouts too!” is a great line. And kind of sad, last time his daughter speaks to him, she’s mocking his attempts to bond with her. Here’s another moment that totally sucks in pan and scan – you don’t see the car approaching on the left side while Loomis looks the other way... How far is it to the goddamn Doyle house? Hey I drove on this street (when they stop and turn right)! Looks pretty much exactly the same ... jeez, Michael follows so close. Back up, man!

OK, the whole “Sister” thing from the sequels really doesn’t make any sense in the context of this film. Not only did he follow Tommy around before, but he’s also seemingly more interested in Annie!... sweet, the Myers house. This whole reel had a farting noise over it at that screening I mentioned.... Another line I never understood on VHS (“You must think me as a very sinister doctor” I think?)...

Well if your mom doesn’t want you to have the comics why don’t you hide them in YOUR room, dumbass? And what’s so bad about Neutron Man? Sounds like he could learn some basic science from that one.

I love how Lindsay hangs up the phone when Paul asks her to go get Annie. Brat.... this is one of the best scares in slasher history (Michael at the door while Annie talks to Paul), and surprisingly it’s not botched on pan and scan... OK seriously, why not just say Annie was his sister? He doesn’t seem to have any interest in Laurie at all at this point. I like the moment where Annie feeds Laurie some popcorn, nice little touch.... Hahaha I sing this song all the time when I’m going to my car. “OH Paul, I give you all... no keys... but please, my Paul....”

Here’s another widescreen moment, but I’ve seen two versions of it on pan and scan. One holds on Annie so you can’t see him at all, and another just makes an edit as they shift to the left so you can see him sit up. Either way it’s fucking awful. This movie should never be viewed cropped, ever.

Wow, Loomis smiling non-maniacally. “Hey, Lonnie... get your ass away from there!” Hahaha. I like that Brackett thinks Loomis is over the top too. Fancy talk!

If you’ve seen the TV version, this line about Lynda’s blouse takes on new meaning. Not a very interesting one, but one nonetheless... Someone on IMDb commented that Bob is a pedophile because he makes the joke about Lindsay’s clothes. Moron...

Yet another scene that loses all its effect unless it’s widescreen ... and Michael is kind of a perv, watching them fuck.... And now he watches again! Also, Bob comes in 20 seconds. What is it with these guys? If I come in under like 4 minutes I feel ashamed. “Fantastic”??? Man....

The creepiest moment in slasher history.

Whoa, Tommy and Lindsay are sleeping in the same bed! Bob’s going to be jealous.... Oh boy, here we go, the dumbest moment in the film. Loomis is standing there all night and just NOW notices that the fucking car is across the street!!!.... Hey Laurie goes out of her way to get the keys, yet they disappear later... where’d they go?

“Meatheads” is such a terrible insult.... man, why does Michael go through all this trouble stringing up bodies and stealing headstones? And how the hell does the door with Lynda behind it even open?.... This is a great moment, amazing reveal. Cundey said it was like your eyes getting used to the darkness and seeing him. Amazing. But on the newest DVD (25th anniversary one) you CAN’T see him until after you hear the sting. Way too dark now, that’s why I actually prefer the 1999 release.

Hahaha I love how Michael drops when she stabs him with the needle. Dammit, don’t drop the knife!.... OK I never got this – why does Loomis have Brackett check the back of the houses when he’s the one with the car? YOU fucking go out back, Loomis! Oh well, I guess it works out OK for him... Hahaha “You can’t kill the boogeymaaaaaah!” Can’t see this part right on pan and scan either. Carpenter’s just a fucking master of the wide image. Or at least, he was back then... the old Media VHS version had a strange error here. When Michael walks down the hall, the glint on his knife used to smear across the screen. Hurrah for DVD! Ah, the Mackenzie’s, always the destination of horror movie characters.

Hahaha “It was the boogeyman!”, which became, for some reason “What’s the boogeyman?” in the remake.... I dig this ending, with all the different locations... hey wait a minute; the knife is back on the floor by the couch!

Oh well, all done. God this movie is so fucking great. My family has been informed that I am to be buried with it (and a copy of Bat out of Hell). I won’t go anywhere without it! I want all 12 of the people who said the remake was better to explain themselves. What the fuck could you possibly find more appealing about the remake? “I prefer incoherency and white trash to atmosphere and suspense”? *Sigh*

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #31 - Halloween 5 (1989)

OCTOBER 30, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)
LAST SEEN: 2006 (?) (DVD)

I think I just watched Halloween 5 again last year, when the new DVD came out. Or maybe I just watched the commentary. I dunno, who cares. Also, I'd like to point out that the "Revenge of Michael Myers" subtitle does not appear in the actual film, which I never noticed before.

Way to start the review off interesting, huh?

Like H20, 5 has great things, and terrible things, and it really depends on my mood which way I go with it. On one hand, it’s got some great and fairly unnerving sequences (Jamie in the laundry chute, the barn chase, and Rachel’s death), but on the other, its got those goddamn goofy fucking cops (with their even more annoying circus music), one of the series’ most annoying characters (Tina), and the fucking “Man in Black” that served to ultimately destroy the franchise. You can literally pinpoint the second the remake wheels began turning: when the man in black first appears, kicking a dog as he gets off a bus.

Yes, for reasons I forget, someone decided this film needed to begin to boost the mythology of Michael Myers a bit, so we have this mysterious man in black following him around throughout the movie, and shown as having the same tattoo as Michael has apparently always had (and, bonus of the large projection – the symbol appears on the wall at the Myers house near the end. Never noticed before.) At the end of the film, while Michael hilariously sits in a jail cell with his mask still on, the man comes along, fires what looks like a tommy gun into the police station, killing everyone and taking Michael away. Six years later, we found out it was a guy who was in one scene of the original, leading some nonsensical cult. Whatever.

There are so many moments in this film that just baffle me to no end. For starters, how does “Mikey” hear Tina calling him from what appears to be 3 blocks away as he DRIVES A CAR!?!?!? Why does Rachel scream in pain before picking up the phone to tell Loomis that Max is gone? Why does Mikey need to apologize to Sam? Why would Michael drive Tina to her party? Why has the Myers house suddenly become a giant gothic thing (complete with spiral room)? Why does “Cookie Woman” suddenly break Jamie’s mute status? Why does the title card say it’s one year later when everything else (Jamie’s age, the time since the night he first went after Laurie) puts it at two years since 4? Why would someone whose best friend’s family was destroyed by Michael Myers be so insensitive/stupid as to play a prank in which her friend pretends to be him (in front of cops no less)?

Speaking of that friend, has there ever been a stranger character in a slasher movie than “Spitz”? He laughs like Dr. Giggles almost non-stop, sings love songs to another guy when his super hot girlfriend is standing right there, and his name is Spitz. At one point in the film, I began to fear for the characters not because of Michael, but because of him. He seems more unbalanced than Michael and Loomis put together.

And yes, Loomis reaches the apex of his insanity in this one (he would only make one more appearance, in Curse, and was relatively subdued in it, when he wasn’t edited out entirely). He borderline assaults Jamie on more than one occasion, and even holds her up as bait at the end. Most of his dialogue is just beyond any sort of rational thought, and even when he does say something normal, he screams it (“If that GIRL! DIES TONIGHT!!!”). And his odd fascination with a scarecrow sitting outside the hospital always gives me a chuckle.

Before the two films, we were shown a brief little retrospective about their creation, with most of the principals in new interviews, plus archive interviews of those who are sadly no longer with us (Moustapha Akkad and Debra Hill). One notable exception is Dominique Othenin-Girard, who is represented only with archive footage from the set of 5. Come on man, even Carpenter offered a few words, and he had nothing to do with these two! But the real highlight was a disturbing recollection from Danielle Harris (who is so goddamn hot now it’s ridiculous), who talks about how Don Shanks (who played Michael in 5) would give her massages and they’d take photos together... it’s probably quite innocent but it sounds so goddamn creepy (especially if you have seen the 25 Years of Terror documentary, in which the film was revealed to have had a fairly ‘wild’ set). The rest of it was nothing special.

As with Halloween 4, the film looked far from great in the manner it was projected, but the sheer size of it, not to mention seeing it with other people (I don’t think I’ve ever watched this one with even a single other person, let alone a crowd) made it a lot of fun regardless. The occasional top notch set-piece elevates this one, albeit slightly, over the bulk of the ones that followed, but nothing can change the fact that this was officially the end of the series being truly special. Thanks a lot, Halloween 5!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...