heil_99 Reviews

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

Best Left for Dead

[3/10 · 4 May 2024]

As if we needed any further proof that the producers and creative minds behind the Halloween franchise had no idea what they had on their hands with the character of Michael Myers, here comes Halloween: Resurrection. Through five out of six sequels so far, they've kept confusing the poor guy with the countless other masked killers he had originally inspired, treating him like a mindless monster who just kills anyone he crosses with neither rhyme nor reason. And they do it again, more egregiously, with this one. But it just isn't so.

Michael Myers is obsessed with teenage girls. He was probably infatuated with his older sister in the weeks and months leading up to her murder. When he escapes from Smith's Grove in 1978, he fixates on high schooler Laurie Strode and spends all day stalking her, toying with her, putting into action a plan he's been thinking about for fifteen years. Whether or not they are siblings is immaterial; it's the idea of hunting a female teenager, one that he chooses, that gets his rocks off. The dude's a creep!

But ok, let's say they're siblings, since this is the canon that H:R works with. Michael finds Laurie at Grace Andersen Sanitarium and finally kills her. Job done. What's next? There are two choices, as I see it: either he retires, having no further motivation (unless he wants to go after Josh Hartnett's character from H20, but that wouldn't fit his MO); or he finds a new teenage girl to obsess over and pursue.

Incredibly, H:R chooses neither of these paths. Instead, they give Michael the same motivation as Jason Voorhees: a bunch of teenagers invade his home, and he dispatches them one by one because... well, because they're there. He doesn't fixate on any of them. He doesn't single any one of them out. The final girl is the "final girl" for no reason other than she's the last one standing. It's a waste and betrayal of what makes Michael tick. Again, it's like none of the caretakers of the Halloween brand understand anything. Or care. (I'm looking at you, Moustapha Akkad! RIP.)

There is also a fair amount of character assassination in this movie. At one point, Busta Rhymes's character Freddy chides Michael Myers to his face... and Michael just stands there and takes it! Then Freddy tells him to leave... and Michael obeys! Let's not even get into the kung-fu showdown or the infamous "trick-or-treat" line or the ol' live-wire-to-the-family-jewels moments. Disgraceful, despicable treatment of the king of the slashers. Shame on everyone involved in this mess.

Everyone, that is, except Busta Rhymes. His character of Freddy might stick out like a sore thumb, but he's the one character in the whole thing with any personality. His description of Michael Myers as "a killer shark in baggy-*ss overalls" is one of the funniest lines in the entire series. He's awful, but at least he's entertaining. Everyone else is just bland, uninspiring knife-fodder. This isn't the actors' fault; I blame the scriptwriters, the director and especially the producers (who should have known better!).

H20 was a fitting swan song to the Michael-Laurie story. Bringing the Shape back for H:R in such a contrived, cynical way after promising to kill him off in the last picture was a knife in the back. No wonder this movie flopped!

Halloween: Resurrection is not as inept as Halloween 5, and I would argue it's not as disappointing as Halloween Ends because you get exactly what you expect going into it... if what you expect is a poorly executed, by-the-numbers slasher flick with a mostly forgettable cast and a copy of a copy of a copy of a once-great villain that undoes all the goodwill of the previous picture.

Unsurprisingly, the script for H:R was an original story that they repurposed into a Halloween movie. This would explain why it is so unrelated to anything else in the franchise. They tried sticking a square peg into a round hole, and the results speak for themselves.

The Whale (2022)

The Fail

[3/10 · 21 September 2023]

If The Whale is about addiction, then Aronofsky already set the bar on that with Requiem for a Dream, a film in which he invited us to accompany the characters on their journey into the inescapable hell of their addictions. With The Whale, it feels more like he is inviting us to gawk at some poor strung-out addict on the street, with the same mix of pity and disgust this can elicit. "Yuck, look at that pathetic loser! Don't you just feel awful for him?"

I love Aronofsky films. Requiem, The Fountain, Black Swan; these are among my favorites of the past twenty-five years. I even love Mother! He has never put a foot wrong, in my opinion. Well, until The Whale.

Even the title carries insult with it. I know, there's a hokey Moby Dick motif running throughout the film, but just look at the movie poster to see what the title is actually referencing: Brendan Fraser in a fat suit, with "THE WHALE" under his picture. Zero subtlety, and no amount of literary misdirection can justify it.

Fraser's much-lauded performance can't save this film from its own worst impulses. I believe that in ten or twenty years' time, when fat suits are viewed the way we now look at yellowface or cis actors playing trans roles, we are going to question why Fraser won the Oscar. Despite giving the role his all, he is complicit in the inherent mockery of this character: handsome, well-built Hollywood A-lister taking on the challenge of playing a gross, obese, hapless food junky. Would the film have been any better with a genuine 600-pound actor in the role? Probably not, but it would have been less insulting on at least one level.

Apart from the unrelentingly degrading depiction of the protagonist, this picture has a slew of other issues. For starters, its presentation is stagey, unable to transcend its source material. I'm not just talking about the fact that the movie takes place entirely in one location; performances are hammy, as though playing to the back of the theater, and often one-note. Take the character of the daughter: she is unlikable from start to finish, despite Fraser's Charlie insisting that she is "amazing." Amazing how? The film gives us no glimpse into what makes her amazing beyond blind parental pride. Amazingly awful, maybe!

Adding to this over-the-top theatricalness, the music is melodramatic, the tone is maudlin, and the direction is overwrought, trying desperately to wring every last emotion from the audience at all times with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Everything is turned up to eleven. I knew we were in trouble the moment the film opened with a 600-pound man masturbating to gay porn and suffering a heart attack; it feels like something I might have written in high school to seem edgy and shock the grownups.

The Whale starts at eleven, and then it builds for two hours to a schmaltzy crescendo that cravenly yanks at our heartstrings one more time. Aronofsky rips off his own semi-ambiguous ending from The Wrestler, which that film did to much greater effect. This time, it is so corny that it comes across as self-parody.

Not every film can be a masterpiece, and even the best filmmakers have their flops. Aronofsky enjoyed a great run through seven features--all hits, no misses. He was overdue a flop. And here it is. The Whale flops HARD.

Halloween Ends (2022)

Unlucky Thirteen

[3/10 · 15 June 2023]

Look, I love all the Halloween movies, even the bad ones. Each is charming and entertaining in its own way. Well, except maybe this one.

I wanted to love this movie. I really did. And there are a couple things I liked about it. Rohan Campbell and Andi Matichak are both great. The idea of this final movie being a coda to the entire series was interesting, even though Halloween Kills had promised us a climax, not an epilogue. I can even see the appeal in Laurie finally getting a happy ending after 40-plus years, although I myself would have preferred it if she had sacrificed herself in order to kill the evil. My point is, I can recognize some of its better qualities... but I still thought this movie sucked!

Some reasons why:

1. It isn't scary.

This is the movie's biggest sin. There's not a single moment of suspense or horror. No vintage Michael Myers stalking and terrorizing. Just a few jump scares and a couple of gory set pieces.

2. It's not "Halloweeny."

Nothing about this movie conveys the season it's set in. Compare this movie to the opening of Halloween 4, or even just look at what the original film managed to evoke with a handful of leaves and few pumpkins. Ends could be set during any season, really. Apart from a costume party, there's not much about it that makes you believe it's late October.

3. The villain sucks.

This isn't the actor's fault; I enjoyed Rohan Campbell's performance. However, the character is depicted as an immature wimp for the first half, and this makes him utterly unconvincing as a threat later on in the film. It doesn't help that he needs old man Michael to help him out on more than one occasion!

4. The villain is also the protagonist.

It would have been interesting if the main character of the film had been Allyson or, dare I suggest, Laurie? Instead, we follow around this dork who is turning into the Shape (and terrible at it). The filmmakers should have kept Corey at a distance, seen only through the eyes of another character, to retain some mystery and danger about him. Making him the lead character was a fatal flaw.

5. Michael Myers is in it.

Who asked to see Michael Myers as a decrepit old man way past his prime? Given the themes of the film about evil living through different people and passing from one generation to the next, Michael wasn't even necessary in this film (except that they had promised a big showdown between him and Laurie). Perhaps they should have killed him off in the first act and focused on Corey in the second and third acts. Or better yet, not feature him at all, but have his memory and spirit lording over everything, haunting everyone in Haddonfield.

6. They care too much about the mask.

The mask never mattered to Michael Myers; he picked it up while robbing a hardware shop. It has no mythical powers or special significance. I would have loved it if Corey had adopted that creepy-ass scarecrow mask as his own killer's mask, rather than going after Michael's. It makes no sense and sucks!

7. Laurie Strode is wasted (again).

Poor Laurie deserved better than to be made a supporting character in her own film series. In Halloween Kills, she's stuck in a hospital bed the whole time and does absolutely nothing. Now in Ends, she has somehow, inexplicably made peace with everything that's happened, moved on from Michael Meyers, and has zero to do the entire movie except hang around for the big finale. It was the least interesting thing they could have done with this character.

8. Lousy execution.

It's not the ideas that sucked, it was the execution. The script was terrible, and there's no overcoming that. The "big showdown" was a terrible letdown. The failure to deliver on the setup of Kills was an enormous fail. It feels like they skipped a movie. This might have worked better as "part 4" if we had actually gotten a satisfying conclusion to the Michael-Laurie storyline in part 3.

And worst of all, the movie's title is "Halloween Ends" yet it isn't set on November 1st! Talk about a missed opportunity!

Halloween Kills (2021)

Halloween Kills and Kills and Kills

[6/10 · 15 June 2023]

Halloween (2018) did not entirely live up to its promise as a direct sequel to Halloween (1978) due to its interpretation of Michael Myers, which had more in common with Halloweens II-Resurrection or even the Zombie remakes than it did with the original. I just couldn't get past the influence of all the sequels when we were supposed to accept that none of them had ever happened.

But now with Halloween Kills, we are one film removed from the 1978 original in this timeline. The precedent of Michael Myers as an unstoppable killer has been established. The series is heading in its own direction at this point and can be less beholden to Halloween (1978). The focus is now on violence, gore and a high body count.

As a result, I enjoy this installment of the franchise more than its predecessor. Halloween (2018) has a better concept--Laurie being the stalker and Michael the target--but stumbles in its execution. Kills has a much simpler (and sillier) concept--Michael Myers in an action movie--but it is more successful in achieving what it is aiming for. Just don't think about it too much.

This is definitely a Michael Myers movie. He is the lead character, the protagonist. Anthony Michael Hall's Tommy Doyle is therefore the antagonist, and very weak one at that. He pontificates a lot and marches around proclaiming, "Evil dies tonight!" But he's no match for big, bad Michael Myers.

What about Laurie Strode? This picture makes the exact same mistake Halloween II (1981) made, which is to set it immediately following the events of its predecessor. In both films, Laurie requires extensive medical assistance following her battles with the Shape, and she winds up lying in a hospital bed for the duration. Total waste!

It's ok, though, because Halloween Kills is not about Laurie Strode vs Michael Myers. Michael doesn't care about her. He doesn't care about anyone. He just murders whoever is in front of him with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

John Carpenter is back with another excellent soundtrack. He gives us faithful reprisals of some of the musical themes from 1978 during the flashback scene, which is wonderful to hear. I was skeptical that the flashback would be consistent with the look and tone of Halloween (1978), but they actually nailed it! This is thanks in no small part to the music. The nostalgia hit hard, and i got a kick out of it.

Halloween Kills is my favorite of the David Gordon Green sequel trilogy. Faint praise, to be sure, but at least this installment has no pretenses. It is loud, dumb, bloody fun.

Halloween (I) (2018)

It's... Fine

[6/10 · 15 June 2023]

For a movie that purports to be a direct sequel to the original Halloween (1978), Halloween (2018) fundamentally misunderstands the character of Michael Myers from the first film. In 1978, Michael Myers only killed a few victims (something that's actually referenced in this movie). He fixated on Laurie and spent most of the movie stalking her and her friends Annie and Linda (and Linda's boyfriend, Bob). He took his time, laid out his plan, and then lured Laurie into his trap, which was intended to terrorize her. He might have planned to kill her when he was done, but his primary goal was fear, not murder.

Forty years later, though, this guy is a straight up killing machine! No more peeping tom, no more cat and mouse, just murder and mayhem. Look at how his killing spree on Halloween night begins: two murders with no buildup, no suspense. Just kill, kill. If this were a true direct sequel to 1978, he would spend half the movie stalking these victims, building the suspense as he toyed with them.

The closest we get to old-school Michael are the deaths of Oscar and Vicky, but they're over so quickly that there's hardly any buildup to them at all. They're good but could have been so much better.

Instead of Vicky--a random character we hardly know--the babysitter in peril should have been Laurie's granddaughter, Allyson. And rather than getting sliced up in thirty seconds, she should have been the focus of the whole second and/or third act of the film, fending off Michael.

As much as the filmmakers fumbled Michael Myers, I do like the direction they took with Laurie Strode, turning her into Sarah Connor from The Terminator franchise. Now Laurie is a gun-wielding survivalist who's been dreaming of and planning for this day the way Michael had dreamt and planned his Halloween 1978 horror show. She is struggling with trauma, personal regrets, a life spent in fear and a hunger for vengeance. It's cool to see Jamie Lee Curtis have so much to work with in this movie, unlike the sequels to come. She clearly loves this character and role and puts 100% into her performance.

It was a brilliant idea to bring back John Carpenter for the soundtrack. Having his name attached to the project definitely gives it an air of legitimacy missing from all those other sequels. What's more, the music is awesome! It revisits the themes from the first movie but takes them in new directions. This not a simple rehash of Halloween's greatest hits. It's fresh and exciting and complements the action on screen well.

The best thing about this film, however, is that it got rid of that terrible, utterly misguided decision to make Michael and Laurie siblings. We are finally back to the original premise of Michael Myers fixating on a random stranger... well, almost. He doesn't really fixate on anyone in this movie, he just kills whoever happens to be in front of him. It's like he's developed homicidal ADHD over the past forty years. But whatever, I'll take it.

Halloween II (2009)

The Knife Is Family

[5/10 · 15 June 2023]

Halloween II (2009) is many things: dour, bleak, violent, unpleasant, grotesque, convoluted, messy. Unfortunately, scary isn't one of them. This is the movie's biggest problem (of which there are many--add "problematic" to the list.)

Tension and suspense are completely lacking in this film. Instead, we get lots of jump scares in which the shape suddenly appears from off-camera with zero buildup. If not a jump scare, then a gory murder. None of this is frightening. It's almost as if Rob Zombie wants to focus on things other than the straightforward horror elements.

For example, trauma. H2 is set one year after the events of its predecessor, and Laurie Strode is struggling mentally. She's going off the rails, hanging out with a new crowd of knife fodder, addicted to prescription medication, partying, acting wild. It's practically a drama, with Laurie's demons being of more interest to Zombie than tired old scares.

It would have been great if this exploration of trauma had examined how it impacted not only Laurie but the other survivors of last year's Halloween night. Unfortunately, we don't really get that. Those characters remain mostly sidelined and one-note. There's Sheriff Brackett, whose big character development is that he's grown out his hair. Then there's his daughter, Annie, who has seemingly left her wild teenage years behind and become a responsible adult (in stark contrast to Laurie). Sam Loomis is also back and a bigger jerk than before.

Yes, that's right, Dr. Loomis somehow survived the last film, as did Michael Myers, which is as impossible and ridiculous as it was when they survived the explosion at the end of the original Halloween II (1981). A crushed skull or a .357 Magnum point-blank to the face just can't keep a movie character down these days.

Freed from the limitations of "remake" that might have hampered Zombie's vision with his first Halloween movie (where characters, story beats and even exact lines of dialogue were copied over from the original), the filmmaker is now able to do his own thing. Problem is, Halloween just isn't the right fit for him.

For starters, he gets the character of Michael Myers wrong, turning him into a lumbering Frankenstein type of monster. There's this goofy recurring vision where Michael's mother, accompanied by a white horse (don't ask), tells him things like, "Only a a river of blood can bring us back together." But wait a second, it's not Michael Myers who has mommy issues... that's Jason Voorhees! Wrong franchise, dude. Oops! Well, RZ had to figure out a way to fit his wife into the movie somehow.

Then there's the psychic connection between Laurie and Michael. A good rule of thumb for any film is "never steal ideas from Halloween 5." Zombie's whole premise for his first Halloween film was to ground it in reality, to make Michael Myers a believable serial killer, not a boogeyman. In this sequel, however, the addition of the telepathic link between the two siblings is too wacky (and wack) to take seriously.

I've never been a fan of the idea that Laurie and Michael are sister and brother. The original premise--Michael picking Laurie at random--always worked better for me. Making the two characters related undermines that by taking away the indiscriminate nature of the Shape's stalking. It is something that Carpenter added to the script of Halloween II (1981) as a shock twist; he hadn't even thought of it when he made Halloween (1978), and that's why it felt so forced. However, Zombie establishes this concept of "sibling rivalry" from the get-go as the foundation of his story, and it actually works! It is an essential plot point that drives the narrative and motivations of its lead characters through both films. It doesn't feel tacked on like it did in Halloween II (1981).

I also like that Zombie doesn't use the famous John Carpenter music for most of the film, instead relying on a relentless drone soundtrack. This movie is so far removed from the rest of the Halloween franchise that including it would feel out of place. "Laurie's Theme" does play at the end of the movie, and it works perfectly in its context. Other than that, though, this basically a Carpenter-free film. It's pure Zombie, like it or not.

The film has all of Zombie's trademarks. Raging rednecks, awful dialogue, sleaze. Familiar faces from other his other movies: Richard Brake, Jeff Daniel Phillips, and as always, Sheri Moon Zombie. Some fun cameos: Mickey Dolenz! Margot Kidder! 'Weird Al' Yankovic! A grim, gritty, joyless tone, replete with a dark, minimalist soundtrack and shaky camerawork.

Rob Zombie's cinematic output over the years has been hit-and-miss. I applaud Halloween II (2009) for its originality and boldness of vision; it just misses.

Halloween (2007)

The Haddonfield Kitchen Knife Massacre

[6/10 · 15 June 2023]

Like Tim Burton's Batman Returns or David Lynch's Dune, Halloween (2007) is one of those films where a bold, uncompromising artistic vision goes up against a well-established and beloved IP. This is a Rob Zombie movie first, a Halloween movie second. As a result, some people (RZ fans) love it, and others hate it. I mean, HATE IT. I'm somewhere in the middle: It's an interesting failure, an experiment gone wrong, a reimagining that doesn't live up to its source material.

Rob Zombie just wasn't the right guy for the job. He is clearly more comfortable with homicidal hillbillies and wild ultraviolence than middle-class suburbs and slow-burn suspense. What we end up with is a grungy, mean-spirited film that is tonally out of sync with the Halloween brand.

Where Halloween (1978) used early Panaglide to masterful effect, this version relies on handheld "shaky cam" and quick edits for its visceral thrills.

Dialogue has never been Zombie's strong suit, and here it's as bad as it gets: Regardless of who's talking, it always sounds like the same person; even the lines he lifts verbatim from the Carpenter-Hill script fall flat. All the characters--all of them--are loud and obnoxious; there isn't a single likable character in the whole film, except for maybe Danny Trejo in a small role.

The best example of the failure of this film as an entry in the Halloween franchise is the fact that the director's cut features a rape scene. This is so out of place and unnecessary that they removed it from the theatrical release! I've heard people try to defend the rape scene by saying that this is kind of thing really happens inside institutions, but I highly doubt Rob Zombie was trying to sneak some social commentary into this scene. It reeks of exploitation and downright nastiness.

In short, this simply doesn't work as a Halloween film. But as a sleazy Rob Zombie flick, I actually quite like it. It's got all his usual trademarks, for better or worse: screaming rednecks, '70s rock anthems, movie references and in-jokes. A lot of his regular players show up, like Sid Haig, Clint Howard and, of course, Sheri Moon Zombie. He's got Danielle Harris, who played Jamie Lloyd in previous installments of the franchise, in the role of Laurie's friend Annie Brackett, which is a nice touch. Malcolm McDowell is gleefully over-the-top as Dr. Sam Loomis. There's a gritty vibe to the look and feel of the film, a brutality to its kills and a sense of menace throughout.

I've always been a fan of Rob Zombie, back to his White Zombie days. He's got a distinctive aesthetic, both musically and visually. If only he would collaborate with other writers to give his scripts a polish, I think his films would have a broader appeal.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

The Worst in the Series... So Far

[3/10 · 15 June 2023]

Halloween II ruined the ending of Halloween. Halloween 4 ruined the ending of Halloween II. And now, Halloween 5 ruins the ending of Halloween 4. Fortunately, nothing in the world could ruin anything about Halloween 5, because this picture is already impossibly awful (albeit in a quirky, charming, so-bad-it's-kind-of-fun way). So Halloween 6 has that going for it.

Everything is wrong in this movie. Retconning the end of Halloween 4 is wrong. Rachel's death is wrong. Replacing Rachel with Tina is wrong. Jamie being mute is wrong. Dr. Loomis's characterization is wrong. Michael's mask is wrong. The Myers' house is wrong. The tattoo gimmick is wrong. The Man in Black is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Terrible decisions at every turn.

There is one pretty good set piece where Jamie is trapped in a laundry chute. Other than that, this movie is nothing more than silly, campy fun. You won't be scared, but you'll be entertained (for better or worse).

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Back to Basics

[6/10 · 15 June 2023]

The ending of Halloween II was decisively conclusive. No two ways about it: Michael Myers was dead. Dr. Loomis was dead. Both of them had blown up in a huge fireball explosion. Story over. THE END.

Well...

Then Halloween III disappointed, and the anthology concept was scrapped forever. Time to bring back the Shape, somehow.

John Carpenter and Debra Hill were set to return with a sequel to the first two films in which Michael Myers was still dead, but his spirit lived on, haunting the good people of Haddonfield, Illinois. It was a bold concept, a bit on the highfalutin side; it got shot down, and Carpenter-Hill left the project.

The producers wanted to return to the simplicity of the first film (which is hilarious when you consider how convoluted and silly the franchise became in subsequent installments). Just a straightforward Halloween flick, with lots of suspense and Michael Myers on the hunt. Jamie Lee Curtis was done with the series at the time, so her character, Laurie Strode, wouldn't feature in it. But there was that pesky reveal in Halloween II that she was Michael's sister, and that's why he was after her. So now he's hunting Laurie's daughter. Ok, whatever.

The idea that anyone, even the Shape, could have survived that explosion at the end of II is patently absurd. Not only that, but didn't Laurie shoot him point-blank in each eye? What, did his eyes grow back or something? Did they give him an eye transplant? Did Jerry Orbach give him the gift of sight?

Not only did Michael Myers survive, Dr. Loomis did, too! And all he has to show for it is a little scar on his cheek. The whole thing is ludicrous.

This movie--this entire franchise, in fact--is completely unnecessary. The first film never needed a sequel, let alone an endless parade of them.

That said, once you get past the absurdity of the premise... Halloween 4 is actually pretty good! The producers succeeded in their goal of making a simple, effective horror movie.

It helps that the two leads are very charming: Danielle Harris as Jamie Lloyd, Laurie's daughter; and Ellie Cornell as Rachel Carruthers, Jamie's foster sister. Donald Pleasence hams it up delightfully as the evermore unhinged Samuel Loomis, determined to put an end once and for all to the Shape's reign of terror. Supporting cast members Kathleen Kinmont and Sasha Jenson also make the most out of their roles as a couple of randy teenagers.

The most important thing, however, is that this movie is actually scary. There's a scene early on that always gets me jumping out of my skin. The third act is also really good. It's easy to root for the two leads. Rachel is one of the best "final girls" in all of slasherdom.

The ending is brilliant! (Even though, in fine Halloween tradition, the next movie kinda ruins it.) The franchise is four for four at this point when it comes to awesome endings.

It is also four for four when it comes to great opening credits. Nothing will ever beat the first Halloween's, with that iconic theme music and the pumpkin. Halloween 4 takes a different approach, however, showing small-town middle America in all its creepy late-October glory, the theme song replaced with some minimalistic drone music. It perfectly sets the tone for what's to come.

Halloween 4 is good for what it is, the third sequel to a film that needed no sequels. As such, it delivers more of the same, playing it very safe. There is not much new or original to it. But it's well made, entertaining, and best of all, scary!

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Coulda Woulda Shoulda

[7/10 · 15 June 2023]

If only this movie had been "Halloween II," it would have set the expectation of an anthology series, and Michael Myers would have been a one-time character. Instead, it came after a direct sequel to the original film, the anthology premise flopped, and this movie now sticks out as some sort of anomaly in the Halloween franchise.

Its originality, however, is exactly what makes it my second-favorite of the Halloween films. All the other sequels live in the shadow of the original, as they feature the same characters and try to recapture lightning in a bottle (with some wild results). This film, on the other hand, stands on its own as a wholly original work yet retains a distinctly "Halloween" vibe in its execution, from the amazing synth soundtrack by John Carpenter and Howard Shore to the always excellent cinematography by Dean Cundey.

The story is nuts! The performances are nuts! It's all so over the top and campy. Tom Atkins is iconic as Dan Challis, a hard-drinking, womanizing doctor who gets swept up in a villainous plot involving Stonehenge; murderous, humanoid robots (basically proto-terminators); and an evil, pagan mask manufacturer. You have to see it to believe it.

Fun, kooky, suspenseful and featuring one of the ballsiest endings I've ever seen, this is a picture that seems to be completely unaware of its own risky nature. There's not a single element that suggests the filmmakers wanted to play it safe. Kudos to them for being so absolutely fearless! It may not be perfect, but it sure is entertaining.

Halloween II (1981)

Flawed and Totally Unnecessary but Decent

[6/10 · 15 June 2023]

The ending of the first Halloween was PERFECT: They think they've killed the killer, but surprise! The body's gone when they go to check on it. The boogeyman is still out there. No one is safe. You could be next. Cut to credits. The end.

But there was no keeping that beautiful open-ended ending open. And here we have a sequel that famously picks up exactly where the first one left off. This is the first of its many flaws.

Michael Myers is a very different character in this movie, with a new motivation and a new MO. In the 1978 original, he is a less of a killer and more of a stalker, a voyeur, a peeping tom with a thing for teenage girls. He spends much of the film just following Laurie and her friends around and spying on them. He doesn't really start killing people until towards the end, and it's all in service to his big showcase in which he terrorizes, taunts and chases Laurie Strode (but doesn't actually kill her despite many opportunities). His goal isn't murder but rather fear and mayhem.

Now he's a killing machine. This is in response to the other slasher films of the time, like Friday the 13th. I justify this change in behavior by the fact that Michael is now operating off-script; in the first film, he was putting a long-gestating plan into action, but he didn't count on Laurie getting away. Now he has to finish the job even though none of this is part of his original plan.

He goes to the hospital and dispatches the staff there as quickly as possible with needles, scalpels, whatever weapons he can find to hand. He must find and kill Laurie. No more stalking or taunting. Just chasing and killing.

Fatally, this movie reveals that Michael Myers and Laurie Strode are siblings. This awful twist took the series down a bad path to a dead end for many years. It undermined everything that made the first film so frightening. It gave motive to a motiveless boogeyman. It painted future sequels into a corner. It led to things like the Cult of Thorn, the Man in Black and magic runes. I mean, I kind of love those things, but still. The premise of the first film was so simple and scary, and then it got more ridiculous and convoluted with every sequel. It was with this sibling twist that the franchise started going off the rails.

Despite these flaws, though, I do enjoy this movie for what it is: a no-frills slasher that tried not only to meet the expectations of the fanbase of the time but exceed them. It's lean and mean and terrifying in parts. There's a jump scare at the beginning that gets me every time. The kills are nasty and delightfully gory (if that's your sort of thing). And of course, the big chase at the end has me squirming every time I watch it.

Dean Cundey is back as cinematographer, and as result, the picture is oozing with mood and tension. A hospital never looked or felt so eerie! There is a palpable late-night emptiness to the location. It feels like 3am.

The soundtrack is a fully synth remix of the first film's score. Many of the same musical motifs appear in both films, but they are turned up to 11 in this one. I prefer the original's soundtrack (by far), but this is an interesting take.

Was Halloween II necessary? Hell no! Do I wish they had left well enough alone? Of course I do! But what we got was effective and entertaining. Of all the sequels featuring Michael Myers, this one is my favorite.

The Fog (1980)

Spiritual Sequel to Halloween

[9/10 · 15 June 2023]

This movie should have been titled "Halloween II" and released as the first of the anthology sequels, followed by the Halloween III that we got. Throw in a couple of pumpkins, a handful of trick-or-treaters, and you've got yourself some Carpenter-Hill Halloween goodness! The whole trajectory of the series would have been completely different. (I'm a big fan of the "Halloween anthology series" idea and wish it had worked.)

The creative team for The Fog is essentially the same as Halloween. Much of the cast and crew reunited for this one, and the mood is similar, slowly building tension and dread towards a heart-pounding climax. Dean Cundey's cinematography is incredible, as usual. The score by Carpenter is haunting (and relentlessly intense when it needs to be). The characters may be a little shallow, but who cares when you've got Tom Atkins, Janet Leigh and Hal Holbrook chewing up the scenery? Adrienne Barbeau is legitimately great as the late-night radio disc jockey who tries to warn the town of the impending fog. There are also some fun cameos from Halloween alums such as Jamie Lee Curtis, Nancy Kyes (Loomis) and Charles Cyphers.

The film doesn't come together quite as perfectly as Halloween did, and parts of it don't make a lick of sense (but provide for some good scares and/or laughs). Overall, though, this is a worthy successor to the original Michael Myers classic, and an excellent follow-up from filmmakers at the top of their game.

Halloween (1978)

Not a Slasher Movie

[10/10 · 15 June 2023]

Here's the thing about the original Halloween: Michael Myers isn't really a killer. He's a stalker. A creeper. A peeping tom and voyeur. The only times he kills is when it's a means to an end: the trucker has clothes that fit; Annie, Linda and Bob are all part of the twisted "haunted house" he has planned.

No, it's not killing that gets him off; it's playing cat and mouse with his victims. The chase is what Michael enjoys. It's why he doesn't kill Laurie right away. He's been dreaming of this night--this moment--for the past fifteen years. You think he's going to just kill Laurie immediately? No way! He's going to savor the moment for as long as possible.

When Laurie falls down the stairs and injures her leg, Michael gives her time to regroup and get away. He doesn't run after her, he walks, because he is in no rush to end the fun. It's not that he can't run; he chooses not to. He knows she can't escape him.

At the sofa, Michael misses her again, stabbing the sofa cushion instead. Do you really think this was an accident? He did it on purpose!

Now look at the closet scene: He never actually attacks Laurie. He is too busy scaring the daylights out of her, which is the fun part for him. He probably isn't expecting the old coathanger-in-the-eye trick, but up until then, the whole thing is a big ol' turn-on for Michael Myers, replete with moans and groans as he revels in the fear he is causing. What a sicko.

This is what all the sequels get wrong about Michael Myers. They always turn him into an unstoppable killer, a conventional slasher villain. But it's not the kills themselves that motivate him. It's the buildup to the kills. This is what makes this film so suspenseful.

Halloween is light-years ahead of even the best of its countless follow-ups, reboots, remakes, requels, rip-offs and rivals--and it's all because instead of being an unstoppable killing machine, the main baddie is a creep who gets off on terrorizing his victims.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

Nothing to do with the original, really

[4/10 · 30 September 2022]

This is exactly the sequel someone would make if they've never seen the original TCM. Like, if all you knew about the original was that it featured a killer named Leatherface who used a chainsaw to kill people with, this is what you would come up with. No Sawyer family, no subtlety, no satire, no intelligence, not the slightest understanding of the character of Leatherface or the world he inhabits. Just a generic killer with a chainsaw, lots of gore, a bunch of jump scares, some unlikeable victims and your usual slasher shenanigans. It's loud, dumb, silly, bland, forgettable and not at all scary. With all this said, however, it's fine for what it is. If you want to watch a dude with a chainsaw hacking up beautiful idiots in gruesome fashion, then you'll like this just fine. And at 83 minutes, it is mercifully short!

Suspiria (I) (2018)

Dour, Pretentious, Incoherent Mess

[4/10 · 28 October 2020]

Overlong, poorly paced remake is basically the opposite of the original: where Argento's was vibrant and colorful, Guadagnino's is bland and desaturated; where Goblin's score was upbeat and thrilling, Thom Yorke's is quiet and haunting; where the original was efficient and exciting, this is sluggish and overwrought.

But even on its own terms, without the comparisons, this movie is a huge disappointment. Well made, but otherwise lacking. You're better off watching Black Swan!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

21st Century, All-American Godzilla Movie

[7/10 · 11 July 2011]

When I was a kid, I used to watch Godzilla movies on TV every Saturday. I loved watching the rubber monsters duke it out. As an adult, I still do, scarily enough.

What we have with Transformers 3 is a Godzilla movie. Only this is not some low-budget affair with men in rubber suits. This is an over-budgeted, over-produced, CGI monstrosity! In 3-D!!! Michael Bay, one of my least-favorite directors working in A-list Hollywood these days, has made his masterpiece. This is the biggest, fastest, loudest and perhaps MEANEST 150 minutes (yes, this mofo is 2 1/2 hours long!) I've spent in a movie theater in a long while.

The first 20 minutes of Transformers 3, which tie the ensuing storyline to the first moon landing, are a tour de force of contemporary, big-budget Hollywood filmmaking: dynamic, gripping, utterly stupid, completely absorbing. Bay's best work! (Faint praise, I will admit.)

I hated the first Transformers movie. Hated, hated, HATED it. I never even saw the second one. But this one, number 3, was *exactly* what I wanted. It was like I was in my backyard with two of the original Hasbro toys in my hands, banging them together in a fight to the finish... only much, much louder.