The Devil Inside (2012)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  William Brent Bell
Studios:  Insurge Pictures, Prototype
Starring:  Fernanda Andrade, Simon Quarterman, Evan Helmuth, Suzan Crowley
Tagline:  No Soul Is Safe
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  thriller, possession, found footage, documentary, religious occult
Scare score:  C-
Rating:  D

Plot overview:  Isabella Rossi (Andrade) has decided to find out the circumstances surrounding what led to the death of three clergy members twenty years earlier during an exorcism that was being performed on her mother, Maria (Crowley).  Enlisting the help of cameraman Michael (Ionut Grama), Isabella begins to make a documentary about exorcisms, which she explains have virtually controlled her life since her mother was taken to a hospital in Rome and her father died only three days after revealing to her that her mother had been involved in an attempted exorcism.  In Rome, Isabella is reunited with her distant and oddly behaving mother as well as two priests, Ben (Quarterman) and David (Helmuth) who have been performing exorcisms without the Church's approval in order to help the possessed victims.  Together, the group of four will work to try and help cure Isabella's mother.

I wasn't crazy about this movie.  It was more boring than exciting throughout the majority of it, filled with easily foreseen scares and stock ideas from standard exorcism plots.  Actually I guess I'm not crazy about most exorcism movies because there is only so much you can do, or perhaps I'm better off saying there's only so much we've seen done.  This movie barely moves away from the dozens of exorcisms-seem-to-have-gone-right-but-actually-went-wrong storyline we've seen in the past.

The acting isn't great in this film.  I couldn't get interested in Isabella's situation because she seemed like a distant and prude character who was trying too hard to be Mila Kunis.  Whenever she or Ionut Grama as Michael had confessionals I felt like I was watching freshman projects for Acting 101.  Our two priests on the other hand were more dynamic, although all four of these central characters barely showed any skills outside of basic acting emotions; their roles seemed highly constrained.  I think Suzan Crowley deserves a lot of credit - I can't say what was her and what was special effects, but the lady's looks are enough to give you chills.

All of the commentary on the Church in this film seemed confusing, confused, and purposeless.  I think writers tried harder to make any conspiring, critical sort of commentary than to clearly develop one problem and stick with it.  Every time a character asked about the Church and its policies on exorcisms, one of the various priests in the film would respond with a grunt, something along the lines of "The Church doesn't want to help," and then an angst-y dismissal of the question.  Uh, alright?  The result is a shallow reason as to why two devout men of the Church are performing illegal exorcisms, which forces us to raise an eyebrow as to whether or not they are endangering people.

The exorcism scenes were interesting enough that I found myself tensing up a bit.  The various camera angles had us paying closer attention to what might possibly happen next.  Other than several entertaining bits, however, I found myself watching a stereotypical and non-innovative exorcism such as I might in any other movie.  We can only watch a young girl with a demonic, deep voice insult a priest with sexual remarks so many times.  I did enjoy the more complex theory (developed by Father Ben) regarding Maria's possession; thankfully that provided some action and originality.

I'm still trying to decide whether the plot was week or just boring; I think it's a combination of both.  Isabella is hard to relate to, Michael is perfectly correct to assume everyone thinks he's the annoying guy with a camera (because that's precisely what he is), and the two priests are all over the place.  There was an idea behind this film, but ultimately that idea seems to be "How can we make the most profit on a cheap budget?"  The mockumentary/ found footage business will hands down automatically open up your film to a lot of criticism.  Once you pair that with a relatively short and relatively uneventful plot, you have a problem.  Forget about the ending that everyone seems to hate, I was so detached from the film by the time that we finally arrived there that, while surprised at the abruptness of it all, I can't say I was surprised to not have any of my questions answered.  I guess I am most disappointed because they did a really great job marketing this baby.  I remember before it came out that it looked really good in trailers and commercials.  Tricky ad campaigns.

Final critique:  We've seen this before.  The Devil Inside is a poorly done rehash of any given exorcism movie meets any given found footage film.  Expect to feel a little queasy by the end, not only because of the woozy camera movement, but - to the movie's credit - some gore and blood (specific types of blood considered) as well.  If you're in the mood for a slow-paced film with a few good thrills, certainly watch this movie, but don't go in with huge expectations.  Otherwise, very few parts are scary or uncomfortable for audiences that scare easily.

American Horror Story, S2, E4 - (2012)

"I Am Anne Frank (Part 1)"

GENERAL INFO:
Creators:  Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk
Producers:  20th Century Fox
Channel:  FX
Starring:  Jessica Lange, James Cromwell, Evan Peters, Sarah Paulson, Zachary Quinto; ft. Lizzie Brocheré, Franka Potente
TV Rating:  MA SLV
Genre:  television, horror, drama, psychological thriller, insane asylum
Scare score:  D
Rating:  B

Plot overview:  A new patient claiming to be Anne Frank (Potente) arrives at Briarcliff.  Upon seeing Dr. Arden (Cromwell), Frank claims that he is an escaped Nazi war criminal named Dr. Hans Grüper who committed unspeakable and secretive medical acts at Auschwitz.  Aside from this accusation - which Sister Jude (Lange) begins to believe - there are detectives investigating Arden regarding his treatment of a 'woman of the night' (from a previous episode) and the peculiar things she saw in his house.  The relationship that has been growing between Kit (Peters) and Grace (Brocheré) is tested as Kit questions his own innocence and we learn why Grace is in Briarcliff.  While Dr. Thredson (Quinto) and Lana (Paulson) try and fail with therapy to "cure" the latter, we learn just how far the former is willing to go to help Lana.

This episode was certainly more slowly paced than the previous, exchanging jumps and scares for explanation and suspense.  I'll try and make this short, because I don't have much to say aside from my feelings about the several plots this episode focused on.

Dr. Thredson's therapy with Lana - both the methods and the fact that Thredson is even making her go through it instead of lying - was really strange and made me uncomfortable.  By uncomfortable I mean that I feel really suspicious about the good Doctor and his intentions with Lana.  Quinto seemed different in this episode; I think the difference in character was obvious, and for that I'm also thinking it was done on purpose.  I can't tell if the writers are using this subplot to explore systematic, psychological horror - perhaps the fear we find from the power and influence of established social systems (as Lana talks about psychological and professional guidelines in the moment; the fact that being a lesbian was seen as an illness or crime) - or if it is also serving as some layered message since advocate Quinto is the character dealing with Lana's situation.  Either way I found that these scenes mainly resulted in uncomfortable and bizarre segments.

I really liked Sister Jude in this episode.  We saw so much more clearly where her heart is, and even though she clearly has issues with power and [self] control, I think that she is still a good character (more so than truly bad).  I was never the biggest Lange fan, but this season with each new episode I find myself joining that crowd.  She has been a tremendous actress so far.

On a similar note, I keep realizing how much more I like Evan Peters this season than I did last season. Obviously his character is different which changes things (never was the biggest fan of mentally troubled kids turned school shooters turned meddling ghosts).  It was fun in this episode exploring his guilt and his mind: how the mind deals with stressors, how the mind covers its tracks in cases of reality it can't accept, etc.  Again, the interactions between Kit and Thredson made me uncomfortable, mainly due to the Doctor's determination on fixing his case and dealing with the moral question in his situation.

I guess I have to bring up the whole, uh, Anne Frank thing at some point?  Aside from even questioning whether or not Anne Frank is a personality that can be brought to life in a given TV show, I think the general concept of suddenly introducing any historical figure into a TV show (not for comic reasons), and thereby changing accepted history, is a risky move.  Potente does an alright job, but there are a lot of questions.  Is she lying?  After all, she is an unidentified woman that ended up in a mental institution.  There were a lot of smaller questions having to do with the story of her past, why she stayed silent, why she didn't try to contact her family, etc.  Unfortunately I think the idea ended up more than a bit cheesy.  I understand the writers are wanting to pursue this bit about Arden as a Nazi (pssst- anyone else think he aged too much between the youthful actor in Anne's flashbacks versus Cromwell in the present?  It's only a 20 year difference, mind you), but the plot felt forced and just plain awkward.  Introducing an innocent, famed, teenage girl from history - one who represents more deeply emotional and hugely profound human concepts than Horror Buff is eloquent enough to expound upon - into your program that simultaneously deals with possession, mutant science experiments, and aliens is a bit offensive, to Anne more than anyone.  I would have understood with historic personalities such as Amelia Earhart - about whom it would be easy to pretend they were still alive - but when you take a delicate character such as Anne Frank you are involving yourself in something very big.  What I'm trying to say is that it really fictionalized the show, and it left a lot of questions regarding what is done in good taste.

On the other hand, this subplot really helped to push forward a lot of the suspended action that has been building up in the previous episodes.  I'm really excited for this week's episode, so that we can see what happens regarding the investigations pending around Arden, the experiments being conducted on Shelley, among others, and just what that Monsignor Howard (Joseph Fiennes) is up to.  More than anything else, this episode dealt with heavy religious themes and questions, which can also be dangerous for any TV show.  I think this episode handled things well, and it's fun to see the dark side of faith: no one at Briarcliff thinks there is something clearly wrong with Sister Mary Eunice (Lily Rabe)?; the aforementioned suspicious Monsignor - as well as the good side of faith, the ongoing struggles and successes of Sister Jude, her visit to Mother Superior, and Kit's wanting forgiveness.  We'll have to see just where this season takes us.

Final critique:  While this episode wasn't scary except for maybe 3 short scenes/ shots, it was interesting.  As any "Part 1" will do, I am very excited now to see "Part 2."  I find myself rooting for Sister Jude, suspicious of Thredson and Monsignor, and more than anything else, begging for some explanation - what are those creatures in the woods? who is Bloody Face? - which I understand we will be receiving this week.

American Horror Story, S2, E3 - (2012)

"Nor'easter"

GENERAL INFO:
Creators:  Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk
Producers:  20th Century Fox Television
Channel:  FX
Starring:  Jessica Lange, James Cromwell, Sarah Paulson, Evan Peters, Zachary Quinto; ft. Chloë Sevingy, Lizzie Brocheré, Lily Rabe
TV Rating:  MA SLV
Genre:  television, horror, drama, psychological thriller, insane asylum, aliens, mutants
Scare score:  A-
Rating:  A

Plot overview:  In present day, horror honeymooners Teresa (Jenna Dewan) and Leo (Adam Levine) and pursued and killed by multiple men dressed as Bloody Face.  Just as it is revealed that these are teenagers wearing masks, another Bloody Face turns the corner and begins to attack them.
Back in 1964, Sister Jude (Lange) begins to lose her senses as someone is clearly blackmailing her about the young girl she killed while drunk driving before her days as a devout nun.  Through the kind Doctor Thredson (Quinto), Lana (Paulson) learns that her girlfriend on the outside might be in grave danger.  Due to this threat, Lana finally trusts alleged murderer Kit (Peters) who is plotting with close friend Grace (Brocheré) and also nymphomaniac Shelley (Sevigny) to escape during a scheduled movie night which is meant to distract the patients from the oncoming nor'easter.  The once-innocent Sister Mary Eunice (Rabe) has clearly been affected by last episode's failed exorcism and is now showing demonic qualities.  Lastly, the troubled Dr. Arden (Cromwell) continues his sick and sadistic medical practices on various patients.

Sorry this is a bit delayed, but wow!  What an episode.  I was pretty much on the edge of my seat during the whole thing, finding myself both thrilled by all of the action that was thrown at us as well as the fact that these various plots actually had things in common.  Before I start, let's take a moment to give kudos where kudos are due, namely to me, Horror Buff, for correctly identifying the characters' accents and pinpointing the location of Briarcliff to 'rural' Massachusetts, namely somewhere near Framingham as we saw in the newspaper left on Sister Jude's desk.  Maybe I should leave this blog behind and start up a life as a dialectologist.  Then again maybe not.  Onto the horror.

This episode allowed us to settle down a bit, exploring the psychological depth of different characters further while still tossing us some thrills (such as Bloody Face, some sort of mutant human monsters, and - oh yeah - an alien).  We've been presented with the new mystery of who could possibly be blackmailing Sister Jude - could it be the newly possessed Sister Mary Eunice, or is it perhaps all in Sister Jude's mind?  Either way I think it's safe to say we are finding more pity in our hearts for Lange, for while she isn't necessarily likable she certainly is getting what was coming to her and then some.

This was a huge episode for Cromwell, who had to do some interesting and difficult things as an actor. I'm not quite sure why he felt the need to deface the statue of Mary (which they make really creepy in the opening credits), but I guess he had some stressful events leading up to that point.  Primarily we see that he is also being played with by Mary Eunice, therefore becoming equally caught up in a psychological puppet game with Jude.  Furthermore, maybe some of his sadism comes from his own inadequacies?

Well it's another failed escape attempt for Kit, Grace, Lana, and especially Shelley (too soon?).  I sense that their plight is turning into a sort of hellish One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, am I right?  Hopefully they find some better way out that doesn't lead them through the forest of cannibalistic mutants.  Speaking of which, I'm assuming it's only a matter of time before we learn more about them.  Creepy, and props to the makeup crew.

Is anyone else starting to worry about Dr. Thredson?  I watched enough Scooby-Doo as a kid to know that a body can only meddle too far into something before it really gets serious.  Quinto is a big-billed name this season, apparently almost as much as Lange, so while I don't think he'll be killed off very simply, I am concerned about what his fate will be.

I am really happy with the acting this season.  While the plot is still young, and the various subplots are getting more complicated and bizarre (again, that alien), I'm generally a fan of the different characters.  I always enjoy when we are made to sympathize for people who might very well be murderous, terrible people (what do we know about Grace, really?)  And while Lily Rabe's Spanish accent isn't the best attempt we've ever seen from a demon, she does seem to be having a lot of fun portraying a possessed nun!  Really, I think we are watching all of these actors enjoy doing this show, which always makes me wonder how scary it feels while filming compared to the final product.

Final critique:  Before this week's episode starts introducing some Holocaust plots, let me say I am very happy with where this season is going thus far.  The horror itself is still a bit all over the place, but I guess that still gives the writers lots of directions to take the upcoming episodes - so long as they cover any loose ends.  I enjoyed the light/ dark contrasts in this episode as well as several striking camera angles that utilized some interesting diagonal shots.  Aside from providing lots of thrills, this episode honestly just got me excited for more.  Keep it coming.

Halloween II (2009)

Extended Cut

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rob Zombie
Studios:  Dimension Films
Starring:  Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Danielle Harris
Tagline:  Family is Forever
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer
Scare score:  C
Rating:  F

Plot overview:  Two years after the happenings of the first film, Laurie Strode (Taylor-Compton) is still coping with trauma induced stress, moments of panic, and depression.  She now lives with best friend Annie (Harris) and Annie's father Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif), even though her relationship with both of them is strained.  Meanwhile, Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell) has capitalized on the tragic events of Michael's (Tyler Mane) attacks by writing a new book, exploiting both the killer as well as the victims in Haddonfield.  As Michael's body was never recovered, the general populace is torn as to whether or not he is still alive.  On Halloween night, all of their questions will be answered as Michael, Laurie, and Loomis are reunited once and for all.

I hated this movie.  I hated it and I wanted to turn it off the whole time, but I kept on going because I knew I had to blog about it.  I saw that the producers of the series told Zombie to make his own version without feeling inhibited, but I truly feel that he disgraced the series; in fact, this movie shouldn't be considered a member of the Halloween movies, but more so a Rob Zombie fantasy that happens to include some characters with the same names as the John Carpenter original.  The only other redeeming factor was that at one point on a talk show, someone makes a reference to Mike Meyers from Austin Powers.  I'm glad that was finally done.  It was also nice to see Margot Kidder briefly as Laurie's psychiatrist.

Otherwise this film was some sick Zombie perversion, with characters representing the baseness of human society in their disgusting jokes and perverted ideas, excessive use of curse words, unprovoked anger, and generally terrible attitudes.  The script writing is often fake and cliche, especially for Laurie and Annie which was tough for me to watch.  The only word I can think of to describe how this movie made me feel was dirty.  There was a glorified role invented for Sheri Moon Zombie, which might have been a good idea until shallow textbook psychology was forced into every second of the movie.  Also, I understand the movie was largely filmed in Georgia, but the fact that many actors had and used Southern accents made no sense as the film takes place in Illinois.

Loomis was so frustratingly annoying and fake.  This was a combination of a poorly written/ thought out role, and a poor delivery on behalf of McDowell - but really we can't blame him because the idea for this 'cool, chauvinistic, money-driven' Loomis was so stupid.  The result is some unnatural figure with awful lines and forced, uncomfortable dialogue.

*SPOILER ALERT*

This post-traumatic, pill popping, 'eff it' attitude Laurie was disturbing and upsetting, especially since Laurie Strode is one of my favorite horror movie characters, and also because Scout-Compton did a really good job portraying her in the first film.  I understand that in this movie Zombie wanted to explore how the events of the first film would affect the innocent and happy-go-lucky Laurie, and I think that's a good idea.  Unfortunately the result was a protagonist who we couldn't relate to, who was distant, and who was flat out annoying in her depression and sometimes her mania.  I didn't love the sassy Danielle Harris either.  And her over-the-top death scene didn't make any sense given the role of her character in this movie, so I can only assume it is an homage to Danielle herself and the role she has played for the Halloween franchise.

At first I thought I liked this version of Michael, even though he rarely wears his mask.  And then he made noises while killing victims.  And then later on he spoke.  I think this is such an insult to the Halloween franchise, to the fans of the series, and to Michael Meyers himself.  I mean seriously, what is that?  You don't take a character who has never made a sound except in exhaling since his debut in 1978 and then 31 years later have him begin to grunt (uncharacteristically - PS those blood splatters didn't make any sense in the first hospital scene) and then talk.  It's so stupid, childish, and offensive to the integrity of the concept of Michael Meyers.

If you do decide to watch this movie, which I don't recommend, you'll only be able to hear how stupid it is, because it is so constantly dark that it's almost impossible to see.  Half the murder scenes were beyond my comprehension as to how they were occurring, only that they sounded painful and gory.

I understand that I watched the extended cut which is supposed to be very different from the theatrical cut.  Maybe I would have disliked the theatrical cut less.

Final critique:  I can't say I went into this with expectations, because in reality I'd never heard anything about this film.  Now I know it is some strange perversion of Halloween's concepts, ideas, and characters, and that it is a strange and shallow retelling according to Rob Zombie, taking place completely within his dark and twisted universe of excessive gore and some perverted dialogue, jokes, and scenes that people would be better off never hearing or seeing.  It is unfortunate that the producers like Akkad let this slide.  The film was frustrating to start and frustrating to get through, with very, very few redeeming factors.  I can respect that Zombie had an idea, but I can't say it was done well or with much care.

October Review

For your consideration:

1.  Halloween (1978): A
2.  Psycho (1960): A
3.  Night of the Living Dead (1968): A-
4.  Seven (1995): A-
5.  The Woman in Black (2012): A-
6.  Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998): A-
7.  Halloween (2007): A-
8.  The Phantom of the Opera (1925): A-
9.  Halloween IV (1988): B+
10.  Halloween V (1989): B+
11.  Hellraiser (1987): B+
12.  Halloween II (1981): B+
13.  Insidious (2011): B
14.  Halloween: Resurrection (2002): B
15.  Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995): B
16.  Silent Hill (2006): B
17.  Nosferatu (1922): B-
18.  Halloween III (1982): C+
19.  House on Haunted Hill (1959): C
20.  Absentia (2011): C
21.  Creep (2004): C

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rick Rosenthal
Studio:  Dimension Films, Nightfall Productions
Starring:  Busta Rhymes, Bianca Kajlich, Ryan Merriman, Sean Patrick Thomas, Thomas Ian Nicholas; ft. Jamie Lee Curtis, Tyra Banks
Tagline:  Evil Finds its Way Home
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  B

Plot overview:  In the final installment of the original Halloween series, Michael (Brad Loree) finishes his business with sister Laurie (Curtis) but returns home to where a live internet broadcast of Danger-Tainment is taking place on Halloween night.  The program, run by Freddie (Rhymes) and Nora (Banks), has set up cameras all over the house as well as point-of-view cameras to be worn by each of the six randomly chosen participants: college students Donna (Daisy McCrackin), Bill (Nicholas), Jen (Katee Sackhoff), Jim (Luke Kirby), Rudy (Thomas), and Sara (Kajlich).  With the help of Sara's chat room pen pal Myles "Deckard" (Merriman), the reality show cast begins to realize that the real Michael Meyers is in the house, killing off everybody one by one.  While still being broadcast live, the reality show becomes a real fight for survival.

There's a little bit of everything in this movie, from The Breakfast Club to House on Haunted Hill meets Halloween meets 21st century technology, which means this film is practically for everyone, right?  Wrong.  Horror fans should enjoy the comic nature of the movie, as well as some of the exciting kills.  Halloween fans might not be as accepting of this film, although they might respect the return to the Meyers househould, 'where it all began,' as they say.  In general, though, this is a nice gateway for fans of typical teen slashers (with a very early-2000s feel) into the far greater realm of Halloween.

It's a treat to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the first 15 minutes of the film, even though she doesn't seem her usual self.  I guess that 24 years of your psychopathic older brother chasing you and killing off your family and friends will do that.  Given her situation, from a legal standpoint I really don't think Laurie would have ended up in a sanitarium for accidentally killing the wrong person, but whatever it makes for a swift goodbye to Laurie and Miss Curtis, who wanted to be done with the Halloween movies for good.

With Laurie out of the picture, however, Michael returns to his M.O. of the second movie, instead of the first and H20 - that is, killing anybody he comes across instead of those who directly prevent him from getting to Laurie.  Although I guess it's acceptable that he isn't too happy with a bunch of young intruders in his home.  Speaking of which, I'm really happy that the Meyers house in this film looks remotely like the one in the original film - unlike the ghastly changes we saw in movies IV, V, and VI - although agreeably they don't pertain to the same sequel universe as H20 and this one.

The characters are all shallow, but they are still entertaining.  We have a few oversexed college students (surprise, surprise) who present us with such a contrast to Sara that we know from her first few seconds that she'll be the final girl.  I really liked Busta Rhymes as Freddie (never thought I'd write that), who was both tough and tender, depending on whether or not he was watching martial arts films or imitating them.  In many ways he was reminiscent of LL Cool J's character Ronny in the previous movie, which might be saying a lot as far as the writers go.  As several of the students studied psychology, I enjoyed the various references and parallels throughout the film to ideas such as Jung's 'shadow' - or should we say Shape?

Speaking of the Shape, I liked Michael in this movie.  His actions were rigid, but he was swift, which is how I think he should be.  Some actors portrayed him as too human in action and movement, but I think it this film he's about right.  The mask honestly isn't even that bad, except that we can clearly see the black make up around Michael's eyes (Michael, you shouldn't have) because the eye holes are too big.  Otherwise he is a good height and size, and the mask never looks wide or stupid.  However, after 7 films these people still haven't learned what camera height to use when showing us Michael's point of view - uh, no, pretty sure his eye level isn't only a foot above the doorknobs at the sanitarium.  This movie had Michael bring back the classic head cock, which makes the killer both childish and animalistic at the same time, as well as the big kitchen knife, and the ever-popular skull-crush-under-his-bare-hands move.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I was worried at first when the 6 internet reality show members kept finding strange evidence and artifacts around the house, such as the highchair with chains or the harness in the basement cellar.  It seemed like the filmmakers were trying too hard to show that Michael had an abusive childhood or that he was just as dangerous as a baby as he was when he was 6 - neither of which should necessarily be true.  Luckily we find out that these are all props planted by Freddie, Nora, and crew to frighten the 'contestants' more.

Loved the hip technology in this movie, really made me feel connected as a modern audience member, especially Sara's PalmPilot contraption.  So I'm just kidding, but it does add a lot of suspense that Myles/ Deckard can help Sara in certain rooms of the house and that a live audience is watching the terror take place (a la Untraceable).  As this time period really was the beginning of the cell phone, etc revolution among children and teenagers, it reminds us that most plots of previous horror films could never happen anymore when 911, friends and family, maps, and the internet are constantly on hand.

Similarly, the technology in this movie makes a comment on exploitation as the 'contestants' are constantly reminded that this one night in the Meyers house could be their big break for internet or acting stardom.  Several male characters in the film use this ploy to try and seduce or harass the female characters into performing scandalous or sexual acts.  Chauvinism in horror?  Shocking.

I generally liked the cinematography of this movie which is as dark as ever, literally.  The contrasts in this film help spook us out since Michael is usually so hard to spot, and by the time we see his white mask coming out of some darkness it is too late.  The many 'camera' shots are so Blair Witch it's hard to handle without getting nauseated.  The major use of flashlights in this movie is fun, and countless times we find a character in a dark room quickly passing over Michael's face with their light.

At the end of the day, although this film might feel distanced from its tremendous beginnings, I like that it brings things full circle.  Laurie and Michael get their closure, and as the tagline very aptly states, 'evil  finds its way home.'  The very first film started here, and following that point (even in the Jamie Lloyd series of sequels) Michael was always out of his house.  Now at long last the action is back in the birthplace of the evil that has been haunting Halloweens since 1963/ 1978.  Much could be said about the home and the womb, birth and death here... but I'm not going to say it.

Final critique:  What we have here is a modern slasher that happens to be continuing action first started in 1978.  While this movie isn't your most standard Halloween film, it does make many homages to the originals and to Halloween H20.  I do recommend this film to anybody looking for a fun and still frightening/ suspenseful slasher film that is very typical of its time period.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Steve Miner
Studio:  Dimension Films
Starring:  Jamie Lee Curtis, Josh Hartnett
Tagline:  20 Years Ago, HE Changed the Face of Halloween.  Tonight, He's Back!
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  20 years after the events of the original film, we learn that Laurie Strode (Curtis) has faked her own death and is now living under the alias of Keri Tate, headmistress at a small private high school in Northern California.  Following the traumatic events of her younger years, she is a functioning alcoholic who lives in constant paranoia that she and her son John (Hartnett) still live in danger.  Her fears soon materialize when her brother Michael Meyers (Chris Durand) returns on Halloween night.

Okay, so the Halloween franchise gets a little tricky with this sequel, because it reneges all of the happenings of Halloween IV, Halloween V, and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Meyers.  In forgetting all about darling Jamie and the Curse of Thorn, this movie reintroduces former heroine Jamie Lee Curtis in the role of Laurie Strode, claiming that she faked her own death in order to escape from Michael.  We also get to take a break from the bleak landscape of Illinois as we move to the scenic and remote countryside of California (maybe the creative team at last realized it wasn't worth faking autumn in its West Coast filming locations).

I'm so happy to have Jamie Lee Curtis back.  She does a wonderful job in this movie, especially because she finally realizes that she has to face the monster (a parallel is made between Victor and his monster as one class studies Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).  She has become fairly dynamic and believable, or as believable as one might think somebody dealing with her situation might be: drinking too much, trying and failing at numerous therapies, living in fear.  Laurie is no longer the innocent and weak young girl, but instead Keri is fed up and in control, as we see her go to extremes to stop Michael this time around.

It's almost funny how many big names are in this movie; I love that in horror.  Rounding out the supporting cast we have the oversexed and annoying Adam Hann-Byrd playing the role of Charlie, John's best friend; we also have the resilient and brave Molly (Michelle Williams), John's girlfriend.  All cinema fans are treated to a cameo by Janet Leigh (notably of Psycho) - also notably Jamie Lee Curtis' mom - playing the school secretary; we can get a small chuckle when she has a line telling Curtis that she can't help but feel matronly.  In the very beginning of the film, we get to enjoy a fun appearance by a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt as he portrays a tough boy who helps look into the break in at his neighbor's house.  Some comic relief is added to the plot through the school security guard Ronny, portrayed by LL Cool J.  Yes, I just mentioned LL Cool J in The Horror Blog, I know.  Lastly we have Josh Hartnett in his debut film.  Hartnett does a really convincing job as Curtis' angsty and fed up teenage son who is looking for space and wanting to live a normal life.  Later in the film we see the desperate side of the young man as he escapes, injured, from his uncle.  There is some pretty good acting going on here.

Halloween fans are also treated to a cameo of Nancy Stephens as she continues her role from the first two films of Nurse Marion Chambers, friend and ex-caretaking of the late Dr. Loomis.  This is a major plot connecter as well, because by using the same character (and actress), it makes sense how some of Laurie Strode's classified files might have been passed along - even if new fans (or old ones) didn't realize she was the same person.

Aside from being another film about Curtis, this movie also heavily revolves around a group of four teenagers at the Hillcrest Academy.  This makes the film much more familiar to horror movie goers at the time who were all-too-used to teen slashers.  I like this core-four, if you well, headed by Hartnett.  They provide for a more or less likable and relatable group of characters (for younger viewers), as well as some enjoyable action during chase and kill scenes.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Michael is also more creative and dynamic in this film.  He's back after 20 years to find his sister, and it seems as though nothing will stop him.  We see a more gentle side earlier on in the film when he leaves a mother and daughter unharmed, only robbing their car.  On the other hand, he finds a way to kill to innocent and unrelated neighborhood boys.  While he stays largely true to his kitchen knife in this movie, we are also treated to some more creative deaths or injuries.  Michael's mask is decent in this movie, but I still find a problem with the large size of the eye holes.  Otherwise, while his movement isn't the same as the first film, I do enjoy this interpretation.

Even more terrific than the murders in this movie is the suspense.  We are treated to some really spectacular suspense scenes that should leave all viewers with a decent personality on the edges of their seats.  Two that stand out are when Charlie drops the bottle opener into a garbage disposal in a sink - and of course he reaches in after it, unaware that Michael is behind him.  Later, as John and Molly are running from Michael, they get trapped in between a locked front door and a closed exterior gate.  As they squeeze against the door, they are mere inches out of Michael's arm span and wielded knife.  It's thrilling.

Final critique:  So far in the marathon, I would put Halloween H20 in my top 3 or 4 films from the series, just because it is fun and refreshing after we've been dealing with more forced or absent plots since the original film.  This movie is like a clean slate, and while it unfortunately erases the plot of Jamie's existence is films IV, V, and VI, I'm happy to happy Jamie Lee Curtis back.  Though the marathon progresses, many people choose to view H20 as the final film in the true Halloween series, should you choose to wish Laurie finally defeats Michael.  All in all, it is an interesting movie that is both easy to watch and fun to get scared by.  It isn't too scary, but the deaths and especially chase scenes are pretty excellent.  Recommended to anybody, but those who scare too easily might find themselves uncomfortable as always.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

Welcome to the '90s.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Joe Chappelle
Studio:  Miramax Films
Starring:  Donald Pleasence, Paul Rudd, Marianne Hagan
Tagline:  Haddonfield is Ready to Celebrate Halloween... So is Michael Meyers!; Everyone Knows His Name.  Now, Everyone Will Know the Truth
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  B

Plot overview:  Six years after the events of Halloween V, we are shown that Jamie (J.C. Brandy) was kidnapped on the night of Michael Meyers' (George P. Wilbur) escape from the Haddonfield Police Station, and that she has been impregnated while in the captivity of a strange cult.  Shortly after having the baby, which the cult seems to need for a ritual, Jamie and her newborn son escape from the cult's hideout.  Making it as far as Haddonfield, Jamie is murdered by Michael, but the baby is nowhere to be found.  Meanwhile, Haddonfield is celebrating Halloween for the first time since 1989, believing that they are finally free from the curse of the past.  However, the Strode family (cousins of Laurie's adoptive family from the first two films) has moved into the old Meyers house, and estranged daughter Kara's (Hagan) son Danny (Devin Gardner) has been having strange nightmares about a man in black killing his family.  In search of Jamie's baby, Michael returns to Haddonfield, wreaking havoc on his home's invaders in the meantime.  Once the troubled neighbor Tommy Doyle (Rudd) finds Jamie's baby, he realizes he must save Kara and Danny from the curse of Michael Meyers as the notorious killer's ancient and evil motives are revealed.

Out of the entire series, this sixth installment is the one I am least familiar with.  It is also the one movie that tries piecing together the plots of the previous four movies involving Michael Meyers (*remember, Halloween III = random*), both taking previous plot points and adding some new ones that are a bit forced.  Let's begin.

The acting is only so so throughout, but I do think that at long last Donald Pleasence shines as the now-retired Dr. Loomis, who has returned to Haddonfield to help fight off Michael yet again.  Unlike in the previous films, he no longer acts crazed, and instead he is calm and knowledgable.  In fact, Pleasence played him as a rather jovial old man this time around, in some ways making jokes about his role in previous movies.  I believe this was Pleasence's last performance as he died shortly after filming.  The movie is dedicated to him.

I love that Paul Rudd stars in a horror film early in his career.  He plays the approximately 25 year old Tommy Doyle - name sound familiar?  Ding ding ding: Tommy Doyle is the 8-year-old that Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) babysits in the original Halloween.  17 years after the first film's events, Tommy has clearly been affected mentally by what happened to him on Halloween night.  He now dedicates his time to keeping a close eye on the Meyers' house and trying to figure out what is the driving force behind Michael's murderous ways.  Rudd seems very young in the role, both frightening at first and just odd later on.  While his character is supposed to be challenged and paranoid, this distances Tommy from the audience.  Overall, Rudd is okay in this role, but I think he found his calling in more modern comedies.

Our leading lady here is Kara Strode: cousin of Laurie Strode by adoption, estranged daughter of the ill-tempered, heavy drinker John (Bradford English) and mild mannered, timid Debra (Kim Darby), mother of the troubled Danny, and newest resident of the old Meyers house.  The entire Strode family except for John is unaware of the house's history as well as its most famous ex-resident, Michael.  Marianne Hagan does an okay job as Kara, who spends most of her time angry at her parents, concerned about her son, or distressed about the serial killer chasing her family.  This doesn't permit much room for personal growth or development, leaving Kara as a pretty shallow (though caring and enduring) character.  Still, she does have her moments of great bravery while facing Michael - but also great stupidity, and I don't understand how someone could survive the jump from a third story as she does.

In the very beginning of the film, we are made to follow around Jamie Lloyd who is supposed to be 15-years-old, but very much looks 20 (at least), as J.C. Brandy was at the time.  I think Miss Brandy plays an infuriatingly irritating Jamie, who we loved so much as a child.  I found myself already uncomfortable with the plot after the first few scenes, partially due to this actress.  Her screams from going into labor surrounded by the cult are unnerving, and I really didn't like that she was - uh - impregnated in captivity.  The first thing we ask ourselves is whether or not the child is Michael's, which then presents us with a difficult and incestuous plot - which I will never be a fan of.  All in all, with the role Jamie is given in this film, I can't blame Danielle Harris for not wanting to return.

Compared to all of the other films so far, which were shot in and around California and Utah, this film does the worse job of hiding that it is not actually Illinois at Halloween.  In an early scene when Kara arrives at college, there is clearly a mountain visible in the background of the shot.  'Illinois' and 'mountain' have no business appearing in the same sentence unless other words involved are "There are no" and "in."  Really terrible job filming and editing if you're going to allow things like that to slip by.  Can't say I'm surprised by the lack of an attempt at foliage, dead trees, and fallen leaves, even though it's supposed to be October 31st in the Midwest.  Can't say I'm crazy about yet another change to the Meyers' house either.

Michael is creepy in this film, but he seems almost like a robot.  His mask is pretty awful: the whole thing is too wide, giving him the aspect of a monkey at times; the eyes are really large, and the painted on eyebrows don't help his cause.  Also, I understand they wanted to introduce plot to bring the whole series together, but this leaves some things very forced, such as in the beginning when they find the symbol Thorn burnt into the hay and Loomis automatically knows it's "Michael's mark" - uh, since when?  Okay, okay, plot, I get it.

As for the deaths in the film, they are certainly creative and varied - much more comparable to modern thrillers than to the original Halloween films which were simple slashes.  There is a bit more gore here, which I heard they had to cut down, as well as a very inventive use on the part of Michael who is stepping up his murder game prior to Y2K.  The suspense of the kills themselves, and then later on the innocent family members/ friends (usually the next victim themselves) finding the bodies adds a lot of fun to the movie.

I have a problem in this movie with how Danny just ignores Kara all the time.  Jamie was the same way with Rachel in previous films, and I understand in horror we often rely on the 'idiot plot' of everyone acting like idiots, but come on, Danny.  If your mom says stay put, that doesn't mean that in the next shot we should see you walking into the Meyers' house alone - PS how did you get there so fast?

OH YEAH, huge problem with some continuity in this movie.  How is Michael omnipresent?  One second he's in his house, and the next he's already killing someone else at the local college, when mere minutes have elapsed for other characters.  When Kara's brother Tim (Keith Bogart) and girlfriend Beth (Mariah O'Brien) are expecting a radio DJ to show up at his house, they somehow find the time to light about a hundred candles and make love (premarital... you know what comes next)- I just don't get when they had this time.  Furthermore in this scene, as the power is out I don't get how there is clearly an electric (fluorescent) light working in the bathroom.  In many ways, the movie isn't as cleanly edited as the others.

*SPOILER ALERT*

So I guess at the end of the day, my main concern comes with Michael now leaving his mark, as we learn what drove him crazy as a child: the need to kill his whole family to purify the rest of his 'clan.'  What is interesting about this additional plot - that everything would be fine and Michael would stop his murders once his family is gone - is that it puts Michael in a better light; we realize that he is cursed, not  evil by choice, and that there is a simple way for the pain to go away.  More bad guys are added in which I thought complicated the plot nicely as they try to harvest this evil and control Michael - bad idea.

Final critique:  This film is more complicated than it seems.  There was a big idea here that had probably been brewing for years beforehand, and the final question remains: is this the curse of Michael Myers, or the revenge of Tommy Doyle?  Just kidding.  The question that really remains is: does this film deliver?  In the gory, creative, funny kill department, audiences are such to find what they are hoping for.  Those coming from the major Halloween fan base may not approve as much.  One thing that's certain is that the big plot is forced upon the events of this one movie, and they tend to encroach on what already happened - and shouldn't be changed - from previous films.  Recommended for anyone interested in a '90s slasher film that happens to have Michael Meyers in it.  If you scare easily, leave the lights on and bring a pair of earmuffs to be safe during the suspenseful scenes, which are plentiful.

Halloween V (1989)

"The Revenge of Michael Myers"

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Dominique Othenin-Girard
Studio:  Magnum Pictures, Inc.
Starring:  Danielle Harris, Donald Pleasence
Tagline:  Michael Lives, and This Time They're Ready!
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Recapping the final events of Halloween IV, this movie starts off immediately after Michael is thought to have been killed after being shot multiple times and injured by a dynamite explosion.  We see him narrowly escape and end up heavily wounded in a recluse's abode where he spends the following year.  On Halloween Eve, however, Michael (Don Shanks) awakens and begins another killing spree as he tracks down his now-mute niece Jamie Lloyd (Harris).

This film is pretty much Part Two of the previous installment, as they encompass the saga of Jamie and her psychopathic uncle.  While it isn't the greatest film on its own, I do enjoy it; remember, we have to look at is as a part of the whole.

Danielle Harris still does an awesome job in this movie, even though her character is mute for the first half.  The creative team has made an interested plot development in that Jamie is now connected to Michael in certain psychic ways - both sensing when he is nearby and when he is about to kill.  I'm happy Jamie herself hasn't turned evil though, because having her as Michael's little minion of sorts would (a) destroy the plot they've been setting us up for and (b) be pretty stupid, watching a little girl running around killing (without a purpose).  Every chase scene involving Miss Harris is extremely suspenseful and pretty well done.

Really quickly I have to mention how much I love the character Billy (Jeffrey Landman), Jamie's [boy?]friend from the Haddonfield Children's Clinic.  The kid does a decent though dramatic job at acting, and I can't help but enjoy whatever it is he does to make Billy stand out as a child with special needs.  At the end of the day he is a good friend and a brave little boy, two things which are great to have around when your life has become a horror movie.

I love Wendy Kaplan in the role of Tina, both Rachel (Ellie Cornell)'s friend and Jamie's subsequent protector.  Tina is such a likable and memorable horror movie character who adds not only personality to the movie but drama as well - she is a protagonist we absolutely find ourselves supporting and rooting for when survival becomes a struggle.  In many ways she is a personification of the rebellion, fashion, and carefree nature of the teenage girl in the '80s, and because of that she reminds me of Lynda from the original Halloween, who was a similar personification of a careless teenager in the '70s.

I warned you four movies ago, but Dr. Loomis (portrayed by Pleasence) is just awful in this movie.  His character is almost completely off his rocker at this point, making him crazed, annoying, and just frightening especially in any interactions he has with Jamie.

Michael has changed in this movie, making him even more distant as a character and persona than he was in any previous film.  I'm happy with Don Shanks' brute size and body type because it makes Michael naturally intimidating.  Body language is alright, and while I don't think it's quite right or as good as the first movie, I think we sense more rage and sometimes desperation.  The mask seems different once again, and I don't like how the hair looks puffy and dumb or how the mask is wide and loose around Shanks' neck.  On the other hand, it seems somehow more blank, paler, and void of expression.  I'm always shocked when the mask comes off in this installment as well.  Certain events such as these lead to an obvious humanization of the killer, which is complicated as far as horror movies go because especially with the Halloween series I have read that there have been problems with viewers identifying more with Michael than with the protagonists.  Something interesting to think about.

Aside from his appearance, the creative team has changed Michael's character here.  Instead of solely focusing on the pursuit and murder of his relative, Michael goes out of his way to kill off other characters who at times are completely uninvolved with Jamie's plight.  Not only are there a handful of unnecessary deaths, but all of the murders in this movie are more gruesome and gory - which is always fun, but clearly done to satisfy the '80s audiences who were suffering from a slasher overload at this point.  Still, you have to admire the extra-bloody murders done not only with hands and knives, but with sharp garden tools, a pitchfork, a scythe (my favorite), and even a good old hanging.  Many of these extra murders of teenagers are done almost in support of my cardinal rules regarding naughty and misbehaving teenagers.

I was frustrated with the dramatic change of the Myers' house.  Like you couldn't find a home near the filming location that was remotely similar?  I understand they wanted a larger house for filming purposes, and that they settled on a big and typically spooky Victorian, but this certainly hurts the series' continuity.  Aside from the house scenes, I really enjoy the barn and field settings at Tower Farm, which truly helps us feel like we are in Illinois/ the Midwest in late October, even if things look pretty green...

What was with the dopey duo of comic relief cops?  It was so unlike any previous Halloween film, and while I thought they were funny I thought their little bozo-the-clown-like background music was completely unnecessary, cheapening the final product of the film.  I've read that this was in homage to Wes Craven, so I'll have to investigate first hand in a later review.  The '80s were a confusing time.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The plot here is pretty straightforward, and even similar to repetitive at this point in the series.  We're starting to rely more and more on the 'idiot plot' for the film's action to make sense: why didn't they check for Myers' body after the explosion?  Why don't they move Jamie as far away from Haddonfield as possible, even if only on Halloween, just to be safe?  Where in the world are the parents?  If characters have heard that Michael can't simply be killed like a normal human, why do they remain close to his body after he goes down?  Why won't Jamie stay in the car when the cop tells her to after they hear a large explosion?  Such is the life of a horror movie.  One thing this film does provide (but leave unanswered) is WHO is that mysterious man in black, and why do he and Michael have the same unexplained tattoo on their wrists?  Now we'll have to stay tuned for the next film to find out (although this would take quite some time for audiences between 1989 and 1995).

While I enjoy this movie, I think it's safe to say that the Halloween franchise was getting drawn out - though not quite desperate - after more than a decade of films.  Halloween V, to any viewer not familiar with the series, would seem like any typical '80s slasher only without a reason behind the plot's events.  Luckily this movie has its prequels and sequels to help support it.

Final critique:  We're not done with the marathon yet, and there is still more terror waiting to plague Haddonfield.  This movie has its fair share of suspense and bloody murders, but all in all it's a fun Halloween classic that really puts us in the mood for the holiday.  With a pretty simple plot, acting that isn't horrible, and some fulfilling murders, I'd recommend this movie for anyone that isn't a huge scaredy-cat or queasy at the sight of blood.  The remaining Halloween movies of the '90s and 2000s add some modern twists and even refreshing humor to their standard horror plots, so when you kick back to watch Halloween V, soak it in as the last true and pure installment from Halloween's younger years.

Halloween IV (1988)

"The Return of Michael Myers"

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Dwight H. Little
Studio:  Trancas International Films
Starring:  Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, Donald Pleasence
Tagline:  Horror has Returned to Haddonfield
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Ten years after the events of the first film, we learn that Michael Myers did, in fact, survive the events of Halloween II.  Upon learning that his sister Laurie - who has since died in a car accident - had a daughter, Michael's evil is reawakened and he breaks free while being transferred to another hospital.  Meanwhile, it is Halloween in Haddonfield, Illinois, and the young Jamie Lloyd (Harris) is simultaneously dealing with her parents' death as well as nightmarish images of a man in a mask.  When she and her "sister" through adoption, Rachel Carruthers (Cornell), go out for a simple night of trick or treating, they soon loon that Jamie's uncle really is the boogeyman, and that he has come back to kill.

Out of all the Halloween movies, I think I have seen Halloween IV or Halloween V the most.  That being said, there is something special about them for me, and I really enjoy watching and re-watching them.

First of all, how can't you love Danielle Harris?  She does a tremendous job as a child actress in such a crucial and demanding role.  Her screams never get annoying, and even her crying is believable.  From simple lines such as "Double scoops?" to more serious lines like "Please come alive!  Don't be dead.  You can't be dead!  Come alive...!"  How great is the script writing there?  The success of the movie is crucial on Miss Harris, and she delivers more than we could hope for an average child actor to do.

Also doing a great job is Ellie Cornell as Jamie's adoptive sister Rachel.  She is a strong leading female who keeps her head and is able to protect Jamie even in times of panic.  Finally after the feminist critiques on the first several films I hope we have some approval here while following the plight of two fantastic leading ladies, who are both young.  Even Donald Pleasence doesn't have as big of a role in this movie as he had in the first two.  I can never forget the final scene of this film when he [annoyingly] shouts "No!" at least 9 times.  I guess we've been expecting this since the first movie when he starts to go downhill in the sane house.  Which is funny, since he's the only character who seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to Michael.

Speaking of which, I like Michael (George P. Wilbur) in this film even though he seems somewhat more distant and shallow.  The mask seems to have changed a bit, and in this installment it looks even paler and plainer, making the killer more detached and absent from humanity and more intent on his evil deeds.  He is more bloodthirsty in this movie, no doubt do to the increasing popularity of basic slashers throughout the '80s, leading him to kill various people along his way from the mental hospital to Haddonfield.  I don't think we even seen any deaths by knife in this movie!  Instead, we enjoy death by sheer force of hand (particularly gruesome), crowbar-ish tool, rifle (though not via shooting, which would be too simple for a force such as Michael Myers), and more.  Unlike the first two films where Michael only killed whoever stood in his way, now he seems to be killing whoever crosses his path.  What is more, Michael himself is now older and more physically damaged; we constantly see his horribly burnt skin, making him seem more like a monster.

The original Halloween theme music has undergone an '80s update in this synthesizer-full sequel, but in many ways I think that makes it even more urgent and frightening.  While the original piano piece is haunting and beautiful, the quicker tempo and sharper electronic notes in Halloween IV make it scary and annoying, therefore stressing us out whenever it plays (due to sound and not only the sights of Michael pursuing his next victim).

By this point in the series I've noticed the strange recurring theme of absent parents.  With horror movies we have the basic 'idiot plot,' where the events of the movie depend on every character acting like an idiot ("What was that noise?  Let me go check the scary basement," etc), but in the Halloween series the characters' parents always seem to be missing when things take a terrible turn in the homestead, which should be a place of peace and safety.  In the original Halloween, like where were the Doyle's and the Wallace's that they were out late enough for the children to be asleep but not for partying/ trick or treating hours to be over yet?  Likewise, in this movie, Rachel (and now Jamie)'s parents are out all night when Michael attacks.  Furthermore, Sheriff Meeker (Beau Starr) just leaves his house when Michael arrives, thereby leaving all the people inside to become victims.  Lastly and most generally, we are told that Laurie Strode (now Laurie Lloyd) and her husband are dead, leaving them obviously absent.  What critique might the filmmakers be making?

On the note of absent parents, how terrible is the scene where Jamie is teased at school?  It's actually one of my favorites, as the mean children switch from "Jamie's uncles the Boogeyman!" to "Jamies an orphan!  Orphan!"  It's so awful it makes me laugh.  A penguin has never looked so mean.  Miss Harris does a wonderful job running out of school upset in slow-motion, acting like a little adult more than a child.

Another thing I like about this plot is the reaction of the citizens of Haddonfield.  Mob mentality is pretty much always an awful thing, especially when it is at the hands of gun-wielding old men who have been drinking.  It's almost realistic that innocent people are killed in this film as pandemonium spreads.  Let's hear it for Illinois and the Second Amendment.

Fun fact:  The character Jamie is named after Jamie Lee Curtis!

Final critique:  I really do like this film.  10 years after the original is an appropriate time for Michael to come back, and I like that his lineage has been extended to an adorable little girl.  Since it has been 7 years since the release of the last film centering around Michael, the horror world had been subjected to plenty wait and Halloween IV greets them with a great delivery.  Michael is back, and it seems that, once again, no one can stop him.  I recommend this movie to anybody looking for a good movie to watch around Halloween; it isn't too scary or too gory, but it has its suspenseful and frightening moments making it sure to please.

Halloween III (1982)

"Season of the Witch"

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Tommy Lee Wallace
Studio:  Dino De Laurentiis Company, Universal Pictures
Starring:  Tom Atkins, Dan O'Herlihy, Stacey Nelkin
Tagline:  The Night No One Comes Home
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, thriller, mystery, mad man, evil scientist
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  C+

Plot overview:  At the beginning of the film, we see a distressed Harry Grimbridge (Al Berry) running away from a mysterious car and a group of men in suits.  When he later arrives in a hospital, he is brutally murdered by one of these suited men while still clutching a Silver Shamrock mask; his killer later commits suicide in the parking lot.  Extremely suspicious about the night's events, both Dr. Dan Challis (Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Nelkin), daughter of the recently deceased man, follow a trail of clues back to the Silver Shamrock factory.  As happenings around town become more dangerous and suspicious, Challis and Ellie realize they've stumbled upon a massive plot that could kill millions on Halloween night.

Okay, okay, so Halloween III: Season of the Witch is like the awkward and challenged sibling that no one likes talking about.  Still, I'm dedicated to the series and to my marathon, so it had to be done.  While this is the only Halloween film that doesn't revolve around Michael Myers, and therefore the only one to stray from the general slasher/ stalker plot, it's still related in certain motifs.  First of all we have the basic concept of the mask: how the wearer hides him or herself from the world, or in this case what hides itself inside.  Secondly and perhaps even more basic than the mask we have Halloween and Samhain as the day in which all the horrible action takes place or is planning on happening - this series really is focused on Irish mythology and curses, huh?  Next, late in the film we are treated to some of the original music from the first two films, although we do not hear the main theme.  Lastly, astute viewers will have enjoyed the brief allusion to Halloween as it appears on TV, therefore fictionalizing all of the first two films' events and setting this movie in a different and maybe more real (or not) universe.  While this film, then, is certainly different, that doesn't mean it's automatically worse.  It does that on its own accord.

The plot has a few holes, but if we accept it's ridiculousness we can enjoy a silly '80s horror film.  From the beginning we are shown on the news that a pillar has been stolen from Stonehenge: could this possibly relate to the plot later on?  Otherwise we have an unexplained murder/ suicide tracing back to a suspicious toy factory and factory town filled with security cameras and odd men in suits.  And I know I can't be the first person to realize this: but when we realize the diabolical plan seems to be taking plan nation-wide at a certain time.. we just have to remember America is a bigger country than that.  Lastly, in most horror movies the killer's motive isn't necessarily always clear - and in fact sometimes it is terror for the sake of terror or for fun - but in this movie, I'm like, 'Yo dude, what's your next step should this whole plan work out?'  Even if it goes smoothly, it would only be a matter of time til everyone finds you and stops you from doing anything else.

With Tom Atkins in the lead role I sometimes felt like I was watching Lethal Weapon or even an episode of Magnum P.I. instead of a horror film.  He and his mustache are very '80s, but I guess I still enjoyed watching him try to solve the mystery and foil the villain.  His chemistry with Miss Nelkin, who I think I liked more, is enough to keep us rooting for them as they meddle too far into a plot involving toys and world domination (or something like that?).  I can't imagine that feminine critics like this film (not that they could be fans of too many horror movies) because we're (a) presented with a male protagonist who is a doctor with a drinking problem; (b) a helpless but strong-willed female protagonist searching for papa who ends up sleeping with the leading man after a few hours of spending time with him;

*SPOILER ALERT*

(c) said female doesn't make it out alive, and (d) sadistic masculine audiences are, at the finale of the film, presented with our male protagonist physically beating a robot version of the leading lady to death; (e) lastly, the main villain is a charming old man (representing patriarchal capitalism) whose main goal is to murder millions of children; not only is he worse than the conditional love of a father, he stands against everything maternal.

Still, Mr. Conal Cochran (O'Herlihy) presents us with a really great antagonist.  Again, his evil plot is a little too sci-fi for me, but he has done a lot for himself as far as creating an army of robots with superhuman strength and then harvesting the ancient and evil powers of Stonehenge goes.  I like his character though, not only because of his accent but because he really is just a polite old man on the outside, when in reality he has to be crazy and is clearly very controlling as we see the cameras all around the factory and town; he is almost omnipresent.  Also, the man is hellbent on murder just millions of kids: like how mean can you get?

It doesn't take a genius to see the film's obvious criticism on American consumerism and capitalism running society.  When Cochran reveals his whole plot, the biggest problem he has with the children is that society has perverted them by turning a glorious harvesting of crops and living sacrifices such as Samhain once was into a commercial holiday (run by the mask and candy companies), aka modern American Halloween.  The Silver Shamrock jingle - which may be the one thing you remember about this movie years after seeing it - is a perfect example of the monotony and sheer annoyance of modern advertisements.  There's a lot of 'modern' technology involved in this film, too, if you care to draw any warnings from that.

What this film lacks in sturdy plot or credibility it makes up for in gruesome murders.  Those robot guys are ruthless!  Unlike our friend Michael who loves his knives, in this movie we see death by electric screwdriver, bugs, snakes, crazy laser beams, and of course a few murders at the hands of the very strong robots.  I like when that one nurse jokes about how a normal person doesn't just gouge out someone's eyes and then crack their skull.  Oh, really?  I thought that was the normal procedure.  Anyway, this movie is hardly 'scary' - though filled with jumpy moments - but these deaths certainly helped its score in that department.

Final critique:  Okay, so this isn't the best film in the Halloween series.  A lot of fans were let down when this came out because they missed Mikey Myers - but hey, if they were trying to make an anthology I say go for it.  Luckily they realized what the fans wanted, and they also realized with Myers they really had a horror gold mine.  Most people could handle watching this movie because it isn't that scary.  Squeamish viewers should cover their ears or eyes during some of the murder scenes, which are creative, a little frightening, and pretty gross.  At the end of the day, you have to give this film some credit for its association with the Halloween franchise, for an attempt at a wild plot, and for some pretty foul deaths under a really evil antagonist.

Halloween II (1981)

The nightmare - and my marathon - continues.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rick Rosenthal, John Carpenter
Studio:  Dino De Laurentiis Company, Universal Pictures
Starring:  Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence
Tagline:  Just When You Thought it was Safe to Go Trick or Treating; The Boogieman is Back
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Picking up precisely from where the first film left off, it is still Halloween night 1978, and Michael Myers (Dick Warlock) is still on the loose.  Laurie Strode (Curtis) is moved to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital for the injuries she has suffered while Dr. Loomis (Pleasence) and the police search the town for the killer.  As more clues are revealed as to why Michael has returned, Loomis realizes the killer is headed to the hospital to finish what he started.  Laurie, unaware of Michael's objective, must once again fight for her life.

Ah, a very '80s sequel to a wonderful first film.  While this movie doesn't stand up to the first, it's still a good watch and an important puzzle piece as we learn more about Michael Myers' psychosis.

What did I tell you in my last entry about Donald Pleasence?  Already in the first few minutes of this movie, Loomis is paranoid and annoying, and it seems more like he is yelling at people instead of helping them find and stop Michael.  Our Doctor even begins to lose it a bit, as he becomes more gun happy and reckless.  This character development will be important for him in later movies, as the foil between himself and Michael develops further.

Miss Curtis does a pretty good job in this film, once again playing the final girl, although this time she is given less to work with.  I'm still a fan of Laurie this time around, and without children to worry about protecting we see the young girl go into survival mode as she tries hiding in and escaping from the hospital.  Towards the end of the movie, in fact, Laurie must fire a gun to defend herself from Michael.  His resulting injuries cause him to bleed from the eyes of the mask, which clearly is symbolic of tears as the complicated relationship between Michael and Laurie (and later Jamie) is explored.  But just when we wanted to know more about Laurie and why Michael wants her as a victim, however, it's goodbye from the franchise for now, see you in 20 years.

I like Michael less in this film.  First off, the mask is already worse (understandably having undergone damage in the first movie).  It's dirtier, rougher, and doesn't have the same effect of giving Michael his pale, expressionless appearance.  It's also a bit wider throughout the movie, making our killer look almost comically pudgy in some scenes.  Secondly, actor Dick Warlock plays 'the Shape' with much firmer and more restricted body language, not that Michael should be dancing around, but in this movie he doesn't even use half his joints like a normal person.  In my opinion this makes him too stiff, more like Frankenstein's monster instead of something truly terrifying.  Furthermore, was it me or did it sem like in this movie Michael's footsteps match up with the beat of the music?  I really hate that because while I think his long stride is one of the scariest things about him, making his signature slow (but covering a lot of distance) steps almost a choreography to the music is cheesy.  Lastly, we already see the killer getting more creative with the deaths.  Surely this was done to satisfy the audience, and I mean I'm all for that (to an extent) because simple stabbings would get boring after a while.  Well this isn't Michael's first time at the rodeo, and he's graduated from a chef's knife to hammers, scalpels, syringes and other hospital supplies, and even tubs of boiling water.  Though I must say, the scene where the nurse is water-boarded in the scalding-hot pool just landed itself high on my list of best all time murders.  Needless to say, the victim of this brutal murder was breaking one of my cardinal rules, so imminent death was no surprise.

While we do get to see some of Haddonfield's public reacting outside the Myers' house in this movie, the majority of the film's action takes place inside of the dark rooms and long, twisting corridors of the hospital.  I like this change already from the dark, suburban houses and streets.  We as viewers feel more restricted, having already been made uneasy by the graphic (but everyday) use of syringes and needles early on in the film.  Ultimately we can't help but experience Laurie's plight, feeling as though we, too, are trapped in the hospital while a masked killer is in close pursuit.  But no worries if hospitals give you the creeps, it'll be back to the classic Midwest outdoors in later films.

The theme music in this installment was a little bit jazzed up and I didn't love it.  There was something strikingly '80s added this time around that perverted the simple terror of the main melody.  Still, as this franchise seems to do so well (so far), music and sound are placed very well throughout the film to build up a lot of suspense (there was much more in this film than in the previous one) and ultimately to scare us.  One of the scariest details in this movie might have been that darn orange buzzer/ light that was used to page the nurses in the hospital.  Like tell me you didn't jump both times that went off.

More on the soundtrack: as I mentioned in my review of the 2007 remake of the original Halloween, this is the movie that has the charming song "Mr. Sandman" play a couple times.  I love this song, and while its placement seems odd at first, if you listen to the lyrics in the context of the film they take on a much darker meaning in which we can picture Mr. Sandman as being a boogeyman character like Michael instead of some nightly wish-granter.  And if I might beat the dead horse, they further ask for a man with "a lonely heart," wavy hair, and a specifically designed pair of eyes - Michael's most distinguishable features are the empty, black eyes and the mask's unkempt, brown hair; of course it is up to us to assume that the killer has a lonely heart if he has a heart at all - which I think he does as certain scenes between him and Laurie (later Jamie) invoke pity.

*SPOILER ALERT*

As is natural in a sequel, Halloween II allows us to explore the characters with greater depth.  Laurie is exhausted, injured, and scared, and she finally asks the prize question "Why me?  I mean, why me?" which I thought she delivered very well.  In a dream she finds herself reflecting on her childhood and imagines seeing the young Michael locked up in the institution we saw him in during the first film.  As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Loomis is also becoming more exhausted and reckless, ultimately leading him to seemingly sacrifice himself in order to destroy Michael.  And, of course, we are given some plot behind Michael's madness in one simple Celtic word: Samhain [Sowin].  As Loomis explains, this is an ancient Celtic tradition taking place around October 31st marking the beginning of the dark part of the year, invoking themes of the dead, death in general, and evil.  Furthermore, and here's the real kicker, a classified file on Myers is opened by the governor revealing that Laurie Strode is adopted, and that in reality she is Michael Myers' younger sister.  Plot!  Don't things make perfect sense now?  And one other thing, you know what I can help but wonder:  what would happen if Laurie just gave up and Michael killed her?  Would he stop?  Would he drift back into a catatonic state?  Just a sad, dark thought as to what your responsibility is if you were to ever realize a killer is after you.

A small detail I loved in this movie involves the body that looks suspiciously like Michael Myers that gets killed after the car crash/ explosion.  Any good horror fan should realize that the real killer wouldn't die that easily (or anticlimactically).  Furthermore, any good Halloween fan should pick up on the name drop later by two teenagers who are worried about their missing friend: Ben Tramer, who was 'very drunk and wearing that stupid mask.'  Loomis' stomach drops as he realizes an innocent teenager has been killed, but Horror Buff's face lights up.  Remember Ben Tramer?  While he wasn't actually in the first movie, his name pops up several times because he is the boy Laurie has a crush on and with whom she ultimately has potential plans to go to the school dance.  Like what bad luck.  You're just some innocent kid who Laurie Strode happens to like, but then her *unknown* brother comes back and starts killing everyone, and then you get pinned in between two exploding cars.  It doesn't get much worse than that, especially when you're a character whose face the audience never even sees.  And that, horror fans, is what happens when you drink underage.

Final critique:  This isn't the best movie in the Halloween franchise, and I think it's safe to say people are aware of that.  Still, that doesn't make it a bad movie, and I'd recommend it as practically a classic for this time of year.  The most important purpose this movie serves is to fill us in on why Michael Myers is set on killing Laurie Strode and also what might have driven 6 year old Michael to insanity 15 years ago.  More so than the first film, Halloween II feels like your typical '80s horror/ slasher with the quick shots of nudity and wide array of murders with whatever tools are on hand.  Compared to modern horror films, this movie isn't too 'scary,' but it certainly has it's jumpy moments and gruesome deaths.

Stay tuned as the Halloween marathon continues.

Halloween (1978)

Get ready for a marathon.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John Carpenter
Studio:  Compass International Pictures
Starring:  Donald Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis
Tagline:  The Night He Came Home; Everyone Is Entitled to One Good Scare
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer
Scare score:  B
Rating:  A

Plot overview:  In this original, first installment of the Halloween franchise, we see a 6 year old Michael Myers stab his sister Judith to death on Halloween night, 1963.  Following this act, he is institutionalized and put under the watch of Dr. Samuel Loomis (Pleasence), who believes he is far more dangerous than anyone else realizes.  15 years later on Halloween Eve, 1978, Michael escapes from his hospital.  Dr. Loomis is convinced that Michael is heading back to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois to continue wreaking havoc.  Meanwhile in Haddonfield, the shy and innocent teenager Laurie Strode (Curtis) is preparing for an uneventful night of babysitting.  Little does she know that her uneventful night will soon turn into a struggle for her life once Michael - called "The Shape" - begins to stalk her and her friends.

I love Halloween, I love Halloween, and I love Halloween.  Whether we're talking about a holiday, a movie, or a franchise, I am a huge fan.  Having already rated this film's relatively successful remake, I decided to dedicate this final weekend before Halloween to a Halloween marathon.  Have you ever seen the word Halloween written so many times in one paragraph?  Tis the season.

First off, I like this movie more than the remake not only out of respect, but also because it is shorter and more simple.  Yes, yes, we know how important Psycho is for its progress in the slasher genre, but the original Halloween is the mother of the modern stalker/ slasher bit.  This is a movie I find myself constantly looking forward to watching, especially during this time of year, and also a movie I find myself enjoying every minute of while watching.  It's just such an easy and sweet example of what a horror film is and should be like, more or less.

Plot is straightforward with a small surprise that duller audience members may not have picked up on yet.  I imagine that in the '70s this movie could only have been more thrilling, though for modern audiences it might be reaching a point of distance (station wagons? pants that flare out?).  Still because the movie focuses on the plight of Laurie, the concern of Loomis, and the driven evil of Michael, we aren't distracted by unnecessary details.  Can't say the same for some of the other films in this franchise. What we know for sure is that Michael has come home, and for some relatively unknown reason he is out to get the innocent Laurie.

Onto acting.  I am a big fan of Jamie Lee Curtis, one of the first "Scream Queens" in American horror cinema following her successes in this franchise.  I've read that while filming this first installment, she thought she was going to lose her job because of poor acting, but on the contrary John Carpenter hailed her work.  While I think that Scout Taylor-Compton makes a modernized Laurie a lot more realistic in the remake, I can't help but like Curtis in this original.  Laurie is your average, shy, smart high school girl.  Imagine a smart quiet girl from your high school being thrown into a mess like this with some unstoppable serial killer - as far as I'm concerned Laurie stands out from other potential victims.  I love Laurie's group of friends, especially Lynda (P.J. Soles), and aside from comic relief they are important in that they present the contrast needed to make Laurie more likable.  Both Annie (Nancy Kyes) and especially Lynda are louder, cruder girls who are depicted as more popular with boys, using drugs, drinking, and having premarital sex (...and breaking my cardinal rules).  Laurie on the other hand is quiet, hardworking in school, dedicated to her babysitting jobs, and too shy to talk to the boy she has a crush on.

Once the horror starts, Curtis does a nice job balancing between freaking out in a quiet, withdrawn manner and giving us our fill of screams.  Perhaps it comes as no surprise that she was ultimately the right choice for this role as her mother is Janet Leigh of the timeless Psycho.  I'm a bit critical of how brave she is because I know that I, for one, would run as fast as I could out of any room where I had just impaled a masked killer with my knitting needle (or drawn out hanger, or other phallic items).  Still, her dedication to the "babies" (I love when she calls them that), AKA ~11 year olds Tommy Doyle (Brian Andrews) and Lindsay Wallace (Kyle Richards ... er, Kyle?), is admirable as she protects them at all costs from "the Boogeyman."

I like Donald Pleasence in this movie.  He grows a little more annoying in later films, but we'll get to that later in the marathon.  He's a good protagonist for us to follow as he helplessly tries to warn everyone else ("society") about the true danger of Michael.  Hopefully they'll listen now that three teenagers and a dog are dead.  Not to mention the countless dollars in broken windows, potted plants, and closet doors.

Isn't Michael (Tony Moran, Nick Castle, and Tommy Lee Wallace) great in this movie?  I always like coming back to this film in order to compare how much Michael grows during the franchise.  In this film, which chooses dim lighting and scary music over gore and blood, Michael's debut as a masked murderer is much more calm and, again, simple.  A good strangle followed by a classic, large kitchen knife (his weapon of choice) is the killing pattern from which he really doesn't stray, unlike in later films where murders start becoming overly creative.  Michael is simply animalistic in this film, doing what he needs to survive and carry out the murder of his intended victim Laurie.  He walks slowly, breaths heavily, and is stopped by nothing.  I especially like that we don't even really see him until over an hour into the film, at which point is still takes some time for us to see the mask.  Lastly, it always surprises me when we see his face in this movie when Laurie pulls it off during a struggle.  It's important that she is the character to do it, but otherwise it's almost like sacrilege, except that I guess Michael is the embodiment of evil and all.

The way in which this movie is filmed adds plenty of terror and suspense.  I really enjoy any scene where we are put behind Michael's mask and forced to see what he sees and he watches and waits.  Furthermore, the unsteady camera movement in chase scenes make us feel uneasy, as though we, too, are running away from certain death.  The film is wonderfully dark (just enough so that I can still see), making extreme gore unnecessary (how times have changed).  I have to admit that while watching the movie last night my power went out, and I couldn't say I was too happy about it.  Added effects, I guess.

Also, I have a confession to make.  I have probably seen this movie a million times.  While that is an overstatement, that is not my confession.  What I realized while watching the movie last night is that I had never seen the extended version before.  I was so used to seeing this film on TV that I found myself watching a handful of scenes I never knew existed, shame on me.  Now I can happily report I love the whole thing.

Fun facts:  The iconic mask was made by director John Carpenter from a Captain Kirk mask he modified only a little bit.  Honestly, Google "Captain Kirk"and you'll never look at him the same way again.
Kyle Richards, the young girl who plays Lindsay Wallace, is the aunt of Paris and Nicky Hilton.

Final critique:  This is a must see horror film.  If you can only watch one horror film in your entire life (what a boring life that would be), make it this one.  Michael Myers is the ultimate evil, and in his debut here he is untouched by over the top killings and poorly created masks.  Jamie Lee Curtis presents us with a scream queen who is not only a lovely leading leading, but an admirable "final girl."  John Carpenter's hauntingly iconic theme and well-placed scares make a wonderful balance of suspense and shocking delivery, which in 1978 is untainted by modern splatter fests.  Lastly, in honor of next year's 35th anniversary since the film's release, Halloween has been rereleased into theaters starting TODAY. Go see it.  That is all.