Latest product :
Recent product
Tampilkan postingan dengan label October Extras. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label October Extras. Tampilkan semua postingan

October Extras #32 - Halloween (1978)

OCTOBER 31, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The creepiest moment in slasher history.

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #31 - Halloween 5 (1989)

OCTOBER 30, 2007

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

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

Way to start the review off interesting, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #30 - Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers (1988)

OCTOBER 30, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)
LAST SEEN: 2005 (?) (DVD)

I remember it vividly... October 17, 1989. I was mad at my mom for renting Halloween 4 instead of The Great Outdoors. “I haven’t seen the first 3” I told her. She said it wouldn’t matter (now that I think about it – it’s kind of odd that a mother would make her kid watch an R rated horror movie instead of a PG comedy, but whatever), so I decided to give it a shot. On my way downstairs to watch it, I slipped and fell down the last 5 stairs, hitting my arm on the marble foyer (eerily – pretty much at the exact moment, the San Francisco earthquake occurred – and no that’s not a fat joke. I’m not even fat!). Assuming the sharp pain running up my arm would go away, I sat down and tried to watch the film. Right around the point where Loomis first appears, I asked my mom to take me to the hospital, which she wanted to do in the first place (I was afraid she’d be mad if it turned out to be nothing).

As it turns out, my arm was broken. I got a cast and went home, watching the rest of the film at my grandmother’s the next day. And while I liked the film, I had no idea that I was getting my first taste of a franchise that would come to pretty much be synonymous with my love of movies (not just horror). While I obviously would have loved to have seen the original without “knowing” that Laurie was Michael’s sister (then again, I am pretty sure the first time I saw the film, it was the TV version that pretty much said as much anyway), I think 4 is a great place to start, as it represents the best of both worlds. It works as a slasher movie; there are a number of deaths in the film, some of which are even a bit gory; but it also works as an homage to the benchmark that the original set. Many will disagree, but Halloween 4 has the most emphasis on suspense over “action” out of any of the sequels, and has decent character development to boot. Dwight Little is easily the best franchise director since Carpenter (and he wasn’t even matched in the ones that followed, let alone topped); the scenes of Rachel and Jamie running around Haddonfield looking for each other are fantastic, drenched with atmosphere (something sorely missing in the other films), not to mention an actual feeling that the film is on Halloween.

Loomis is even more batshit insane in this one (not as much as he is in the next film though), so there’s plenty to enjoy there. He’s seemingly learned from his mistakes (first thing he does is ask the cops to call the TV and radio, something he advised against in the first film), and he’s got a lot of his more memorable lines here (including the immortal “You talk about him as if he were a human being. That part of it died years ago.”). As Brackett’s replacement, Meeker (Beau Starr) is a perfectly good substitution, with little bits of dialogue and character action that help his scenes come to life (necessary, since he’s got to do a lot of the same things Brackett did, right down to finding a dead dog with Loomis).

And of course, the rednecks. Haddonfield seems to be a bit “too” Midwest in this film, as none of the others ever gave off the impression that the little town was populated with such types, but that’s OK. Red, Earl, Al, etc. are a blast, driving around town with their shotguns, half drunk and shooting poor Ted Hollister. Of course, seeing the film with a big crowd makes the scenes even more entertaining, as everyone cheers their fairly ridiculous actions (the scene where they “posse up” is pretty much the funniest thing in horror movie history. “S’go wake up the sheriff!”). And Bucky... well what else needs to be said about him?

You also gotta love the horribly mean little kids Jamie goes to school with. “How can she [make a costume], her mommy’s dead!” “Jamie’s an orphan!!”, etc. Christ! Then later, she even hangs out with one of the little bastards! I’d fucking curbstomp the little prick. Then again, their parents are obviously assholes as well, as they go around town picking up their kids, leaving poor Jamie all alone. Nice.

Some folks dislike the mask in this one, but I’m not sure why. I think it’s pretty creepy. The hair is maybe a bit too neat, but it’s far superior to the ones in the last 2 sequels at any rate, not to mention 5’s ridiculous one. Someone pointed out in one of my other reviews how insensitive it is that the town would carry the mask at all, which is something I never really thought about, but now that I am, I think it’s great. Also, in a brief note about the town’s history – Rachel has a friend named Lindsay and Brady’s buddy is named Tommy... could be Wallace and Doyle, respectively, right? I always think of them that way, anyway.

The DVD projection, as expected, looked pretty bad, and the sound was seemingly in stereo rather than 5.1 (or even faked surround sound), but that’s OK. It was a blast seeing the film projected larger than life, and even though the crowd was nowhere near as big as it was for Halloween III the other night (not to mention last year’s screening of the original), I’m still glad I chose it over some of the other local revival options tonight (such as Nightmare on Elm St 2!).

Of all the sequels, only two of them really felt like they got what made the original work (that would be this and H20), emphasizing suspense and character over kills and gore. And while H20 was dampened by two annoying characters and some now-dated “Scream” style attitude, 4 remains as effective to me today as it was when I first saw it as a kid. And it was pretty much all downhill from there. It’s not a flawless film (I still haven’t a fucking clue what is happening when Loomis shoots at Michael at the gas station) but the last thing you can accuse it of is being lazy. Little and writer Alan McElroy (and the other 3 guys who worked on the story, presumably) really put in the effort to make a film that lived up to the original, and I think they more or less succeeded.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #29 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

OCTOBER 29, 2007

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (DVD)

Whenever someone talks about their experiences with horror movies as a young kid, I always point out how my mother, bless her, had no problem with me watching them, and even rented Texas Chain Saw Massacre for me when I was like 6 or 7. Now, of course, any Friday the 13th film is more violent, and the irony is that TCM is the type of film that works better on someone with a bit more intelligence and understanding of the way the world works than a 6 year old (I probably thought the movie was boring as a kid). But still, it’s worth noting.

More than any other film in Hooper’s career (and certainly more than the sequels), Chain Saw is a genuine classic that stands far above almost any other horror movie ever made. And of course, it cost less and was, production wise, more limited in its resources than any of its rivals. Everything about the film borders on perfect: the way that the film actually sells the hot Texas heat; the hilariously depressing radio news in the beginning that mixes stories about death and destruction with typical stories about oil and the government, which further sells the film’s light social commentary; the 16mm footage... it’s all flawless. Plus, there’s even some of the oddball humor that the sequels reveled in, particularly in the gonzo graveyard scene, and the gas station (the guy who keeps going back and forth to the van to wash the windshield kills me every time).

Pay attention Zombie – You can be disturbing
as fuck without one iota of violence.

Also: FRANKLIN. God I love this guy. He looks and sounds like Meat Loaf, whines about just about everything, and seemingly has no little voice in his head that tells him when to shut up (due to non-interest on the listener or just plain “who cares”ity). “BOOM! SCHLIPPT! BOOM! SCHLIPPT!” And the scene where he freaks out and begins spitting all over the place is possibly more terrifying than any of the scenes with the Sawyer family. The poor sod appears in the execrable 4th film as well, but let’s not damn him for it.

The new DVD release (from Dark Sky) sort of pisses me off. In addition to a truly botched 5.1 mix (several sound effects are actually MISSING), they tried too hard to “clean” the film. Look, it’s SUPPOSED to look grainy and raw! I’m all for anamorphic transfers (which the otherwise superior looking Image release did not have), but the excessive attempts to make the film look “pristine” sort of backfired. Unless you have a widescreen TV and absolutely hate using the ‘zoom’ feature, I strongly urge sticking with the other releases (there’s been like 4). The strange artifacting that results from Dark Sky’s attempts to “clean” the film in Sally’s chase (from Franklin’s death up to the gas station) alone is inexcusable.

Ignoring all that stuff though, the film works no matter what. The sounds of the camera’s bulb flashing at the beginning is probably one of the most iconic and terrifying sounds in horror movie history, and I don’t think anyone in the world didn’t at least jump when Leatherface slams the sliding door early on. The abrupt ending (another scene that looks WORSE on this alleged “remastered” release) is perfect editing, ending on the exact right frame of Leatherface’s little tantrum that manages to leave you both unnerved and relieved. And of course, the dinner scene (which the remake wisely avoided restaging) pretty much set the standard for any sort of psychological torture scene in movies since.

There are no exceptions – if you’re a horror fan, this film’s in your top ten or so. It delivers on everything a horror movie requires to be successful.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #28 - Scream 2 (1997)

OCTOBER 28, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2004 (?) (DVD)

The only time I ever dressed up for a movie was for Scream 2. And by dress up, I mean: “Wore my Ghostface mask in the lobby for a few minutes”. This was also the days when I didn’t care about spoilers... I had read the script beforehand and even asked someone on their way out if the killer in the script was the killer in the movie (note – it wasn’t). Needless to say, I was pretty excited for the film.

I wasn’t let down too much, and over time I have grown to really like the sequel, almost as much as the original. It’s not as clever as the first one was (though you gotta love a sequel in which characters try to think of sequels that surpassed the original), but it’s still an effective slasher (the 3rd film was neither). And it contains what I still consider to be the most horrifying death in slasher history – Randy. Everyone loved Randy (particularly me, who, like the character, was a movie nerd who worked at a video store and was in love with Neve Campbell), and even now, having seen the film probably half a dozen times, I still sort of hope he’ll survive this time around (imagine if “Navigational Cinema” was employed in a film that was actually good?). His death also results in a true slasher movie rarity – a character’s death actually resonating. There’s a scene shortly after where Sidney says that she could call Randy’s mother, only to discover Dewey already took care of it for her.

Dewey’s character isn’t as dumb in this movie, and his role as Sidney’s sort of big brother/protector is a nice touch. How he manages to survive AGAIN is pretty baffling, but I cheered (along with the rest of the theater) all the same. Also, his “theme” is none other than the amazing Broken Arrow theme by Hans Zimmer. Apparently, they used the score during editing as temp music, but everyone liked it so much that they actually licensed it. As great as the music is, it’s sort of distracting. It happens a lot in films, but usually in an ironic manner (such as having the Darth Vader music play over the introduction of a goofy villain); when it’s a more or less serious situation, the borrowed cues are rarely recognizable, at least to me.

One strange, never fully explained concept was that the killer(s) in this film were killing people with the same names as the victims in the first film. It’s dropped and never mentioned again as soon as it’s brought up, and damned if it ever made much sense to me. Plus, how the hell did they manage to find a couple who happened to share the same names as Sidney’s mother and Casey’s boyfriend? Why strain credibility if you’re not even going to really do anything with it?

Otherwise, solid stuff here. I liked most of the characters (except Debbie Salt, but I guess that’s sort of the point), and there are some terrific set-pieces (particularly the Dewey and Gale in the film building chase) that rival anything in the original. Like the Saw films, Scream 2 came out a year to the day after the first one, so it’s even sort of more impressive how well it came together. Especially when you consider that they took 2 and a half years to make the third and it was total shit.

Oh, and David Warner shows up.

The DVD has what has to be my favorite TV spot of all time. Eschewing almost every possible reference to the killer (or even horror at all), the spot just sort of makes the film look like it’s a romantic thriller about Jerry O’Connell and Neve Campbell’s characters, with O’Connell saying things like “I am here for you!” and Neve looking all damsel-y while Collective Soul yammers on about flowers. Yet it still has the same “SCREAM 2, RATED R!” voiceover that accompanied the more truthful spots. I highly urge you to check it out. This is back when TV spots were a standard feature on special edition DVDs, something that has been sort of phased out over the years (as has listing “3D Motion Menus” as a goddamn special feature, thankfully).

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #27 - Halloween III: Season Of The Witch (1982)

OCTOBER 27, 2007

GENRE: CULT, TECHNOLOGY, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (!!!!)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (DVD)

I must credit the source of today’s October Extra to Ryan Rotten of ShockTillYouDrop.com, who informed me of a theatrical screening of my beloved Halloween III: Season Of The Witch right here in LA. I skipped multiple parties and had to listen to Game 3 of the World Series (which the Sox won, wooo) on the goddamn radio in order to attend this rare event, but I have no regrets at all.

More than probably any other entry in the series, III deserves to be seen with a big crowd and on a big screen. It’s such a delightfully odd and mean-spirited film, there’s no way one could TRULY experience it without the film being presented larger than life, in a room full of appreciative fans. As many times as I have seen the film, I never noticed the totally fake fireman hat in the early hospital scene until it was magnified and pointed out by an audience member. Go back and watch the scene (widescreen version only) after the guy blows up at the hospital, and keep your eye on the fireman on the left. It’s breathtaking in its cheapness.

Also, come on people, let’s be honest: Tom Atkins is Oscar-worthy here. From his rampant hitting on of every woman who crosses his path, to his utterly horrified reaction to a generic cartoon playing at the bar (the one he frequents so much that his co-workers “said he could be found here” – keep in mind he’s a doctor), to his ass scene, the crowd cheered almost every time he appeared on screen. The scene where he calls his wife and tells her he has to go to some medical conference before grabbing a six pack and heading off to visit a mask factory with some chick he just met a few hours before (and of course, nails a few hours later) is possibly the greatest scene in any Halloween film.

Which brings us to the most controversial aspect of the film: the total lack of Michael Myers (something that escaped Roger Ebert, who, in his review, claimed that “the film begins where II left off, with the killer being immolated in the hospital parking lot” – dumbass!). Since we see clips of the original in the film, we are to believe that III exists in the “real world” (if so, I need to buy more 6 packs and make up more medical conferences than I already do), despite retaining the Halloween name. Everyone by now knows that this was Carpenter’s intent all along, to make a different film about Halloween every year, but he was vetoed by the money men and thus left the franchise after this one, and the “franchise entry” Halloween 4 was made, apparently by the people who survived the likely apocalypse at the end of this film. The long running argument is “If they didn’t call it Halloween I would probably like it”, which just speaks volumes as to how ignorant people are. If The Godfather was called “Horse Head In A Guy’s Bed”, I’m pretty sure it would still be a great movie.

Back to the film itself and how amazing it is. Let’s see, we got a kid’s head turning into snakes and insects because a computer chip with a piece of Stonehenge inside it reacted to an epileptic TV commercial, and... well really, what the fuck else do you need out of a movie? Atkins’ ass has already been mentioned.

The film’s most memorable contribution to pop culture is of course, the Silver Shamrock theme. Set to the tune of London Bridge, it is simply impossible to watch the film and not sing along to the ad (which we hear about a dozen times) at least once. Carpenter and Howarth’s score is one of their best collaborations (love the main theme over the computerized pumpkin assembly/credits), and even a die hard Myers fan would be hard-pressed to claim otherwise.

One thing I don’t get about the movie is the timing of the “Big Giveaway”. So this tiny mask company somehow convinced all major networks to show Halloween at the same time across the country (starting at half past the hour no less), and everyone was watching it? At one point, Cochran is told “they” are getting a 41 share, so maybe he owns all the networks and just chose not to sink any of his money into a more impressive factory.

But who cares. I love this movie, and watching in theaters with a couple friends and 30 other like-minded folks was one of the best theater experiences I’ve had this year. Another friend didn’t understand why I would pay 10 bucks and miss out on a party to go see a film I have on DVD (twice in fact) – but people like that just don’t get how important the theatrical experience is in terms of enjoyment. I almost feel bad when I see a film (especially one that wasn’t direct to video) for the first time on DVD. And revival screenings such as this are even more fun, because you get to sort of see the film for the first time again.

I usually never censor my comments, but I will make an exception here – anyone who posts “This movie sucks because there’s no Michael Myers”, even to be sarcastic, that comment will be deleted. I want good feelings and love here! Myers or not, there’s nothing anyone can do to convince me that any of the last 4 films (though H20 I can go either way on) is somehow truer to the spirit of Halloween (the film or the holiday) than III. BUT, if you can explain in a way that has nothing to do with Myers, or the title, why this film is somehow bad, I am all ears. Or, eyes, I guess, in this context.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #26 - Saw III (2006)

OCTOBER 26, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (THEATRICAL)

At this point in the Saw franchise, I am beginning to have trouble choosing a favorite (or least favorite) among them. Like Saw II before it, Saw III is so entwined into the storyline of the previous film, it’s hard to single it out for any one characteristic (good or bad). Like the others, it has its pros and cons, but nothing so major that sticks out.

As for the good: Bousman’s direction has improved (though the film is very dark at times, everything seems more fluid, and the blue tint to the Jigsaw scenes is about the only thing in the film that can be considered distinguished), and the acting in this film is across the board good (having a classy kind of guy like Angus MacFayden certainly helps). And, while it doesn’t specifically say how long it’s been since II, Amanda (Shawnee Smith) has grown her hair out, and she looks as good onscreen as ever. Also, she must have some amazing healing powers – in II all evidence of her jaw injuries from the original were gone, and now, after having her head repeatedly bashed into a wall by Matthews, her face is flawless. (UPDATE - Saw IV reveals that the time in between is about 6 months)

Also, the Jeff character is probably the series’ best, and his ‘test’ in turn is probably the most compelling. Unlike Detective Matthews or the guys in the original, Jeff is a tragic figure, one we can firmly sympathize with. And while the film is the most violent/graphic in the series (at times approaching the sort of pointlessness the franchise is often unfairly accused of, especially in the overlong brain surgery sequence), most of Jeff’s tests have genuine psychological aspects built into them (such as when he has to burn his son’s toys in order to save the other guy), making them vastly more interesting.

However, as said, the film has a bit too much plain ol’ torture. Before we really begin the plot, we are subjected to THREE torture scenes, including the death of one of the series regulars (and the last “good guy” to appear in all of the films to that point). The tests are overly graphic compared to the previous films, and while this sort of makes sense in the grand scheme of things (Amanda’s “cheating”), it doesn’t make it any less excessive. It’s worth noting that this is also the first Saw film to include nudity, which doesn’t really add anything to the scene if you ask me (is liquid nitrogen LESS terrifying if you have a blouse on?).

Also, the end of the film, while a nice surprise, contains far too much flashback during the big reveal, to the point where I feel I am being treated like an idiot. They literally flashback to things we saw just moments before, and more than once. Plus, I think by now the people watching Saw movies kind of know they have to pay attention, which even further eliminates the need for such lengthy “reminders” (incidentally, this is the longest film of the series as well). And it gets even longer! I do not have the new "director's cut" DVD, only the original unrated one (what if someone wanted the theatrical version?). Bousman told me to my face that this one wouldn't be double-dipped, so I refuse to buy it, even if I am intrigued by what is different, since it runs about 6-7 minutes longer (which would suggest the added stuff is more than just gore). But I am a man of principle, dammit! Also, I don't have time to watch it again.

The most impressive thing about these films is how relatively well written and plot hole free they are, considering how quickly they are made, not to mention how much they have to remain consistent with in order to sell the “Jigsaw Puzzle” aspect of the film in relation to the previous ones. Tomorrow I will be seeing part IV (the first in the series that neither Leigh Whannell or James Wan had any part in), I am curious as to how well the new writers do with all the multiple storylines, not to mention the death of Jigsaw himself.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #25 - Saw II (2005)

OCTOBER 25, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: FEBRUARY 2006 (DVD)

One of my favorite stories to tell (at least, to fellow horror fans) is the time I went to some convention and met Leigh Whannell, Darren Bousman, and Shawnee Smith at a signing for Saw II. A guy in front of me had a copy of Armageddon for Shawnee to sign (she’s in it for like 17 seconds), and as she did, Whannell commented “That is the worst movie of all time.” Naturally, I immediately told him he was wrong. We debated Armageddon vs Commando for some reason, while they signed my poster. After walking away, I looked and saw that both Whannell and Bousman had signed it commenting about Armageddon (Bousman confessed to kind of liking it). I framed the poster and hung it on my wall, across from my Armageddon poster (which contains no autographs concerning Saw II, sadly).

Anyway, the funny part of the story (well, comparative to the rest of it) is that I hadn’t even SEEN Saw II yet. It had come out right when I moved to LA (literally, the day of, meaning as of tomorrow I will have been here for two years, since they come out the same weekend every year), and as I was unemployed for a month (and barely employed for another 2 after that), I didn’t feel the need to spend what little money I had on a sequel to a film that I didn’t really care for (it has since grown on me, as evidenced by yesterday’s review). But Bousman and Whannell were so funny to listen to I figured I should check the film out, so I rented it that night.

I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it a lot, and I still do (originally far more than the original, though now I put them about even). As most fans know, the script was originally written as another film entirely, and then reshaped into a Saw sequel. So it’s pretty impressive how well they fit together (even revealing a nice bit of backstory concerning Dr. Gordon). Bousman’s direction is different enough from Wan’s to give the film its own look, but not so much that it’s not recognizable as the same franchise (he even copies the idiotic ramped up driving shots from the first film). Clouser’s score is even better this time, and the acting is good (or at least, better) across the board.

This film also gave us a real introduction to Jigsaw. He’s only in the first film for like 30 seconds, but here he gets a lot to do, and his confrontations with Donnie Wahlberg’s character are the best in the film. Also, the well-aging Dina Meyer’s role is bumped up (she’s also in the first for only a minute or so), and Shawnee looks a lot better without half her jaw bleeding. It’s more violent than the original, at times excessively so (seems like this time, some people HAD to die in order for the plot to work, which is not the case in the original). The Franky G character is a horrible invention, and while having a house full of people who are at odds with each other as much as their common enemy is a well-worn plot device, it doesn’t make him any less wretched (he’s also the weakest link acting-wise). Naturally, he lives the longest of all the people who eventually die.

As with the first film, the 2-Disc DVD is pretty jampacked, and I don’t have time to go through it all. I did play the little DVD-ROM game for a little bit, long enough to see a "Saw 2 in 62 seconds" claymation thing that was pretty funny. Some day, I will devote myself to the entire Saw franchise’s extras (hey, if I made it through all four discs of Fellowship of the Ring AND Pearl Harbor, I can make it through Saw 1-3 at least), but rest assured it’s no ripoff like Windtalkers was (where the 2nd and 3rd discs contained less than 2 hrs of extras combined), as it contains a wealth of info, plus a nice little piece in memory of Gregg Hoffman, producer of the films who died shortly after the film was complete.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras # 24 - Saw (2004)

OCTOBER 24, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: NOVEMBER 2004 (THEATRICAL)

Like being green, it’s not easy to review a film like Saw. On one hand, it’s a clever, well-written, mostly original horror movie with a truly great villain (even if we never really see him in this one) that helped bring “hardcore” horror back, paving the way for Hostel, the Hills remake, etc, not to mention stateside releases of UK films like The Descent and High Tension. On the other hand, it contains some truly bad editing and some of the worst acting ever seen in a theatrical film.

Let’s get the bad out of the way, since the good luckily outweighs it. Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell start off OK enough (the first 15 minutes are the best in the film, as they solve some simple puzzles, working together. It’s a great opening), but their final few scenes are jaw-droppingly atrocious. I don’t know what it is, the rest of the actors are fine (I’ve even warmed to Danny Glover’s over the top performance), so it’s not that James Wan is like George Lucas, incapable of getting good performances out of otherwise dependable actors. And while I can’t speak for Whannell, I know Elwes (who resembles John Morghen himself in this film) will never win an Oscar, but he’s at least usually believable. Maybe he was too busy thinking about how he was going to sue them over his salary. If anything, they should sue him for nearly killing their film.

There’s also some questionable ramped up editing segments (particularly the ‘car chase’ near the end) that do not work at all. Amanda’s flashback is OK enough, but the guy crawling around the broken glass covered in flammable gel looks like something out of Tool’s "Sober" video. Luckily, this style was more or less weeded out in the sequels.

I also remain puzzled as to how 2001 and missile defense systems fit into Jigsaw’s plans:

Otherwise it’s solid. Whannell’s script is quite clever and pretty unique, and it’s pretty unfair that some dismiss the film as “torture porn” when it A. has a pretty complex story, where the kills DO in fact serve the narrative, and B. has only about 5 minutes of violence in the entire film (most of it self-inflicted, to a degree). I also enjoy how they play with the audience’s understanding of time (something the 2nd film was more or less built upon). Besides, I can’t recall another movie “Killer” whose motive was trying to get folks to appreciate their life (though I do have a vague memory of someone pointing out a predecessor in this category – anyone? Or am I confusing it with someone else?). Also, the way the film is layered is equally impressive, giving earlier scenes another meaning when watching the film a 2nd time (an effect somewhat diminished by all the flashbacks to them, but still). And Charlie Clouser’s score is incredible (as are his scores for Wan’s subsequent films, in particular Death Sentence).

Also, it’s been so long since I saw the film that I had forgotten (well, actually, never “knew”) that Ben Linus/Henry Gale himself plays the red herring killer! Oh Lost, when the fuck will you come back (editor - February).

I have the two-disc DVD, and haven’t gone through any of the extras (other than the short film, which Wan edited himself, which I wish he did on the feature). As I am watching all 3 films to prepare for the 4th, I think I’ll be pretty “Saw”ed out, but if anyone has suggestions for the rest of the extras (i.e. NOT the cast and crew sitting around talking about how much they love working with one another) let me know, I’ll try to find time. Otherwise, it’ll probably be years before I revisit it again. Damn time and my constant lack of it! Maybe next year I’ll do “Horror Movie DVD Extras A Day”

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras # 23 - Horrors Of Spider Island

OCTOBER 23, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)
LAST SEEN: 2004 (MST3K)

Like Track of the Moon Beast, today’s October Extra is one I have both seen several times and never at all. Horrors Of Spider Island was one of the last episodes in the 10th (final) season of Mystery Science Theater, and it was a particular gem. With some exceptions, the monster movies always seemed to be funnier than the crime dramas and such that a lot of episodes featured (the one with Angel’s Revenge is a completely unfunny episode, as is the 10th season’s odd German version of Hamlet).

Of course, again, this one’s funny even without Mike, Servo, and Crow riffing along with the film. But it also contains several important lessons/tidbits that any living man, woman, or child should know:

  • If you need to foreshadow a plane’s engine burning out, cut to a giant wave.
  • The quickest way to Singapore from Los Angeles is through New York.
  • When bitten by a giant spider, men will turn into hairier men.
  • If a plane catches fire and loses radio contact, there is “no reason to fear the worst”.
  • Excessive heat will cause men to cheat on their girlfriends.
  • Whistling can keep women from being afraid.
  • Models have to be told when to sleep and drink.

Actually that last one might really be true.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #22 - Severance

OCTOBER 22, 2007

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, BRITISH, COMEDIC, SLASHER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: JANUARY 2007 (PRESS SCREENING)

Man, I love Severance, and I am really bummed it didn’t open wider. It’s a perfectly enjoyable comedy/horror movie, and I think it would have gone over well with American audiences, despite its British origins.

Also, Laura Harris is nonsensically cute.

This movie had a lot of laugh out loud moments for me, though the horror scenes are done just as well. I wasn’t a huge fan of Christopher Smith’s previous film, Creep, but I could see he had talent as a director. Which is probably why this one, which was written by James Moran (with additional writing from Smith), turned out so much better. I don’t know who wrote the funniest lines (“You found a pie?”) but whoever it was deserves an award for some of this stuff. There’s a scene where everyone is understandably panicked due to seeing a masked man outside their window, and one character says “OK, you and Jill go up the hill...”, at which point he stops and giggles to himself about his unintentional reference. Stuff like that kills me, and there are plenty of similar dry jokes throughout the film.

One of my favorite things on South Park is when they introduce a ridiculous concept that everyone assumes to be one of Cartman’s lies, and it turns out to be true. For example: when he is convinced Kyle carries a key around his neck that unlocks a chest full of “Jew Gold”, or when he tells Token that he can play bass simply because he is black. Well Severance has a few of these as well (non-racist ones in fact!), and they were just as funny the 2nd time around (the bear!!!). I’m not sure if there’s a particular name for this type of joke, but damned if I don’t wish there was a lot more of it in movies/TV. Some of the humor goes a little too far into broad territory (particularly during the dinner scene where everyone offers a theory as to the history of the lodge they are staying in), but luckily it’s usually restrained and thus funnier.

As for the horror (and action – the last 20 minutes of the film are more Rambo than Eye See You), the film is just as well done. Smith stages some terrific gore gags (not always mixed with comedy), and even elicits a genuine scare or two in these sequences. My only real concern was the sheer AMOUNT of bad guys that are introduced near the end. It seemed a bit much, though luckily the film has earned so much goodwill at that point that it was easy to forgive.

This hit DVD last week or so, and I didn’t even know about it. Like its theatrical run, it had very little promotion, which is a damn shame. I urge you all to check it out at your earliest convenience, as it’s a rare horror-comedy that works in both categories.

Also, again, Laura Harris is ridiculously cute.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #21 - Dawn of the Dead (2004)

OCTOBER 21, 2007

GENRE: REMAKE, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: DECEMBER 2006 (DVD)

Ah, yes. The Dawn of the Dead remake. A.K.A. the movie that made me remove my foot from my mouth and apologize (not to anyone in particular), not to mention automatically give every remake since an “I’ll wait till I see it until I pass judgment” stance. See, the original Dawn is my 2nd favorite horror movie, after Halloween, and the very thought of a remake appalled me. “Fuck you, guy who wrote Scooby Doo and guy who may one day direct the most blatantly homoerotic movie of all time” I was quoted as saying.

But then I went to see the film. And within 15 minutes, I was not only willing to accept it as a remake of a classic, but I was genuinely enjoying it, a lot. I can’t recall for sure, but I’d go so far as to say that it eventually became my favorite horror movie of the year (I can barely even recall another 2004 horror movie though. The Grudge?).

A big part of the film’s success goes to James Gunn’s brilliant decision to just retain the concept (“Zombies in a mall”) and NOTHING ELSE from the original. He understood what Rob Zombie and so many others have not – the only way your remake of a classic, beloved film will work is if you allow the audience to get lost in YOUR film. How can I get into the Halloween remake if every 5 minutes or so I am seeing a copy of a scene from the original? That’s not a concern here. Literally nothing is repeated in terms of scenes or events, only the occasional line or two (“When there’s no more room in hell...”).

Besides that, it’s also a genuinely good zombie movie. Ignoring the fast vs. slow zombie debate (For the record though, I find slow zombies scarier, sort of the same way that a dull knife is more dangerous than a sharp one), one cannot deny that the film has plenty of new ideas, and some great comedic moments. The scene in the elevator where Mekhi Pfifer has to keep hitting the door to keep it from closing is a perfect mix of tension and relief, and Andy (a character whose fate is truly sad) and Kenneth’s shooting game is a hoot. There’s also some great black comic stuff, in particular the chainsaw death near the end of the film that ranks as one of the best kills in all zombie movie history (and it doesn’t even involve zombies!).

Also this:

And this:

What's to dislike?

Also, the character development is pretty good, especially considering a. how many characters are in the film and b. how fast it moves. Jake Weber’s Michael is a more well-rounded character than anyone in the original, and the early scenes with Sarah Polley and her boyfriend feel very natural. And CJ, who begins the film as a total jerk and ends up being our core group’s most useful ally, is another great character. Unlike the original, there are no “hero zombies” to speak of – they are pretty generic (made up for by the sheer amount of them).

The DVD (unrated) version is superior to the theatrical as well. Not because of the added gore, but because it adds a scene that explains what seems like a truly idiotic moment in the theatrical. When they first arrive at the mall, they go in out back, after a brief zombie attack scene. This scene was omitted from the theatrical, so it looked like they enter the mall by throwing a toilet through a store window from the outside. Why this scene would be cut is beyond me, but then again, this is the same studio (Universal) that tried to make The Return look like a generic ghost movie.

Many have decried the film for excluding any of the social commentary/satire of the original, but like The Hitcher, I don’t see why this is a problem. If you want commentary, watch the original. I don’t believe there’s any law that says a zombie film has to be a metaphor for some larger issue. Some have also put it down by claiming it’s just an action movie with zombies, but that’s, if anything, total hypocrisy – the original has a large shootout between gang members and cops, a car racing around the mall, a big stunt-filled finale with another gang, helicopter and truck sequences... it’s just as much an “action movie” as the 1978 one. Plus, look at all the good that came from this film’s success: Romero finally got the dough to make his own 4th Dead film, the game Dead Rising (the parking garage/tunnel areas of the game were obviously inspired by the scene shown above) is one of the best horror games ever, and Gunn and Snyder went on to make further contributions (Slither was one of 2006’s best films, and Dawn + 300 = Watchmen, finally) to the genre. Hell we even got a 4 disc release of the original.

This year I have met both Gunn and Snyder, and told them how they got right what so many others have gotten wrong (I actually called Snyder an asshole for making the film so good that it gave me hope for Halloween 2007 – a ‘compliment’ I’m not sure he understood, and I don’t blame him): they took someone else’s concept and title, sure, but they made their OWN film. It’s not necessarily better or worse than the original – it’s too different to make an accurate comparison. I think both are great for what they set out to be, and it’s a damn shame that Rob Zombie, John Moore, Neil LaBute, and Alexandra Aja (among others) failed to follow their lead.

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #20 - Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

OCTOBER 20, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: NOVEMBER 2002 (DVD)

For all the shit I give Halloween: Resurrection, it’s really not as horrible as I say it is. I once considered it to be the worst slasher film ever made, but I’ve seen many this year (many beginning with the word “Dark”) that are far worse. Where Resurrection fails is not as a slasher film, but as a Halloween film.

Offering the least amount of Halloween atmosphere in any of the films to date (even Zombie’s remake was more successful in this department) and forgetting its own goddamn history (the stuff Howard says at Smith’s Grove is almost entirely inaccurate) is almost forgivable, but the fact that the film is so far removed from what made the original film work is not. It’s even more insulting when you consider that, as far as Dimension is concerned, this is really Halloween 4, not 8 (since 4-6 are ignored and III is in another, well, dimension, entirely), and a direct sequel to one of only two films in the franchise that truly did try to live up to the standards John Carpenter’s film originally established.

Instead, this film is more or less a standard dumb kids slasher movie, complete with sexual hijinks in totally inappropriate situations, nonsensical deaths (there’s like 3 beheadings in this one), an almost total lack of suspense (though to be fair, they DO try a little near the end), and, ironically, a total lack of motive for Michael. Yes, he had no motive in the original and that’s part of what made it work. But that’s no longer the case. Now it is firmly established that he is just out to kill his family. So why, after killing Laurie in the film’s first (and best) 15 minutes, does he focus his attention on a group of college kids who are hosting what would otherwise be the world’s worst reality show in history? They are trespassing? Then why didn’t he kill the folks who spent so much time setting up fake skeletons in the basement and non-stale fennel (you got me) in the kitchen? Why wait until like 10 people were there? Was he just looking for a challenge?

Like all the sequels, there are some random elements from the other films in (mostly botched) attempts to tie it in thematically with the others. Our Final Girl talks about fate with her professor (played by Rick Rosenthal, who with this film became the first and likely last director to come back to direct another in the series); Howard wears a clown mask not totally dissimilar to the one Michael wore when he killed Judith; and the house actually does somewhat resemble the one in the original (a far cry from the gothic mansion in part 5). Well, B for effort I guess, but the rest of your movie still reeks of being written by a machine that read the Wiki entry for the original film.

And what the fuck is with the mask in this one? It looks it has makeup on. I guess it’s a step up from the one in H20, but otherwise, Christ. It’s funny how much people rag on the one in 4, it’s probably the 3rd best in the whole series.

Of course, no review of this film is complete without some making fun of Busta Rhymes. Well, he’s awful. Everyone knows that. He talks to himself constantly, making absolutely no sense half the time; he says mutha-fucka with just about every line (sometimes twice); and yes, at one point he even “pwns” Michael, in a scene so asschristingly idiotic I actually cheered it when I first saw the film in theaters (it remains the only midnight movie I ever attended in which I stayed awake for the entire thing – I was so aghast I could barely even blink), because I was amazed that anyone, even a goddamn soulless Dimension executive, allowed such trash to be shown to the public.

Of course, this movie was so bad that it literally ended the franchise as we know it, resulting in the remake. So you can either blame or thank Resurrection, depending on your feelings for Zombie’s film. Personally, I wish I could just forget that neither this nor the remake ever happened, and that the series ended on a relative high (or at least conclusive) note with H20, but I don’t have that bad of a memory. If Eternal Sunshine technology ever becomes a reality, you can guarantee that this thing will be 2nd or 3rd on my list of things to wipe.

(1st, of course, would be Dark Ride).

What say you?

{[['']]}

October Extras #19 - The Hitcher (2007)

OCTOBER 19, 2007

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: JANUARY 2007 (THEATRICAL)

Look, you know what? Fuck you. I like The Hitcher remake. Can you really blame Jake Wade Wall and Eric Bernt for dropping the homoerotic subtext of the original and replacing it with a female lead (especially one as mind bogglingly cute as Sophia Bush)? Look at what happens to any horror movie nowadays that includes a dose of subtlety or metaphor: They tank. Personally, I think catering to an audience is fine every now and then, as long as it’s enjoyable. Like the saying goes "Steak is better, but every now and then, you want a Big Mac."

Like McDonald's, the film is delicious even though you know it's crap. Besides, any moment Bush is onscreen, the film is more than simply watchable, and as it gets more and more ridiculous (where the hell does that dropped car come from?), it just gets more and more hilariously fun. I don’t think anyone involved thought to make any sort of realistic or thought provoking film, so why should it be dismissed because it isn’t? I don’t think I need to point out again that a film simply being a remake isn’t nearly enough of a reason to hate it. And come on, can anyone honestly say that The Hitcher II had more respect for the source material? At least this movie has the good sense to cast an actual actor in the role of the Hitcher, instead of the son of a guy whose real life persona is pretty much the model of such types of characters.

“Wilson!!!”

I’d like to dedicate the next paragraph to the movie’s “memorable” soundtrack. First off, Steve Jablonsky’s score is actually quite good (sadly unavailable on CD), which was a nice surprise since his work on The Island was god awful (one thing a Bay film will otherwise always have is a memorable, powerful score). But it’s almost obliterated by the licensed music peppered liberally throughout the film. We begin with what appears to be a 10 minute version of All American Rejects sing-along “Move Along”, and when it finally ends, we soon thereafter hear a radio DJ say “Here’s a classic from David Soul” (!!!) before “Don’t Give Up On Us Baby”. Then there’s some obscure David Gray/Matthews tunes, and finally the film’s raison d’etre – a laugh out loud action montage (one that’s already ridiculous enough) set to Nine Inch Nail’s “Closer”. Hilariously, at the first screening I went to (I saw this 3x in theaters!), director Dave Meyers told the crowd that they had just finished the film the day before. I asked what the last thing was, and he said it was securing the rights to use the song. Considering that it was the final straw for many of the people who saw (and ultimately disliked) the film, I found this to be some delightful trivia. And hey, there’s your homoerotic subtext – the “I want to fuck you like an animal!” line comes right as the Hitcher drives his car directly into a cop’s, PENETRATING him if you will. Happy now?

The movie is also occasionally intentionally hilarious. The gas station attendant is a particular highlight, and Neal McDonough’s colorful profanity (“You gotta be five finger fucking me!”) is always a delight. And there’s some nice black humor, such as the blood spattered children’s book titled “Will I Go To Heaven”. And the “I’m horny” line/response more than makes up for the film’s one major scene omission from the original (the diner scene).

If the film has one real flaw, it’s the guy playing Bush’s boyfriend. He’s not bad, but he’s very bland (sort of a 2nd date Jared Padalecki). If they wanted an average looking guy with messy hair to play a guy who drives a car and is in love with Sophia Bush, I can certainly think of at least one better, likely cheaper, option. Also, Bean doesn’t get to really chew the scenery as much as I would have liked – only in the film’s final 20 minutes (particularly in his interrogation scene) does his casting really pay off.

Also this. Seriously, how can you not like this movie?

The DVD is sans commentary, which bums me out as I enjoyed listening to Meyers talk at the screening/junket, and I think he’s definitely one of the better music video directors to come along in a while. Say what you will about the script, but you can’t tell me the film isn’t stylish and well made, nor is it hyper-edited or hand-cranked to the point of incoherency, like the films of many of his peers. Granted, it’s pretty difficult to NOT make the southwest US look beautiful, but his and DP James Hawkinson’s work here is still far above average. Instead, there are some alternate endings of no real difference, and some other fluff. Then again, since I like the film solely for being mindless fun, I guess I can’t complain that the DVD features aren’t exactly Shakespearean.

Like the Dawn of the Dead remake, some folks trash it simply for ignoring the subtext of the original, but here it seems more apparent since they are sticking so closely to the beats of the original film (so much that original writer Eric Red, who had nothing to do with the remake at all, is given screenwriting credit instead of the usual “Based on characters created by” or whatever credit). I can give it that, but really, that’s not the film they are making this time around. This is a popcorn “ride” of a film, stripped of all pretense, designed solely to entertain. And it does. For me, anyway. At least they didn’t spend half the film explaining why the Hitcher killed and then having him act in a manner that contradicted those reasons in the other half.

What say you?

{[['']]}
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. blog baru buat - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger