Posts Tagged ‘slasher’

April Fool’s Day [2008]

April Fool’s Day [2008]

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

Well, I feel privileged, because the one thing that could ever hope to make this movie part watchable is perhaps watching it on the exact day it takes place, that is, April Fool’s Day 2008 lol. If you haven’t seen the original production that this is a remake of, then it’s possible you might get the one-hit kick off it that I seem to remember I might have as an impressionable 11 year old or whatever age I was when I snook a watch of it with my brother many years ago. On the other hand if you have seen the original, then you know how it’s probably the most pointless and stupid cheat of a horror movie ever made, no matter what its cheese value may be.

I’d been misled into thinking this remake had made big changes in the ending and as soon as I got wind of this, clicking around the ‘net as the movie began, I immediately stopped browsing for fear of spoiling the surprise. Unfortunately, aside from an admittedly hilarious genuine jolt, there’s really no change here. It takes a full 38 minutes to really get going – the pacing is way off, everything up the the graveside scene could and should be covered in 20 minutes max – once it’s in the zone, it works as a direct-to-video slasher I guess, but what kind of praise is that? It has a very tacky plastic 90210 shiny TV people feel to it which is strangely appropriate.

I’m a sucker for event-relevant viewing options and coupled with that one little shocker at the end I can’t entirely dismiss it … but, meh, I’ll be going to the ’86 production on this day in the future …



Black Christmas [1974]

Black Christmas [1974]

Thursday, January 3rd, 2008

I’m gonna come clean here and say, I actually watched this last week but I really couldn’t bring myself to review it because my response was so utterly non-existent compared to what I’d heard about it over the years. It’s directed by Bob Clark, who made A Christmas Story years later, a movie I was similarly underwhelmed by compared to its reputation.

So, I’ve seen it twice now. I get that it was 1974, it preceded all the slashers we all think defined the genre etc, like it even has the POV thing 4 years before Halloween. But, y’know, I’d always pegged Psycho and Night of the Living Dead and Peeping Tom for doing many of these things anyway. It’s better than the remake, I’ll give it that, but, having given it the second chance I give few movies that disappoint me, I’m really still just as I was after the first watch. It gets a little creepy just as they’re realising the killer is in the house, etc, but really, I was close to falling asleep both times. Very disappointing indeed.



Halloween [2007]

Halloween [2007]

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

Typical. The idea was to watch the theatrical cut here but I got saddled with the “uncut” version which, if anything, contains more random fluff than the workprint I saw earlier in the year. Now, don’t get me wrong, I loved the extra bits then. My fear was that the “theatrical” cut would excise a lot of the young Mikey stuff which I loved so much, not least because of the incredible Daeg Faerch. Apparently this isn’t so, and if anything this “uncut” version is just too much. The workprint left something to the imagination, I felt, something I couldn’t put my finger on. This has a ton of stuff that could easily be removed without anyone noticing. If the theatrical cut makes things even more vague than the workprint while keeping all the young Mikey stuff, I still hold out hope for this being even better than I originally thought it was. For now, though, though the different ending here is a little too drawn out for me, I loved the mirroring of the “Laurie in the closet” sequence of the original, and her scream fading into the slides at the end was almost worth the meandering. I think this is one of those movies I’m going to find a lot more in each time I watch. The 2-disc DVD is definitely a must. More when I finally see the “proper” version, lol.

4th September, 2007:

Yeh, yeh, naughty naughty watched the workprint. Normally I wouldn’t mention the fact, but in this case I understand there are too many differences between this pre-release cut and the one that’s hitting cinemas for me to get away with it, lol. I’ll almost certainly see this when it comes out here, especially if it’s around or, better still, on Halloween (what’s with releasing it on August 31st anyway? lol I’m sure there are reasons but it can’t help looking like there’s an idiot in charge of the studio calendar, lol)

What I can say for now is that I did think this would be pretty damn good from the moment I heard about it – I personally didn’t like Rob Zombie’s House of 1,000 Corpses and I never got around to watching its sequel The Devil’s Rejects (definitely on the to-do list now, though), but I did like what he seemed to be trying to do there, and he seemed to be a perfect choice to remake this classic (yes it’s a remake, IMDb pedants, why does that word have to instantly make it bad?), and of course he made one of the more enjoyable contributions to Grindhouse (“Werewolf Women of the SS”).

I thought it’d be good … but not this good, not by a long shot. This thing made my skin crawl and neck hairs prickle like few recent horror movies – few horror movies ever – have. Zombie really sells the horror, as the best always have, through sound as well as images – many of them, along with the score, wisely taken practically unaltered straight from Carpenter’s original. Zombie’s movie is dirtier, shakier, yet almost a little studio slicker at the same time – I definitely want to compare it to the Texas Chain Saw remake (which I liked almost as much, again to my surprise) – its characters are more fully fleshed out than Carpenter’s exercise in simplicity (right down, of course, to his unforgettable minimalist score).

Whether this fleshiness is a good thing or bad thing, that’s the big argument people will have over this movie. I’m not too sure myself as yet (I don’t even know how much of this stuff remains, maybe they have butchered it to simplicity). On the one hand, I didn’t particularly want to see Myers painted the way these things so often go, “oh it was all in his upbringing you see – he was bullied, that’s why he killed,” etc, stopping barely short of fully excusing his crimes; on the other hand, the movie (in the workprint form, at least) does do this to an incredible extent (his first kill as an adult – and I’m told this has been removed from the theatrical cut – is an act of vengeance I’m sure few will frown upon; at the end, Malcolm MacDowell tells him in so many words, “It’s my fault, Michael; I let you down.”) but it barely bugged me at all. The ending (here, at least) has Laurie (played amazingly well by Scout Taylor-Compton, sometimes uncannily reminiscent of Jamie Lee Curtis in the original) crying over her brother’s body and it sort of reminded me a little of that weird emotional stuff that creeps into Prom Night (if my memory serves me correctly) at the end … it kind of works, but you kind of can’t quite bring yourself to let it in too far.

In the end, I feel like I can confidently say even of the as-yet-unseen theatrical cut, as an entry in the franchise, it works. The horror part, at least, definitely works, Zombie can do this almost as well as the old masters. The sound mix is terrific, the casting superb. The whole package has to be admired. I loved the kid who played the 10-year-old Myers, Daeg Faerch (so cute but so scary); there’s the cunning casting of Danielle Harris (who played Myers’ niece in parts IV and V and seems to have magically slowed her aging process somewhere in the mid-nineties, lol) as Laurie’s friend Annie; and how can you really argue with the replacing of Donald Pleasance with Malcolm McDowell?; in a nutshell, I’m astounded to read that anybody is disappointed by this, let alone so many … in my opinion it’s so much better than could’ve been expected that it practically tops the original. And I think they’d have to reshoot the whole thing with Renny Harlin to make it that much worse as I’ve heard in its official release format.



Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

Wednesday, October 31st, 2007

If it’s at all possible, Danielle Harris is much much better here than she was in Part 4 – unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the movie as a whole, though the ending, again, is fantastically cliffhanger-ish. As before, I kinda said all I need to say in the older review. I watched this so recently it was kinda just background this time around.

26th August, 2006:

This is actually sort of classy for 1989, although, like Part 4, it kinda goes on and on a bit towards the end. It doesn’t matter to me, though. Part 5 of an increasingly dodgy horror franchise (at least, at this stage of its existence) is the last place I personally expected find a great child performance (okay, the little guy in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is noteworthy), but Danielle Harris is even better here than she was in Part 4. I’d even go so far as to say it’s one of the best young performances I’ve seen, at least one of the most surprising. Donald Pleasance is back too, of course.

I’m kinda amazed most of these sequels seem to have passed me by. I guess it was learning of how much Part 3 was a non-sequel, just kinda put me off the others, aside from the awesome H20. It is also one of the rare horror movies to feature an element I personally find surprisingly effective in horror (the only other instance I can think of right now being Last House on the Left): the comedy cop …

“Somebody could be dead right now!”
“Fortunately we’re lousy cops!”

Bottom line, it’s worth watching. At least, more worth watching than I’ve expected all these years, and it doesn’t put me off keeping my eye out for part 6.



Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

Wednesday, October 31st, 2007

Watching this so soon after Halloween II this time, my only question was a basic “how the hell?” over Loomis, lol. One little scar on one side of his face? He was right next to a gas canister! lol. But to be honest, Pleasence is such a great actor, he does ultimately overcome the ridiculousness of his character’s return.

This movie has a great sound mix – I mightn’t have noticed were it not that I wasn’t too fussed about keeping my eyes on the screen having watched it so recently. It’s definitely a movie to just have on, whether you’re in the room or not, on Halloween night – I don’t think a second goes by where it doesn’t completely sound like a horror movie.

I think I said everything else I wanna say in the older review. I of course still feel the urge to repeat, Danielle Harris is soooo cute :)

24th August, 2006:

(this review was originally longer but I’ve been kinda abusing my computer recently and I lost it :-P )

Another horror sequel whose title doesn’t exactly demand attention, like Carrie 2 this one instantly lifted my hopes with a great titles sequence, all the fonts, colors, grainy film, etc, reminiscent of the original, Donald Pleasance in the cast, John Carpenter’s theme hinted at but not immediately in your face. I don’t think I’ve seen part 3 yet, but as far as I’m aware, it’s not necessary. Just as Part 2 followed on seamlessly from the original, part 4 picks up the same story 10 years later. It lags in the second half, but Danielle Harris is very cute and excellent as Michael Myers’ neice and the ending leaves you really kinda dying to see Part 5, which, by chance, BBC1 is showing tomorrow, so I’ll review that then :)



Halloween [1978]

Halloween [1978]

Wednesday, October 31st, 2007

I tried to write a review of this at the ass-end of my marathon last year but I couldn’t seem to help sounding a little disappointed. I think part of it is that I watched this movie a lot when I was younger and I’m just … sort of done with it – not that overviewing should ever taint a truly great movie; and also that, though it’d be a crazy person who didn’t recognise this movie as a classic, not just of the genre but of all cinema, this is a genre where the classics aren’t always the best.

Watching Rob Zombie’s remake earlier in the year, unlike others I was sure coming to it that there was room for a remake; watching the original now, I couldn’t be more certain. Zombie’s remake is at least as good as Carpenter’s original – making up for what is missing with stuff all its own – and in my mind honestly better for what it adds to Michael’s childhood (even over the short institution scene here, which had totally slipped my mind).

This was the “extended” version I watched this time, and the additions really leapt out at me so rare have I seen it compared to the original cut. Gotta love that pumpkin-like hearing room, and the “sister” scrawling on the wall – I like that there’s suddenly now at least a hint at the relationship between Michael and Laurie here. I think another reason Zombie’s version works better is that we’re more aware of what originally amounted to a twist in Halloween II.

Like I said, it is a classic. The steadicam camera work was not only groundbreaking (I know, it wasn’t the first, so don’t correct me – but it’s in my mind the most notable of the few firsts) but it actually looks as good as any steadicam work done today. John Carpenter’s score, also, is superb – I’d rank that higher in a list of great movie scores than I do the movie in my list of great movies. Donald Pleasance’s Loomis is almost as iconic a figure in horror as Michael Myers, and it’s all down to his performance (one element, I’m quick to add though, which they couldn’t have done better in substituting in the remake with Malcolm McDowell). Then there’s the breathing at the end. The one thing that still actually sends shivers through me. It’d be really great if they released it to the big screen again next year for its 30th anniversary – that could really give it power again. It is a classic. I’m just, I don’t know, always kinda tired of it.