Reviews

Other reviewers have pointed out that, in real life, the girls admitted their photographs were fake. So why does the movie say they were genuine? Well, actually the movie does not say that. Watch very closely. While some of the characters think the photos were real, there is a scene where it is made clear that the photographs were, in fact, faked.

The film merely maintains that the fairies *themselves* were real. Not the photos. Apparently the girls were unable to get photos of the actual fairies so they faked photos instead. That's the movie's point of view.

The idea, I suspect, was to tell the true story but without spoiling it for the kids in the audience.

Now, of course there are other alterations to historical facts... But that's typical for any movie based on a true story. Still, it's a fantastic tale with fun performances from the likes of Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole to name just a couple. It's also got a great tone, spirit and a really good soundtrack. Fairy Tale was one of my favorite movies of 1997.

Watch for a true cameo appearance (uncredited small role) by Mel Gibson.

In 1978, John Carpenter unleashed a horror classic. The story continued a couple years later when he co-wrote/co-produced (and composed the music for) Halloween II. It was a great sequel that picked up where the first movie left off.

Ah, remember how that first movie ended? The camera cuts to various locations where the story had taken place as the breathing of Michael Myers takes over the soundtrack. What an ending! It seemed to say, "The shape is still out there." He's unstoppable. Right?

Well, not according to this new 2018 sequel which ignores Halloween II and claims to be the "true" sequel. Now we're told Michael was recaptured that same night before killing anyone else.

Wait. What? So the boogeyman was... recaptured? That sort of ruins the magic of that classic ending to the original movie. I don't buy that Michael got shot 6 times, plunged out of a 2nd story window, walked away, then got recaptured.

No. The original movie made it clear. The shape is out there. Stalking. Prowling. Murdering. It took the events of the 1981 sequel to bring him down. Shooting both his eyes out and setting him ablaze. In my mind, THAT is what happened that night.

But if we are to accept the events of Halloween II, Michael and Laurie Strode are not brother and sister, as that film revealed. I know, I know. John Carpenter has stated in interviews that he never really wanted to do the brother/sister thing. Okay. Whatever. But he still co-wrote/produced the movie that introduced that idea into canon. It seems odd to wipe it out 37 years later. At least Halloween: H20 had the decency to keep Halloween II in the canon so the brother/sister relationship remained.

Furthermore, the entire legacy of Dr. Loomis (who returned in 4 sequels to battle Michael) is wiped from canon! Reduced to only the one meeting in 1978 that, we're now told, ended with this unlikely "recapture" idea.

Okay, okay. I've said my bit about the frustrating, constantly changing canon of the Halloween films. But what about Halloween 2018? Is it at least a good movie?

Well, it had some very good moments. All the sequels have had good moments. I'm not sure that justifies wiping everything else out and claiming this as the "true sequel." It's not THAT good. It's not a better Part II than Halloween II (1981). In my opinion, it's not even a better sequel than "Return of Michael Myers." Yet it callously wipes them out and acts superior. It's not.

You get a few suspenseful, well directed scenes. You get some of the better "funny banter" in this franchise's history (which improves the scenes with the teenagers, whose dialog in past movies ranged from okay to poor). And you get maybe one or two good kills (and a bunch of forgettable ones).

That's about all the good I can say. I left feeling dissatisfied, despite really wanting to love the movie. I paid top price for the best possible screening, hoping it would turn out to be the masterpiece critics and "early screener" fans were claiming it to be. But having seen it, I wonder if a lot of fans aren't "Phantom Menacing." After all, Carpenter is involved again as one of several producers and one of three composers. They were going back to the original sours and ignoring the lousy Rob Zombie remake. Great!

As a result, many fans were proclaiming this "the best sequel" several months before it even came out!

So we're supposed to cum in our pants because Carpenter endorsed it. I wanted to cum! But I didn't. Other fans did but maybe after the novelty wears off, they'll realize it was a premature ejaculation. See if you still think it's a "bona fide classic" in ten years. Remember, MANY fans said the same about H20 when it came out. It was, "Finally, a real sequel!" Where are those fans now?

Finally, I just gotta say this: Those critics who are saying this movie "broke new ground" are clueless. It is NOT the first slasher movie to feature strong female leads with no man rescuing them. I can name SEVERAL classic slashers where the lone surviver was female. It's a common trope. The "final girl." So those saying, "Finally" and, "It's about time" are just ignorant of the genre.

Having said that, it was obvious that the filmmakers went out of their way to make sure there were NO strong male characters in this. Not one. Hell, one boy even dresses in drag while his girlfriend dresses as the man. I get it. Men suck. Women are strong. Boys don't need role models. Only women do. Fine. Thank you, Hollywood, for giving us this message for the 1,000th time. And thank you media/critics for ONCE AGAIN acting as if its groundbreaking.

I absolutely adore slasher franchises. I wish they still made Friday the 13th and Elm Street movies every year like they did in the 1980s but nooooooo. It was a long wait for Hatchet 4 (aka "Victor Crowley") but I'm glad the franchise is back. I hope there's a part 5 soon. Next year would be awesome but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, I love Kane Hodder in the title role and the rest of the cast is clearly having a blast. The tone of this movie is infectious and fun. I smiled ear to ear the entire time. There are a couple of kills that should make any highlight reel of best slasher deaths. I love the characters and dialog. The plot and pacing are perfect. What's not to like?!

I know the reviews here are mixed. So what? Look at the reviews and star ratings for almost ANY classic slasher from the 80s and you see the same thing. All the classic Friday the 13th or Elm Street movies score around 5 or 6 stars and have only 50% positive reviews. Nothing new. It's indicative of nothing except what horror fans have always known: We are not in the mainstream. Again, so what? To those who love the Hatchet movies (and we are many) this movie is a welcomed return. May there be many more!

I have a couple songs on my iTunes that I haven't played since 2009. Not because I don't like them, but because the last time I played them was the day my dog died, with whom I was very close. I know if I play those songs again, the date will update and whatever psychological "connection" I have with the day will be lost.

Likewise, there was a house I lived in for 4 years with a person I loved dearly. To this day I dream about that house; Peering in through the windows and saddened that I don't see her and I in there together. In the dreams, it's usually empty or occupied by someone else. I often wonder, if I ever DID go back there, would it seem the same? Or different? Did we take the "magic" with us when we both moved on?

One more story.... I have a friend who loved the movie "Jaws" so deeply that he went to Martha's Vineyard where it was filmed and buried something dear to him at one of the spots where the movie was made. It meant something to him, just to know a "part of himself" would always be there. That friend has since passed away.

Anyway, if you identify with these sorts of stories, "A Ghost Story" might be a poignant experience for you. Especially if you have often asked the age-old question: Does it all have MEANING?

Werner Herzog said the need to tell our story is what separates humans from cows in the field. But WHY do we feel this powerful need? Why do we have such deep connections with people, places and things? Why do we keep objects (tucked away in locked boxes) that we feel somehow "define" us? And, in the end, does any of it matter?

This movie will touch some people deeply. Others, it won't. Neither are "wrong." It's just one of those movies that's not for everyone.

Now, a word about the infamous pie eating scene...

I like the scene because the character had just returned from a funeral and was fighting tears the entire time she gorged herself. I identified with her and thought of times when I had similar experiences. It was an almost meditational scene. I was absorbed by both the movie and my own memories.... BUT if you find the scene too long, don't worry. Much of the second half of the movie is told through montage and actually moves much faster. Just be patient and let this movie wash over you.

Mean Girls 2 is a mixed bag. There were some good ideas but they were rarely presented in an effective way. Let me break it down for you...

THE ACTING...

1- Jennifer Stone... I'm not into "Wizards of Waverly Place" so I was pleasantly surprised by how likable she was. And her comic timing was as good as a seasoned pro. Frankly, they should have cast her in the lead. She could have carried the movie and kept the audience more engaged.

2- Meaghan Martin, as the lead protagonist, was a disappointment for me. Her facial expressions and line delivery often made her sound snotty, even in scenes where she was supposed to be friendly! Sometimes she accidentally came off as looking or sounding stuck-up. I think they should have cast her as one of the mean girls. She did not have me rooting for her as much as I should have. That's a BIG negative in a movie like this.

3- Maiara Walsh played the head of the "plastics" and thus is the top mean girl. (If you're over 21, take a shot of whiskey every time she wears a strapless dress in this movie. You'll be sloppy drunk before the halfway point.) She definitely played the part of a spoiled brat very well. Though something about the shape of her face and eyes made her appear softer than the part required. Maybe she and Meaghan Martin should have switched roles?

The rest of the acting was good, in that "cute" sort of way. Nothing to stand up and cheer about but nothing to hurt the movie either.

THE REVENGE FACTOR...

Many pranks are played on the snobs. One of them gets vomited on. Another gets her face dyed green. Etc. But somehow the scenes don't work very well. Maybe because the characters don't seem properly humiliated by the pranks. I mean, your face is dyed green and you're reacting like it's only a minor inconvenience? She's more concerned about getting a ride to school than with what the other students are going to say about her green face! Thus the prank falls flat. Yet we're told it was a success.

And the girl who gets vomited on (I won't say who gets it) reacts the way you'd expect... she's grossed out! But there's not a lot of laughter or even any comments from the crowd that witnesses it. People should at least be going, "Ewww" and pointing. If you're going to pay a bunch of teenagers to be extras in a movie, make them earn it! Tell them to REACT. Getting vomited on at a crowded party should have some lasting social ramifications. In this movie, however, one gets the feeling that everyone will forget about it after a few seconds.

The final comeuppance (which I won't give away) works to a certain degree. At least justice is served. Unfortunately it seems to come too easy and feels clichéd. I recalled similar endings in other movies ("Cruel Intentions," to name just one.)

THE HUMOR...

Most of the comedy in Mean Girls 2 is "cute humor"... It's never hilarious. Rarely will you laugh out loud. Mostly you will just smile. I think some of the comedy was probably funny on paper but something always spoils it. Sometimes it's poor timing. Sometimes it's an over emphasis on cuteness. Often it's because the tone is simply too over-the-top to feel like any of this is happening to real people. To be fair, the original movie had the same problem.

I just don't buy into the notion that 3 girls could have an entire student body shaking in their boots. Simply portraying the mean girls as bullying snobs would be fine. That would work. Why do movies like this always feel the need to go over-the-top and make the mean girls out to be more feared than the Nazi Party in 1938 Germany? It doesn't increase the comedy. It just feels corny.

CONCLUSION: This movie will have many haters. The title "Mean Girls 2" will generate enough curiosity that many people will watch it. But those who loved the original will probably hate this sequel automatically. And those who don't care about the original won't care about this one either.

Having said all that, it's really not a bad movie. There are some good ideas... They're just presented in a very mediocre way. I didn't love it. I didn't hate it. I'm just, "eh" about the whole thing. And I suspect the director was too. She did a great job with the film, "She Gets What She Wants" but seemed to lack that same spark here.

I wanted to have fun but found myself constantly saying, "Oh if only they had done it THIS way or THAT way, it would be way better."