Change Your Image
Bleeding_Edge
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Shi er shengxiao (2012)
CZ12/Chinese Zodiac (2012)
A treasure hunter searches for 12 bronze heads of the animals of the Chinese zodiac.
Jackie Chan stars as Asian Hawk, reprising the role he last played in 1991's Armour of God II: Operation Condor. Jackie is hired by Lawrence Morgan (Oliver Platt) of the MP Corporation to recover the 12 relics, as they intend to put them up for auction. Along with his team and a few friends he meets along the way, Asian Hawk works to recover the artifacts. However, MP Corp has secret intentions for the artifacts...
CZ12 was written and directed by Jackie Chan, with frequent collaborator Stanley Tong also involved in the writing. Chinese Zodiac serves as the third film in the Armour of God series, coming out a whopping 21 years after the previous entry. In addition to being a legacy sequel, CZ12 also serves as Jackie's "last" all out action movie. This was to be the final film in which Jackie does all his own stunts, using the tagline "Never Before Action Never Again". As a swan song for Jackie's action movie career, how does Chinese Zodiac fare?
As you can tell by my score, not well. Jackie Chan movies are not known for their plots, but CZ12 still manages to disappoint. The concept of the movie is extremely simple, but the film somehow manages to be confusing due to an over saturation of characters. Asian Hawk's crew is always with him, but they're bland, trait-less characters who do nothing but fill space on the screen. It's pretty much impossible to remember who any of these people are, which is problematic during the bigger action scenes when there's a lot happening on screen.
Further confusing matters is how poorly the film handles the hunt for the relics; it's hard to tell which Zodiacs the characters do and do-not-have at any point in time. Without this information, it's difficult to understand the specific motivations of the characters in any given scene, other than the umbrella concept that they're looking for the animal heads. Part of the issue is that they collect several of the Zodiacs at once...which begs they question as to why they decided to put so much emphasis on the existence of 12 of them?
Instead of making what should be a simple plot more clear, exposition is wasted on minutiae and subplots that only seem to last one scene. Two characters have a feud; one character leaves unanswered voicemails; one character's off-screen wife is pregnant but they're quarreling; one character deceives another character and is found out. These plot threads and others are all pointless, lead no where, and are quickly resolved. The movie also has a big build up for a cameo from Joan Lin (Jackie Chan's real life wife), which falls flat because she gets about 3 seconds of screen time.
Fortunately, Jackie Chan's poor direction is somewhat saved by his strong on-screen performance. Despite being 58 years old at the time of this movie, Jackie's action and fight scenes are both solid. They're not quite as good as some of his earlier work, and there's more cuts in some of the fight sequences, but his action performance overall is still well above average. It's somewhat unbelievable the things he does in this movie at his age; the man had barely slowed down. From a character stand point, this film's Asian Hawk unfortunately bares little resemblance to the character that appeared in previous movies. The charisma and swagger are missing; all the we get is the chewing gum trick, which did nothing except remind me "oh yeah, this is supposed to be an Armour of God movie!".
Overall, CZ12/Chinese Zodiac is a letdown. Touted as Jackie Chan's farewell movie, the film's good action sequences are offset by a needlessly convoluted plot and an overabundance of side characters. For what is supposed to be a popcorn movie, excessive minutiae makes CZ12 a chore to sit through at times. Interestingly, Jackie Chan earned two Guinness World Records for this movie: "Most Stunts Performed by a Living Actor" and "Most Credits in One Movie"; the latter of which he earned by serving a whopping 15 roles during the making of this film. There's also a career highlights post-credit scene showing many of Jackie's best stunts and sequences over the years, which feels like a bookend to his career. Regardless of what I think of it, CZ12 was a hit in China and made $171M worldwide. As Chinese Zodiac currently has a 6.0 on IMDB, take this review with a grain of salt.
Jung on zo (1993)
Crime Story (1993)
A troubled detective investigates the kidnapping of tycoon.
Jackie Chan stars as Eddie, a member of Hong Kong's Organized Crime and Triad Bureau, who's struggling to cope with a traumatic shootout he was involved in. Eddie is assigned to protect ruthless land developer Wong Yat-Fei (Kar-Ying Law), who believes disgruntled workers from his job site will kidnap him. Wong Yat-Fei is indeed kidnapped, but unbeknownst to Eddie, one of the culprits is working the case with him - respected detective Hung Ti-Bong (Kent Cheng).
Crime Story was directed by Kirk Wong, who's most well known for gritty Category III films like Organized Crime and Triad Bureau (1994) and Rock N' Roll Cop (1994). Crime Story is no exception, telling a depressing story about police corruption and the effects of PTSD. The screenplay went through five re-writes from five different writers, which does show somewhat in the final product (more on that later).
The film is based on the real-life 1990 kidnapping of businessman Teddy Wang, who was declared legally dead in 1999. Wang was kidnapped twice (also in 1983), and according to sources I've read, the film borrows elements of both kidnappings. These include: the kidnappers routing ransom money through multiple banks, the kidnappers hiding their victim at sea, and even (somewhat tastelessly) filming the kidnapping scene on the real spot where the actual event occurred.
The filming of Crime Story was reportedly troubled, and according to Kirk Wong, he and Jackie Chan haven't spoken since the film's release. The feud seems to be over edits Jackie made to the movie without Wong's consent. Additionally, Nina Wang - Teddy Wang's widow, and Asia's richest woman at the time - put pressure on filmmakers to reshoot the film's bleak ending to make it more positive.
Jet Li was originally slated to star as guilt-ridden cop Eddie, but he dropped out after his manager was killed by Triads and didn't want to work on a film about crime. Jackie Chan stepped in and gives the best dramatic performance of his career, winning Best Actor at the 1993 Hong Kong Film Awards. Jackie has to heavily rely on his acting in this one, as the film features zero comedy and the action takes a back seat to the story. There are a few good action set pieces, but the character of Eddie only has about 50% of the normal "Jackie Chan powers" audiences are used to seeing; he suffers both physical and psychological damage in this film.
Plot wise, Crime Story is not a mystery. The audience is informed from the first scene that Wong is a kidnapper, and the film then focuses on his attempts to sabotage the police investigation from within as Eddie frantically tries to crack the case. This way of telling the story works well, but some logic flaws - likely as a result of numerous writers - pop up once or twice. The most egregious of which is when Eddie figures out Wong is dirty, he doesn't notify his team soon enough, which allows Wong to continue working on - and sabotaging - the case longer than necessary. I might be making it sound worse than it is because it's only a small slice of the movie, but it's worth noting.
Overall, despite trouble behind the scenes, Crime Story is a solid police drama. It's recommended for moviegoers in the mood for something dark, or those interested in seeing Jackie Chan break type with a great dramatic performance. As a rare Category III/Rated R Jackie Chan film, this one isn't for all audiences. Following the huge success of Rumble in the Bronx (1995) in the USA, Miramax wanted to release this movie theatrically to American audiences in the late 1990's; Jackie advised against it, and recommended Police Story III: Supercop (1992) instead. However, Crime Story did get a VHS release, which my parents erroneously allowed be to buy from K-Mart when I was way too young. I could tell something was wrong when Jackie's character spends more time visiting a therapist than he does doing something "normal", like back flipping off a helicopter.
Halloween II (2009)
Halloween II (2009)
A year after Michael Myers' Halloween night rampage, survivors of the massacre struggle to cope with the trauma they've experienced. Meanwhile, Michael - having since disappeared - is making his way back towards Haddonfield...
Halloween II once again stars Scout Taylor Compton as Laurie Strode, who's struggling to come to terms with the traumatic Halloween night events. Laurie has moved in with Annie (Daniel Harris) and Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif), and the three have formed a pseudo family as they try to return to normal lives. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis (Malcom McDowell) has become a minor celebrity and a complete diva, shamelessly shilling his latest book, while also living in denial about Michael possibly being alive. Unfortunately for all parties, driven by visions of his dead mother (Sheri Moon Zombie), Michael (Tyler Mane) is making his way back home...
Halloween II was once again directed by Rob Zombie. Malek Akkad - now running the series after the passing of father Moustapha - gave Zombie the green light to make his "vision" of the movie, with no chains attached. Zombie took that advice, and boy did we get something different.
Unlike the 2007 remake - which had a polished, cinematic feel to it - Halloween II has more of a grindhouse feel. It's dark, gritty, and the film is even grainy in parts. It does not at all feel like a follow up to the 2007 film. Instead, it focuses more on the psychology of the characters; from the trauma of the protagonists, to the insanity of Michael. I think the protagonists story works well, but the Michael Myers scenes with the white horse are more of a mixed bag. I like the style, but a lot of it doesn't make sense.
Compared to the 2007 film, Halloween II's characterizations and dialogue are far superior (though there are a couple rough scenes early on). Laurie in particular was terrible in the 2007 film, constantly screaming and making sexual references. Here, she's actually somewhat sympathetic (though apparently she's less so in the Director's Cut - this is a review of the Theatrical Version). The best character - by far - is Brad Dourif's Sheriff Brackett. A bit player in the 2007 film, here Dourif steals every scene he's in, and adds serious legitimacy to this movie with an all-time great Halloween series performance.
Michael Myers' portrayal in the movie is just okay. We don't see him a lot, and he rarely wears his famous mask. It's also unclear where he's been the past year; we know he's homeless, but it seems like his journey back to Haddonfield is a decently long one. Where'd he go? That said, Michael does have some good kills, and (unlike most) I like the half ripped mask look.
Without sharing any spoilers, another con of Halloween II is that the end of the movie feels like a carbon copy of the 2007 film. The same character is brutally attacked, leading to the same characters confronting Michael in a final showdown. The very end is a LITTLE different, but overall it feels similar.
Halloween II is mostly hated by fans of the series. It does have a small following, but by-and-large is at the bottom of most fans lists. I can somewhat see why. The film goes in a much different direction than every other Halloween movie, and many fans don't seem to like "Hobo" Myers or the white horse narrative. The atmosphere is also much different, with almost no music during the film, and the Halloween theme not appearing until the end credits.
Personally, I'm not bothered by that. I just see the film for what it is: a bleak, grind house-y style movie that happens to have Michael Myers it in. Overall, while I don't think it's a great movie, there are things to like in it and it's definitely watchable. I think time may be kind to this movie as more fans rediscover it. Halloween II did okay at the box office ($39.4M against a $15M budget), but poor reviews and fan response led it to be the final chapter in the Rob Zombie reboot series, and led to the Halloween franchise as a whole going into a series-long nine year hiatus before the next film.
Halloween (2007)
Halloween (2007)
15 years after murdering his sister, an escaped mental patient goes on a killing spree on Halloween Night.
Halloween stars Daeg Faerch as Michael Myers (age 10), a troubled child growing up in a broken home. After a violent incident on Halloween night, Michael is institutionalized, with psychologist Dr. Looms (Malcom McDowell) overseeing his care. However, after descending further into darkness for 15 years, Michael (now played by Tyler Mane) escapes the sanitarium and descends on the town of Haddonfield, where sister Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is babysitting on Halloween night.
This remake of John Carpenter's 1978 remake was written and directed by musician Rob Zombie, who previously made a name for himself as a horror director with efforts like House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005). Unlike the original, Zombie tries to explore what it is that makes the Michael Myers character go bad, as well as tying up some other loose threads from the original.
Personally, the results were mixed for me. Though in general I prefer less backstory for Michael, here I don't mind the scenes between he and Loomis at Smith's Grove Sanitarium. I wasn't as much a fan of the explanation of what caused Michael to snap - he grew up in a broken home, and was bullied; it's too generic. I also don't like how Zombie tries to explain every little thing, like why Michael wears a mask, how Loomis got his revolver, and other similar minutiae.
My biggest problem with this movie, though, is the characterizations. There are very few likable characters, and the dialogue is frankly atrocious, which includes characters constantly talking over each other. That comment includes Scout Taylor-Compton's Laurie, who's very obnoxious and doesn't give us much reason to root for her. Even Dr. Loomis transforms into somewhat of a dirt bag by the end of the run time. I enjoyed the supporting performances from Danny Trejo and Brad Dourif, but both actors have very little screen time. When every character ranges from "unlikable" to "complete human garbage", it's hard to get invested in them.
Without getting into spoilers, I think the end of the movie needs work too. When Michael actually gets to Haddonfield, the film feels like a series of vignettes as he goes from house to house killing people. Michael's Halloween night bodycount is already half a dozen people long before Laurie even starts babysitting, and there's not much tension because of a lack of unpredictability. Rather than bounce around between houses like the original movie, we jump to houses with characters we've barely seen until the inevitable happens - the boogeyman shows up and does what he does. This lack of suspense is accompanied by terrible shaky cam, which doesn't help matters.
Overall, Rob Zombie's Halloween is a divisive remake. I have seen many people over the years proclaim this film is the best Halloween film, while others have deemed it an unholy abomination. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle, albeit more on the negative side. I don't particularly enjoy the film and think it's heavily flawed, but also think it's watchable and the plot is coherent. It barely squeaks by with a 5 for me; I would've liked it a lot better if the characters and dialogue weren't such train wrecks. To steal a quote from someone on IMDB: "overall, this feels like a redneck version of Halloween".
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
An internet reality show broadcasts from Michael Myers' house on Halloween night.
Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks star as Freddie and Nora, two producers of an online show called "Dangertainment". The two challenge six college students to spend the night in the Myers house, with the goal of figuring out what made him go bad. Among this group is Sara (Bianca Kajlich), who's having second thoughts about joining. As this show will be broadcast live on Halloween night, the participants all wear head cameras detailing their findings, which Sara's friend Deckard (Ryan Merriman) streams from a party. Unfortunately for participants, Michael has returned home.
Halloween: Resurrection was directed by Rick Rosenthal, who returns to the franchise over 20 years after directing Halloween II (1981). Jamie Lee Curtis also returns as Laurie, but despite being plastered all over promotional media, she has a small role.
Similar to Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), Halloween: Resurrection has elements of Scream. Both movies open with a shocking kill, before jumping to a completely different location. Unlike its predecessor though, Halloween: Resurrection's opening is cheesy and hokey, and is slathered with characters taking stupid actions that lead to their deaths.
We then jump one year into the future and dive into the meat of the movie, which is the internet show angle. It stinks. It hypothetically could have been good, but it's not scary at all and there's too much shaky cam. The film is loaded with cardboard cut out characters that are just there to increase the body count, so you have absolutely no investment in these people. Character traits, you ask? One character is a chef, so there's that.
This isn't even a spoiler - there's supposed to be a "twist" in the middle of the movie, where the characters get upset after realizing that Dangertainment "set them up" by staging props in the Myers house. Seriously, I've got bridges all over the world I want to sell these people.
Why would the characters start having sex when they know they're being recorded? Speaking of which, characters die multiple times and it's caught on camera, but the Dangertainment team just happens to be looking away from the screen, or making coffee, or listening to music, or doing who-knows-what. If this film's characters had any sense, the run time would be 10 minutes long.
Busta Rhymes is frequently referenced when discussing how bad this movie is, but the fact is he's not in the film that much. When he is on screen, the scenes generally feature more humor - and some infamously bad one liners - which don't work that well, but they're honestly more entertaining than the rest of the film, which is a drag to sit through.
Regarding Michael Myers himself, his mask looks off. At the time the film came out, it was touted as the most accurate mask since the original, but the face looks a bit scrunchy, and the hair looks too puffy. That's the least of this movie's problems, though.
Overall, Halloween: Resurrection is a terrible movie. It's an extremely boring, soulless film that killed the original continuity of the Halloween series. It boggles my mind how something this bad could get made, when all the studio needed to do to succeed was make a generic slasher film. I'll leave you with a quote from the Master of Horror himself, John Carpenter: "I watched the one in that house, with all the cameras. Oh my god. Oh lord, god. And then the guy gives the speech at the end about violence. What the hell? Oh my lord."
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
20 years after his attack on Haddonfield, Michael Myers hunts down his sister.
Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, who's relocated to Summer Glen, California. Living under a new identity, Laurie (now Keri) is the Headmistress of a private boarding school that her son John (Josh Hartnett) attends. Laurie is tormented by visions of the 1978 attack, and has developed a nasty drinking habit to go along with her not-so-great personality. She's not completely crazy though, as Michael has caught wind of her identity change and is making a special cross country trip to see her...
Halloween H20 was directed by Steve Miner, who earlier directed Friday the 13th Part II & III. John Carpenter was in talks to direct, but priced himself out. The story was written by Robert Zappia and Scream's Kevin Williamson, and removes Halloween's 4-6 from the timeline. This wasn't the original intention, but they wrote out references to Jamie and the Cult of Thorn during filming. Speaking of which, Williamson spent lots of time on set to help with various story and dialogue changes.
It's important to mention Williamson's involvement because Halloween H20 - or as many fans call it, HalloScream - is a blatant rip off of the Scream films. How so? The film starts with a shocking and bloody opener like Scream, uses the score from Scream throughout, the movie poster looks like Scream, Scream 2 plays on the TV at one point, there are Scream Easter eggs peppered throughout, and it has an ending similar to Scream.
One thing the two films don't have in common is quality, as Halloween H20 is mediocre. After the opening scene, we basically get an hour of Laurie acting like a functioning basket case and straining her relationship with her son, until the final 20 minutes where the movie decides it wants to be a horror film again. H20's lack of body count during the bulk of the run time is made up by several fake out jump scares, with characters constantly startling each other on accident. The side characters are also pretty bad, the most prominent of which being LL Cool J as a Security Guard with aspirations of being an Erotic Novelist (what...?). There is a small role from Janet Leigh that is kinda cool, though.
Michael Myers has possibly the worst look of all in this one. He wears a whopping (4) different masks, including one made from 1990's CGI. He starts off with the Halloween 6 mask, but quickly shifts to the other masks. These other masks are bad and seem to change constantly, even within the same scene. What a travesty.
Halloween H20 does end on a strong note fortunately. Though I don't think the film's finale is scary or even that great, it's at least a crowd pleaser, with Laurie and Michael in an extended mono a mono battle.
Overall, this one isn't for me. I've seen it many times, but don't rewatch it often. Every time I do watch it, I always hope I'm going to see something new in it, but never do. We get way too much Laurie and not enough Michael in this movie, and that's the bottom line. Halloween H20 cleaned up at the box office ($55M against a $17M budget), and as far as I'm concerned that's this film's legacy - a cash grab, trying to ride the coattails of Scream.
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Michael Myers, now allied with a cult, searches for the newest member of his bloodline.
Halloween 6 stars Paul Rudd as Tommy Doyle, one of the children Laurie was babysitting in 1978. Now obsessed with finding Michael, Tommy comes into possession of a baby with familial ties to the boogeyman. Seeking help, he reaches out to now-retired Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), as well as neighbor Kara Strode (Marianne Hagan), a relative of the family who adopted Laurie.
Unfortunately for the trio, Michael isn't alone this time - The Cult of Thorn and the mysterious Man in Black have a vested interest in the Boogeyman's success...
Before I continue, I must address the fact that this movie has (2) versions. In the late 1990's, back when we were browsing Halloween Geocities fan pages, rumors about a Halloween 6 "Producer's Cut" emerged online. VHS bootlegs eventually became available, but fortunately in the year 2022 this "Producer's Cut" is now readily available in crystal clear HD. Here is a spoiler-free rundown of the differences:
- The Producer's Cut is a much more coherent film. The plot makes more sense, the pacing and editing (and at times, cinematography) are dramatically better, and we get traditional Halloween music. Story wise, we get more of "stalker" Michael, more screen time for Donald Pleasance, and more of an emphasis on the Cult of Thorn. The ending is completely different, as are several kills in the film.
- The Theatrical Cut is a film is a mess. Scenes are heavily trimmed down, which creates needless plot confusion. The movie relies heavily on terrible jump cuts, accompanied by the sound of a knife slashing. The score has a heavy metal vibe to it, which doesn't work that well. It's almost like they put the Producer's Cut into a computer, wrote some type of code to "make the movie scary", and this is what came out. Story wise, we get a more brutal Michael, much less screen time for Pleasance, and less emphasis on the Cult of Thorn.
So, which is the better film? In my opinion, it's undoubtably the Producer's Cut, but it's not the holy grail Halloween fans may have led you to believe. It leans more heavily into the plot, but when said plot is a flaming roll of toilet paper, that's not necessarily a great thing. Additionally, the ending is a letdown. After a decent first 90% of the film, the film comes to an anti-climatic finish that is laughably bad at times.
On the flip side, I really enjoy the ending of the Theatrical Cut. This ending was completely re-filmed and has a haunted house vibe. Michael (George P. Wilbur earlier in the film, Brad Harin during this reshot footage) is at possibly his most violent of all time, going on a complete massacre while hunting the protagonists. This ending has a rough final 5 minutes though, and there's definitely too much flashing on the screen during this sequence (epilepsy warning).
Add it all up, and what do you get? A mess, that's what. There is a decent film in there somewhere I think. Replace the Producer's Cut ending with the Theatrical ending maybe? But hey, at least they got the Michael Myers mask right - it's easily one of the best in the series.
Overall, Halloween 6 is not a great entry in the series. I think I enjoy it more than most, but no matter which version you watch, you're going to witness some serious problems. RIP Donald Pleasance, who passed away unexpectedly when they were doing re-shoots for the eventual Theatrical Version.
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
One year after his second attack on Haddonfield, Michael Myers re-emerges on Halloween night.
Halloween 5 once again stars Danielle Harris as Jamie, who's now mute and is confined to a psychiatric hospital. While there, she begins to form a psychic bond with uncle Michael (Don Shanks), who's been recovering from injuries sustained in the previous film. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) believes Michael is still alive, and wants to use Jamie's ability to help find him. However, the two won't have to wait long, as Michael has recovered just in time for Halloween...
After the moderate success of Halloween 4, Halloween 5 was rushed into production by Executive Producer Moustapha Akkad. Realizing that the slasher trend was dying, Akkad wanted to ride Halloween 4's momentum to cash in as much as he could.
The result is the first bad movie in the Halloween series, and boy is it a doozie.
Halloween 5's plot is just terrible. The filmmakers reconned the ending of Halloween 4, instead giving the movie a supernatural element...and that element stinks. The psychic connection plot does not work at all, and does not create compelling footage. Who wants to see a mute kid making grunting noises trying to explain the location of a gas station to another kid with a stuttering issue?
With the exception of Jamie, the other returning characters from Halloween 4 are reduced to smaller roles. In their place, we get spunky-but-annoying Tina (Wendy Foxworth), as well as two comic relief police offers (Frankie Como and David Ursin), who have silly clown themed music every time they appear on screen. Donald Pleasance's Loomis is bat (you know what) crazy in this movie, routinely putting other characters in harm's way to get to Michael. In other words, the characters stink.
Halloween 5 also introduces the much maligned "Man in Black", whose backstory and motivations are mysterious. In fact, so mysterious that even the crew didn't know who this character was, but put him in to help pad the run time. Hey, that's the next film's problem to figure out, am I right?
A least Michael is better in Halloween 5. He's still not great, but the mask is slightly better than in Halloween 4, and he has a few memorable kills (I like the garden claw kill, personally). Michael generally feels more violent and imposing in this one, and is not the problem with this movie. (Side note: According to Don Shanks, they filmed a scene towards the climax in which Michael violently murders several police outside of the psych ward. But, it was cut out to avoid an "X" rating, and this footage sadly seems to be lost forever.)
I specifically remember the first time I saw Halloween 4 & 5 at the video store, as I had no idea they existed; I was only aware of the first three due to them being on TV constantly, and H20 because it had just been in theaters. H4 & H5 eventually made their way on cable, and seemed to play a lot even outside of the Halloween season, so I have a ton of nostalgia for both movies from seeing them so frequently.
But that nostalgia doesn't cloud my judgement: Halloween 5's a stinker of a movie. It's a shame because it looks and feels like a follow up to Halloween 4, but is such a downgrade in quality the two don't work as well as they should for a back-to-back viewing. Additionally, Halloween 5 was a dud commercially, making only $11.6M against a $5.0M budget. It's even worse when you consider the fact that many people bought tickets and didn't stay for the movie - they wanted to see the teaser trailer for Tim Burton's Batman that was playing before the film.
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
On the 10 year anniversary of his Halloween night massacre, Michael Myers returns to Haddonfield in search of his niece.
After the negative backlash of Halloween III's different series direction, Halloween 4 sees the return of both Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), with the former having escaped custody once again. And boy does the movie let you know it - aside from the title, the other characters mention Michael's name seemingly every 15 seconds.
Danielle Harris also stars as Jamie Lloyd, the daughter of Laurie Strode who's now living with a foster family after Laurie's off-screen death from a car accident. Her new sister Rachel (Ellie Cornell) takes her Trick-or-Treating on Halloween night, but Michael soon catches up to them.
Halloween 4 is a very safe movie, and extremely derivative of the original. Michael escapes captivity on a rainy night and heads to Haddonfield on Halloween? Check. Dr. Loomis travels hundreds of miles in pursuit, with everyone thinking he's crazy? Check. Michael kills a mechanic and steals a mask to assemble his iconic look? Check.
Originally, there was a script written which would've had Michael take a supernatural form, but Executive Producer Moustapha Akkad didn't like this idea; he wanted Myers in flesh and blood. This creative difference caused John Carpenter and Debra Hill to sell their stake in the franchise, which is a shame because Carpenter - at the height of his powers - was slated to direct Halloween 4.
Still, what we get is decent enough, but it's nothing new. There are some good scenes at the beginning of the movie with Donald Pleasance though. I particularly like the scene where he hitchhikes with the drunken Preist, whose "end of days" type rant is symbolic of Loomis's never ending mission to stop Michael. Most of the scenes with Jamie and Rachel are pretty average however, with a few moments of really awkward/wooden dialogue, and a fairly inconsequential dating subplot for Rachel.
Another thing I enjoy, though, is how the movie becomes Night of the Living Dead-esque towards the middle, with the characters boarding themselves in a house to brace for Michael's onslaught. Of course, people decide to stupidly leave the house, and the inevitable happens.
I've seen Halloween 4 many times, and I've always thought it had a certain... shall I say... "crap factor" to it. Michael (George P. Wilbur) looks absolutely terrible, wearing shoulder pads and what looks like a dollar store version of the famous mask (they should've kept him wrapped in bandages the entire movie, like he was at the beginning!). Due to a mistake on set, there's even a brief moment where the mask has pink skin and blonde hair. Additionally, there's a scene towards the end where Michael is shot several times, and it looks like he is doing some weird dance moves while chunks of wood fly towards the camera. It's hilarious! I even thought so as a kid.
This is the first film in the series without Carpenter doing an original score. Alan Howarth, a frequent Carpenter collaborator who worked on Halloween II & III, serves as Halloween 4's composer. The result is... meh? The soundtrack isn't terrible, but the film seems to use a slightly sped up version of the classic Halloween title theme constantly; they beat you to death with it, and there isn't a lot of variety. The film's cinematography is also a downgrade from previous entries, with Dean Cundey moving on to bigger and better things.
Halloween 4 does have some gore it in, but I have always thought it looked cheap and not frightening. The quality's not even close to some of the gore in the Friday the 13th series, or even Halloween II & III. Another negative is the film suffers from a few logic issues. Michael could've easily taken out Jamie and Rachel several times towards the beginning of the movie, but doesn't because there are other people are around. Was Michael worried about a couple drug store employees? He's Michael Freakin' Myers! Instead, the horror icon launches an all out assault on the town of Haddonfield at night time, cutting power and phone lines to the town. Sure, it's a good horror movie set up, but he was literal feet from his main target. I know he likes to stalk his prey, but geez.
Can someone please explain to me what Ted Hollister was doing hiding in the bushes? I've been asking myself this for decades, and the only answers I can come up with are very dark.
Overall, Halloween 4 is an okay entry in the franchise. It's a popcorn movie through-and-through, but it scratches the Michael Myers itch for those who didn't like his exclusion from Halloween III. It also has a slightly iconic ending that could've opened new doors for the series. Ultimately I feel like it's the McDonald's of the franchise - it basically gives you what you want and will generally leave you satisfied, but it's nothing great.
I Spit on Your Grave (2010)
I Spit On Your Grave (2010)
I Spit On Your Grave is a remake of the 1978 exploitation film of the same name. A female New York city writer retreats to rural Louisiana to work in peace on an upcoming book, but suffers horrible atrocities at the hands of some local men. She then extracts revenge in gruesome ways.
This was the final movie in an inexpensive iTunes "Fright Nights: 10 Movie Collection" pack I purchased, and I saved the worst for last.
Because of the content, I've never seen the original, and didn't plan on ever seeing this one until it was included in the horror movie bundle. I was expecting to feel repulsed.
However, I felt something different: boredom.
The movie is so poorly made that there's no immersion here. Yes, the things happening on the screen are very bad, but at no point did I remotely believe the things I was seeing were real because of how weak the acting and characterizations were. It doesn't help how slow the pacing was; there are long periods in this movie where not much happens. I had to watch this movie in two sittings because I found myself dozing off at the mid-way point of the run time.
I don't often complain about lighting, but at all times characters looked like they were being blasted with 6000K bulbs, regardless of whether they were indoors or outdoors. The first thing that comes to mind when I think about this movie is the the color (shade) "white".
There have been many movies I haven't enjoyed that I understand why others do, but I can't fathom how this film has a 6.2 on IMDB. It's straight-to-DVD crap, through and through.
RIP Cheapo Horror Pack. You ended with a dud, but you were still worth my $20.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
After a disturbing murder-suicide at his hospital, a doctor becomes entangled in a dark conspiracy.
Tom Atkins stars as Daniel Challis, a divorced womanizing doctor with an awesome mustache. After a hysterical patient gives him a dire warning and is later murdered, he teams up with the patient's daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) to get to the bottom of what's going on. Their search leads them to the town of Santa Mira, where a man named Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy) runs a factory that produces extremely popular Halloween masks. But all is not as it seems...
Following Halloween II, producers John Carpenter and Debra Hill wanted to take the series in a different direction - a Michael Myers-less direction. They came up with the idea to turn Halloween into an anthology-style series, with each movie serving as a stand alone creepy story revolving around the titular holiday.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch was their first attempt at this. Tommy Lee Wallace, a production designer on Halloween - who even played Michael Myers during the famous "closet" scene - wrote and directed, while Carpenter returned to score the movie.
The result was one of the most hated horror movies of all time.
For decades, Halloween III's reputation preceded itself. Most criticisms start and end with the fact that the film has nothing to do with the character of Michael Myers. However, some have claimed that the absence of Myers is only part of the problem, and that the movie is just objectively horrible. Is that actually true?
I think anyone who sits down and judges this film based on its own merits will find a cool horror movie with a lot going for it. Halloween III has a good atmosphere and really solid gore (which includes death of children). The acting is overall good, and we once again get Dean Cundey as cinematographer, giving Halloween III that classic Halloween look. John Carpenter gives us another great score, with my favorite themes being the Main Title, "Chariots of Pumpkins", and "Drive to Santa Mira". And who can forget that awesome Silver Shamrock jingle!?
There are also some blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos from Nancy Kyes (Annie in Halloween) and Dick Warlock (Michael Myers himself in Halloween II); Jamie Lee Curtis voices a Curfew Announcer and Telephone Operator as well. Additionally, there is a moment I love in which the original 1978 Halloween is playing on a TV, and the theme called "The Haunted House" from the original soundtrack loudly plays. I think it's great because that piece of music works well with the particular events occurring at that time in this film.
Despite its good points, Halloween III is obviously no masterpiece. Though everything the protagonists are doing makes sense (for the most part), the same can't be said for the villains, whose motivations and explanation for those motivations makes absolutely zero sense. What was up with the spunky forensics woman? It seemed like they were building her character up, but her role was marginal in relation to her screen time. And does Tom Atkins have to have sex with every woman he meets, especially when they're 25 years his junior? (Don't answer that). Additionally, for all its atmosphere and gore, the movie isn't actually scary at all (though some viewers may find parts of it to be shocking).
Overall, Halloween III is style over substance. The movie makes sense for the most part, but the plot unravels if you put any thought into it. However, it still has a lot of pros, and is a very solid choice to watch on Halloween night due to its great atmosphere. I'm glad to see this movie currently has a 5.1 on IMDB. I can remember a time in which it was rated in the high 3's/low 4's, which is ridiculous. Fortunately, the film has gained a cult following over the past several years, and has rightfully shed its unearned negative reputation. I'm rating the film a 7; a 6.5, plus an extra half star for Tom Atkins' mustache.
Halloween II (1981)
Halloween II (1981)
Michael Myers continues his killing spree on Halloween Night 1978.
Halloween II takes place literal seconds after the ending of the original, with Michael Myers fleeing the Doyle House. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) regroups with the Sheriff's department to pursue Michael, while a wounded Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital. When Michael catches wind of Laurie's whereabouts, he once again sets his sights on her...
Coming out three years after the original, Halloween II was once again written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. Carpenter has discussed the writing process of this film many times, and every version of the story he tells involves alcohol. Thinking there wasn't much story left and struggling with ideas, Carpenter made a decision which would forever alter the franchise: giving Michael Myers a motive (more on that later). However, he declined to return to the director's chair, being replaced by Rick Rosenthal (though Carpenter did direct a handful of scenes himself).
Halloween II ups the gore factor, big time. The originally Halloween film is very tame, and is often seen as a "gateway drug" to horror movies because of its relative lack of violence. In Halloween II, Dr. Loomis has blood on his fingers moments into the movie, informing the audience they're in for a more graphic experience. Michael dispatches his victims in a variety of ways here, with his most common weapon being a scalpel (my personal favorite weapon of his in the franchise).
Donald Pleasance does a good job again as Dr. Loomis, but Loomis is more over the top in this movie, and he'll only get crazier in later sequels. Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't have much to do in this one; Laurie sits most of the movie out until the climax. We also get a lot of new characters in the form of several hospital workers, as well as Deputy Gary Hunt (Hunter von Leer). I like von Leer's performance as the level headed deputy, and for the most part enjoy the hospital workers too.
However, this movie suffers greatly from the "idiot plot", which I think is its biggest weakness. Every character makes at least one blisteringly stupid decision in this film. One character forgets to reload their gun; two characters can't figure out how to work hand radios; one character suddenly loses their voice when they have the chance to scream for help; a security guard doesn't pay attention to the cameras; another character concusses themselves by standing and then slipping in a literal pool of blood. The most egregious moment is a car crash scene, and the events that lead up to it (note to characters: Michael Myers doesn't carry a trick-or-treat bag). I know slasher victims aren't well known for their intelligence, but the stupidity here is pretty rampant.
As for The Shape, Michael Myers is played by stuntman Dick Warlock this time. Overall Warlock is one of my favorite Michaels, but I don't think his performance is perfect. He's pretty slow in a lot of scenes, to the point of it being a detriment to his ability to kill someone. Director Rick Rosenthal shows us Michael a lot in this movie, which I think it somewhat of a negative. For example, there are a few instances in which we see Michael walking through the empty hospital halls, which I don't think work that well. It's scarier when we don't know where he is.
Still, I think Rosenthal overall did a decent job. The movie looks and feels close enough to the original, which is partially due to cinematographer Dean Cundey returning. John Carpenter returned to score Halloween II and his music is once again great. He covers most of his original score, but it has a more synthesized and even disco feel. The main theme during the opening credits somehow feels more menacing to me, and I also love the tracks "Laurie's Theme", "Laurie and Jimmy", and "Operation Room". This is also the first Halloween movie to use the song Mr. Sandman by the Chordettes (for some reason).
Halloween II's legacy in the franchise is the decision to make Laurie Strode the sister of Michael Myers. This gave Michael motive for decades to come, allowing future filmmakers to insert other familial characters to keep the plot line going. Personally I'm pretty neutral about this creative decision. I think I like it slightly better when she's not his sister (like in the Blumhouse trilogy), but regardless it's a well known part of horror history.
Overall, Halloween II is a slasher classic. It's a bit rougher around the edges than the original, but is an above average sequel with an extremely satisfying ending. It's fun to watch the first two Halloween movies back-to-back, especially on Halloween night.
Halloween (1978)
John Carpenter's Halloween (1978)
15 years after murdering his sister, an escaped mental patient goes on a killing spree on Halloween Night 1978.
Jamie Lee Curtis stars as Laurie Strode, a high school teenager who's babysitting on Halloween night in Haddonfield, IL. Unbeknownst to Laurie, Michael Myers (Nick Castle) has escaped from a mental asylum with the intention of returning to his hometown of Haddonfield, and his doctor (Donald Pleasance) is hot on his trail.
Halloween is a difficult movie to review because EVERYONE has seen it. It's on TV dozens of time every October, and has been for decades. It's so overplayed it's akin to background noise, where the viewer can throw it on and go about their business during the slower moments, but then watch the screen during some of the more famous scenes.
During what was probably my 100th re-watch, I went in with the mindset that I was watching this movie for the first time to try to analyze its strengths and weaknesses. But first, some background.
The movie came about when financier Moustapha Akkad wanted to make a horror film about a killer stalking babysitters. Irwin Yablans - the film's distributor - came to eventual writer-director John Carpenter and writer-producer Debra Hill with the idea, and also proposed setting the movie on Halloween night, as it was an underused holiday in film.
John Carpenter was paid $10,000 to direct, write, and score the movie. Originally intended to be a limited theatrical run exploitation film, Carpenter wanted to keep the plot extremely simple. To add some cachet to the film, he and Debra Hill tried to cast horror icons Peter Cushing and (later) Christopher Lee in the role of Dr. Loomis, but were turned down by both men. They then approached Donald Pleasance, who accepted. However, Pleasance told Carpenter he didn't like or understand the screenplay or his character, and had only accepted the role because his daughter was a fan of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). Jamie Lee Curtis, an unknown TV actress, was cast as Laurie Strode after Carpenter's first choice fell through and Debra Hill discovered Curtis was the daughter of Psycho's Janet Lee.
Upon release, Halloween got off to a bumpy start in theaters, receiving terrible reviews and so-so box office results. However, word of mouth spread, and the movie became a smashing success, taking in over $70M worldwide against an estimated $300K budget. John Carpenter was approached while working on the TV movie Elvis (1979) about making another horror film. Unaware of Halloween's success, his response was "why?".
40+ years later, Halloween is considered a classic. What makes Halloween hold up after all these years? After this latest re-watch, I think it's a combination of several things done extremely well.
The cinematography by Dean Cundey (Jurassic Park, The Thing) is a huge stand out; the movie looks great. The acting, while not perfect, is above average for this type of movie; Donald Pleasance carries a lot of the load in this department, but Jamie Lee Curtis and some of the supporting cast are also solid. Even the font they use in the movie (ITC Serif Gothic Heavy) looks cool and unique.
Additionally, the film's story is simple and easy to digest. There are only a few characters and we know who these people are and what drives them. Furthermore, Carpenter's direction is great. We get a very good sense of the suburban town of Haddonfield, as well as a good understanding of the street the babysitters are housed in. The audience knows what's going on, and which character is where, at all times... except for the boogeyman, of course.
There's also Halloween's iconic soundtrack. Though the most famous piece of music is the main theme, "The Classroom", "The Haunted House", and "The Shape Stalks Laurie" are also classics. This film's score is almost as famous as the movie itself.
Finally, there's Michael Myers. The Shape (played mostly by Nick Castle) doesn't speak, wears an emotionless white mask, and carefully stalks his prey before striking. He's the boogeyman we all checked under our beds for when we were children.
Add all of these elements together, and you get a classic film. Though Halloween wasn't even close to the first slasher movie ever filmed, it is the one that launched the slasher craze of the 1980's, spawning countless movies trying to ride its success. Additionally, Halloween is largely responsible for the classic slasher formula, in which the wholesome female "final girl" character survives the movie (Carpenter has said many times that this wasn't intentional).
Halloween isn't a perfect movie. There's a stretch in the middle of the film where there is a long time between kills, and some viewers may find this part too slow. Though I'm personally okay with it, I can understand the criticism. Also, though I think the dialogue is overall strong, some of the side characters "totally" don't have the best lines. Though I'm pretty sure this was done for comedic effect, it obviously didn't land with everyone because it's a common criticism of this film.
Still, I'm giving this movie a 10. It's been a part of my consciousness ever since I was a kid who owned it on VHS, and I don't think there's much more Carpenter could've done to make this movie better or hold up as long as it has. Halloween is probably the most watched horror movie of all time, and people will be watching it long after I'm dead.
The Uncanny (1977)
The Uncanny (1977)
In this anthology film, a writer tries to convince his publisher that cats are secretly ruling the world.
Peter Cushing stars in the wraparound story (Montreal 1977) as an eccentric writer urgently trying to get his book published so the world knows the horrible truth about cats. He references three stories in which cats commit horrible crimes against humanity:
- London 1912: An elderly woman changes her will to leave all of her possession to her cats, and her spoiled nephew tries to intervene.
- Quebec 1975: A young girl interested in witchcraft goes to live with relatives after a family tragedy, and she brings her cat along.
- Hollywood 1936: An actor's wife dies on set and he replaces her with her younger stand in, but his wife's cat has other ideas.
It feels like I've seen a hundred of these 1970's anthology movies and The Uncanny was one of the weaker efforts. The first two stories (London & Quebec) were flat out boring. The third story (Hollywood) was decent, but might've been the "weak" story in a stronger anthology movie.
I think the film's problem is it's neither scary nor funny enough. It's not scary at all, even though a lot of the movie plays it straight. Some humor does shine through in the third story, but it's low hanging fruit type of comedy. Considering how often the characters look frightened and the camera pans to an innocent looking cat, maybe this movie would be funnier in a group setting with the aid of some stimulants, but that's not my bag.
It's always good to see Peter Cushing in a horror film, but he doesn't get a lot of screen time considering he's in the wraparound story. Donald Pleasance stars in the Hollywood 1936 story and does a fine job. It's funny to think that only a year later, Peter Cushing turned down the role of Dr. Sam Loomis in John Carpenter's Halloween, while Donald Pleasance had to be convinced by his daughter to accept the role. Yet neither had any problem starring in THIS.
Intruder (1989)
Intruder (1989)
While working overnight inventory, grocery store employees are stalked after an ex-con breaks into the store.
Intruder stars Elizabeth Cox as Jennifer, a cashier that is harassed by her ex-boyfriend Craig (David Byrnes) who just got out of prison. After one of the cheesiest fights ever caught on camera, the other store employees lock Craig out of the store. However, after Craig gets back in and employees split up to look for him, the body count starts rising...
Scott Spiegel, who co-wrote Evil Dead II, makes his directorial debut. It really feels like you're watching an Evil Dead or Sam Raimi film; there are lots of unique and innovative camera angles, as well as a decent amount of dark comedy, which make this movie stand out amongst other slasher movies. Speaking of Sam Raimi, he co-stars in this movie, along with other Evil Dead II alumni Dan Hicks and Ted Raimi. There are also cameos by Bruce Cambell and director Spiegel himself.
In addition to its cinematography, another thing that makes Intruder stand out is the gore. There are a couple kills that are tough to watch, which is no surprise considering that Greg Nicotero and his KNB crew did the special effects for this film. Definitely not a movie for the squeamish.
Strangely, Intruder has a very old look to it; almost like it should've come out in 1979 rather than 1989. Apparently this was because this incredibly low budget ($130K) film used unexposed, left over film stock called short ends. It's weird to watch this movie and then realize it came out the same year as something like Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.
I thought the movie bungled the mystery element somewhat, which was a let down. At a certain point in the film it becomes very obvious who the killer is, and the ending is a bit long winded. The final confrontation between survivor(s) and killer lasts almost 30 minutes! I wish they would've shaved 10 minutes off of that and repurposed it earlier in the film to set up another red herring or two.
Another random fact I read on the IMDB trivia page is that Intruder used stock music from a company called APM Music. Imagine my surprise when I heard music cues that I recognized from the 1986 Hong Kong film "A Better Tomorrow".
Overall, Intruder is a solid horror-dark comedy that stands out thanks to its interesting cinematography and cringe inducing gore. You don't hear this movie talked about a lot, but it's better than the majority of slasher films I've seen.
When a Stranger Calls Back (1993)
When a Stranger Calls Back (1993)
A babysitter is bothered by a stranger asking for help. Five years later, the survivor of a similar incident investigates the events of that night.
When a Stranger Calls Back opens the same way as the original. A babysitter named Julia (Jill Schoelen) hears a knock at the door from a man seeking assistance due to car trouble. However, when she tries to call for help, she discovers the phone is dead. This scene manages to create uncomfortable tension and dread as Julia becomes more and more unnerved. We get a very good layout of the house, and returning director Fred Walton creates paranoia for the audience; you'll be questioning your memory during this sequence.
Like the first movie, we then get a time jump - this time of five years - and reunite with Jill (Carol Kane). Jill is working as a Crisis Counselor at a university, and is a serious bad ass. We previously left Jill in a very bad state, and it's good to see that in the decade-plus since the last movie that she's overcome her trauma.
Jill becomes entangled with the events of the opening scene, and calls an old friend for help: John Clifford, once again excellently played by Charles Durning. The two work to piece together what happened five years earlier, and also try to determine if the perpetrator(s) are still active. This gives the movie a stronger mystery feel than the original When a Stranger Calls, which revealed the killer early in the film. In this movie, though we don't know the identity of the wrongdoer(s), it's not necessarily a whodunit in the sense you're trying to figure out identities; it's more of a "how"dunit, if that makes sense.
When a Stranger Calls Back came out 14 years after the original and was a made-for-cable movie (on Showtime). Though the film is very derivative of its predecessor, I think it actually perfects the original idea and is superior in almost every way. The plot and pacing are much better in this movie, and doesn't suffer from the dull middle portion like the first movie. You also don't need to see the first movie to watch this one, though it obviously helps to get the backstory of Kane and Durning's characters.
There are a few small loose ends that I wish the filmmakers would've tied up. I won't call them plot holes because they could be easily explained, it's just the filmmakers didn't. While being as vague as possible, my big two questions are: why did that certain character return to their apartment? In another scene, what caused the door to be jammed?
Aside from a couple minor unsolved plot threads, When a Stranger Calls Back is the definition of a hidden gem. It has absolutely no business being as good as it is, and is probably one of the best made-for-cable movies ever. For fans who like horror but not gore, this is a perfect movie to watch. There are no gross out moments at all, but you'll definitely feel terror: this movie has one of the creepiest endings of all time.
Note: DO NOT watch the trailer for this movie. It spoils everything.
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
A babysitter is harassed by a series of threatening calls. Seven years later, the stalker returns.
When a Stranger Calls stars Carol Kane as Jill, a babysitter watching the children of an affluent couple. She starts receiving crank phone calls, which she initially dismisses as a practical joke. However, the calls starting increasing in frequency and maliciousness and her evening turns into a nightmare.
This opening 20 minute sequence is one of the most famous in horror history. Director Fred Walton creates paranoia and tension through a minimalist approach, showing the audience only one character (Kane) in a big dark house, along with a ringing phone. Every time the phone rings, it almost works as a jump scare thanks to Walton progressively increasing the volume of each ring. It is a dreadful sequence, but one that feels real and relatable.
While the opening is classic, the rest of the movie is below average. After a time jump, we follow John Clifford (Charles Durning), a P. I. investigating the stalker (Tony Beckley, in his final role before passing away). Clifford has a personal connection to the case, as he was previously a police officer who responded to the phone call incident.
This part of the movie drags, big time. Durning is excellent as the detective hellbent on vigilante justice, but there isn't enough story in this middle section. There's a subplot that tries to humanize the stalker, but it feels like filler...which it pretty much is: When a Stranger Calls was originally a short that was flushed out and re-filmed as a feature film to try to ride the success of John Carpenter's Halloween.
Fortunately, after the bland middle section, the movie finishes with a strong final 15 minutes that reintroduces the horror and dread of the film's opening. In other words, the movie is a donut. It's satisfying enough, but the final product would've been better had the filmmakers extended the opening and closing sequences by 5-10 minutes each to cut down on the filler middle section of the movie.
Nightbreed (1990)
Nightbreed (1990)
A man searches for a city that he's seen in his dreams, but is pursued my a psychopathic therapist intent on framing him for murder.
Nightbreed stars Craig Sheffer as Aaron, a man who constantly dreams of a city named Midian, a place accepting of all people and monsters. He decides to seek the city out after a chance encounter with another man who has also dreamed of Midian. Unfortunately for Aaron, his psychologist Dr. Decker (David Cronenberg) is a serial killer who's hell bent on killing him and framing him for his murders.
Nightbreed is based on Clive Barker's novella "Cabal", and Barker takes a turn behind the camera in one of his extremely rare directorial efforts. Being a big fan of other Clive Barker adapted works (Hellraiser and Candyman), I had pretty high expectations for this movie.
As you can tell by my score, my expectations were not met. I was shocked to find Nightbreed as an underdeveloped and somewhat pointless movie. The film crams in so many characters and ideas and explains so little of it that if feels like they're setting up a film series (think Lord of the Rings trilogy).
For example, why did the city summon Aaron, only turn him away? Why was Decker so hellbent on framing and killing Aaron when he seemed to be getting away with his murders? What are the Nightbreed and who is Baphomet?
These and many other questions aren't answered. "Cabal" is almost 400 pages, so it's likely the source material is more flushed out. The version of Nightbreed I watched was the Director's Cut, which didn't come out until 2014. Even with an additional 20 minutes footage and a completely different ending, I found the movie to be pretty messy.
There's some weird genre blending going on in this film, which is another thing that didn't really work for me. Nightbreed is mostly a fantasy movie, but there are also scenes straight out of a slasher horror film peppered in. Add in a Michael Kamen score that sounds reminiscent of his score in 1989's Batman and you have one unusual final product.
It is not lost on me that the Nightbreed characters are supposed to represent real life minorities (likely LGBTQ+), as they are forced to hide away and are persecuted by people who should be seen as the "good guys" (doctors, police officers, etc.). That's fine, but subtext can't carry an entire movie; especially when the Nightbreed characters are so underdeveloped that it's difficult to feel individual emotional connections with them.
I'm not exactly sure how to rate Nightbreed. It clearly has ambition and certain visual elements only Clive Barker could think up. But I have to admit it took me THREE tries to get through this movie, as it was literally putting me to sleep the first two times I sat down to watch it. The second half drags so much, and with paper thin lead characters that have murky (at best) motivations, I found myself not caring at all what was happening on the screen.
I did enjoy David Cronenberg's performance and the look of his serial killer, but that is one small element of the epic story Nightbreed is trying to tell. There are several cuts of this film, and I'd be willing to give one of those a try in the future. But for now, I'm not a fan of this movie. IMDB users currently rank this movie at a 6.5, so take this review with a grain of salt.
Hellraiser: Judgment (2018)
Hellraiser: Judgement (2018)
Three detectives hunt for a serial killer who murders victims based on The Ten Commandments. Meanwhile, members of various underworld sects work together to find alternative lures of corrupted souls due to the sinking popularity of puzzle boxes.
The 10th entry in the series, Hellraiser: Judgement is a passion project by Gary J. Tunnicliffe. Tunnicliffe has an extensive history with the series, working on makeup effects and special effects on several Hellraiser entries dating back to Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992). He also worked as a second unit director in the series, and wrote Hellraiser: Revelations.
In Hellraiser: Judgement, Tunnicliffe wears almost every hat possible. He wrote, directed, and associate produced this film, along with creating props and working in the make-up department. Additionally, he co-stars as the character "The Auditor", easily the best character in the film. I am seriously impressed.
The film itself is somewhat of a mixed bag. The movie opens with a creepy (albeit a bit torture porn-ish) opening sequence that looks reminiscent of a Silent Hill video game. This scene features the aforementioned Auditor, an underworld figure from the Stygian Inquisition - a different sect than the Cenobites - who audits the crimes of his prisoners, allowing their fates to be determined by a creepy jury. This opening is gross at times, but is also disturbing in a good way, and feels fresh within the Hellraiser series.
However, the film then shifts to - and mostly focuses on - a rather generic murder mystery. Damon Carney and Randy Wayne star as two brother detectives who're joined by a specialist (Alexandra Harris) in an attempt to stop a killer known as The Preceptor. The detective hunt isn't too bad, and the acting is overall good, but I'd have rather seen more of the underworld in the middle of the movie.
Pinhead plays a more prominent role in this movie compared to previous entires. Here, he's played by Paul T. Taylor, who does a pretty good job as the iconic character. The Pinhead make-up is the best it's been in decades too, which helps this film's credibility. Tunnicliffe did take some creative liberties with the character though, adding a heaven-and-hell element to the movie (there's even an angel character). I was fine with this because the continuity of this series has been screwed up/irrelevant for a while, but your mileage may vary.
Without spoiling things, the movie somewhat falls apart at the end. It's not the worst ending I've ever seen (cough... Revelations), but every plot thread feels like it comes to an underwhelming conclusion, to the point where a lot of the movie seems pointless in retrospect. At least there was a good use of gore in the climax, and this movie even has a post-credit scene!
Overall, Hellraiser: Judgement is one of the better entries in the series, and is a good direct-to-video movie. However, some of my praise for it is because I've subjected myself to watching the entire (generally bad) Hellraiser series in a very condensed period of time. Judging the movie on its own merits, it's a flawed film, but there is still entertainment value to be found. At the very least, I definitely think it is much better than IMDB's current 4.3 rating.
Hellraiser: Revelations (2011)
Hellraiser: Revelations (2011)
Two college friends go missing in Tijuana, and a mysterious video tape may provide clues about their fates.
Hellraiser: Revelations stars Steven Brand and Jay Gillespie as Ross Craven and Nico Bradley (yes, seriously), two college students who run away from home to Mexico with the intention of partying. However, they go missing, and the only clue to their whereabouts is a cryptic video recording. One year later at a dinner party between the Craven and Bradley families (ugh), Steven suddenly returns, but all is not as it seems.
The best way I can describe Hellraiser: Revelations is it feels like you're watching a YouTube fan film.
Seriously, I'm not even trying to be mean! Everything about Revelations - the acting, cinematography, direction, writing - screams amateur. When I was watching it I kept subconsciously telling myself not to be too hard on it because it wasn't a professional movie. Except it was - Dimension Extreme produced (read: crapped out) this movie in order to retain the Hellraiser franchise rights.
Revelations is a partial found footage film, and the found footage scenes are the WORST. The dialogue is just awful; I suspect most of it was improvised. The cinematography during this portion of the film is some of the worst I've ever seen, with excessive extreme close ups that cut off half of the subject's face. What human being doesn't know how to operate a video camera? (Don't say this movie's cinematographer...)
The dinner party scenes are almost as bad. The dialogue is terrible, and there are MANY filler scenes; the audience doesn't need minute long scenes of characters refilling each other's wine glasses. There's even a minute long scene that we see in its entirety twice. Even though it's filled with minutiae, Hellraiser: Revelations has a measly 75 minute run time - the shortest feature film I can recall.
One thing that confused me about the plot is that there is a lot of talk about how the two characters "ran away". Were they really planning to LIVE in Tijuana? Apparently so because when Steven returns, he gives a monologue about how much he hates living in the town he grew up in. Also, they were adults, so it's not exactly "running away". Emphasis on the word adults; the actor who played Nico was 32 when this movie was made, while his on-screen mother (Sanny van Heteren) was 34!
Is there anything good about Hellraiser: Revelations? Not much, but I'll give credit where credit is due. It was written as a Hellraiser movie, which is a rarity for this franchise. Also, there are a couple decent uses of gore. That's about it as far as "pros" go. These two elements alone don't move the needle much for me with everything else being so amateurish.
For the first time in series history, Pinhead is not played by Doug Bradley. Bradley turned down the role after reading the screenplay, and was replaced by Stephan Smith Collins. Smith Collins looks jarringly different than Doug Bradley, and his voice was dubbed by a different actor. Fans in 2011 quickly wrote this film off based on leaked photos of the "new" Pinhead, but the Cenobite is the least of this movie's problems (though I'd obviously rather have Bradley in the role).
Overall, Hellraiser: Revelations is one of the worst movies I've seen released by a major studio. Even in a series filled with bad sequels, it still manages to be a slap in the face to the fans. I really don't like giving 1 star ratings, but if this isn't a 1 star movie, what is? I'd rather open the Lament Configuration than watch this film again.
Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)
Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)
Two years after the death of their friend, a group of online gamers are invited to a mysterious party based on the game "Hellworld".
Hellraiser: Hellworld stars Lance Henriksen as "The Host", a mysterious man who invites gamers to a secluded mansion. The invitations are sent through "Hellworld", an addictive online game which is based around the Cenobites and the Lament configuration (which one character hilariously calls the LaMONT Configuration). Once there, guests are given masks and cell phones and encouraged to engage in drinking and anonymous sex. Meanwhile, a killer lurks in the shadows...
This film's plot is straightforward enough - characters are invited to a creepy mansion and picked off one by one, in what is basically is a classic slasher movie plot. However, the details are extremely incoherent.
What was the point of making the protagonists gamers? It had no impact on the plot, aside from the method in which they were invited to the adult-themed party (i.e. NOT A GAMING PARTY). How does a game exist based around the Cenobites? This movie doesn't pull a Blair Witch 2 and claim the previous Hellraiser movies as fiction; in fact, this movie definitely seems to be within the previously established cannon. Did Lance Henriksen invent the game? It sure doesn't seem like it based on later revelations in the movie...but if so then how did he send the invitations?
Nothing makes sense, and the further you deep dive, the worse it gets.
The characters in Hellraiser: Hellworld are a mixed bag. Lance Henriksen - who apparently turned down the role of Frank in the original Hellraiser - gives a good performance as the antagonist in what is very familiar territory for him. The main protagonists are supposed to be Jake (Christopher Jacot) and Chelsea (Katheryn Winnick); Jake's character trait is being emo, while Katheryn's is knowing karate... I think? She kicks someone.
Fortunately, there are two other characters - Derrick and Mike - that are played by future well known actors Khary Payton (The Walking Dead) and Henry Cavill (Man of Steel), respectively. Even early in their careers, these two act circles around everyone not named Lance Henriksen and add a level of legitimacy to this direct-to-video film.
Getting in to the spoiler section, I did like the twist that Lance/The Host was the father of the friend who died (whose name is Adam, by the way). This twist caught me off guard because, for some reason, I thought Jake and Adam were brothers due to the fact Jake was the only one who dressed up - and in general seemed to give a crap - during Adam's funeral.
By the way, Adam died after becoming obsessed with the Hellworld game, committing suicide via self immolation. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Lance would concoct a revenge scheme on Adam's friends for getting him addicted had he invented the game. However, if he did not invent the game, then it makes no sense that he'd have the ability to issue invitations via solving a puzzle within said game!
Anyhow... this revelation is made when Chelsea finds a photo of Adam and Lance together during a birthday celebration. Not long after, Jake screams at Lance/The Host, telling him he wasn't present in Adam's life for "16 years!" Didn't we just see a photo of father and son smiling together two seconds ago? Hilariously, not long after Chelsea asks Lance "why he's doing this!?" (read: killing everyone); he gives the obvious one word answer of "revenge". It's so bad it's hysterical.
I swear, the filmmakers went through all this work to give Lance/The Host a motive - even going as so far to explicitly say it's revenge just in case the dumb audience couldn't figure out out - when they could've easily just made him a psychopath.
To get back to the non-spoiler section... I've written several paragraphs while barely mentioning Pinhead or the Cenobites. In what was Doug Bradley's final turn as the iconic character, the demons play absolutely no role in the events of this film. That's susprising because unlike the past several movies, this screenplay was originally written as a Hellraiser movie.
The Cenobites serve as a mascot for the Hellworld video game (appearing on shirts and other apparel in the film), and make a few appearances during some hallucination scenes, but we don't see them a lot. When Pinhead and friends do appear for real at the end of the movie, they're in the "slasher villain" mode I hate so much, rather than their previously established torture mode. Pinhead looks like crap, just as he did in Hellraiser: Deader. That's not a surprise considering the two films were filmed back-to-back in 2002 in Romania, both directed by Rick Bota (in his third straight Hellraiser effort), and both shelved until 2005.
Overall, Hellraiser: Hellworld is yet another bad movie in the series, but it kinda works as a generic slasher movie as long as you don't pay too close attention to the plot. I also think there are some "so bad it's good" elements here, as I laughed at least a couple times during some unintentionally funny moments.
Hellraiser: Deader (2005)
Hellraiser: Deader (2005)
A London journalist travels to Bucharest to investigate a cult called "The Deaders", who seemingly have the power to return back to life.
Kari Wuhrer stars as Amy, an investigative journalist for an underground newspaper sent on assignment in Romania after her editor (Simon Kunz) receives a video tape of cult ritual in which a woman commits suicide but is then revived. Once there, Amy becomes entangled with the local subculture and tracks down Winter LeMarchand (Paul Rhys), leader of The Deaders and descendant of the puzzle box maker from Hellraiser: Bloodline.
Hellraiser: Deader is not a particularly good movie, but it's honestly one of the better Hellraiser sequels. The characters at least have traits and motivations, and the movie feels a little bit higher budget than Hellraiser: Hellseeker thanks to more set variety, something which was accomplished within the budget due to filming in Romania. (By the way, this movie was filmed in 2002 but shelved for a few years).
There were a couple scenes I enjoyed; one in which Amy searches a disgusting apartment for clues, and another in which a character tries to remove a knife from their own back (which looked like fun). I also thought the acting was decent, at least by Hellraiser standards. Overall there were some things to like, especially in the earlier parts of the film.
Unfortunately, Hellraiser: Deader still suffers from some of the same problems as its predecessor. There are constant fake-out dream sequences, and it gets to the point that it's difficult to figure out which scenes are real or fake. Furthermore, director Rick Bota (who also directed Hellseeker) makes some questionable choices once again, including too much slow motion. There's also one scene near the beginning of the movie which is really bizarrely edited; it keeps flashing back and forth between Amy getting on a train and having a conversation in her boss's office. I get what they were going for, but the way they went about it is jarring.
For me, the movie really fell apart in act three. Without spoiling it, logic was thrown out the window, and the conclusion of the film was very stupid. This ending was a result of shoehorning the Cenobites into the film, as Hellraiser: Deader is yet another Hellraiser film based on a spec script that originally didn't feature Pinhead and company.
Worse, of all the movies in the series up to this point, Pinhead felt the most of out place. He and the cenobites seem to revert back to the "boogeyman" status of Hellraiser III, and have very little to do with the plot until the very end of the film - where they appear and ruin the movie. Not to be mean, Pinhead was looking kinda old - and dare I say a little pudgy - in this one. It doesn't help that his entire head seems to be grey, except his eyes, ears, and mouth which are blue; this ruins the illusion, as it's painfully obvious he's wearing makeup and prosthetics.
Hellraiser: Deader has issues, but it isn't the worst Hellraiser movie. It's more watchable than most of the films in the series, even though it suffers from many of the same pitfalls. In what is clearly a bad horror franchise, I would rewatch this direct-to-video entry before most of the others.
Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)
Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)
A man is investigated by police after his wife goes missing following a car crash.
Dean Winters stars as Trevor, a man who accidentally drives his car off a bridge with his wife inside. His wife is a familiar face - Kirsty (Ashley Laurence), star of the original Hellraiser film in her first series appearance since a cameo in Hellraiser III. Trevor escapes the car, but Kirsty doesn't. However, police can't find her body and begin to investigate Trevor, suspecting foul play.
Hellraiser: Hellseeker, the sixth entry in the series, tries to tell a mystery story with psychological horror elements but fails pretty miserably. The main reason is that the leading character is terribly written. Aside from a chronic headache, Trevor has no character traits. He works a nondescript office job, lives in a crappy apartment, and has zero charisma. His character motivations? Seemingly only to cure said headache, but even that's stretching it because the headache seems to come and go.
Though Trevor is the focal point of the movie, he personally does nothing to progress the plot. In fact, he pretty much seems to have no idea what's going on at any point in time. It's like watching a bag blowing in the wind. Other characters approach him all the time to keep the story going, including a number of women who want to sleep with him...which I do not understand. Sure, the guy is good looking, but he has the personality of a brick.
Furthermore, the movie uses a ton of dream sequence fake outs. It's hard to feel invested in a plot when half of what we see is followed by a jump cut of Trevor waking up in bed.
Hellraiser: Hellseeker is the second straight-to-video Hellraiser movie. Unlike its predecessor - Hellraiser: Inferno - it's painfully obvious this one's direct to video. Awkward shaky camera and slow motion sequences; fake-out jump scares (i.e. Dog barking, phone ringing); bag CGI; below average acting; an incoherent plot - all of the hallmarks of a non-theatrical release. Though, there was one really good gore sequence a few minutes into the movie. Kudos on that one.
Pinhead? Oh yeah, I should probably mention him. He takes a back seat again here (which is fine), mostly appearing at the end of the movie to explain the entire plot to us (which is not fine). Seriously, you can pretty much figure out what's going on from some flashback sequences peppered throughout the movie, but the explanation of events still manages to be convoluted.
Another thing worth mentioning is Ashley Laurence's Kirsty only has about 10 minutes of screen time. Her role is significant to the plot, but she goes long periods without being on camera. Why was she not the star of this movie? It's part six in what is arguably a pretty crappy horror franchise, and Laurence is obviously not some huge star that this filmmakers couldn't afford to pay for more shooting days. There's no reason Hellseeker needed to star a cardboard cut out of a character, played by the guy who's famous for the character "Mayhem" in the Allstate car insurance commercials (was I the only one who found the irony in him driving his car off a bridge?).
I know the answer to my question of why Laurence didn't command a bigger screen presence: it's because this script was originally a stand alone idea that later shoehorned the Kirsty, Pinhead, and the puzzle box into it. Bad, bad movie.
Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
A sleazy detective becomes obsessed with catching a serial killer known as The Engineer.
Craig Sheffer stars as Joseph, a member of the Denver Police Department who is a complete sack of crap. He abuses, cheats on, lies to, or steals from every person unfortunate enough to cross paths with him. However, he is also pretty smart and analytical.
After the horrific death of a former classmate, Joseph becomes embroiled in a cat-and-mouse game with The Engineer, a serial killer who leaves a child's severed finger at every crime scene. Nicholas Turturro co-stars as Sheffer's by-the-book partner, along with James Remar as a police psychologist who had a previous run in with The Engineer.
Hellraiser: Inferno, the fifth entry in the series, is a breath of fresh air for the franchise. Whereas the previous sequels ride the coattails of the original film, Inferno does its own thing and tells as stand alone story. The main reason for this is that it wasn't originally a Hellraiser story; it was a spec script that Dimension added the Cenobites to. I don't see this as a problem at all though, as I'm pretty sure the only major change that was made was flipping Satan -> Pinhead.
Compared with this rest of the series, this movie also has a different tone to it. Rather than body horror, Hellraiser: Inferno is instead a psychological horror in the vein of something like Silent Hill. Your milage my vary, but I thought filmmakers were very successful going in this direction.
Speaking of direction, this movie was helmed by Scott Derrickson in his first ever turn behind the camera. Derrickson later went on to direct movies like Doctor Strange (2016) and The Black Phone (2021). Frankly you can see the talent, especially compared to the other Hellraiser sequels.
Hellraiser: Inferno was the first of many direct-to-video films in the series, but fortunately it doesn't show that much. There are a couple terrible scenes using computer effects, but the Cenobites look good due to the movie mostly relying on practical effects. Though the acting isn't great in general, it's way better than most of the Hellraiser movies.
I may be too high on Hellraiser: Inferno, but I found it to be above average. Many fans of the series are lower on it than I am due to the fact that Pinhead has very limited screen time. I find this to be a huge plus. The previous sequels went into the wrong direction of turning Pinhead into a boogeyman who needs to be defeated by the protagonists. Here, he returns to his role simply as a demon who inflicts torture on those unfortunate enough to open the Lament Configuration puzzle.
Overall, this is my favorite Hellraiser sequel up to this point. That might sound blasphemous for me to say about this direct-to-video entry, but it's significantly better than the previous two sequels, and I even find it to be better than the good but more bombastic Hellbound: Hellraiser II. IMDB currently has this film at a 5.4, but I'd be curious to see what the score was looking at only the last 10 years, as this film has seemed to age well with horror fans. I think the movie should be around a 6.5, so I'm grading up a little by giving it a 7. Either way, take this review with a grain of salt.
Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)
Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)
In 2127, an engineer aboard a spaceship recounts his family's history with the demonic puzzle box, the Lament Configuration.
In a story told across four centuries, Bruce Ramsay stars as three members of the L'Merchant/Merchant family. First as Philippe, a toymaker in 1796 France who's responsible for creating the famous puzzle box. Ramsay then plays John, an industrialist in 1996 New York who built the skyscraper seen at the end of Hellraiser III. Finally, the actor plays Paul, an engineer in 2127 aboard spaceship "The Minos", who is trying to destroy the box and the Cenobites once and for all.
As far as ambition goes, Hellraiser: Bloodline gets an A in my book. Execution on the other hand? I knew this thing was going to be bad before it even began due to the text "Directed by ALAN SMITHEE" prominently displayed during the opening credits.
Yes, this movie is a mess. Bloodline tries to tell an epic story, but attempts to do so with an insanely short 85 minute run time. Dimension/Miramax didn't like Director Kevin Yagher's submitted 110 minute cut, ordering reshoots to feature more Pinhead, and scrapping lots of exposition scenes. Joe Chappele, who ironically directed Dimension/Miramax's similarly diced up Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, came in to direct reshoots.
The result is a boring, strangely paced, disjointed movie. Versions of Yagher's originally movie vision on Youtube, thanks to fan edits using work print footage. I have watched a few scenes and read the synopsis. One thing Yagher's version did that would've helped this movie was tell things in chronological order, rather than jumping around from 2127 to the other time periods.
Though the original idea seems to be nothing great, it probably could've gotten another star compared to the theatrical release. But even without the studio interference, Hellraiser: Bloodline has problems.
Specifically, the characters are bland, the movie isn't scary, and I personally don't care to see an origin story for this universe. The movie also looks very cheap, especially the scenes on the spaceship; you'd think this was one of the direct-to-video entries the Hellraiser series later became famous for. But hey, at least they got Pinhead right - he looks, sounds, and acts like the character from the first two movies, rather than the mockery he was made to be in Hellraiser III.
Overall, Hellraiser: Bloodline is a bad movie, and objectively worse than the bad series entry that was Hellraiser III. But, I still dislike Bloodline less, because at least the filmmakers tried something different, and may have been slightly more successful with less studio meddling.