Psycho Franchise

Here we are, in November, with Halloween in our rear view mirror as most people are looking forward to Thanksgiving and Christmas and all the happy thoughts that come with it. But I, the sick man that I am, still have horror movies on my mind. Yet, as it turns out, I’m looking towards Christmas as well, so I can pop in some Christmas-themed horror into my Blu-Ray player. Films like, Silent Night, Deadly Night or Black Christmas or Gremlins or maybe even Jack Frost. Yes…’tis the season, right?

However, we’re still a ways before we even get to Thanksgiving, so I still consider this as the spooky season of Halloween. So, with that in mind, there’s one movie—or shall I say, movie franchise—that I revisit once a year, usually around the month of October. But for some reason, I wasn’t able to jam as many horror movies in as much as I have in the past. Maybe it’s because of the strange, lingering hot weather that has over-stayed its welcome. Whatever the reason, I was only able to watch half as many as I have in the past. But, anyway, the franchise in question is none other than Psycho.

Alfred Hitchcock was a genius, there’s nothing more I can say that has already been said countless times from countless film historians and critics alike, and so I’ll just go into why I like the first film as well as the sequels.

As a child, I had always known about the film, Psycho, but really never watched it all the way through until the early 1990s. The shower scene was continuously parodied or referenced in one way or another, so I was very familiar with it. But if you were to ask me, prior to 1990, what the film was about, I probably wouldn’t have been able to give you a straight answer because I probably didn’t know exactly.

Thinking back, I probably watched the first two sequels before deciding to watch the original film, but one thing’s for sure, I really appreciate them all as a whole a lot more now than I had back then.

I’ll start with 1960’s Psycho first, as I had bought the Blu-Ray when it was first released in 2010 as a 50th anniversary edition, so I’ll get into how that looks as well.

---------------------------------------------------------
As a warning, there will be spoilers ahead. 
It’s impossible to get into the sequels without
talking about what happens in the first film,
so you’ve been warned.
---------------------------------------------------------

The story is well known and based on a bestselling book by Robert Bloch: girl loves guy, guy’s in debt, girl steals money to help guy, girl runs off to be with guy.

Said girl is Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) and yes, we all know the story that happens afterwards, where Marion, on her way to be with said guy, Sam Loomis (John Gavin), finally needs a place to rest for the night and unfortunately chooses the Bates Motel, getting to know Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and finally meeting Norman’s "mother" during the famous shower scene. So I really don’t need to go into that other than to say that to this day, that shower scene was shot and edited perfectly. It’s definitely the highlight of the film. But the story as a whole, as well as the choice to kill off the star of the film a third of the way into the movie, is magnificent. Though a bit tame for today’s standards, I think it still works.

The acting from all players is understandably rigid and a little outdated. Seeing that this is a film from 1960, you have to forgive it and just get by it. Personally, I like it because, in watching the rest of the franchise, you have to see this as a period piece and not try to see it as a modern film. However, there are some scenes where the stiff acting plays to the scene, particularly the scene between Detective Arbogast (Martin Balsam) and Norman Bates, as well as Loomis and Bates.

The sets are mostly special to me because they were built and filmed at Universal Studios. For years, I had enjoyed seeing the motel and manor sets on the tram ride during the back lot tour. But not too long ago, I found out that the sets seen during the tour are not in the exact place as they were when filmed in 1960. In fact, it’s been said that the sets were rebuilt here and there for the sequels, but they’re the same since those 1980s films. Still, the sets and glimpses of the back lot always bring nostalgia to the forefront because most of my favorite movies were filmed there. Above all else, however, the Bates Manor is the most awesomely spooky set ever built for any horror movie, in my opinion. When I finally took the back lot tour for the first time and understood that the house was just a shell, that there’s nothing inside, I was a little let down. Still, Universal Studios was able to recreate the motel and manor set perfectly.

The music by Bernard Herrmann is very memorable and beautifully done. Of course, the stand-out of the film is the screeching strings during the death-in-the-shower scene.

Above all else, Anthony Perkins is magnificent in this film as the person you sort of care about and understand what he’s going through, even after you find out he’s crazy and was the one who actually murdered Marion Crane and Detective Arbogast. The film, as a whole, is a work of art—a masterpiece—in Hitchcock’s repertoire. Coincidentally, I can’t wait to see Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins playing the Master of Suspense himself.

What’s interesting about Psycho is Hitchcock negated his usual directing fee and asked for a percentage of the returns instead, he filmed the movie in black & white during a time when most films were being filmed in color, he used most of his television filming crew to make the movie, and all set filming was done at Universal Studios (even though this was to be distributed by Paramount Studios). All this was done to save studio space and money that Paramount did not want to give.

By far, I’ve got to say that Psycho is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock film, with The Birds a close second.

As I’d mentioned, I had purchased the Blu-Ray disc of Psycho when it was first released in 2010 to coincide with its 50th anniversary, happily replacing my barebones DVD I had in my collection. The new disc boasted how it had a new stereo sound and clear transfer and that made me wonder how that was possible. I knew the original was filmed with mono audio, meaning all the sound was recorded as one; there was no separation of sounds and that’s usually impossible to reverse. As explained much better in one of the featurettes, there’s a new process where they can painstakingly separate all the sounds to make it stereophonic. Let me tell you, it shows. The pattering sound of the rain showering down on Marion’s windshield used to sound like white noise coming from the television now sounds separated and clear, even directional as if you can hear the separated drops across the window. At the used car lot, you can hear the traffic passing from left to right and right to left. It’s incredible what they were able to do with the sound on this disc. Of course, the film is so crisp and clean, it’s hard to believe that the movie is 50 years old!

So on to 1983’s Psycho II, bringing Anthony Perkins back to reprise the role he made so famous 23 years prior.

I wasn’t an avid theater visitor until the mid-80s, so this is a film I watched when it hit video rental shelves sometime after it was released. I don’t think I had seen the original yet, as I had mentioned before, but I was very curious to see any horror movie during this time. The 1980s, after all, was the pinnacle decade for horror flicks, no matter what the sub-genre was about, so I lunged at this VHS when I saw it on the store shelf.

Initially, I didn’t care much for the film. Maybe it was because I wasn’t too familiar with the original to understand what they were doing in this sequel or maybe I was just looking for another masked serial killer to take out a bunch of teenagers at a camp of some sort. But, overall, I didn’t hate it. Though, after watching the original, then seeing this one, my appreciation for the series went up ten-fold.

The story is a bit convoluted and has a few bits of impossibilities in it, especially when the killer is revealed, but if you can put all that aside, it’s a really great, underrated film.

To summarize, the sequel takes place 22 years after the events from the original. Norman is being released from the institution after being declared sane and is able to rejoin the population again. Vera Miles returns as Marion’s sister, Lila Crane (now Lila Loomis after marrying Sam), as a staunch detractor of Norman Bates’s release. In the opening scene as we see Norman in court as he’s let back into the world, Lila is there to show the petition of names she’s collected against Norman’s release. But it falls on deaf ears.

Norman is brought back to the manor and motel, being run by a lowlife manager by the name of Toomey (Dennis Franz) who runs it as an adult motel, complete with a lot of drug-use and prostitution. Norman is clearly not happy about it and Toomey clearly knows about Bates’s past.

To get back into the world, Norman is assigned a job as an assistant cook at the local diner, meeting Mrs. Emma Spool (Claudia Bryar) who shows him around the diner and introduces him to everyone. He befriends one of the waitresses, Mary (Meg Tilly), who happens to be Lila’s daughter, and allows her to stay with him as she tells him her boyfriend threw her out of their apartment.

Throughout the film, Lila and her daughter are trying to drive Norman crazy again to send him back to the institution and during that time, someone is offing people but we don’t know who it is. Is it Norman? Is it Lila? Is it Mary? Someone’s also calling Norman and saying it is his mother. Is it in his head? Or is it actually his mother?

One of the best things about this film is the music by Jerry Goldsmith. He sure had big shoes to fill when being hired to score this film. It was a smart decision to not remake or recreate the music already heard in the original film, but it must’ve been nerve-racking to try and come up with an original piece. However, Goldsmith accomplished it and I say bravo to him. It’s been said that the main theme he created for this film brought Anthony Perkins to tears. Usually, I’d dismiss this as bullshit, but a few years back, I was going through some emotional turmoil and decided to watch this film. Although I didn’t resort to crying, the music did add to my distress and increased the sadness I had been feeling. To me, Goldsmith’s music is a highlight of this film.

Regarding the opening, I actually love how they start the film with the shower scene from the original movie. It’s a good way to transition the two movies since one was shot in black & white and this one in color.

Overall, amidst some plot holes in Psycho II, the story is very moving and intriguing with a very unusual twist at the end. I’ll avoid the spoiler for this one, because perhaps most of you haven’t seen the sequels and regarding this one as such a worthy follow-up, I don’t want to ruin it for you.

And then there was 1986’s Psycho III…

As the film opens with Maureen (Diana Scarwid), a nun at a convent who is struggling with something emotional, leading her to want to commit suicide by jumping from the bell tower. The head nun tries to pull her back but falls to her death instead. Maureen then leaves the convent, shunned by the other nuns and tries to run away somewhere. She ends up at the Bates Motel, of course, and becomes a love interest of Norman’s, especially because of the resemblance to Marion Crane, the woman he murdered all those years ago.

I won’t get into this one as much, because the movie, as a whole, turned out to be the typical slasher-fare of the time. The 80s were ripe with these types of film, so it was a no brainer to cash in on the craze. But what’s interesting about this film is the fact that it was Anthony Perkins’s directorial debut. Another thing was that this film corrected the bizarre twist the previous film went into at the end.

So, if you can get past the slasher template throughout the movie and take note of the important aspects of the movie, you’ll enjoy it. Overall, it was nice to see Norman back at home with “Mother” and delving back into his creepy demeanor, not to mention how he finally finds a love interest. Underneath the characteristic 80s horror film that it set out to be, Psycho III is definitely a tragedy, reduced a bit by the ridiculous ending filmed to open it up for a possible sequel.

So, onto the possible sequel that happened four years later…I bring you, Psycho IV: The Beginning…

Out of the original four Psycho films, this is definitely my least favorite. It’s still a good sequel/prequel, but not to the caliber of the previous two.

First off, you have to suspend disbelief big time here. Because how the hell would Norman ever get out of the mental institution after the events of part 3? There would be no way! But if you can get past that, then it’s a pretty enjoyable little film.

In a nutshell, Anthony Perkins returns again as Norman, in a new home, talking on the phone with the local talk radio show, discussing his “mommy” issues. The story flashes back to show the life he had prior to the events of the first film.

The sequel portion of the film is a little boring to me as all we see is Norman alone at home, talking on the phone with this radio host. The scenes are intercut with the host, Fran Ambrose (CCH Pounder), and her guest, Dr. Leo Richmond (Warren Frost). I find myself wanting to fast forward these scenes because they’re a little boring. But holding up on doing so pays off a little as the scenes transition well into the prequel portions of the film.

In the prequel—or flashback—scenes, the story takes place when the motel and house were new and had some color to it. A young Norman Bates (Henry Thomas) lives there with his mother, Norma Bates (Olivia Hussey), and basically tells the story of what happened that led Norman to go crazy.

These flashback scenes are what save the movie and makes it refreshing to watch. However, I didn’t like how they used the same music cues from the first film, nor did I like how they used the same exact dialogue. I mean, come on, what’s the likelihood that Norman would use the “Blood! Blood!” line exactly the same way? And it seemed that they were using the word “inordinately” to tie Norman’s character to the first film. But Norman wasn’t the one who had used it in the first film, it was Marion.

It’s a little sad that this was how Anthony Perkins closed his Norman Bates chapter, because it wasn’t well written and doesn’t hold your attention as well as the other films. It was an interesting concept to have Joseph Stefano (who wrote the script for the 1960 film) write Psycho IV’s script, but it fell a little flat.

Another sad thing about the film, to me anyway, was that it wasn’t filmed at Universal Studios in Hollywood, as the other films were, but in Florida. They did a fine job at recreating the house and motel set, but knowing that fact was a little depressing to me for some reason.

More than that, this film wasn’t released theatrically, but rather as a straight-to-cable film.

Above all else, it was sad altogether that we lost Anthony Perkins a short two years after this film was released.

Well, eight years later, a terrible thing happened…an event that happens quite often nowadays in Hollywood. Some A-hole gave the green light to have 1960’s Psycho remade.  It sounded good at the time, a time when we weren’t getting a few remakes every year, but it was a newsworthy item that sounded promising. Yes, Gus Van Sant was given the reigns to direct a remake, or reshoot, of Psycho. I say reshoot, because that’s all it really was. It wasn’t a reimagining or a reboot; it was just a shot-for-shot re-filming of the original movie. Same dialogue, same running time, same scenes, same everything. So you’d think it’d be just as good as the original, right? Wrong! If you take dialogue from the 60s and put it into a modern-looking film, it’s going to seem very out of place. It made Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates sound like a weirdo, it made Anne Heche’s Marion Crane boring as shit, it made William H. Macy as Arbogast sound like he was parodying a noir film scene from the 40s…it just did not work on any level whatsoever.

It’s no lie, the movie is scene-for-scene, shot-for-shot, the exact same movie as the 1960 film, save for some weird flashes the director stuck in there for some unexplained reason.

If there’s any saving grace, is to see the motel set once again, but with a different gothic house in the back. But the film is terrible. I’d skip it.

One thing I had forgotten to mention was a television movie that was made and released in 1987 called “Bates Motel.”  I’d never seen it. What I’d heard was that Norman leaves his property to a fellow institutionalized inmate after he dies. The guy, Alex West (Bud Cort), opens the motel back up after he’s released and the show is sort of set up like “Fantasy Island” or “The Love Boat,” where guest starts show up and stories revolve around them. I guess this was meant to be a series, but it didn’t go on so the first two episodes were made into one TV movie.

Coming up in 2013, and I forget what network is airing it (I think it’s A&E), “Bates Motel” will be tried again, this time in a more serious tone.  I will definitely look forward to that.

Well, I think I covered everything Psycho-based, but I’ll leave you with this as my final “bit” on the Psycho franchise:

For a great look into the story, as well as great interviews by a lot of people involved with the franchise, look to a superb documentary entitled, The Psycho Legacy.  It is very well done with such an interesting look into the making of these movies, with archival footage as well as interviews of the casts and behind-the-scenes crewmembers from all the movies. You can’t get much deeper than what Robert V. Galluzzo did here. What he put together in this documentary is a dream-come-true for Psycho fans such as myself. It’s definitely the bookend to my collection.

So there you have it, my love of these films will be in me until the day I die. I’ve often talked to my wife about how I’d like to be cremated after my death, but the question that always came up was where I’d like my ashes to be spread. Usually, I’d tell her that I’d like them to be spread out, dropped from an aircraft, above the back lot of Universal Studios in Hollywood. But the debate is still up in the air. How cool would it be to spend my eternity in the back lot, living my afterlife in the Bates Motel?

I hope you enjoyed reading this and if you’ve never visited the franchise, or maybe you have and never watched the sequels, I hope I’ve convinced you to give it a try. The 1960 original is definitely the Holy Grail of horror movies and no horror fan should be without it in their movie collection. If you don’t have it, go out and buy it. The sequels are optional, but I suggest you watch them at least.

Once again, thanks for reading!

You can reach me on Twitter: @CinemaBits.

Pumpkinhead and The Return of the Living Dead



For my last horror movie review of the October Halloween season, I was stuck on what film I should review, between two classics I love to watch during this spooky time of year. Both are cult favorites of the 1980s, having such great moments in them and, wanting to make sure I get it down in this blog, I wanted them to be part of my Halloween-themed reviews for this year. So...I decided to review them both.


By the way, pardon the rapid way this one was written, because I had to deal with giving out candies every so often as I was writing this.

What I have on the plate today are two fun films to watch: a serious creature feature and a horror comedy zombie film-1988's Pumpkinhead and 1985's The Return of the Living Dead.

Lance Henriksen is a favorite actor of mine, and well known for the parts he plays, yet always plays the second fiddle to another actor of higher caliber. But Henriksen is no slouch himself...I've seen him pull out some very different performances in a few movies over the years. In Dog Day Afternoon he was the FBI agent that didn't say much until the big climactic scene at the end of the movie; in Damien: Omen II, he had a small evil part as the sergeant of the military school that takes Damien under his wing at the end; in The Terminator, he was a flunky cop who didn't get respect from his sergeant; and we all know him as Bishop from a few of the Alien films. Many of his films showcased him as a supporting character, but he was always awesome and stood out in those parts. But my favorite Lance Henriksen vehicle has got to be Pumpkinhead.

The film opens up at night with some man running from something he seems afraid of as he screams for someone to help him. He stops at a house and bangs on the door, calling to Tom Harley (Lee de Broux). The Harley family is inside and Tom advises his wife and son that they need to keep out of it. Soon, an unseen force closes in on the man and we hear his scream as he's obviously killed.

Cut to years later and we see Ed Harley (Henriksen), a grown man now, and his son, Billy (Matthew Hurley-a Jonathan Lipnicki look-a-like), in a little country town. We see how close they are as they work on their farm together and enjoy each other's company during dinner.

Ed Harley and his son run a small store along the country highway and one day, a group of friends stop on their way to a cabin for a fun getaway, complete with dirt bikes that they've hauled with them, to pick up some supplies. Not long after, a family from town comes by to get some groceries and supplies as well and ask Harley to have some of it delivered to their house. Harley leaves his son to mind the store as he takes off to deliver the goods.

Soon after Harley leaves, two of the guys from the group of friends decide to take the dirt bikes out for a ride behind the store. Harley's son runs out at one point to go after his dog and gets hit by one of the dirt bikes as if lands from a jump.  Most of the friends go and tend to the boy to see if he can be helped, but the douche bag of the bunch, who admits he's had a few beers and claims to have a DUI on his record, takes off with his girlfriend.

When Harley arrives and sees what's happened, he runs and grabs his boy and takes him to his truck. The friends say they're sorry and claim it was an accident, but Harley pays them no mind as upset as he is. But as one of the guys asks if there's anything he can do to help, Harley turns and glares at him, then walks off.

Ed Harley, remembered the man that tried to get help that night long ago was someone who did someone else wrong and deserved what came to him. He knew that there was a witch in town that helped in that and could help him avenge his son's death. He finds her and with her help they unleash Pumpkinhead.

Pumpkinhead is the directorial debut of Stan Winston, the special effects wizard responsible for the work in The Terminator, Aliens, Predator, and Jurassic Park. In my opinion, he did a great job with this film, especially with the design of the key monster. For its time, before CGI, the effects were believable and had me cringing in my seat when I first saw it years ago. The cinematography is great and has a creepy feel as the group of friends that are trying to get away from this monster that just keeps coming for them.

Now, in a completely opposite direction, we have The Return of the Living Dead, which is somewhat of a sequel to Night of the Living Dead.

Funny thing about this film is that I never watched it when it first came out in theaters, nor did I ever rent it when it was released onto video. In fact, the first time I watched it was a couple of years ago when I decided it was high time I checked out this cult classic. But, somehow, I didn't think it was a classic and turned it off after watching fifteen minutes of it. However, after getting a little nostalgic for 1980s horror movies, I decided to give it another try and rented it again. This time, I loved it.

The film opens with Frank (James Karen of Poltergeist fame) and Freddy (Thom Matthews of Jason Lives: Friday the 13th VI fame) working in a medical supply warehouse. Frank shows the young kid what they do there and how they go about sending stuff out to medical offices and hospitals. Frank brings up Night of the Living Dead and tells Freddy it was based on a true story. He goes on to tell him that the warehouse actually holds the chemically-infested bodies that were responsible for the outbreak. Freddy doesn't believe him and wants to see it for himself. Frank gladly takes him to the basement area and shows him the drums with the government writing on them. When Freddy asks what happens if the barrels leak, Frank slaps them and says they won't, which, at that point, they do.

I won't go on too much about how it all plays out, but rest assured, everything goes ape-shit. The dead come back to life, wanting to eat brains and nothing else. But I will say that this movie is a fresh approach to most zombie films whereas the undead are intelligent and can communicate.

Some of the subplot involves Freddy's friends and how they're waiting for him to get off work so they can all go partying, so we get to see them hanging out at the adjacent cemetery. One of the most gratuitous displays of nudity in film history comes from Linnea Quigley as she just decides to take off her clothes and dance around the graves.

But, all in all, The Return of the Living Dead is a big fun movie to watch, mostly a horror comedy, but there are some good scares within.

So, what's my final "bit" on Pumpkinhead and The Return of the Living Dead?

As I'd said, Pumpkinhead is a serious creature feature that is beautifully shot and well-acted by the great Lance Henriksen. It plays out well and creates a lot of spooky ambience for the audience during the Halloween season. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and do so tonight! On the other side of the coin, if you feel like having a good laugh while being scared, please go to your local video rental store and pick up The Return of the Living Dead. You'll thank me.

Well, I hope you've enjoyed my Halloween-themed reviews. Keep on watching those scary movies...it doesn't necessarily have to be October to enjoy a horror movie.

Thanks for reading!

You can reach me on Twitter: @JustCallMeManny.

Child's Play 2

Sorry for that short sidebar review the other day…it was something I really needed to get off of my chest and it felt great to do so, but it’s time to continue my reviews of must-see horror movies for the Halloween season.


Rather than rehashing my short reviews of some of my favorite horror movies (see my Top 20 Horror Movies review), I’ve picked out some films that you may have not seen or have forgotten—like I have—over the years.

One movie I’ve seen recently is a film I haven’t seen since it was released in theaters in 1990…Child’s Play 2.  With a tagline like, “Sorry, Jack…Chucky’s Back,” how could you go wrong? Of course, that tagline makes sense when you see it in context with the poster art, showing Chucky attempting to cut off the head of a Jack-in-the-box with scissors.  Yes, the sequel to the hit 1988 original brings back that possessed killer doll to continue what he does best: evoke terror and kill.

When I first saw this movie back in 1990, I wasn’t impressed and thought it just didn’t hold a candle to the original. I never gave it another try on rental or cable TV...I just thought it was a shitty movie and shouldn’t even waste my time with it again. But as people get older, they become more forgiving (or is it forgetful?) and I started thinking about how this franchise grew and how Chucky was the one who made it what it was. Not only that, but I was getting set to visit Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios and I knew that Chucky was sometimes a staple of that event. So wanting to catch up and get a refresher on the series, I had Netflix send me a copy of Child’s Play 2 and I was glad I did.

I really don’t understand why I didn’t enjoy this movie back then. The movie is definitely a fun and solid popcorn flick that had me thinking about some of the fun movies I had seen during the early 90s.

Throughout the beginning credits, the film opens with a montage of someone cleaning up the mess that was left of Chucky in the first film. Mainly, his head is being stripped of the melted plastic and scraped off of the metal (or plastic...I can't tell) skull underneath. His teeth are cleaned and, overall, all burned and melted parts—including his eyes—are taken out. The head is remade with a new plastic skin and red hair, all attached to a new toy body. We then see that the film is taking place at the Good Guy toy factory, with the company’s owner (Peter Haskell) and the factory manager (Greg Germann) talking about the doll and how they want to make sure everything is okay with it. The manager mentions how it was a goof with someone recording bad things when the doll was first made. They then go on talking about who knows about what had happened and it’s revealed that the cops recanted their stories with the boy’s mother spending time in a mental institution. Seems that the owner wants to prove they had fixed the doll’s problems. Well, at this point, the technicians are putting the final touches on the doll, using a machine to place the new eyes in the doll’s head (they did everything else by hand, so why not the eyes?). Somehow the machine malfunctions, shooting some electricity into the doll which, apparently, brings it back to life—although we don’t find out until a little later. The manager is told to hold onto the doll until they can show it at some presentation, but he never makes it home, thanks to Chucky. Meanwhile, Chucky finds Andy and all hell—meaning, Chucky—beaks loose.

I like how they continued the story using Andy (Alex Vincent) as he's now orphaned and living with a foster family. How he was constantly blamed for doing the horrible things that Chucky was actually doing was cool (the note on his homework to the teacher, found in the basement with the electric knife). However, the kid was a terrible actor when he did the first one and he isn’t any better in this one, but it’s good to see the same actor nonetheless.

The special effects were well done and executed as believably as they could do it, seeing that it’s tough to make a doll come to life during the pre-CGI era. In the first film, there were a lot of far away shots where they used a small person or child to make it appear the doll was walking or running around. They never had any shots like that in this movie, but I wish they did because some of those shots in the first film wigged me out a little.

Brad Dourif as the voice of Chucky nails it again in this one (if they ever decide to make another “Chucky” movie, they better have him on board because it won’t be the same without him) and I might note here that I think the first two films are the only semi-serious films made because the following sequels started making him a one-liner cartoon serial killer. But the close-ups showing the doll talking had a great synchronization going with Dourif’s voice, which makes for an eerie and believable quality.

Overall, the film doesn’t have many surprises and it goes along like an archetypal slasher flick, but it’s still enjoyable, even so. But with all the typical storyline that plays out, the most entertaining part of the film is the climax at the Good Guy factory. Without giving it away, the way it ends is terrific.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Child’s Play 2?

Even though the film was made in 1990—and we know that the early horror films of the 90s were very outlandish and out there—Child’s Play 2 has the feel and reminiscence of an 80s horror flick. It’s a perfect film to watch right after the original, all during the great season of Halloween. So wait until dark, turn off all the lights, keep your toys in plain sight, and put in your Child’s Play DVDs.

Universal Sudios Halloween Horror Nights in Hollywood

As some of you may know, I usually use this blog as a site to review films, both in theaters and on DVD or Blu-Ray. But I’m going to post a review of my night at Universal Studio’s Halloween Horror Nights in Hollywood. I’m going to keep it short and sweet, since maybe you don’t want to read any rants or praise about an amusement park attraction. However, I have a fresh in my mind, so let’s do this. Hopefully, you have an idea or a little knowledge of the Universal Studios park because I’m not going to get too much into the everyday rides and attractions they have featured there. So if I mention some details or physical aspects of the place, I hope it doesn’t lose you.

Back in 2007, I first heard an advertisement on the radio about this event taking place over there. It mentioned that patrons will be able to walk around in the back lot and go through many haunted mazes, so I was very intrigued. However, I wasn’t able to go that year, so I waited with bated breath for a chance to visit the following year.

2008 couldn’t get there any slower and the month of October finally arrived. A buddy and myself took the trek to Universal Studios, visited for the day and waited patiently for the sun to set. The way the park set it up that year was to have everyone with a Horror Nights ticket wait in a certain area of the park while they kicked everyone else out. As soon as that happened and 7 o’clock reared it’s frightening head, the lights in the park went out and the excitement began.

The featured attractions that year were the three icons of fright: Leatherface, Jason and Freddy. It was awesome! We, first, went to the Tram ride- the Terror Tram- and enjoyed the ride in the dark until they suddenly stopped and told us we had to walk the rest of the way. From then on, we followed the directions of cloaked workers with flashlights throughout a pathway.

The highlight for me was waking in front of the Bates Motel, featuring the scene recreation from Psycho III, with the high school reunion happening after an apparent bloodbath. We kept going through this area, past the motel and up towards the Bates Manor, which was another treat for me to see this iconic building and have it only a mere twenty feet away from me. After that, we were motioned to keep going through some maze and then it was through the plane wreck set from War of the Worlds.

The rest of the night, we went through the various mazes they featured throughout the park, getting the shit scared out of us. Man, I was in heaven! It was such an awesome event! Even the little puppet show they had with Chucky yelling obscenities at everybody was great. At that moment, my buddy and I vowed to come back again the following year, and we did!

2009’s event was great as well. You could see the popularity making it grow, as the event had a little longer lines and went a tad longer for us. 2010, I decided to introduce my wife to the event and she, not being a big horror fan, was scared out of her mind. In 2011, my wife and I visited the park with two mutual friends of ours and had somewhat of a good time as well.

The one thing I had noticed over the last few years is that the park became more and more crowded every year. Of course it’s attributed to the popularity of the event, so I really can’t complain. Or can I?

In 2008, my buddy and I were able to see every single maze and take the Terror Tram twice that night, still being able to call it a night at 11 PM. 2009 was a little busier, but we were still able to see everything before 1 AM. 2010 and 2011 started really showing the signs of the event’s popularity because the whole park was packed and we were only able to see a fraction of the mazes. I follow the event’s designer, John Murdy, on Twitter and noticed he advised people to visit on Sundays because there were less crowds to deal with. So, days after my 2011 visit, I told myself that next year I’d make it a point to come to the event on a Sunday.

Yesterday, after purchasing my tickets for my wife and I about a month ago, we went to the event to enjoy the park with less crowds.

Upon arriving, the first thing I noticed as I drove up Lankershim to Universal Hollywood Drive was that there was a backup of vehicles. Then, as we drove up, heading to the parking structure, signs read that the event was sold out. As an unusual addition to this, parking attendants were motioning vehicles to park in the further parking structure signaling to me that this place was going to be packed.

Sure enough, it was.

The line for the Terror Tram was all the way up the escalators and beyond. I was stunned. Although the line moved fast, it was still a long wait for more of the same I had seen before. The walk in the back lot was a little different this year, a little shorter, and not as enjoyable. Seeing that I had already seen the Llorona and Alice Cooper mazes last year, I decided to check out the Universal Monster Remix maze, which is, more or less, the everyday monster house maze they feature daily at the park. After leaving there, I decided to search out the Silent Hill maze. Being that it was near the Jurassic Park Ride, we had to take the multiple escalators down just to get there, and saw that the maze had a 70 minute wait. We started waited through the line, up and down, in and out, waiting and waiting…I finally looked at my wife and said, “Let’s go home.” Knowing how much I love Universal Studios and how much I look forward to Halloween Horror Nights, she tried to persuade me to stay, but I couldn’t take it.

We went home and I felt no regrets about it.

A few things I wonder about this event: How many tickets are sold before it’s determined that it’s sold out? There seemed to be a shitload of people there, so how about making that number lower? Universal Studios must make a TON of money with this park everyday and it’s overpriced concessions, can’t they cut back the maximum capacity to let people have fun? I know a lot of people were raving about the place when we were there, but it seemed like most of them were drunk or high, which I’m sure enhanced their enjoyment of the place.

For me, all I’ll take back from this place is seeing so many faces looking miserable as they wait, wait, and wait through those long lines for up to 2 hours only to enjoy a 15 minute maze. Is it worth it? I think not. My wife suggested that maybe we buy front-of-the-line passes next year, but we still have to deal with the packed park and the craziness that ensues from it.

No, it’s not worth it.

My final “bit” on Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights in Hollywood?

Skip it. If you’re like me and enjoy the history of the studio’s back lot, take a day off during the week, buy yourself a VIP pass and get a great tour of the place. I love the movies over the years that have been filmed there and distributed by the studio, but I hate the gigantic crowds the place gets. For a good scare during the Halloween season, do what I’m going to do next year: find a haunted hayride and visit one of the many other parks (like Knott’s Berry Farm or Magic Mountain) to get yourself scared within some frightening mazes. Or better yet, make your own…get together with some of your neighbors and make your own fright maze. Halloween Horror Nights is overblown and over-hyped. Until they cut down the maximum amount of people that they cram in the park, I’m not coming back.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch

"It's almost time, kids...the clock is ticking. Be in front of your TV sets for the horrorthon, followed by the big giveaway. Don't miss it...and don't forget to wear your masks. The clock is ticking...it's almost time."

Following the trend of watching Halloween-themed movies this October, I went ahead and watched one of my favorites from the Halloween franchise, the Michael Myers-less, 1982's Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Constantly bagged by critics and angrily overlooked by most Halloween fans, this film is still one of my favorites of the 1980s cheesy horror flicks and I really don't mind that it doesn't include the famous pale-masked serial killer we've all come to grow and love. What it does have is an outlandish plot, a gruff protagonist who gets the girl very easily, and an over-the-top villain who's evil for no apparent reason.

Yes, the movie is laughable and really can't be taken seriously, but there's a quality about it that makes you overlook the absurdities of the plot. So you do have to check your brain at the door—or at the very least shut it down before popping this into your media player—there's no doubt about that, but that's what made the horror movies of the 80s great, right?

Well, the movie starts with an older gentleman running for—what appears to be—his life, holding onto something as he does. He appears very spooked and we see a car is coming after him as he manages to elude it, getting help from a lowly gas station attendant down the street. The man is brought to the local hospital where we meet our protagonist, Dr. Dan Challis (the great Tom Atkins) for the first time. He treats the older gent and takes note of the man's claims that "they're going to kill us all." Later that night, a nondescript man in a suit comes in and kills the old man. He then leaves and, as Dr. Challis follows and watches, gets into his vehicle blowing himself up with gasoline. The next day, the man's daughter, Ellie Grimbridge (Stacey Nelkin), shows up and meets Dr. Challis, telling him that her father told her of some goings-on at the Silver Shamrock factory that may have led to his death. She tells him that she wants to look into the place and Dr. Challis decides to go with her to help. What they find there is some really weird shit.

For many of you who associate the Halloween franchise with Michael Myers might find this film a little strange seeing that it has nothing to do with the masked killer whatsoever. As a kid, I, too, thought this outing was a little odd and preferred not to watch it when I had the chance. It's there, when you correlate it with the franchise as a whole that it's most noticeable as an anomalous chapter to the whole story. But if you've ever read or heard John Carpenter's idea for the franchise, you'd understand what this movie was supposed to be. See, Carpenter saw Halloween II as the end of Michael Myers. I mean, come on...Loomis and Myers went up in flames in the blast and we saw Michael fall beside Laurie Strode and burn, practically melt, to death. How do you continue a franchise with the main baddie gone? No, what Carpenter wanted to do, was to have a different story every Halloween, sort of an anthology of movies throughout the years, and I thought that was brilliant. But, alas, the horror audiences of the 1980s weren't ready for that.

The performances in Halloween III: Season of the Witch are pretty much what you can expect since the actors didn't have much to work with. The story is pretty crazy, so I give them props for being as straight-faced as they were. Tom Atkins, as he is in every film I've seen him in, is the every-man, playing it cool and getting the girl so easily.  Anyway, he, at least, has two children that he promises his ex-wife he'd take trick-or-treating, but decides to forget about that to go and join this strange woman to investigate some novelty factory in some other town. Stacey Nelkin as the love interest played her part very well, considering how her character ends up. And let's not forget the villain, Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), as the owner of Silver Shamrock and master of the diabolical scheme to kill everyone on Halloween, all for the sacrifice for Samhain...I think.

Even though this film was directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, the whole movie is very Carpenter-esque, which is probably because the cinematography was done by Dean Cundey who worked a lot with John Carpenter. The film has a very eerie mood and can be very frightening at some times, which I think had a lot to do with Cundey's skills.  Not only the cinematography, but the music definitely makes you think of Carpenter, since he—as well as Alan Howarth—wrote the eerie score for this film.

One thing you better prepare yourself for is the commercial jingle you'll hear throughout the film. It's the song for Silver Shamrock Novelties, selling the Halloween masks seen on screen. Basically it's to the tune of "London Bridges," but be ready for it sticking in your brain regardless. I can hear it right now, as a matter of fact.

The scenery is pretty cool as they shot most of the film in the town of Loleta, California (called Santa Mira in thefilm). It's an appealing small town near the coast, but works perfectly as a place where everything just doesn't seem right.

The film features some pretty gruesome—yet cool—kill scenes. I found myself squirming in my chair during some of these scenes, because they're that horrific.

But, for the most part, this movie is silly fun. I mean, unless you don't think a factory in the 1980s is able to create lifelike robots posing as people and the same factory to have the means to steal one of the boulders from Stonehenge to bring to America then you'll have to problem with the logistics of this movie. I won't give away the ending, but I must implore to you to please understand, this movie was made in the early 80s and we didn't have many television channels like we do today, so keep that in mind when you see that last scene.

By the way, a few cameos in this film: one from the original Halloween movie that you'll see on TVs a couple of times and the voice on the television commercial that tells us "it's almost time" is director Tommy Lee Wallace.

My final "bit" on Halloween III: Season of the Witch? It's a bit of nostalgia for me to see this, especially being that it's a movie from the 1980s. Capturing the feel of October is a tough thing to do, seeing that it was more than likely filmed at a different time of year. I love the idea that Carpenter was trying to go with the franchise and kind of wished he was successful at it, but the better decision was made at resurrecting Michael Myers to return and return and return. This is definitely a must-watch for me every October and it can be seen in order from part one or just view it as a standalone flick. If you look at Tommy Lee Wallace's oeuvre of films, you'll see that this is probably his best piece of work...but that's not saying much. No offense to him because I love this flick.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

You can reach me on Twitter: @JustCallMeManny.

Jeepers Creepers

 

Halloween is around the corner, so that always means I need to break out all my fall-themed horror movies to have a month-long marathon of films of that ilk. Besides the obvious choices of going through the Halloween franchise of movies, I love to watch some other gems that scream of fall.

So even though I'm starting a little late (I usually pop in these DVDs and Blu-Rays the first week of October), I opened my media binder and brought out Jeepers Creepers.

This one movie—as well as the sequel—put another icon of horror on the map. We've had Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger, Michael Myers, Leatherface, Pinhead, Chucky on pedestals, crowning them with the cult status of the embodiment of a character that scare the shit out of us in these movies.

In 2001, another icon took up the huge mantle: The Creeper. But before I talk about him (or "it"), let me synopsize this film.

The film opens with Darry (Justin Long) and Trish (Gina Philips), brother and sister, driving through the countryside in a vintage car belonging to Trish. Trish had just picked up Darry from college to bring him home for school break. They're making small talk, doing the out-of-state-license-plate-game, and making fun of some RV travelers. Suddenly, we, the audience, see a vehicle closing in behind them in the distance. Trish and Darry aren't aware of this until the vehicle—some old truck that looks like a small locomotive—is right on their ass. It blares the vehicle's horn, sounding almost like a fire engine's blast, and startles the brother and sister. Darry, behind the wheel of his sister's car, is unnerved as the mysterious vehicle blasts the horn over and over, staying directly behind their car. Darry keeps waving and yelling for the vehicle to go around them and after a while, it finally does.

Later, as the brother and sister are driving along, Darry notices a building off the road with the familiar truck parked in front. Both he and Trish notice a dark figure in the back, pulling something wrapped in a sheet out from the back and dumping down a large storm drain protruding out of the ground. As they watch, the figure turns suddenly and stares, following them with his gaze. Not long after Darry picks up speed and trying to get out of the area quickly, the vehicle is back behind them, really blaring the horn and tailgating. As the truck smacks into the car a few times, Darry loses control and drives off the road. The truck keeps going, leaving Trish and Darry behind. Darry and Trish agree that it was probably a body that was dumped and decide to go back to investigate (Trish, reluctantly).

After getting to the building, which happens to be an old church, Darry climbs inside the grounded drain pipe to get a good look but falls in, dropping him into some big underground basement. What he finds down there is more horrifying than he had ever imagined.

I don't want to give too much away, in case you haven't seen this flick. Although, if you haven't seen Jeepers Creepers, you shouldn't call yourself a horror movie fan. But just in case, if you are a newbie to this film, or horror in general, I'll keep this spoiler-free. But basically, The Creeper is after Darry and Trish as they try to find a way to keep away from him.  Unfortunately for them, they experience some gruesome images and go through a nightmare before the movie ends.

First off, the story is a nice original work, not your typical slasher fest and not really a supernatural outing either. The direction by Victor Salva is pretty good and well-paced, keeping the audience going along and never really a dull moment. There are a lot of eerie scenes that make you feel uncomfortable, not to mention scared. Without mentioning who, or what, he is, The Creeper is pretty terrifying.

Justin Long gives a great performance in this film, appearing unraveled and spooked, making you feel and believe what he's experiencing. After his character finds out what's beyond the drain pipe, Long puts on a believable performance as he's nearly catatonic after seeing the horror underground.

Jonathan Breck, as The Creeper, does an awesome job, but it might be the make-up and his size that help him in his performance.

The idea of this new icon of fright is superb and I wish MGM would get on the ball with Salva's idea for part 3. In this day and age, most studios want remakes, but it's so refreshing to see an original story or intelligently written sequels to an already established franchise.

After watching this film, you may still be confused as to who, or what, The Creeper is exactly. So, in that respect, I'd say watch Jeepers Creepers II right after this one. It's not as good as the original, but it's a worthy sequel nonetheless. You'll find out a little more about his background to answer any questions you may have had in the first film.

So, anyway, what's my final "bit" on Jeepers Creepers?

The film has a feel of the 1980s horror movies with a quickly established new horror icon set. Instead of having a bunch of teens you don't care about getting killed one by one, you have two protagonists you root and care for. The movie institutes a creepy mood most of the time and is shot nicely, mostly during the night (a must for a horror movie in my opinion). Above all else, if you haven't seen this movie, you need to go out and rent it or purchase it. It's a must-own for any horror movie enthusiast out there.

A couple of trivial factoids:
Victor Salva has a couple of cameos; once as one of the bodies displayed in The Creeper's "house of pain" and the other is his picture on the sleeve of the record album during the phone call scene.

Well, thanks for reading and enjoy the Halloween season!

You can reach me on Twitter: @JustCallMeManny.

Marvel's The Avengers

YES! The Avengers arrived on Blu-Ray yesterday, September 25th, 2012, and I was delighted beyond any euphoria I have ever experienced in my life!


Okay…maybe that’s overdoing it a bit…but I was happy to receive this Blu-Ray from my wife when she returned home from a day of shopping at Target. Even if she didn’t bring it home last night, I still would’ve took a trip there myself to get it, because I had been waiting for this disc from the minute I left the theater last May after watching the film for the first time.

Back in 1978, I saw—at the time—the best comic book film I had ever seen: Superman. As far as special effects movies of that time, Superman was the best. It had even won an Oscar for it and won such critical praise for its cinematography, but my 9-year-old self loved it regardless back then. For over 25 years, that movie was on a pedestal for me as the best superhero movie ever…until Spider-Man 2 was released. Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy was overall a good trifecta of films (yes, even the third one was enjoyable), but part 2 stood out from the three and even from all comic book movies, because in 2004, I held that movie as the best superhero movie ever. In my mind, The Dark Knight was a worthy runner-up, but Spider-Man 2 won me over as the best. However, a mere 8 years later, The Avengers comes along and just blows me away!

Conversely, this film didn’t just drop on us all of a sudden...we all knew about this and saw this beast coming almost 5 years ago. Starting with Iron Man in 2008, four separate films constructed and readied all of us for The Avengers simply by giving us entertaining movies with a tag at the end of each one—albeit, making us wait through exorbitant amounts of movie credits—hinting at an upcoming collaborative superhero movies which we all knew was going to be The Avengers. And, looking back, that is what made this film work. Because the filmmakers couldn’t just drop a huge movie like this and try to introduce us to a group of heroes with their origins in just a matter of 2½ hours. If they did, the movie would need to be over 4 hours long.

So, what I’m trying to say is that this movie has topped my choice for the best comic book/superhero movie to date. It breaks my heart to say it, because I’m a HUGE Spider-Man fan (although it makes it easier now that Sony screwed up the character with this new rebooted debacle they released over the summer). But yes, The Avengers is now my favorite film based on comic book characters.

Now, if you’re coming in this dry, with no prior knowledge of the separate films that led up to this one, it’s okay. You may find yourself asking questions about what one person (or alien) is, or you may not understand the objects or plots discussed, but you’ll get the basic gist of the film. And the simple idea of it is that an alien menace threatens the welfare of the planet, so a security agency in charge of keeping peace helps to assemble a group of superheroes to maintain that peace and fight off the threat that wants to annihilate our planet.

The heroes should all be familiar and are pretty much household names that most people would recognize. But as I had said, even if you don’t, the movie is very enjoyable to watch.

So, assuming that you’ve seen the preceding films, we see that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is still alive and is able to get to Earth to take the Tesseract (the Cosmic Cube) that S.H.I.E.L.D. (the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) has been performing tests on. Loki’s plan is to open a portal and let in an alien army to overpower the humans of Earth in an attempt to rule over them. S.H.I.E.L.D., directed by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), fails to protect the Tesseract and Loki—taking over the minds of Clint Barton, AKA Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) to help in his plan—steals it.

One by one, the heroes from the previous stand-alone films are called in to help.

Steve Rogers, AKA Captain America (Chris Evans), is brought in to lead this mission. Still taking in this new world after being asleep for 70 years, but never losing his sense of patriotic duty, steps in. It still throws me for a loop how straight-laced Evans plays the roll. I’m used to him as Johnny Storm from The Fantastic Four and how much he was a smart-ass in that film, so it’s a little off-putting to see him as the guy who gets annoyed when other characters joke around and not take things seriously.

Tony Stark, well known to the world as Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), is brought information by Agent Coulson ((Clark Gregg) about the threat and the other potential team mates, but he's still reluctant to join in. As in the previous two standalone Iron man films, Downey maintains his wit and funny banter, never taking things too seriously (he tried to get Banner to turn into the Hulk for Christ’s sake!). He turns in a solid performance and doesn’t disappoint. However, if I do have any criticism on his performance, it’s the constant need to give everybody funny nicknames (he calls Loki “Shakespeare in the Park” and “Rock of Ages” and refers to Thor as “Point Break”), but it can all be tagged as the type of character he is.

Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is called in during her covert operation she’s in the middle of to help bring in the most unstable of the group-to-be, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), due to his knowledge of gamma radiation that the Tesseract has traces of, being careful not to let his alter ego, the Hulk, emerge. Johansson continues her character arc from Iron Man 2 and even brings a little bit more as we find out she may have some history we never fully get to know about, but it seems shady as we hear there’s “a lot of red in her ledger.” As for Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bruce Banner, what a breath of fresh air. Don’t get me wrong, Eric Bana and Edward Norton are both great actors, but I don’t think they had the right chemistry or heart for the part. Or perhaps the actor and CGI character didn’t mesh well together. Whatever the reason, the filmmakers remedied it perfectly by casting Ruffalo in the part.

After initially capturing Loki—which leads Thor (Chris Hemsworth), who jumps right back into the role flawlessly, to come to the group, as he wants to bring Loki, along with the Tesseract, back to Asgard—the group finally comes together. Not without its trials and tribulations, the members-to-be test each other out, fighting amongst themselves as they get to know each other and their strengths. But even after getting along, they’re still at odds, mostly with disagreements of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s plans and Stark’s ego—as well as a touch of Loki’s manipulation—it sort of falls apart, aiding in Loki’s escape, although we have to wonder if he really was a prisoner after all. Once Loki’s plan comes to fruition and the world is at stake (and Nick Fury plays his hand to help push them), the team comes together perfectly for some of the best action scenes put to film.

What I liked most about this film was The Hulk. You’ve probably heard from a lot of reviewers, or just word-of-mouth, that he stole the movie—and it’s true. But it was even better for me because after my favorite superhero, Spider-Man, Hulk is number two—or at least almost equal to Spidey. So to see him finally portrayed accurately on screen overloaded my heart with fan boy glee. The scene when he goes toe-to-toe with Thor was terrific and I was in awe at how much motion-capture/CGI has improved over the years. The part of the trailer where the characters circle together to get ready for the oncoming threat, I had seen dozens of times before the movie came out, but it still gives me goose bumps to see it in context with the film as a whole. All the characters get the same amount of screen time and all of them help the story move along. They all help the plot move along and it’s not like any of the characters are wasted.

The music score by Alan Silvestri is actually memorable and symbolic as the heroic theme of the movie. As I sit here, writing this review, it’s replaying in my head, over and over. Trust me, I’m not complaining.

The movie was released in both a normal format as well as in 3D. I chose to watch it in the normal viewing format because I didn’t think the film needed the gimmick to win me over. I was right. The Avengers wins the audience over with the stories and characters and not the visual effects. The film features individuals you care about and want to see come out on top over the evildoers. It’s an original story, from the pages of the comic books anyway, and not some borrowed sci-fi version of Dances With Wolves. Do you see what I’m comparing it to (wink-wink)?

Marvel definitely have their stuff together and are finally doing things right. They’ve created a universe that have the characters overlap each other and that’s what the comic book fans have wanted for a long time. Hopefully Marvel can win back the rights of other characters to get them all involved in this comic book cosmos, whether they become part of the team or not. Dare Devil should be free. The Punisher might be—however, they’re in talks to make a television series out of the character, so I’m not sure. Ghost Rider might be on the market after the debacle the last movie turned out to be. But other important characters that are actually part of the team in the comic book pages should be there and we nerds feel their absence. How cool would it be to see Spider-Man swinging along and fighting side-by-side with Captain America and Hulk? Let’s get the Fantastic Four in there to help out in the battle! Or the X-Men! Who knows? Maybe we will see that in the future.

Nonetheless, I can go on and on about this flick. I’ve seen it twice in the theater and once so far on Blu-Ray, only because I had to get to sleep last night, otherwise I would’ve watched it a second time last night. I’ll probably wear out this disc with the multiple viewings it’s going to endure, but it’ll be well-deserved because this film is the quintessential superhero comic book movie. It’s what other studios would love to do, but I really don’t think they’ll have the know-how that Marvel does. Talk has been brewing about the Justice League movie going into pre-production, but they better watch all the movies leading up to The Avengers if they want a chance at doing it halfway right. Are you listening (or reading this), Warner Bros.?

But you know what? It’s all about Marvel. The future is bright with what’s to come and I can’t wait!

So, in conclusion…what’s my final “bit” on The Avengers?

The best and most definitive superhero movie to date; it’s filled with drama, action, humor, suspense…basically something for everyone. It’s a movie for the whole family to sit around the television and watch with a tub of popcorn. I love it! You’ll love it! It’s especially entertaining and satisfying to watch all the solo movies that lead up to it before watching this one. But it’s just as enjoyable as a separate feature. Worth a watch or a rent…definitely worth it to own it on DVD or Blu-Ray, take my word for it.

Also, to follow suit with all the stand alone movies, there are two post credits scenes: one in the middle and one at the very end. Comic book nerds will understand the first one and the second one is very amusing.

Well, that’s about it. Thank you for reading and, as always, you can reach me on Twitter: @JustCallMeManny.