The Funhouse

A lot of dynamics will always factor into my choice of selecting a title of a movie that I’ve never seen before.  When I get the hankering to see something that’s been on my radar or to pursue something and give it a try, my first go-to reference is usually to visit the Netflix web site and opt to do a search.  With the help of choosing certain gauges, like specific genres and subgenres, I habitually select “horror” and “slashers,” taking pleasure in looking through the long list the site gives me.

Every time I go through that ritual, there’re always a few titles that I’ll notice, making a mental note to go back and study the synopsis the next time I see it.  One such title that I’d noticed many times but never decided on adding it to my queue was a film called The Funhouse.  The cover art that Netflix presented was a close-up face of an evil-looking clown, leering and looking anything but happy.  For some reason I’d always passed on it, never adding it to my list but always seeing it as one of the many films during my searches (coincidentally, that clown has nothing to do with the film…in fact, I don’t think a clown is even seen in it).

Finally, the day had arrived when I stopped and decided to read up on the details of the film, subsequently kicking myself when I saw how much the film fell into my sought-after requirements.  Right off the bat, the first thing that stuck out—besides the fact that the film was of the horror variety—was that it was released in 1981.  Next, I’d noticed that the film was a Universal Studios release and that furthered my excitement.  Added to that information, the film was directed by Tobe Hooper of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame and that sealed the deal.

At the time, the average star rating for the movie on the Netflix web site was just a shade under three and for a horror movie, that’s pretty good.  So, wanting to see if I found another lost or forgotten (by me) treasure, I clicked on the “add” button and moved The Funhouse to the top of my queue.  After sending back the present disc I had at my house, I waited a few days, received the newly added disc in the mail, and popped in the Blu-Ray player to give it a looksee.

The film is about a teenaged girl, Amy (Elizabeth Berridge), who goes out with her boyfriend, Buzz

(Cooper Huckabee), her friend, Liz (Largo Woodruff), and Liz’s boyfriend, Richie (Miles Chapin), to the local town’s carnival.  As the fair closes and the patrons are starting to leave, Richie comes up with the idea to stay the night inside the funhouse—a horror-themed ride—so they sneak inside to settle for the night.  While inside the ride, the kids witness a murder by a man in a Frankenstein’s Monster mask (Wayne Doba) and decide to leave.  However, they find themselves trapped inside the locked ride as the carnival’s barker, Conrad Straker (Kevin Conway), discovers that the kids are somewhere in the building.  Turns out, the masked man is the barker’s adopted son, Gunther, and he has good reason to wear the mask.  Knowing that the kids probably witnessed the murder and are responsible for money that happens to be missing from Straker’s cash box, he has no intention of letting them leave alive.

I had really liked this movie when I first saw it a few years back, and like even more now, wondering where it had been all these years and why I’d never heard the film discussed during horror movie conversations on web sites or podcasts.  You’d figure that Tobe Hooper, renowned for changing the face of horror way back in 1974, would have his whole catalog of films discoursed when his name would be brought up, but not The Funhouse.  Now I’m sure certain circles of the horror community do, in fact, bring this film to light when chatting up all things Hooper, I’m just saying it had never hit myeardrums.  Usually you hear long dissertations about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre—and I have to admit, I can listen to all those symposiums for hours on end—and the controversial examinations about who directed Poltergeist, but The Funhouse either went over my head or just wasn’t talked about.  All I’ve got to say about that is, what a shame.

Though the opening of the film is a blatant rip-off of 1978’s Halloween, at the same time it sort of parodies the shot by making it into a little “gotcha” to the audience, making us think it was something it wasn’t.  Whatever the case, the cinematography was wonderfully done and really had the same atmosphere as the aforementioned classic, making me wonder if Tobe Hooper had hired the same cinematographer who’d worked on John Carpenter’s film.  Whoever it was, they knew how to light and film a scene to give it that style that we’ve only seen in the 1980s.  Add to that, with Hooper’s direction, you have a great film to see during the Halloween season.

The acting is definitely subpar, seeming like the studio hired kids right off the street, but that’s the definition of an 80s horror movie.  The slashers from this time were not known for any type of Academy award winning performances, just some kids that say their lines as best as they can and a survivor girl who screams her head off.  That, right there, was entertainment for my generation.

The film definitely has a slow burn to the plot, but it’s the atmosphere of dread—especially when the kids are stuck in the rickety housing area of the ride—that you can feel when watching this.  Most of the film takes place in the dark and gets you going as you can imagine how creeped out you’d be if you were stuck inside an amusement park ride with mechanical characters staying eerily still in the shadows.  All the parts that feature those scenes make you think that one of those crazy-looking mannequins is going to suddenly come to life and jump out at you.  Overall, once this film gets going, it’s pretty scary and is quite enjoyable to watch.

So, my final “bit” on The Funhouse?

Let me tell you…I took one look at this movie and knew I had to own this on home media.  As with a lot of my Blu-Ray discs, I purchased one of the Scream! Factory editions and love it wholeheartedly.  The movie is a forgotten 80s classic that needs to be seen, if you haven’t already.  It’s perfectly ripe for this time of year so do yourself a favor and go out to find this gem.

That’s it for now…thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

Well, after John Carpenter tried to veer away from the story of Michael Myers by making part three a standalone movie about a novelty company set out to kill children on Halloween with masks that are triggered to murder all who wear them (yeah, I know, it was a silly premise with some really far-fetched ideas that needed the audience to do more than suspend disbelief and actually turn off their brain—but I have a soft spot for that movie, so I won’t drag it through the mud at all), a decision was made to go back to basics and bring back everybody’s favorite masked killer. 

Since part three upset a lot of fans of the budding Halloween franchise, the consensus was that they wanted Michael Myers back to continue his violent pillaging in Haddonfield.  Did they care that he obviously burned to death at the end of part two?  I mean, the credits were rolling for quite a few minutes with his body lying in front of us on fire.  No one could have survived that.

But Moustapha Akkad (executive producer of every single Halloweenmovie until his death in 2005) listened and he made sure to satisfy the devotees of the first two films by having the horror icon of Michael Myers resurrected for the next sequel.  Though it took six years to do so, fans finally rejoiced in 1988 when Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers was released to theaters.

I honestly can’t remember if I had gone to see this movie when it was released.  I’m pretty sure I had, but then again, I’d partook in a lot of pot-smoking back then so my long-term memory is a little less than perfect.  However, I do remember thinking about how awesome it was that the filmmakers brought back Michael Myers to do what he did best, believing full well that it was probably a pissing contest with theFriday the 13^th franchise—they had Jason on that side, so Halloweenneeded to bring back Michael on theirs.

I’ll say this: if you can forget what was obvious at the end of part two, you can see this film as one hell of a story that had some great ideas and was pretty frightening.  Though Jamie Lee Curtis was missing from the story, the explanation of her character’s absence is believable and wasn’t a disadvantage in getting into the plot.  In no way does it hold a candle to carpenter’s 1978 masterpiece, but it does have its merits.

Directed by Dwight H. Little, who’d only had a couple of forgettable movies in his résumé at the time, he understood what needed to be done and gave us a worthy sequel in the franchise.

It’s been ten years since the explosion at the hospital left Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) in a coma, remaining as a patient at the medical ward of Richmond Mental Institution.  But when being

transferred to Smith’s Grove, he somehow hears the medics saying that he has a niece, Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), and awakens from his catatonia.  When word gets to Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who is badly scarred after surviving the blast at the hospital all those years ago, he goes after the ambulance that took Michael away.  After finding the vehicle halfway submerged in a river and seeing the bloodied bodies left behind, Loomis knows where Michael is headed and who he’s going after.

First and foremost, the biggest problem I have with this movie (not to mention the two sequels that follow) is the mask Michael Myers wears.  It looks so different than the one used in the first two films and that has always bothered me each and every time I re-watch this film.  I’ve heard stories about how the mask was given away and another that said the mask was too messed up to reuse for this film.  I’ve even heard that the hair on the mask became bleached over time and looked blond, so they didn’t think it would look good on film.  Actually, I believe that last story because of a scene that you can see in this movie.  It’s near the end, when Loomis is in the school with Jamie as Michael comes out and attacks him.  In that quick cut of a scene (you may have to put the player in slow motion or go frame-by-frame), you can see that Michael Myers is wearing the correct mask and, sure enough, the hair looks blond…almost white in color.  But if they had the mask, couldn’t they have colored the hair?  Or maybe recreate it perfectly since they had the original mask they can go by?  I guess you can tell that this has bothered me for a long time.  But you get used to the mask as the movie goes along, so let’s move on, shall we?

Secondly, the guy who plays Michael did an okay job at his portrayal—I can’t knock him for that—but his body type was a little off for the part.  He appeared to be wearing shoulder pads and just had an awkward appearance…it was just hard to believe this was the same Michael that was going after Laurie Strode some years before.

Overall, the scenes featured in the film, where Michael is going after victims, stalking them or just outright killing them, are great.  You have some really scary parts where you really don’t know what to expect.  Although some sections of the film don’t seem to make sense (suddenly all the trick-or-treaters disappear and leave the streets deserted as Jamie is wandering the streets alone) or are left unexplained (when it’s discovered Michael was able to kill every single cop in the Haddonfield precinct), the movie as a whole is fun and follows the slasher formula nicely.  Although it’s more of the same thing as what the two original films gave us, it’s entertaining to have Michael back and remaining in theHalloween franchise for good.

My final “bit” on Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers?

As a whole, the film is your typical 1980s slasher, yet an above average sequel in the franchise. 

Pleasence really starts to go over the top in this one, but is surrounded by some good performances, especially by the ten-year-old Danielle Harris.  If you can get by the odd look of Michael Myers, you’ll find this outing exceptionally well done.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Daybreakers

You know those vampire movies, where the hero has to kill off the head baddie so that the world doesn’t get overrun—as well as mankind becoming extinct—by bloodsuckers?  Well, meet the movie that takes place after all that happens and when the hero doesn’t turn things around.  2010’s Daybreakers is the “what if?” film that takes place well after humans are defeated by vampires.  In fact, it’s a futuristic film that shows us how we become the minority and the prey for those predators.

When the trailer showed itself before some movie I had seen sometime in 2009 (I can’t remember which…nor can I remember if it was in a theater or on a DVD rental), I just thought it was your run-of-the-mill vampire flick.  But my ears pricked up when I saw that the story takes place in the future, after vampires have taken over the world and have become the dominant species, making humans their primary source of food.  I saw the science fiction aspect of the story, right away, in that trailer and that was unique to me.  Then, I noticed some well-known actors were featured in the film—Sam Neill, Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe to name a few—and took that as a good sign that this might be something worth seeing.  But, alas, the movie came and went without me bothering to check it out.  In the back of mind, however, I figured I’d catch it on home media and that’s exactly what I had done a mere five or six months later.

The film takes place ten years in the future, with the majority of the world’s population being vampires.  Humans are only a small minority in the world, which presents a problem for the vampires

as their food supply (human blood) is diminishing.  Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a lead hematologist—and a vampire—for Bromley Marks Corporation, a large pharmaceutical company, has been helping the company look for a way to produce a synthetic blood to sustain the population.  By chance, Dalton runs into a group of humans and helps them get away from the local authorities, obviously sympathetic to them as he lies to the vampire cops when they show up.  Later, the leader of that group of humans, Audrey (Claudia Karvan), shows up at Dalton’s home and tells him they know of a cure for vampirism, giving him a map to a meeting location.  There, he meets Lionel “Elvis” Cormac (Willem Dafoe) and he explains to Dalton how he used to be a vampire, but due to a freak accident, he was cured and is now human again.  Dalton then decides to work with the humans to try and duplicate what happened to Elvis so that a cure can be developed.

I like how the filmmakers—the writing and directing duo of Michael and Peter Spierig—went against the grain of vampire movies by showing their species as a majority of the Earth’s population.  Typically, the vampires, in film, are shown as a miniscule group of beings that a human hero will go after and eventually destroy.  The vampire is always shown as the evil entity that automatically kills humans and shows no sympathy in doing so.  In Daybreakers, we still have characters like that, but then there are some—like Ethan Hawke’s character—who show compassion and choose not to kill humans.

Also, another aspect of the film that interested me is the added mutation the vampires are threatened with due to the lack of human blood.  It’s not just a case where they are going hungry and dying off, but instead are turning into demon-like creatures that are feral in nature and need to be killed off by the remaining authoritative vampire figures.  With that added to the mix of the plot, Hawke’s character is even more abstruse in his place concerning his own kind and the humans as he’s stuck between his empathy for their cause and the threat of being mutated into some regressive monster.

The look of the film is so clean and crisp, with a very futuristic look to it, but not to the point where we have flying cars and overindulgent gadgets doing everything for us.  The Spierig brothers really know how to set up their shots, giving us the differentiating worlds of both the vampires and humans.  Of course, since the vampires need to live their lives without the sun, most of their scenes were filmed at night and the Spierigs really give us a cold feeling as well with those shots.  Also, the ideas that they come up with to help the vampires live in their day-to-day lives are kind of neat.  The cars, for one, and the technology used on them were really cool—the use of video when the darkened shields were instituted was very impressive.

Ethan Hawke as the lead character had the right chops to pull off the role.  I’ve always thought he was good at pulling off characters that show empathy towards others and he doesn’t fail here.  Most times, however, Hawke plays the good guy in his films so it was a no-brainer to cast him in this role.  But I have seen Hawke in some good antagonistic roles that he’d pulled off just as well. 

Willem Dafoe was a little goofy in this film…I don’t know…I guess I see him as the Green Goblin now, so I my evaluation of his role is a little unfair.  It might’ve been the southern drawl he was putting on or just that he was playing the part a little too flippantly.

It’s nice to see Sam Neill—who plays the evil pharmaceutical company CEO, Charles Bromley—back in an evil role.  I’ve always been a little frightened of him after seeing him for the first time in Omen III: The Final Conflict way back in 1981 (I was twelve at the time), so I thought he was right for the part.

Any time you’re going to have a horror movie out there these days, you’re going to have to pull off

some top notch special effects.  In that regard, this film doesn’t hold back.  One of the first effects actually made me jump a little when I first saw it.  It was the testing of the substitute blood on a vampire that seemed to be going bad, then calmed down…before suddenly making the test subject explode in a burst of blood and brains.  The design of the mutated vampires was done pretty well and gave me a jolt once more in another scene.  The Spierigs definitely did their homework and gave us a good show when it came to the effects shots within this film.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Daybreakers?

Just when I was getting sick of vampire movies, the team of Michael and Peter Spierig give us something fresh and new here.  They didn’t feel the need to give us an origin story on how the world had gotten to be this way, because with every movie that’s been done so far, we know.  Daybreakers is pretty solid all the way through, yet there are still a few lulls here and there.  But I enjoyed it thoroughly and recommend this film to anyone who enjoys vampire movies and sci-fi flicks—the genres were meshed together pretty well in this one.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Monster Squad

Today’s entry is an odd one of sorts—not because of the film itself but because of my discovery of it—and the reason for its oddity is that I hadn’t heard of it until maybe a few years ago.  But I’m glad I’d come across this film as it falls under the luck I’ve had with finding retro movies that I happen to encounter and end up appreciating.  I actually love it when I decide to finally see a film that I’ve heard good things about and end up praising it myself.  Such is the case with 1987’s The Monster Squad, written and directed by Fred Dekker and co-written by Shane Black.

In the last few years, I must’ve heard people talk about this film incessantly, quoting certain scenes and claiming how much of a classic it was.  But I was lost in the conversation, not knowing what they were talking about and just thinking it must be a bad movie for me not to have heard about it.  One of the reasons it was probably discussed lately was that the film celebrated its 25^th anniversary back in 2012.  However, that bit of discovery didn’t do much to help me remember this film and I realized this was yet another film that had escaped my radar in the 80s.

Well, it didn’t take much for me to place the disc on my Netflix queue and wait for it to arrive in my mailbox a meager two days later.  Shortly after pressing “play” on my remote, I was into this movie and silently scolded myself for never hearing of it.

Let me give you a short synopsis of the film.

Sean (Andre Gower) and his friends—Patrick (Robby Kiger), Horace (Brent Chalem), and Eugene

(Michael Faustino)—are into the classic monsters of horror films, forming a club to talk about them in and out of school.  When Dracula (Duncan Regehr)—along with The Wolf Man (Carl Thibault), The Gill Man (Tom Woodruff, Jr.), The Mummy (Michael MacKay), and Frankenstein’s Monster (Tom Noonan)—arrive in the kids’ small town, Sean and his friends—along with local cool kid, Rudy (Ryan Lambert), and Sean’s little sister, Phoebe (Ashley Bank)—jump into action to stop Dracula’s plans.

First off, being a big Universal Studios fan, I love the inclusion of the classic monsters in this movie.  I’m amazed how this film was able to get the rights or permission to feature these characters, being thatThe Monster Squad was not a Universal joint but a TriStar Pictures film.  I’ve heard a few anecdotes about how Universal allowed the famous monsters to be in the movie as long as their appearances are altered and not to look exactly like the originals.  Whatever the case, this movie is great just for the fact that the famous characters are in it.

As for the framework of the film, most people will notice right away that the whole structure is worked in the same basis of The Goonies.  The arrangement of having a group of preteens forming a group or club to have adventures usually works if done right.  Not only has The Goonies been successful with this concept, but also Stand By Me, E.T., even 2011’s Super 8.  There’s something about a film that puts the adults in the background with the kids as the main protagonists that just succeeds perfectly…when done right.  With those movies, and especially The Monster Squad, one can feel like a kid again when watching this film.

I’d call this a family film, but the film does boast a few bad words and at one point refers to a (wolf) man’s testicles.  But if you’re okay with that and want to introduce your children to a mild horror film that familiarizes these classic monsters while having fun with it, then The Monster Squad is a perfect starter.

Like I’d mentioned, in order for this film to have these monsters in the film, their appearances had to be modified.  Whether that’s true or not, the famous monsters look a bit different and are not exactly how you’d remembered them.  Dracula is more or less what Universal gave us back in the 30s with the notorious vampire dressed in black and sporting a cape, but the Transylvanian accent is not present.  The Gill-Man whom we all know from the Creature From the Black Lagoon film looks a bit more streamlined in its design and not as clunky as its 1954 predecessor.  The Mummy looks like the traditional monster we’ve seen over the years after the original Boris Karloff model where we just see someone wrapped in bandages.  Probably the most different in appearance is Frankenstein’s Monster as the character’s design accentuated the actor playing the creature rather than trying to duplicate the famous Karloff look.  Finally, the Wolfman’s design is a bit special as, with all of the monster designs, the late Stan Winston created it.  But the thing about the Wolfman in this film, and you’ll notice when watching this movie, Winston based the facial features on his own.

Not only did Fred Dekker direct this cult classic well, but it really helped that he had the writing assistance of Shane Black.  If you go back into Black’s résumé of writing credits, you’ll see that he’s had a hand in some good action films over the years.  He’s responsible for theLethal Weapon series and, most recently, wrote and directed Iron Man 3.  Also, he’s probably best remembered as the geeky soldier, Hawkins, in Predator.  But Black really penned a memorable film with The Monster Squad that should go down as a classic in the family horror film genre.

Yes, Dekker should be praised for his efforts in The Monster Squad.  For me to be able to pick up this 25-year-old movie and enjoy it as much as I had, that shows how timeless he’d made it.  So many times I decide to watch a film from the 80s that I’d missed when first released, only to laugh at it or just flat out hate it.  It’s funny, though, because Fred Dekker has only directed four films in his career, two of which I’m featuring this month.  Maybe it’s his choice, but I would’ve thought he’d have a pretty lucrative career by now with a lot more directing gigs under his belt.  One thing, after watching The Monster Squad, he definitely has a way with directing the children in this movie which sort of has a Steven Spielberg vibe to it.  He made this fun for me and I’m sure anyone, of any age, will enjoy this.

One last thing…if there’s anything that tells you that this is an 80s movie, it’s the music by Michael Sembello during a montage and the end credits.  You may recognize his name as Sembello had a hit in the 80s with “Maniac” from the Flashdance film.  But the song featured in this movie, “Rock Until You Drop,” is so 80s, you’ll most certainly take a mental trip back to those days (if you’re from my generation) and it’ll definitely make you smile. 

My final “bit” on The Monster Squad?

If you love movies like The Goonies,Little Monsters, or Super 8, you’ll love The Monster Squad.  It’s fun, adventurous, and safe for the whole family (I’d have no qualms about showing this to a younger audience).  If you want to see an exciting horror movie without any gore or excessive violence, this film shouldn’t be missed…especially during this Halloween season.

Thanks for reading a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Halloween II (1981)

Not too long ago, I’d written a little tribute to my favorite movie director, John carpenter, going over my ten favorite films he had helmed over the years.  Although I hadn’t listed Halloween as my number one pick (that went to The Thing), it was up there as number two and is an absolute necessity for me to watch during the month of October.  But one cannot watch the original without going into the sequel,Halloween II, right afterward.

Although I’d written about the 1978 film as a little blurb in that Carpenter retrospect, I’ll choose to skip writing about it here on Cinema Bits because most critics have written it to death.  It’s well established that Halloween is one of the best tension-filled horror movies of all time, so what more can I say about it?  It’s the film that put Carpenter on the movie-making map and made him a household name, so I’ll leave it at that and just go on to the 1981 sequel.

Watching both films, one right after the other, is like watching one long movie.  Since both films take place within the same night, it makes sense to have a little marathon movie viewing.  But there are pros and cons with this line of thinking, being very obvious when you see the flicks back-to-back.  But I’ll get into that later.

Many people complain about Jamie Lee Curtis’s wig in the film or the isolation of the story being in the hospital the majority of the time, but I think the film went in the right direction and the most logical of progression as well.  Maybe having the whole of the plot contained within the hospital should’ve been cut down to only a portion of the movie and then move it away from it later in the story…I don’t know.  I hate to say it, but what Rob Zombie had done in his part two was the right choice—having the hospital device of the story only take up fifteen or twenty minutes at the beginning, then move away.  But it’s neither here nor there because the 1981 film was made, it’s something that can’t be changed, and I love it for what it is.

Not wanting to go back into the director’s chair, but opting to just write the story instead, John Carpenter handed over the reins to Rick Rosenthal.  Though, it’s been said there was a little animosity between the two when Carpenter decided to shoot some extra scenes to add a little more gore and violence to keep up with the current slashers of the early 80s, Rosenthal was able to equal the look and feel of the film’s predecessor. 

The film opens with the last final minutes of part one, showing Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) shooting

Michael Myers (Dick Warlock) off the balcony of the house with his subsequent disappearance.  Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital as Michael is still in the neighborhood, obtaining his signature butcher knife and offing a young girl for good measure.  He then makes his way to the hospital to finish what he started.

Yup.  Not much to it except for that short synopsis, explaining that Myers wants to finish his killing spree, making up for missing his chance to kill Laurie Strode.

First off, getting back to the noticeable variances between the original and this one, a couple of things stand out.  One of the most evident of differences is the absence of Carpenter’s involvement in this film.  We all know John Carpenter’s style of direction, knowing how to inject such tension and fear without having to give us gratuitous scenes of violence and gore.  Although his writing is evidence and ties part one and two together nicely, being that he’s not hands-on in the sequel is a small detriment that horror fans will see.  It’s not too bad, as the styles are similar, and Rosenthal’s style is somewhat of an imitation, so the everyday moviegoer probably wouldn’t notice.  One comparison you can make is how, in part one, Michael comes out of the shadows soundlessly to try for Laurie, which makes it frighteningly creepy; in part two, when he decides to get the drop on a girl alone in the house, he literally jumps into frame and stabs her to death.

Another factor that adds to the differences between the original and this sequel is the man playing Michael Myers.  In part one, the person behind the mask was Nick Castle—John Carpenter’s friend and fellow writer/director.  He definitely showed that not anyone can slip on the distorted Shatner mask, grab a butcher knife and simply be the character of Michael Myers.  Castle had a certain gait, a way of turning his head, moving his arms, or just simply standing and staring that gave us moviegoers goose bumps back in 1978.  So with this sequel, the trend started where the filmmakers simply hired a stuntman to throw on the mask to pass off as Carpenter’s boogieman.

Having Jamie Lee Curtis toned down and hardly in the movie is a disservice to Halloween fans as well.  Where she was the star and had a charming character for us to follow throughout the first film, in this one her character is drugged and in a hospital bed for nearly the entire film.  Not only was she a fun actress to see in the first film, her way of standing out was accentuated by her contrast to her character’s friends.  As they’re seen as a couple of bad girls, they establish Curtis’s Laurie Strode the good girl and heroine of the film more easily.  In this film, she’s basically background to the other actors and actresses.

Most of the time, in films, I don’t mind if there’s a senseless reasoning for a killer—or killers—to do their business.  I had accepted that Michael Myers just wanted to go back to Haddonfield after being locked up in an institution for fifteen years and start killing some teenaged girls for no reason.  Usually, I hate when reason is given for certain actions or a motive for a mysterious killer is revealed, but what Carpenter came up with for this sequel was genius.

As always, you can’t have a John Carpenter directed or produced film without having his music featured as the score.  In the original 1978 film, he simply had the repeated piano notes start whenever Michael Myers appeared or attacked.  Then, for slower, more tension-filled scenes, he had the more melancholy notes playing; it all added up for an organically raw feel to the film.  But in Halloween II, the film had fallen victim to the era in which it was filmed and released—the 1980s.  So, Carpenter went with what was so popular in that decade of music and changed up the score with synthesizers.  It isn’t bad, but it’s definitely outmoded.  Whereas the 1978 film still seems timeless, the sequel seems a bit dated because of the electronic sounding music.  It isn’t really disfavoring towards the film, but it’s certainly noticeable.

 

Anyway, my final “bit” onHalloween II?

A great—yet, isolated—follow-up to the 1978 hit.  It answers some questions and can be seen as a conclusion, especially after you see what happens at the very end of this film.  The film is tension-filled and suspenseful, so set about four hours aside to see the original and its sequel right after one another.  You won’t be disappointed and it definitely gets you in the mood for “All Hallows Eve.”

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Coming Soon!

Being that I haven’t posted anything in a while, I wanted to write this short little excerpt down to let you know I’m still around and planning on doing something cool for the month of October with an announcement on October 31^st.

The month of October is my favorite time of year, being that it’s the month of Halloween celebration.  What goes together with Halloween?  Horror movies.  Thus, what I have planned, starting October 1^st, is to post a horror movie review each day of that month.

I know what you’re thinking…most sites post up a review or article every day, so what’s so special about me doing that?  Well, I’m just one guy, doing this on my spare time.  I’m away at work, 10 hours a day, every day, sometimes putting in a lot of overtime, so getting home after a long day makes me just want to sit back and not do anything for the remainder of the night.  If I’m feeling up to it, I’ll watch a movie and jot some of my views down and end up writing something up on this blog.  Therefore, for me to post up a review 31 days in a row is a big undertaking for me.

With all that said, I hope you check out Cinema Bits during the month of October and let me know what you think.

Take care and I hope you enjoy my Halloween mission.

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Cloverfield

It was sometime around July of 2007 when a friend of mine, along with his son, wanted to go seeTransformers.  Now, I wasn’t a big fan of the cartoon or toy line, but my friend was and, even more importantly, his kid was as well.  I didn’t want to let the little guy down and said I’d go along with them to watch the movie.  We all know how that film turned out—some of us knew what it would be way before seeing it on screen—but some people, like my friend and his son, loved it.

Why am I talking about theTransformers movie I saw seven years ago?  Well, that’s when I first saw the trailer for JJ Abrams new—well…new at the time—movie,Cloverfield.

Now, this trailer made a big splash even though it was just a teaser and didn’t show much of anything besides the decapitated head of The Statue of Liberty careening from the night sky to land in some street.  But it wasn’t what we saw—or didn’t see—in that short trailer, it was the lack of a title.  Basically, the trailer began, showing some destruction with people screaming and yelling, then the head landing and rolling to a stop.  The odd thing about it?  Where usually a title will pop up, showing the name of the movie, there was only a date: 1/18/2008.

Now, this trailer caused quite a stir throughout the geek community, as well as exciting fans of JJ Abrams…and even myself.  I was sitting there, floored, and wanting to see that movie.  Being so intrigued and fascinated by it, I didn’t want to sit through the Transformers movie at that moment.  Well…I didn’t want to sit through it in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there.

During the rest of that year, the internet went wild with scenarios and speculations about what this movie could be about.  One big one was that the film was going to be a retry at Godzilla or something to do with the “Lost” television show.  Most sites analyzed the trailer, frame-by-frame, trying to pick out aspects and details, zooming in and showing these pictures continuously throughout the web.  Then the theories and guesses as to what the title was going to be started making the rounds.  I’ll give Abrams this—he really set the World Wide Web abuzz with this little trailer.

Of course, viral sites started popping up, coming out with static-filled videos that starred some unknown individual who gave out clues about the upcoming film.  I don’t know if these videos were made by the studio or filmmakers, or if it was just some nerd out there with too much time on his or her hands. 

Nevertheless, the attention this upcoming film had garnered was interesting and helped it tremendously.

Finally, it was revealed—at least the title was—and fans became even more excited, chomping at the bit to see this movie (myself included).  We saw more of an in-depth trailer and a title was given—Cloverfield.

Although I was excited to see this film, there was one thing that concerned me and that was the choice for Abrams to have this filmed as a found-footage type of movie.  In my opinion, the found-footage genre came and went withThe Blair Witch Project back in 1998, so I was worried it was going to be a disadvantage to this film.  I’ve always had a concern when it comes to films that use this technique, because what the characters do with the camera throughout the story never makes perfect sense.  But I waited patiently and tried not to be prejudiced in any way towards this film until the day it arrived.

The film opens with Jason (Mike Vogel) and his girlfriend, Lily (Jessica Lucas), setting up a surprise going-away party for his brother, Rob (Michael Stahl-David), all the while using a camcorder to film everything.  Once at the apartment where the party is to take place, Mike gives the camera to their friend, Hud (T.J. Miller), to film the party and having everybody leave a personal goodbyes to Rob.  Soon after Rob arrives, and after a blowout with a former girlfriend, Beth (Odette Yustman), sudden rumblings are felt and blasts are heard, leading everyone to the roof to see what’s going on.  In the distance, the partygoers see large explosions and feel more quakes, frightening them all to run downstairs to the ground floor.  All the while, as Hud is filming, everyone sees something enormous crash through the buildings in the distance and starts running for cover, trying to get away from the threat.

I’ve got to say, before getting any further into this review, the best way to watch this film is in the theater or if you have a big screen television with some great sound.  You’ll definitely lose some of the excitement and enjoyment if you see this on anything less.  But even if you’re still living in the dinosaur age of TV viewing, you can still appreciate the film for what it gives you and that’s unrelenting thrills. 

So, I mentioned the found footage aspect of the film and thought it might’ve been a detriment.  I was wrong…the first person perspective was exactly what this film needed.  You actually feel you’re right there with the main characters, running from this monstrous menace and trying to steer clear from it.  Although it’s clear the concept was intended to keep special FX costs down as the camcorder filming avoids looking at the creature too long.  However, it’s easy to believe that the characters wouldn’t want to just stop and gaze at this giant monster, but move their ass as far away from it as possible, so it’s not totally noticeable.

On the other hand, this type of filming leaves the door wide open for disbelief, making it very difficult to suspend it while watching the movie.  I mean, who would video record all that time while some colossal beast was terrorizing the city, threatening your life in the process?  Wouldn’t any sane person drop the

camera and run for their lives?  I know I would.  Also, that camera appeared to be filming for an hour or so already, before the creature appeared in the city.  We see Jason filming while he and his girlfriend are buying food and drinks for the party, then Hud takes over the camera before Rob shows up, then all those scenes running from the monster…?  By movie time, that camera was recording for at least three or four hours.  How did the battery last so long?  Especially when the light was being used most of the time…that camera should’ve died out before the commotion in the city.  Also, most people would be more pissed off than the characters in this film when Hud continues to record at very inappropriate times.  Speaking from personal experience, I’ve had people rip video cameras out of my hands and shut them off because they felt I was overdoing it.  So, for Hud to get no flak for recording as much as he did seems a little hard to swallow.

Though, if you can set aside those criticisms for the found footage style of filming, the film is very engaging and doesn’t lose the viewer.  The story gets going right away and once we’re in motion, it becomes a roller coaster ride of crazy thrills.  From the quick views of the weird monster to the main characters trying to get to another individual by way of climbing up a leaning skyscraper, your nerves will be on high alert, waiting to see what the filmmakers will throw at you next.

The special effects are pretty magnificent with no obvious fakery going on.  Even though you don’t see much of what’s happening, as a lot of the action is implied, what you dosee is spectacular.

Director Matt Reeves really made a name for himself with this film, going on to direct Let Me In and, most recently, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.  He’s certainly a great director with a good future ahead of him.

Finally, as I talk about the best thing I loved about this movie is the end credits.  The whole movie doesn’t feature a music track (besides the music you’ll hear during the party scene), but there’s one hell of a theme that you’re going to hear at the very end.  What conjured up in my head is perfect music for a monster movie.  Take a listen and you’ll see what I mean.

My final “bit” on Cloverfield?

Besides my gripe about this movie being a found footage motif, I really liked it.  I have no problem suspending my disbelief on certain things, so I can enjoy the film as a whole and I think you’ll feel the same.  It doesn’t take long for the story to get started, only lulls for a bit at the beginning to set up the tension between the main character and his love interest, giving him a reason to get to her, so it doesn’t disappoint.  If you haven’t seen this film, you shouldn’t miss it.  Basically, any film that JJ Abrams is involved in should be trusted that it’ll be entertaining.

As a side bit, make sure to pay attention to the final footage, where the film reverts to what was covered as we see Rob and Beth at Coney Island.  All I’ll say is watch the sky behind them and you’ll see what most people believe is the genesis of the monster.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the movies!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.