Mother's Day (2010)

As I’ve mentioned before, in other reviews and in my everyday life, the 1980s was a great decade for horror films.  Movies were divvied out, one after another, so theaters never had a shortage of the genre.  I attended many of those films and made sure to rent them when they were released on VHS during the rental boom of the late 80s and most of the 90s.  I had seen so many 80s horror films, it made my head spin, and I’m hard-pressed to remember any of their plots if you were to ask me about most of those obscure films.  To this day, I’ll find a title or two from the time span of 1980 to 1989 that I’ll enjoy, making me wonder how I had missed it back then.  Movies like Night of the Creeps and Chopping Mall come to mind when I think of certain films I’ve just discovered recently. 

On the flip side to that, sometimes I’ll discover an 80s horror film by hearing about a remake of one.  Sometimes I’ve heard of them, but sometimes I don’t.  Sometimes I’ll enjoy the original better than the reboot, but a lot of times I don’t.  And that was the case when I had heard about the remake of Mother’s Day.

When it was announced that the film was in the can, ready to be picked up for distribution so that it can have a theatrical run, I decided that I should see the original to be able to compare the films when I finally get to see the rehash.  So, going to my trusty Netflix account, I entered a search for the original film and put it in my queue to be sent right away.  A few days later, when I received the disc in the mail, I put it in my PS3 and started watching it.  Ten minutes in, I ejected the disc and sent it back to Netflix.  I don’t want to blast it since I had only watched a small portion of it, but I guess I just wasn’t in the mood to see that type of low budget filming.  In that short time, the movie started out kind of silly and it just seemed like something I wouldn’t want to see.  One day I’ll give it another try, but for now, let’s just focus on 2010’s Mother’s Day.

Although the movie was planned to be released in theaters back in 2010, the date was postponed time and time again until it was finally—and quietly—released in May of 2012.  Not only was it indistinctly released, it was only shown on a small number of screens—in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles.  Less than a week after its tiny theater run, the film was released on home media, so that was when I decided to place the film in my Netflix queue.

The two things that sold me on the film were the trailer and the fact that it was directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.  Bousman directed some of the best sequels of the Saw franchise of films.  He also had a hand in writing part two (along with Leigh Whannell), so I knew Mother’s Day would be in good hands with him.  The trailer definitely solidified my sentiments and I noticed right away that it was going to be far different from the original 1980 version (the ten minutes I had seen anyway), so I was ready.  The disc finally showed up in my mailbox and I stuck it in my PS3 right away.

The overall story is about Beth and Daniel Sohapi (Jaime King and Frank Grillo) having a group of friends over their house for a little get together.  They all decide to convene in their basement game room to socialize

with some music and billiards.  Soon, three men enter the home with one of them injured from a gunshot wound because of a botched robbery.  After finding the party downstairs, the men keep the friends at bay until their mother (Rebecca de Mornay) arrives.  As it turns out, the family used to own the house and money had been sent there for the last few months…and they won’t leave until they get it.

With some of the flaws this film has, I still like it and feel it has some type of rewatchability (did I just make up a new word?) merit.  Now, there are some scenes where you’ll feel a bit uncomfortable, some parts where you feel you may have done something different than what the characters do in the story, and there may be a few things you’ll find hard to believe.  But I, myself, have bought this movie on Blu-Ray just the other day because I felt it was a good and gritty movie overall.

Though the villain characters had sort of cookie-cutter attributes to even them all out, I felt it brought a balance to all of them at the beginning.  You had the older brother, Izaak Patrick Flueger), who was the levelheaded one of the bunch, almost as composed as their mother, Natalie (De Mornay).  Then you’ve got the hothead, ready-to-kill baddie, Addley (Warren Kole), who has no remorse about abusing the women of the group of friends and trying to get a rise out of the significant-others just so he has a reason to hurt them as well.  The little sister to all of them, Lydia (Debora Ann Woll) is the one most troubled and unsure of her part in the family.  Out of all of them, and the one who doesn’t have much to do, is the injured little brother, Johnny (Matt O’Leary).

From the group of friends, we have believable fright displayed as well as opposing differences on what they all think they should do.  It’s almost a good look at human relations and a test at how they really feel deep down inside one another as they’re pushed —sometimes with deadly force by the villains—to show their true natures.  You, as an audience, will have no trouble identifying yourself with most of the characters.  With some of the arguments they get into about what they should do, you can actually see both sides and feel that you might have done either choice they were faced with.  I can most identify with the head of the household, Daniel (Grillo), and felt that he was right all along, that if they had just cooperated and get the family what they want, they would be left alone and unhurt.  But, of course, if they did just that, it wouldn’t be much of a movie.

Underneath the main plot of the film is a subplot involving the two characters that King and Grillo play.  It’s a little ambiguous at the beginning as we see King’s character looking melancholy and tearing up at times, but as the story moves along within the first few minutes of the film, we notice that she watches Grillo’s character reproachfully as he interacts with the other female characters.  We soon realize that they are having marital problems and it’s a good touch to add to the story, coming to a head near the end of the film.

Now this is definitely a horror film, but not a slasher or anything supernatural, but a real-life type of horror film.  So, of course, the filmmakers needed to get some gruesome images into the flick and they really added some scenes that may make some of you turn away from the screen.  The make-up effects featured within the film is quite real-looking and stomach-churning at times.  Adding that to the film definitely gives the whole situation the protagonists are in an ominous feel---that there are repercussions that they’ll face if they run afoul of the antagonists. 

Anyway, so I don’t give too much more away about this film, let me give you my final “bit” on Mother’s Day.

Though, at times, the film may make you feel uncomfortable—you’ll actually go through a whole whirlwind of I Spit on Your Grave or The Last House on the Left, so you can easily watch this without feeling like you’re watching pornography.  As soon as the three brothers enter the picture, the film just doesn’t let up with the sadistic atmosphere you’ll feel.  The only problem I have with the film is that I felt the movie should’ve ended on a higher note, which I can’t explain without giving the ending away.  But the movie, as a whole, is worth a watch and it may teach you to lock your doors in case the previous owners come by for some money they think they’re due.  Don’t miss this one.

emotions for that matter—the film is really not as unpleasant as, say, 

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Night of the Living Dead (1990)

In the good old days of movie-going, especially in the years prior to the early 2000s, one did not have to worry about watching a rehash of what was already a success years ago.  Yes, I’m speaking about the epidemic that has been plaguing Hollywood for the last decade or so—taking an original concept that was done perfectly already and put it through the ringer to just squeeze more money out of moviegoers.  Many names have been given to this pusillanimous art form, like “remake” or “reboot” (although movie studios already dislike having those movies labeled as such, so they prefer “reimagining” or “retelling”), but there was a time when there were very few of these films.  When one was released back before this craze became the norm, these remakes were usually done with care and the utmost respect for their predecessors.  One such film was the remake of the 1968 George Romero classic, 1990’s Night of the Living Dead.

As it turns out, 1990, I believe, was the actual year I had discovered the original 1968 film.  I was already on my way to becoming the horror aficionado that I am today, so it was a no-brainer that I would enjoy that influential cult classic.  Of course, for me, the natural progression was to seek out and watch the remake, which is what I had done…although, not until it made the rounds on VHS.

I guess it was fitting that special effects magician, Tom Savini, took the directing reigns for this film, seeing that he had worked with George Romero on a number of movies since the early 70s.  However, it seemed like it would be a big risk—for the studio and producers—to give Savini the chance, considering that this was his directorial debut.  But, in my opinion, he nailed it and gave the modeled story a fresh take—for 1990 standards anyway—and reintroduced this benchmark film to a new generation of horror fans.

The film begins, like the original, with brother and sister, Johnnie and Barbara (Bill Moseley and Patricia

Tallman), visiting their mother’s grave at the cemetery.  A man staggers up (as Johnnie teases his sister with the famous “they’re coming to get you, Barbara” line) and grabs Barbara.  Johnnie pulls the man off and struggles, falling down and striking his head on a headstone, killing him.  Barbara gets away and finds herself in an abandoned farmhouse.  Soon, a man, Ben (Tonny Todd), arrives, as well as a small group of people that were hiding in the basement the whole time.  They all try to fend off and protect themselves from the zombies outside…seeing if they can make it through the night.

Although the film is nearly a shot-for-shot redo, much of the dialogue and actions the characters go through are a little different than what they had done in the original film.  Like I’d mentioned, the story is updated with a contemporary interpretation, so I’m sure it was refashioned in order to compete with the horror films that were playing in those days.  Although the 1968 film shows some horrific scenes that audiences of that era may have gasped at, this new film had to take some measures to be on equal terms with the popular slasher films of the late 80s.  Especially since this film was to be shot and released as a color film, unlike the 1968 version which was filmed in black & white, make-up and special effects needed to be perfected to get its realism across for believability purposes.  And speaking of the make-up and special effects of this film, I’m surprised that Savini didn’t have a bigger hand in that department.  As that’s his specialty within the movie business, you’d think he would’ve performed double-duty and involve himself in some of the effects gags throughout the film.  Who knows?  Maybe he had, but I can’t find any info that he actually did, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Although the whole movie seems to be some sort of do-over for Romero (he acted as producer of the film after all), it’s quite enjoyable and gives you the musing of the late 80s of horror movie-making.  I’m betting the real reason for this remake is the resurgence of interest for the original film and how popular it had become after its rediscovery by a new generation of horror fans of the late 80s.  In any case, most of us know the tragic history of the 1968 film and how Romero didn’t receive any money for it because the film had forgotten to be copyrighted, sending it straight to the public domain.  So I see this 1990 version as a way to correct the wrong 22 years prior and for him to give us (and himself) a retry of a quintessential Night of the Living Dead.

A few things about this update of the 1968 film, Savini was able to include some scenes and plot devices that were written for the original film that wouldn’t have fared so well in the 1960s.  A scene that was shown in this film was a quick sequence showing zombies hanging from a tree and being shot at by some people.  With the racial tensions going on in the late 60s, seeing images of people hanging from a tree would probably be quite uncomfortable with audiences during that time.  Another aspect of this film is the strong-willed version of Barbara and how she joins Ben with fighting back the zombies.  It’s been said that Romero wanted these two things to be in his 1968 film, but couldn’t be included because of the time it was filmed.  I guess this just proves that George Romero was a man way ahead of his time.

One portion of the plot that is glaringly different than the original is how the film ends.  I don’t want to spoil the film for anybody, so I won’t give it away, but I felt it was a bold move to finish this one differently and it was probably done to leave room for a direct sequel (that never happened).

I really have no qualms about this movie and thought it was done with the highest reverence for George Romero and his original film.  But there’s one thing I’d like to point out and it’s such a blatant and obvious part of the film that really takes you out of it when viewing.  It’s right at the beginning where Barbara first

encounters a zombie and Johnnie goes to help her.  After struggling with the walking dead man, he’s knocked to the side and falls, slamming his head into the corner of a gravestone.  The shot is quick, but it’s so obvious—even if you’re a first-time viewer—it’s a dummy that falls against the stone.  I’ve thought about this a lot—probably too much, for it’s not that important—and began to understand that maybe Savini noticed but didn’t want to undo the trouble of making a life-sized dummy and demean the effects crew of their hard work.  However, they could’ve re-filmed the scene with the head turned away so we don’t see the fake-looking face…I don’t know.  Nevertheless, that’s my one gripe and it’s not that big of a deal.  It happens early on in the film and can be forgotten by the time Barbara reaches the farmhouse.

Anyway…my final “bit” on Night of the Living Dead?

It’s a fun film and you get the sense you’re watching what George Romero originally intended if he’d had better cameras and special effects and more money.  The film is certainly a gorier and more realistic vision, with the rules of zombism clearly in place.  Although I highly recommend this film, I’d watch the original first (if you haven’t already) and then this one a few days later.

As a side “bit,” once again, Twilight Time had released a limited edition Blu-Ray for this film.  Just like Fright Night and Christine, they had released only 3,000 copies, so good luck finding a disc under $50.  I didn’t even hear about the release, so I’ll still be watching my bare-bones DVD until something else comes around.

That’s it for now…thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Okay, so as a precursor to this review, I must say that I haven’t watched the director’s cut of the film that is featured on the Blu-Ray collection as of yet.  I’d preordered the set earlier in the summer when it was first announced and it was just delivered last month.  With that said, I’m basing my views on the DVD copy I own and not the Blu-Ray.  I’m not sure if the director’s cut is any better (I don’t know how that’d be possible), but if it is I will definitely update this post as soon as I see it and believe it’s better than the theatrical version.

Speaking of theatrical versions, I’m not even sure if this movie saw any theater time because I had never seen this title featured on any marquee around my parts.  The only inkling I had that the film existed was the constant trailers I saw preceding movie rentals that happened to be movies distributed by Dimension Films.  On top of that, the film was originally titled Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers, as it stated and showed on the trailers I’d seen.  Somewhere along the way, however, the filmmakers decided to change the name and quietly released it to home media sometime in 1995 or 1996.

Dropping the number and changing the subtitle, the movie was released as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.  Directed by Joe Chappelle, this was only his second directorial feature.  The history of this film is so messed up with conflicting reports of how bad the relationship was between the producers and the director, not to mention the crew that worked on it as well.  The budget was said to be cut pretty drastically, which figures on why the movie looks the way it does.  But I’ll get more into that later.  For now, here’s the synopsis.

The film opens with Jamie Lloyd (J.C. Brandy), pregnant and held captive by some faction called Thorn.  She’s wheeled into an area where she gives birth to her baby and the cult wants to sacrifice it,

but she’s able to escape with the baby.  It turns out that Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) is associated with this cult somehow and goes after Jamie and her child.  After Jamie tries calling in a radio talk show from the bus depot—since the police don’t take her calls seriously—Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) hears the call over the airwaves and goes to help.  However, Michael catches up with Jamie and kills her, but doesn’t find her child.  As Tommy arrives at the bus depot, he finds the baby and goes to Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) for help.  But Michael returns to Haddonfield once more to find the child.  Can Tommy Doyle and Dr. Loomis protect it from him?

Okay, this film is bad.  Really bad. Out of all the Halloween movies in the franchise, I can only think of one other that is worse than this one.  When I throw this one on, I find myself really forcing myself to watch, usually falling asleep or just keeping the DVD playing as background noise while doing something else.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a curious concept, but it was just executed horribly and has too many lulls to keep one’s interest.  The whole film seems tired and features no tension and is confusing at times. 

I feel bad for Donald Pleasence as this was his last film, passing away before it was released.  For his dedication to this whole franchise, he should’ve gone out with a bang, but instead went out quietly.  Pleasence deserved an awesome swan song as he was responsible for some of the success this film has had over the years.

Like the previous entry, the film is filled with either hateful characters or just plain boring ones that

you don’t care what happens to them.  One of the worst—and probably within the whole franchise—is the father of one of the main characters.  He’s such a prick to his wife and daughter that you feel you want to kill him yourself.

The edited cuts quickly get on your nerves as you hear the sound effects of a slashing knife swooshing through the air and cutting something.  There is no rhyme or reason for the sounds, it’s just something the filmmakers thought would be cool to feature, but just seems stupid.

There’s nothing more I can say about this film, other than to tell you to avoid it.  That’s my final “bit” and I’m sticking to it.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Last House on the Left (2009)

A while back, after Wes Craven became more of a luminary director, accepted as a mainstream moviemaker after helming theScream series of films, I decided to seek out his earlier films to watch.  I was familiar with quite a few already, but wanted to delve deeper into his past.  I was, and still am, a huge fan of his A Nightmare on Elm Street film, enjoyed the hell out of Deadly Friend and Shocker, and Scream was definitely the freshest take on a slasher film at that time.  But I knew of some earlier films that he had directed—1972’s The Last House on the Left being one of them—and had Netflix send me the few that they had available.  However, after watching Craven’s version of Last House, I didn’t care for it much and thought it was overly sadistic and too much of a 70s exploitation film for me to ever see again.

Well, cut to 2009 and it’s announced that The Last House on the Left is one of the many films on the remake chopping block (cue groans).  Of course, my first thought went to the original film and it gave me a sick feeling in my stomach, prompting me to ignore whatever trailer or TV spot that came on during commercials.  The movie came and went, going through its run in theaters and I thought nothing more of it until the film was available on home media.  Now, don’t get me wrong…I had a little bit of interest to see if the new film would be updated and acceptable for today’s audiences, but I just didn’t feel good about going to the theater to see a film about some girl who gets raped.  As soon as I had the DVD in hand, in the safety of my own home and without anyone judging me for what I was to watch on the screen (I even waited until the cover of darkness arrived and my wife was asleep in bed), I popped in the disc to watch The Last House on the Left.

The film is about a family—John (Tony Goldwyn), Emma (Monica Potter), and their daughter, Mari (Sara

Paxton)—spending the summer at their house in the woods.  Mari borrows the family SUV and goes out to meet her friend, Paige (Martha MacIsaac), at the general store in town where she works.  They meet a teenager named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) and go to the motel where he’s staying.  A while later, Justin’s father, Krug (Garret Dillahunt), his girlfriend, Sadie (Riki Lindhome), and Justin’s uncle, Francis (Aaron Paul), walk in and things get uncomfortable.  Seeing that they’re wanted criminals, they end up taking Mari’s parents’ SUV, along with Mari and Paige, to get away from the area…but things go bad really quick.

The bad thing about rape-revenge films, like I Spit on Your Grave (both the 1978 and 2010 versions) and 2009’s The Last House on the Left (as well as the 1972 version), is that it’s strange to commend the films and admit that you have admiration for them because it almost seems like you’re praising the sexual assault portions of the stories.  I’d mentioned, when I reviewed 2010’s I Spit on Your Grave, that it’s definitely hard to get through the debauchery, but the revenge portions of the films are always such great payoffs.  So, pretty much, that’s how this film plays out, but not as brutal as the original.  You might think that’s a good thing, and I agree that it is, after you see what happens to the characters of Mari and Paige.  But the revenge climax of the film is toned down as well and not as gleefully gory and extreme like the original film or the recent I Spit on Your Grave remake.

Overall, the movie is a good thriller and you’ll enjoy most of the film, although you’ll be uncomfortable during the rape scene—as well as the minutes leading to it.

If there’s anything I can complain about is how the characters of the antagonists were written.  Throughout the beginning and into the film, the three main baddies are set as the evil bunch they are, making sure to control any situation they’re in.  Newspapers and, I’m sure, television reports were exposing them as wanted by police and FBI for their crimes, so they were right (in their mind) not to trust anyone and to make sure no one will turn on them.  As they discover the girls in their motel room, they make sure they won’t go to the police by holding them hostage, and that makes sense for who they are.  However, my gripe is that when they go to Mari’s parents’ house in the woods, they trust that her parents haven’t heard about them and take their offer to spend the night in their guest quarters.  At this point in the movie, nothing stopped them from offing other people, so why let these people live when they could’ve easily killed them or, at least, tied them up or something?  But I guess it’s just a case where you suspend disbelief or just not think about it too much.

The movie plays out pretty much the same way the original had, so there’s really nothing new added here.  The only thing praiseworthy about the rehash of this story is that it was made more believably and not as stomach-churning as the ’72 flick.  It’s definitely a horror movie, but more of the real life kind with nothing supernatural going on.

Well, with all that said, let me give you my final “bit” on The Last House on the Left.

First the pros: The film is not as sick and twisted as the original version, so you may be able to watch this without feeling nauseous or ashamed of yourself.  With the well-known actors and actresses in the film, you may keep yourself grounded and know you’re simply watching a movie. 

And the cons: Simply stated, you’re going to witness something very uncomfortable before the vengeance is dealt. 

With all that said, to recommend this film to someone, I’d be reluctant to do so.  I’m definitely on the fence because it’s a well written and directed movie, filled with good performances throughout.  However, because of the violent nature of the film, one may see me as some psycho who loves sadism in film if I were to tell you that you should watch this movie.  So, hopefully you can read into that and choose as you see fit.

As a side “bit,” I’ll just say—without giving anything away—that the very end of the film is a little silly and I’m not so sure of the logistics involved to believe that it could happen.  But it was a cool little satisfying part to include in the flick.

Anyway, thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The 'Burbs

Since the early 80s, Tom Hanks has been a hot commodity sought after for starring roles in movies.  He has been in a countless string of hits ranging from 1984’s Splash to, recently, 2013’s Captain Phillips.  Hanks broke out on the comedy scene with the 1980 television sitcom, “Bosom Buddies” (along with Peter Scolari), as two guys needing to find an affordable apartment, resorting to dressing in drag as they live in an all-women’s apartment building.  Though it was hard to believe that the series lasted two seasons, one thing that had been evident was that Tom Hanks stood out as one hell of a funny actor, so it was a no-brainer to cast him into comedy films soon after the success of that show.

Although most of his films in the decade of the 1980s were hilarious romps that ranged from fantasy comedies (Splash and Big) to gratuitous lampoon (Bachelor Party and The Money Pit), one thing that was always evident was that the man could act and had quite a range from his great comedic timing to being quite serious.  In fact, as time went on, Hanks began taking on more earnest roles, leaving the comedy behind.  I was floored the first time I had seen Philadelphia, the movie having such a heavy tone as he played a gay man who contracts AIDS.  The role won him his first Academy Award and definitely sent him on his way into being the great actor that he is today.

All that aside, the 80s were his comedic era and the films he had been featured in were fun frolics that were enjoyed by many.  He had made a name for himself on his TV series, even garnering some attention on his guest role in Family Ties (where he played the uncle with a drinking problem) as his part was funny-turned-serious, and with his break-out hit, Splash, he was quickly on his way toward some really funny films.

So, the year after he was featured in Big and shortly after the release of Turner & Hooch, Tom Hanks continued his crazy comedy ways—although a little subdued here—in a fun little thriller-comedy, The ‘Burbs.

Now, I have to admit, I hadn’t gone to see this in theaters when it was first released in 1989, but opted to rent the film when it came out on VHS.  So, focusing primarily on his outrageous comedies in the past, I was expecting this film to be sort of the same thing where it’d be a laugh-a-minute.  With that in mind, I think that’s why I felt let down a bit after watching it back then and never really thought about it until recently, where I found the DVD for a couple of bucks in a dump bin at Wal-Mart.  After re-watching the film as of late, I’ve found that I have changed my mind on my opinion from years ago and I’m actually partial to this movie.

One aspect I see in this film as to why I’ve changed my opinion is the fact that the whole film was shot on the backlot of Universal Studios, mainly on Colonial Street (now called Wisteria Lane, due to the success of the television series, “Desperate Housewives”), where well known TV shows were filmed.  Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Munsters” were just some of the many productions that were featured on that famous street set.  I guess I’d just never noticed—or cared—when I first saw The ‘Burbs.  But ever since 1998, when I first set foot in the Hollywood amusement park and the studio backlot tour, I found a new love for everything Universal.

But enough of me waxing poetic about the studio and everything associated with it…let’s get into The ‘Burbs.

The film takes place in a cul-de-sac neighborhood in the town of Hinkley Hills.  Ray Peterson (Tom Hanks) is curious about his mysterious new neighbors, the Klopeks, who live next door as he begins to notice some peculiarities that they display.  Ray and his friend, Art (Rick Ducommun), and along with the military veteran neighbor, Lt. Mark Rumsfield (Bruce Dern), start noticing weird goings-on at the house.  They see flashes of lights coming from the basement and notice the neighbors coming out in the middle of the night to dig in their backyard.  It’s when an older neighbor, Walter Seznick (Gale Gordon), goes missing, that the men decide to investigate…thinking the worst about the new neighbors.

I’ve got to say, I’ve gained a new admiration for this film and see it in a completely different light now.  I made the mistake, back when I first saw this movie, of thinking it was going to be a big laugh riot with Tom Hanks leading the way.  In actuality, this flick is a nice little funny story with an equally humorous ensemble cast that all give something to the movie.  Mainly it’s a funny tale, with the typical farfetched plans of neighbors having nothing better to do than to trespass and spy on people who they believe to be murderers. 

Although Hanks is not over-the-top funny, he still has some cool comedic moments as he plays the straight man that gets caught up and pressured by his friend to believe some crazy theories about the new neighbors.  Seeing him go from just a curious neighbor to some obsessed meddler is pretty amusing and seems believable.  The way it ramps up from the beginning makes it sort of acceptable that someone would actually go that far to find out what their neighbors are doing in their own home.  Though he stays pretty straight throughout the whole movie, when he loses it before the climax of the film, you’ll most likely get a little chuckle out of it.

Although Rick Ducommun, as Hanks’s friend, is a little annoying, the film needed him as the little push to get Hanks’s character go over the top.  But Bruce Dern was a nice touch to play the respectable military man of the neighborhood—not to mention his gizmos and gadgets help the plot along as it sees fit.  Even though it’s a little overblown to have this story of three guys going out of their way to spy on the new neighbors, it gives the characters the air of great chemistry between them as they plan and strategize ways to gain information from the Klopeks’ residence.

Along for the ride are your typical icons from the 1980s, like Carrie Fisher playing Ray’s wife, Carol.  You’ll recognize the Klopeks: Henry Gibson as Dr. Werner Klopek with Brother Theodore as Uncle Reuben and Courtney Gains as Hans.  Of course, what’s an 80s movie without Corey Feldman?  He’s thrown into the mix as the local teenager, Ricky Butler.  Overall, the film has the same feel and look to it as Gremlins.  Seeing that both that film and this one were both directed by Joe Dante, it's understandable.

If you’re a fan of the golden age of television, or even of more recent TV shows, you’ll definitely recognize the street the neighborhood is set on as it still appears like it had years prior.  Although it has changed for more modern day television shows these days, it will always be Colonial Street to me, where the Cleaver boys walked home from school during the credits of “Leave it to Beaver.”

So, what’s my final “bit” on The ‘Burbs?

Not a Tom Hanks classic in any sense, but a very good film that’s pretty tame for the family to see.  It’s entertaining and certainly worth a watch.  I’m glad I picked it up and discovered my new found appreciation for it…maybe you will too.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Re-Animator

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

After successfully bringing back the Halloween franchise from the brink of obliteration due to the apparent demise of the main antagonist at the end of the second film, the screenwriters and filmmakers listened well to the fans that had been disappointed and brought back the masked killer everyone had come to know as Michael Myers.  His whited out mask with the crazy tuft of hair on top had become well known and had brought fear to all who’d seen the films.  It was a train that had been building up speed and power with the first two films and solidified itself even more after the 1988 sequel where the slasher icon was resurrected and was now back on the horror movie map.

The filmmakers of the 1988 follow-up productively solved the problem of Laurie Strode’s absence by having her death explained in exposition and introducing her daughter she left behind as the new target of Michael Myers.  But after that sequel, where do you go from there?

I do remember seeing this film in the theater—as I was steadily going to see movies during the 80s as horror movies were big then and constantly being released during that decade—and had my reservations about it as it was playing out before my eyes.  Years later, as I’ve seen this movie countless times—being that it’s a staple of my October movie-watching experience—I’ve come to scrutinize it even more.

Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard, he was able to keep the feel of part four within the film, but the story, as a whole, seems a little forced and uneven.  Whether it’s because of his direction or the performances of the actors and actresses, I’m not sure.  But there definitely were some decisions on the tone of some of the scenes that are questionable.  I’ll get into that a little later.  First, let me synopsize.

The film takes place right after the events of part four, showing Michael Myers (Don Shanks) being able to get away as he’s injured and clinging to life.  An old blind man (Harper Roisman) takes him in and nurses him back to health over the course of a year.  When Halloween arrives, Michael awakens, kills the man, and continues his pursuit of Jamie (Danielle Harris), who is now mute and is a patient at the Haddonfield Children’s Clinic under the care of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). 

Now, as this sequel continues with most of the cast of part four, featuring Jamie’s adopted sister, Rachel (Ellie Cornell), I felt it was a return to what we saw in the previous movie.  But as the shift

changes to focus on the character of Tina (Wendy Kaplan), Rachel’s friend, I felt this was the downfall of the film.  Kaplan’s performance was so irritating and annoying…it made me cringe at times.  I used to wonder to myself, “Who’d be friends with that chick?”  She was so overly happy and joyful, being loud and obnoxious, it seemed a little unreal.  She established herself as someone I wanted Michael to kill off right away…especially when she chooses to go off and party after Jamie recovers from being mute, begging Wendy to stay with her! 

Another big mistake that the director made is incorporating too much comedy with the inclusion of the bumbling cop characters (Frank Como and David Ursin).  It was bad enough to show them as a couple of dumbasses, but they were given a sort of clownish music theme.  It’s as if the filmmakers thought, “Well, the audience might not know that they’re a couple of idiots so let’s make sure to hammer it home by giving them some cartoon melody complete with silly honking horns whenever they’re on screen.”  I didn’t think it was funny whatsoever.

All in all, the movie has some good moments, but one thing you’ll see is that you really don’t care about any of the characters Michael kills off.  Most of them you’ll want dead when you first see them, so you really can’t connect with them.  The filmmakers were too busy to give each individual within the movie clichéd characteristics that they didn’t realize how superficial they were going to turn out.

You can still enjoy this movie for the simple fact that Michael is still continuing his stalking and killing ways.  Really, there are no surprises that you’ll find here until the end of the movie.  It all starts with confusing glimpses of a man in black with no explanation as to who he is or why he arrives in Haddonfield and leaves you with even more confusion at the very end of the film.  Although we get sort of clarification in part six (a mere six years later), it’s a very contrived explanation that I’ll go over in that film’s review.

So, my final “bit” on Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers?

The last of the Halloween films within the decade of the 80s that doesn’t completely disappoint and actually has a few good scenes within it, I usually enjoy it during my annual October viewing and will continue to do so every year.  It’s not the best of the lot, but worth your time if you have the urge to watch a slasher film that correlates with the Halloween season.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.