Halloween: Resurrection

Let me precede this post to tell let you know that this review is going to be short and bitter (certainly not sweet) as I look back on this movie, which has got to be the worst sequel in the Halloween franchise.  All you have to do is think about two of the actors cast in this movie—Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks—and you’ll understand why without needing an explanation. 

When this movie was first announced and described, my gut told me to avoid it when it finally opened in theaters, but I didn’t listen to it.  It was churning and gurgling, yet I turned a deaf ear.  After watching this film, I’ll never doubt my instincts again.

2002’s Halloween: Resurrection has a saving grace, however (and it’s hard to believe that it does after watching this train wreck of a film), so it may be worth a glance just for this sole reason—the inclusion of a Jamie Lee Curtis cameo.  But her scenes are at the very beginning and makes it that much more difficult to get through the rest of the flick.

Well, without further ado, and to avoid prolonging the discussion of this film, here’s the breakdown of the film.

Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes) and his partner, Nora (Tyra Banks), run an internet reality show and decide on featuring the abandoned Myers residence with six college students spending the night inside.  As luck would have it, Michael Myers (Brad Loree) returns, aiming to kill them all off.

One thing I always tell people when they ask me about this film is that it’s worth watching for the first ten or fifteen minutes, but that’s it.  The rest is such a stupid mess of a movie, as Michael Myers shows up and kills each character until there are only two left (and one of them I wished he killed).  It’s actually hard to believe that this film started off so strong, giving us some great exposition as to how Michael Myers is still alive, I almost believe the beginning was just deleted scenes from the previous film.  I constantly ask myself, when watching this debacle, “How did they give this film such a strong beginning only to give us a bunch of shit for the remainder?”  Basically, as soon as Michael Myers hands over his butcher knife to the mental institute patient who knows all the stats of serial killers, you can turn off the movie and chalk it up to the shortest Halloween entry in the series of films.

Anyway, say what you will about all the other films in the Halloween canon, at least there was constantly a reason for Michael’s killing spree in every outing he was featured in: he was always trying to kill off the last of his family.  Yet, in this one—*SPOILER*—he finally achieved that goal (albeit, Laurie’s son is presumably still alive, but I guess Mike had forgotten about him) and decided to go to his old house and kill off a bunch of kids just for the hell of it.  Why didn’t they make the movie about him getting to John?  Even if they couldn’t get Josh Hartnett to reprise his role, they could’ve gotten someone else.  Anything would’ve been better than what they had done here.

Finally, I’ve got to ask—Rick Rosenthal, how did you direct such classics like Halloween II and Bad Boys (the Sean Penn film), but turn in a dud like Halloween: Resurrection?  I’m sure you wanted to do something different and go with what was popular at the turn of the century, like found footage films and the reality TV boom, but it definitely didn’t work here.

Anyway, there you have it—short and bitter.  My final “bit”?

Skip it.  Unless you want to see the first fifteen minutes of the film, I wouldn’t bother with this idiotic flop of a film.  If anything, I guess we can blame this movie for rebooting the franchise and giving it to Rob Zombie to twist it up.  Hopefully Dimension and Akkad will get something together and get the Halloween series back to its glory days…it’s been too long.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Quarantine

I’ve mentioned before, on my take on The Strangers, that the reason I had decided on seeing that particular movie was because it was featured within the Halloween Horror Nights event at Universal Studios.  During that same experience, as you walked into the entrance of the park, the “scare actors” played out an evacuation, moving everybody out of the area as they had emergency vehicles and dressed in military tactical gear.  The trucks had hazmat symbols adorning the doors and the actors played out the scene as though the building facades had something lethal inside that they were protecting us from.  Of course, there were posters and advertisements around the park, so I knew the scene that was being played out in front of me was from the new film, Quarantine.

Just like The Strangers, at that point in time, the movie had come and gone in theaters, so I had to wait a few months before the film was released on home media.  Thus, when the time had arrived, I placed the film onto my Netflix queue and awaited its delivery.

Not too long before I had watched it, I’d realized that it was a remake of a 2007 Spanish film called [REC].  I’ll be honest with you and say that, to this day, I have not seen that version.  I’m sure I will one day, as I think the movie is actually available on Netflix streaming, but for now I’ll just discuss the 2008 American version.

The film opens, via raw footage, with reporter, Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter), being filmed by

her cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), as they get ready to film a report on the local fire department.  They interview firefighters, Fletcher and Jake (Johnathan Schaech and Jay Hernandez), within the firehouse when a report comes in to which they have to respond.  Angela and Scott go along with them in the emergency vehicle and pull up to an apartment building where a medical emergency was reported.  Along with some police officers, the firefighters enter the building and go up to an apartment where an elderly woman, Mrs. Espinoza (Jeanie Epper), suddenly goes crazy and they have to subdue her.  Soon, the firefighters and police, as well as a handful of residents, find out that they’ve all been locked in the building with the military outside ordering them not to try and leave.  When all cell phone and cable connections have been jammed so that no communications to the outside can be made, they all realize they’ve been sealed into quarantine…and believe they’ll never be allowed to leave alive.

Now this film is scary for two reasons.  First, you have the dread of knowing that the story involves some sort of infection that makes people into these crazed zombies.  Second, you feel the terror and helplessness that these people must feel when they realize they’ve been cut off from the world.  The thing about these fears that are presented and sensed here is that one is complete fantasy and the other is something that can very well happen.  I know the argument you may have with my opinion of the first trepidation of it having a fantastical aspect to it may be that it can actually happen.  My thought is that you’d be right, but I was looking at the story element of an infection turning someone into some mindless maniac.  By all means, an infection may spread and endanger a certain populace, but I still think it’s a little bit in the fictional realm to think that something would sicken us into monsters, giving us energy to be many times stronger than before.  However, whether or not that’s the case, the fact of the matter is that if something was able to spread, making it viable to institute a quarantine as to not let the virus—especially one with no known cure—get out into the population, I’m sure what happens in this story is exactly what would transpire in the real world.

The found footage style of the film had me doubt it at first, thinking back on all the ones that had been conveyor-belted out within the decade before Quarantine.  But the resourceful way that they had established it here (and, of course, I have to commend the Spanish filmmakers for this plot device used in the original), was that the whole thing was supposed to be a documentary.  Both main characters were professional reporters and it was in their line of work that their first thought was to document everything onto film—it’s what they were trained for.  With that in mind, you don’t have the unremitting thought that no one in their right mind would be filming when all this craziness is going on.  Believing the main characters are real reporters sets your mind at ease and helps you stay in the movie.

As you watch the story play out, especially when the action takes place in the complex, you may ask yourself what you would do in the characters’ situation.  Sometimes, when watching the movie, I think to myself that I would barricade myself in one of the apartments and wait it out.  But then my thoughts of the military burning the place down would enter my head and I’d feel the characters did what they could.  Then, I’d change my mind again and constantly think of an alternative to what they all end up doing.  It’s a constant barrage of “what ifs?” that you’ll think of, keeping this movie suspenseful for you.  Quarantinedefinitely has a rewatchability aspect that lets you revisit it over and over, making it a different experience every time you see it.

The main characters are believable enough and you can relate that they’re real reporters and

emergency personnel dealing with this nightmare.  Though now that I’ve devoted eight seasons to the “Dexter” television series, I can’t help but see Debra in this movie.  You can especially believe Johnathan Schaech as a fireman, seeing how much machismo he throws around and that mustache…whoa.  Everybody turns in a hell of a performance and makes this movie as authentic as it is.

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

Although I can’t fairly compare it to the Spanish version, this American version hits the mark and might be the first found footage movie I can really believe in and enjoy thoroughly.  The movie gives you terror in the horror movie realm of things and also in a real world aspect.  Though the ending has something to be desired (the explanation to everything), it may be the most terrifying part of the film, which is perfect as everything builds up until that final scene.  I think most horror fans will love this…don’t miss it.

Well, that’s another one for the books.  Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Not every remake is subpar to the original and not every one of them is unneeded.  Every once and a while, you need to purge the memory of an older, poorly made film and see a refreshed look at it with a remake.  Now, I know, I’ve said, time and time again, that we should all boycott remakes and I still stand by that.  But when I cry foul, I’m usually referring to the films that are made solely for the studios to make money by remaking hits of yesteryear (or even of recent release) that don’t warrant it.

With the exception of John Carpenter’s Halloween, I feel that any horror film within the era of the 1970s should be okay to redo.  Most of them were of the grindhouse composition, where they were cruelly put together and pretty exploitive.  Thus, if Hollywood is rehashing one of those, I usually don’t care.  So when I had heard that a redux of The Hills Have Eyeswas on the block to be reimagined, I didn’t blink an eye.  Actually, after seeing the Wes Craven original a few years before this new version was released, I pretty much rejoiced when I’d heard about the new version.  I found the original to be a little overbearing in its brutality and just saw it as an all-around ugly film.

Sometimes I think I’m a bit biased because, I’ve got to admit, the 70s is not my favorite era for horror films.  I enjoy the action or sci-fi films of that time, even some of the dramas as well, but horror films in that decade were just not my cup o’ tea. 

With all that said, I can confess that I thought the original Hills had an interesting premise and a very good plot, but the presentation and direction was just too 70s, for lack of a better description.  So I was more than on board to see the 2006 retelling when it was released and I was planted firmly in the theater seat when the film opened in March of that year.

The film is about a family on a cross-country trip from Ohio to California, stopping for gas in some

desert town.  The service station attendant tells the family about a shortcut through the desert that’ll save them time, so they decide on taking it.  As they take the route, someone throws a spike belt across the road which punctures the tires of the family’s SUV and causes them to crash into a boulder, incapacitating the vehicle.  Soon, they realize they’re being watched by unknown assailants from the mountainous areas surrounding them…ready to attack…ready to kill.

Directed by Alexandre Aja, I definitely had liked the approach he took with this film and how he presented it.  The opening credits, in particular, was a nice way to start the story, as it gave us a narrative look as to what happened to the location where the story is going to take place.  The montage of atomic bomb testing along with photos of adults and children with apparent birth defects is both appalling and fascinating at the same time.  To top that mixture off, we hear an old country song, “More and More” by Webb Pierce, playing over the horrendous images we see.  And just as I had mentioned in my review ofWrong Turn, the same thing is done here by showing us what happens to anyone who intrudes in this desert area, giving us a terrifying scene as an introduction to this film.

The film boasts quite an ensemble for a film of this type.  With Ted Levine and Kathleen Quinlan playing the patriarch and matriarch of the family, along with some solid performances by the younger cast, the movie feels more believable and you really feel for them, especially when things go sour.  How they play out their parts, showing how they come to the decisions that they do, seems believable enough as I’d mentioned before that we’d all like to get to a place sooner than later, so taking a shortcut is something a lot of us would do.  

The makeup and special effects are done pretty well in this film, with one particular shot that had fooled me for a number of years until I found out recently that it was a digital effect.  It’s a scene where the son-in-law, Doug (Aaron Stanford), walks for a number of miles to see if he could find help and happens upon a huge crater in the desert filled with a bunch of abandoned vehicles.  It looks real enough, but it’s said that the far shot of the crater was digitally created for the film.  What gets me—and this is not a complaint, but more of an amusement—is in the same scene, as Doug is walking up, we see some sort of raptor—maybe a vulture or a buzzard—flying overhead.  Usually, when a bird is flying, its body rises up and down as the wings are flapping.  However, the bird in this film is shown to be flying in a straight line as the wings are flapping, so it’s obvious, right away, that the bird is a fake.  I just don’t understand how the digital artists can render a perfect-looking crater in the desert, but completely fumble a rendering of a simple bird in flight.  As for the makeup effects of the deformed and mutated characters, they’re very realistic with some of them being downright grotesque.  I almost thought they had actually hired people who really had these deformities until I looked up their bios.  Plus, watching the “making of” featurette on the disc, it explains how the makeup effects were applied to each actor and actress.  Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger held these duties and did a magnificent job.

Overall, this film gives the audience a sense of dread as soon as the main protagonists break down in the desert and is a surefire message to all of us to make certain we stay on the main roads and avoid shortcuts when travelling.

My final “bit” on The Hills Have Eyes?

I’d say this new version is an improved film compared to the original, with much better development of all the main characters.  The movie features better effects and an expanded look at the reasoning behind the antagonists, definitely surpassing its predecessor and should not be overlooked.  Enjoy it this scary season!

Thanks for reading a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Hostel

Eli Roth had definitely made a name for himself in the horror community back in 2002 when he directed the minor hit, Cabin Fever.  I remember reading about that film in Fangoria Magazine while it was being filmed and enjoyed seeing the set photos, thinking the film was going to be pretty awesome.  However, after watching it—and I’ll admit that I had liked the movie—it left me feeling a little unsatisfied.  I guess the main reason was that the movie was basically about a group of friends at a remote cabin who all fall victim to a flesh-eating virus instead of some maniacal villain terrorizing them.  The movie, as a whole, seemed to be just a gross-out-fest where all the characters were doomed from the start, leaving just one survivor.  It didn’t do much for me and I thought Eli Roth was a mediocre writer and director at best.  But three years later, Hostelwas released and it turned the horror world on its head…for a little while anyway.

All were warned when this film hit theaters, saying that it was the most intense horror film one would ever see.  Most horror buffs commended it, but there’s always the average critic that will bash a new thing.  Anyway, I always tend to listen to the critics who are enthusiasts in the horror genre because most streamlined critics will always bash a horror movie seeing that they just don’t get it.  So when I heard about how hardcore this film was, how it even garnered a new subgenre description, I just knew I had to see it.

Written and directed by Roth, the film will probably make you want to avoid ever travelling abroad and gave the word “hostel”—which is just a description of a bed & breakfast type of hotel—a new evil meaning.  But before getting too much further into this, let’s synopsize the film.

Good friends, Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson), along with Icelander, Oli

(Eythor Gudjonsson), are backpacking through Amsterdam when they meet Alexei (Lubomir Bukovy) who tells them about a hostel in Slokvakia where they’ll find a lot of American-loving women.  They then travel to the small town and find the hostel, seeing that Alexei wasn’t lying.  After partying one night, Paxton and Josh wake up the next morning to find that Oli is missing.  Another night goes by and then Josh is missing.  Soon, Paxton finds out what happened to his friends as he finds himself in their place…a place where he may not escape with his life.

Now, if you’re one to enjoy a film that captures the life of hedonism and debauchery, you’ll love the beginning of this film and the strategy of giving us some background development of the main characters, which we see them as three guys just looking to get laid.  As the film moves on, the actions of the main characters are sort of questionable and don’t seem logical at times, seeing that they’re just following their dicks.  However, as the story moves on and things get serious, you’ll understand their reasoning for doing what they do.

First off, as an example of the main characters acting illogical, seeing that they trust Alexei when they first meet him raised a red flag right away.  Like any movie, I sort of live vicariously through the main characters and think about what I would do in their place.  As the scene played on with Paxton, Josh and Oli interacting with this guy, how he tells them they should go to the hostel in Slovakia, it made me cringe.  The guy seemed like such a seedy character and you’ll have to wonder why the protagonists would take a liking to him.

On the other hand, when the characters of Paxton and Josh meet the two beautiful girls, Natalya (Barbara Nedeljakova) and Svetlana (Jana Kaderabkova), you can understand how they’d be thinking—with the little brain between their legs.  But the girls’ overall demeanor doesn’t give much away until later in the film, so the guys’ trust in them is reasonable.

If there’s one thing that I can complain about is the inclusion of the gang of little kids who go around terrorizing everybody until they get some candy.  I suppose a group of malicious children can overpower you and maybe even kill you, but these kids appeared to be under 10 years old each.  They’re presence in the film kind of make you laugh, and I know they’re an integral part of the climax, but I can’t help but think that maybe the scenes they’re involved in could’ve been changed.  Perhaps Roth could’ve written their parts as…I don’t know…a teenaged group of Slovak gangbangers.  With the kids, it kind of takes you out of the movie a bit and seems kind of silly.

As a whole, you get a sense of dread right away when the friends make their way into the small Slovak town and know they’re going to be in a world of hurt.  It gets even worse when the movie’s plot moves to the industrial building, but I won’t give that portion of the film away.  Just understand, you’ll need to have a strong stomach because the things that go on after that point will make you wince and squirm.

Before I get to my final bit, this movie coined the phrase “torture porn,” which stuck and became the naming convention of this subgenre Eli Roth had created.  I mentioned it was short-lived and that was mainly because of two things: overly judicious critics and the multiple copycat films that were made soon after this.  Just the fact that these critics reiterated the description of “torture porn,” over and over, gave the movie a bad light to begin with and scared a lot of moviegoers away from the get-go.  Regardless of how successful Hostel had been, after countless imitations that were made to capture the success Eli Roth had had, it just saturated the film world and made everyone sick of these types of movies by the time this movie had its sequel released.

Speaking of sequels, Hostel has garnered two of them.  Part two is pretty decent with an excellent beginning, but it just explains way too much about the organization involved in the story.  Part three was a straight-to-home-media deal.  Both sequels didn’t have the impact the original did so I’d skip them unless you really love this franchise.

Which brings me to my final “bit” about Hostel.

It’s hard to say that you’ll love this film and I can’t say with conviction that you’ll enjoy or appreciate this movie.  What I can say is that it’s worth a look, but just know what you’re getting into before you watch it—it’s not for the faint of heart or queasy stomach.  The movie contains some scenes of violence that some of you may not be able to handle.  But the film includes a simple story, as interesting as any, and has a pretty satisfying ending.

Well, that’s it for now…thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Halloween H20

It may have seemed like a difficult task, getting the Halloween franchise back on track after such a dull entry—part six—that not many people had seen.  Usually, after the part numbers get larger, moviegoers disregard the films and feel that these franchises have ran their course.  That’s definitely how I felt when I had heard they were planning another sequel to the Halloween series of films.  Part six had left such a bad taste in my mouth that I was ready to give up the chain of films forever.

However, a couple of years before Halloween H20 was released, a resurgence of horror films started with a simple, yet smart, film called Scream.  It was different than the cheesy horror flicks of the 80s as it gave us shrewder characters that would go against the grain of your usual B-movie types.  Instead of having them get into thoughtless situations that would make us—the audience—yell at the screen to tell them they’re going the wrong way or that they should run out of the house or grab the gun, the characters in these newer horror films of the mid 90s acted out intelligently and would function in ways that we’d commend.

One of the sole reasons why this rebirth of horror films worked and became hits was because of the writing created for that Wes Craven film.  A relatively unknown screen writer, Kevin Williamson, changed the horror horizon with that film, giving us characters that were more self-aware and not clichéd.  After writing for such hit films as Scream, Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and The Faculty, many other writers and filmmakers started emulating his style into their own films.  So, even though he isn’t credited for the screenplay for Halloween H20, I’m sure he had a hand in it as executive producer of the film.

Another item of note that helped me believe there may be some saving grace for this film was hearing that Jamie Lee Curtis was reprising her role as the character of Laurie Strode.  But at the same time, I was a little confused.  I’d been following the franchise since its inception in 1978 and knew the character of Laurie died, leaving behind her daughter, Jamie, who had died at the hands of Michael Myers later in the series.  So how was Laurie Strode going to be back in this upcoming sequel?  Then word came out that the movie was going to ignore the events of parts four through six, essentially being a sequel to part two.  Even though I felt it was a bit of a cheat, I was still intrigued.

One other thing that drew my attention was the announcement that Steve Miner was slated to be the director of this film.  I was familiar with his direction in Friday the 13^th Part 2 and Friday the 13^thPart III, but didn’t know if he was cut out for this potentially important sequel touted as being a twenty-year milestone sequel of the classic 1978 film by John Carpenter.

Well, August 5^th of 1998 came around and I visited a local movie theater to watch Halloween H20.

The film opens with Marion Whittington (Nancy Stephens), the nurse that had been taking care of Dr. Loomis before he died, coming home to find her house broken into and goes to her teenaged

neighbors, Jimmy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Tony (Branden Williams), for help.  Jimmy decides to check out the house and sees that Marion’s office was ransacked.  Later, Michael Myers (Chris Durand) appears and kills Jimmy and Tony, as well as Marion.  It turns out that he gets files from Marion’s office that has information about Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and how she’s still alive, relocated to California with a new identity.  He then travels to the boarding school to where Laurie Strode (now Keri Tate) is the headmistress and has a son, John (Josh Hartnett), but Laurie is still haunted by Michael and what transpired all those years ago.  Facing her fears, she comes face-to-face with Michael again and decides to stand up to him once and for all.

Overall, this movie is one of the best sequels this franchise had ever released.  Bringing back Jamie Lee Curtis (which I had heard she had been hoping to do a final sequel, even requesting that John Carpenter come back to direct—obviously he didn’t) was phenomenal and made this sequel very poignant.  The themes they’d incorporated into the film as a whole—introducing the discussion of Mary Shelley’s book, “Frankenstein,” and how the main character of Dr. Frankenstein had to face his creation—were perfectly placed to integrate it into the film’s climax.  A few scenes were perfectly acted out by Jamie Lee Curtis, particularly when her character sees Michael on the other side of the door’s window for the first time.  If Curtis hadn’t taken this role, the film would’ve been another run-of-the-mill sequel that no one would’ve cared about.

The only problem I have with this film is something I didn’t have a problem with when I had first seen it.  Back in the late 90s, the dialogue you’d hear in these types of horror films was the norm.  Scream, Urban Legend, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etcetera, solidified those types of discourse between characters where they speak with bigger words, using exaggerated terms as if they’re all college graduates.  It’s hard to explain, but after watching a few of those movies in a row, you’ll see what I mean.  The exchanges that bother me the most is the ones between Charlie (Adam Hann-Byrd) and Sarah (Jodi Lyn O’Keefe).  I guess it may be possible for a couple of people to really speak to each other that way, but it sort of takes me out of the movie nowadays.

Now, the stalking and killing that Michael Myers does throughout the movie is awesome.  Chris Durand does a perfect job at taking over the Shatner mask and really embodies the character the best since Nick Castle back in 1978.  He performs the monotonous walk and the creepy gazes effortlessly.  But I guess I can’t give him all the credit, because the way the film was shot and the ideas they conveyed throughout the film helped tremendously.  The scenes at the beginning, as Michael is shown creeping behind Marion as she’s facing the camera, make you want to scream “HE’S BEHIND YOU!”  And one of my many favorite parts is when the mom and daughter stop at the rest stop to use the restroom.  You’ll enjoy that if you haven’t seen it already.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Halloween H20?

This sequel is the most satisfying one of the whole series, maybe even better than part two.  It’s forgivable that the filmmakers decided to ignore parts four through six, but still wish they had thought of a way to keep the continuity with them.  Although you may think of this as Jamie Lee Curtis’s swan song for the Halloween movies she’s starred in, she was actually contractually obligated to return in a sequel, which she had (more on that some other time).  If you don’t want to burden yourself with watching every single movie in the franchise, at least watch the original with part two and end it with Halloween H20.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Back in 2003, Michael Bay, along with his Platinum Dunes Production, was able to get the rights to a beloved classic horror movie and remake it decently for a new audience to see.  Besides some minor flaws I’d seen when I first viewed 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I agreed that it was a pretty worthy remake and liked some of the aspects and fresh takes of the story.  However—and I’ll say right here that this is a spoiler for the film—the filmmakers shot themselves in the foot when they chose to end the film by having the survivor get the best of Leatherface as she was able to cleave off his arm before getting away.  Although the villain was still alive, my first thought was that they weren’t going to be able to produce a sequel afterwards.  I mean, what were they going to do?  Have a one-armed Leatherface tote around a chainsaw with his left arm?  Were they going to give him a prosthetic?  I felt the writers wrote themselves into a corner in which they couldn’t get out.  So it was no surprise to me when, in 2006, Platinum Dunes announced that, instead of a sequel to the 2003 remake, they were taking the prequel route with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.

As the date was getting closer, and the buzz of the film was growing, some details were released and actually sounded pretty good at the time.  It was said that the film was going to explore Leatherface’s origins, documenting how he came to be and how the family became the horrid people they were.  It excited some people, but for others who had a hatred for all things Michael Bay, it caused dismay.  I, on the other hand, waited patiently to see what was to come and when October 6^th of 2006 arrived, I went to the movie theater to see for myself.

The movie opens in 1939, at a rural meat packing plant, where a woman dies giving birth to a baby.

The plant manager, who gives a look of disgust when he sees the baby, takes it and discards it in a dumpster.  A local resident, Luda Mae Hewitt (Allison Marich), finds the baby boy and takes him home to raise as her own, naming the child Thomas.  The film then chronicles Thomas’s life growing up, working at the same meat packing plant where his biological mother worked, and when the plant closes down.  The story then shifts to two brothers, Eric (Matthew Bomer) and Dean (Taylor Handley), in 1969, who are off to be shipped out to Vietnam.  But Dean is not planning to go, unbeknownst to his brother, Eric.  Along with their girlfriends, Chrissie (Jordana Brewster) and Bailey (Diora Baird), they all get into an accident and end up at the Hewitt residence, where they soon will meet Leatherface (Andrew  Bryniarski).

Where should I start with this one?  Let’s start with the origin of Leatherface.  I actually liked how they introduced him into this world at the meat packing plant…it sort of gives his story a destiny to it, like he was always meant to be some sort of butcher.  I also found it interesting to add that the character had some sort of skin degenerating disease that ate away at his face, giving him a reason to wear masks.  You can also say that having the character be inflicted with this ailment makes his psychosis understandable.  The only complaint about Leatherface’s whole origin is that it rushes through in this film, just so the movie can move to the plot of the kids driving through Texas and having the unfortunate luck to end up at the notorious Hewitt household.

As for “Sheriff Hoyt” (R. Lee Ermey) from the first film and how he came to be sheriff, the filmmakers gave him an interesting backstory, showing that he’s really Charlie Hewitt and stole the sheriff persona from an actual lawman after killing him.  It makes sense, especially after you see what a nut-job he is in the 2003 remake, which he continues that craziness in this prequel.  A scene that stands out as pure insanity is when family member, Monty (Terrence Evans), is shot in the kneecap and Charlie, now Sheriff Hoyt, uses a chainsaw to amputate his leg as the man screams his head off.  Right after that, just to even out the legs, Hoyt saws off the other leg.  That, in turn, gives us the origin of the legless man from the 2003 film.

The whole story of the kids getting stuck there at the house, getting tortured or pursued by Leatherface is basically what we’ve seen already.  This simply could’ve been another sequel as the plot is just a modest retreading of the original.  Don’t get me wrong, all of it was well done and believable, but I think it should’ve been more of an explanation to Leatherface’s status as a lunatic serial killer than the same old story of kids hunted and killed.

Supplementary to this whole mix of a plot, there’s also a subplot of this biker gang that gets involved with the kids in the beginning, developing into an altercation as they’re established as the bad guys.  However, as the movie goes on, the lead biker, Holden (Lee Tergesen), appears and is seen in a heroic light.  I think the whole concept of having these bikers in the story could’ve been left out to leave room for more of Leatherface’s beginning to make the subtitle of the film true.  But all this wasn’t a detriment to the film; I actually liked it and felt it was all believable enough.

So, my final “bit” on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning?

Well, I guess I’ll say that I did not hate the movie, seeing that I actually have the DVD in my home media collection.  Some aspects of the film were really well done, while other parts of the film were pretty mediocre.  All in all, I really did like the way the film ended.  It sort of surprised me and I didn’t think it was going to turn out that way.  I’ll say this for the movie—at least it didn’t include the origin of that little inbred kid we saw in the 2003 film.  Anyway, this film is above average and I think you’ll enjoy it.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

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.