Stepfather 2: Make Room for Daddy

In the world of horror movies, if there’s one rule that applies to all icons of fright is that they never stay dead.  Jason Voorhees has been stabbed, sliced, given a machete to the head, but he had always returned for the next movie.  Michael Myers was burned alive for a number of minutes after an explosion, shot multiple times (six times!) in the body and a few to the head, yet he returned.  It’s always a golden rule for a filmmaker to never kill off your boogeyman…sometimes it’s even WRITTEN in a contract clause.

So even though it seemed like the title character died at the bottom of the stairs in part one of this franchise, miraculously he returned for Stepfather 2: Make Room For Daddy.

Although, by this time, I was an avid moviegoer, this film fell off my radar and I hadn’t seen it until it was released onto VHS sometime later.  Being that I had loved the first film, I had no reservations in watching its sequel, hoping that it would be as good, if not better, than its predecessor.  Since it was truly one of the last horror films of the 1980s (it was released in November of 1989), I was on board with it wholeheartedly.

It’s funny because I remember when I had seen this initially and thought it was way better than its predecessor, considering it superior and headed in the right direction.  Years later, as I’ve aged and looked at films differently, I’ve changed my mind a bit.  I don’t know if it’s the story, the actors and actresses in the film, how it was filmed…I really don’t know, but I’ll go over it after this brief synopsis.

The story picks up with Jerry Blake (Terry O’Quinn), surviving the events of part one and incarcerated in a high security mental institution, gaining the trust of his assigned doctor and then

killing him.  After beating a guard to death and taking his uniform, Blake easily escapes the prison and checks in at a motel.  He alters his appearance, takes on the identity of Dr. Gene Clifford—which he finds the name in an obituary—and leases a house across from single mother, Carol Grayland (Meg Foster), and her son, Todd (Jonathan Brandis).  Soon, he gets to know the mother, starting a relationship with her and beginning to plan marriage.  But, as always, complications seem to arise and Blake—now Dr. Clifford—goes back to his evil ways.

You can’t really say that this is more of the same story that we saw in the first film, because some of the aspects are turned around here in this sequel.  But then you can say it’s more of the same story that we saw in the first film for the same reason.  Regardless, in the first film, you had the character of Blake marrying into the family of a mother and daughter, but in this one, it’s a mother and son.  The first film had the mother oblivious and not caring about Jerry’s past, while the daughter was suspicious and tried to investigate his history.  In this sequel, the son totally gets along with Jerry and has no qualms whatsoever, while the mother is the one who begins to be apprehensive about her soon-to-be husband.

Looking at the franchise as a whole, I’m glad that O’Quinn returned for this sequel.  A lot of actors and actresses will usually get big in the head when they become famous for a horror film and believe that returning for a sequel, or to the genre for that matter, is beneath them.  But he jumped back into the psychotic role of Jerry Blake and solidified it as his own.  You can imagine that this franchise would’ve ended here if he didn’t return just by looking at what happened in the next sequel (where O’Quinn didn’t return).

Although I love this sequel, one minor problem I have with it is that it seems like two different films.  As a whole, the movie feels like a made-for-television thriller, like something you’d see on the earlier days of ABC, NBC or CBS.  What’s funny about that is the interjection of horror scenes that give the film its rating.  It almost feels as if the filmmakers wanted this movie to be a straight-to-television production, but then decided to make it a full-fledged horror movie and added the R-rated scenes to make it so. 

Another problem I have is with the casting of Meg Foster.  Now, I have nothing against her, I think she’s a fine actress and I’d enjoyed her part in John Carpenter’s They Live the year before this film, but I guess it just falls on her eyes.  The woman has unusually light blue eyes, almost appearing white in color.  I know it’s a stupid reason to dislike a person’s performance in the film, but I’m just being honest; it throws one off when watching the film.  But as I had said, it’s not her performance that affects my judgment, just her eyeballs.  Maybe they could’ve had her wear contacts or something…?

Jonathan Brandis had done a great job as Todd, playing the everyday and all-around young boy.  The actor seemed like he had such a great career ahead of him and it’s a shame he cut his life short back in 2003.  But one can respect and remember him by watching this film, as well as his take as Bill Denbrough in Stephen king’s It.  Brandis definitely wasn’t the typical young actor who that would be cast in a film like this.  He’s believable and had an adult sense of how to perform in a film.

I believe director Jeff Burr was able to get better performances out of the players and get the type that was needed to display a distinctive film from that period.  He went on to direct Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III the following year and seemed to thrive in the B-movie horror genre.  Where Joseph Ruben made the original The Stepfather more of a serious toned film, Burr infused the current (at the time) craze of slasher films to give this flick the horror formula everybody wanted back then.  The movie poster says it all, just by looking at it, as we see the crazed face of Terry O’Quinn while he’s about to plunge a huge knfe into a wedding cake.  If you don’t think 80s horror when seeing that artwork, then you haven’t lived in that era.

Of course, when watching this film all the way through, you’ll realize by the time the credits roll—and especially if you’ve seen a lot of these horror films from the 80s—that there would be a sequel.  The third part, however, leaves something to be desired, being that it was an inferior film.  O’Quinn didn’t return and they used the “killer gets plastic surgery” plot device to solve the problem of his absence.  But, from what I’d remembered, the actor who plays Jerry Blake just didn’t have the mannerisms to make it believable enough.  Unless you really love this franchise, by the time you get through parts one and two, I’d say skip the third film.

So…my final “bit” on Stepfather 2: Make Room for Daddy?

With minor complaints noted, this film is still a classic gem that one should watch to capture the feel and nostalgia of the 1980s.  O’Quinn is awesome as the stepfather horror icon and I think you’ll love it as well.  Both films make for a good marathon to watch during this time of year, so grab a tub of popcorn and enjoy both Stepfather flicks.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Halloween (2007)

As I had finished my look at the last sequel of the original Halloween franchise, I’d mentioned that Rob Zombie twisted it up with his reboot and I think I might’ve been a little harsh with that remark.  I had liked Zombie’s approach to horror movies when he had made his directorial debut with House of 1000 Corpses and its sequel, The Devil’s Rejects.  I enjoyed the use of music he poured into most of the scenes, integrating it to go with the mood of what was presented on screen.  But I was fine with that because those were his original films that he had written.  More power to him, I say.

In mid to late 2006, it was announced that the original Halloween was going to be rebooted, with the job of directing going to Rob Zombie.  My first thought was that we were going to have Michael Myers stalking Laurie Strode with interludes of 1970s rock music throughout.  Then some disturbing news came out about how Zombie wanted to make the film a prequel, focusing on Michael Myers as a child, leading up to the point where he kills his sister, Judith Myers—no Shatner mask would be found throughout.  Man, the internet was on fire with angry fan protests and arguments.  I had to agree, I thought that was a dumb idea.

As I’m always saying, Hollywood needs to stop rebooting films and trying to pass it off as some artful retelling of a tried and true story.  But in the case with the continuing story of Michael Myers, Akkad and company jumped the shark.  There was no choice but to restart the series from scratch.  Basically, the only thing left they could’ve done was to send Michael into space, but the Friday the 13^th franchise already did that with Jason.  If I were writing a fresh new screenplay to continue the sequels, I would’ve had Michael going after his nephew, John, like I had mentioned earlier.  But Moustapha Akkad, his son, or anyone else from Dimension, hadn’t called me for my services so it’s their loss (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

With all the craziness and hatred going on in the media, I was perfectly okay with the choice of Rob Zombie helming the new film, especially after it was said that we would see the adult Michael Myers in his signature Shatner mask stalking his prey.  So, waiting patiently for the release date, I was anxious to see what Zombie would bring to the table.

Now, speaking of release dates, that’s one thing that bugs me about this film—that it was released on August 31st of 2007.  Why?  A Halloween movie released while it’s still summer?  If you’re going to show a movie that takes place during October, release it in October!  Especially nowadays, where movies only last a few weeks in theaters, the movie was probably long gone in most areas when October came around.  Halloween is not your typical summer blockbuster, so it’s not something that people will flock to see during the warm season.  Normally, the films that do well during summer are action and sci-fi…and sometimes horror as long as it’s not a fall or winter themed film.  Who was the genius in the film’s marketing department that was behind this?

Well, it was what it was, so let’s break down the film.

The film begins with Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) as a child and his life at home.  His mother,

Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) is a stripper and her live-in boyfriend, Ronnie (William Forsythe), is a bum who sits around all day.  He constantly makes fun of and berates Michael and his sister, Judith (Hanna Hall), all day.  Michael shows signs of trouble at school after being pushed around by a bully and on Halloween night, he snaps, killing Ronnie, Judith and her boyfriend, Steve (Adam Weisman), and is found by his mother sitting on the front steps to the house holding his little baby sister.  Michael is then committed to a mental institution under the care of Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell).  But when the young boy shows no signs of getting better and begins to shut everyone out, even to the point of ceasing to speak, Dr. Loomis tells him he can’t help him anymore.  Fifteen years later, Michael escapes the institution and returns to Haddonfield for his little sister.

Hmmm, where should I start?

Let’s see…the concept of introducing a back story as to why Michael Myers became the way he had was unnecessary, in my opinion.  One of the best openings to any movie is the start of the 1978 John Carpenter classic.  It was a momentous shot, establishing the mystery as to why Michael Myers, as a child, would suddenly snap and kill his sister one night on Halloween.  And that’s the way it should’ve stayed.  The original series of films never went back and explained why Michael became evil, it was accepted and the audience moved on.  It’s more frightening to think that the boy just snaps and doesn’t appear to have a reason to want his family dead.  But to have it explained in Zombie’s version that his family seemed like a bunch of inbred hillbillies, making the child crazy by being responsible for his shitty life wasn’t as meaningful when the kid finally snaps—it’s expected and not as alarming.  Don’t get me wrong, it was different and showed that Rob Zombie wanted to do something original, but it really took away the shock when the scene finally played out.  I realize that we all know the story and knew he was going to do what he did, but I felt that Zombie’s vision of Michael’s home life was needless.

If there’s anything else that suffered from Zombie’s added exposition of Michael Myers’ childhood was the rest of the film, when he became an adult and travelled to Haddonfield.  It made the scenes feel rushed and shortened.  Seems as if Zombie really wanted the whole movie to be the prequel he talked about, but the studio wanted the reboot portion in it, then they all compromised and included both concepts into one movie.

The one thing that kept going through my mind was how unlikable most of the characters seemed to be.  I know the early scenes were to show how horrible Michael’s living conditions were, but there was no way the audience, in my opinion, could care for any of the Myers family members.  I was able to forgive those parts of the film, but as soon as we’re introduced to Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), she annoyed me right away.  The little interaction with her mother, Mrs. Strode (Dee Wallace), embarrassing her by finger-raping the bagel she’s holding made me dislike her.  The rapport with her two friends, Annie (Danielle Harris) and Lynda (Kristina Klebe), seemed forced as well with no chemistry felt whatsoever.

Really, the only redeeming qualities of this film are the performances by Tyler Mane as the adult Michael Myers and Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis.  I’d commend Dee Wallace and Brad Dourif (who plays Sheriff Brackett) in their performances, but Wallace doesn’t have much to do but to die after only a few minutes of screen time.  Dourif does well, but the silly discussion his character has with Dr. Loomis in order to force the explanation of how Laurie Strode is Michael Myers’ sister knocks his merits right off the board.

All in all, the story is rehashed quite quickly after a silly and long story as to how Myers had become the killer he grows to be.  The film is definitely worth a watch, but if you’re a diehard John Carpenter fan like myself, you may take umbrage as to what Zombie put forth in this film.  That’s my final “bit” and I’m sticking to it.

Any-hoo, thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Stepfather

As the 80s were coming to an end, quite few horror movies were released that basically told the world they didn’t give a shit the decade was closing out, they were going to keep showing up in theaters until people stopped going to see them.  Since 1987 was a big year for a lot of movies—not only horror—this one year became memorable for me because of a lot of flicks I’d seen back then.  There was A Nightmare on Elm Street 3,The Lost Boys, Creepshow 2, and…The Stepfather.  And let’s be clear here.  In no way am I talking about the remake released a few years back, but the original 1987 cult classic, starring John Locke himself, Terry O’Quinn.

Once again, as I go over these reviews that I’m writing, this month is the best time to watch these types of movies.  Certain horror films are okay to see during the summer months, but most should be viewed when it’s dark outside and that they be seen throughout the month of October.

Even though I was quite familiar with this film at the time of release, I didn’t get a chance to see it within a theater or drive-in setting.  Instead, like most movies I’d seen back then, I waited until it was released onto VHS—usually close to a year after theatrical release—and rented it from the local rental shop (Blockbuster Video was probably around at that time, I’m sure), taking it back home and trying to see it without any interruption.  Because, let me tell you, it was tough back then, living at home and resorting to sit in the family room, hoping my parents wouldn’t walk in on the movie if it happened to show some boobage, get too gory, or just get crazy with F-bombs galore.  But besides that, looking back at my time when I had little to no responsibilities, just going to my part time job and then coming home to watch a movie or two, life was great.  But enough of this sidebar, let’s discuss The Stepfather.

The story is about a man who adopts the name of Jerry Blake (Terry O’Quinn), who wants to be the patriarch of a perfect family.  He goes from town to town, finding a divorced mother with a family and marries into it.  Whenever things don’t turn out the way he imagined it would be, he kills them off and moves to the next town to start all over again.  He finally meets and marries a divorcée, Susan Maine (Shelley Hack), who has a teenaged daughter, Stephanie (Jill Schoelen).  But, as always, things don’t work out as he’d like them to as Stephanie grows suspicious of Jerry.  So, once again, he makes his plans to move to his next town, but not before taking care of this family before he goes.

For years I’ve associated Terry O’Quinn with his character in this film.  Any time I’d seen him in any movie, I’d say to myself, “There’s the stepfather!”  It wasn’t until his role on “Lost” that I finally identified with him as John Locke and not for the role in this thriller, but I’ll always remember him for this one; he just has that rage that’s needed for the times he goes nuts in this film.  There’s really no other actor who can pull this off as well as he can, which is probably why this franchise went into the dumpster when O’Quinn didn’t reprise the character for part three.  He really knew how to be the charming gentleman in this film, making you believe the impossible (as getting a job and setting up a home without proper identification and a social security number), although seeing this was the 80s, little details were not important to involve in the exposition of a story.  However, Quinn knew how to turn on the crazy and just snap into a scary nut-job at the blink of an eye.  You go from liking the guy to wishing he were dead, all in the span of a short scene.  Yes, Quinn was perfect for this role.

Jill Schoelen’s portrayal of Stephanie was your typical 80s heroine or survival girl that you’ve seen in numerous movies.  It’s not to say you’ve seen Schoelen herself in numerous movies—I don’t think I’ve seen her in anything besides this film—it’s the archetype of her character that you’ve seen.  She’s sort of the poor man’s Phoebe Cates for lack of a better explanation.  However, Schoelen’s performance was pretty cool and you didn’t see any cheesiness from her that you’d see from characters of that sort from other 80s films.

Playing Susan is Shelley Hack and she’s another actress you may feel you’ve seen somewhere before, but can’t place.  The only other movie I’ve seen her in was Troll, playing the same matriarch type of character, basically in the background and not exactly the focus of this film.  As the story really revolves around the character of Jerry Blake and the stepdaughter, Stephanie, the character of Susan is not really in the forefront.  But Hack plays a believable wife who trusts her new husband and doesn’t really see there’s something wrong until it’s too late.

Joseph Ruben does a fine job directing this film as he made it a more seriously toned film rather than the run-of-the-mill slashers that were being released year-after-year during that time.  He actually directed a favorite film of mine, before this one, called Dreamscapewith Dennis Quaid…sort of a precursor to Inception.  If you can find it on home media, I highly recommend it.  But Ruben knew how to set the right atmosphere inThe Stepfather and kept a great pace to keep your interest throughout.

It’s kind of difficult to put this film in the genre of horror; it’s more of a suspense thriller than anything else.  Not until part two came along did this franchise take a turn for the slasher side of the horror variety.  But The Stepfather is still a staple of the 80s, although it’s a little known gem to the world of that era.

So, my final “bit” on The Stepfather?

As I’d said, this isn’t really a slasher, but still a solid movie with an interesting premise.  Adding to that, the story is based on a true life crime which makes it all the more thought-provoking.  The Stepfather is one to watch and make sure to have a double feature with part two—I’ll talk about that one soon.

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

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Willard

Being familiar with the song, “Ben,” by Michael Jackson, I never associated it with a horror movie, only thinking it was a song by a kid who was singing about his friend.  Looking back, it may have seemed a bit weird for a teenaged boy to be singing about another boy, but that thought never crossed my mind.  I just never knew the song was about a rat and that the nice melancholy tune was from a horror movie.  It wasn’t until 2003, when a new horror film called Willard was released that I’d figured all that out.

Willard, as it turns out, is a remake of a 1971 film of the same name, starring Crispin Glover as the title character.  Not until the end of the movie did I start putting things together, especially after hearing Glover’s rendition of the tune during the end credits.  After watching this new version, I decided to hit the internet and look up some info on the earlier films, finding out about the original film and that it actually spawned a sequel titledBen.  Subsequently, I found out through that sequel’s bio that that’s where the song, “Ben,” came from, as the theme for that film.

All that aside, when this movie was announced, as well as getting some trailers and television spots on it, I became very interested.  I’ve always liked Crispin Glover, from his part in Friday the 13^th: The Final Chapterto his role as George McFly in Back to the Future.  Understanding his eccentricities, I understood why he ducked out of the spotlight, only taking on bit parts or starring in obscure films.  However, it didn’t help much when he made the news with his chosen appearance in public, not to mention his actions on “Late Night with David Letterman” back in 1987.  And I don’t think I ever saw any of the movies he starred in since that year until seeing him in 2000’s Charlie’s Angels—that was a treat for me and I was glad to see him in a more prominent role.

I was stoked about this movie, particularly after seeing some of the scenes in the trailers that had some obvious CGI’d rats that looked really well done.  So when this film had its opening day on March 14^th of 2003, I took a trip over to the local theater and sat down to see it.

The film is about Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover), a socially awkward employee of a company his

father started, who is berated and embarrassed in front of his coworkers, daily, by his boss, Mr. Martin (R. Lee Ermey).  Tending to his fragile ailing mother (Jackie Burroughs), he finds his basement is overrun by rats and sets out traps for them.  After catching a large white rat on a glue trap, Willard notices that it’s tame and has some intelligence, so he decides to keep it as a pet, naming it Socrates.  However, a bigger rat—who Willard names Ben—constantly misbehaves and acts up to get Willard’s attention.  Both rats—as well as the colony that lives within the basement walls—begin to listen to and obey Willard, doing what he asks and following his commands.  When the relentless haranguing from Mr. Martin comes to a head, Willard decides to get his revenge.

Willard is directed by Glen Morgan, who has only directed two films in his career.  Most of his profession was spent writing and producing, in such films as 2000’s Final Destination and the Black Christmasremake in 2006.  Being that the latter was his last directorial duty, I can understand why he hasn’t gone back to that part of the movie business.  But with Willard, he was able to capture some nice moments between Glover’s character and the rats that weren’t digitally created.  Morgan was able to achieve a creepy and harsh world, yet grounded in reality with the supporting cast.

Crispin Glover was perfect for this part, even more so than his predecessor, Bruce Davison, who had played the title character in the 1971 version.  Glover already has an awkward way about him, so I imagine it wasn’t difficult for him to step into this role.  I understand the filmmakers even played to his facial features by subtly making up his face to darken around his eyes and to make his nose more protuberant, causing him to appear more rat-like.  If that’s the case, it worked, because there’s something about him in this film that just tells you he doesn’t fit in with normal people.

Any film that features R. Lee Ermey going ballistic is a film that entertains.  I love Ermey in this film and felt that, although it was over the top, his performance was well done and captured the perfect antagonist for the character of Willard.  While you have Glover playing a very quiet and introverted person, you have Ermey being positively loud and boisterous.  I loved it.

One opinion I have of this film is that it reminds me a lot of Tim Burton’s productions.  From the dark and gothic feel of Willard’s home to the cartoonish feel of his workplace, if you were to ask me who directed the film I would’ve guessed it was Burton.  Even though this film is considered a horror film—and there is some horror aspects in the film—the story is pretty mild and more entertaining than anything else, which makes me form the Tim Burton opinion. 

Since I’d never seen the original movie, I really didn’t think about comparing this one to its 1971 version.  But I liked what I saw in this one, especially the special effects they’d used to show the rats in a lot of the scenes.  One particular shot shows Willard getting out of the elevator at work, showing what looks to be hundreds of rats spilling out as the door opens.  I’m sure a lot of the shots included trained rats performing certain tricks, but there are other obvious scenes where they had to insert them via CGI.  To this day, the effects look good and believable, making one squirm if they don’t care for the furry little critters.

Perhaps this movie could’ve been scarier or thrilling if they decided to make it into an R-rated film instead of PG13.  I’ve had many dissertations in this blog regarding the decision by filmmakers to go with PG13 instead of R, so I’ll leave it at that.  But regardless of the more family-friendly rating, this movie still delivers and will keep you rooted in your seat.

As a little trivia for you, Bruce Davison actually makes a little cameo in the film as you see his portrait on the mantel of Willard’s house.

So, without further ado, my final “bit” on Willard?

With a role tailored specifically for his quirkiness, Crispin Glover brings his talent into this film.  One

scene that tells you that is his crying fit he has at the funeral home, as he sobs uncontrollably, even having snot bubble out of his nose at one point.  He knows how to make himself appear as if he’s full of self-loathing and it goes well with R. Lee Ermey’s portrayal of a total prick.  The film is a great addition to your Halloween watching, so set up a rental and enjoy it with the family.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

I Know What You Did Last Summer

Back when the 80s came to a close, a lot of horror movies were being released that really nailed the coffin shut on the genre.  The early 90s gave us quite a few stinkers that had everybody considering that it just might be the death of horror movies.  This was the time when theFriday the 13^th franchise was sold to New Line Cinema which gave us one of the worst entries (Jason Goes to Hell), the Leprechaun series was another terrible chain of films that I can’t believe spewed so many sequels, and A Nightmare on Elm Street churned out some duds as well.  It surely seemed like horror movies during the early 90s went too far into the campier side of things, making the films goofier and less scary.

I had nearly given up on trekking out to theaters every time a new horror film was released, thinking that it will just be another cheesy letdown (there’s nothing worse than going to see some stupid film that you end up hating, especially when you’re spending around ten bucks to see it).  However, I still ventured out and was able to see some films that made the cut in my mind—but they were few and far between.  It wasn’t until Scream had hit the screens in 1996 that the horror genre took a turn back for the better, giving us a better horizon and a restored outlook of horror’s future.

It was the first time, in a long while, where people spread the word and talked about how good that movie had been.  Being that this was the time before social media or texting or even emailing became a craze…people used word-of-mouth, literally, to spread the news about Scream.

Nevertheless, and as always, when an original idea comes out that takes the world by storm, all kinds of copycats start popping up, diluting the waters and making that innovative model more of a tiresome concept.  But throughout all the boring films that came out, haphazardly emulating Wes Craven’s work, a few were worthy of enjoying.  One, which was released ten months after Scream, was the 1997 hit, I Know What You Did Last Summer.

As it so happens, the writer of Scream, Kevin Williamson, also penned this screenplay.  However, the difference here with this movie compared to the Craven film was that this one was based on an already-written novel of the same name.  Although the book was originally published in 1973 as a thriller for young adults, most of the story’s framework remained the same.  However, the movie’s script receives some embellishment to give it the slasher movie appeal—I’ll get to that later.

For now, let me synopsize it for you.

The film is about a foursome of friends: boyfriend and girlfriend, Ray and Julie (Freddie Prinze Jr. and Jennifer Love Hewitt), and another couple, Barry and Helen (Ryan Phillippe and Sarah Michelle

Gellar).  Celebrating the Fourth of July, they take Barry’s car for a drive, partying and having a good time.  When coming around a bend in the road on the outskirts of their coastal town, they fail to see a young man in the middle of the road and hit him.  After stopping and checking on him, they find that he’s dead.  Barry panics and tells the others that the police won’t believe that it was an accident, especially with the alcohol in the car.  With much conviction, he convinces the rest of them that they should dump his body in the ocean.  They argue a bit, but reluctantly agree to do so.  A year later, after all four had gone their separate ways, Julie receives a letter in the mail with no return address.  Upon opening the envelope, there is a piece of paper with one simple sentence written in capital letters: ‘I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER.’

Okay, so this horror flick was directed by Jim Gillespie.  Who is he?  I really don’t know.  His résumé on IMDb shows he directed some television series and a couple of movies before getting this gig.  Since then, he took the helm of four other films before taking on the producer role of some British TV show.  Nonetheless, he was able to get some solid performances out of the lead actors and actresses, created a nice eerie mood in a lot of scenes, and looked to have a good career in his future when this movie was released to rave reviews.

Now, just like Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Leatherface, and so on, this movie brought us a new icon of terror with…The Fisherman.  The Fisherman?  Yes, that’s right.  As corny as it sounds on paper, the way this character is displayed in the first two-thirds of this film is great.  The villain gives us some nice scares and the vision of the getup left me unnerved.  Basically, the guy is dressed in a rain slicker, waders and rubber boots with a matching rubber fishing hat that shadows his face perfectly.  His weapon of choice?  A meat hook—characteristic of the type fishermen use to pick up and move large fish they’ve caught.  Just like slashers from the 80s, The Fisherman from I Know What You Did Last Summer stalks his prey, one-by-one, while the whole film has a serious tone and doesn’t get campy like many horror movies of the early 90s had done with poor results.

By the way, that’s the difference between this film and the book it’s based off—the inclusion of this guise the villain takes on.  Also, the identity of who’s wearing the fisherman’s outfit is different as well.  I told you I’d get to that later…I’m a man of my word.

In my opinion, all four of the leads were made into well-known stars because of this film.  Freddie Prinze Jr. (son of the “Chico and the Man” star) had a few small roles in TV and movies before getting the lead in this one.  The same can be said for Gellar, Hewitt and Phillippe.  But just like Neve Campbell, et al, after starring in Scream, these young actors took the roles seriously and played them as such.  Thus, it solidified them as good actors with a nice future ahead of them.

It’s disappointing that this franchise didn’t get much further than it had over the years.  I Still Know What You Did Last Summer was released the following year, but the story was so contrived and a little on the campy side of things that it just made it forgettable and not worth seeing again.  Some like to say that Brandy had a hand in it, and I might agree, as she cannot act her way out of a paper bag.  About 8 years ago, it was tried once more to resurrect the franchise with a staright-to-video release of I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer.  Looking at the film’s bio, I see that no one from the original cast is in it and it really has no tie to the original films besides the persona of The Fisherman.  Word has it that the franchise may be rebooted…if you know how I feel about reboots, you know I won’t go on from there.

Overall, my final “bit” on I Know What You Did Last Summer is that the film is a great stand-alone

horror flick, so don’t go ruining the experience by seeing the sequels.  From start to finish, this film entertains and scares you.  It actually boasts a pretty good murder-mystery “whodunit” tale to it, leaving you guessing who the killer may be.  Though the ending leaves something to be desired, it still grabs you and leaves you satisfied by the time the credits roll.  Even though the film takes place during the summer, this is still a great movie to watch during the Halloween season.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

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.