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.

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.