Review of "Halloween (1978)"

Halloween (1978)

30th Anniversary and counting.

As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.

It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.

Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.

Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit).

Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career.

Review of "Halloween (2007)"

Halloween (2007)

Can Zombie do more than redneck chic?

John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). To prepare for this re-interpretation I decided to watch the original, for a competent comparison. Too bad there is very little to compare. After seeing Rob Zombie's previous films (which were heavily stylized and derivative, but enjoyably distracting), I could see sparks of potential. This movie makes me question those sparks of creativity. An aftertaste of redneck dis-functionality and a mild burning & itching sensation is all that remains.

The first half of this movie is an origin story. The origin of Michael Meyers prior to and after the killing of his sister. Zombie attempts to fill in the gaps of the original; Michael's turning into the killer and the years in the institute before he escapes and how he escapes. Where John Carpenter used Michael Meyers as a metaphor of the dysfunction that can occur in middle class America and the suburbs (places that are considered safe), Zombie almost justifies the creation of Michael Meyers as probable and even sympathetic. His first kill isn't a sudden urge to kill his sister on Halloween night, but rather a progressive transition from animals, to classmates, to his sister and then his father. It is this first 20 minutes that although not in the spirit of Carpenter's "Shape" is actually quite graphic and made me quite uneasy(not since I saw Jesus Camp). This 20 minutes is the only good segment of the movie.

Zombie's Meyers isn't a faceless, person-less killing "Shape", but rather is an abused prototypical serial killer. His parents and sibling are "suburb rednecks" who do nothing but pick on him (obnoxious and despicable members of his family, unemployed, working as a stripper and whoring). Is this really what a typical American middle class, suburban family looks like to Zombie or is he deriving from his own experiences? He doesn't kill for no reason, he very clearly snaps. By showing us his face in the early minutes of the movie, Zombie shows us that there is a human being behind the mask. A goofy looking child. In and of itself this is not necessarily bad. When taken in the context of the second half of the movie is where the problem develops. If Zombie continued on his initial re-imaging, this would have been a graphic and watch-ably average movie. It wouldn't be great but infinitely better than this reject.

Unfortunately, Zombie feels the need to re-shoot (almost scene for scene) the 2nd half of the movie exactly as Carpenter's "Shape". It just doesn't work. Meyers cannot be a "Shape" when you spent the first half of the moving turning him into a textbook serial killer. You spend the first half of the movie almost sympathizing with Meyers. The second half just ruins everything. It's almost as if Zombie didn't know what to do or how to finish what he had started, so he just defers to Carpenter. The second half just becomes a series of forgettable massacres. Where the original had little gore and worked the inclusion of a bloodbath desensitizes any thrill. Thankfully I cannot remember any of it.

This movie is a series of contrasts. I did like all the masks Michael creates to hide behind, almost as a different mask for every emotion he is burying. At the same time his killer mask is a worn, gray and cracked mask. It just looks dirty. It doesn't emote as well as a bleached white and faceless Shatner mask (original). I also felt the inclusion of the other-sister angle (brought up in the lesser sequel Halloween 2, which never really worked for me nor was directed by Carpenter) seemed even more rushed and random in this movie. His mother (Zombie's wife Sheri Moon) further cements just how bad of a mother she is and how mediocre an actress Sheri is. The bard of Carpenter's original, Dr. Loomis, is played by a hippie Malcolm McDowell (very reminiscent of his over-the-top Caligula performance, very hammy). Adult Michael is also no longer average but a brutishly gargantuan (played by X-Men's Sabertooth, Tyler Mane). He's become a caricature and not the kid-next-door turned faceless monster for no reason. Also not helping the movie is when you are sympathetic to the psychopath because the protagonists are so annoying.

The movie should just start with a montage of people's faces, of various shapes, colors and sex, whom all say "I am Michael Meyers". Zombie shows us how the right circumstances of genes and environment can turn one into a serial killer. Hard to be terrified by the explainable. The Unrated DVD does nothing more than add gore to an already dysfunctional and bad movie. If you must watch this, just watch the first half. A better solution is just to go back to the original.

Review of "The Sentinel (2006)"

The Sentinel (2006)

Clint Eastwood was better.

Michael Douglas is a Secret Service agent, who took a bullet for Bonzo, uh, I mean Reagan. That was then, this is now. Think Clint Eastwood in the Line of Fire, except instead of John Malkovich as the antagonist, we have a Secret Service mole and instead of Renee Russo as the love interest, Michael Douglas is having an affair with a former first lady (a.k.a. whatever happened to Kim Basinger).

The director, Clark Johnson, derives most of his experience from the television series Homicide : Life on the Street (in which he starred and even directed a few episodes) and S.W.A.T. If I wanted a realistic portrayal of tactical situations and procedures, Clark Johnson would be my choice. So if I wanted to make the movie version of Rogue Spear, Splinter Cell, Full Spectrum Warrior or a remake of Navy Seals, I would call him, knowing full well the story/plot would take the last seat at the back of the bus.

The movie has a very interesting initial premise that is then beaten, rapped, spat on, urinated on and set on fire. Michael Douglas is a decorated and respected agent who suspects a mole and then becomes the suspect. This was the part that hooked me and got me to keep watching. Unfortunately, this suspense lasts approximately 10 minutes and then dives head first into the deep, shallow end of clichéd predictability. What we are left with resembles direct to video or made for TV (a.k.a. Sci-Fi Channel original minus the laughter).

Kiefer Sutherland seems to be reprising his Jack Bauer role from 24 and Eva Longoria continues her meteoric rise to mediocrity, with her non-existent (or if it exists, untapped) talent (and by talent I mean actual acting ability and not just how she looks). Martin Donovan is also in the movie, but seems to have been typecast as either a doctor or some sort of law enforcement. I loved him in Weeds, but here he (and the rest of the cast as well) is as flat as 2 day old opened soda. It is nice to see Kim Basinger in a movie, but it seemed like they got her Bowfinger style. Maybe they told her they were filming a training video??

Unless you are an insomniac, have a strange attraction to whips, chains and beatings, are wasted to the point that you can't stand or walk or are a die-hard, lifetime member of the Michael Douglas fan club, I recommend you skip this one. According to my "shot scale" this is definitely a 5 drink minimum.

Review of "Ultraviolet (2006)"

Ultraviolet (2006)

Bloodrayne Aeon Flux '84

The above summary actually sounds better, as an idea in and of itself, than the resulting movie. After Kurt Wimmer's surprisingly entertaining and under looked Equilibrium (starring pre-Batman Christan Bale), I had high expectations for his third movie. I had seen this movie in it's theatrical debut. I remember leaving the theater, however, confused and bewildered. I figured the second time around would yield a better indicator of the actual worth of the movie.

Kurt Wimmer made a movie based on a non-existing comic book. The convoluted story is about a pathophobic authoritarian dystopia, where a super soldier virus evolves into a plague and leads to forced relocations and ultimately genocide. Two factions are born; the healthy (medial totalitarian state) and the infected (terrorist rebel underground - a.k.a. hemophages, a.k.a. "blood-eaters", a.k.a. vampires). Symptoms of the infection include stronger bones, better hearing and eyesight, faster healing and hyper-fast reflexes. The only drawback is the dozen year life span.

In all honesty, I like the first half of this movie. The first 5 minutes is an action movie delight, complete with an air bomb/bowling ball ninja death squad. The narrative voice-over, that follows, is when the dread begins. This is mostly due to the realization that this is a puree of preexisting ideas. Equilibrium (also a puree) worked because it didn't try too hard. It didn't fall into the computer graphics trap. It presented a world that was slightly askew, yet eerily possible. All those things that worked in Equilibrium have been tweaked here to the nth degree and subsequently combines into a Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, it just looks, feels and acts too much like an Aeon Flux clone. Do we really need two?

The movie is a hell of a nonsensical but visually stimulating ride, until about 1/2 way through. This is about the time when our infected and meta-skilled heroine, Violet (Milla Jovovich), ends up on the fence between her people and the organization she is sworn to defend because her maternal instincts kick in. A highly skilled assassin turns into a highly skilled assassin-soccer mom. Milla Jovovich has a certain knack for picking outrages roles and generally excels in things requiring little acting ability. She does look exceptional in a tight body suit. Some of the technology has a nice wow-factor (gravity leveler and transportable space, to name a couple), but is simply there for show.

The second half of the movie is her trying to act in the middle of a nonsensical, non-stop action scenario. It becomes a case of "are we done yet?". It is just too much and too repetitious to deal with. Nothing new is added to the mix after this point, so it becomes a case of rinse & repeat. As in his previous movie, colors are primary and important. I guess Wimmer forgot to add the visual context, because all the color changes just seem to be part of the cool factor and have little to do with the plot. There is a lot of wire work and continuation of gun-kata (from Equilibrium). The problem is we are made to believe that a nurse and wife became an uber, meta-human assassin through a metabolic change and not training. Is Wimmer choosing nature over nurture or is he just so intoxicated off the smell of his own genius that he didn't even consider what he was creating?

For Wimmer this is his Modern Prometheus. It is the monster he created with his own hands, that is currently proving to be his outdoing. On my "shot scale" this is a 5 drink minimum. The top half is good, with the bottom half being synonymous to diving head-first into an empty swimming pool. Save the last 3 shots for the second half of the movie, as you will be bored to tears otherwise. Here's a toast to Wimmer. May his next movie not suck! Zum Wohl!

Review of "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances (1971)"

Como Era Gostoso o Meu Frances (1971)
(a.k.a. - How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman)

Like Dances with Wolves, except with cannibals

This is a pseudo-documentary about a French mercenary whom is executed, ends up as a prisoner of the Portuguese and then is the "honored guest" of a cannibalistic Brazilian native tribe. The film is based on the 16th century account of a German explorer, Hans Staden, who was captured by the Tupinamba. The Frenchman becomes part of the tribe, is even given a wife and a hut, until he is to be eaten in a massive ceremony. During this time he tries to figure out a way to escape, by conforming to the tribe.

This film was originally banned in Brazil and was rejected from the Cannes Film Festival because of excessive nudity. The subject matter is portrayed in a documentary style, complete with shaky hand camera footage and including the spoken languages of French, Portuguese and Tupi. With the exception of the few European characters, the majority of the cast spends the film either bottomless, topless or both (also both sexes). The production value appears at first to be quite underwhelming, but I think instead it tries to emulate the simplicity and actuality of the situation rather than some ornate (or romanticized) recollection.

At the same time it is trying to be an objective observer, it is also a critique of mercantilism and its descendants; monetarism and capitalism. There is no real judgment being issued here, but rather is a look at the encounter of the cultures, in an anthropological or rather a more realistic reinterpretation of what occurred when these cultures interacted. Some have said this a black comedy, but I did not find too many places to break out into a roaring laughter (though I did chuckle a few times at the cultural misunderstandings).

This may sound like a rather dry film (which it is), but the relatively short running time makes it seem more like a PBS special than an actual feature film. The movie would also seem to resonate more with the situation and culture of Brazil (past and present). Brazil is a unique country, with a diverse history and culture. It was one of the first films that tried to relate to the "savages", in light of the audience's identification with the Europeans. Even 30 years later, its relevance continues.

Review of "The Hitcher (1986)"

The Hitcher (1986)

Never pick up a Dutchmen in the desert, even if you are falling asleep.

80's meat, C. Thomas Howell, is a glorified delivery boy named Jim Halsey. He's transporting the car he's driving, to it's owner in San Diego, California. While in the desert, he picks up a rain-soaked hitchhiker in the darkness, Rutger Hauer. The hitchhiker is initially quite uncommunicative, but quickly turns into dubious comic, with a minuscule switchblade (and asks questions like; "Do you want to know what happens to an eyeball, when it get punctured?"). Things become more complicated when the authorities get involved and believe Jim to be the mass-murdering psychopath. This is yet another movie I saw on Cinemax and the first with the incomparable, Rutger Hauer. It is also one of the only movies in which Jennifer Jason Leigh does not go partial or full nude.

The first 12 minutes is a delicate blend of darkness, tension building and serves as the introduction to this cat and mouse thriller. These initial 12 minutes, creates the mood of the movie and sets Rutger Hauer as the deadly, yet compellingly charming psychopath. Much in the same way Jigsaw of Saw, believes in the idea of sacrifice as a growth mechanism, so does the hitcher. This is in direct contradiction to the naivety of Jim. In someway I believe their relationship can be described as master/pupil or the physical expression of how experience overwhelms ideology.

What was I thinking?? This is an 80's movie with a whiny, C. Thomas Howell. There isn't that much depth. What there is plenty of is running, car chases and gun fights. Now rinse and repeat. By the third act, the movie loses most of it's steam and the ending (though quite action oriented and enjoyable) never captures the energy level of the first part of the movie. The backdrops consist of the aforementioned desert and also include gas stations, police stations, abandoned gas stations and miles of highway. You definitely get the impression that you are on your own out there.

This is one of those films that does not require much energy to enjoy and yet multiple views does not harm. I would rate this movie at a 3 shot minimum. The first should be drunk when Jim nearly falls asleep at the wheel. The second toast belongs to Jim's initial (and short-lived) victory. The third drink should be empty by the infamous "truck-trailer" decoupling scene. In conclusion, always listen to your mother and then ask yourself and others one question; "You gonna tell me where you're going ?"

Review of "The Tudors (2007)"

The Tudors (2007)

Part accurate, part artistic licensing does not add up to a "Rome" killer.

This Showtime series focuses on the young life of King Henry the VIII of England and seems to be a direct response to HBO's "Rome". Historically speaking, Henry becomes King at the tender age of 17 years old and marries his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, who is 6 years his senior). Thomas Wolsey becomes Lord Chancellor and Cardinal in 1515 and this seems to be about when then the series begins. Henry is approximately 24 years old, at this point, and won't meet Anne Boleyn for another decade.

While more than a few historical inaccuracies occur as well as a bit of chronological confusion (Machiavelli's the Prince is written in 1513, but does not get publish until 1531, for example) much of the sets, costumes, mannerisms and ideas of the day are for the most part in the spirit of the era. The clothing does seem to be more accessible to sex, in light of history, but I assume this is due to some of that artistic licensing.

The sex, to me, seems to be the one aspect that tries to hard to keep pace with Rome's carnal delicacies and seems a bit forced and out of place. The way sex is portrayed seems a bit revolutionary and at least 100 years too early (Libertine era). What is accurate is the outdated and detrimental medical diagnosis of the day as well as Henry's desire for an heir (and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church, start of the English Reformation and influence of the New World).

Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the focal point of the series, playing the Renaissance man that was Henry the VIII. The king is multidimensional and complicated. Meyers does seem a bit underwhelming for a character that seems bigger than life. Sam Neal (Cardinal Wolsey) is ,also, the only other character to truly stand out from the cast (Rome had a thoroughly more distinguished cast). While Meyers and Neal do a good job, there is a certain lack of chemistry (professionally cool) between the all main characters (another problem Rome lacked).

The cities of his kingdom reminded me of the computer graphic backgrounds prevalent in episodes 1-3 of the Star Wars Trilogy; fake looking and lifeless. Rome the series managed to reproduce the intricacies and pulse of that era, down to the battlefield, markets and even the arena. The Tudors remains a bit cold and theatrical, relying mostly on interior sets. The series is very devoid on action and relies mostly on dialog and a slow moving plot (see I, Claudius as an example to the contrary). It lacks the epic quality of Rome along with fewer historically irreplaceable characters (no Julius Caesar, no Mark Anthony, no Cleopatra,etc). Perhaps the the Tudors translates too closely the English demeanor or maybe what it really lacks is the vision of a John Milius ?

Because of the lack of another good historically based drama (don't even mention BBC's Robin Hood series), I will continue to watch this series. It is definitely not as engaging or entertaining as HBO's Rome, but is currently the only game in town. Other notable historical oddities, left out of the show would include :

1)Lark's tongue as a English culinary delicacy.

2)Anne Boleyn tended to vomit in between courses and may have had six fingers on her left hand and three nipples.

3)A cure for baldness involved rubbing dog or horse urine into the scalp.

4)The same year as his coronation, Henry appoints a Groom of the Stool, whose sole purpose is to clean the royal sphincter.

Maybe if those details were present, this would make for a more interesting and authentic experience. As it stands, the show has yet to impress or find it's groove. Here's to your health, M'Lord.