Halloween III (1982)

Halloween III (1982)

What the hell did I just watch? No seriously.... What the hell did I just watch? Wow.

Here's my line of thinking. "Hey, I am trying to run a bunch of Halloween and/or horror related films for review. I will try and run the gamut for types of films, and pick ones that some people may know, think they know, or not even have a clue about." Halloween III falls in category 3 for most people I think as typically the John Carpenter series is recognized solely by Michael Myers (not the comedian).

In this flick, which I am not even sure qualifies as post-modern or "meta", Michael Myers is only referenced by movies shown within the movie acknowledging that the first Halloween movies were movies, while simultaneously being a Halloween movie itself. Trust me, this flick is not nearly intelligent enough to make that a purposeful decision.

The premise, ah who cares I am going to spoil it for you. An alcoholic doctor has some man wind up in his hospital who gets killed by some maniac who blows himself up. The doctor then proceeds to investigate the death himself (gawd knows the police are useless in such cases) and he goes to some small town where an eccentric mask maker controls the whole town. Blah blah blah, stuff happens, and... wait for it.... it is revealed that the crazed mask maker has a master plan using magic rocks from a stolen slab from Stonehenge implanted in all the masks he sold to children, which on Halloween night at midnight, he will air a special commercial that will set off all the microchip/rocks (???) and proceed to melt all the heads of the kids wearing masks and MAGICALLY make them start spewing snakes and insects. Did I forget to mention that all his minions are robots wearing masks to look like humans?

All run on sentences aside folks, I can't make this crap up.

The good: One creative death with a magic "lazer" that shoots from a microchip some chick is fiddling with that proceeds to rupture her face in interesting fashion. That and the one line where the doctor, after finding out the evil scheme, manages to call for help to his ex-wife (I think) and without hearing her part of the dialogue, he suddenly blurts out, "No, I am not drunk!" Man I wish I was watching this. I may have had more appreciation.

The bad: Truly there is nothing redeemable about this film. Though I think it does take top honours for the absolute most annoying musical plot device ever to be used in film.


Final Thoughts: Never would I have thought that the Halloween premise of demented man-child that is also an unstoppable killing machine would have seemed so much more plausible and welcome over the atrocity that I witnessed that is this film. Oh and this flick has sweet F all do with witches and/or seasons.

Add to the vault:  I think the only disservice to this film would be to NOT burn every single copy that exists and collectively pretend this film never happened.

Red (2008)

Red (2008)

No this isn't the Bruce Willis/Helen Mirren flick about retired assassins. Instead this is a hidden gem that probably never made it to a movie theatre near you. A story about a man and his dog, a dog that gets killed after a robbery that goes awry.

In any other Hollywood movie, such a plot would result in the old man (here played by Brian Cox) building up an arms cache before going all Rambo on those who wronged him. Instead we have a fairly realistic telling of a wronged man, trying to go through all the normal channels of trying to get justice for those who killed his dog. I liked the small town portrayal. It wasn't unrealistic of today's society and how even small towns can have bad apples. The youth portrayed in the film came across as types I knew as I am sure everyone knew in some capacity. You have the bad seed that is a crap-disturber because life is too good. He's never really been disciplined, knows no boundaries and is overly praised so basically sees no wrong to his ways. You have the younger brother who plays the the proverbial good kid mixed in with a bad lot because of direct association and knows that what they do is wrong but doesn't know how to change it. And you have the fringe kid that is really only a punk because of life's cards that were dealt to him.

Nothing new or groundbreaking, but played subtly enough to feel real here. Brian Cox, enjoyable in nearly everything he has ever done, is the old man who has plenty to be angry about but plays it with the patience of a monk.

The climax of the film can seem a little far fetched, but is kept reasonably plausible. The one thing that felt a bit off was Tom Sizemore's character as the father to the errant youth. At first he seems reasonable, sitting down and listening to Brian Cox's story of woe, and you can see that the father does not disbelieve the story and that his kids could be capable of such atrocity. But taking the word of his kids alone, he suddenly turns into a legal action threatening, gun toting a-hole. The turn from a complex character to a one dimensional one is a little abrupt and never really explored further to justify the turn.

The good: Brian Cox was great as the patient, subdued elderly man to whom you would totally expect and rationalize with if he suddenly went postal, but instead demonstrates the quiet rage that is unnerving to witness as you wish him to enact swift and well deserved justice.

The bad: Not much. Again it is a simple story, nothing ground breaking. Interesting as a one off. No performance was bad, and the pacing was decent enough.

Final thoughts: I appreciate having recorded this flick on the PVR. I read the synopsis and expected something much more contrived, but was actually happy with the realistic portrayals of the people in this small community.

Add to the vault: No. It may be a hidden gem, but I don't believe it warrants repeat viewing. I am honoured to have had the chance to appreciate it once and I would encourage you all to do the same, but one viewing is enough.

Dracula (1931)

Dracula (1931)

Well they can't all be winners. Following up the great Frankenstein with Boris Karloff,, I took in Bela Lugosi's turn as Dracula.

All I can say is that the music is nice. I never really pictured Dracula as an opera before (despite it being a ballet) but the only real merit to this film was the score. One character I enjoyed that never really struck me as being that interesting before was Renfield. Usually played to the point of ridiculous, Dwight Frye's Renfield was interesting and complex. Which is more than I can say about Bela Lugosi's effort at Dracula. There is a reason Christopher Lee's adaptation is considered more of THE Dracula on which to meet or beat.

On the whole the flick is pretty boring. The rest of the characters are forgettable, and the only other remotely interesting thing was how Edward Van Sloan's role as Van Helsing looked remarkably like Anthony Hopkins.


In other news, Halloween is always a big thing where I live now, and this year, one house had Frankenstein projected on their living room window. Very cool.

Good: Renfield, and the music.

Bad: Everything else.

Final Thoughts: Yawwwwn!

Add to the thought: Only if it needs to be preserved as a classic, or comes as a two pack with Frankenstein.

Frankenstein (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

Ah, classic cinema. In preparation for Halloween I have several horror movies still awaiting viewing, including 3 classics that I admit I have never seen. Frankenstein, Dracula and The Wolf Man.

First up, Frankenstein. Ah such an interesting movie. Far more interesting than I ever suspected to be honest. I can see why it has stood the test of time. There are essentially only 3 interesting characters in the film. The monster, The Doctor, and Fritz (who I imagine the majority of the public out there presume was always called Igor).

There are other characters but Colin Clive's turn as the Doctor, and Boris Karloff's as the Monster made this movie the gem in cinematic history it has proven to be. Everyone knows the tale, a brilliant but eccentric scientist plays god and creates a monster. Fritz is the hunchback and all-around bastard to the monster. Things go awry, monster escapes and well... go watch it if you don't know how it ends.

The parts that really stood out were when once the Monster escapes, he meets the young girl by the lake. Wow. Just wow. We have all seen the iconic scene or at least know the references when witnessed in other movies, shows, and what not, but seeing the original film version, powerful stuff. It was tragic and the viewer is absolutely forced to empathize with the monster. We question whether it is his latent predisposition to murder given that he is comprised of the parts of murderers, or is it merely the childlike innocence he seems to exhibit as an entirely new creature only a few days old?

I must also give props to this film for it's cinematic style and design. Obviously inspired by earlier works like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the design of Frankenstein's lab is all distorted angles, deep lines, and impossible architecture.

The good: Karloff, Clive, and the design stand out the most. Fritz is arguably the catalyst that could have prevented the Monster from being a monster. The girl at the lake. And the final scene while quick, is cinematic gold. Also the scene with the father going down the streets through the German festival, again... just wow.

The bad: the rest of the cast is mostly forgettable. I don't believe any real relationship existed between Elizabeth and the Doctor. And the film feels like it tells it's story very quickly. Which is fine, but I felt I wished we spent more time with the Monster and his foray into the world, for good or for bad.

Final Verdict: Obviously in this day and age, not everyone will have the patience for a classic film that is from an entirely different era of mannerisms, horror, and life. Many people will be turned off by the mere fact it is in black and white. Which is a shame and makes it that much more important for film lover's to try their best to keep these classics from fading away into obscurity. Kids may know the references in modern film and culture, but without knowing the roots of film, how can you truly appreciate it?

Add to the vault: Not a repeat viewing in the same vein as Dawn of the Dead remake (which I can watch most anytime), but if I ever saw them on sale I would definitely buy them and keep them in my repertoire much akin to a treasured book in the library you only dust off and re-read every decade or so.

Suck (2009)

Suck (2009)

Well, well, well. Colour me surprised. No this isn't pornography. I recorded this solely on the title, expecting something akin to a crappy Wayans' brothers movie, or marginally better/worse (your pick) a Scary Movie crapfest.

Not at all what I expected. This little Canadian flick was actually somewhat enjoyable. I didn't expect it to fall into more of the "indie" category, and truthfully, I am not labeling it as an indie flick, but to be honest it isn't really a musical either. It claims to be a rock & roll comedy, and that is exactly what it is.

The premise is simple enough, a loser band (ironically named the Winners) is trying to make it big but really barely rise above mediocre. One band member (the arguably only x-factor to the band staying together and coincidentally an attractive female) gets seduced by a vampire, and slowly as the body count rises, the band becomes a success. What this film doesn't advertise (given the brief breakdown I read on the PVR) is that this film has iconic artists musical and cinematic alike. We are talking Alice Cooper, Malcolm McDowell, David Foley, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, and the occasional other person folks may notice out the ordinary.


The music in the flick is not done in a random "let's break out into song" camp style, but more-so heavily infused into every part of the flick. And it was actually kind of enjoyable. A lot of it was cover versions of songs that are attributed to the stars above, but even the original songs are enjoyable too. Just don't expect the next Rocky Horror Picture Show.

What about the comedy? Well some of it is silly, but even with the "gore" it is much more innocent than comedy in most movies which strives to be as vile as possible to generate a laugh or two. It obviously doesn't all work, but the heart is there. Rob Stefaniuk who directs and stars in it, shows that this was (like Zombie in the last review) doing something he enjoyed doing. I will say that the French-Canadian Hugo was a consistently funny addition.

Is it scary? No. Not slightly. It's a pretty tame flick. Ah well, all in the spirit of Halloween right?

The good: The heart. The music. The Canadian-ness. And the stop-motion transition scenes. Very cool.

The bad: Well it's silly but fun. A decent flick for free on the movie channel. Don't expect Blade, but it's definitely not as hokey as sparkly vampires.


Final Verdict: A proud little flick. The more I looked into it, I wasn't that surprised to see it won a bunch of awards. It's probably one of the nicest flicks that no one will ever see.


Add to the vault?  Nah. I don't even know if it is on dvd or blue-ray, but I would definitely give it another gander if I saw it on TV again in the future.

Halloween II (2009)

Halloween II (2009)

So I have been referencing remakes, sequels and such ad nauseam, so why not review one of those remakes. It would have been too easy to review some sloppy paint by numbers remake like Black Christmas, or My Bloody Valentine (3D!) but given the spirit of the season, and the actual effort that went into this remake AND sequel, why not given this an honest go and be fair.

To disclaimer, I have seen all of Rob Zombie's cinematic endeavours to date, and while I think he has a great sense of style, he's still finding his rhythm in regards to story and character but the passion is there. That in and of itself puts Zombie way above the competition and it makes it that much more depressing when his films do not do well.

In this particular instance, Zombie purely made the follow-up to his first Halloween effort, because he wanted to complete the story he wanted to tell. At least it feels that way. Most people could easily dismiss it as a cash grab, but when you compare the domestic and international numbers, this film was far from a commercial success.

So about the film, well the film basically picks up right from the ending of his 2007 Halloween film, and continues following Laurie (the female protagonist) as she tries (unsuccessfully obviously) to continue her life in lieu of the trauma caused by the first flick. Michael is back (OMG SPOILER!) and havoc ensues. Malcolm McDowell and Brad Dourif are back to reprise their roles as well, and Zombie still finds a way to have his wife Sheri Moon be in the film as well, although in a different capacity than one might expect.

The film does play with some interesting plots, such as Laurie's attempt to move on after trauma, and Dr. Loomis' capitalizing on the notoriety of Michael's killings. If it followed the standard formula for a slasher flick it would have been a bunch of forgettable college co-eds that you WANT to get killed in gruesome fashion, but here you have (for the most part) people attempting to be somewhat real, and having plausible relationships to one another, and how they are all victims in some fashion or another to the unstoppable killing machine of Michael. Again, character is not always Zombie's strong suit, so some are bordering on ridiculous, but otherwise it's a relatively solid effort.

The good: The imagery. Zombie is a horror movie aficionado and he nails aesthetics that again elevate this above the regular drivel that passes for horror movies these days. What I think he needs to do though, is reign in his thoughts, and go back to telling his own story. House of 1000 corpses and Devil's Rejects were okay films that were too much style over substance. So he's got that, but he needs to get another original story, and writer/co-director that will keep the story in check and provide the objective voice that Zombie needs to hear in order to really elevate him to quality film-making. As it stands now though, I worry that Zombie has attached himself too much to the whole 70's exploitation style of cinema (ala Devil's Rejects or Grindhouse) and he will pursue that instead of carving his own niche in the horror department.

The bad: Characters and story are the only thing hampering this flick. As well I can't help but imagine how much better this would have been if it wasn't tied to an established franchise. Mike Myers and Jason, are ultimately weak antagonists. Zombie gets an "A" for effort in attempting to psychoanalyze Michael and give him a back-story, but ultimately no one seeing 'Halloween II' is going because they want to get into the head of Michael Myers. As much as I knock remakes and sequels, the fact is their target audience are audiences who want a throw-away movie. The same college co-eds that are epitomized on screen are the reflections of the typical audiences who go see these flicks. It's no wonder why Halloween II was not very successful for Zombie when you can imagine that most of the audience in attendance probably has the attention span of a toddler, and unless you can keep the kills or the T&A at a higher ratio than their text messages, you're gonna lose them in the exposition.

Final Verdict: I can appreciate Zombie's work here, but ultimately the film is a one off. It gets a passing grade for being entertaining enough to endure the 90+ minutes it takes to tell it's story, but it's by no means a classic in the making. Truthfully the failure can mostly be attributed to the very fact that Zombie pursued material that for many people is too established in pop culture. The very fact that the Halloween series, much like the Friday the 13th series, had become ridiculous caricatures of what they once were though the over abundance of sequels and increasingly absurd premises for stories, meant that Zombie had an uphill battle to tackle the material. He may not have been entirely successful, but working with what he had, he may as well have turned water into wine.

Add to the Vault? No. This is not going to be a Halloween regular (despite the irony), and I definitely won't be buying it. But I am still holding out hope for Zombie to make the one film that finally tells the story he needs to tell. Does that make sense? Please Rob, go back to telling original stories!

The Road (2009)

The Road (2009)

Wow. Feel good movie of the year! In all seriousness though, wow. Great movie and for a book-to-movie conversion, this is a movie that knocks it out of the park. Like most people, I find that book to movie conversions are often severely lacking even a fraction of the atmosphere, character or story of the titular novel the films are meant to epitomize. In this situation though, the movie does the book justice creating a labour of love that encapsulates the Cormac McCarthy story and in turn presents a film that is more horrific than any recent contemporary attempt at horror in some time.

Those unfamiliar with the story, can have it summarized up as such, boy and father travel a road in the bleakest most depressing post-apocalyptic world you could probably ever imagine without the addition of zombies. Don't get me wrong though, there are definitely different kinds of monsters that exist in this world and we the reader/audience travel with them through their trials and tribulations to reach some semblance of sanctuary.

I am familiar with the source material, having read the novel some time ago... en route to Belize for my honeymoon I think... and while the movie has some creative liberties (ala the role of the mother and a conspicuously absentee baby) such liberties in the film either do not detract from the overall essence of the story or in some facets, add to it. Now Cormac McCarthy also wrote No Country for Old Men, a Coen brothers adaptation that truthfully I didn't care for that much, nor did I think it was an Oscar contender let alone worthy of being a winner, hence why I have had little to no interest in the Academy Awards for some time, but I digress. The Road, unlike No Country for Old Men, is captivating from beginning to end, and everything from cinematography, powerhouse performances, quality actors in the smaller roles, and the devotion of the director all add to what is a spellbinding film.


The good: Everyone. Viggo Mortenson and Kodi Smit-McPhee hold the film. A testament to the kid's chops in holding his own against Viggo for 2 hours. If Stephen King's Dark Tower series ever actually sees the light of day, and I am speaking to you Ron Howard, do everything in your power to get these two for Roland and Jake. Oh and don't screw it up. No pressure though. What else is good? The other actors, Charlize Theron who is often hit-and-miss with me, nails an unforgiving role as the mother. Seeing Robert Duvall, Guy Pierce and Molly Parker, round out a small cast with quality over quantity. It would be a disservice to not acknowledge the incredible cinematography, the visual ability is the very essence of using a picture to tell a thousand words, which allows us to see page by page on screen in all it's wonderfully depressing splendour.

The bad: Not much. This film is definitely not for everyone. This film had my wife weeping (because of how good it is) but this may not be the film for kids or parents alike. You have to have a strong heart and a strong will to endure this film, as you are right there every moment with the characters on screen.

Final Verdict: Go see it. Expect to hurt watching it, but know that you are seeing a work of art. Then go read the book if you haven't already done so.

Add to the vault? Well this is a tough one. Obviously this isn't a film that you're gonna pull out for guilty rainy day fare, but I would be honoured to have this film in my collection if only for the sake of dusting it off in ten years and sharing in the experience again. So yes.


And to try something different, I am going to try linking to the trailers for the films I review from here on out.


Enjoy folks!