I actually saw Rob Zombie's Halloween II in theaters when it came out a year ago. This is the review of the unrated, 119 minute version with a completely different ending.
Not being a big fan of remakes, I had speculations about the Halloween remake but I was fond of Zombie's The House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Both films had some major flaws but had a certain amount of raw energy that I enjoy in my horror movies. I have always preferred disturbing horror to monster movies or haunted house movies (but I still love the hell out of those movies too). When Halloween came out, it was a great half movie. Loved the first half by giving some interesting back story on Michael Myers but the second half kind of falls flat into remake territory. Now, Zombie is able to sequelize (is that a word?) his own remake and make it all on his own. And, like all his films, it has its flaws but I still enjoyed it.
The movie starts as soon as the first film ends and Laurie Strode is a complete mess. The once virgin, girl next door is now a punk rocking, foul mouthed, schizo with a bad temper. She now lives with her friend Annie and her father, the sheriff of Haddenfield (played by Brad Dourif who gives the film its best performance. One sequence involving his daughter is gut wrenching and tear jerking. Performances this good are unfounded and are never written like this). Dr. Loomis has also changed and he is now a self-centered author capitalizing on Michael Myers victims with his books and press meetings. And Myers of course is not dead and he returns to find his sister and end it all.
The version I saw in theaters decided to edit out all the best parts in my opinion. There is some great, dramatic scenes with Laurie and Annie and how they are drifting apart as friends and are still tormented by what had happened to them. Laurie now sees a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) who is trying hard to help her. In the theatrical version, Kidder has a cameo. In the unrated version, the scenes are longer and we now see Laurie has become a delusional liar and desperately needs prescription drugs to block the bad memories out. Why were these scenes taken out? Running at almost two hours, this is the "epic" slasher film. The dramatic scenes work very well and are so well acted and captivating, that whenever Myers showed up to kill off a few people, I was getting bored. I would love to see what Zombie could do with a thriller or a dark drama.
This is also one of the most graphic and depressing slasher films I have ever seen. Characters don't just get stabbed and die. They cough blood, they can't speak, they convulse, they cry, they crawl, they vomit, it's all very realistic and the make up effects are some of the most disgusting I have seen in a recent Hollywood movie. While some will say the violence is exploitive, I feel the violence works better for being realistic. By making the brutality of Myers slayings as real as they can be, it makes the dramatic scenes all the more better. It is also honest as death is not as quick as it is in the movies. Violence should almost always be portrayed realistically. Horror can be scary with the whole "boo" tactic, but to me, being disturbed or troubled is much more scary. I felt this alot during Halloween II.
Halloween II still has some major flaws. Logistically, how does Myers know where Laurie is going to be? How can he track her? Also, Zombie adds these really silly dream sequences throughout the film of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother with a white horse. These scenes literally make no sense and is laughably bad. The only reason these scenes are in the film is that Zombie has to put his wife Sherri Moon Zombie in every movie he makes. Since she died in the first film, he added these stupid sequences which almost ruin it. I am also not a fan of how they handled Dr. Sam Loomis's character. He is such a piece of shit now and when he tries to redeem himself, it's too little too late and doesn't work. Malcolm McDowell does he best in the role but it doesn't work for me. And Zombie's trademark of everyone talking dirty and swearing every other word continues and it is distracting.
Now the ending...the unrated version is different. Why did Zombie shoot two endings? Well, neither one of them I cared for but I think the unrated version plays a bit better with the outcome and Myers does finally speak but the theatrical version at least has Dr. Loomis try and redeem himself. Both endings are unsatisfying.
One last note: does anyone have the blu ray of this? The picture was awful with too much grain.
Halloween II is a very different kind of slasher film, utilizing alot of great aspects but allowing alot of bad ones as well. The film is very gory and each death scene is realistic. Even head snapping and strangulation is graphic thanks to the sound effects and performances. The unrated version is much better though and it does help to watch both films back to back as I did tonight.
Man of a Thousand Faces
The great Lon Chaney from London After Midnight
Oct 23, 2010
Oct 22, 2010
October 22nd - THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW (1971)
If you are a fan of Hammer films or are interested in the late 60's/early 70's satanic witch movies such as Mark of the Devil, The Witchfinder General, or The Wicker Man you may enjoy this one. Everyone else, you may want to stay away.
Truly bizarre and slow moving horror film set in the 17th century about an English village where all the young people slowly turn into devil worshipers when one of them finds a severed head stuck in the mud on some farmland. As the young people in the village (and some old folks too) start to turn evil, they cut off their own body parts and grow dark, hairy patches of skin on them which they all call "satan's skin".
The movie does move at a snails pace and it doesn't help that the story jumps around from different members of this village community. The movie is odd but yet I still found it intriguing and truly strange. Why is this happening? Why is the beautiful Angel suddenly the leader and trying to seduce the local minister? What the hell is that monster in the shadows? The movie doesn't really answer questions and for those that like things wrapped up nicely, you'll be disappointed.
The music is very creepy and demonic sounding, building great tension. The actors do a good job and Linda Heyden is a knockout. Seeing her completely nude was shocking in itself. The set design and autumn setting was also nice and helped set the mood. The movie has great atmosphere and would make for a good Halloween movie if you can stay awake and have some patience.
Truly bizarre and slow moving horror film set in the 17th century about an English village where all the young people slowly turn into devil worshipers when one of them finds a severed head stuck in the mud on some farmland. As the young people in the village (and some old folks too) start to turn evil, they cut off their own body parts and grow dark, hairy patches of skin on them which they all call "satan's skin".
The movie does move at a snails pace and it doesn't help that the story jumps around from different members of this village community. The movie is odd but yet I still found it intriguing and truly strange. Why is this happening? Why is the beautiful Angel suddenly the leader and trying to seduce the local minister? What the hell is that monster in the shadows? The movie doesn't really answer questions and for those that like things wrapped up nicely, you'll be disappointed.
The music is very creepy and demonic sounding, building great tension. The actors do a good job and Linda Heyden is a knockout. Seeing her completely nude was shocking in itself. The set design and autumn setting was also nice and helped set the mood. The movie has great atmosphere and would make for a good Halloween movie if you can stay awake and have some patience.
Oct 21, 2010
October 21st - NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2010)
Why do I do this to myself?
This is the remake of the 1988 semi-cult horror film that is neither better nor worse than the original film. I still don't understand the love the original film has. I find it overly silly, dull, unoriginal, and obviously cheap. The best thing I can say is the remake looks like they had more money to spend.
The plot is kind of strange to me. It's Halloween, and a huge party is being held at a mysterious mansion hosted by a girl named Angela. Angela is known as the local slut apparently and after the party, some of the friends and Angela play spin the bottle and make out. When they all split up to go their separate ways, skeletons are discovered in a basement room where a brutal massacre happened many years ago. When Angela gets her finger scraped by one of the skeletons, she turns into a demon and tries to bite and eat everyone else, turning them into demons. You've seen this in a bunch of films (if you want a better film that is very similar, rent Lamberto Bava's Demons) and all done better with more originality.
But what makes the plot strange is we get a subplot involving one of the girl's ex boyfriends (a bloated and embarrassed looking Edward Furlong) who owes money to a mobster. I am still unsure what the whole point of this subplot was for and why it is so out of left field. It was as if the writers came up with an idea and scraped it while filming the movie and the editor forgot to take this scene out.
Shannon Elizabeth plays Angela, giving her no personality at all and being downright dull. I think Elizabeth really needs to fire her agent. And poor Eddie Furlong. Looking at him, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy. From starring in one of the biggest summer films ever made to co-starring in direct to DVD horror films and looking like a mid-30's Joe Spinell, it really is shocking.
Night of the Demons continues to have really bad one-liners and out of place comedy like the original film and it's sequel.. If that's your cup of tea, I guess you'll be happy. I will say it is the first horror film where a woman becomes a demon by being sodomized by her possessed lover. And the "lipstick in the nipple" scene is back from the original. I bet you were all dying to see that again. The make-up effects are ok but the filmmaker relies too much on awful CGI and quick-cut editing that is the norm now. Too bad too as the creatures do look more frightening this time around when they are shown.
I have seen much worse but that doesn't mean that this film isn't crap. I would love to hear from fans of the original film or it's sequel to tell me why they like these movies so much.
This is the remake of the 1988 semi-cult horror film that is neither better nor worse than the original film. I still don't understand the love the original film has. I find it overly silly, dull, unoriginal, and obviously cheap. The best thing I can say is the remake looks like they had more money to spend.
The plot is kind of strange to me. It's Halloween, and a huge party is being held at a mysterious mansion hosted by a girl named Angela. Angela is known as the local slut apparently and after the party, some of the friends and Angela play spin the bottle and make out. When they all split up to go their separate ways, skeletons are discovered in a basement room where a brutal massacre happened many years ago. When Angela gets her finger scraped by one of the skeletons, she turns into a demon and tries to bite and eat everyone else, turning them into demons. You've seen this in a bunch of films (if you want a better film that is very similar, rent Lamberto Bava's Demons) and all done better with more originality.
But what makes the plot strange is we get a subplot involving one of the girl's ex boyfriends (a bloated and embarrassed looking Edward Furlong) who owes money to a mobster. I am still unsure what the whole point of this subplot was for and why it is so out of left field. It was as if the writers came up with an idea and scraped it while filming the movie and the editor forgot to take this scene out.
Shannon Elizabeth plays Angela, giving her no personality at all and being downright dull. I think Elizabeth really needs to fire her agent. And poor Eddie Furlong. Looking at him, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy. From starring in one of the biggest summer films ever made to co-starring in direct to DVD horror films and looking like a mid-30's Joe Spinell, it really is shocking.
Night of the Demons continues to have really bad one-liners and out of place comedy like the original film and it's sequel.. If that's your cup of tea, I guess you'll be happy. I will say it is the first horror film where a woman becomes a demon by being sodomized by her possessed lover. And the "lipstick in the nipple" scene is back from the original. I bet you were all dying to see that again. The make-up effects are ok but the filmmaker relies too much on awful CGI and quick-cut editing that is the norm now. Too bad too as the creatures do look more frightening this time around when they are shown.
I have seen much worse but that doesn't mean that this film isn't crap. I would love to hear from fans of the original film or it's sequel to tell me why they like these movies so much.
Oct 20, 2010
October 20th - NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 2 (1994)
The original Night of the Demons has turned into this cult classic that now has a small following. I never really got it. I found the film overly stupid and silly with cheap sets and a lackluster plot. Aside from some good make up effects by Steve Johnson, the film didn't have much going for it aside for some T&A. Well, the sequel is a step up from the original...barely.
The film takes place at a Catholic school for troubled teens. It's Halloween and the students are having a Halloween party at the school. When some of the more adventurous and naughty kids decide to instead go to the house that Angela killed all her friends at...well, you know the drill.
The only returning character is Angela and it was nice to see Amelia Kinkade return in the role. Steve Johnson also returns to give us some more gruesome make up effects. One change that I was thankful for was that the amount of one-liners is at a minimal here. Sure, there are an overabundance of lame jokes but those awful one-liners are at least absent. Also, the acting is a bit better and it was funny to see Ben Stiller's wife Christine Taylor in an early role.
However, like the first film, it takes awhile for anything to happen. The film plays more like a special Halloween episode of Saved By the Bell than a straight up horror film. And even though I said the acting is better in this film than the original, that isn't saying much. Thankfully we have plenty of boobs, butts and bush to keep us horny male viewers from falling asleep.
Night of the Demons 2 is what it is. It's not awful but it isn't very good. Consider me an outcast; I am not a fan of this series.
The film takes place at a Catholic school for troubled teens. It's Halloween and the students are having a Halloween party at the school. When some of the more adventurous and naughty kids decide to instead go to the house that Angela killed all her friends at...well, you know the drill.
The only returning character is Angela and it was nice to see Amelia Kinkade return in the role. Steve Johnson also returns to give us some more gruesome make up effects. One change that I was thankful for was that the amount of one-liners is at a minimal here. Sure, there are an overabundance of lame jokes but those awful one-liners are at least absent. Also, the acting is a bit better and it was funny to see Ben Stiller's wife Christine Taylor in an early role.
However, like the first film, it takes awhile for anything to happen. The film plays more like a special Halloween episode of Saved By the Bell than a straight up horror film. And even though I said the acting is better in this film than the original, that isn't saying much. Thankfully we have plenty of boobs, butts and bush to keep us horny male viewers from falling asleep.
Night of the Demons 2 is what it is. It's not awful but it isn't very good. Consider me an outcast; I am not a fan of this series.
Oct 19, 2010
October 19th - BLACK SHEEP (2006)
No, this is not a review of the Chris Farley film. This is a New Zealand film about killer sheep. Yeah you read that right. And shockingly, I found it to be a fun, gory little movie in the spirit of old Peter Jackson films.
The plot is super basic which may be the worst thing about the film: genetic engineering has turned sheep into these murderous creatures and the government is trying to cover it up. Think Jaws, Alligator, Piranha, yeah you know the drill. But instead of an animal that is actually scary, they come up with sheep. The idea of killer sheep is pretty funny and it was wise for the film makers to keep it silly but at the same time, treat it like an actual horror film. And to my surprise the film works despite the predictable premise.
Director Jonathan King borrows heavily from Peter Jackson's earlier films like Bad Taste and Braindead, using hand held camera work, shooting on grainy film, and of course keeping the tone very light but filled with disgusting graphic effects. Even Weta who did the effects for Lord of the Rings was brought on to do this film. The killer sheep do look great and the man-sheep monsters are really good. There is even one transformation scene that is almost lifted out of An American Wedrewolf in London. Blood flows freely in Black Sheep and we get plenty of it. Limbs hacked off, throats ripped out, intestines pulled out, and my favorite: a sheep rips off one guy's manhood.
If you like your horror/comedies with an extra amount of blood and you don't mind the heavy accents of the New Zealand actors, Black Sheep is worth a look but it isn't for everyone.
The plot is super basic which may be the worst thing about the film: genetic engineering has turned sheep into these murderous creatures and the government is trying to cover it up. Think Jaws, Alligator, Piranha, yeah you know the drill. But instead of an animal that is actually scary, they come up with sheep. The idea of killer sheep is pretty funny and it was wise for the film makers to keep it silly but at the same time, treat it like an actual horror film. And to my surprise the film works despite the predictable premise.
Director Jonathan King borrows heavily from Peter Jackson's earlier films like Bad Taste and Braindead, using hand held camera work, shooting on grainy film, and of course keeping the tone very light but filled with disgusting graphic effects. Even Weta who did the effects for Lord of the Rings was brought on to do this film. The killer sheep do look great and the man-sheep monsters are really good. There is even one transformation scene that is almost lifted out of An American Wedrewolf in London. Blood flows freely in Black Sheep and we get plenty of it. Limbs hacked off, throats ripped out, intestines pulled out, and my favorite: a sheep rips off one guy's manhood.
If you like your horror/comedies with an extra amount of blood and you don't mind the heavy accents of the New Zealand actors, Black Sheep is worth a look but it isn't for everyone.
I MISSED A DAY!
I tried...really. But alas, I miss Monday October 18th. I went to work and went to the Chicago Blackhawks game with my in-laws and wife and it went in OT. By the time I got home and said good bye to everyone, it was 11 pm. I climbed into the spare room bed so not to wake up Michelle and flicked thru my DVR trying to find the shortest possible horror film and I must have passed out or something because next thing I knew the wife was waking me up at 5:00 this morning to get ready for work. I apologize but I don't know if anyone even reads these so maybe I am safe.
Oct 17, 2010
October 17th - SAW VI (2009)
Getting ready for the upcoming (and supposedly final) Saw film, I was finally able to watch 2009's Saw VI. This is the only Saw film that I didn't get a chance to see in the theater and it is also the lowest grossing of all the Saw films. It also happens to be one of the best in the series.
To set the record straight, I think the Saw films are silly and filled with some bad acting and annoying editing tricks that can cause epilepsy. However, as the series went along I noticed the films seemed to have gotten better and I got sucked into the story and characters. What I also like is that all the films link together and are legit sequels and not a sequel by name only. So yeah I like the Saw films but I know they aren't works of art. I wouldn't even recommend this series to people since these films are like eating apple pie with melted cheese on the top. It's an aquired taste.
Saw VI picks up right after the fifth film ended and Det. Hoffman is still the mastermind behind the killings. At Jigsaw's request via his will, Hoffman is given instruction to kidnap certain people that Jigsaw would like to be forced to play a game with. He selects a man who works for a health insurance agency who denied Jigsaw insurance when he was diagnosed with cancer. While this story is going on, we also see Hoffman trying desperately not to be caught by his fellow officers. Both stories work well and of course there are flashbacks and references to numerous Saw films that surprisngly work well and fit perfectly into the timeline of this series.
For gorehounds, I am happy to report that Saw VI doesn't skimp on the grue. Bodies explode, people get burned, limbs are cut off, people are stabbed or shot, and one character gets acid poured inside him. All done with...drum roll....ACTUAL PRACTICAL EFFECTS! That's right, the CGI that started to get used in parts IV and V are gone and some really nasty gore effects are on display here.
While I still think Saw III is the best in the series, VI is up there as one of the best entries. I look forward to Saw 3-D.
To set the record straight, I think the Saw films are silly and filled with some bad acting and annoying editing tricks that can cause epilepsy. However, as the series went along I noticed the films seemed to have gotten better and I got sucked into the story and characters. What I also like is that all the films link together and are legit sequels and not a sequel by name only. So yeah I like the Saw films but I know they aren't works of art. I wouldn't even recommend this series to people since these films are like eating apple pie with melted cheese on the top. It's an aquired taste.
Saw VI picks up right after the fifth film ended and Det. Hoffman is still the mastermind behind the killings. At Jigsaw's request via his will, Hoffman is given instruction to kidnap certain people that Jigsaw would like to be forced to play a game with. He selects a man who works for a health insurance agency who denied Jigsaw insurance when he was diagnosed with cancer. While this story is going on, we also see Hoffman trying desperately not to be caught by his fellow officers. Both stories work well and of course there are flashbacks and references to numerous Saw films that surprisngly work well and fit perfectly into the timeline of this series.
For gorehounds, I am happy to report that Saw VI doesn't skimp on the grue. Bodies explode, people get burned, limbs are cut off, people are stabbed or shot, and one character gets acid poured inside him. All done with...drum roll....ACTUAL PRACTICAL EFFECTS! That's right, the CGI that started to get used in parts IV and V are gone and some really nasty gore effects are on display here.
While I still think Saw III is the best in the series, VI is up there as one of the best entries. I look forward to Saw 3-D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)