misterronaldweasley Reviews

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

The sequel that ruined a franchise.

[3/10 · 4 November 2005]

Say what you want about "Halloween"s 1-7, while some installments weren't exactly horror classics, they were at least respectable, well-made sequels. The great thing about the "Halloween" series was how true to its roots it managed to stay. Every other horror franchise from "Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" sold out long before they hit a number 5. Freddy Krueger suddenly became a comedian and Jason did the same routine in every movie with a different cast. The beauty of "Halloween" though was that it managed to stay scary and not turn Michael Myers into a joke.

This film destroyed all of that.

The biggest mistake is in the writing. The main arc of the entire series was Michael and his family. This movie focuses on that part of the story for maybe 15 minutes in the beginning (with Jamie Lee Curtis returning as Michael's unlucky little sibling), then veers so far off course it makes you wonder how a franchise can go down the toilet so quickly. The rest of the movie is just about a bunch of (annoying) college kids running around in a booby-trapped Myers' house with cameras as part of a reality show broadcast on the Web. Of course the kicker is that the REAL Michael Myers has decided to come back to his childhood home, and doesn't exactly like his new guests. We can't blame him.

Every character here is stock. There's the goody goody you just know is going to be involved in the final chase scene, the sick perverted boy we all know is going to bite it, etc. They're the same characters from every other bad horror movie ever made. The previous "Halloween"s at least took pride in having good characters you actually cared about. It meant something when they died. Now all you can do is cheer Michael on as he slashes his way through some of the most annoying characters.

The acting isn't nearly up to par, either. I realize this is the 8th film in the series, but who are these people? They can't act their way out of a paper bag, did the casting department just stop trying, or did these people win their roles through a contest or something? I'd like to know. Whenever the characters scream or try to show fear, it's so badly acted you just have to laugh at the comedic value of it all.

In fact, at the halfway point of the movie you'll be laughing (or crying possibly) at how easy it is to take a respectable series and drag it through the mud.

The only saving grace is Rosenthal's direction and the oddly good cinematography. Rosenthal does his best with the crap script he's been given, I doubt anyone could have improved upon it. And the cinematography is really quite great...the lighting and color of some shots are outstanding for a film of this type and the whole movie is bathed in orange and blue hues. I like it! Good stuff.

Unfortunately that can't save this movie.

This is basically just "Friday the 13th" in a house. Kids come around, masked killer shows up, kills them all of one by one. That's it. This movie alone managed to turn a once clever and meaningful series into a standard run-of-the-mill slasher movie. The main focus of the entire series is gone. Now we get hilariously bad acting, cheesy scares, and nauseating one-liners (the previous installments never resorted to comedy).

Busta Rhymes steals the show though, with acting so bad it makes you afraid for all the wrong reasons.

Just pretend this franchise ended with the at least respectable "H20" and forget this travesty ever happened.

R.I.P. "Halloween"...your "resurrection" was also your death. No one will take this series seriously anymore.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)

Better than Harlin's in many ways.

[8/10 · 28 October 2005]

I'm sure everyone by now knows the story of how Paul Schrader shot and cut his version of an "Exorcist" prequel and delivered it to Morgan Creek studios only to be told it was "commercially unmarketable" and fired from the project. Then they hired Renny Harlin, mostly known for action films, to come in and make his own bloodier, more visceral version that would appeal more to mass audiences.

It's a shame that the studios today are all about the profit and not the quality. While Harlin's "Exorcist: The Beginning" may have appealed more to mass audiences (and by mass audiences I'm talking about those who can't handle an intelligent story that takes time to build and need blood and guts every 10 minutes), but Schrader's film is clearly the winner in terms of quality here.

This film is far more subtle than Harlin's in-your-face version. Until the end, there aren't even any real "scares" to speak of. Don't get me wrong, the movie IS scary, just don't expect the cliché "jump scares" that are accompanied by a loud jolt of music, or someone sneaking up behind somebody. The scares in this one come from a purely psychological angle as the film works to get under your skin, push your buttons, and unnerve you greatly.

This version is a much more mature effort that works through creating layered characters and a good story. Harlin's version was like a cheap, plastic knock off of the real thing.

Now what exactly is different about the two films? Well most of the actors are the same, though the roles are altered just a tad. The sets are the same. The *basic* story is the same. The real differences come in concerning the possession victims. Harlin's theatrical version centered on a young village boy being the object of possession, treading a very familiar route we've all seen before. Schrader's "Exorcist" takes a different route by turning the tables around: instead of the possession victim getting physically and mentally weakened as the demon takes over, the story focuses on Cheche, an afflicted young man that actually becomes better as the possession takes over his body. To watch Cheche miraculously heal from a surgery in a matter of days and see his strength and mental capabilities growing is truly unnerving. I found the character to be more interesting than even little Regan Macneil in the original movie.

The acting is about the same in terms of quality, though with Skarsgard giving a much subtler performance this time around.

Alas, the film is not without faults. There is some god-awful CGI thrown into the film (I can't decide if it's cheesiness was a result of the movie never being finished properly or if it was just that bad) and the ending feels somewhat anticlimactic. The showdown between Merrin and the demon is what this movie is all about, yet something about the entire sequence just doesn't sit well. It's not "big" enough. It doesn't have the weight it should considering it IS the main focus of the movie. And it all came a little too fast. The pacing of the film just doesn't sit quite well. By the time the shite hits the fan, we're almost at the end, and Merrin goes from disbeliever to Bible-thumping exorcist in way too short of a time period.

Perhaps more work could have been put into Merrin's character. The film is okay as it stands, but more work and a little more background would have been great.

No matter what though, this one is still loads better than that crapfest Harlin put out. A much creepier, less in-your-face, subtler film that gets under your skin and reaches you on a level not one of the sequels has done yet. It's a shame the ADD-riddled audiences today can't handle a mature film like this.

Clerks (1994)

No money? No problems.

[8/10 · 28 October 2005]

Clerks is a perfect example of what you can accomplish with no budget but a whole lot of talent.

The fact it was shot on 16 mm and looks like a documentary adds a whole voyeuristic feel to it that I think aids it greatly...a more polished Hollywood production probably would have had a lesser effect.

What makes this movie stand out is the sheer talent of everyone involved. The script is excellent, managing to be outrageously funny at times yet dead serious at others. This movie will make you laugh your ass off then make you ponder things like the meaning of life and the age old question of "Where do I belong on this Earth?" The dialogue is from heaven...it's witty and intelligent to the point you can never be bored no matter how long two characters just sit around and talk. It takes a lot of talent to be able to hold an audience's interest on the screen while two characters just chat for 3 to 4 minutes while doing nothing. You will never be bored. The acting is also great because it's just so natural-looking...everyone here gives a performance that makes you believe they really are these people. It doesn't feel like acting.

This may not be the best movie ever made and it's certainly an acquired taste...some will ever love or hate it, but it is a damn fine example of what can be accomplished when you have lots of talent yet no money. For me the movie rang true to life and managed to keep me solidly entertained for an hour and a half, so I have no problem with that!

The Omen (1976)

The best devil movie ever made.

[9/10 · 17 October 2005]

Forget the overrated "Exorcist"...this movie takes the cake as far as demonic movies go. Almost 30 years later it still holds up.

This movie has so many things elevating it above the typical genre fare. The acting is excellent by all, featuring some of the best performances ever in a film of this type. Richard Donner's direction is low key and subtle, which was the best way to go about a movie like this, because if you overdo it, it just comes off cheesy. And admittedly the plot DOES sound hokey...a couple finding out their son is the Antichrist could be the start of a really hokey picture, but Donner plays the material just right. Nothing is overblown and there are none of the corny contraptions you might expect in a movie like this, such as red eyes, demons, gross special effects, etc. Rather, the story plays out more like a psychological drama with a horror element. And perhaps that's why it works so well.

Jerry Goldsmith's score for this film is legendary by now...simply one of the best horror film scores (or any film score, really) of all time. The score almost makes the movie itself, it's so effective and chilling. From the moment you hear "Ave Satani" over the opening credits, you know you're in for a ride.

The death scenes are some of the most memorable ever to be captured on film. Not because of the gore element (there's actually very little) but for the bizarre situations surrounding all of them. One character, in one of the movie's most memorable scenes, gets decapitated by a sheet of glass that slides out the back of a runaway truck.

I could gush about this movie for hours, but I'll keep it short and just say that if you haven't seen it, do yourself a big favor and pick this little classic up. It's too bad this little gem is overshadowed by the almighty "Exorcist" because it is, in my opinion, a much more effective and frightening film. Had it come out BEFORE "The Exorcist" I daresay things might have been different, but I guess we'll never know.

If you want a truly scary movie that will stick with you for days, this is it. It raises questions about faith, life, and morality while still managing to get under your skin and creep the hell out of you. It also raises questions that don't go away after the film ends. It takes a special movie to do that.

The Fog (2005)

Some good elements, but weak overall.

[6/10 · 15 October 2005]

I was interested to see this movie, being a big fan of John Carpenter's 1980 original. But something told me a horror remake in 2005 couldn't beat a classic, and shock, shock...I was right.

The movie isn't a total waste, just that some things work and some don't. Selma Blair, while indeed a good actress, doesn't fill the shoes of Adrienne Barbeau as Stevie Wayne. And Tom Welling and Maggie Grace, though capable actors (and good eye candy) are poor substitutes for the original cast and seem to only be there to draw in the teenyboppers. Yes, that does mean we get shots of Maggie Grace walking around in her panties and even a shirtless Tom scene.

The main problem with this new version is that due to bad choices either by the writer or the director, the scare factor is minimized significantly. For one, the ghosts in the fog are often shown as silly CGI zombies that remind you of something out of "The Mummy." At one point the fog forms into a screaming angry face, but instead of being scary it just looks cheap and silly. The ghosts themselves are actually transparent, which weakens their presence, yet somehow they are able to perform tasks the ghosts from Carpenter's original weren't capable of, like attacking people from kitchen sinks (a scene that actually is more comedic than horrifying) and strolling around at ease when there doesn't even seem to be any fog present. Aren't these things supposed to be CONFINED within the fog? Apparently someone forgot that come the finale...

Rupert Wainright, try as he may, just isn't capable of pulling off the atmosphere of mystery and dread Carpenter infused into his original. Carpenter's "Fog" was downright creepy...a twisted ghost tale set in a small fishing village that had a dark past. It dripped with atmosphere. This one's just a drip. The new town locals are undeveloped and boring and no matter how many wide shots we get of the fog rolling in off the coast of Antonio Bay, it doesn't evoke the same sense of dread Carpenter's did.

The story was also changed drastically in one respect, and the final outcome is unsatisfying and makes you wonder why they even bothered writing that into the screenplay to begin with.

All in all, there are some very decent chills and scares in this movie (one scene in particular involving Blair's son on the beach and a vagrant snooping around with a metal detector is very thrilling...), but no matter how many CGI zombies and cheap shocks you have, you can't beat a good classic ghost story with tons of atmosphere...therefore this one is stale compared to Carpenter's.

It's not as bad as most of the new horror movies out there. But it's just not the original.

See it to remember why you loved the original so much and to get a new twist on the story plus one or two really good scares. Not a total waste of time.

The Ring (2002)

Wonderfully creepy!

[9/10 · 31 December 2004]

One of the few PG-13 flicks that actually managed to get under my skin! Adapted from Koji Suzuki's novel, a female reporter investigates the origins of a tape that supposedly kills you one week after watching it after her niece is the last supposed victim of the tape's deadly curse. This one is way better than its Japanese original, "Ringu", of which it was a remake of. For one thing, it's pace isn't as deathly boring and Verbinski directs the movie with more visual flair than his Japanese counterpart. There are some truly scary "jump moments" thrown in here and there that caught me completely off guard and the imagery in this film is top notch. The killer tape in this one actually IS unsettling, unlike the one in "Ringu", and Samara is 10 times scarier than her Japanese alter-ego Sadako. It's best to think of this as a supernatural detective story and I enjoyed not being able to predict where the movie was going, I was along for the whole ride, right down to terrific "twist" ending that is only one of few in recent memory that I didn't manage to see coming a mile away. An oppressed, dreadful and genuinely creepy atmosphere prevails throughout and is possibly the film's strongest asset...this one will get under your skin. Naomi Watts is excellent as well as everyone else involved in this. Often suffers from corniness however and the plot hits it's ups and downs along the way, but there is enough here to make up for it. Watch it...and be prepared to move the TV out of your bedroom before going to sleep at night!

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Take a bite out of it.

[7/10 · 31 December 2004]

Good, atmospheric zombie horror from the late '60s, the first in George Romero's famous "living dead" trilogy. The movie benefits from its simple, straightforward plot and Romero's direction. Good acting for this type of film, well-developed characters, and an eerie feeling throughout. It's very dated, however, and probably wouldn't scare an 8 year old today. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is scarier than this, so don't expect any nightmares. And gore hounds, this also isn't for you. It may have been controversial and shocking in the '60s, but this movie wouldn't warrant anything more than a PG-13 today, and even that's stretching it. Nevertheless, it's always worth a look. One of the true horror classics that will always endure thanks to it's great plot and great atmosphere. Check it out.

Demons (1985)

100% entertainment.

[10/10 · 31 December 2004]

This has got to be one of the best Italian horror flicks ever made, which is no surprise considering it was produced by Dario Argento, master of Italian horror himself.

The plot can be summed up with one sentence: people are trapped in a movie theater with a horde of ugly, long-clawed demons and must fight to stay alive! Sure, the acting is completely over the top and laughable, the movie doesn't make any attempts to explain why the events are happening, there is really bad '80s rock music playing at all the wrong moments and the whole production screams cheesy B grade flick, but if you care about any of this anyways, what kind of horror fan are you?! This movie is just an 88 minute roller coaster ride of gore, rock music, and cool demons. What more could you ask for? It isn't very likely to scare you so much as make you laugh, and there are some classic moments for the genre such as a blind guy getting his eyes scratched out by a demon, a revolting puss-bursting scene, a crazily fun massacre near the end that never gets old to watch, and one of the best climaxes to a horror movie ever where the lead male character severs demon limbs left and right with a sword on a dirt bike! You have to hand it to director Lamberto Bava. He may not ever be remembered as the genius his father was (acclaimed Italian horror maestro Mario Bava), but he managed to create one of the best horror flicks of the '80s and today. The film exudes with an almost Gothic atmosphere and the setting of the big movie theater could not be more perfect in creating a mood.

A word of caution, though: this movie is a horror buff's wet dream, and it's strongly advisable you be sure you like real horror movies before seeing this so you know what you're getting into. This ain't no "Scream" or "The Grudge." This is a REAL horror movie. Fans of modern horror beware! You'll only end up thinking this was the worst piece of trash ever made.

So horror fans, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride! You're in for one hell of a fun movie.