31 In 31: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

To quote Kevin Smith: "Good lord, this is a piece of shit."

The point where the Halloween franchise could be considered lifeless. Directed incompetently by Joe Chappelle (Phantoms, Hellraiser: Bloodline) we find the Halloween franchise in full-fledged mythology mode. The mythology I speak of is Michael Myers being controlled by the "Curse of Thorn". Why is he controlled by the "Curse of Thorn"? I'm not 100% sure as the explanation for that is very fuzzy in the film, which might have to do with the troubled production.

If you are unsure about the production history of this film, it's quite extensive. I wont go into all aspects of it, but there were 2 versions of the film shot. Though neither is that good, the "Producer's Cut' is the one that make slightly more sense than what the final product is.

Beyond the troubled production, most of the acting in this film is pretty poor. The main character Tommy (Paul Rudd... yes, that Paul Rudd) proves early on that he is not leading man material. And sadly for Donald Pleasance, this turned out to be his final film. Pleasance's Dr. Loomis is still the best thing in this movie, but it appears that Donald knows this is a bad film, but tries to give it his all anyway.

After filming wrapped initially, Donald Pleasance died. As the film was re-cut afterwards, the ending sequence with a "final showdown" between Dr. Loomis and Michael Myers never takes place. The ending of what is shown on tv feels incomplete without fully resolving the conflict with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis.

This is a very haphazard film, that shows behind the scenes tinkering. I recommend anyone to seek out the "Producer's Cut" to know what the film was originally supposed to be like and then watch the final film. As stated, neither film in my opinion is that good, but it is worth the look to see what was originally intended.

On the plus side, there's no Busta Rhymes going all kung-fu on Michael Myers. So I guess that's a win?

31 In 31: The Fly

As soon as I start the 31 In 31, I get really sick. I apologize for not providing a review a day as initially stated, but I will throw out 2 horror films today to make up for yesterday. Sound good?

David Cronenberg's 1986 remake stars Jeff Goldblum as Seth Brundle, an eccentric scientist who has developed transportation telepods. Journalist Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) is won over by Seth's personality and his showcasing of how the telepods work.

Initially, the telepods are unable to transport living items; resulting in grotesque results. Seth continues to work with the teleportation sequence until he figures out how to transport living things from one telepod to the other. Being the eccentric and gung-ho scientist he is, Seth decides to be his own guinea pig and teleports himself. Unbeknownst to him, a fly is also in the pod with him and both Seth and the fly are teleported.

Upon emerging from his teleportation, Seth has renewed energy and shares it with Veronica. Eventually, though, some of the fly's characteristics begin to show. Early on, Seth begins sprouting small hairs, has an insatiable love for sugar and begins losing his fingernails. Initially believing himself to have a form of cancer from the teleportation, Seth eventually realizes that his DNA and the DNA from the fly have merged. Now Seth has to race against time to try and find a way to cure himself before it's too late.

The 1986 version of The Fly is a major factor as to why I am not entirely against remakes. Along with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and The Thing (1982), The Fly is how a remake should be done. David Cronenberg took the general idea of the 1958 film and took it into an entirely different direction. Instead of having a man with a fly head, as is done in the '58 version, Cronenberg took the idea of fusing DNA and watching Seth morph into a fly.

There really isn't much that can be said about this film that hasn't been said before. If you haven't seen this film, it is a must see. The make-up effects by Chris Walas are so well done and very deserving of an Academy Award and Jeff Goldblum gives a once-in-a-career performance. His ticks and mannerisms as Seth Brundle showcase an actor giving a great performance.

If you are a fan of horror or David Cronenberg, this is a must-see. The Fly is a great mold on how to do a remake right.

Red Lights

The man who provided the better-than-it-should-be film Buried returns.

Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and her assistant Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy) work at a college and specialize in debunking paranormal activity. When renowned psychic Simon Silver (Robert De Niro) returns from a 30 year hiatus, both Margaret and Tom feel he is the ultimate challenge to debunk.

This film has been on my must-see list since it was announced. The idea of persons who feel it the ultimate challenge to debunk someone who may be more than he seems is a very intriguing idea. Most reviewers feel that this film falls apart in the third act, but I disagree. I feel this film falls apart at about the halfway point.

What starts out as a very intriguing idea falls apart when one of the main protagonists leaves the film. Once that occurs, what we have is a film that abandons the ideas they have put in place and becomes more about one person's obsession with debunking Silver and provides some cheap scares.

The first half of the film is thoroughly entertaining. We meet Margaret and Tom meeting up with people claiming to suffer from unexplained phenomena. They go about it logically and the conversations between them are fairly entertaining. We find out that Margaret had attempted to investigate Silver 30 years before and she has no intention of doing so again. Tom, not knowing what Silver is about, feels they should try and investigate him again.

Silver draws large-scale audiences for his performances in town and strange things begin to happen, including the bending of spoons, which Silver does so often. Margaret's reluctance and Tom's pushing of investigating Silver provide a great dynamic as Silver is used sparingly for the first half of the film.

Once the second half of the film kicks in, however, the film flies off the rails. As stated, once one protagonist leaves the film, we are left with Silver and one of the investigators. That protagonist and their reluctance to leave Silver alone results in leaving the more grounded portions of the story behind and goes full bore into a supernatural thriller.

As stated, this film starts well, with lots of potential, but by the end turned into a completely different movie that was nowhere near as good as the one that started the film. I think I liked the film more than the rating will show, but the rating is so low because of how disappointing the film became. A big disappointment in my opinion.

3.0/10

31 In 31: Brainscan

As with a lot of film review sites, I have decided to celebrate Halloween by reviewing one horror film a day for the entire month of October. The choosing of the films are in no discernible order and are just chosen for the fun of reviewing.

Now, let's get to the first horror film review of October.

As stated, the films have no real discernible order, which would explain this forgotten gem from 1994. Directed by John Flynn (Out For Justice, Lock Up) and co-written by Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven, Sleepy Hollow) Brainscan tells the story of Michael Brower, a lonely, horror-obsessed teenager who plays an interactive game called Brainscan. The game is an immersive experience depicting yourself killing someone then covering up the details.

Once completed with the first level of the game: the murder, Michael soon discovers that the murder is real. Unsure of what to do, a mysterious force known as Trickster (T. Ryder Smith) informs Michael that he needs to keep playing the game to avoid capture by a dogged detective (Frank Langella). Michael continues to play, not sure how to escape the madness and not sure how to save the ones he loves from the most dangerous man in the neighborhood... himself.

Playing with the mood of isolation and a great score by George S. Clinton, the film sets a tone from the beginning and never wavers. Andrew Kevin Walker's script never really lightens up with the exception of Trickster whose personality does not seem to fit with the much more somber feeling film.

Michael is shown from the beginning suffering a tragedy, then seeing that his father will be away from the house only adds to his loneliness  His only interactions are from his best friend Kyle (Jamie Marsh) and the neighborhood girl he spies on, Kimberly (Amy Hargreaves).

Edward Furlong turns in a decent performance as the lonely teenager, though he doesn't stretch his acting chops too much. Frank Langella portrays his detective as very serious and almost a little too robotic. This does not hinder the film, but borders on (what is probably true) an actor not caring much about this film. T. Ryder Smith's performance as Trickster is an interesting one. He acts as the character who gives Michael, and the audience, the rules of the film. He occasionally goes overboard, and as stated, really doesn't fit with the rest of the tone. Though one could argue that when Trickster shows up, the film can have a little fun instead of being dark and dreary (as you'd expect from a film written by Andrew Kevin Walker).

Overall, this forgotten film is a nice little gem. It wont rewrite the history books of the greatest horror films ever, but it will satisfy those who enjoy Andrew Kevin Walker and enjoy mid-90's cyber horror films.

Looper

The year of Joseph Gordon-Levitt rolls on with Looper.

Taking place in 2044, Gordon-Levitt plays Joe Simmons, a Looper whose job is to kill agents that are sent back in time (from 2074) by the mafia. Once killed, Joe receives a payout for his job and disposes of the body. Joe has been stockpiling his payouts, as a precaution for an inevitable fate.

In 2074, the older version of Joe (Bruce Willis) travels back to 2044 with a plan of his own. He escapes from Young Joe and continues on with his agenda. As Young Joe has let his older self escape, he needs to make amends with his boss, Abe, (Jeff Daniels) and kill his older self.

Once the plot has kicked in, the dystopian version of Kansas City eventually is transitioned to a farmhouse where Sara (Emily Blunt) and Cid (Pierce Gagnon) live. Old Joe and Young Joe have reasons to be here, and Sara and Cid are caught in the middle of a situation that they know nothing about...yet.

Rian Johnson wrote and directed this sci-fi/thriller which blends full-fledged action along with a smart script. With all the details regarding the time travel aspect along with multiple on-going storylines, this script really is able to balance out story with action in a fluid manner where the film does not suffer.

What threw me for a loop (I guess, pun intended) was that most of what is shown in the commercials and the trailers happens in the first half of the film. The sequences involving a dystopian city and showcasing what the future looks like are all crammed into the first half of the film, along with a good amount of action sequences. Once the plot moves to the farmhouse, the storyline slows down to explain what is going on and why we are here. I was actually surprised how much of the film is spent at the farmhouse and how much the story slowed down, and not in a bad way.

Regarding the performances, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his prosthetic makeup do a pretty good job at creating a character and resembling Bruce Willis. Speaking of Bruno, he shows up and actually does some decent acting for once, but I didn't feel fully invested into his plot. Not to say Old Joe's story is bad, Bruce Willis just did not make me feel as invested into what he wanted.

Jeff Daniels stood out to me as Young Joe's boss, Abe. Jeff Daniels has a likability to him which he uses well in this film. Abe gets along with Young Joe, but still works for the mafia. If what he needs is not given, that nice guy demeanor disappears and out comes a violent mob associate. A small role, but Jeff Daniels gives it his all.

3 sequences stood out for me in this film. The first involves the transition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt into Bruce Willis, or as my dear friend Karina calls it: "Death of Bruce's Hair". The next one is a great sequence showcasing the effects that the mafia torturing someone can have on their future self. The last one occurs near the end of the film where someone reveals a hidden secret and a character feels the full effects of it.

As stated, this is a smart action film that really should be seen. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has gone 2 for 3 so far this year. Shocking that his one miss was a David Koepp film. Rian Johnson is no David Koepp and, for the film Looper, that is a good thing.

8.0/10

The Master

P.T. Anderson returns from a 5 year hiatus and is beginning to emerge into the next Terence Malick.

Set in 1950, alcoholic World War II veteran and sufferer of PTSD, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is having trouble adjusting to a normal life. After a series of menial jobs that he cannot adjust to, he drunkenly staggers onto a yacht occupied by Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams).

Lancaster takes a liking to Freddie after a series of psychological questions which Lancaster describes as "Processing", he makes Freddie his protege within his movement called: The Cause. Lancaster and his followers continue to spread the word of The Cause with Freddie in tow, but Freddie's alcoholic and violent behavior draw the ire of certain member of The Cause; Peggy included.

Eventually Freddie's frustration within The Cause, which he struggles to believe in, and Lancaster's charismatic personality clash over how to deal with and spread The Cause.

A lot has been made as to whether this film is an attack on Scientology. P.T. Anderson has already stated that Scientology inspired The Cause in this film. There are obvious similarities between Scientology and The Cause including the type of leader and the beliefs between both religions. This should not be the major point to see this film, though, as not one word is spoken about Scientology itself.

The reason I feel this is P.T. Anderson becoming Terence Malick is that this film really lacks any semblance of a plot. The film is pushed forward initially by Freddie joining and viewing The Cause, then by Lancaster Dodd who battles with members of The Cause over whether Freddie is helping or hindering their plan. That is really all there is for a plot, besides that, the film focuses on scenery and the performances.

Speaking of the performances, there should be no doubt that Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman will get nominated for an Academy Award. Joaquin's Freddie Quell has the more showy role. His face shows wear and his walk showcases pain. Freddie has frequent violent outbursts and Joaquin goes full bore into this role.

On the other hand, you have the more nuanced, and in my opinion, better performance, by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Lancaster Dodd is very subtle, and very controlling of his followers of The Cause. There is a scene about halfway into the film where Lancaster is challenged by an outsider about his beliefs. This is an amazing scene and shows all you need to know about his character. He is stoic, charismatic and persuasive, but also has flaws and when he is pushed, cracks in his foundation show. An amazing scene and a really good performance.

This is a film all about performances and has nothing in a way to do with story. As that is, the acting is some of the best of the year along with some gorgeous cinematography and P.T. Anderson does a great job directing all the actors. This is a really well-made character piece that is very light on story.

8.1/10

Bernie

Richard Linklater re-teams with Jack Black and Matthew McConaughey to bring a black comedy based on a true story.

The true story involves local assistant funeral director, Bernie Tiede, (Jack Black) a resident of Carthage, Texas, who is loved within the community. Bernie sings, sells caskets and comforts widows after their loved one has died. One such widow, Marjorie Nugent, (Shirley MacLaine) is hated amongst the locals of Carthage. Marjorie inherited her husband's wealth and is miserable to everyone she meets. Undeterred, Bernie feels the need to try and be a friend to Marjorie, eventually winning her over.

All that hard work to win Marjorie over, though, is for not as her angry attitude continues a she berates Bernie. For years, Bernie continues to be a friend to Marjorie, while she takes advantage of him and never gives an ounce of respect back. All of Marjorie's negativity takes a toll on Bernie and he eventually shoots and kills Marjorie.

As the residents of Carthage do not like Marjorie, no one really suspects or cares that Marjorie has not been around. District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson (Matthew McConaughey) is on the case and begins an investigation into what happened to Marjorie and trying to prosecute Bernie.

Richard Linklater's film is based on the true story that happened in 1996. Linklater infuses the film with interview segments from the actual residents of Carthage who speak about their love of Bernie and their hatred for Marjorie. Almost half of the film is filled with these interview snippets. Some of the residents and their descriptions are hilarious and some are thought-provoking due to their feelings about the situation.

These interview segments and the way the story is framed were the biggest detractors for the film, in my opinion. Just as the story with the actors gains momentum, we then cut back to the local residents offering their thoughts. This comes off as jarring, even though some of the comments are entertaining. It feels like Richard Linklater wanted to do a film based on this true story, but also wanted to make a documentary on the story by including the locals. Instead of doing one or the other, he felt the need to combine what he wanted and the film did not gel as it should have.

This is not to say the film is a total loss. The performances by Jack Black and Shirley MacLaine are very well done. Jack Black in particular deserves praise for his performance as Bernie Tiede. Yes, a lot of Bernie's performance requires singing, which Black can do, he also provides a sensitive (and effeminate) and caring performance.

On the other end of the spectrum, Matthew McConaughey's performance as the local district attorney does not seem to fit within the film. Whereas Jack Black and Shirley MacLaine blended into their performances, Matthew McConaughey's performance felt more like a caricature than a realized performance of a real person. As no footage of the real Danny Buck Davidson is shown within the film, I have to go off what I felt about Matthew McConaughey's performance.

Overall, this is a very uneven film, but anchored by 2 really good performances.

5.2/10