Category: Halloween Advent

The Frighteners (1996)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 50

Release: 24.1.1997

About: Once an architect, Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox) now passes himself off as an exorcist of evil spirits. To bolster his facade, he claims his “special” gift is the result of a car accident that killed his wife. But what he does not count on is more people dying in the small town where he lives. As he tries to piece together the supernatural mystery of these killings, he falls in love with the wife (Trini Alvarado) of one of the victims and deals with a crazy FBI agent (Jeffrey Combs).

Treat

  • Michael J Fox and Jeffery Combs are perfectly cast. Fox’s role is a little bittersweet knowing that it’s his last as a Hollywood leading man and a career cut way too short. It’s a character that allows Fox to show give a much more layered performance.
  • Combs looks like he’s having the best time playing the messed up FBI agent. There’s nothing I’ve seen where he doesn’t bring his a-game and this is no exception.
  • The feel of this film not only recalls Back to the Future, but Goonies, Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters as well. I went into the film knowing it was directed by Peter Jackson however it really does have the tone of a Zemeckis film.
  • I quite like the romantic sub plot of Frank and Lucy. Perhaps a little in bad taste, what with him still being at the table and all, but their chemistry works and her dead husband was a dick.
  • The cameo of R Lee Ermey as a loud and shouty sergeant Is a subtle stroke of genius. I haven’t seen Full Metal Jacket, but I’ve seen enough clips to get the reference. If it had been someone else doing it, it would have been a lovely nod. To get the original actor on board is awesome.

Trick

  • Not the fault of the film. It was an amazing task at the time, but there is slightly too much CGI for me. I love the construction of the etherial ghosts, but the form coming out of the wall and the apparition cloaked as Death seem to lack the same quality.
  • I did not like the ghost fucking the mummy! Just weird. I am also aware, however, I could watch this another time and the exact same scene could have me pissing myself laughing.
  • It’s about 20-30 minutes too long for me. Perhaps it’s because recently all the films I’ve watched have rarely passed the 1 hr 30 mark, but I don’t think anything is gained with the added half an hour.

Final Thoughts

A film that is better than its box office suggests and a perfect watch for Halloween. It’s also a must see for fans of Jackson’s follow up films that relied heavily on the technical achievements from this movie.

The Craft (1996)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 41

Release: 8.11.1996

About: After transferring to a Los Angeles high school, Sarah (Robin Tunney) finds that her telekinetic gift appeals to a group of three wannabe witches, who happen to be seeking a fourth member for their rituals. Bonnie (Neve Campbell), Rochelle (Rachel True) and Nancy (Fairuza Balk), like Sarah herself, all have troubled backgrounds, which combined with their nascent powers lead to dangerous consequences. When a minor spell causes a fellow student to lose her hair, the girls grow power-mad.

Treat

  • As with many films of the 90s, this has an amazing soundtrack. From Our Lady Peace to Letters to Cleo, this is the embodiment of teen movies of the time.
  • Fairuza Baulk is incredibly, freakily good in this film. Especially when it comes to her going completely bat shit crazy. I’ve seen a few articles calling her out as the hero of the film and there’s certainly something to that, if she wasn’t a murdering psychopath.
  • The cast on the whole is solid and it took me forever to recognise Riverdale’s FP Jones (Skeet Utlrich) as the ‘heart throb’ Chris.
  • The film deals with some heavy shit and doesn’t sugar coat life in high school the way some others do; self harm, sexual assault and feminism are all dealt with fully and tastefully. However, it is the film’s exploration of racism that really has power. I’d not seen a film like it and it’s fair to say none have since.
  • The theme of witchcraft is something I’d not seen in this way before; dispelling the stereotypes allowing for the film to explore everything from sisterhood to wish fulfilment. It’s something we later see in Charmed, Buffy and Hex.
  • The effects are incredible, even now. I think that’s largely to do with using practical effects where possible. Obviously there’s the snakes and various bugs towards the end, there’s the levitation and there’s the ‘glamour’. However my favourite is when Bonnie’s skin peels away.

Trick

  • For a film that builds up a strong friendship, I struggle that there isn’t a balance by the end. I’ve never really liked that Sarah begins being isolated and alone and ends the same way.
  • As much as I love Rochelle’s storyline with her racist bully and Bonnie’s about her self image, both are sidelined and lack fully development. So often, after the invocation, the two girls seem very out of character and more extensions of Nancy. Perhaps that’s the point, but I’m not sure I like it as it leaves Sarah little room to forgive them.
  • There are two sexual assault scenes. Two! Just repeating that because it’s very important that we acknowledge both. There’s the initial Chris and Sarah scene which is bad enough. Read; he is a dick for what he does. However, there is another involving Chris as the victim. Nancy rapes Chris and it’s something that needs to be acknowledged, on and off the screen, but is lost in his death and Nancy’s unraveling. While media is getting better on screen in dealing with sexual assault, I feel as if this was glossed over a little too easily and could have been a perfect time to explore and deconstruct another misconception about gender and sexual assault.
  • Why the fuck does Nancy say ‘where are you going?’ In some really shit Jamaican accent?! I’ve always pissed myself at that choice of delivery and can ruin the tension built up in the scene.

Final thoughts

A film I enjoy watching more than I do critiquing it. You find flaws when you’re looking for them, and this is one film where I preferred ignorance.

Jurassic Park. Halloween Edition (1993)

Rating: PG

Length: 2hr 8

Release: 15.7.1993

About: In Steven Spielberg’s massive blockbuster, paleontologists Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) are among a select group chosen to tour an island theme park populated by dinosaurs created from prehistoric DNA. While the park’s mastermind, billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), assures everyone that the facility is safe, they find out otherwise when various ferocious predators break free and go on the hunt.

This is no normal review. In fact, it’s possibly not a review at all. Everyone knows this is my all time favourite movie and has been since July 1993 when it set me on my path to geekdom.

It’s a film I’ve watched so often, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered it as a horror, or a film to watch as a lead up to Halloween so the fear factor is never going to be there. I’m too amazed and in all honesty, I want to be there too.

So instead, I’m considering how many tropes and themes that come up in horror movies apply to Jurassic Park. I thought I was on a dud mission, but I was very quickly proven wrong.

Creature Feature

The creature feature is perhaps the most obvious genre this dinosaur disaster fits into. There’s narrative similarities within Jurassic Park and the Creature From the Black Lagoon, a tonal structure that Spielberg brings organically from Jaws and there’s even an audio/visual reference to one of the greatest creature feature: King Kong, just invade you were wondering what they might be keeping on the island. In the same way Black Lagoon has that embedded wonder, Jurassic Park is all smiles until things go very, very wrong.

One key trope from the creature feature (and arguably other horrors) that is seen multiple times is the Scream Queen. Both of our females give their lungs a good airing when found face to face with the prehistoric reptiles and join Faye Wray, Julie Adams and Susan Blackline as Hollywood Hollering Royalty.

Science, Bitches!

Science and playing God is a staple theme in many a horror movie. Frankenstein, The Fly and Jekyll & Hyde all have scientists take on the god-like role of creator. In much the same fashion as the previously mentioned films, the scientists of Ingen fails to understand the true nature of the monster in their captivity and they rebel against the creator.

Of course, this is on a much grander scale so the stakes are higher and the town at risk is bigger. While the revulsion for the monster isn’t present, it’s clear not everyone is happy with the creators.

The Slasher

Hear me out because yes, there’s no Freddy or Michael but some of the rules still apply. I am, of course, talking about the raptors and their story arc.

The fact that we don’t get a sighting of the raptors until the last 20 minutes or so is frightening in itself. All we’ve seen, is their destruction and lethal potential, much in the same way we don’t see the shark in Jaws or the knife break flesh in the infamous ‘shower scene’, our imagination makes quick work of filling in the blanks with scares and blood. The raptors are isolated, imprisoned separately, from the rest of the park. Too dangerous: they indeed claim the film’s largest body count.

Of course, like Michael Myers, when they find freedom the raptors set their sights on human victims which brings us to the glorious stalking kitchen scene. Replace the predatory reptiles with Ghostface and this scene could fit seamlessly into a Scream movie.

I’ll agree that there’s more than one, and there’s no motivation forthcoming but you have to admit, sometimes the explanation sucks and ruins the movie.

The Harbinger of Doom

A trope I only really became familiar with thanks to Cabin in the Woods. A meta horror that calls out all the tropes is perfect education for film.

So, there are two characters that fit the bill of a harbinger within Jurassic Park. The first is Robert Muldoon, who is vocal about the raptors and their dangers. However, the key role goes to Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm. Not only is his entire persona as a theorist of chaos an ideal fit, he has a passionate speech warning Hammond of his companies’ naivety in playing with Science, even going so far as call it ‘rape of the natural world’.

Both Malcolm and Muldoon give us some foresight into the horrors that are to be faced even if, as Malcolm puts it, he ‘hates being right all the time.’

Haunted House

So it’s an island, doesn’t mean the haunted house rules don’t apply. The clear trope that can be seen is the fracturing of the group, repeatedly. Those that do end up on their own; Muldoon, the lawyer and Arnold, die in rather painful and bloody ways.

Now you’ve read this, you may see Jurassic Park in a different way, or maybe you’re like Ian Malcolm and consider it …

Either way, go check it out on Netflix. There it isn’t butchered like a Michael Myer’s victim on Halloween (yup ITV! I’m looking at you)

Han x

The Hollow (2004)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 23

Release: 25.10.2004

About: The presence of Ichabod Crane’s descendant (Kevin Zegers) in Sleepy Hollow conjures the Headless Horseman, and slaughter ensues.

The Good

  • Kaley couco is a decent watch. While watching this I felt she was a little reminiscent of SMG in the early years of Buffy. I’d say she’d have been even better, had she been given a little more to work with.
  • It’s an alright plot and is certainly a good idea for an updated Sleepy Hollow without Ichabod being Steve Rogered into the modern age.
  • The death scene of the second couple is hilarious. Illogical, but oh so funny.
  • It’s a short movie, so while the bad and ugly might outweigh the good, you won’t be in celluloid hell for long.

The Bad

  • The character of Ian makes no sense. He has the vibe of Max from Hocus Pocus and I do don’t buy him commanding an audience within the month of arriving in town. I also don’t get why Brady has it out for the coach’s son?! That relationship would have worked well if they flipped it, made them friends but had that conflict of them both liking the same girl.

The Ugly

  • Guys, Game of Thrones has nothing on this! Even in the day time scenes it’s dark, dark, dark. I suspect it was to hide the fact it had a very little budget.
  • The sound mixing was atrocious. At its most basic, the score was too loud and the audio low and tinny. However, when you then consider the sound effects it’s simply lazy and wrong; a sound more frequently associated with a stab rather than a swipe.

The Fly (1986)

Rating 18

Length 1Hr 36

Release 13.2.1987

About When scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) completes his teleportation device, he decides to test its abilities on himself. Unbeknownst to him, a housefly slips in during the process, leading to a merger of man and insect. Initially, Brundle appears to have undergone a successful teleportation, but the fly’s cells begin to take over his body. As he becomes increasingly fly-like, Brundle’s girlfriend (Geena Davis) is horrified as the person she once loved deteriorates into a monster.

The Good

  • The makeup and visual effects are incredible. Repulsive in some respects, but they certainly stand up to a modern viewing. From Seth’s mottled and sickly looking skin to his complete metamorphosis, it’s compelling and scary to see.
  • Jeff Goldblum and his ticks and twitches in particular. I do wonder if it’s his role here that put him up for consideration in Jurassic Park. There are similarities within the characters and the only difference being; Ian Malcolm would have predicted all this chaos. Goldblum has been long established as a loveable kook for me, that seeing him in this very different role helps bring the horror alive.
  • I love that Seth has a better outline plan of action than a Tory government. Something I thought right before he tells Veronica he wants to be the first insect politician. I giggled way too much at myself for that.
  • John Getz wins me over by the end of the film. I can’t remember what else I’ve seen him in, but the word ‘sleaze’ comes to mind and that’s before you consider the ‘Han’s buddy’ beard he has going on. Sleaze is actually right. He’s a knob to Veronica and I hate him for about two thirds of the movie. However, he really turns it around.

The Bad

  • There’s less Science and more about the relationship between Seth and Veronica. While it certainly makes for a better horror, I personally didn’t care for it.
  • The timeframe seems off, making the relationship seem overly toxic, without the whole spontaneously mutating into a psychotic insect. I know there’s a comment close to the end of the film about how a month has passed, but early on it seems like a day goes past and they’ve gone from bed buddies to an old married couple holidaying to Florida.
  • Not sure how I feel about the narrative commentary of Veronica having to tell Seth about her intended abortion. I know it’s necessary for the cause and effect to lead to the final act, but I’m very uncomfortable with it when he’s shown violent predator behaviour. Without getting bogged down in gender politics, I think it’s fair to say that if you’re beau has become a mutation that vomits over his own food and scared the bejesus out of you, you can wave the ‘conversation’.

  • I can see how the film is interpreted as a commentary of the AIDS crisis, however it is self evident that the commentary is much too broad for this to be the case. It’s a shame, as if they went in with intention, it could have made an excellent theme. That said, we have werewolves for that.

The Ugly

  • The gore was too much for me. Made me physically sick and it’s the first time during this advent I’ve had to look away from the screen.
  • The maggot baby birth! Holy fuck, that was horrific. Perhaps it has more impact on a woman but that was a visual I could have done without.

Final Thoughts

It’s a well made film that had proven my theory that I am indeed a pussy when it comes to gory horrors. It’s like Captain America gone wrong, way way wrong.

The Fly(1958)

Rating: X

Length:1Hr 34

Release: 31.7.1958

About: When scientist Andre Delambre (Al Hedison) tests his matter transporter on himself, an errant housefly makes its way into the transportation chamber, and things go horribly wrong. As a result, Delambre’s head and arm are now that of the insect. Slowly losing himself to the fly, Delambre turns to his wife, Helene (Patricia Owens), for help. But when tragedy strikes, Delambre’s brother (Vincent Price) and Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall) are forced to pick up the investigation.

The Good

  • I love the narrative framing that’s used. The anticipation of discovering what happened to her husband then, as time goes on, the wish that you can stop it all from happening.
  • Vincent Price has a presence on the screen. Not one that shines while suppressing others, but a charm and persona that simple commands attention. I look forward to exploring his filmography beyond the few films I’ve seen him in.
  • The effects are brilliant, even for a film made today I’d been happy with what they presented. From the close up flies to the presentation of Andre’s mutation, they all allow you to buy into the situation. The ending, in which we see the mutated fly is an incredible visual.
  • In much the same way The Creature From the Black Lagoon had the historical Science lesson, The Fly contains a commentary about technological progression, playing God and the fear that brings. Science is at the heart of many horrors and it’s the beauty of them. Lack of explanation makes us feel uneasy, so bending or breaking Science to our will is a goal for many. The biggest fear being that it’ll fail. It’s a subconscious fear, but that’s where a horror is better at getting under your skin.

The Bad

  • There’s a scene or two within the flash-back framing that are impossible for the wife to tell, as it contains only Andre or the camera angle presents his view (however amazing that it). Yes, it’s a weak point and not something a viewer would perhaps notice, but I need a bad and I hope this shows the quality of the film if I’m being petty.

The Ugly

  • That poor fucking child! No one tells him his dad is dead, even though the Police are deciding if his mother should be hanged for murder or locked up in the looney bin for her explanation. Actually, he constantly asks when his dad is coming home… maybe he didn’t inherit his father’s genius.

Final Thoughts

An excellent film, but no fear factor due to perhaps knowing the outcome from the start.

The Terminator (1984)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 47

Release: 11.1.1985

About: Disguised as a human, a cyborg assassin known as a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) travels from 2029 to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton). Sent to protect Sarah is Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), who divulges the coming of Skynet, an artificial intelligence system that will spark a nuclear holocaust. Sarah is targeted because Skynet knows that her unborn son will lead the fight against them. With the virtually unstoppable Terminator in hot pursuit, she and Kyle attempt to escape.

The Good

  • As much as the arriving naked baffles me (and suffers from the sequels almost lampooning the process), I do love Kyle Reese’s Supermarket Sweep of what I could imagine being the ‘things’ everyone would go on to wear in 1985.
  • The gritty colourisation that is almost the definition of 80s movies. I feel at home with it and it hides some of the film’s ageing and instead gives it the retro feel that Stranger Things has painfully replicated.
  • The two dream sequences gives a better look at the post-apocalyptic future than any of the future movies do. While watching the first dream sequence I actually thought about how this franchise has perhaps kept hold of the time-travel assassin trope (fuck, they’ve over used it so much it’s become a trope!) for too long. What the franchise needs is a war movie. Show the audience these cyborgs in a different genre.
  • I remember being a kid and being scared by The Terminator. I still felt that apprehension and the key is in the lack of dialogue. There’s no reasoning with him; he’s a juggernaut computer with an ass you could bounce coins off.
  • Sarah Connor is one of the best female protagonists with one of the best character development. She stands among Leia, Ripley and others as a character who shows strength in a male dominated genre. What sets Connor apart is her development from traumatised to the bad ass she becomes in Judgement Day. It’s subtle but there’s a line and when you hear it, you know she’s no longer the same.

The Bad

  • There are some scenes towards the end in which Arnie looks like he’s in the French Revolution or a girl who has a heavy hand with a foundation that’s twenty shades out. It’s really hard to tell if this is something that hasn’t ‘aged well’ or a shit make up job so I have to write it up.
  • The stop motion sticks out in some parts and I put it in the bad, not because of it not ageing well, but because it is only about 5% of the footage that doesn’t look right, suggesting inconsistencies. It certainly looks better than, the opening sequence of Lockout (2012), for example. Plus, I personally would take stop motion over CGI any day. Except for Jurassic Park (Sorry, Phil Tippett).

The Ugly

  • “You’re terminated, fucker.” It’s strange that as someone who loves her puns and adores these sort of wise cracks in Buffy, I rolled my eyes and groaned at this death nell for the Terminator. Again, I feel it’s the sequels that actually harms this film more than the film in, and of, itself and what it perhaps just a line rings a little hammy.

Final Thoughts

A solid classic, only tainted by the tonal shift of the sequels.

Dracula (1958)

Rating: X

Length: 1Hr 22

Release: 22.5.1958

About: On a search for his missing friend Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen), vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is led to Count Dracula’s (Christopher Lee) castle. Upon arriving, Van Helsing finds an undead Harker in Dracula’s crypt and discovers that the count’s next target is Harker’s ailing fiancée, Lucy Holmwood (Carol Marsh). With the help of her brother, Arthur (Michael Gough), Van Helsing struggles to protect Lucy and put an end to Count Dracula’s parasitic reign of terror.

The good

  • The acting is much better than my past experiences of watching Dracula. Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee provide that familiarity that you’d come to expect of Hammer Horrors. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else take on Van Helsing in a better way.
  • It took me a while to spot him, but Wayne Manner’s resident butler Michael Gough is an absolute joy to watch as the father of Lucy. It’s at his introduction that the film is a smoother watch and he works very well with Cushing.
  • The defeat of Dracula is quite brilliant, even now. Yes, there was a slight difference in the colouration to the rest of the film, but the physical effects themselves really do stand up. Much better than so CGI counterparts ever could.

The bad

  • I’m unsure as to why Dracula speaks at the start but is reduced to growls and hisses. It does nothing for the narrative and having him speak. It’s not enough to make him disarming and it’s too much to allow him to be fearful.

The ugly

  • I think it might be the Dracula story itself, but I found this rather clunky and slow to gain traction in its lack of protagonist. Or rather, a protagonist who isn’t present from the start. Perhaps framing the film and beginning with Van Helsing receiving Jonathan’s diary. That way we’re with Cushing from the start.

Final Thoughts

A clunky but well acted version of the legendary Dracula that plays a little more like a thriller than a horror.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Rating: 18

Length: 1Hr 35

Release: 7.5.2010

About: Teenagers Nancy, Quentin, Kris, Jesse and Dean are all neighborhood friends who begin having the same dream of a horribly disfigured man who wears a tattered sweater and a glove made of knives. The man, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley), terrorizes them in their dreams, and the only escape is to wake up. But when one of their number dies violently, the friends realize that what happens in the dream world is real, and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake.

The Good

The 2010 offering takes what is an interesting concept, offers a polished script and gives a better explanation to the fate of Freddy and his supernatural motivations.

It’s most definitely a horror. There’s jumps and scares (even those beyond my cat jumping onto me as someone gets the Freddy knives to the chest). The music has some part to play in that, but the biggest sell for the fear factor is how possible some of it seems. Not the whole ‘slasher killing you in your dreams’, but the repression after trauma, sexual predators being brought to vigilante justice by an angry mob.

Krueger is visually better. He looks like a burn victim rather than a jazz hand muppet or Christopher Llyod in Who Framed Rogger Rabbit? While Englund is iconic, time has been unkind to his camp Freddy. Now we have a Krueger that you believe may have been wrongly punished. Not only do his motivations bring fear, every movement is slow, calculated and necessary. It’s the opposite of what the 80s provided and, even ten years on, it scares the crap out of me.

The Bad

Some CGI scenes are bad. I actually reported a ‘trivia’ note on IMDb that stated that GCI was only used when ‘absolutely necessary’ as I believe that to be utter bullshit. The two scenes in which Freddy enters the ‘real world’ through the bedroom walls did not need to be done through CGI. It looks flawless (and creepy) in the 1984 version while the CGI one detracts from the horror.

The Ugly

The final scene that suggests it’s not really all over. It’s not the only film guilty of it, but I am disappointed that in 2010 it’s the only way Hollywood can end a horror movie.

Final thoughts

It’s the best horror remake/reboot I know of and it certainly has the scares you want from a horror. I just wish it would have relied on practical effects over CGI.

Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)

Rating: A (hasn’t been reclassified)

Length: 1Hr 19

Release: 9.12.1954

About: Remnants of a mysterious animal have come to light in a remote jungle, and a group of scientists intends to determine if the find is an anomaly or evidence of an undiscovered beast. To accomplish their goal, the scientists (Antonio Moreno, Richard Carlson, Richard Denning, Whit Bissell) must brave the most perilous pieces of land South America has to offer. But the terrain is nothing compared to the danger posed by an otherworldly being that endangers their work and their lives.

The Good

  • How can you not be charmed by this Universal classic? Get past the rather jarring Biblical opening and you’re met with a this incredible set up: a scientific and geological finding that brings together a team. It’s fascinating and almost educational(in a geeky fun way. Like Mr DNA). You feel safe, you’re smiling and maybe you even begin to wonder why this is on a list for Halloween. Plot wise the first half reminds me of Jurassic Park while the second half is King Kong and Jaws.
  • The creature is incredible, on the most part. The person they have in the suit truly brings Gill-Man to life and is able to make moving about in water organic and distinguishable from both David and Mark. I would say in terms of the long shots within the water Gill-Man is as good as modern creature feature man and Starfleet officer, Doug Jones.
  • The musical score provided many of the films cues and impeding ‘scares’. It adds tension and atmosphere to the more chilling parts of the film. It certainly seems to be something that inspired Jaws’ main theme.

The Bad

  • Inconsistency with the character of Mark is a sticking point for me. He’s hell bent on killing, stuffing and mounting the poor creature who’d had his home invaded. Yet within seconds of bludgeoning the bastard, he’s entrusted with taking him to safety. It happens a few too many times, which suggests the characterisations were not the priority. While story is important, I do like a focus on characters.
  • I’m certain it wasn’t the intention, but the one creature hands reaching out for land was repeated a little too often in a short amount of time that it became comical. No… I tell a lie, it was even funny the first time.

The Ugly

  • Now, this is almost unfair. However, I’m finding it hard to put something here that I feel I have to. The creature’s suit was brilliant, almost faultless considering the time and some of the CGI renderings today. However, the only issue I had with it was the eyes. They were so lifeless and fake that they really brought attention to them. Perhaps it might not have been so noticeable had there not been the focus on the movement of the gills which was incredible. Perhaps had they have been painted over with a matt paint they would have worked better.

Final thoughts

A charming film from the vaults that should be spoken about and aired on tv more often. It has clearly inspired a host of modern film makers and I certainly find that fascinating.

Halloween (1978)

Rating: 18

Length: 1Hr 31

Release: 25.1.1979

About: On a cold Halloween night in 1963, six year old Michael Myers brutally murdered his 17-year-old sister, Judith. He was sentenced and locked away for 15 years. But on October 30, 1978, while being transferred for a court date, a 21-year-old Michael Myers steals a car and escapes Smith’s Grove. He returns to his quiet hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois, where he looks for his next victims.

The Good

  • The filming is atmospheric: from the voyeuristic Michael Myers’ POV shots to the ones that track Michael, have him placed in shot without showing him fully.
  • The music adds to this with that creepy and chilling score.
  • I love that there’s no running really. It’s all sneak attack, up close and often without them expecting it. Largely that seems to do with the fact that it’s all set around the one day.
  • Donald Pleasance having his own storyline away from the survivor is a refreshing change. Having no one believe him is terrifying.

The Bad

  • Laurie is a little bit dumb. Not once, but twice she discards the knife right next to Michael Myers’ body. Okay, first time I’ll let you off. But you know the bastard is good at playing dead, why the fuck would you hand back the knife?!?!

The Ugly

  • What sort of basketball player worthy cameraman did they use for that opening sequence in which Michael, a six year old Michael at that, is given a camera POV shot? Way too tall and it really pulled me out of the scene.

Halloween (2018)

Rating 18

Length 1Hr 46

Release 19.10.2018

About It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield, Ill. — but this time, she’s ready for him.

The Good

  • This is a clever continuation of the 1978 film. It nods to the things that made the original the classic that it is, while reworking some tired tropes for not only a modern day audience, but for a Horror fan wishing to see something different.
  • Woohoo! An 18 that doesn’t require the women to die with their breasts out. The theme of chastity being a saving grace has been removed, instead giving us a much more complex and rewarding theme of survivor complex and generational family dynamics.
  • It’s a proper decent script and a great cast. There are two awesome lines within the film and they are supported by two brilliant actors delivering them. There’s a ‘oh Shit’ that feels like one of the most authentic responses I’ve ever seen in a horror movie and there’s a ‘gotcha’ that rings with power that I ended up shouting at the tv.
  • The music and title credits are … well, they’re beautiful. The film opens with the traditional score and a new approach to the visuals. It closes with a modern remix.

The Bad

  • The showdown at the house feels flawed. While it may be seen differently on a repeated viewing, it will spark irritation in some viewers who have been charmed by its smart choices for everything that comes before.

The Ugly

  • While it cuts down, or rather out, the nudity it does not hold back the gore. As a filmic genre Hollywood has moved away from the implied and all but splatters the audience with blood. While it was not something that turns my stomach, I will always find the misdirection of the famous Psycho shower scene much more effective.

Final Thoughts

Fuck me, this is the best of the franchise. However, it won’t truly work in isolation. To really appreciate it as a story, and as a film, you do need to watch the original and, as much as I hate to admit this, watching the 2007 version will also help.