Bob's Quick Look: Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)

This film takes place 6-7 years after the events of “Silent Hill.” Sharon is about to turn 18 and is starting a new school; the fifth school since going on the run with her father. We find out that Rose had found a way to return her to the world of the living, but she herself in still trapped in Alessa’s tangent nightmare world. But the people stuck in that world, namely the sinister cult that first burned the little girl alive and created the demon, wants her back. She comes home to find her father abducted and members of the cult chasing her down. So she returns to the nightmare to find him and find a way to get them both out.
*Spoiler Alert* Even though this movie does not stand up to the original, it still has things going for it, This is a good movie to see in 3D with blood and blades flying out of the screen. The creature design remains consistent with the first film, mixing new characters in with the favorites (yes Pyramid Head is back, he’s my favorite also.)
While there are good number of “jump scares” and a decent amount of blood in this film, it abandoned a lot of the atmosphere, ambiance, tension, and overall eeriness that made the first film so wonderful. It felt like they mixed in elements of teen slasher horror and “Saw” like torture porn and they came off as a little overpowering and slightly cheesy.
The movie did answer many questions left by the first movie; namely were Rose and Sharon dead or what? In this movie we learn they are not. They slipped into that tangent reality created by the little girl who was unjustly burned as a witch. The question now becomes how did they get into this universe? In the first movie how did the cop get in but Sean Bean’s character go into the town without leaving our world? How did Rose get Sharon out? Members of the cult could perform a ritual and go into the real world? Why not bug out and leave Alessa alone in her misery? Granted I've only seen this movie once so I might have missed something. Also, I am only somewhat familiar with the video games, so these things may make sense to those who have played through the series. But, not every movie goer is a gamer, and these things need explanation.
The ending made me feel a third movie is in the works. The father chooses to stay in the world to find Rose and Sharon and her companion ride away on an ominous truck ride, which most horror fans know always leads to bad things.
For the most part this is an enjoyable movie, but failed to live up to the original movie in terror and story factors. I’m not the hugest fan of 3D because of the gimmick and the price hike on movie tickets, but this is a good one to see in 3D.

Interesting note - This film is based on the 3rd game of the series. Sharon’s alias, Heather, is the same and she wears the same vest worn by the game’s main character.

On Halloween Eve : links to all the horror films we have written so far

Here is the link into our horror reviews vault.

http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/search/label/horror

Review: Silent Hill (2006)

People in the Movie:  Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black), Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings, TV’s Game of Thrones (s.1) ), Laurie Holden (TV’s The Walking Dead)

Director:  Christophe Gans

Pigeonhole:  Horror / Video Game

The Basics: Silent Hill is a series of horror video games, and the movie is based on elements from several of the different games. 

Rose (Mitchell) and Chris (Bean) have an adopted daughter named Sharon (Jodelle Ferland) who has been sleepwalking and having night terrors in which she keeps repeating the phrase “Silent Hill”.  Rose decides to travel to the town of Silent Hill, against Chris’ wishes, in an attempt discover more about Sharon’s past and to help her move past whatever is disturbing her dreams.  Rose quickly learns that Sharon’s dreams are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, that Silent Hill is a terrifying hell on earth that no one may be leaving.     

Recommendation: Visually speaking, this is one of the all-time great horror films I have ever seen.  It truly is like a video game come to life.  Fans of the games should like it, and fans of horrific imagery should love it.  ‘R’ rating is for violence, gore, and images.  If you are not otherwise familiar with video games, I might suggest watching a trailer before seeing this movie because it demonic type horror, which may not appeal to some people.   

My Take: Silent Hill is an outstanding movie visually, but where many films in this genre would let the effects be “enough”, the producers and director took the time to create and develop an interesting back story and to progress the plot throughout.  This film is almost 2 hours long, which is not typical horror (at usually 90ish minutes).

**spoiler alert** Rose takes Sharon to Silent Hill, but has a minor car accident literally pulling over the town line.  Rose blacks out during the crash and awakes to find Sharon gone, so she proceeds on foot to find her.  The town appears abandoned, there is a fog seemingly everywhere, as well as grey ash is falling from the sky.  Rose sees a little girl running through the town, so she chases after her, but never seeming to catch up.  Rose hears a strange alarm sound and blackness envelops the environment.  Strange human sized demons start coming towards her so she is forced to hide out in one of the abandoned buildings.

Meanwhile, Chris has also driven to Silent Hill to look for Rose and Sharon but strangely there is no ash falling, or fog.  After being escorted out of Silent Hill by the police, Chris breaks into the city hall of a nearby town looking for Silent Hill’s old records and discovers the town was abandoned due to underground coal mine fire that is still burning.  But everything is not as it seems, and the tragedy that occurred there seems to be linked somehow to Sharon.

Rose eventually makes contact with fanatical cult still in Silent Hill who appear to live in a church, and they are led by a woman named Christbella.  It seems that this cult is obsessed with witch burnings, and that many years ago they made the decision to burn a little girl born out of wedlock to “cleanse” her.  This event is what has led to what is happening in Silent Hill.  She survived the burning, but her hate and anger grew opening the gate into this nightmarish reality where demons walk, and now it is time for the cultists to pay for their sin of not protecting an innocent child.  The final standoff is quite horrifying, I must admit.

The conclusion is also entertaining, because one would think since the cult has been vanquished, that all would be back to normal, at least for Sharon and Rose – but it isn’t.  Even though we see them leave Silent Hill and return home, their atmosphere is in the fog; and then Chris is shown also in the home, without the fog, and he cannot see Sharon and Rose.  Silent Hill sequel, here we come.

    

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun: The element of the abandoned town due to the coal mine fire came from the true story of Centralia, PA where the fire is still burning today…   

Review: The Fog (2005)

People in the Movie:  Tom Welling (TV’s Smallville), Maggie Grace (TV’s Lost), Selma Blair (Hellboy, The Sweetest Thing, Cruel Intentions)

Director:  Rupert Wainwright

Pigeonhole:  Thriller / Horror

The Basics: This is a remake/ reboot of the 1980 John Carpenter film of the same name.  The residents of Antonio Bay island, a small fishing village and tourist location off the coast of northern California (or Oregon), are about to celebrate the unveiling of a statue honoring their 4 founding fathers, Patrick Malone, David Williams, Richard Wayne, and Norman Castle.  A mysterious fog rolls in one night, and the town starts to experience some strange happenings, that soon escalate up to murder.  It appears the town’s original prosperity was built on a disturbing secret, and now the descendants of the founders all become entangled in this ghostly revenge story.

Recommendation: This movie is somewhat difficult for me to reconcile.  It has its good points and bad, which I will detail below.  ‘PG-13’ rating is for semi-violent images, and a scene of sexuality.  In my opinion, the movie is exactly what it appears to be: a PG-13 rated thriller, light on the horror, relying on the attractiveness of the leads and some pretty decent effects to offset the poor acting and shaky story.  I would give it chance, but I understand how many people hold a negative opinion of the movie.  The 'Unrated' version is not noticeably different than the theatrical cut. 

My Take: The fact that John Carpenter and Debra Hill were involved with the film is what led me to see it.  The 1980 version was an entertaining indie-budget, R rated horror film, while this installment is more of a big budget Hollywood “romantic thriller” that was pointed towards a teen audience.

**spoiler alert** So to cut to the chase, the “secret” is that Antonio Bay’s 4 founding fathers, back in 1871, sold half of the island to a rich man named William Blake who was going to set up a leper colony for a small group of people from their former community in British Columbia.  Malone, Williams, Wayne, and Castle take a row boat out to meet Blake’s ship, the Elizabeth Dane, in the bay but rather than welcome the new residents, they intentionally trap all the passengers below decks, steal all of their gold and valuables, and set fire to the ship killing everyone on board.  Basically this was a devious 19^th century heist, but it seems that the 4 held this secret and no one was the wiser in Antonio Bay about where the new-found wealth came from or the sunken ship that was burning in the harbor.

The now-descendents of these “criminals”, and the main characters of the film are: Nick Castle (Welling), who is local fisherman and charters boat rides; Elizabeth Williams (Grace), Nick’s girlfriend who has recently returned from a 6 month trip to New York; Father Malone, the local priest who seems to know about the prior conspiracy and is now drowning his guilt in alcohol; and Stevie Wayne (Blair), a single mother who is the local DJ and broadcasts her show out of a lighthouse.

The fog we soon learn is a medium in which in the ghosts of these doomed passengers, led by William Blake, are seeking their revenge on Antonio Bay for their murders those years ago.  

What I Liked: The special effects were eye catching.  Even though some of the better effects moments were digital, it worked without going overboard and created an ominous environment – not scary, but at least ominous.

- The flashback scenes to 1871 that were interwoven as the story unfolded were entertaining, and offered a nice counter-perspective to the crime that was committed against them, purely because they had leprosy.

- The soundtrack was very good.  The top 40 pop music being played, as well as the score worked very well, and I would consider this one of the highlights of the film.

- Tom Welling was a decent enough as Nick and seems to come off as the working class hero sort.  I would call his performance “not noticeable”, which is probably a good thing here.

What was Lame: The story felt more like a romance novel, and the production was like a TV show on the CW.  In my opinion, it came off as formulaic and predictable, like everyone was going through the motions, but no one was really scared or worried as the events unfolded.

- Maggie Grace had “Laura Dern syndrome” throughout the film.  She had the exact same expression on her face despite any action going on at different times.  And let me be clear – she was not expressionless; it is more of a confused/ concerned look regardless of whether she was supposed to be happy, sad, or scared.  Being the lead female character, I expected a lot more.   

- Selma Blair should have been the most interesting character as Stevie, but she was not believable as the single mom.  The pop music DJ role I could buy, but she was not convincing as a mother in fear for her child’s life as the plot got towards the end.  I should note that could have been direction, not acting.  It is also implied that Stevie was seeing Nick while Elizabeth was gone, but that angle was not really developed well.  The lighthouse radio station was also not used to its advantage as a location where many good scares could have happened.

The ending: I have not decided yet, but this film could make the ‘worst movie endings’ list.  It is revealed the Elizabeth Williams is the reincarnation of William Blake’s wife, so as the ghost of Blake is standing in the graveyard with proof of the original deception, which he gives to Nick, Elizabeth decides to go be with Blake, and dissolves into a ghost - much to Nick’s dismay.  Cheesy is the best word I can muster to describe the scene.        

Side by Side: The original, of course, wins out.  Because the effects were low budget, everything felt more real and organic.  While I might call the original dated now, it is still good for scares because Carpenter created tension with timing, music, and environment and the actors all filled their roles very believably.

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun:  Carpenter and Debra Hill who both created the original produced this newer version, although Hill died shortly before filming began…

    

Awesome movie quotes: Clerks (1994)

"Did he just say 'making fuck'?"

What's your favorite scary movie?

Tell us: what is your favorite scary movie, or scary movie moment?

Review: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

People in the Movie:  Donald Pleasence, Paul Rudd

Director:  Joe Chappelle

Pigeonhole:  Horror / Slasher

The Basics: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers takes place six years after the events of Halloween 5.  This film attempts to bring back an old character, Tommy Doyle (Rudd), from the original film; continues to use mainstays Dr. Sam Loomis (Pleasense) and Michael Myers; and introduce a new plot element into the Michael Myers mythology.  This new facet presents to the audience the idea that Michael has been driven to kill since he was a child, because he has been under the influence of the “Curse of Thorn”.  It is up to Tommy and Dr. Loomis to stop Michael (again) and to protect Jamie Lloyd’s newborn baby, as well as several members of Laurie Strode’s extended family.

Recommendation: Fans of the series and Halloween mythology should see this for the following 2 reasons: Donald Pleasence died shortly after filming had ended, so this Halloween was his last.  It is Paul Rudd’s film debut, so fans of his could enjoy it – although since he is more of a comedic actor and Tommy Doyle is not a comedic role, maybe not. 

Otherwise, the theatrical release** of this film is not-so-great.  It is a disjointed slasher flick that pretends to have a plot, but since it is only 88 minutes nothing gets developed.   

As a standalone (meaning you had not watched any of the proceeding films) you would be completely lost.  ‘R’ rating is for violence, language, and brief sexuality.

** I would recommend finding a copy of the Producers Cut (which would still be considered bootleg right now), either online, a used DVD place, or the like.  There are far fewer plot holes, and had that version been edited and “done up” just a little more, this installment could have been a very good ending to the Loomis character and continuation of Michael Myers storyline. 

My Take:  As cliché as most horror films plots get deep into their respective series, the problems that are reported (after the fact) about what went on behind the scenes is also as trite.  Unfortunately these cliché “behind the scenes” problems lead to a final product that seems to be universally disliked among Halloween fans, myself included.

**spoiler alert**

The Good: The idea of bringing back a character from the original film, who was a child at the time of the original killings and now grown up, was actually a decent idea.  Tommy is shown to be a little obsessed in wanting answers for Michael’s continuing reign of terror in Haddonfield.  Rudd did as good of a job as he could have, seeing that his character was given very little development time. 

The truth is an entire film could have been driven by Tommy’s character alone, using his initial encounter with Michael as the defining moment of his life to that point, and his now desire to move forward.  But, this was not the route taken.

The story and plot on the surface actually seem entertaining.  If I heard a 2 minute pitch for this film or watched a 2 minute teaser trailer with the elements that are here, I could visualize Halloween 6 being one of the better sequels.  It was the execution that failed. 

The Bad:  I do not know why, but it seems like the residents of Haddonfield are not very smart, and have no sense of history considering all the murders that have taken place in their town.  The idea that John Strode and his family moved into the old Myers’ house, and everyone in the family other than John had “no idea” about Michael Myers and the murders was ridiculous.

There was zero development of Jamie Lloyd’s story, other than having the baby while in the “Cult’s” captivity, and subsequently being killed barely minutes into the film after escaping.  It’s a tough enough stretch to believe a teenage girl would give birth then have to go on the run seemingly hours later, but even worse that the character that was built up for the 2 prior installments and was taken out with seemingly little regard.  I still believe that no character should ever be safe in a horror sequel, but disrespecting a character that is central to a storyline, like this, just drives down my appreciation for this film (or any that employ that tactic).

The “Curse of Thorn” plot element was executed horribly.  To me, using this idea is a complete cop-out, and almost excuses all of Michael’s prior murders as him being driven by external supernatural forces, rather than him just being evil incarnate.  I believe it is a much more terrifying thought that a child in Anytown, USA, could pick up knife and stab his sister to death because he chose to do so, rather than him not having a choice because a “curse” forced him to.  Even more absurd, at the end of the film we see this Cult was trying to somehow genetically engineer or control the “evil” that is the Curse of Thorn, using Michael, his niece’s child, and another boy.  But, as always the case in horror films, trying to control or reason with evil most often results in ones death, and fortunately that is the case with the members of the Cult. 

I will note that this element (The Curse), in theory, could have worked if maybe there was more back-story or development.  For example, if the Cult had knowingly allowed Michael to be cursed from the beginning and then lost control of him, so that Haddonfield was an innocent town being victimized by the Curse, like a plague or disease in ancient times, then it may have been more palatable as a plot driver. 

But it was not put forth like this.  Instead we get a clumsy “throw it at the wall and see if it sticks” type of story and the bottom line is that this is one of, if not the worst installment in the Michael Myers mythology.    

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun:  Based on the information that is out there (online, fanzines, interviews, etc..), it appears that the film and story were cut, re-cut, and edited so many times – from both internal editing, as well as re-filming done due to reactions from test audiences - that what story/plot was originally intended is probably not even close to what finally ended up on screen for the theatrical release.    

- An original title for the film was Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers, but after a series of alterations the writer Daniel Farrands jokingly noted to call it the Curse of MM, and that stuck.

- Apparently there were plans to release the Producer’s Cut, noted on the Halloween: 25 Years of Terror DVD, however, Disney owns the rights, and nothing is imminent as far as the future release date, as of right now.

- As I noted above, it is sad to see Donald Pleasence, the forever good-guy of Halloween, go out in a film like this.  RIP, Sam Loomis.

- The fates of Tommy, Danny, Kara, and Jamie’s baby are not otherwise tied up here, or in future Halloween films.

Bob's Quick Look - Sinister (2012)

In this film, Ethan Hawke plays a true crime writer seeking to reclaim his pedestal as a best selling author.  He moves his family into a house where another family was previously murdered and the daughter had gone missing - much to the dismay of local law enforcement.  In the attic he finds a box of home movies of not only that family’s murder, but the murders of other families from across the country spanning decades.
What begins as a mystery of murder and abduction becomes a walk along the thin line where the worlds of the living and the beyond converge. Ellison begins finding the same occult symbol and the image of a strange (what looks like a) man in all of the films and realizes the closer he comes to the answers he seeks, the closer he and his family come to joining the dead.
*Spoiler Alert* This is a good example of a movie whose makers should have been a little more careful about how the trailer was made. First, the trailer made the movie look like Ellison stumbles onto the demon early on, and the action of the film becomes a fight between him and the demon, Baghuul. While the supernatural elements of this movie come to light fairly early, the nature of the demon does not until much later in the film.
Second, I feel that it provides too much plot development which should have been left to the movie. Specifically that Baghuul was known as the 'eater of children's souls'.  If you come to the movie with this in mind, the second you learn about the missing children is when the ending of the movie becomes predictable, especially when it comes to a scene where the missing children haunt the house.
Disregarding the trailer, this movie does have a very interesting story.  I especially liked how the plot wasn't carried solely on the shoulders of the events of the murders and the haunting. Rather than being an event driven story with a cast of 2 dimensional characters to fill in the blanks, we have a character driven story complete with man vs. man and man vs. self conflicts with characters that are well developed and believable (which is becoming rare in Hollywood horror).  There are some good fright moments here along with elements that might make one cringe.
Try not to keep the trailer in mind, but I would recommend this movie for fans of supernatural horror and psychological thrillers alike. The R rating is for violence and a little language.

3 (More) Little Known Facts: Hellraiser (1987)

A few more cool things about Hellraiser (1987) :

-In "The Hellbound Heart," the novel upon which this film is based, "Pinhead" was not the lead cenobyte. The lead Cenobite was a female with hooks and chains connecting the parts of her face. Also, the heads of "Pinhead's" nails were capped with diamonds.

-The film was supposed to be called, "The Hellbound Heart," but the studio thought the name sounded too romantic.

-The character Andrew Robinson plays in the film was named Rory in the novella, but was renamed Larry for the film. Robinson also convinced Clive Barker to change his final line from the scripted "fuck you," to the line that appears in the film; "Jesus wept."

3 Little Known Facts: Hellraiser (1987)

- Doug Bradley's character was originally written as "Priest" in early drafts of this film, and then referred to as the "Lead Cenobite" in the shooting drafts, not Pinhead.  Pinhead was a nickname that stuck in drafts of the sequels.

- During the post production party Doug Bradley found it odd that the crew were ignoring him, considering his role in the film, then he realized no one there had ever seen him without his make-up, so no one recognized him.

- The concept of the cube being the key to hell was based on an urban legend about an object called the Devil's Toy Box.

Links to our reviews of : Halloween series

# 1 (original) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/full-review-halloween-1978.html

# 2 (II)  - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/full-review-halloween-ii-1981.html

# 3 - nothing to do with Michael Myers storyline, no review pending right now

# 4 (Return of Michael Myers) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/10/review-halloween-4-return-of-michael.html

# 5 (Revenge of Michael Myers) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/10/review-halloween-5-revenge-of-michael.html

# 6 (Curse of Michael Myers) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/10/review-halloween-curse-of-michael-myers.html

# 7 (H20) - in progress

# 8 (Resurrection) - in progress

# 9 (Zombie reboot of original) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/bobs-full-review-halloween-2007.html

# 10 (Halloween II -Zombie reboot sequel) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/10/bobs-review-halloween-ii-2009.html

Quick Look: Haywire (2012)

Haywire is fast paced spy/ action/ thriller with an all star cast including; Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas, Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, Michael Fassbender, and Bill Paxton - all in supporting roles.  The star of the film is ex-MMA fighter Gina Carano.  The film is directed by Steven Soderbergh and it rated 'R' for violence and language.
**spoiler alert** While I usually prefer not to compare films (as any film should stand or fall on its own merits) the best description for this movie is a light version of the Bourne films, or Salt.
Carano, whose character is named Mallory Kane, plays a private operative who is hired by the US government to do black-ops.  She is contracted to handle a "rescue" operation in Barcelona where Tatum is one of her team members.  Her handler and liaison is a man named Kenneth (McGregor) who answers to a US government agent named Coblenz (Douglas).  The Barcelona mission is not smooth, but the rescue is pulled off.  Kenneth almost immediately sends Mallory onto another mission to Dublin to assist a British MI6 member named Paul (Fassbender) on a "easy" run - all she has to do is accompany him to meet a contact.  This, of course, is a double cross and Paul intends to kill her on Kenneth's orders.  Mallory sniffs out the plan, kills Paul and escapes Ireland, making her way back to the US.  She spends the rest of the movie taking out everyone involved in the double-cross.

Where this movie succeeds is in Carano's action sequences.  The hand to hand fights were well staged, her movements on the missions both as a stealth operative, and escapes from various people chasing her throughout any number of scenes were shot well, and came off as believable - which in big budget Hollywood is often hard to do without the scenes becoming almost cartoonish.  I would not call Carano's acting great, but her role wasn't meant to be deep or tortured like a Jason Bourne.  She was purely an action character controlling her own moves, and it was enjoyable to watch.  She is also built to handle action roles (she is 5'8"), and has obviously trained to be able to fight - but the real "Hollywood" bonus is that she is very attractive.  I would make a prediction now that if she can really act beyond this action role character type, she could easily be as big a star as Angelina Jolie in the future.
I think the other big names lended the film credibility, but none of them had a role that I would call exciting, intense, or exceptionally well acted.  Haywire is pretty formulaic and predictable as far as the double cross spy films go, but it is still a fun little action ride that does not take itself too seriously and is worth watching especially to see Gina Carano.  The shots in and around Dublin and Barcelona are very nice, and I think the direction for this film was where it needed to be.

Links to our reviews of the :Paranormal Activity movies

Here are links to the first 3 Paranormal Activity movies.  Number 4 opens this weekend.


# 1 -  http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/07/quick-look-paranormal-activity-2007_28.html

# 2 -  http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2012/10/quick-look-paranormal-activity-2.html

# 3 - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/quick-look-paranormal-activity-3-2011.html

Links to our reviews of: Nightmare on Elm St movies

Here are links to the Nightmare on Elm Street movies all in one place :

# 1 (Original) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/09/full-review-nightmare-on-elm-street.html

# 2 (Freddy's Revenge)- http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/full-review-nightmare-on-elm-st-2.html

# 3 (Dream Warriors)- http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/full-review-nightmare-on-elm-st-3-dream.html

# 4 (Dream Master)- http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/10/full-review-nightmare-on-elm-st-4-dream.html

# 5 (Dream Child)-  http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/11/full-review-nightmare-on-elm-st-5-dream.html

# 6 (Freddy's Dead)- http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/11/full-review-freddys-dead-final.html

# 7 (New Nightmare) - coming soon

# 8 (Nightmare reboot) - http://james-movie-night.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-than-quick-look-nightmare-on-elm.html

Freddy Vs. Jason - coming soon

Quick Look: Paranormal Activity 2

Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel to Paranormal Activity, focusing on the weeks leading up to the events we witnessed in the first film, and more importantly that the "demon" has a history with this family.  The main characters in number 2 are Kristi Rey (Katie's sister) played by Sprague Grayden, Daniel Rey played by Brian Boland, and Ali Rey played by Molly Ephraim.  Katie and Micah from the first film are also in several scenes.  'R' rating is for language, and a brief scene of violence.  The film is presented as a "found footage" style horror film, the scenes being assembled from hand held video clips, and interior security camera recordings.  As a standalone (meaning you had not watched number 1) the film still works fine, because all plot elements are explained.  In that regard, it is a true prequel.
**spoiler alert**
The film opens with Kristi and Daniel bringing home their newborn son Hunter.  Ali is a young teenager, Daniel's daughter from his first marriage- his first wife is dead, but we are not given any history about that.  Like the first film, we see small "happenings" like lights coming on and off, or a door left open, but slowly escalating into loud sounds, objects being strewn about, and even a small fire occurring.  The first "major" occurrence, early in the film, is the interior of the house getting trashed.  This prompts Daniel to have the interior security cameras installed which makes it easier to not be on the hand held footage throughout.  Daniel and Ali seem either skeptical or dismissive early on, and about midway into the film Daniel even becomes angry (because of his non-belief) at their latina housekeeper Martine for burning herbs to ward off the evil presence, and subsequently fires her.
Kristi and Katie talk briefly about their childhood, about some similar "things" happening, which Katie insists that they no longer discuss.  The activity escalates into violence as the family dog is attacked, and soon Kristi is forcibly dragged down the basement by an unseen force.  Daniel brings Martine back to help them, and a hasty decision is made to transfer the demon onto Katie - to protect Hunter and Kristi.  There is the final stand-off, and I will reveal the conclusion in a moment...

I would note that this film, unlike the first, felt much more contrived.  It seems that you are more "ready" for the brief scares that happen throughout.  Even though most of the activity occurs in the house, it did not feel as claustrophobic or foreboding as it could have, which dialed the intensity back a notch.  Daniel's reluctance to believe in something supernatural is not really expressed well, it seemed to more of "going through the motions".  In fact, I would not even say that it felt like he was played the concerned husband or protector of his children very well, either.  The only other item I felt was not otherwise explained well enough was the "why" was Ali (primarily) making all the home videos at the moments she was?  It did not seem congruent with the behavior of a teenage girl making a video journal, or something similar.  I just felt it worth mentioning, as it again hurts the scare-factor, in my opinion.
Overall, there were a few good jump moments, and a little history is added to Kristi and Katie's family attachment to what may be happening (someone in their family line possibly made a deal with a demon for wealth or power that now requires payment), so that does make it worth watching. Also because this film incorporates a young child being involved in the haunting does make the moments a bit more tense.  The film is 98 minutes for the Director's cut/ 91 minutes for the Theatrical Cut, and each segment we are shown as the timeline progresses are about 3-4 minutes long, so it is not bogged down.
The conclusion: Begins right after the last scene of Paranormal Activity; so Micah has been killed (although no one "knows" yet in the timeline).  The cameras now show Katie, still possessed by the demon,  in a blood spattered shirt, inside the Rey house, where she comes up behind Daniel and snaps his neck.  Katie then walks upstairs and sees Kristi holding Hunter, Katie walks towards them and Kristi is thrown with superhuman force against the wall.  Katie picks up Hunter and walks out carrying him.  Text on screen notes that Ali (who was not in the house) found Daniel and Kristi's bodies 3 days later, and that Katie and Hunter are still missing.  

Extras:
- My brother has reviewed number 3
- Paranormal Activity 4 is out this weekend 

Review: Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

People in the Movie:  Craig Sheffer, Nicholas Turturro

Director:  Scott Derrickson

Pigeonhole:  Thriller / Horror

The Basics: Denver police detective Joseph Thorne (Sheffer) is living a double life; he is a capable, bright, crime solver, a seemingly loving father, and a competitor in contests of skill and intelligence.  But, Joseph also uses drugs, has sex with prostitutes, and steals evidence from crime scenes.  He becomes entangled in a murder investigation in which the prime suspect, who is enigmatically being referred to as “The Engineer”, beings to taunt Joseph directly.  Even worse, Joseph seems to be slowly degenerating into madness: hallucinating and having waking nightmares about the case and disfigured demons attacking him.

Recommendation: This Hellraiser plays out more like a psychological thriller than a horror film, which could be a negative for some.  In my opinion, this is one of the best sequels in the Hellraiser series and should be checked out.  As a standalone (meaning you had not watched any of the prior films) this will still work.  All plot elements relating to the Hellraiser mythology are otherwise explained.  ‘R’ rating is for violence, gore, language, drug use and a scene of sexuality.

My Take:  This is the 5^th Hellraiser film, and the first to go direct-to-video.  Despite being direct-to-video the production, direction, effects, and cinematography were still very good; the atmosphere and scenes were dark, creepy, and foreboding.  If you did not otherwise know, this looks and feels like a full budget release. 

**spoiler alert** Inferno succeeds, in my opinion, because it gets back to the idea that it is the humans who are “bad” where our favorite horror mainstay Pinhead (Doug Bradley) and the other Cenobites are dispassionate characters who are only there subjecting people to torture because they were “called” to do so.

Joseph discovers a strange puzzle box (yes, the same one from the prior films) at a horrific murder scene early in the film.  The victim appeared to have been torn apart by hooks attached to chains.  Joseph after some preliminary examination with his partner Tony Nenonen (Turturro) walks off with the box, some cocaine, and several hundred dollars cash.  He then proceeds to pick up a street walker and heads to a hotel to engage in said vices.  After his hedonistic urges are satisfied, he goes into the bathroom where he solves the puzzle box, which, of course, is a huge mistake. 

Joseph leaves to continue the murder investigation, only to be called back to the same hotel where the hooker has now been killed.  He pleads with Tony to help him conceal any evidence that he had been there having sex with the girl, which Tony reluctantly does.  Joseph also realizes that this murder is tied to the first, with a similar clue left at the scene.  Next, Joseph contacts a drug dealing informant who reveals to him a story about the suspect, The Engineer.  Hours later the informant is found dead.

Further and further down the path Joseph goes into this case the closer it seems that both the demons from his nightmares and the suspect are getting to him.  By the time we reach the end, it appears that Joseph’s partner, his wife and daughter, as well as his parents (who were living in a care facility nearby) are all now dead.

The Reveal: As the movie is drawing to its frightening conclusion, Pinhead appears and reveals to Joseph that he is already in a “hell” he created for himself, trading love (which we see in flashbacks that he previously had) for sins of the flesh, and that he will spend eternity there suffering.

This ending sequence, as much as the journey up to it, is what made Hellraiser: Inferno a great horror film.  It captured what I considered to be the essence of the Hellraiser theme that Barker had always intended.  There is something satisfying about witnessing the age old adage of reaping what we sow, and using Dante’s timeless work as part of this horror theme was masterful.   

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun: Doug Bradley was only on screen for about 5 minutes… The Engineer was a character from Clive Barker’s short story “Hellbound Heart”, which the original Hellraiser was based on…

Bob's thoughts on once and (done)...

There are movies in my personal collection that are difficult to watch because of their deeply emotional natures, and there have been movies that I would say I’m glad I saw but don’t have the desire to see again or own. In other words, they aren't necessarily the ones you would reach for when it is time to relax with a good movie. But, I’m one of those people who don’t like to say never again, especially when it comes to movies. So I don’t want to say that there are movies that I've seen that I’m never going to watch again, but there are movies that, while they are quality films, do not make for recreational viewing. Here are some of my examples.

Citizen Kane - A true landmark of cinematic history that shows the solitude and sadness of success. The +

Passion of the Christ - The realism of the violence and the pain that Jesus endured are very powerful, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

Braveheart - I don’t know much about the man himself, but the heroic tale of William Wallace fighting for Scottish freedom can be moving and epic at times, and moves rather slowly at other times. Closer - A beautiful story of four people and the tragedy of love.

Cast Away - In my opinion, Tom Hanks was the only actor who could pull off this performance.

*I agree with all the selections on my brother’s list except for “Saving Private Ryan” which is a movie I view every year around Memorial Day.

Bob's Review: Halloween II (2009)

Principal Cast: Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon Zombie, Tyler Mane
Director: Rob Zombie
Genre: Horror, Slasher

The Basics
    Two years after the bloodbath in Haddonfield. Il. Laurie Strode is fighting to put the pieces of her life back together.  As Halloween draws near, she is plagued by nightmares of the carnage she survived.
    Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis has become a celebrity thanks to his life long study of the killer, Michael Myers, who had become one of the nation’s most well known spree killers.  Loomis has a new book set to be released on Halloween documenting the events of two years prior, including bits of information that should have been kept under wraps.
    But history tends to repeat himself when Michael Myers, thought to be dead, emerges from hiding.  Guided by visions of his dead mother and his 11 year old self, Michael resumes the search for his sister, killing everyone who gets in his way.
    Trick or treat.

Recommendation
Horror hounds and fans of Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween will enjoy this one.  The R rating is for graphic violence, language, and nudity.

My Take
    When making his version of the original Halloween, Rob Zombie basically took the source material and reworked it in his own fashion, I.e. writing Michael Myers as a character and not just a shape, focusing on his origins a psychotic 11 year old, and building a dynamic relationship between him and Loomis.  So in effect, while it had it’s differences, it was still similar to the original film.
    This movie has nothing in common with the original Halloween 2.  The plot for that movie was used as a dream sequence in the beginning of this film.  Even though I’m a fan of the original sequel, I did like how rather than remaking another movie, Zombie built on what he added to the storyline, going further with his psychology of the character.
*Spoiler Alert*  Even though Michael was developed as a character (not just a shape) in Zombie’s first film, he was basically still the “iconic” Michael Myers with the white mask, black jumpsuit, and butcher knife.  In this film, we see a Michael Myers that departs from the classic visage.  He dons a hooded jacket and wears a long, thick beard.  But, when he is ready to kill, he wears the familiar white mask.  Some fans of the franchise were put off by this, but I was all for the evolved Michael.
    So the question becomes, “Since Michael Myers has evolved beyond what we’ve seen in the franchise, why even don the white mask at all?”  We saw in the first film that Michael made a habbit of keeping his face covered, especially when he was in “killing mode,” and that the white mask held some unknown value to him, as he chose to hide it where he could get to it when he went home years later.  So it would mke sense that he would still have it, though the reasons for such are kept somewhat hidden.
    We’re also given an insight into his psychology when we see his visions of him speaking to his mother.  This in and of itself is an important plot point, but what I found interesting in those exchanges what Michael’s vision of himself as the eleven year old who slaughtered his family, and it is this Michael who speaks to his mother.  This was a good way to show that this is still who he is.  His body may have grown, but his mind never did.
    The question that rises on the mental state of Laurie Strode is, “Is her condition due 100% to post traumatic stress, or is there a genetic element at work?”  We knew, even though she did not, that Laurie is Michael Myer’s sister.  Was it possible that she had some of the Myers curse in her blood?  It is never said who Michael’s father was and why he was not in the picture (I don’t think Ronnie was his dad.)  Was he psycho?  Is he dead, in jail, in a sanitarium, or did he just split?  For that matter who was Laurie’s biological father?  Was it Ronnie?  We don’t really know.  Suffice it to say that Michael and Laurie are more than likely half brother/sister, and the idea of them sharing a hereditary psychosis is fairly unlikely.  The one parent we know they have in common, their mother, was not presented as having any mental issues until her son lost his mind.
    The question I had about Laurie’s mindset in this movie came after she learns through reading Loomis’s book that she is Angel Myers, sister of the manic who haunts her dreams.  When she learns of this, she goes to her new friends and confides what she has come across, but then decides to don a costume and go to a party and get wasted.  At first I questioned this, saying, “is this something someone would do after being hit with such a bombshell?”  After some though, I said, “could very well be.”  Different people deal with grief in different ways.  So it is believable that should would try to cope in this fashion.
    As with the first movie, The Samuel Loomis created by Malcolm McDowell has almost nothing in common with the Samuel Loomis created by Donald Pleasance.  His notoriety in the Myers case has clearly gone to his head giving him the personality of a prima dona rock star.  I like this change in the character, but I could see this as his coping mechanism for losing Michael in the ordeal (Loomis thinks he’s dead.)  He does want to transform himself and shed the skin of the dr. who cared for that patient, but there was just that one signifying line or action that would have clinched his psychology that was missing.  That may be nit picking, but it’s a small thing that would have rounded his character.
    The end of the movie was somewhat an enigma to me.  As I have said, I find it unlikely or implausible that Laurie and Michael could share a psychosis, but when she is in his presence, she seems to see the same specter that Michael sees.  I’m not sure how to take this.  Is Zombie solidifying the fact that there is a shared psychosis between them?  Is there a supernatural element?  The delusion is broken when Loomis tells her there is nothing there.  So was it genetics, or did she remember what she saw that night as an infant in some way.  These thing are usually left unanswered deliberately to leave the viewer to interpret for themselves.  But it seems that there is a connection, wherever it comes from.
    Zombie chose to break away from the franchise when remaking the original Halloween, and keeps moving away from it with this film.  There are times where it might not be recognizable as a “Halloween movie,” but that is what Zombie was going for.

Statistics

Story: Very Good.  Though it slows down in a couple of places, the deep character development and psychological horror elements keep the viewer engrossed.

Cast Performance: Very Good.  Same kudos as the first movie.

Violence/Gore: Heavy.  This is one thing Rob Zombie is known for; highly bloody movies.

Nudity: Moderate.  There is nudity in this one, but the sex is toned down to keep the tone of the film consistent.  

Ambiance/Music: Good.  A good mix of natural uneasiness in the wilderness scenes and claustrophobia in the city scenes, although I was a little disappointed that the iconic Halloween theme was not used until the very end.

Overall: 4.25/5.0

Interesting Stuff
-This is the first Halloween movie to show Michael Myers clearly without his mask.
-In the end of the Director’s cut, Michael rips off his mask and yells, “Die!” before attacking Loomis, making this the first time we hear Adult Michael speak.
-This is the first Halloween where we see Michael eat.
-Danielle Harris and Jamie Lee Curtis are now tied at four appearances each in the Halloween franchise.  They both trail Donald Pleasence, with five.  

Review: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

People in the Movie:  Donald Pleasence, Danielle Harris

Director:  Dominique Othenin-Girard

Pigeonhole:  Horror / Slasher

The Basics: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers takes place 1 year after the events Halloween 4.  Michael survived being shot multiple times and falling down a mine shaft at the end of the prior installment, so he is now ready to restart his pursuit of his niece, Jamie Lloyd (Harris).  Jamie, traumatized from her Halloween encounter last year, is in an institution, and she is now mute.  Dr. Sam Loomis (Pleasence) is her psychiatrist (having the family ties, and all) – and believes Michael is still alive.  He is right, of course, and another night of stalking and bloodshed awaits Haddonfield.

Recommendation:   If you are a fan of the series and plan on watching the next Halloween (and beyond), then you should probably give this movie at least a once-over.  If you are a fan of Harris, Pleasence, or like typical late 80’s slasher films, then you could enjoy it.  As a standalone (meaning you had watched none of the prior films) you would be completely lost. ‘R’ rating is for violence, gore, language, character stupidity, and a brief scene of sexuality.

My Take:  The end of Halloween 4 set this film up with so many great possibilities for plotlines, so it was such a disappointment, in my opinion, that the on-screen product fell so flat.  The movie was rushed into production to capitalize on the moderate success of Halloween 4 very much at the expense of a decent script, direction, and overall story.

**spoiler alert** Halloween 5 opens with a brief replay of the end of number 4; we see how Michael escaped the mine shaft after being shot and that he was nursed back to health by an old hermit, who Michael then kills the following year on Halloween and proceeds back to Haddonfield, again, to start yet another killing spree.

And then multiple dominos fall to knock this movie down to very “mediocre” horror sequel status:

Jamie Lloyd is in a psychiatric institution, however, the completely awesome theme that Michael’s “evil” had entered/ possessed/ taken over Jamie at the end of the prior film (hence why she was shown stabbing her adoptive mother) was completely abandoned.  I thought there might have been an ounce of hope, because Jamie is shown to have some sort of psychic link to Michael, but that point is also not really expanded, either.

Rachel Carruthers (Ellie Cornell), who I would call the hero of number 4, is killed by Michael barely 20 minutes into this film.  This was such a colossal mistake killing her so early; Rachel was a likable strong female character that played Jamie’s protector, as well as the potential teen victim who survived Michael’s attacks for the entire prior movie.  I would have understood if she would have sacrificed herself towards the end of this one in some “final standoff”, but she was taken out so quickly, it felt disrespectful.  I understand writers and directors have to make each film “their own”, and sometimes that means killing off likable characters, but Rachel’s demise really soured me.

So with this now ‘bitter’ feeling over Rachel’s exit, we are treated to the usual stalking and murder of not-so-smart teens, and dopey policeman.  Loomis, with Jamie being used as “bait” eventually lures Michael back to his old house, where it all started.  (Although series purists should beware, because the filming was done in a different house that did not even look the Myer’s house from the original.)  Michael is eventually incapacitated and taken into custody.  And then the end… (which I will get to in a moment)

Where Halloween 4 rekindled interest in the franchise and brought Michael Myers back into the conversation as one of the great horror characters, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers deteriorated into a stereotypical late 80’s slasher movie in which one might root for the next stupid person to get killed, or questioning out loud “who’s next?”.  I think this was a very unfortunate result, considering all the routes the writers could have gone using Jamie as evil character.  Even using her as a mute telepath could have worked for a cat-and-mouse stalking, but instead those 2 elements were introduced then discarded.  

The conclusion: Halloween 5 ends with a mysterious Man in Black attacking the police station where Michael is being held, in order to break him out.  Several officers are shot, while others are killed due to an explosion, and the last thing we see is Jamie walking through this now-slaughterhouse and seeing Michael’s cell empty.  It was probably the most interesting plot element in the whole film, why this mysterious person would want to help Michael, and was obviously setting up the next sequel.

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun: According to Donald Pleasence, his character was originally supposed to die at the end of this film… The film poster and DVD cover show Jamie in the clown costume, even though that was from 4, not this film...   

Awesome movie quotes: Halloween (1978)

"Was that the Boogeyman?"

"As a matter of fact, it was."

Awesome movie quotes: Friday the 13th, Part 2

"I told the others, they didn't believe me. You're all doomed. You're all doomed."

Awesome movie quotes: A Nightmare on Elm St (1984)

"He's dead now. He's dead because Mommy killed him. I even took his knives."

Awesome movie quotes: Scary Movie (2000)

"Hey Terry, smell this."

"What is that!?"

"My ass."

Review: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

People in the Movie:  Donald Pleasence, Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell

Director:  Dwight Little

Pigeonhole:  Horror / Slasher

The Basics: It has been 10 years since the Halloween night massacre in Haddonfield, Illinois, at the hands of Michael Myers, who has remained in a coma since being severely burned in a fiery explosion, ignited by Dr. Sam Loomis (Pleasense) which brought Michael’s bloodbath to an end.  While transferring Michael in between psychiatric facilities, 2 medics converse out loud that Michael has a living relative, a niece, and she lives in Haddonfield.  This somehow awakens Michael from his coma (if he was actually in one), and he begins a new reign of terror trying to kill Jamie Lloyd (Harris), who is revealed to be the daughter of Laurie Strode, Michael’s sister. 

Recommendation:   Fans of the Halloween movies should enjoy it.  Although formulaic and predictable, there are still some decent scares, while Harris and Elle Cornell provide very good acting.  As a standalone (meaning you had not watched the prior Halloween films) this still works reasonably well, all the prior plot elements are explained.  ‘R’ rating is for violence, language, and brief/ partial nudity.

My Take:  The purist in me says “they should have left the Michael Myers character and storyline alone”; both John Carpenter and Debra Hill, the creators of the first 2 Halloween films wanted the Michael storyline ended there.  The horror film fan in me noted “even a semi-successful horror movie (or horror movie character) will spawn multiple sequels, prequels, or reboots, no matter how horrible those films might be.”  Acknowledging this latter fact, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is a decent addition to the Halloween series: it creates its own identity while still using 2 of the original characters and at 88 minutes does not get bogged down with too much fluff.

**spoiler alert**

The Bad: I didn’t feel like Dr. Loomis was developed in this installment.  Maybe that was a time constraint or editing choice not to have more about him in the movie, but he has been part of the story all along and didn’t offer as much depth as his character could/ should have.  Remember, Loomis is Michael Myer’s borderline obsessive psychiatrist who set himself and Michael on fire in order to stop Michael’s killings in 1978.  Ten years have passed, yet all Loomis seems to bring with him to this film is his old cliché’s of Michael being pure evil.  I suppose if the intent was to make him seem like a broken down, slightly crazy old man, then it worked – however, I don’t believe that was the intent, and I think it was a disservice to Pleasence, because this series was as much about his pursuit of Michael, as Michael’s murders in Haddonfield.     

The Good: Danielle Harris played her role extremely well.  For being a younger girl in a horror movie, there was not an excessive amount of whining, which can be a huge pet peeve of mine.  She seemed genuinely scared at the right moments, and her behaviors seemed age appropriate, as well.

Ellie Cornell plays Rachel Carruthers, Jamie’s adoptive sister and “protector” as the movie progresses.  She is the somewhat innocent teen; we see shades of the Laurie Strode character, but without being the lead actor, or Michael’s target.  She catches her boyfriend cheating on her Halloween night, but don’t worry – justice will served for him and the cheating girl.  Rachel’s resolve ends up saving Jamie several times, and Rachel also hits Michael with a truck near the end of the film leading up to his demise.  Outside of Harris, she probably had the best role in the film.

Start to finish: Michael awakens from his 10 year coma, proceeds on a stalking and killing spree to get to Jamie Lloyd (his neice), Loomis pursues.  He is eventually shot multiple times by a drunken angry mob and falls down a mine shaft, presumably dead.

The movie ends with Jamie stabbing her adoptive mother while wearing a costume similar to Michael’s the night of his first kill.  Loomis, at the house, see Jamie standing with the still-bloody scissors and screams “no!”, as he seems to realize that Michael’s “evil” has been passed to Jamie – subsequently setting up the next sequel.   
All in all, a nice rekindling of the Halloween franchise.

Extras/For Fun:  Harris’ character Jamie was named paying homage to Jamie Lee Curtis… Upon viewing the original edit, it was decided the film was too “soft”, so a special effects guru was brought in to bloody it up… This is the third Michael Myers film, Halloween III was not about the Michael Myers storyline…

So tell me what you meant by once and done...

So I used the phrase "once and done" to describe my viewing of The Grey.  "Once and done" is actually meant in a complimentary way, describing a film that affected me in a such way - usually being something melancholy - that I would not have much desire to watch again.  The impression was already left burned into my brain.

Here are some movies I would consider "once and done" (and I may add more titles later):

Saving Private Ryan - so powerful, yet highly depressing.

Monster - a very sympathetic and humanizing look at the serial killer Aileen Wuornos.

Night and Fog - a 1955 french film looking at the horror of the concentration camps in Poland.

Schindler's List - again dealing with WWII concentration camps...

Leaving Las Vegas - ok, so you will never want to drink or be a prostitute after seeing this one...

My brother will be writing about this topic as well.

Awesome movie quotes: RoboCop (1987)

"I'd buy that for a dollar .... haaaaaaaaaaa!"

Quick Look: The Grey (2012)

Liam Neeson is one of several actors which will draw me to watch a movie without even knowing much about the plot - and this was the case with The Grey.  It stars Neeson and Dermot Mulroney (although Dermot is hardly recognizable compared to most of his other films, in my opinion), and is directed by Joe Carnahan.  'R' rating is for language, violence (specifically animal attacks), and gore (related to said animal attacks, and a plane crash).

The Basics: Ottway (Neeson) is a "hunter"; he shoots wolves who might otherwise injure or kill the mechanics working on the Alaskan pipeline.  Ottway and a group of the workers are flying "home" from working the fields and their plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness.  The few crash survivors have to battle the harsh elements as well as a viscous pack of gray wolves who are stalking them in a seemingly futile fight to survive.
 
**spoiler alert** This is a movie that falls in a category I like to refer to "once and done".  It's a very good movie, but the journey and conclusion are so melancholy, it would be depressing to want to watch it again.
The Grey, in my opinion, is mostly about the acceptance of death.  Ottway is seen in the first few minutes ready to commit suicide, but his gun misfires.  We learn, through a series of flashbacks throughout that his wife has passed away from some illness, and that he is now ready to be dead (with her?), as well.  Interestingly, after the crash, it is Ottway who wants to lead the survivors, not resigning to this twist of fate.
Moments after the plane crash, Ottway very calmly talks a man through his dying moments, very humanely, like a grief counselor.  There was no begging or pleading, like one might expect from a disaster-type movie, and it worked very, very well.
Right after the crash, the wolves emerge from the woods begin to attack the survivors, so the decision is made to flee into the woods and attempt to hike to "somewhere" to give the few men remaining a chance to survive.  Between the weather, the wolves, and the landscape no one survives.  In several of the scenes the different men seem at peace with their passing.  While I could say there are religious overtones, again different characters accepting their deaths peacefully, as if moving onto something better, as well as Neeson's character asking God for a sign near the end of the film, I personally would not call religion a central element.  I note this because I understand where some people could make the inference.
The movie is very much worth seeing for Neeson's performance, as well as the cinematography.  It literally chilled me to watch the snow fall, and see these guys try to survive in these blizzard-like conditions, not to mention 2 of them later falling into an icy river.  The deadly weather was contrasted very well with some of the more serene visuals of landscape.  This movie wrapped up well, yet, I am not sure if we were supposed to feel at peace with the outcomes, or if we were supposed to feel sorrow that these men died in the wilderness in the manners each of them did.

Extras:
- The film was actually shot in British Columbia, not Alaska    

Awesome movie quotes: Halloween (1978)

"..I met this 6 year old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and the blackest eyes... the Devil's eyes. I spent 8 years trying to reach him and then another 8 trying to keep him locked up, because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply - evil."

(more than a) Quick Look: Wrong Turn (2003)

A group of six 20-something, good looking men and women, are stalked by three in-bred, deformed, cannibalistic hill-people in the West Virginia woods.  Wrong Turn stars Desmond Harrington and Eliza Dushku, and it's directed by Rob Schmidt.  'R' rating is for language, violence, and gore.
With several fairly intense sequences; the make-up on the 3 "bad guys" being definitely cringe-worthy; the gore and on-screen fear of the actors being almost believable, Wrong Turn is nice little 84 minute thrill fest.

The Good: Interestingly there was kind of a cool montage while the opening credits were rolling where the audience sees flashes of old newspaper clips with stories of inbred "mountain men" with deformities.  The director took great care to not let the audience see any of the three hill-folk (referred to in the credits as Three-Finger, Saw Tooth, and One-Eye) until over 30 minutes into the film.  This was a nice touch to build up the tension for the "eww's and ahh's" upon their physical disclosure.  The reveal scene was made twice as exciting because Chris (Harrington), Jessie (Dushku), Carly, and Scott (Jeremy Sisto) were investigating a cabin, looking for help; unknowingly inside the cannibals' home.  The 3 bad guys return with the body of Francine (one of the other friends), which they proceed to partially eat, while the four would-be victims, hiding (still) inside the cabin can only watch and attempt to stifle their screams at the sight of their dead friend's body being consumed.  In my opinion, it's the best scene in the movie.
The whole section of the movie focused on Chris, Jessie, Carly and Scott was intense, well shot, and pretty well acted, and really makes the movie worth seeing.

The Bad: Most of the material, story, and plot are recycled.  The "inbred deformed cannibal" theme was done in 1977's The Hills Have Eyes.  The antagonists stalking a bunch of white, middle-class, attractive 20-somethings is horror movie cliche.  Eliza Dushku was very good at points, but her emotions seemed "off" at other times.  I actually put that discontinuity on the director, not her.
After Carly is killed, the 3 bad guys capture Jessie and take her back to the cabin.  This did not hold with the whole prior movie plot - to capture instead of killing a victim.  Chris, predictably, rescues her with a "slam-bang" ending, fiery explosion included.  However, as the movie is coming to a close, we see Three-Finger emerge, almost defiantly, ready for a sequel.         

Final Thoughts: I suppose, in general, most horror films are all recycled in one form or another, so that fact is not really one of huge criticism, for me.  We are never really given any indication as to why the 3 cannibals are, in fact, cannibals - unless being inbred and deformed automatically drives a person to that lifestyle.
If these bad guys killed as many people as we are lead to think, how is it that the local and state law officials are seemingly blind to it?  As with most entertainment, sometimes it is best to just suspend your disbelief and enjoy.

Extras:
- There are 3 direct-to-video sequel and prequels to this film, with a 4th in production now
- Eliza Dushku did many of her own stunts

Review: Running Scared (1986)

People in the Movie:  Billy Crystal, Gregory Hines, Jimmy Smits

Director:  Peter Hyams

Pigeonhole:  Comedy / Buddy Cop / Action

The Basics: Two wise-cracking Chicago detectives, Danny Costanzo (Crystal) and Ray Hughes (Hines) take on local drug boss Julio Gonzales (Smits) in this mid- 80’s buddy cop film.  After almost being killed while arresting Gonzales the two head to Key West for a vacation, where they decide to retire and open a bar.  Upon their return to Chicago they find out Gonzales is out on bail, and has now made it a personal fight.    

Recommendation:  A fun, predictable ride that highlights some of Billy Crystal’s comic abilities on the big screen.  ‘R’ rating is for language, violence, and brief nudity.

My Take:  The formula is typical, and there are no big surprises waiting, but this movie works well because of Crystal and Hines’ on screen chemistry, truly embodying the phrase “buddy cop”.  Their comic dialogue throughout the film does not get tired.  The soundtrack is 80’s awesome featuring New Edition, Patti LaBelle, Michael McDonald and Kim Wilde. 

Making even more 80’s references here – it’s easy to see with the success of Beverly Hills Cop and Miami Vice, why the simple cop versus drug dealer plot was so popular.  For Running Scared, it was nice to see Chicago used as a backdrop, as opposed to New York, Los Angeles, or Miami.  It has a more urban feel to it, and is a lot less glamorous – contrasted perfectly when Danny and Ray vacation in Key West.

**spoiler alert** Ray and Danny arrest a street dealer named Snake (Joe Pantoliano) who is carrying a briefcase full of cash.  Snake reveals that is working for Gonzales, so Ray and Danny try to set up a sting to take Gonzales down.  The meeting goes wrong, and as Danny and Ray are about to be shot, two other undercover detectives “rescue” them.  Gonzales is arrested, but Danny and Ray’s captain is furious at them for being so unprofessional and almost getting killed so he insists the two take a hiatus.

Appreciating the relaxed, not-so-dangerous lifestyle of south Florida, Danny and Ray decide it is time to call it quits in Chicago.  They inform their captain of their retirement, but then learn Gonzales is no longer in custody.  To get him out of hiding, Ray and Danny seize a shipment of his cocaine, and impound his Mercedes, in two very funny scenes.  Gonzales, of course, retaliates setting up the ending.

The one plot item of Running Scared that I felt was just a little too cliché, is the final standoff.  Gonzales kidnaps Danny’s ex-wife to use her as trade bait to recover his confiscated cocaine.  I did not feel that her character was developed in such a way that lended itself for the conclusion to unfold in the manner it did.  But that point aside, the two have their shoot-out with Gonzales, Danny and Ray are the heroes, and big surprise – decide not to retire.

With some entertaining action scenes, a pretty good car chase, and numerous comedic moments this is one worth seeing.  I wonder how many people remember that Billy Crystal was one of the funniest people in Hollywood during this period.    

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun:  Several scripts were written to be sequels to this film, but Hines and Crystal didn’t think any of them were good enough and subsequently turned them all down… The leads were originally written for Gene Hackman and Paul Newman, but the decision was made to go “younger”… I was not aware how many films there were titled 'Running Scared' until I did the search to write this...

Bob's Review: Pumpkinhead (1988)

Review: Pumpkinhead (1988)
Principal Cast: Lance Henriksen, Florence Schauffler, Brian Bremer, George “Buck” Flower, Matthew Hurley
Director: Stan Winston
Genre: Horror/Demonic

The Basics 
Ed Harley, a local store keeper in rural America, suffers a tragedy when a group of young dirt bikers from the city cause the death of his young son and leave the scene of the accident. Enraged by the death of his son and the indifference of those involved, Harley seeks the help of an old backwoods witch who raises the demon of vengeance, locally known as Pumpkinhead, to make the city kids pay for their crime. 

Recommendation
Outside of fans of 80’s horror, I would recommend this to anyone who is a fan of Lance Henriksen. The r-rating is for violence, occult images and language (although there is little in the way of gore.)
My Take
This is one of the movies that I pull out and watch every Halloween season and it makes me miss the 80’s, where the horror movies were the brainchild of a writer with an idea rather than a producer with a desire to sell a product for the season.
 *Spoiler Alert* In this film, there are many elements of horror stories working together: Revenge horror, the scary bedtime story come to life, psychological horror, occultism/witchcraft, and the city kids who go to the country and get killed. All these elements are there and do come together very well, but to look at the story in this way is somewhat missing the point. This is a story of personal tragedy and what that madness of grief will drive a man to do, and the consequences of giving in to this personal demon. The creature effects might not have been top of the line, and this is not the goriest of horror movies even with an R rating, but for me, the story along with Henriksen’s performance are what makes this movie a horror classic.
What we have is a character driven story. It’s not a story about random people and a demon, it’s about a man and his vengeful sin, and how that sin effects the world around him. Only one of the “city folk” actually hit Billy Harley with his dirt bike, but since Ed Harley’s rage is directed at the group as a whole, Pumpkinhead seeks to kill the entire group, not just the one who killed his boy. His lust for revenge also effects the rural farmers, as they fear for their safety and the safety of their livestock, which is their livelihood. And in the end, Harley learns the hard truth of the cost of his vengeance, not only for himself, which causes him to attempt to hunt down the creature.
The connection between Harley and the demon is made clear from the first killing, but it’s nature is not fully revealed until the end, when the demon’s face becomes that of Ed Harley and he has to kill himself to end the demon’s onslaught. This is an aspect of the story that has been the subject of debate for some time since it is somewhat up to interpretation on why this is so. Here’s my take. The obvious answer is Harley had to “sell his soul” to pay for his revenge, but I think it goes a little deeper. Not only did he have to forfeit his soul, the witch gave it directly to the demon, along with his anger and his pain. And this would explain why the demon had Harley’s necklace around it’s neck as he was being buried. This could have led to some interesting story elements such as shots showing Pumpkinhead growing angry when he sees the city kids in the woods or having a story element about Harley having an aversion to the church which would have given more meaning to the scene where the demon destroys the cross in the church. That’s my opinion anyway.
One thing I would have like to have seen in this movie was a little more difference between campfire horror story the kids know of Pumpkinhead, and the true nature of the demon itself. In other words, have the story told to the kids be something a little, not much, but a little different than what we see happen in the movie. It would make sense that Bunt the farm boy would know the true story since we are led to believe his grandfather told it to him seeing as how the demon was on the killing path. But what about the story he heard before the night it became a reality? Was it the same or different? I did like how “Pumpkinhead” was a local folk name for the true beast; the demon of vengeance. The other thing I wanted to see more of was the demon’s intelligence. This is not a brainless monster. We see him take the chain off a motorbike and show it to his victim before picking up bike and rider and throwing them across the woods. I wanted to see more of that, along with more of his relationship with the old witch.
I say that the creature effects are not top of the line, but given the budget of $3.5 million, I thought Stan Winston produced a demon that was almost as nightmarishly slick as his most famous creature; the xenomorph from Alien, which is a movie that was made nearly ten years earlier on a budget of $11. So this film, for me, is another example of what can be done with a little dough and a lot of creativity.
I will admit that I do get a kick out of horror movies that use a very basic story as an excuse for 90 minutes of gore and naughtiness. But, none of these would make my list of best horror movies ever made. This one does because it tells a story, not a series of events happening to generic characters.

Statistics
Story: Excellent. Well developed character driven tragedy.

Cast Performance: Excellent. Special nods go to Lance Henriksen, Florence Schauffler, and George “Buck” Flower.

Violence/Gore: Moderate. The bloodiest scene in the film is the witch drawing blood from the hands of Harley and his son to use to wake the demon.

Nudity: None. The story did not call for any.

Ambiance/Music: Good. The music was fairly generic, but the cinematography and sound effects were done very well and provided an aptly eerie atmosphere. I like the use of the cicada sound effect when in the presence of the demon.

Overall rating: 4.2/5

Interesting stuff
-Look for a young Mayim Bialik (Blossom, The Big Bang Theory) early in the movie as one of the rural farm children.
-The story is based on a poem by Ed Justin, and it is recited by the farm kids early in the film.
-Lance Henriksen provided much for his character. This includes the clothes and cap he wears throughout the film, props such as his WWII era shotgun and the silver dollars he uses to pay the witch, and a set of dentures to make him look more rural.