Search
Search results
Yoshi (40 KP) rated Let Them Talk by Hugh Laurie in Music
May 28, 2018
It's Hugh Laurie. Isn't that enough for you? (1 more)
Has that one song from the episode with Alvie when he's in the psych ward (You Don't Know My Mind)
I always remember watching Hugh play the piano in House, but never thought much of it, since it can easily be faked. But no, this man is so incredibly talented - he can act, he can play the piano, sing, and apparently has written a book as well. If you still can't get enough House years later like me, then this album is for you.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
A pretty meh reboot.
H20 finds Jamie Lee Curtis returning to the role of Laurie Strode. For 20 years she's been in hiding from Michael Myers, she's been staying at a college campus with her son John (Josh Hartnett), but Michael is hunting them down.
H20's plot is less weird than the last couple of outings in the franchise, but it still feels a bit silly. The movie opens up showing Michael Myers doing some investigation to find out where Laurie disappeared to, which it just so happens that the nurse from the original movie had in her house. It was kind of a dumb start, and it never fully recovers from it.
There were 3 different masks used, resulting in obvious differences from shot to shot. One mask was particularly terrible, it looked like a clown mask.
The movie does benefit from a decent supporting cast including the likes of Michelle Williams, LL Cool J, Adam Arkin, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and even Janet Leigh.
Tonally, H20 is somewhat cheesy, it shouldn't be taken too seriously, though who would at this point in the series?
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later will entertain fans of the series and horror fans alike. But don't expect it to be anything especially good.
H20's plot is less weird than the last couple of outings in the franchise, but it still feels a bit silly. The movie opens up showing Michael Myers doing some investigation to find out where Laurie disappeared to, which it just so happens that the nurse from the original movie had in her house. It was kind of a dumb start, and it never fully recovers from it.
There were 3 different masks used, resulting in obvious differences from shot to shot. One mask was particularly terrible, it looked like a clown mask.
The movie does benefit from a decent supporting cast including the likes of Michelle Williams, LL Cool J, Adam Arkin, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and even Janet Leigh.
Tonally, H20 is somewhat cheesy, it shouldn't be taken too seriously, though who would at this point in the series?
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later will entertain fans of the series and horror fans alike. But don't expect it to be anything especially good.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Mar 24, 2019
Why does Halloween always look like such fun in the movies?
Whenever you watch any scary movie revolving around Halloween, they always make it look like so much fun where every neighborhood is all decked out and many children are bustling from house to house getting their treats when in reality Halloween is almost non existent any more. The handful of trick-or-treaters we usually get is almost not worth it and it is always over before dusk.
Anyways, finally saw this film tonight and I was pleasantly surprised by it.
Yes, of course, it was very predictable in parts with its dopey unintelligent characters; however, there was enough new ideas and homages to previous films for me to recommend.
Laurie Strode has really seen it all. This film finds her hardened by the events 40 years ago and estranged from her family since she can think of nothing more than getting even and finishing what Michael started all those years ago. As usual, Michael comes home to roost on another Halloween night and only Laurie and family seem up to the task of stopping another sadistic killing rampage from everyone's favorite "Captain Kirk" wannabe.
If it wasn't for Jamie Lee Curtis, this movie probably would've been a letdown. She was born to play the "scream queen" role, although this time looked more like Sarah Connor all brazen and tough with her own home base fortress equipped with a weapon arsenal.
I wonder if Michael is done for good this time? Doubtful.
Anyways, finally saw this film tonight and I was pleasantly surprised by it.
Yes, of course, it was very predictable in parts with its dopey unintelligent characters; however, there was enough new ideas and homages to previous films for me to recommend.
Laurie Strode has really seen it all. This film finds her hardened by the events 40 years ago and estranged from her family since she can think of nothing more than getting even and finishing what Michael started all those years ago. As usual, Michael comes home to roost on another Halloween night and only Laurie and family seem up to the task of stopping another sadistic killing rampage from everyone's favorite "Captain Kirk" wannabe.
If it wasn't for Jamie Lee Curtis, this movie probably would've been a letdown. She was born to play the "scream queen" role, although this time looked more like Sarah Connor all brazen and tough with her own home base fortress equipped with a weapon arsenal.
I wonder if Michael is done for good this time? Doubtful.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Jan 16, 2022 (Updated Apr 2, 2023)
Unfortunately awful.
Following the successful 2018 reboot, Halloween Kills picks up with Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) being rushed to the hospital as Michal Myers is found alive within the wreckage of her burnt-down house.
Halloween Kills has very little plot, characters are quickly introduced just to suffer random brutal deaths.
Jamie Lee Curtis is barely in this movie, being confined to a hospital bed.
The choreography for the various kills is bad, in one scene Michael kicks a door to deflect a gun, making a woman shoot herself. Our frightening slasher is fighting like Jason Statham now.
There are zero surprises. Anthony Michael Hall plays Tommy Doyle, the boy from the original movie. But the character has been ruined. He's an angry hick, inciting a riot to kill the wrong man.
Halloween Kills is a brainless sequel, save yourself and skip it.
Halloween Kills has very little plot, characters are quickly introduced just to suffer random brutal deaths.
Jamie Lee Curtis is barely in this movie, being confined to a hospital bed.
The choreography for the various kills is bad, in one scene Michael kicks a door to deflect a gun, making a woman shoot herself. Our frightening slasher is fighting like Jason Statham now.
There are zero surprises. Anthony Michael Hall plays Tommy Doyle, the boy from the original movie. But the character has been ruined. He's an angry hick, inciting a riot to kill the wrong man.
Halloween Kills is a brainless sequel, save yourself and skip it.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Unusual Suspects: Stories of Mystery & Fantasy in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Another uneven anthology. I still have it in my hands, so I'll try to hit each story briefly.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
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. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
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. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2019
Face your fate.
It's 1999 and my twenty years younger self is spending the entire year getting hyped for The Phantom Menace. That movie dominated my year. I had queued at ToysRUs when they released the new figures just to get my hands on a Darth Maul and a Podracer. I had brought the CD of John Williams Soundtrack. I had seen every trailer countless times and as soon as they were put on sale I brought two tickets so that I could watch the movie twice on the same day. I sat in the theatre as the Lucasfilm logo appeared and thought 'this is it'. Then the end credits rolled and I left the movie and headed to get something to eat before the next showing, all the while trying to convince myself that I had loved what I had just watched. Truth is I couldn't do it. I hadn't loved it at all. It left me deflated and all I could think was that I had to sit and watch it all again as all that excitement turned to shit with every clunky piece of dialogue and every scene featuring Jar Jar fucking Binks. It hurt and I promised I would never get so hyped for a movie again.
Fast forward to 2018. I had been excited for the prospect of Halloween since it was announced. Jamie Lee was involved and it was a direct sequel. Both of these things had me invested. Then the trailer dropped and that old familiar feeling of hype that I had promised to forgo started to creep over me once more. Now I should add that John Carpenters original 1978 movie is one of my all time favourites. I love that movie. To me it is an example of perfect horror story telling. It's simple yet incredibly effective at doing what it says on the tin and I rewatch it every year on Haloween as a tradition.
Time came for opening night and I had purchased my ticket in advance (but only one this time just in case) and as we sat waiting for the movie to start even my wife commented that I appeared nervous. I was nervous. I had every right to be nervous because the mishandling of something that means so much to me would mean major disappointment. I am a movie geek. Movies mean so much to me, especially Halloween and I take disappointment pretty badly. So the movie played out. That old familiar score played over the top of bright orange titles against a black background as a pumpkin seemed to unrot and I loved it. I loved the steady build to Michaels escape. I loved how being locked up for so long just seemed to make him more relentless. Once he was out and let loose on Haddonfield I was hooked. The killing spree that followed as Michael went from house to house on a rampage fueled by 40 years of incarceration had me mentally punching the air with happiness. Jamie Lee Curtis though was something else all together. Her portrayal of Laurie suffering from four decades of pent up PTSD was nothing short of brilliant. I could really feel for this character that I have adored for so many years. Laurie will always be my number 1 final girl. She survived the original Halloween because she was smart, and wasn't distracted like her sex mad, airhead friends. Seeing how the events of the first film had effected her life so dramatically was like watching an old friend going through a really hard time. The closing twenty minutes literally had me on the edge of my seat as Laurie searches one dark room after another, the hunted becoming the hunter. You know Michael is there lurking somewhere, but where? The final image as a trapped Michael stares up at his escaping prey, so fixed on Laurie that he fails to even notice that he is being engulfed in flames really stuck with me after the credits rolled.
Now I'm not going as far as to say this film was perfect. Some of the humour fell a little flat and felt out of place and I hated the new Dr Loomis character and his plot twist. It felt crowbarred in and completely unnecessary. Had the rest of the film not been as tight it would have taken me out of the movie completely, but thankfully that was not the case. A lot of love and passion went into making this movie. Clearly the film makers are fans of the original and that really comes across on screen. It really honours Carpenters movie and evidently comes across as a love letter more than a cash in. I know this movie divided people. You either loved it or hated it and I am definitely in the camp of the former. Do I want another sequel? If the quality of this one is maintained then hell yeah. Halloween 2018 has taught me that allowing myself to get a little hyped now and again can sometimes be rewarding. Not everything has to be The Phantom Menace.
Fast forward to 2018. I had been excited for the prospect of Halloween since it was announced. Jamie Lee was involved and it was a direct sequel. Both of these things had me invested. Then the trailer dropped and that old familiar feeling of hype that I had promised to forgo started to creep over me once more. Now I should add that John Carpenters original 1978 movie is one of my all time favourites. I love that movie. To me it is an example of perfect horror story telling. It's simple yet incredibly effective at doing what it says on the tin and I rewatch it every year on Haloween as a tradition.
Time came for opening night and I had purchased my ticket in advance (but only one this time just in case) and as we sat waiting for the movie to start even my wife commented that I appeared nervous. I was nervous. I had every right to be nervous because the mishandling of something that means so much to me would mean major disappointment. I am a movie geek. Movies mean so much to me, especially Halloween and I take disappointment pretty badly. So the movie played out. That old familiar score played over the top of bright orange titles against a black background as a pumpkin seemed to unrot and I loved it. I loved the steady build to Michaels escape. I loved how being locked up for so long just seemed to make him more relentless. Once he was out and let loose on Haddonfield I was hooked. The killing spree that followed as Michael went from house to house on a rampage fueled by 40 years of incarceration had me mentally punching the air with happiness. Jamie Lee Curtis though was something else all together. Her portrayal of Laurie suffering from four decades of pent up PTSD was nothing short of brilliant. I could really feel for this character that I have adored for so many years. Laurie will always be my number 1 final girl. She survived the original Halloween because she was smart, and wasn't distracted like her sex mad, airhead friends. Seeing how the events of the first film had effected her life so dramatically was like watching an old friend going through a really hard time. The closing twenty minutes literally had me on the edge of my seat as Laurie searches one dark room after another, the hunted becoming the hunter. You know Michael is there lurking somewhere, but where? The final image as a trapped Michael stares up at his escaping prey, so fixed on Laurie that he fails to even notice that he is being engulfed in flames really stuck with me after the credits rolled.
Now I'm not going as far as to say this film was perfect. Some of the humour fell a little flat and felt out of place and I hated the new Dr Loomis character and his plot twist. It felt crowbarred in and completely unnecessary. Had the rest of the film not been as tight it would have taken me out of the movie completely, but thankfully that was not the case. A lot of love and passion went into making this movie. Clearly the film makers are fans of the original and that really comes across on screen. It really honours Carpenters movie and evidently comes across as a love letter more than a cash in. I know this movie divided people. You either loved it or hated it and I am definitely in the camp of the former. Do I want another sequel? If the quality of this one is maintained then hell yeah. Halloween 2018 has taught me that allowing myself to get a little hyped now and again can sometimes be rewarding. Not everything has to be The Phantom Menace.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
This retelling of Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield takes us from his birth, through his adolescence and adulthood. With the tempo set like a whirling dervish from the moment David (Dev Patel) takes us with him to witness his birth and travel along through his pivotal life moments as he tells his story.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.