Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Oct 10, 2018
A successful re-imagining but turned up to 11!
When I first heard director Rob Zombie was going to have a hand at Halloween, I couldn't have been more excited. His films up to that point had been intense, scary, gruesome, gothic, sexual and down-rite awesome!
This reinvention had big shoes to fill since the original Halloween is not only a scary movie classic, but invented or perfected a lot of horror elements still used in films today.
The additions to the story proved successful seeing a lot more scenes of Michael as a child, his dysfunctional family roots (which could have been part of his inner demons) and more details around his escape from the psychiatric hospital. Then the original story plays out as you are familiar; although, more intense and evil.
The third act does seem to drag out just a bit as the movie is around 2 hours in length.
Great to see a lot of "B" movie actors appear in the film including Malcolm McDowell, Clint Howard, Brad Dourif, Dee Wallace and Richard Lynch. Also Danielle Harris who was the little girl in parts 4 & 5 is also there as another homage.
Overall, a successful reboot with enough mixture of old and new to keep me very well entertained.
This reinvention had big shoes to fill since the original Halloween is not only a scary movie classic, but invented or perfected a lot of horror elements still used in films today.
The additions to the story proved successful seeing a lot more scenes of Michael as a child, his dysfunctional family roots (which could have been part of his inner demons) and more details around his escape from the psychiatric hospital. Then the original story plays out as you are familiar; although, more intense and evil.
The third act does seem to drag out just a bit as the movie is around 2 hours in length.
Great to see a lot of "B" movie actors appear in the film including Malcolm McDowell, Clint Howard, Brad Dourif, Dee Wallace and Richard Lynch. Also Danielle Harris who was the little girl in parts 4 & 5 is also there as another homage.
Overall, a successful reboot with enough mixture of old and new to keep me very well entertained.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
The original Halloween is such a goddam incredible movie, that anytime the franchise has tried to stray too far from its roots, the wheels just come off. The psychic stuff in Halloween 5 just didn't work. The cult stuff in Halloween 6 just didn't work. The found footage stuff in Resurrection just didn't work. This time around, it's a remake of the original, directed by Rob Zombie. His particular brand of hateful characters and nasty dialogue can be effective in other corners of horror, but when applied to the Halloween template, you guessed it, it just doesn't work.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Father Stu (2022) in Movies
Sep 25, 2022
One Note Performance In The Lead Sinks Film
When one creates a film that is based on the real life exploits of a person, the Writer/Director of the film will be sorely tempted to include that character in every scene. Which is fine if that character is written in an interesting enough way to keep our attention. When it is NOT written well, then the film is poorer because of it.
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time it’s personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Doomsday (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
The Reaper Virus has made its way across Great Britain. The uninfected are evacuated while a wall is built in an effort to quarantine the virus and it’s worked up until now. 30 years later, the virus has broken out again. Survivors are discovered on the other side of the wall, which brings hope for a cure. A team of special forces including Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) are sent to the other side of the wall to try to find this cure. The survivors aren’t like normal people though as they’ve become cannibalistic savages and will kill or eat anyone who stands in their way. Even if a cure is found, it’s unlikely Sinclair and her team will be able to make it back in one piece.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
Doomsday is probably not the best movie. It has a 6.0/10 on IMDb based off of 66,848 user ratings and a 51 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a jumbled mess of a film, but it’s one where the first time viewing a decade ago triggered some sort of happiness in the cynical brain and barely beating heart attached to the decrepit fingers that type these halfhearted reviews (writing is more important than asthmatic breathing, so just pretend you understood the sarcasm here). There’s still a fondness for Doomsday despite its reputation and a soft spot for Neil Marshall who will hopefully blow us away with his Hellboy film in 2019. So sit back, relax, and enjoy a positive review for what is likely a nonsensical excuse of a film that is fairly enjoyable anyway.
It’s odd that the massive amount of inconsistencies in Dance of the Dead made the film practically unbearable and yet that’s half the charm of Doomsday. Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Dog Soldiers), Doomsday is a sci-fi film that has heavy elements of films you likely already love. Judging by the screenshots alone, the film already has a Mad Max and even a Beyond Thunderdome aspect to its post-apocalyptic setting. Doomsday also seems to borrow elements from films such as Aliens, Gladiator, 28 Days Later, and The Warriors.
Sol, played by Craig Conway who was also the main crawler in The Descent, is an extremely violent and hardcore character. Sol is always seething with anger and with that kind of passion and energy he tends to steal nearly every scene he’s in. He pales in comparison to Rhona Mitra’s Sinclair character though. She doesn’t seem to care about anything and always manages to find a way to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. Back in 2008, Sinclair came off as one of the fiercest and most dominant female on-screen characters that a 24-year-old rookie film critic had ever come across.
Watching the way the savages live and what they do to survive is disgustingly mesmerizing. Malcolm McDowell puts in a convincing performance as Kane. You hear him more than you see him over the course of the film, but his words are felt rather than just heard. Bob Hoskins is rather tame as Sinclair’s boss Bill Nelson. Neil Marhsall had the intention of having Hoskins mimic his bulldog role from The Long Good Friday, but he mostly sits on the sidelines while Sinclair does all of the dirty work.
Doomsday has an impressive amount of gore and the scenes where all hell breaks loose are the most fun. Witnessing the battle sequences, the deaths, and especially the car chase at the end makes Doomsday a worthwhile experience. One could make the argument that Doomsday is a chaotic mess that can’t pick a genre and stick with it for longer than a few minutes at a time, but it’s also difficult to take that to heart when a film is this much fun. It may have an A.D.D. method of filmmaking, but at least you’re never bored and the film manages to hold your interest and entertain you from beginning to end.
Doomsday won’t be for everyone, but it’s a wild, bloody ride at its core and it’s incredibly easy to enjoy the film as a one hour and 45 minute thrill ride in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road. Horror, science fiction, and action collide along with a massive amalgamation of outbreak, post-apocalyptic, and medieval storylines in the utterly blood-soaked pandemonium known as Neill Marshall’s Doomsday.
Doomsday is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also currently free on Amazon Prime with Starz and Prime Video Channels. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is $9.81 on Amazon while a two-disc Blu-ray packaged with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days will set you back $34.98. The DVD is available in brand new condition with free shipping for $6.02 on eBay while a pre-owned Blu-ray is $4.99 with free shipping.
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.