Search
Search results
Jane Goodall recommended The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in Books (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on New England folklore, Robert Eggers brings us his debut film The With.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Marvel continues its cinematic dominance with their latest release, “The Avengers: Age of Ultron”. The film once again teams Iron Man (Robert Downey JR.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Window , (Scarlett Johannson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), as the deal with the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. after the events of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”.
The film opens with a visually amazing action sequence where the heroes raid a Hydra base as they attempt to retrieve Loki’s spear from the evil organization that is bent on world domination.
While researching the spoils of their raid, a pair of enhanced siblings, (Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olson), have managed to exert their influence on one of the team which in turn leads to a bold experiment to create an ultimate guardian of humanity named Ultron who will protect the Earth from all manner of enemies from beyond.
Things do not go as planned s unbeknownst to the Avengers, the artificial A.I. they recovered from Hydra soon builds an army and declares an all-out war on the Avengers and eventually all of humanity.
Tasked with stopping a clever enemy who can switch his conscious to any number of bodies the world over, Ultron (James Spader) leads the team on a deadly game of cat and mouse with the fate of the human race hanging in the balance.
The film is darker and bolder than many of the previous Marvel films but still maintains plenty of humor to lighten the tension. The supporting cast is very good, especially Samuel L. Jackson who steals the scenes whenever he appears.
There were a few sub plots and romantic themes that seemed a bit muddled and some aspects of the story were not fully developed and came to conclusions fairly abruptly, but the film is a shining triumph despite the issues.
The leads work very well with one another though some characters such as Thor were given storylines that really never developed and the same goes for some of the questions left unanswered since the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.
The visual FX were amazing as seeing it in IMAX 3D really made the action leap off the screen. Director Josh Wheedon paces the film well despite a few instances where things drag along.
The action sequences are the bread and butter of the film and they are frequent and truly spectacular to behold.
Spader does a great job bringing a depth to Ultron which helps him avoid being the stock super villain. He mixes the soul of a poet and scholar with the tantrums of a child which makes him a compelling, captivating, and downright deadly opponent.
The newer characters do well and hopefully we will see them developed more in “Avengers: Infinity War” which is currently in the early stages of development.
For now, Wheedon, Marvel, and the talented cast have created an epic summer action film which is everything you would expect from a super hero movie and more.
http://sknr.net/2015/04/30/avengers-age-of-ultron/
The film opens with a visually amazing action sequence where the heroes raid a Hydra base as they attempt to retrieve Loki’s spear from the evil organization that is bent on world domination.
While researching the spoils of their raid, a pair of enhanced siblings, (Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olson), have managed to exert their influence on one of the team which in turn leads to a bold experiment to create an ultimate guardian of humanity named Ultron who will protect the Earth from all manner of enemies from beyond.
Things do not go as planned s unbeknownst to the Avengers, the artificial A.I. they recovered from Hydra soon builds an army and declares an all-out war on the Avengers and eventually all of humanity.
Tasked with stopping a clever enemy who can switch his conscious to any number of bodies the world over, Ultron (James Spader) leads the team on a deadly game of cat and mouse with the fate of the human race hanging in the balance.
The film is darker and bolder than many of the previous Marvel films but still maintains plenty of humor to lighten the tension. The supporting cast is very good, especially Samuel L. Jackson who steals the scenes whenever he appears.
There were a few sub plots and romantic themes that seemed a bit muddled and some aspects of the story were not fully developed and came to conclusions fairly abruptly, but the film is a shining triumph despite the issues.
The leads work very well with one another though some characters such as Thor were given storylines that really never developed and the same goes for some of the questions left unanswered since the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.
The visual FX were amazing as seeing it in IMAX 3D really made the action leap off the screen. Director Josh Wheedon paces the film well despite a few instances where things drag along.
The action sequences are the bread and butter of the film and they are frequent and truly spectacular to behold.
Spader does a great job bringing a depth to Ultron which helps him avoid being the stock super villain. He mixes the soul of a poet and scholar with the tantrums of a child which makes him a compelling, captivating, and downright deadly opponent.
The newer characters do well and hopefully we will see them developed more in “Avengers: Infinity War” which is currently in the early stages of development.
For now, Wheedon, Marvel, and the talented cast have created an epic summer action film which is everything you would expect from a super hero movie and more.
http://sknr.net/2015/04/30/avengers-age-of-ultron/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Dec 4, 2018
Not "So Awful It's Good", just Awful
One of the surprise hits of the summer of 2018 was the "so bad it's good" mega-shark movie THE MEG, starring the impediment of modern-day machismo, Jason Statham. So, when I saw that it was streaming on DirecTV, I thought I'd melt into the couch with a blanket and a beverage of my choice and relish in the over-the-top awfulness that is THE MEG.
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
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.