HALLOWEEN KILLS

 

HALLOWEEN KILLS

HALLOWEEN KILLS: D+

There were positives about this film but it's difficult to focus on them as every time you point out a positive it reveals one of the negatives.  The ole cliché, "For every step forward, two steps back" fits this film like a well oiled glove on a veteran catcher.  

For one, I absolutely have to point out the contradiction that this film made in comparison to HALLOWEEN 2018. The prior film was adamantly Hell bent on making Michael Myers out to be more human with winces of pain, grunts of excursion and signs of physical exhaustion. It was painstakingly critical of how other depictions of Michael Myers showed him to be an unstoppable force, unrealistically powerful, like that of a supervillain with powers comparable to that of Darth Vader or The Juggernant from X-MEN.  HALLOWEEN IV: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS was far too powerful of a Michael Myers. By George, they were going to make him more realistic.  They achieved that goal, only to completely abandon it in this film.  Michael was incredibly powerful in this film. Incredible Hulk powerful.  There was nothing even rudimentarily realistic about his strength or his stamina.  He was so powerful in this film that not even a mob of angry, armed and crazed citizens could even remotely give him challenge.  It begs the question as to why make Michael this unbeatable opposition? Why make him out to be as if there is no stopping him?  We'll answer that question as you read along. 

The original HALLOWEEN (1978) created a purely and simply evil character that killed without motive or reason.  One that was deprived of conscious, that left the mystery behind his rage unanswered. This film completely missed the point of that concept. Michael Myers of HALLOWEEN (1978) was precise, stealthy and calculated. We may not have known why he was doing what he was doing, but he did. He picked out his victims, studied and stalked them. He knew when, where, why and how to attack. He wasn't simply going from house to house, place to place, person to person killing everyone in his sight.  There was reason to his madness. We didn't know his plans, but we knew he had them. In this film, his killings have no plan of attack. No strategy of execution. It's  an absolute chaos at random.   

Which leads me to the violence. This film was ridiculous with the amount of violence and gore. Absolutely ridiculous.  Inexcusable how bloody and violent Michael's kills were.  Ever watch the original HALLOWEEN (1978)? There were seven kills in the film and that included a dog. There were over thirty in this film and all of them were extraordinarily graphic. There was no art or mystique to his craft. It was blood and guts galore.  What made HALLOWEEN (1978) such a unique, masterful standout from the rest of them film? That it didn't need the violence, the blood or the gore. That it relied on the elements of suspense, surprise and fear.  This film had the blueprints laid out to formulate the perfect structure and instead seemed to blindly build from scratch.  Again you have to ask why and again, we'll get to that answer as you read along. 

It was a treat to see so many characters back and furthermore even more of a treat to see so many of them portrayed by the same actors.  Kyle Richards back as Lindsay Wallace, Nancy Chambers as Marion Chambers and Charles Cyphers as Sherriff Leigh Brackett.  Even though he was portrayed by a new actor (Anthony Michael Hall) it was rewarding to see Tommy Doyle back as well. Yet there was no time to enjoy these characters or fall in love with them again. A false premise was set up to make the audience think that they were going to serve purpose and be a part of the resistance to defeat Michael.  Instead they were killed off one by one, eliminated like flies by a swatter.  Raising yet another question.  Why go to the effort of bringing back so many characters if the only goal is to immediately get rid of them? 

Now we begin the investigation that will lead to the answers to all of these questions. 

When HALLOWEEN H20 came out twenty-three years ago, I made the case that the only reason Jamie Lee Curtis came back to the HALLOWEEN series was because Donald Pleasence had passed away, thus closing the door on the Dr. Sam Loomis character allowing the sole hero, the sole protagonist to be Laurie Strode. I was laughed at and made out to be a fool, but this is far too convenient to sum up as coincidence.  Curtis was asked back to HALLOWEEN multiple times throughout her career and she declined each time. Her reasoning was that she had grown as an actor and felt that while she was thankful for HALLOWEEN jump starting her career, she had become too big to resort to horror.  Some have argued back that her career had began to founder in the late 90's and her reasoning to coming back to HALLOWEEN was to revive her career.  I don't buy it.  Pleasence passed in February of 95', with Curtis being approached for a fourth time shortly after, this time agreeing to make a comeback.  Production began shortly afterwards, with HALLOWEEN H20 being released in August of 98'.   I felt 23 years ago that Jamie Lee Curtis would not have returned had Donald Pleasence still been alive and I feel even stronger about that today than I did then. 

Jamie Lee Curtis has to been the center of attention. She feels that this film is all about her and that Laurie Strode is the only character besides Michael Myers that is the face of HALLOWEEN. She wants to share the spotlight with absolutely no one and this film illustrates that impeccably.  Let me provide more evidence if you're not convinced. 

Danielle Harris petitioned to try and get in on HALLOWEEN: 2018. Laurie was going to have a daughter in the film, why not bring back Jamie (Harris's character) from HALLOWEEN IV, V and VI? The kibosh was quickly put on that idea, Curtis with influence on the decision. I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that this again is an example of Curtis not wanting to share the spotlight.  Jamie was established throughout two prior films as being a resilient character capable of avoiding Michael. One who did so without the guidance, advice and  protection of Laurie.  I say that having Jamie back might have weakened the Laurie character based on this fact and even if it didn't, it certainly would have shifted the focus so that it wasn't 100% on Laurie. Curtis would never stand for that. 

There was even talk of originally bringing back Josh Hartnett as Laurie's son John from HALLOWEEN H20.  Again, too established of a character with too much risk of having his own focus to dare risk getting in the way of Curtis. 

I know the rebuttal I'm going to get for this, but tell me I don't make a convincing argument. 


Michael Myers is extremely strong and powerful. So strong and powerful that not even the entire town of Haddonfield, Illinois can stop him.  He plows through everyone like the NFL's #1 lineman of the year against 1st year Pee-wees on their first day of practice.  This film's goal was to present Michael Myers out to be a force that no one with exception to Laurie Strode can defeat.  No one else is strong enough, smart enough, clever enough, or able enough except Laurie.  Only she can has the ability. No one else.  That's why Michael is so powerful and relentless and that's why all of these characters were brought back only to be killed off.   

At this point if there is ever a television series made out of HALLOWEEN like there has been for SCREAM and like there is currently for CHILD'S PLAY, I would insist that it was written into the character.  I would have a scene shortly after the explosion at the Hospital where Laurie is reading a newspaper, listening to the radio or watching the news on T.V.  Have her read or hear of how a young girl and a psychologist stop a crazed killer and have her resentful that she wasn't given sole credit. Have her convinced that she was the real culprit and that Loomis has little to nothing to do with protecting the community or putting an end to Michael's terror.   

I've always been a fan of the Laurie Strode character. I want to make that clear.  I also think Jamie Lee Curtis is a talented and gifted performer.  She did a great job in HALLOWEEN I and HALLOWEEN II of pulling off the brave and courageous heroine.  I will always praise the way the character was written and the way she performed, but this obsession with sole focus is a major turn off.  HALLOWEEN H20 was enough of a shrine as it is and HALLOWEEN 2018 and HALLOWEEN KILLS have become unbearable.  We get it that Curtis wants HALLOWEEN to be Michael Vs Laurie and Michael Vs Laurie only.  That all other characters are moot points and she is the real focus.  We get that.  Not sure if we need what will be eventually four films to get that across.  I think one was enough to hammer it in.  

LEPRECHAUN 4: IN SPACE

 

LEPRECHAUN 4: IN SPACE 
D+ 

Here is my history with the LEPRECHAUN films.  I own and occasionally sit down and watch the first three films in the franchise.  I checked out LEPRECHAUN: ORIGINS and hated it. It was awful.  Then being a fan of Mark Holton & wanting to see him in something again, I checked out LEPRECHAUN RETURNS. I liked that.  

I never took the time to check out LEPRECHAUN 4: In Space or LEPRECHAUN 5: In the Hood or LEPRECHAUN 6: Back to the Hood, because I thought they looked stupid. 

Still haven't seen 5 or 6, but I can say that I was correct about part 4....It was stupid. 

For one, there is zero exposition or explanation. How did Leprechaun end up in space? Why is he there?  We don't get answers to these questions.  He's just there. No explanation. 

Secondly, the three previous films established that the leprechaun can only be hurt/stopped with the power of a four leaf clover.  This movie NEVER establishes that.  In fact, they "kill" the Leprechaun THREE different times & of course he keeps coming back. Yet instead of realizing that they can't kill him, not only do they continue to try and kill him, they continue to try and kill him the same way that didn't work three times before!!! 

I have seen worse acting, but not much.  I know the character Gary Siner was playing was meant to be over the top, but this was way too much. His performance made the film feel like one of those cheap late night science shows you find on public access channels at 3 in the morning. 

This film had little plot & the special effects had "low budget" written all over them in capital letters.    

The only saving grace of this entire film of course was Warwick Davis' performance. 

THE REEF

 

THE REEF: D


This film failed to deliver in just about every area. Really the only praise I can give the film is within its location. The scenery was rather beautiful.  That about does it for the praise. 

The acting could have been worse, but it could have been a lot better too.  The moments of simplistic conversation were realistic enough but there was no sense of levity within romance scenes or a since of urgency within scenes of what should have been energetic.  The films pacing was painfully slow to the point of absolute boredom & then when things finally did pick up, the audience was left feeling lackluster from a scene that felt far more dull than it should have. 

The final scene were the man is begging the girl to pull him up onto the rocks so he will not be attacked by the shark. There is no strain in her face. No veins popping out of her arm, head or neck. She doesn't even appear to be squeezing his arm.  It looks as if she isn't even trying to pull him up.   

This movie is a collection of stupid decisions made by characters.  A skipper that seems to have less knowledge of his equipment and the waters than the people he takes out.  Another man after being instructed not to swim fast and splash around in the water, does exactly that, thus causing himself to be the first victim of the shark. It's difficult as an audience member to feel any empathy for the characters when they are the cause of their own demise. 

Lastly, for being praised as a "realistic" shark film, there were many actions made by the shark that are extremely unrealistic for a Great White. Things a Great White would never do, thus giving a false impression of the behavior of such a magnificent creature.   

Since JAWS, the last 46 years have produced a lot of shark films. Some good, some bad.  I'll give you once guess as to where this one lies. 

My Friend Dahmer

MY FRIEND DAHMER

B 

This film felt like a school project. Like a film student's senior thesis. A film that served little purpose. Had no reason to be made other than the interests and desires of the person making it.  

Nevertheless, it was an entertaining film.  What I appreciated about it the most was Ross Lynch's performance. He completely embodied Jeffery Dahmer. The way he walked, the way he talked. The way he sat in a chair. The way he starred. The way he breathed.  The amount of devotion and dedication that Lynch put into practically reincarnating Dahmer to the point of seeming as if he were possessed by Dahmer was innately impressive.  I cannot give him enough praise.  Compared to the 2002 DAHMER film where Jeremy Renner simply played the role as if he would any other.  Treating Dahmer as if he were simply a character, made up on the page that he could interpret or do anything he wanted with.  You don't do that when the person you are playing was a real life human being. You do what Lynch did. You study, you fixate, you become.  

Did we need a film on who Dahmer was before he became the hideous killing sexual deviant that the world knows him as. Did we need a glimpse into his family and social life?  No, especially since some of it was inaccurate. Yet as to what was accurate. As to what was honest in its depiction, it was fascinating.  As a man who was studied serial killers, I can't help but be drawn to to a film like this. 

Lastly I'll say that the placement of Badfinger's DAY AFTER DAY was an usual juxtaposition that shouldn't have worked as well as it did, but it did.  

 

WAGONS EAST

WAGONS EAST 

 C

It took me over 25 years to finally sit down and watch this film. As much as I loved John Candy, I could never bring myself to accept that this was going to be the last time I'd ever get to see him in anything. I have to say that for as bad as a rap as this film receives, it wasn't nearly as bad as I anticipated.  

Yes it was corny.  The jokes were lame and predictable.  It didn't feel like a film you'd sit down and enjoy with your whole family. It felt more like the kind of film that you'd take your little boy or girl to and snooze through it while they laughed at the trivial humor.   

What I do have to give the film credit for, is its all star cast.  Not only John Candy and Richard Lewis, but Robert Picardo, Gailard Sartain, John C McGinley and others. The one thing this film did not lack was talent.   

I know that Candy's unexpected death caused for the film to have a lot of last minute rewrites. I wonder if it might have also taken the steam out of the cast and crew. I can't imagine what it'd be like to be working on a film when one of your costars passes away.  As well liked and loved as Candy was, I can only see that having a negative effect on everyone.  It would have been hard to continue.  Hard to carry on the work at a top level. I  think it can not only be seen but also felt that after Candy's sudden death, the energy was no longer there.  

This is often sold as Candy's worst film and while a fair criticism on the surface, I'm not sure if it remains fair within its depth.  What would this film have turned out to be had Candy not died? It's a fair question I think.  I highly doubt to the heights of UNCLE BUCK or THE GREAT OUTDOORS, but I imagine a better rating than what it got.     

If anything I wonder if other John Candy films watch this film with the same bit of resentment that I did. At no fault of its own, WAGONS EAST was the setting in which our beloved John Candy was taken from us. A reminder that it was here that he met his premature end.  A professional critic would certainly never admit that, but I'm not a professional.  I do. 

ROCKETMAN

 

ROCKETMAN 

B+

I felt somewhat ashamed as I watched this film.  I've been a huge fan of Elton John's music my entire life. I can remember going down the road listening to cassette tapes of Elton John back when my parents were still married. They've been divorced since 1991.  I don't know all of John's songs but I can name more songs by him than I can any other artist or band. 

I knew a little about him. I knew of  Bernie Taupin.  Of how the two friends had a working partnership throughout their song writing different than that of any I've ever read or heard of since.  I knew he was from England. I knew a few other little facts about him.

Yet a majority of the "facts" depicted about John throughout the film, I was unaware of. Hence the " " and why an otherwise A film is given a rating of B+.  In my opinion while it's ok to omit certain facts or embellish the truth, the one thing you don't do in a biopic is outright fabricate. I didn't take the time to do a side by side comparison of everything stated in this film, but I did enough to know that a few of the things they said about John in the film were inaccurate.  It makes me wonder what all was truth and what was fiction.  I feel that it serves as an injustice to the person as well as to the person who wants to learn about him, if false information is given. 

Moving on....

The performances in this film were very well done. Taron Egerton was an excellent cast for Elton John.  He captured him in his essence, demeanor and pose. I appreciated how he became him.   

What I appreciated most about the film was how the music and songs were interwoven into the scenes with expert timing and precision. They fit the narrative and came in at the exact right moments.  So many times in musicals, and I certainly felt this way in BOHEMIAN RAPSODY, songs are thrown in at random because "Hey, it's a musical!".  Yet in ROCKETMAN they all all fit.  It was done well.  Other musicals could stand to watch this film to see the proper way in which it should be done.   

RULON

 RULON - A-

This was a well put together documentary that looked at the life of Rulon Gardner from all aspects of who he is. There was no primary focus on one part of his life. The documentary looked at Rulon the wrestler, Rulon the celebrity, and Rulon the person.

What I appreciated most about the documentary was its brutal honesty from start to finish. The humanization of Rulon Gardner and displaying his lows as much as his highs.

I think sometimes as normal, regular folk who haven't achieved such heights as winning an Olympic Gold medal, we sometimes think that these individuals have the fortune of having attributes that we lack or that they lack some of the disadvantages that hinder us. It was inspiring to hear him talk about his struggle with his weight, how he was horrible with women and how he was often teased for his weight.

As a wrestling guy I think there was a missed opportunity from a wrestling standpoint to talk about dropped wrestling programs and the effect that has had on the sport. Few are aware of this, but Rulon originally competed for Ricks College, an NJCAA program that has since dropped its wrestling program. Here he is in the minds of many, the greatest Greco-Roman wrestler the United States has ever produced, and he wrestled for a college that doesn't even have a program any longer. I think a minute or two could have been spent on at least acknowledging that fact to the audience. Simply another struggle that our sport faces. Instead it wasn't even mentioned that Rulon spent two years at Ricks College and the documentary made it seem as if he went straight from high school to the University of Nebraska.

Wrestling is a sport that prides itself on mental toughness and grit and I appreciated how the documentary was honest about Matt Ghaffari breaking his leg and of Rulon getting a staff infection to intensify the battle of the wills it truly was when the two met in the Olympic trial finals for a spot on the 2000 team. I've always held a soft spot in my heart for Ghaffari as he was such a great wrestler who represented our country with such class within all of his accomplishments, yet he'll go on forgotten and overlooked within the shadow of Rulon.

It's depressing as it is revealing that within all of the attention and glory that Rulon received in defeating Aleksandr Karelin, that it proves how little attention the sport gets. Even within the wrestling community itself, the most unrewarding area to be a part of is Greco-Roman. Go to any wrestling message board or facebook group. From THE WRESTLING INSIDER to WRESTLERS ONLY, no one gives a hoot about Greco-Roman wrestling. We'll talk about the freestyle trials and the freestyle wrestling till we're blue in the face. Hell, we even speak more of the women than we do of the Greco-Roman wrestling. We as the wrestling community don't pay any attention to it. The rest of the world certainly isn't going to either.

It required beating the absolute best wrestler in the world for the media to even acknowledge the sports existence. Anything less than the greatest of all time being knocked out of his position wouldn't qualify. While we watch gymnast after gymnast, who get immediately eliminated from Olympic competition on NBC and ABC sports, the only time we ever see Greco-Roman wrestling coverage is if David defeats Goliath.

It was interesting to see how the glory and the fame changed Rulon's life but not his demeanor. Yes, he was suddenly able to have all the things in life that he had never had before, but that didn't change who he was as a person. I think that's why so many to this day are so fascinated by him. Why so many still look up to him and admire him. The boy from Afton, Wyoming, the nice kid who always showed tremendous sportsmanship in all his matches, win or lose was still the boy from Afton, Wyoming within all of the interviews, commercials, special guest appearances and other walks of fame.

What I found really interesting is the way in which Rulon admitted that he felt bad for Karelin in a way. That he feels that it isn't fair that his loss to him tarnishes his legacy the way that it does. Yet that is the unfairness of the sport of wrestling. No other sport demands perfection and absolute impeccability the way that our sport does. Karelin had nearly 900 wins, but it is the 2 losses that will forever be the height of his discussion. Why wrestling choses to be this insanely difficult on itself is something I will never understand or accept.

I think some might find it shocking that Rulon gave up nearly $1,000,000 by saying no to an MMA fight. It honestly doesn't surprise me at all and I'm happy the documentary took the time to focus on this. Not all wrestlers have this mentality of wanting to go out and hurt and injure their opponents. I think we've allowed those that want to and those that enjoy that type of approach to give us the false impression that that's who we are and what we're about. No, it's not. At least not all of us. Some of us look at wrestling as an art. A sport to where we want to go out and dominate through our skill, strength and technique. To use our abilities to outsmart, out condition and out maneuver. Rulon saying he had no desire to go out and hurt someone was a refreshing moment to me.

All of the struggles that Rulon went through and how he's been able to bounce back from all of them is a testimony to the intestinal fortitude of the man. He's currently struggling with his weight but within his own mind and those who still care a tremendous deal about him, I have no doubt that this is yet another demon that he will soon enough conquer.

I don't even know the guy. I never met him, yet I can tell just by listening to him and listening to those that know him, he's the type that I'd like to know.

I found myself sending him an email after I got done watching the documentary. I suggested him to reach out to Diamond Dallas Page. I think DDP would be interested in helping him. I think it might even lead to another documentary or at least some television press. DDP Yoga I think would help Rulon a tremendous deal. Help him shed the pounds and get himself back to a healthy state.

Like

Comment

Share

COMING 2 AMERICA

 

COMING 2 AMERICA - B

I thought this was a fun little trip back to the past. It was fun and rewarding to see so many that I haven't seen in such a long time. How in the world Arsenio Hall can look younger today than he did 30 years ago is beyond me. Yet, he does. To see Eddie Murphy, Wesley Snipes, James Earl Jones and John Amos was really cool.

The thing I love so much about the fact that we now have other avenues other than just Hollywood to enjoy these films is that we get to see those who Hollywood has tried to shove to the side and those who we otherwise never would have known about. COMING 2 AMERICA was a nice blend of the two.

The drama in this film was ironically handled better than the comedy. While there were a few funny parts, nothing hit me as side splitting like it did in the original film.