THE CLOVEHITCH KILLER

 

THE CLOVEHITCH KILLER: C 


Loosely inspired by the killings of serial killer Dennis "BTK" Rader, The CLOVEHITCH KILLER follows the story of Tyler Burnside, who after discovering a disturbing image in his father's pickup one night, comes to suspect that his father may be responsible for the mass murder of 13 women from 10 years prior.  While captivating and intriguing, the story is not paced well & the transitions are far from smooth.  

The writing's non-linear approach at times can be difficult to follow & while actor Charlie Plummer seemed to be dedicated & committed to the role, it also seemed that it was above his current level. You could see the desire as well as the effort, which was much appreciated, but the inexperience was also painfully obvious.  His character seemed to have no arch. He didn't seem effected enough by the information that he discovered. Finding out such a horrid thing about a loved one, would be psychologically damaging. His character seemed to shrug it off as a mild surprise, rather than the huge shock that it should have been. 

There were so many elements of this film that could have been explored into great depths but were barely touched upon. Instead of the long drawn out, weird and uncomfortable ending, we could have instead hit these points to a level of satisfaction. The father being involved in the Church, how he was able to hide it from his wife, the community.  So many more elements that could have been explored.   

I never was quite sure what the film was trying to imply at the end. Was Tyler simply trying to save his mother and his sister as well as himself from the shame and embarrassment? Was he afraid of what might be assumed of him because he was related to this monster?  Or was the film trying to imply that like his father he had the ability to do something such as murder, keep it a well kept secret and go on with life all honky dory?  The film was not clear in its depiction. 

Again one of those films with better writing could have been better.  Had some strong elements throughout but there were too many missed opportunities to give this film anything better than an average rating. 

THE STEPFATHER II: Make Room For Daddy

 

The STEPFATHER II: Make Room For Daddy = B 

While still a B, STEPFATHER II actually slightly surpasses THE STEPFATHER as an overall suspense thriller of the 80's. The film was better directed, with a better flow and pace than the first film.  While the previous film seemed to slow down with unnecessary plot points, everything weaved together in this sequel to come together better as a collective.  It was also clear that Terry O'Quinn committed to the role more so here than he did in the original. Seemed more comfortable and natural in the part. Seasoned and experienced.  The synopsis was a bit misleading as the Jonathan Brandis character was not the investigator, making the relationship between Step-parent and Stepchild much different than the relationship was in the first film.  Which leads me to my only criticism of the film.  Jerry didn't seem as clever or sly in this film as he did in the last. It would only stand to reason that he would get better at his craft, not worse. Yet it did seem that way. 

The film was a bit tongue in cheek, which with such a plot you would almost have to be, but it took itself seriously enough to at least attempt some serious thrills and chills. Not much more to say about this other than Meg Ryan is such a fascinating woman.  As a kid she scared the bejeezus out of me.  Those eyes of her and that voice.  I was scared to death of her.  Now I find her intriguing. Attractive, mystical and mysterious.  It's amazing how our perceptions change over the years. 

THE STEPFATHER

 

THE STEPFATHER = B 

For a late 1980's suspense thriller this was pretty good. It had its ups and its downs, but overall it was an enjoyable film with more pros than cons. Loosely based on the murders of John List, the plot followed a believable enough story, even if some of the scenes within it were rather far fetched.  Terry O'Quinn played a schizophrenic psychopath with a fair amount of conviction.  

The film itself had two major flaws that kept it from being an A.  First and foremost the opening was so strong & so powerful that it was impossible for the rest of the film to match up.  The opening gave itself an unfair expectation to live up to. As an audience member you kept on waiting for the film to reach that height again, but it never does.  

The other flaw was in the brother-in-law character Jim. He was set up and developed so well, that it was inevitable that he would be a part of a dramatic, final showdown ending. Instead his demise was disappointingly anticlimactic. So anticlimactic that it makes you question his existence. I understand that the film wanted the Stepdaughter to come out the heroine at the end, but in the least he could have aided in her prevail or maybe even gotten in the way of it.  He did neither and that missed opportunity hurt the film. 

I also question what in the world the film makers were thinking by having a nude scene with Jill Schoelen.  Granted she was 24 at the time, but she was playing a 16 year old girl.  Was it really appropriate to show her in the nude? There's no way a film would get away with that today and I'm surprised that it got away with it then.   

O'Quinn's performance already mentioned, Schoelen did a good job of playing a confused, frustrated high school kid. Well into her mid-20's, I bought that she was still a young girl, transitioning into adulthood.  Charles Lanyer as Dr. Bondurant also did a very fine job in the film as well. I think more could have been done with his character as well, but it's not as much of a criticism as it is a simple matter of preference.  Stephen Shellen as Jim was a very interesting character, well played, that deserved a better ending than what he got. 

Revision could have done this film some good. The elements for an A film were there, they just weren't used properly. 

 

SCREAM 5

 

SCREAM 5 - C+ 

Sometimes films just don't need to be made. They serve no purpose. They have no meaning. They're simply cash grabs, looking to bank on a marketable concept while they sit back and reap the financial benefits of reliability that diehard fans always provide.  By George there's a new SCREAM film, "I just HAVE to see it." 

By this point there was nothing left to do. Nothing fresh to add. The other four films had already peaked at every level. There was nothing left to top. Nothing left to outdo.  All loose ends had been tied up. All questions had been answered. It was inevitable that this film was going to be tongue in cheek. That it would laugh at itself. It was the only direction to go. Part II was the clever, ultimate reveal. Part III was the what we missed, more to it than what we thought revelation. Part IV was the oh wow, never saw that coming.  In many ways SCREAM V reflects TOY STORY 4. Did it need to be made? No.  Was it sorta fun anyway? Yes. 

SCREAM V is the 5th best film in the SCREAM franchise. While two tried to out do one, and then after a bit of a letdown with three, four tried top everything, five didn't try and outdo anything. It knew its place as the ROCKY V of the series, and rather than try and dye its red hair, displayed it proudly as the stepson.  There's something admirable about that.   

In about everyway SCREAM V ranks 5th in comparison to its predecessors, but that doesn't mean that it didn't do some things right.  It did a lot of things right.  

HALLOWEEN 2018 & HALLOWEEN KILLS for example like to claim that they illustrated female empowerment, but in both of those films it was extremely contrived and didactically stated. SCREAM V displayed female empowerment and it did so naturally.  Female heroines should be focused on their courage, tenacity, selflessness and strength, with their sex being secondary. Not the other way around.  This is something that the two most recent HALLOWEEN films failed miserably upon, and SCREAM V capitalized upon. 

I must also give the film praise of how it handled the passing of the torch. It's clear that  Sydney Prescott is no longer the centralized protagonist of the film. The transition to making Sam the focus, was done very well.  It wasn't abrupt. It wasn't ambiguous. It was smooth and transitional. Not many films do that well, SCREAM V did. 

What impressed me most about this film was the duality of the Billy Loomis character. For one it was freaking awesome seeing Skeet Ulrich back. To see how in a round about, odd, can't put my finger on it way they sorta, kinda but not really made him a hero of the film was painstakingly clever.  To see how Sam was able to use her inherited psychopathy for good, was a direction that obviously took a lot of time and thought. 

Those were the pros.  

As to the cons....

The reveal was weak. People often complain about the reveal in SCREAM 3, but it was a masterpiece compared to the reveal here. It was extremely convenient and in a lot of ways, made little sense.  It was predictable that the reveal would be cheesy and lame, but I wasn't expecting it to be as cheesy and lame as it was.  And maybe as an old school horror fan I should appreciate that more. Throughout the film I kept on eliminating obvious choices, thinking that there was no way it could be something so obvious. Then it turned out to be exceptionally obvious.  Again, a tongue in cheek maneuver.  Films today try so hard to shock you, that the film pulled a complete reversal with having the true shock being how simple and straightforward it was. 

Dewey's death was cheap and uneventful. After all that he went through and all that he survived to see him go out in such lackluster way was disappointing. As I watched him die on screen, I thought of Steve Irwin. A guy that wrestled alligators and handled the world's most venomous snakes, being killed by a relatively harmless stingray.  It felt much the same way.  Like the war hero that survived WWII, Korea and Vietnam, only to get shot by a drunk in a bar one night.  It just didn't feel right. Probably because it wasn't.  Felt the same about Judy's death. 

This movie lacked on the build up and suspense that made the others so good.  Way too much focus on the kills themselves. Way too much gore, way to much violence. Not near enough build up. Not near enough cat and mouse. The film could have used much more chase and much less stabs. 

The connections and relationships between the characters seemed tiresome and forced. The genuineness and sincerity that made the other four films so strong seemed to lack a great deal in this film.  It was still there in some ways and very much not in others. 


While I felt that SCREAM IV was about perfect in every way, with little to fix or change, there is so much about SCREAM V that I would have changed. That I would have fixed.  A tweak here and a tweak there, I could have walked out of this film feeling like I watched a masterpiece.  Instead, I walked out feeling like I watched something just a hair above average. That's all. 

C+ through and through.