HALLOWEEN (2018)

HALLOWEEN (2018) : C+

The pros and cons of this psychological horror battled every bit fiercely as did Michael and Laurie. Throughout the film's entirety, likes and dislikes fought tooth and nail. If this film is looking for praise, it earned it. If this film is looking for criticism, it earned it.

The cinematography, lighting and costume design were top notch. Emily Gunshor ought to receive an academy award for costume design on Michael Myers alone. He looked incredible. The mask, the hair, the suit, she put together the total package. The scenes were well shot, camera angles well used and the dimming and brightening of the lights were used to enhance moods. This film was well shot and it was well scored. Music is an unsung hero in a horror film, and if used correctly, as it was here, it can add great effect to a number of scenes.

Nick Castle played Michael every bit as good as he did in the first film, although I felt he had a slightly faster pace. From a story perspective I missed the methodical and mysteriously clever Myers from the first film. The movie made it abundant that it omitted all other sequels and was only a sequel to the first film, but even in Michael's mannerisms and reactions he seemed much different to his 1978 counterpart. The film confused me on whether it wanted to present a human being or a monster. He had the unreal strength and recovery time of a monster, yet he reacted to being shot and stabbed with winces of pain.

When first introduced to Dr. Sartain, the film gave a false impression that the beloved Doctor, Sam Loomis who was fixated on protecting the world from Michael might have been replaced by someone destined to the same fate. Then out of left field, we're given instead a man as possessed and dangerous as Michael. It was an incredibly stupid scene, insulting to the audience and to the character. Here's a guy that supposedly spent time with Michael and Dr. Loomis, hand picked as Loomis's predecessor and we're supposed to by that he's bottled up an obsession to see what it feels like to kill the way Michael has for the past 23 years? (While the film does not acknowledge the previous sequels, it does acknowledge that Dr. Loomis had passed away. Per about any source you look at, Loomis would have passed away between 1995 and 1997.) Bullshit.

It begs the question, why have such a nonsensical and ridiculous scene in an otherwise fairly straight film? It's simple. This film is a shrine to Jamie Lee Curtis. In the same manner as was HALLOWEEN: H20 it is all about making it loud and making it clear that she's the star of this film and that Laurie Strode is the sole heroine. She a smidgen of the spotlight with someone else? Never. And that's why the sheriff was killed off early without much character development and why Dr. Sartain was made out to be a blabbering buffoon before having his skull crushed in.

With that said, JLC was amazing. She's an incredible actress. There is no taking that away from her. I did feel that Laurie seemed a bit more apprehensive and startled than what forty years of preparation would result. She also seemed to make mistakes and put herself in vulnerable positions far more than forty years of preparation would have one believe.

The rest of the characters in the film were just sort of there. Filler. No real purpose other than to have someone for Michael the killer to kill and for Laurie, the heroine to save. I enjoyed Karen and Allyson, but aside from the ending, damsels in distress indeed they were.

Michael seemed to have no other motivation or reason other than the obsession to kill. Which is fine, until the question arises of why it is so important for him to go after Laurie. He goes into Haddonfield, killing people at random. What makes Laurie special? She's no longer his sister. That idea was scrapped, so why prioritize her? Why stop as you go stalk and killing about, to suddenly focus on Laurie? One could conclude that it was unfinished business from forty years ago. Perhaps Michael could since that Laurie was his greatest threat? Hopefully the film's intention was to leave the why of Michael's pursuit of Laurie a complete mystery, because it sure as Hell didn't do a damn thing to answer that question.

The investigative journalists in the beginning were completely useless. Nothing more than cheap plot devices to move to the story to a point to where the bus could crash and Michael could escape. They might have been used more and certainly better, but again in doing so, a bit of the focus could potentially be taken off of JLC and Heaven forbid that.

It needs to be said that the Myers house needed to be in this film.

Lastly I'll say that the ending (which leaves itself wide open for a sequel) was refreshingly satisfying. A marvelous reversal that surfaces just as you think things are about to sink.

A STAR IS BORN

A STAR IS BORN: B+

This film most certainly delivered on performance, even if it lacked a little on its story. It's not easy for me to say anything critical attached to Eric Roth (FORREST GUMP/ THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON) but there was something about the writing that did not transpire or better put live up to the performances of the cast.

Lady Gaga held her own in the presence of Bradley Cooper who was outright phenomenal. Touching, compelling, and above all convincing. I only wish the script could have been as convincing as was his performance. Dave Chappelle was great and when it comes to acting, Sam Elliott is a God.

My problem with the script is that I don't feel it earned its pivotal moments throughout the film. I feel the actors earned those moments all on their own through their impeccable performances without the help of a well written script. Yes, I felt a wave of emotions upon Jackson's death, but that was solely from Cooper's honesty in his performance. The script seemed disingenuous, insincere and dishonest. A contradiction to the elements and rules it had set up. A transition from A to C, without a B, in desperation of a B, only saved by a remarkable actor.

The music in this film should also receive praise. As my best friend Joel Straube put it best, "When she isn't trying to sing pop, Lady Gaga has a beautiful voice." The song "Maybe it's Time" seems a song that speaks to many in many different ways.

TRUTH OR DARE (2017)

TRUTH OR DARE (2017) - D-

Get a hold of the Golden Raspberry Awards because this film can win them in an assortment of different categories. While the concept of the film was original and quite intriguing, it fell flat in its execution.

The acting in this film, with exception to the brief appearance by horror legend Heather Langenkamp, was atrocious. It was so bad, at times I found myself laughing profusely. Can't put all the blame on the actors themselves because it isn't easy to perform well when the writing is this poor.

I have a difficult time believing that the script for this film went through any rewrites. It felt like a rough draft from start to finish. Nonsensical dialog, unrealistic responses and cliched reactions. I wrote better stuff in seventh grade.

And the directing? The transitions in this film I would say gave me a headache but it was more of a migraine.

This film relied way to heavily on shock value, and special effects. I suppose if you like being grossed out, it may be your thing but two hours worth of it, is too much for me.

The only thing this mess had going for it was suspense. It tickled the curious bone enough to make you sit and watch long enough to see what happens.

Then of course it ended ambiguously, although it wasn't that difficult to guess what probably happened.

It's sad to say, that yes, I've seen worse. Hence the D-

THE COLLECTOR and THE COLLECTION

THE COLLECTOR and THE COLLECTION: B-

I normally rate film's individually, but considering that I watched these films back to back, I decided to review them as one. 

I liked the first film better because I felt it was a more honest portrayal of the character arch that Arkin would go through. The sense of urgency, what motivates him, and the transitions he makes throughout the film. 

I felt the sequel ignored this a bit and had him go through the same transitions he went through in the first film. There was no need for him to appear timid. No need for him to start off a coward and slowly become a fearless warrior. He already did that in the first film, with more conviction. Having him go through that arch again was not only redundant but insulting to both the character and the audience.

The sound effects and music at times drowned out important dialog that moved the story forward.

The concept was very good in the first one, and executed fairly well. The concept in the second seemed even better, but it wasn't executed as well.

I would have liked to have seen the focus of the film do a complete 180. Instead of An hour and twenty minutes of a rehashing of the first film, and 10 minutes of Arkin researching and eventually finding the collector, I'd rather have it have been 10 minutes of rehashing, and an hour and twenty minutes of Arkin searching.

HELLFEST

HELLFEST: A-

It's as rewarding as it is entertaining to see a horror film go back to the basics. While there were a few jump scares, it was much appreciated that the film didn't rely on them. Cheap startles were out and in were suspenseful moments and psychological scares.

The realism in the film isn't so much that this could happen, as much as it is in the execution of the moment. The killer makes mistakes, just as one would in real life. Things don't always go as planned, just as they would in real life. Of course it wouldn't be a horror film if it didn't have a handful of nonsensical scenes. So don't worry, they're in there.

The characters of the film were predictable and rather lackluster. Extremely formulaic. The home boy party animal and his sex craved girlfriend. The illogical, let's panic best friend and her tag along for the ride boyfriend. The innocent and sweet guy, whom the lead has a romantic interest in. And of course our hero, the educated, heroine who without any prior identification suddenly becomes MacGyver in a crisis.

*Spoiler alert ahead*

A small flaw in the writing was not using Gavin's death in motivating Nat to its full potential. Her struggle against the killer was strictly survival. I think a mixture of survival and vengeance might have worked a little better.

Which leads to the killer. It was a simplistic and subtle performance and that's what made it all the more terrifying. We're left to wonder who is this? Why is he doing this? And in it's ambiguity, we're left knowing only enough to ask more questions. He's anybody. He's everybody. Someone's coworker. Some's friend. Someone you sit next to in Church. Someone's father. Proof that sociopaths live among us and they don't always wear their scary looking mask.

The musical score fit the action. The set designs and lighting were well done.

What made this film work for me was the atmosphere, the effort of genuine and sincere horror and an antagonist I hope to see more of in the future.

I, TONYA

I, TONYA - A

This was a unique film. Sort of a biographical, docudrama if you will It reminded me of PREFONTAINE in the way it was shot, and I thought the breaking of the fourth wall to emphasize the truths within the drama was groundbreaking. Audiences are often left wondering what was real and what was added for dramatic effect. The film had no problem coming out and telling you.

A lot of critics have panned the film as an effort to paint Tonya the victim and garner sympathy for her side. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as a film that simply wanted Tonya's side to be heard. I didn't feel it was pulling me in either direction. I felt that it presented Tonya as she was. This is Tonya. This is who she is. You make up your mind if she's a victim of circumstances or if she's a monster.

And speaking of monsters, the real monster of the film, the true antagonist, was the sport of figure skating in itself. While my hat is off to all of the athletes who pour their heart and spirit into what they do, the governing body is a joke. What a bunch of stuck up pompous pricks. To see how shallow, superficial and prude the sport is, is quite disheartening. That's the true tragedy of this story. To see the sort of home life Tonya went through and the physical/psychological abuse her mother put her through, only to be denied because she didn't fit the wholesome image they were looking for. It angers me as much as it saddens me. The Figure Skating committee fought so hard and for so long for an excuse to kick Tonya out, that it got down on its hands and knees and thanked the Figure Skating God above, the second it had something it could use to do just that. It resonates with me as in much different ways, for much different reasons my experience in amateur wrestling media has been similar. It should be about the skating. Not the way you dress or the type of home life you have. As it should be about the knowledge of wrestling and how good of a writer you are, not how you spend your Sunday mornings or what you do or don't do before meals.

Anyway...more about the movie.

I loved how the O.J. Simpson trial was playing on the TV while everyone involved in the case was getting their sentencing. Talk about a juxtaposition of events. Brilliant placement.

The acting was pretty good. Margot Robbie was very good, as was Allison Janney.

Well written, well directed, well acted. I can't really say anything bad about the film.

THE MEG

THE MEG: B-

It was a fun, action packed suspenseful ride. Nothing about the film is going to be up for an academy award, but it was far from the Razzie fest that I feared it might be going in.

I was pleasantly surprised to view a film with an inherent nature to be nothing but senseless action actually have a story. Not only did it have a story but it had a compelling story. A story with interesting characters.

Did it have its flaws? Of course it did. I can only imagine how painful it would be for a scientist or a biologist to sit through the enormity of inaccuracies displayed in this film. I'm not a scientist nor am I a biologist. I don't demand absolute accuracy to actualities when I watch a film. I only demand that a film be within the rules that it sets upon itself, and I feel that THE MEG did.

The subplots were as distracting as they were unnecessary but the main plot itself was rather strong. There was little to no need for a romance between Jonas and Suyin, and the tension between Jonas and Celeste was completely unneeded.

It wasn't that the film had difficulty focusing, it was that the film had difficulty in what to focus on. The sense of urgency at times was greater than what it should have been and at others not near as great as it should have been.

Nevertheless it was a fun film and Jason Statham did a great job of playing the no nonsense badass that he is uncanny for portraying.

As I watched the film it made me think of how I would have structured the story had I been in charge of writing the screenplay. I think I would have had a tie-in to an aquarium that housed Orcas. How there was an animal loving oceanographer who wanted the animals freed. Had it to where upon an agreement, the Orcas would be trained to attack and kill Megs, and if they succeeded they would be permanently released into the wild. And yes, it may take ten or fifteen of them to do it, but a large group of Orcas, as quick, strong and intelligent as they are could kill a Megalodon.