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. 

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.