TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2022)

 

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE = C- 

I'm not even sure why I bother anymore. I'm beginning to think I got lucky in 2014 with OCULUS & it'll be the last truly great horror film I will ever see. Without a doubt TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSCRE (2022) had it's strengths. It wasn't without it's good moments. It's simply that the weaknesses far outweighed those strengths. For every pro there were multiple cons. For everything that was done right, multiple things were done wrong. 

Upon first glance, the film draws you in making you think that you're about to witness a story of epic revenge unfold from a woman who has been piling up a rage of vengeance for the last 48 years. You're looking forward to seeing Sally Hardesty go through the process of discovery, investigation & ultimate retribution, but instead discover her to be a minor character at best.  You'd think 48 years of preparation might have led to her making wiser decisions, but she seemed to fair better flying by the seat of her pants through pure improvisation in 1974 than what she did here. I'd like to give the character as well as the script points for redemption based on her cool save, but when only a few moments later it's all for not, those points quickly get stripped away. 

The characters in the story were interesting, but they were treated as if they were not. Many were built up as if they'd have meaning to the centralized plot, but they were so easily killed off and dismembered that you would have thought they were senseless bodies simply there so that the special effects department could make a bloody mess of their deaths. 

Very little of this film made sense & that isn't so much the problem as is the fact that there was little reason for the film not to make sense. There was a story here that could have easily been developed into something good, but instead they felt that being ambiguous and cryptic would be a better way to go. 

Of all the TCM films, & yes I've seen them all, this was far from the worst, yet it wasn't the best either. 

Props for a good cast that gave some solid performances. Props for the special effects team that made the kills one of the elements that made this film watchable. But a few cool kills doesn't make up for a lazy, nonsensical plot. This film had the blueprints to easily be a B, maybe even an A but instead settles for an apathetic C-.  

Extra points off for trying to be clever with the right wing propaganda with guns. I believe in gun rights myself. Responsible gun ownership is something I stand for, but if you're gonna throw in a political stance into your film do so with a bit more conviction and courage. Don't be so prissy thinking you're doing eruditely. It comes off as ostentatious.  

NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER

 

NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER: A 

First off it is important to note that as I review this film, I separate the film from the story it was based upon & review the film for its merits alone.  

The writing was very well done & presented the story in an extremely realistic light. Normally when tackling such an issue, things can become exceptionally one sided, but I felt the film did a good job of presenting views from both sides. Perhaps one side more than the other, but at least it didn't completely favor one side while burying the other.  That was the result of good writing. 

The directing here was very good too. While I question the realism of the events themselves, the sequence & pacing in which they were laid out done in an easy to follow transitional structure.  What was happening, why it was happening and how it was happening was clear and concise.   

The acting on behalf of Sally Field, Alfred Molina and the supporting cast was also very well done. Writing, directing and acting woven together to display characters in a realistic light of shades of gray.  This film could have easily painted a scenario of black and white, but instead chose to portray the circumstances and characters within those circumstances as multilayered rather than one dimensional.   

That's my over all review of this well put together film. 

NOW....

As to the actual story.  I question the authenticity and actuality of what really transpired. I know that there are other films & pieces of information out there that confirm Betty's story & others that nullify it. I dare not want to call anyone a liar & I know from personal experience that sometimes the most unrealistic of scenarios are in fact exactly what went down.  Yet I can't help but question some of her claims or in the least wonder if their wasn't some drastic embellishment to generate interest in order to generate sales. Some of the story just plain doesn't add up. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way. It very well might have, but when given rational and logical thought, it doesn't seem likely.  Digging into her past & finding out some of the details of her life, I'm not sure if she's the saintly heroine that the media tried to depict her as for such a long time. I'm also not sold that Moody was the turned into a monster over night villain that he was made out to be either.  I know that Mahtob has since written a book of her experiences that back up and confirm her mother's story.  Yet, I can't help but question that as well.  She was very, very young when all of this took place. I have a difficult time remembering in explicit detail the events of my life when I was 4, 5, 6 & 7 years old. I'm an extremely nostalgic person, deeply infatuated with my past & on top of it I'm a writer.  For me it's easier to believe that as a result of never seeing her father again, she grew up with her mother's consistent reinforcement and based her memories of the events more so on being conditioned than what she actually recalls.  

I think there are many truths to what happened, but I don't think we're bowling a 300 here either.  I think we have Betty's side of what happened and Moody's side of what happened, and somewhere in between lies the truth.   

Which again circles me back around to the film.  I do feel that the film in at least a subtle way tried to depict a bit of that within the film. Perhaps not in the fairest of ways, but at least in a way.   I remember my mother reading this book when I was very little & then renting and watching the film.  I did not watch it with her and I'm glad I didn't, because at the time I wouldn't have been able to have seen it in the way I do now.   Not sure if I needed to wait until I was 36, but nevertheless, this is a film that needed to be seen later in life, so I'm glad I waited. 

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.