George: A Zombie Intervention (or George’s Intervention) comes to us via Breaking Glass Pictures. It’s quite an interesting take on the genre, but poorly executed.

The film opens with an educational film shown to school children. The opening was actually quite clever. It serves as exposition to us, and is meant to teach children the facts about zombies. Zombies have become members of society. So much so that there is a zombie technical support line.  There are spores in the air that humans inhale. The spores lie dormant until the human dies. The spores then wake up and keep the brain functioning thus turning the human into a zombie. Not mindless Romero zombies. Rather, they simply remain their former selves, and are self aware that they are the undead. Unlike your typical film zombies, shooting them in the head does not kill them. It only makes them brain dead which turns them into the standard flesh seeking walkers. They only way to kill a zombie in this universe is to dismember them and burn them.

After the introduction, we see a group of friends having a pre-intervention for their friend George. He has a bit of an addiction problem. Much like you may have seen on television (or perhaps in an actual intervention), the friends are tasked to write down how George’s addiction has affected them. They arrive the next day at George’s home and he is quite resistant. George is a zombie, and he eats people. His friends plead with him to stop but he does not want to. As the group takes a break, people begin to be killed and George tries to eat them. One of George’s friends thinks that they are having a party, so George is constantly interrupted by guests arriving. He throws his victims in the basement to eat later.

This film is purposefully over the top. The gore is excessive and that’s fine. The problem is that there is an obvious attempt to make the film seem realistic at the same time, which places emphasis on its flaws. The performances are quite sub par, especially with the constant eye rolling and face acting.  Right away as the friends arrive at the pre-intervention, they act as if they hate each other. So there was a bit of confusion as to why they are friends since they were all acting like jerks. This eventually changes as Sarah reveals that she likes Ben, and we learn that Steve is just a general dick.

The most bothersome thing in this film is George’s house. It’s like a billion square feet. No one in the house knows where anyone is and can’t hear the constant bludgeoning of guests, even after the loud music is turned off. The house also is apparently self cleaning, as blood seems to disappear from the floor.

There also is some inconsistency as one zombie discovers that he has no pulse and cannot feel pain and therefore must be dead, but in another scene, a zombie complains that being shot hurts.

The film was definitely entertaining, and some of the dialogue was quite humorous. However, most of the time is was poorly written and badly delivered. And not in  a funny, quirky, Army of Darkness type way.

The very end is probably the funniest thing about the film. It is a “commercial” for a zombie rehab clinic and shows zombie supports groups and George eating Tofu Flesh.

The concept of the film is quite clever, and there are definitely some great moments. Very reminiscent of Dead Alive as far as style. I recommend a viewing, but must say that there is a lot to suffer through to get to the enjoyable parts.

Halloween H20 holds a special distinction for being the only DVD I own from a different country. I’m not really sure why I bought it on a trip to Germany over ten years ago since I cannot play it on a normal DVD player and my German is so shoddy now that I would need the dub track. But regardless, I have it on German DVD. I figured starting out the review with a random anecdote would be fine since this is more a technically-competent but superfluous anecdote than a real film in the Halloween series.

Even though Part 5 and 6 had their rough patches here and there, both films had their strong points in the ongoing Michael Myers saga. Halloween 4 was just all around excellent. Yet this Scream-derived soulless grab for nostalgia has the balls to say that everything after Myers and Loomis went up in flames at the end of Part 2 never happened. The main response used against those decrying remakes and reboots is “It’s not like a remake destroys the original.” That certainly is true but H20 does its damnedest to try to erase the old-fashioned slasher films of the 80s and replace them with polished, Creed-filled movies like this. That irritates me.

Now, that isn’t to say that H20 is without merit. Jamie Lee Curtis returning to commemorate the original’s twentieth anniversary was a nice touch as well as the other references and callbacks to the first film. But this one spends three-quarters of its runtime sloppily tracing the structure of the original with some post-modern horror moments sprinkled in occasionally. Say what you will about Druid rituals and random tattoos but at least the preceding films tried something a bit different instead of just rehashing the same stuff but not even close in its effectiveness.

As much as I love it, Scream and its successes pretty much killed the Halloween franchise. Even though it was a slasher film with visible fingerprints from the original Halloween, Scream and this series should not come close to intersecting. Yet, the main problem I have with H20 is that it does not gently merge the existing elements of the series with the popular self-aware teen talk of the 90s as much as it barrels into it. The opening scene (featuring Marion Stephens even though she was barely a bit player before) that is mostly divorced from the rest of the story reeks of studios chasing the money with attractive TV actors and a few false scares but little else. The rest of the film plays out more like a high school drama production of John Carpenter’s Halloween with some hip and edgy dialogue and a puzzling inclusion of a movie that basically acknowledges that Halloween is a movie.

Curtis’ Laurie has significantly more to do this time compared to her last Halloween film but this Laurie never really comes across as genuine like some of the previous characters. Josh Harnett (in his debut film) and Michelle Williams try to class the place up with some decent characters and above-average acting. But their other friends are horribly stock and exist only to give Michael something to do. And this features LL Cool J who was not bad per se (at least not the worst rapper to appear in the series) but was saddled with a stupid and ultimately worthless character as the posh private school’s inattentive security guard. I feel bad for Adam Arkin the most since he is only around to extract exposition from Laurie and get stabbed in the back ala Random Nurse #3 from the second film.

The final act though has some great moments as Laurie goes batshit crazy and locks herself in the compound, calling for Michael. Sadly, this lasts all of about thirty seconds before Michael attacks, Laurie responds and then runs and hides. Perhaps this was a much longer sequence but the film’s impossibly short length leads you to believe that there was a lot cut as the bigwigs demanded less boring stuff like talking or stalking and more action. Another sad casualty of the film was the score by John Ottman which is sliced and diced and intertwined with Marco Beltrami’s Scream music that it is impossible to appreciate. That is if you aren’t a nerd like me and own Ottman’s sadly out-of-print score. I took that CD with me to Germany as well.

Director Steve Miner did exactly what he was hired by the Weinsteins at Dimension to do: make a Scream-esque Halloween movie. Yet, doing so strips any remaining originality from the series and reverts it to just another Scream copycat. At least someone had the foresight to “try” and make this the final film in its closing scene. Yet, I still have Halloween: Resurrection to watch so that was clearly as miscalculated as the rest of this film.

Pure and simple, this movie is an unadulterated mess. Coming six years after the sloppy fifth film, the Halloween series had certainly seen its better days as it changes hands to yet another production company, this time the genre upstart Dimension Films. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers also is notable for being one of the most awkwardly put together films courtesy of studio or dumbass filmmaker interference and even spawned its own alternate cut which ran rampant on VHS many years ago as the “Producers’ Cut.” Just like any relationship, this movie has a lot of baggage. And I have a love/hate relationship with it.

Remember the relative simplicity of the story in the original film? Yeah, Michael Myers apparently murdered that as well as the six in the title. Jamie Lloyd returns for a brief moment to birth a child that may or may not be Michael’s (creepy!). The town of Haddonfield has banned Halloween since its latest bloodbath six years ago (or is it five?). Laurie Strode’s previously unmentioned uncle John Strode has now moved his family into the old Myers house. His daughter Kara (Marianne Hagan) has recently moved back in with her young son Danny for reasons unmentioned. Across the street in a boarding house lives Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) who has been obsessed with Michael after his encounter Halloween night many years ago. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is apparently retired and nowhere near as enthusiastically crazy as before. All of these kooky characters merge together though as Michael reappears to help reduce the dumb character population.

I have much appreciation for the one credited writer of this film, Daniel Farrands. We’re far removed from the greatness of the original but you can tell that Farrands is not only a fan of the series but understands what a Halloween movie needs. Sadly, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans undermine some of the story but for most of the first fifty minutes or so, Curse has what should be standard in a slasher film, namely decently drawn characters and tense sequences showcasing its main psychopath. I must also acknowledge Joe Chappelle (yes, the one who also did Phantoms) who has a keen visual eye for shots and sequences that go hand-in-hand with the best of the sequels. Yet, allegedly this is the same Joe Chappelle (along with the always menacing studio suits) who absolutely destroyed the final act of the film. We can’t win them all I guess.

The film does much to correct problems with the last, especially as it comes to creating the best autumn atmosphere of the entire series (original included) and ditching the gothic Myers mansion for a quaint little suburban house more similar to the original. Even though some of the characters are completely worthless and/or assholes, most of the others are fleshed out enough to care about when the Boogeyman comes knocking. A stilted performance here and there (cough, Rudd!) results in some occasional bumps in the narrative but not enough to derail your enjoyment. Until the final act that is.

While I haven’t seen the Producers’ Cut, the reported major differences start as Kara (and all common sense from the film I suppose) is flung out of a window. This is painfully apparent as the relative successes of the beginning are maimed like Myers going after a group of random doctors and nurses for no explicable reason. All of the sudden it seems, Alan Howarth’s creepy recalling of the series’ theme is replaced with screeching guitars and the delightfully tense moments from before are replaced with other random shit for no other reason than to make it “cool.” Granted there are some good moments in the final act (I especially enjoy Rudd’s facial expressions when coming across Myers) but so much is done that tonally does not match the rest of the film nor does it make a lick of sense.

For every effective kill sequence the know-it-alls counter with a head exploding because, well we all expect that from a Halloween film. For all the eery slo-mo shots of Tommy walking past the 90s version of #OccupyHaddonfield, we are treated with dumb shit like a little girl saying “It’s raining. It’s raining red. It’s warm.” And for every moment of Danny being a creepy little kid we get this crap about Michael being controlled by Druids and a specific constellation. Even with its faults, there are far too many great moments here to dismiss this one as crap. It may not be as effective a sequel as Part 4 but you get the feeling that at least someone tried to make a worthwhile film.

1989 should have been a big year for horror fans with the release of Halloween 5, Nightmare on Elm Street 5, and Friday the 13th Part 8 all together. Yet, since the late 80s marked the decline of the slasher genre, it should stand to reason that all of these films were garbage in one way or another. Similar to Nightmare 5, I have never had any fondness for Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers which I previously dismissed as just another empty cash-grab. Perhaps since it has been easily ten or so years since seeing this one or because I know there is some horrid crap to come, I came out of my viewing of this film with a newfound appreciation for it. It’s still rather terrible though.

Taking place one year after the events of Halloween 4 (according to the title card that is), Michael has spent 365 days peacefully slumming on the floor of an old hermit, Jamie (Danielle Harris) is traumatized to the point that she cannot speak, and Loomis is even more batshit crazy than before. Even though stabbing your foster mother is not usually a mark in the “Pro” category, Rachel (Ellie Cornell) and her family have adopted Jamie but stuck her in the kiddy crazy house. Since Myers is presumably dead, Loomis (Donald Pleasence) has nothing better to do than lurk around the children’s house and barge in at inappropriate times. After the events of last Halloween, Rachel’s parents convince her to get the hell out of Crystal Lake, err… Haddonfield leaving Jamie under the care of Tina (Wendy Kaplan), Rachel’s crazy friend that we never knew existed before. Needless to say, Michael is not dead yet and rises to begin yet another slaughter of Haddonfield’s denizens as he goes after his niece. Even though he can apparently kill through her. Eh, whatever.

There are many things I can accuse Halloween 5 of. This is not a very highly regarded sequel in the franchise and for good reason since other than Loomis and Jamie, it seems that this was fashioned more like a Friday the 13th movie. ::SPOILER/RANT ALERT:: The biggest thing that pissed me off as a kid and even so today is killing of Rachel. I understand the precedence from F13 Part 2 or Nightmare 3 & 4 but Rachel was not only attractive but a pretty compelling character for the audience in general. She was doubtful at the start of the last film but turned into Ripley-lite to protect Jamie from Myers. And then she dies twenty minutes into this film with a weak death scene that has no emotional resonance throughout since everything assumes she’s gone to go with her parents.

To replace her, we have Tina who might have been fun and spunky in the late 80s but just annoys the shit out of the millennial crowd. Tina, combined with her one-note, cookie-cutter friends add nothing to the story that Rachel could not have but we don’t really care when Tina is being chased/stabbed by Myers because she fails as a character. Even when little Jamie discovers Rachel dead in the palatial Myers house, there is no time to reflect or dwell on the relationship of the two. To me, hands-down, that is the biggest fault of the film.

I’d be remiss in reviewing this movie without talking about the other things that plucked my nerves: the poppy-teen soundtrack, the goofy cops (complete with clown music!), the complete bastardization of the Myers house, and of course the introduction of the major pain-point for the next sequel: Thorn and the man in black. Really, for the few positives it had (namely chase scenes in the back half), the entire production just felt sloppy. The title card indicates one year later yet all dialogue suggests it is in fact two years later what with Jamie being two years older and Loomis referencing “twelve years ago” as if it were the night of the original. And really, even if you’re an off-the-grid mountain man, are you going to let a man lay motionless on your floor for an entire year without calling someone? And even though the mask was pretty aggressive-looking this time around, it’s supposed to be the same from last time. Come on now.

For all of the huge problems this film had, it does has its positives. Director Dominique Othenin-Girard has done little that you might have heard of but that is almost upsetting since he had a great eye for the visual aspect of the picture. It’s nothing 70s-era Carpenter-esque but there were a number of sequences that were shot pretty well even though they were shoehorned into this not-good film. Alan Howarth’s score is still pretty effective and Loomis’ game to entrap Michael was well-played even though that was rendered futile by the end when Michael escapes courtesy of the shadowy man-in-black. Even the notion that Jamie and Michael are connected somehow is interesting but used poorly to the extent that it might as well have made a good six minutes or so to trim from the running time.

Supposedly legal troubles stopped a follow-up sequel the next year but I can’t be too sad about that. Since Loomis was teetering on the edge of clinical insanity and Jamie was given almost nothing to do this time around, I shudder to think of what would come next. Other than Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers that is.

At this point, the Paranormal Activity series is almost critic-proof since it is dirt-cheap to produce, brings in fists full of dollars and is generally well-received by audiences. With the departure of the Saw franchise last year, October needed another big, R-rated series to take its place to win over the hard earned cash of horror-loving moviegoers. I said in the review of PA2: “It is pretty safe to say that if you liked the first PA, you will probably like this one too.” Amend that to say the first two PA films and you have my excerpt for this film. That isn’t a bad thing … unless you really hated the preceding films.

The formula for these stories are pretty simple: a family experiences some traumatic experience leading to the dominant male of the household placing a camera, or cameras, around the house to document something or another. This film sets up the loving family of Julie, mother of Katie and Kristi, and her boyfriend Dennis who conveniently is a wedding photographer, thus having access to multiple cameras and a seemingly endless supply of VHS tapes. Katie and Kristi’s father is out of the picture but the four have a pretty good relationship especially between Dennis and the kids. An earthquake interrupts Julie and Dennis’ very tame sex tape and Dennis maybe sees something weird when reviewing the tape.

Thus Dennis does what any sensible man does and convinces his girlfriend to set up three cameras in the house, one in their bedroom, one in the kids’ and one affixed to an oscillating fan base in the living room/kitchen. The first few nights aren’t too eventful (at least those that we see) mostly consisting of Kristi running around the house and talking to Toby, her imaginary friend at 4 AM. It isn’t long though before more odd things start occurring especially surrounding the babysitter and Dennis’ friend Randy who only show up for weird shit to happen to them.

Once you get past the inevitable “Why is this dude lugging around an 8 pound camera everywhere he goes?” puzzlement, PA3 offers a lot more freaky and some downright scary occurrences. There aren’t too many jump scares this time around but many scenes that are almost unbearably tense especially around the girls. While the movie reminds us that Katie and Kristi are alive almost twenty years later, previous films have explained that they have little recollection of their childhood … and I can probably see why. That takes some of the potential bite out of the scares around the two but with the other adults around, directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost (from Catfish fame) have plenty of tension to work with and they do so remarkably well.

I appreciated that this go-around did not take as long to get to the meat-and-potatoes of the story as the last, or at least it didn’t feel as long due to the underlying creepiness or the decent characters. And even though there was a lot (and I mean A LOT) of stuff shown in trailers that didn’t make the final cut, you never really get the sense that this is a film cobbled together at the last minute even though it kind of is. The prequel nature of it with the same elements we’ve seen before makes the story a tad more unbelievable (ghosts/demons attacking the same two girls, yet another budding videographer in the house, etc.) but not to any real detriment of your enjoyment.

Like I said in the review of the last one, I have no idea where the story can go from here, especially since it seems to hinge on strange events of these two girls. But if this one is any indication, with the right combination of talented directors and writers, we could be seeing Paranormal Activity 13 come 2021. As long as they keep churning out films that give me chills after the fact, I’ll keep watching them.

In the world of slasher sequels, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is still pretty highly regarded. It doesn’t come close to the original but that’s not surprising especially after the previous sequels in the franchise. Part II was apparently made to up the gore and body count that the first was sorely not lacking. The all-around awful part III was apparently created to kill the Halloween name altogether. Fortunately it did not succeed because then Danielle Harris would not be who she is today (for better or worse) and we would be denied arguably the best sequel in this quite uneven franchise.

After the success of the first two films, it’s obvious that Jamie Lee Curtis would be pretty hard to get back into the genre saddle again. Since writer Alan B. McElroy realized the importance of family from the first two (we haven’t yet reached Resurrection at least), the story was shifted from Laurie to Laurie’s daughter Jamie (Harris). While one of the cardinal rules of horror films states that a kid cannot die, McElroy and director Dwight Little get their merit badge in trying their best as poor 7-year-old Jamie is in danger from almost her first frame. Fortunately, there are plenty of more disposable characters to off as Michael miraculously awakes from a decade-long coma to stalk the young child. As this is a proper Halloween film, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is back on the case as he hunts Michael in his marginal screentime.

The biggest reason that this film works while others in the series fail is that it does not have a seemingly deep hatred for the first. I’d imagine that most directors do not wish to work on a film solely to pay respect to a previous entry but when the alternative contains contempt for just about everything that made it great (see parts 5 and 7 for more), this is not a bad direction. Starting from the opening scene where a team of Myers-fodder is attempting to transfer him from one nuthouse to another, this installment is filled with little callbacks to the original that seem to escape the rest: Rachel (Ellie Cornell) mentions to Jamie that Laurie used to babysit her, Rachel’s friend is named Lindsey who could very well be the pig-tailed brunette from the first, etc. It even one-ups the original in that this portrayal of Haddonfield actually feels like a midwestern town in the throes of fall as opposed to Southern California with some colored leaves strewn here and there.

Most of all, this film jettisons the cardboard cutouts from the second and replaces them with real characters. The dynamic between Jamie and Rachel as foster sisters starts rather frosty but ends with Rachel risking life and limb for Jamie. The love angle between Rachel and Brady is a bit trite but it is not front and center, existing only as a moderate time filler. Hell, I’d wager the drunken rednecks are more richly developed characters compared to just about anyone in part 2. And even though this is taking place a decade later, most of the characters are not stupid enough to have to be brought up to speed about Myers and his reign of terror many moons ago. In fact, even though the security guard is saddled with some clunky exposition at the start, I appreciate that the filmmakers knew that all we’d need is a quick twenty seconds or so to explain how we got where we are. It doesn’t quite explain how Loomis escaped the fiery inferno with minor scarring and a limp, but whatever.

While it did have a few questionable moments of common sense (a trained deputy does not notice a stowaway in his backseat?) and horror movie sense (don’t go near the guy who has spent 80 minutes trying to kill you!), there is nothing here that is so dumb or out of place that distracts from the story. Even having watching this movie countless times, there are many sequences that still make me jump or put me on edge and that is one of the highest praises I can levy at a horror film. The shots are worthwhile and the chase scenes are still thrilling and you can’t help but think what the entire Halloween franchise would have been if this level of commitment was present throughout.

Despite seeing all the other movies in the franchise multiple times, I had never seen the Friday the 13th: A New Beginning of the Halloween series, Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Sure, I could deny that is because Michael Myers is absent in this installment but that would not be exactly accurate. Yet, over the years I have heard time and time again that this film would have a much better reputation if it did not have Halloween in the title. That may in fact be true. But it is still a shitty movie.

I cannot fault the filmmakers for jettisoning the lone silent, stalking killer after Halloween II. For starters, that was not really a great film to begin with and the Michael Myers story had come to a pretty conclusive ending. Even taking the Halloween title and shifting it to other stories of the season would have been a neat idea if the first attempt did not turn out as poor as this one did. Perhaps producer John Carpenter was trying his hand at crafting lackluster films that he would perfect a decade or so later. Or maybe Carpenter just slapped his name onto this as a quick money grab. Either way, the real culprit here is not Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), a man who wants to destroy the wholesome fun of Halloween but writer and director Tommy Lee Wallace.

The start of the story is actually decent beginning with Harry Grimbridge desperately running from silent and well-dressed killers while clutching a pumpkin mask. After a close call or two, Grimbridge escapes and winds up in a hospital under the care of Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins). One of the well-dressed men enters the hospital and kills Grimbridge before fleeing from Challis and setting himself ablaze in his car. Challis is approached by Grimbridge’s daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) who has suspicions about her father’s murder (you think?) and the two head off to Santa Mira, home of the Silver Shamrock novelty company headed by Cochran. The fantastical plot elements start withering away at my enjoyment as Challis and Ellie poke around the town, encounter some colorful locals, even more colorful visitors and the Old Man himself before he made his way up at OCP.

As I said, I had hopes for this towards the beginning in spite of the distinct lack of a notable modern monster. There were enough chase scenes and creepy encounters and music stings as the suited men dramatically enter the frame to keep me engaged for a bit. Yet, I can fully appreciate and agree with the #halloween3sucks hashtag that PBF used while watching this last year. I trust you all know of the magical way that we buy into movies, even ridiculous movies through our “suspension of disbelief.” I’m not sure what the opposite of that would be called but whatever it is, this movie has it in spades.

I could not get over just how ridiculous everything after the half-hour point or so was. Challis (a doctor, not a cop) has a strange encounter with a dead patient and a “flamer,” meets up with some chick and all of the sudden they are on the road to investigate. And then they’re shagging in the hotel room. And then they’re just staying in the hotel room instead of … well, investigating. And they don’t really seem to question the strange and almost abandoned town, the curfew, or the fact that a woman with her face blasted off is taken to a toy factory, not a hospital or even a damn veterinarian. Even though Atkins has more charisma than I do in my entire existence, these dumb-as-rocks characters only exist to provide me something to do while watching this film such as shaking my head in disbelief or gawking at the absurdity of it all.

Even worse though is the character of Cochran. He gives a fairly detailed explanation to a restrained and masked Atkins why he wishes to turn the heads of little trick-r-treaters into worms and snakes but … to be honest I wasn’t really paying attention. But what kind of business model does this man have? He spends his entire life amassing great wealth through novelty items like sticky toilet paper (someone get on this!) or wind-up whatevers for this sole purpose? Or was he really trying to just steal a piece of Stonehenge and that just happened to come about thereafter? His business practices aside, Cochran is worse than every Bond villain combined as he guides a leisurely stroll through the bowels of his factory to Challis saying things like “You’ll figure it out soon enough” before explaining every damn thing?

I really cannot imagine the purpose of this film. Is it a form of social commentary on evil businessmen and how they will do anything to get a buck? Or is it to speak on the silliness of kids dressing up and getting candy on a day traditionally tied to the slaughter of livestock for winter survival? Or is it simply to churn out something, anything, with the Halloween name on it to cash in on unsuspecting theater patrons? I don’t know and I really could care less. Even with PBF’s disdain for this film, I was hoping it would at least continue the series’ result of entertaining me. While admittedly this film did, it was assuredly for the wrong reasons.

In was about fifteen years ago that I saw the most recent film based on the novel Celle qui n’était plus by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. I remembered the basic gist of the tale but not much else. Now, having seen the 1955 French thriller Diabolique (or Les Diaboliques), even without remembering much I can safely say the 1996 Americanized remake was far less effective than this version. There is a reason this is a highly regarded film in general.

Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot) is in a tough situation. She runs a young boy’s boarding school with her husband Michel (Paul Meurisse) whose stern and controlling demeanor makes him hated by all including his wife. Michel harbors much resentment for Christina and she for him with his abusive and cheating mannerisms. After eight years together, Christina reaches the point where she wants Michel gone one way or another. She schemes with her closest companion Nicole (Simone Signoret), also Michel’s former mistress, and develop a fool-proof plan to dispatch of the man.

The two women lure Michel to Nicole’s house where he is sedated with a tainted bottle of wine and then submerged in a filled bathtub as Nicole keeps him under until his struggling stops. They load the body into a giant wicker trunk and cart it back to the boarding school where they dump it in the filthy swimming pool, thinking he will surface in a few days as an apparent accident or suicide. The body then disappears but other things appear in its place like his dry-cleaned suit or his lighter.

It is only within the past few years that I’ve come to appreciate foreign as well as black-and-white films. As such Henri-Georges Clouzot‘s thriller never really stuck out as a horror staple, probably due to the fact that it is made more than fifty years ago as well as subtitled. That is a shame though since Diabolique is a treat to watch for a prime example of how a tense film is put together. When the body goes missing and other haunting reminders of the missing man surface instead, you can feel the subdued panic between both women as they worry about the likelihood of going to jail, being blackmailed, or worse being hunted down by the man they were sure was dead. While the “horror” elements are rather tame, the tension between the two female leads and even the haunting “presence” by Michel is more than enough to create a great noir film with its suspenseful elements of paranoia and effective camerawork.

Since beginning this year’s Monster Scum marathon, I have had a blast catching up on old favorites and learning about classic movies that I had never seen before. I figured though that even though my viewing list is fashioned from the IMDb Top Horror Movie list, I would come across a film I either didn’t get or just didn’t like. Given that this is my first time viewing James Whale‘s original cinematic telling of Frankenstein, I can appreciate its impact on film and specifically monster movies, but this one just didn’t gel for me.

Even having not read the original novel by Mary Shelley (though I’m sure I have the Cliff Notes version somewhere), the story of Frankenstein has been told so many times either in film or television or homaged elsewhere, it’s impossible not to know the genesis of the Monster. Henry Frankenstein (why not Victor?), the mad scientist who has a serious God complex and creates a being that ends up destroying its creator is nothing new even without seeing the film. In fact, that almost seems like a staple of all types of storytelling. Regardless, the specifics of this film were a new experience for me at least as the Monster lashes out killing almost everyone around Henry.

While I did not anticipate anything that would be seriously classified as “horror” these days, Frankenstein was actually a bit more tame than I had anticipated. Sure, he offs Fritz which was certainly welcome although Dr. Waldman and the little girl were a bit more impactful, but the Monster does little else than roam around the countryside stumbling and groaning through most of the film. While I appreciate a movie that is tight and not overly long, the just over one hour runtime seems to leave huge holes in the story such as how the Monster develops from simply moving a hand to choking the life out of someone. From what I can tell, it does not seem that there was anything excised from the film but having some more scenes with Henry and the Monster or of the other characters after Henry is extracted from his laboratory would have been less jarring than the speedy plot that remains.

The DVD I watched came with a commentary by David J. Skal, a renowned horror historian who discussed in length the origin of the story, the production of film, and the impact it had on further movies including those in the Universal Monster universe. It is quite an interesting track and certainly gave me a better appreciation for the film. But aside from the great cinematography, the rest of the production felt more basic and cheap than I expected. Especially telling is the scenes in the cemetery at the beginning or in the “mountains” toward the end with an obviously ill-conceived backdrop that withdrew me straight from the story. For the most part, the acting is decent but more on the over-the-top end of the spectrum with Colin Clive‘s depiction of the mad genius. Boris Karloff as the Monster is effective even if a bit underutilized.

While the film was obviously a success deriving four direct sequels and a host of other remakes of the story, this is a film that succeeds more in what it inspired than what it accomplished.

Largely thanks to John Carpenter‘s original Halloween, the 80s were chock full of slasher flicks taking place everywhere from summer camps to sorority houses and everywhere in between with a collection of mostly bland, forgettable murderers. Everyone seems to remember this era fondly even though the sad reality dictates that most of these films are pretty bad with a few notable exceptions sticking out here and there. With the title, heroine, and villain notwithstanding, Halloween II would be more of the former than the latter.

In fairness, from the opening scene (largely cribbed from the end of the first), the film tips its hand and foreshadows what to expect: some excellence surrounded by cheap and lazy writing. Loomis’ magic seven bullet pistol and Myers’ leisurely stroll backwards up an obvious ramp cement that this is nowhere as thoughtfully planned or executed as the original. Returning writers Carpenter and Debra Hill take the interesting route of continuing this installment right after the conclusion of the last after Myers’ has escaped the nuthouse, killed a bunch of kids and adults (and a dog), and tried fruitlessly to off Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).

Perhaps as a way of multiplying the low body count that no one complained of from the original, Laurie is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, otherwise known as the medicinal equivalent of Police Academy … or the malpractice warehouse. Doctors come in drunk, nurses show up late and disappear to fornicate in patients’ rooms or in a hottub, security guards are fat and clueless, and with the rest of incompetent boobs, all we’re missing is a Tackleberry character to complete the likeness. So of course Michael slips in under the watchful eye of no one and prowls around the abandoned corridors like a lost trick-r-treater.

I really dislike spending most of a review comparing a film to its far more successful forerunner but that is hard in horror films in general, especially here since it is so closely tied together with the preceding film. Yet, the most damning thing I think of against this film is that the writers and director Rick Rosenthal seemed to go out of their way to avoid carrying over anything great into this film. All of the new characters are merely set dressing waiting for their inevitable strangulation or scalpel in the back and due to their number, there is no reason to care for any of them. Bud can be easily identified as the crude, horny guy, Janet as the ditzy girl, Karen as the negligent nurse … it goes on and on. Only Jimmy (Lance Guest) has any deeper characterizations but even he is largely disposable.

Even though he didn’t have a huge part in the first, Donald Pleasence returning as Loomis feels like he is merely on a loop from the first film since he goes on the same rambling tirades about evil and death and Michael’s pleasant stay at Smith’s Grove but they are nowhere as entertaining this time around. And it’s questionable that Loomis, the man who watched over and studied Michael for a decade and a half didn’t even think to keep tabs on Laurie who Michael was clearly gunning for at the end of the last until he finds out that Michael and Laurie are related. Granted, Loomis didn’t know this early on but he was one step ahead of Michael the first go around. Now he’s desperately trying to catch up.

For all the quizzical choices made in the first two-thirds though, the final act thankfully ratchets things up as Michael finally stops dicking around and goes after Laurie. It is these last twenty minutes or so that make the film worthwhile as Michael pursues his sister through the bowels of the hospital. While the pursuit isn’t quite as tense as before, it does the job superbly helped by the cheesy synth music by Carpenter and now accompanied by Alan Howarth that actually fits well. Even though the ending isn’t as final as we would believe from this film, it does have a feeling of closure as Laurie once again escapes the throes of death while everyone else … well, doesn’t.

I am almost ashamed of myself from fifteen years ago for liking this more than the original. Sure, the body count is higher, there is more blood and gore than before, and even more classic horror elements like spring-loaded cats but the originality and heart of the first is sorely missing.