I caught a lot of crap at work for “liking” the Final Destination series. Primarily, this is coming from a guy who proclaims his favorite movie ever is the original Saw, so I consider his opinion moot. Given the unevenness of the series, I would say “tolerate” is a more appropriate verb for my feelings on these films. That seems fair since Final Destination films seem to range from pretty good, like the original, to the offensively stupid, such as a large chunk of part 3 and all of part 4. Since the various writers and directors of the previous four films seem to have moved on, Final Destination 5‘s writer Eric Heisserer and director Steven Quale have almost a blank canvas to create on.

The synopses part of these reviews almost seem rote now but if you’ve seen any of the previous films, you know the gist. In this case, Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a vision of a cataclysmic bridge collapse on the way to his company’s team building retreat. He manages to get everyone off the bus only for them all to get made dead via collapsing bridge decks, swinging suspension cables, or random sailboats. Fearing his premonition, Sam manages to get his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell), friend Peter (Miles Fisher) and other company folk off the bridge before it collapses. From then, they all die. This is not a spoiler. This is expected for this type of film.

With five films in the can now, the main hook of the Final Destination series is undoubtedly the deaths and the almost far-fetched yet somewhat conceivable ways that people can die. On that front, FD5 is almost tame in respect to some of the other films as many of the deaths are fairly straight-forward bad luck such as the flying wrench to the skull or crushing blow to the head from Buddha. Only one sequence really sticks out as the typical Rube-Goldbergian style that the series is built on. This scene though in a gymnasium is full of misdirection and red herrings (not sure that this applies here but we’ll go with it) that make the final outcome completely out of the blue, especially since this part was featured heavily in the trailers.

In the review for FD3, I remarked: “it is clear for me that what makes a Final Destination good as opposed to just mediocre are the characters.” FD4 (or THE Final Destination if you must) was shit because it completely disregards characters entirely for stupid gross-out gory moments and deaths. FD5 though walks the thin line not seen since the second between characters you actually care about and over-the-top death scenes. Here we have a good few minutes to get introduced to the characters and their histories and dynamics before they are almost playing on death’s swing set. While it might seem minor, the fact that Sam and Molly are on the rocks or that Olivia is self-conscious about her glasses are far more beneficial than just padding the film’s runtime. Unlike the last film, we can connect with these characters to some extent and can appreciate their relationships or worries which make their inevitable deaths just a bit more impactful.

It certainly helps greatly that we have professional actors in the film as opposed to the bottom-of-the-casting-barrel detritus that turned up last time. I don’t know why but I am a fan of D’Agosto, probably stretching back to his performance in Election. #pbf’s unrequited love Emma Bell is no slouch either as the love interest and final girl of the group. And Jacqueline MacInnes Wood is quite fetching. And a good actress to boot! In fact, all of the cast including Courtney B. Vance and David Koechner are believable in their respective roles even though Vance’s random agent seems a bit ridiculous since he is trying to blame a natural bridge collapse on Sam.

Vance’s role seemed to be a not very well conceived callback to the first where Alex is suspected of involvement in the airplane blowing up. That worked, to an extent, in that film but the notion that a mild-mannered guy could cause a freak natural disaster bridge collapse is stretching things a bit. There are other underlying callbacks to the first with the mentions of Paris and occurrences of the number 180 but there was no moment where the survivors figured out how their situation tied into the first film which was almost a staple in this series (the last film notwithstanding to my recollection.) Yet, without giving too much away, the final sequence ties in nicely with Devon Sawa and Kerr Smith from the original in a way I was pretty happy with.

At this rate, there isn’t too much new that can be done with these films but I was pleasantly surprised with how effectively Heisserer and Quale are able to balance the characters with the expected death scenes. Given that this was an online rental, I did not have the benefit of 3D while watching it but the effects sans one dimension were great (especially with the opening bridge collapse) so I was not missing too much. If I had to pick, I’d probably put this entry on par with part 2. It’s amazing how having realistic, albeit someone douchey, characters can make a mindless movie like this so much more enjoyable.

The Summer of Massacre will arrive on DVD and Blu-Ray on January 10th 2012 via Breaking Glass Pictures. It is 5 stories so bloody; so full of carnage that it is apparently in the Guinness Book of World records for highest body count recorded in a film. I am too lazy to verify that, so, you know, go ahead and Google or Wikipedia that. Whichever one you use to tell you what to believe.

You ever wanted to know what it would be like if Clive Barker took mescaline and then made a film? Joe Castro provides us with a pretty good guess. This film is ultra violent about 98.7% of the time. We have 5 chapters of dizzying images, ear piercing sounds and nonsensical industrial house music, and blood flowing like urine from a pissing contest atop Mt. Everest. I mean if something or someone could bleed, they did, as if their lives depended on it (!).

Chapter 1 is called Rampage. A man  is beaten severely while jogging through a park. A woman finds him still alive and calls the police. He jumps up and slaughters her, splattering blood all over the camera and everything else in the area. He then goes around town on a killing spree like one might go on a shopping spree at the local mall. Heads get squished, flesh gets ripped from bone, pointy objects get inserted in to various orifices. It’s quite a crimson delight, so long as internal organs laying out in the open is your type of thing.

Chapter 2 is is a delightful story about siblings called Lump, which is the nickname of a severely deformed hermaphrodite named Lori. Her sister is quite jealous of the attention she gets and takes her out to the woods with their brother and some friends. Lori’s sister pushes her (she is wheelchair bound) off of a cliff. When Lori doesn’t die, the others start to.

Chapter 3 is called Son of the Boogieman. Pretty straightforward. Years ago, a woman is raped by “the Boogieman” and has a child. Jessie (the son) and his mother have been hiding from him for 36 years. Somehow he has found them, and wants son to be just like father. Anyone that may come across his path is all but liquified.

Chapter 4, called Burn, has some familiar elements to it. Some young Christians sitting around a campfire, discussing a legend of murders that happened 20 years ago. Then guess, what? They get naked, smoke pot, drink beer and die.

The 5th “chapter” is told in between each of the other chapters. Three serial killers tell their stories not only devoid of remorse, but proudly as if earning straight A’s in a mass murder college program. After chapter 4 concludes, their story is also completed in the same style the previous were.

This film has nothing to offer but gallons and gallons of blood and entrails. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but don’t pop this flick in looking for any kind of acceptable acting, original (or even interesting) stories and certainly not gifted writing. It is gore for gore’s sake, and as over the top as it is, it takes itself quite seriously. So, if you want to see a brain ooze out of a skull, this film is just for you. The sad thing is, even the gore is cheesy and not that good looking most of the time.

It was a good choice to make this film in to 5 stories. If it tried to tell one narrative instead, I would have ripped my own flesh off.

After the last creatively bankrupt installment of this franchise, it’s no wonder that the Weinstein boys decided to go back to the drawing board and reboot the Michael Myers saga with Rob Zombie‘s version of Halloween. Or is it a remake? Or a re-imagining? Much like the most recent Nightmare on Elm Street film, I was confused as to the point of it all. Are we trying to fill in needless backstory about Myers and his upbringing? Are we updating the tale for a more contemporary potty-mouthed audience? Does anyone have a clue at this point?

You can probably give a brief summary of the original film in one not-so-brief sentence: Michael Myers is a messed-up little kid who kills his sister, gets sent away to the nuthouse but breaks out, and then tries to kill his younger sister many years later. In fact, that same synopsis is true for this film even though you would have to make a few inserts between commas here and there to get the gist of this film. Here we learn that Michael is not some normal-ish kid who simply snaps but is raised in an environment that guarantees an outcome of either loose or psychotic depending on the gender of the child. You’d like to think that Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie) was trying hard to raise her kids right but then you are reminded that she is a stripper and is voluntarily living with an abusive asshat. You might even feel a tinge of sympathy for Michael up until he butchers a rat off-camera in the first few moments and increases his violence thereafter.

Once the initial Halloween deed is done and Michael is found guilty of murder, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is assigned to his rehabilitation but after a few violent outbursts and a decade and a half later, Loomis resigns having failed to elicit even a rudimentary response out of the now gargantuan Myers. Depending on which version you watch, Michael escapes somehow and treks back to Haddonfield to find Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) for some snuggle time. Or maybe to kill her. Or maybe not. Who the hell knows?

Now, before I go all crazy negative, I will point out some of the things in Zombie’s Halloween that I like. Visually it is quite good and I hear that is the common thread between other Zombie-directed films (this being the only one I’ve seen, I’m merely going off the consensus). The direction, mostly, is spot on with little dispute from myself and most of the actors are quite good considering they are merely playing stereotypes of previously named folk in other films. Even though I didn’t care for the identical score from the first repurposed for this installment, especially in inappropriate times, the music was good as well. But sadly, for all the praise I can give to the production design or the acting, the story is the weakest link by far.

It almost seems that during the writing phase, Zombie was torn between a retelling of the original Halloween night with its subsequent aftermath and a pretty straight-forward remake of the original complete with the same characters and even identical lines of dialogue here and there. Unwilling or unable to pick between either, these two incomplete films are haphazardly sewn together into one really odd narrative to make a full movie out of. Even more sad is that it still runs way too long for a slasher film, especially considering that our final girl does not show up until almost halfway into the film.

The most aggravating thing about Zombie’s Halloween is that I see where either part of the story could have become a decent movie if separated from the other. Truthfully, I would much rather have seen a feature-length version of Michael stalking Laurie since that is where Zombie really showed the most promise with brutal attacks, not-as-hackneyed moments, and even a healthy bit of nudity (including from Danielle Harris!). My main issue with the front half of the film is that all of the characters are one-dimensional assholes with nary a redeeming quality between them. Laurie and her friends weren’t that well-drawn either but at least they were somewhat sympathetic even though I wanted to murder someone listening to their insipid dialogue about cheerleading or boyfriends or sex. If anything, for that half of the film, Zombie needed a Debra Hill for the adolescent teenage speak but he apparently went at it alone leading to some irritating results.

For every two things I liked, there were three that I did not, including the pointless trucker (Ken Foree!), the random hook-up in the Myers’ house, or the time period ambiguous settings. If he were not so beholden to throw in as many remembrances or re-stagings of the original, Zombie might have made a pretty decent entry in the Halloween franchise. But, the bifurcated nature of the story plus the horrendously drawn-out chase scenes between Michael and Laurie really distract from any enjoyment that may be obtained otherwise. But hey, at least it’s better than Busta Rhymes in Resurrection. At least Zombie has that in his corner.

October may be over but sadly I still have a few more of these movies to suffer through. After watching Halloween: Resurrection, I began to yearn for the unoriginal simplicity of H20 or the complete and utter nonsense of Parts 5 and 6. Resurrection is the worst type of horror movie: it offers nothing of value to the franchise or the genre as a whole and it all around sucks complete ass. This movie (among others no doubt) is why horror films are seen as cheap, disposable, and worthless. In fact, there aren’t any better adjectives to describe this monstrosity.

The first ever free pass I received for a movie was for this one courtesy of a local defunct radio station. Shame on them. In fairness, I was almost excited about a new entry in the Michael Myers saga since my tastes weren’t refined enough to recognize H20 as the derivative mess it is. Yet, as I sat in a theater with hundreds of other free ticket winners, I began to see the error in my ways. Where the previous Halloween sequels can be attributed to studio perseverance for a quick money grab, at least they at least tried to tie in with the rest of the movies (Halloween III not withstanding). I cannot levy any such admiration to this piece.

The pretty conclusive ending of the last film is explained away in awkward exposition that Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis; only in the film for fifteen minutes!) actually killed a paramedic who Michael dressed up like himself. As such, Laurie has been checked into a nuthouse where she sits comatose taking pills and staring out a window. Except for the night that He comes. And by He, I don’t mean Jesus. Laurie is made dead through stupid actions of her own and Michael walks away to his creepy theme music. Logically, since Michael has ALWAYS gone after family, you’d think he’d be gunning for John, Laurie’s son from H20. Josh Harnett was probably too busy to degrade himself with crap like this so that’s a no go.

Instead, we are introduced to Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes) from ‘Dangertainment’ who ropes in a half-dozen dumb-shit college kids to peruse around the Myers’ house (the traditional Myers’ house that is) on Halloween for a live broadcast on the web. There’s a free-spirit chick, a wild-and-crazy chick, the bad-boy, the Rookie-of-the-year, and the final girl. Let’s just say that most meet their demise at the hands of Michael’s rage since they are … squatting in his house? The hell?

I gave Halloween III the crap category but I almost feel bad about that now. Perhaps there should be different tiers of crap: Tier 1 is almost passable like H3; Tier 4 or so would be where Halloween: Resurrection falls. There is absolutely nothing in this film that can change my mind. From the thoughtless shift from killing family to protecting property(?), to the wretched characters who fail to stick out in any way other than annoying and soon to be dead, to the abundance of Busta Rhymes, this film would probably take itself to the barn and shoot itself if it could. Even director Rick Rosenthal (of the not good, but nowhere near as bad H2) can inject anything of note into the painfully long runtime that cannot be seen in any bargain-bin horror film with a masked killer.

Even the fact that Michael Myers is so watered down in this installment is abundantly clear as he simply walks away after being chastised by Freddie who thinks he is just a random tech hand. The Michael Myers of old would have cut that sucker into a few dozen pieces before but maybe old age has gotten to him as he simply turns around and walks away. And good for us! Otherwise we wouldn’t be treated to Rhymes’ frequent utterances of “damn” and “fuck” and not to mention “Trick or Treat Motherfucker!” As a side note, it pissed me off the most that it cannot keep with the simple aspects of the series such as the always present rain on Halloween Eve. With the exception of H3, all other Myers-based Halloween films have rain on October 30th but apparently I as a 12-year-old was able to pick up on trends better than anyone involved here.

Maybe there was supposed to be some social commentary on the emerging trend of reality television but that was clearly not on the forefront of the production. If anything, we learned that Myers is probably not on a rampage because of a lack of protein or lack of sex but more likely due to a lack of not-dumbshit people surrounding him. Everyone in this movie deserved to die and maybe the character of Myers was simply trying to stop the audience from enduring any more of these films. I guess he didn’t take into account Rob Zombie. Damn!

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.

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.