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.

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.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: in a small town, weird things start happening as the townsfolk who look seemingly normal turn into emotionless robots with only a few becoming aware of the differences. No, it’s not the plot to The Faculty. Despite the 1955 short story by Jack Finney and four movies based off of it (one of which we even covered last year), I have not seen any version of this tale but it seems so common because it has been remade and homaged (or in the case of The Faculty almost blatantly ripped off) countless times over the years. Yet, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a short and creepy thriller even though everything seems cliched by now.

Doctor Bennell (Kevin McCarthy) returns home to Santa Mira, California with reports that most of the town wanted to see him for undisclosed reasons. Now though, everyone seems to be healthy and normal aside from the little boy who is almost mincemeat after running into the street trying to escape his mother or the woman who declares that her uncle is not really her uncle but an imposter with the same appearance and memories. Bennell quickly dismisses the claims and refers the woman to the town psychiatrist. Later while dining with love interest Becky Driscoll (Dana Wynter), Bennell receives an urgent call and goes to the home of Jack and Teddy who have found a body in their house without any defining features or even fingerprints. Soon Bennell, Becky, and company discover the town is no longer occupied by humans, just empty shells of their former friends and colleagues.

Even though it seems overdone (since it kind of is), the story behind Invasion is still quite effective, enhanced here by great performances and the beauty of black-and-white cinematography. This is, in a way, a more frightening tale than a typical zombie or slasher film primarily because the protagonists are mostly in the dark about what is happening and even once they do figure things out, there is no way of telling who is human and who is not. This uncertainty has strong roots in the ongoing Cold War when the film was made and the fear and paranoia can be easily supplanted with enemies of the state or something else more common in the natural world.

Thanks to the great performances and the direction by Don Siegel, most everything in the film is suspenseful and even a bit off-kilter before we learn of what is really going on. The one problem with the film that is apparently widely hated is the opening scene showing that Bennell has escaped Santa Mira and is telling the story to a doctor elsewhere. This, and his accompanying spotty narration, almost remove any real tension since we know that he will survive. Yet, as the film wound down, I was still waiting for the “downer” ending that the rest of the movie commanded but due to alleged studio tinkering, we receive a happy-ish ending instead. Again, I haven’t seen any of the other films based off of the same story so I don’t know if that’s a common theme but I hope not.

It wasn’t until the past seven or eight years that I first saw The Exorcist. Back in probably 1999 or 2000, I bought a DVD with the intention on catching up with one of horror’s most renowned films but I didn’t get around to it until many years later when the random urge struck one night as I sat alone at home. Needless to say, the movie creeped me the hell out and even watching it today still invokes a strong sense of unease. It isn’t the “scariest” film in terms of jump-scares but William Friedkin‘s classic tale is still as unsettling today as I’m sure it was almost forty years ago.

As I remarked when I reviewed this film’s sequel, Exorcist II: The Heretic some time ago, I haven’t watched the original in some time. Of course the basic summary of the movie still stuck out as well as the priest who defenestrates himself but Exorcist excels just like the other classics I’ve covered like Halloween because we are not immediately thrust into the conflict. Friedkin (and writer William Peter Blatty) take a remarkably restrained pace where the odd happenings do not begin until over a third into the film and the exorcism is withheld until the very last minute.

Instead of drawing out the young girl’s potential possession or the exorcism itself, the movie spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time on Regan (Linda Blair) and her mother Chris’ (Ellen Burstyn) relationship and how the effect that the occurrences have on Chris as she searches for an answer about what is going on. Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) and Father Karras (Jason Miller) are also given a hefty amount of backstory and characterization before even meeting the MacNeil family which leads to some rather disturbing exchanges between the priests and the demon inhabiting Regan.

Throughout its entire two-hour runtime, Friedkin successfully sucks you into the story with little time to ponder or debate what you are seeing on screen. Regan’s affliction could very well be physical, emotional, or religious in nature but the way the story unfolds as Chris is told her daughter’s actions are caused by neurological issues or psychological issues keeps us on an even keel with the characters with the small exception that we know we’re watching a movie called The Exorcist.

There are many deeper issues here, especially pertaining to faith as told through Karras’ character. Or maybe Friedkin and Blatty were denouncing the miracle of modern medicine which failed time and time again here to explain something so easily dismissed. Whatever your take on God, the Devil, and religion as a whole, The Exorcist isn’t a movie that has any answers (or really asks any big questions) about belief but watching it will get the gears in your head turning regardless.

I know. I’ve already reviewed Scream 4 once before. It was hardly an impartial review though since it had been eleven years since the premiere of the preceding movie and it was not too thorough since I banged it out after a midnight showing opening day before going to work. But, since it was just released on DVD and Blu-ray this week, why not take another look?

Beginning with a dizzying number of “opening” sequences, Scream 4 sets the action back in Woodsboro as Sidney (Neve Campbell) has returned on a book signing tour and reunited with Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox) who are now married. Dewey is now the Sheriff, Gale is retired from reporting and unsuccessfully trying to write a fiction novel, and Sidney is the proverbial black cat who is constantly followed by death and despair. The mayhem starts up again as Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her friend Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) watch as their neighbor is savagely (and I mean savagely!) butchered by Ghostface which kicks in the old plot formula of a who-dun-it mystery combined with unnaturally loquacious teenagers and references to other horror films.

Even though the film was allegedly plagued with rewrites, reshoots, and typical Weinstein fuckery, the finished product that launched in theaters is pretty satisfying. It was announced as a reboot/remake/sequel hybrid which sounded pretty dumb at the time but started to flesh out as the cast was announced with the returning trio of Arquette, Campbell, and Cox and a host of other new characters. The main issue with the film (similar to the last two actually) is that there are too many damn people to keep track of. At this point, we are pretty safe to assume that the killers are not Sidney, Dewey, or Gale so thus every other actor is saddled with questionable lines and sketchy motives to make them seem like the killer. The reason the first worked so well (aside from the fact that it was the first) is that the potential psycho-list was not as long as my arm. You certainly cannot fault the film for a low bodycount though if you are into that.

If anything, returning writer (or writers) Kevin Williamson is able to tap into a good amount of the self-referential and self-awareness of the first film. Woodsboro’s current crop of teens are the gang from the first hopped up on Redbull with unfettered access to the internet to pirate all seven Stab films or whatever the hell kids do these days. Scream: The Next Generation would have been a fine movie on its own. Jill takes the victim torch from Sidney, she has a creepy-ish boyfriend like Billy, and instead of one, we have three Randy-esque characters in this movie. It is the somewhat awkward merging of the old and new classes that brings the film down since there really is no time to focus on anyone for fear of neglecting someone else.

Wes Craven tried to do his best with the film since it seems a bit more on point than part 3 but no where close to the excellence he brought to Scream 2. After enough horror films in general (and of a particular franchise to boot), it is easy to get lazy with the “scares” but there were a few effective ones here and there. The thing I will curse Craven and Williamson (and whoever else wrote the thing) for is their penchant for playing it too safe. There was one scene that almost tried to be as shocking as Randy’s demise in 2 but whoever is responsible didn’t have the cajones to kill off one of the main three. Going into the film, it’s a safe bet that if the character has not been in a previous Scream film, they are as good as dead. It would have been refreshing to have some more uncertainty about the old-school cast even though what the “typical” audience wants is a boring, happy ending.

The most aggravating thing about Scream 4 are the numerous scenes cut from the final picture. Most deleted scenes are taken out for a reason but here are tighter chase scenes, more character development, and backstory that are severely missed in the regular release. Sure, the extra scenes with the sadly wasted Mary McDonnell or more stuff with Kirby (my favorite new character) would have extended the run-time but there was plenty of material that didn’t work to start with. A commentary comes on the Blu-ray with Craven, Roberts, and Panettiere (and Campbell for a brief time) but it is nowhere near as in depth or thoughtful as some of those from the previous films.

The painful thing about Scream 4 is that everyone (cast and crew included) tried hard to make a decent follow-up but only succeeded in reminding the audience how special and awesome the original is. If the series were to continue, it needs to be around some different characters in a similar storyline lest it continue to fall in the shadow of its predecessor.

My how the world has changed since the 1930s. I can only imagine the chagrin that theater patrons were treated to while watching Tod Browning‘s Freaks, otherwise known as awesome horror film #24 by the IMDb. Yet, watching this film several decades later takes most of the shock and awe out of these characters. Instead of being shunned by society and making a living by begging or doing parlor tricks, abnormal, or unique if you’d rather, people have been featured in movies, TV series, and hell … even reality shows. Oh well, I can’t blame the film for the sad state of popular media today.

Poor Hans (Harry Earles) just can’t seem to catch a break. He is smitten with the beautiful Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova), even though she stands about three feet taller than his dwarfish frame. After being given extravagant gifts by the foolhardy Hans, Cleopatra and her beau Hercules learn that Hans has received a large inheritance and Cleopatra strings him along until the two get hitched at one of the more eventful weddings ever. Also in attendance at the feast are the other members of the touring group including Siamese conjoined twins, a he/she, a bearded lady, and more. “One of us, one of us” is the chant they use to welcome the decidedly normal Cleopatra into their group. Not surprisingly, the drunken wife is not happy with this and calls them “slimy freaks” just after throwing wine on them. The gang does not think that to be very polite and start piecing together her motives.

Eighty years removed, Freaks is just not a horror film any longer. It is mostly good even though the just over one hour runtime leaves much to be desired (due to the stupidity of 1930s folk allegedly). The film works well, even today, at exposing these “freaks” and sympathizing them as they play, fight, love, and gang up to give an old-school beat-down to a couple of traitors. An opening scroll that accompanied the DVD I watched filled in a lot of the group’s dynamics as to why they were all mostly accepting of Hans and Cleopatra as a way of showing solidarity toward one another. That also further explains the lengths that they go to exact revenge on her when she betrays their code.

At the end, there are a few unsettling images (I’m thinking the little people crawling through the mud with knives will give me nightmares) and the film itself is pretty sound given its age. It is a shame though that the heaps of footage reportedly excised are lost for good just as it is sad that Tod Browning never really recovered professionally after this film. Fortunately though, while the reaction was less than positive many decades ago, Freaks is now pretty highly regarded and likely did much to foster understanding for the subject matter.

Originally published January 7, 2010

Surprisingly, I had been missing out on John Carpenter’s The Thing until a few years ago when a friend of mine turned me on to it. I thought it was a very effective movie and the DVD was great, featuring commentary by Carpenter and Kurt Russell as well as an in depth documentary on the making of the film. Sadly, my original DVD was not anamorphic so I had no desire to watch the film in recent years until I upgraded my disc to the re-release from a few years back. For some reason, I didn’t remember much from the film so it was almost like watching it for the first time all over again.

A loose remake of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World, Carpenter’s version puts us in the middle of an Antartic research team who uncover a monstrous alien who has already devastated another research camp. As the being infiltrates the tight group of men, it takes their appearance and mannerisms leading them to doubt as to who is human and who is not. It is a very simplistic story, one which has been ripped off (or maybe its an homage depending on where you stand) by other films and even TV series.

It works so well because it is very well-produced (one of Carpenter’s best in my opinion) and has a great confined atmosphere of dread. It is really not a scary movie. It has a few jumps but more importantly, it has a palpable tension especially as the characters start putting the pieces together and figuring out that something is not right.

One of the biggest standouts of the film is the effects by Rob Bottin to create the creature. As it changes from a dog to a venus-fly-trap-headed man to even as a man’s head separates from the rest of his body as the alien tries to survive, the visuals of the monster are genuinely frightening, never looking gimmicky or fake. This is a movie that special effects gurus should look to for why practical effects are much more effective and realistic than crap-looking CGI which may allow more creativity but destroys any credibility.

Its a real shame that Carpenter has been on a decline and all but disappeared over the past several years. While I haven’t seen all of his films, I have seen a fair amount to be able to tell the difference between old Carpenter classics like Prince of Darkness or Halloween and new Carpenter dreck like Village of the Damned and Ghosts of Mars. He seems to have returned to form recently with his well reviewed episode of Masters of Horror and his upcoming film The Ward.

Let’s hope that the threatened Thing remake either fizzles out or turns out to be decent. While it won’t destroy the original, I don’t think Carpenter could use another dud, even if its just in credit only.