rascal67 Reviews

Halloween II (2009)

Zombie's Redemption

[7/10 · 3 August 2012]

This one knocked me for a six. Immensely disappointed with Rob Zombie's remake of John Carpenter's horror classic—my expectations may have been too high maybe—but as far as I am concerned it is a turgid overblown mess of a film. Personally, I felt he should have left it alone or done another sequel. Instead, he has ended up paving the way for a sequel to his own vision of 'Halloween' and has come out on top. The strength of this film lies with the strong visual approach and while loaded with dark and negative imagery, he has also made it look beautiful, potent and alluring, with oodles of atmosphere.

The psychotic Michael Myers is roaming the countryside after escaping a formidable ambulance crash that was transporting his presumably dead body. He is aided by ethereal, schizophrenic visions of his mother and a symbolic white horse in search of Laurie Strode—played with hysterical relish and anguish by Scout Taylor-Compton—to unify them as a family once more. The first act is set in a hospital and I suppose in a sense is Zombie's remake of Rick Rosenthal's creepy and bloody 'Halloween 2' from 1981'. After that it opens up for a dark; violent; gritty and sometimes surreal journey of Myers hunting down Laurie and dispatching any unwary victims in bloody and brutal fashion that get in his way.

Malcolm McDowell returns as Dr. Loomis and along with his cohort played by Caroline Williams offer some comic relief as they both ham it up, but in a harmonized way that blends quite conscientiously with the reign of terror usurped by Myers. The violence perpetrated in this film is quite raw. While graphic and brutal, it is not overdone and is edited in a skillful and frenzied fashion that can give the appearance we are actually seeing more than we really are.

Zombie's grasp of the film medium is professionally realized here. While there have been many detractors to this sequel, I feel that from a cinematic aspect this film is a very strong accomplishment and another deep dark notch in Zombie's tenebrous career.

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

A Bloody Mess!

[1/10 · 11 July 2011]

This has got to be one of the worst remakes of a classic 80's slasher\horror film I have seen. I would consider the original 'My Bloody Valentine - 81' to be one of the better slashers of the early 80's period. It was no 'Halloween - 78', but it was full of atmosphere and had plenty of style to boot—this rancid remake was just an insult to my intelligence.

There is better acting seen on a daytime TV soap opera. The cinematography and lighting were flat and uninspired ( I am aware it was filmed for 3D, but even this isn't an improvement over watching the 2D version of the film) and the gore and violence didn't have any real impact due to the terrible characterization. If it was intended as a parody of the original version or slasher films in general, it failed miserably because it was so damn boring and uninteresting. Do many of these modern horror film makers have any real passion or appreciation of what makes a decent horror flick become a perennial favorite??? The producers of this travesty certainly had no vision except maybe of their wallets.

Avoid at all costs. You have been warned!

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

A Nightmare Of Abysmal Proportions

[1/10 · 20 May 2010]

Comparisons to Wes Craven's 1984 original classic are going to be prevalent. Some may say that this is unfair and biased. I for one went in to this remake telling myself not to be prejudiced and too accept the film on it's own merits, but when a film is this egregious; one can't help such rueful contrasts.

Excellent production values do not compensate for boring tripe and weak acting. The veneer of this film is all gloss. A superficial attempt at creating a nightmarish atmosphere only augments how routine and soulless this contemptuous film is. Every sequence appeared to be just going through the motions of what the screenplay had set down with no affection, passion or even interest behind the direction. It is an insult to horror film fans; Wes Craven and even the sequels that the original spawned; it even makes the boring Part 5 'Dream Child' seem like a masterpiece.

The main flaw is in the characterization. You have to have likable characters and actors to root for in a film like this otherwise why care about these kids and their nightmares. Who cast this thing? Who wrote this thing? Im sure it was great for these actors to get cast: but come on! None of these actors were really endearing and their acting skills were forced and fake like the style of this turgid mess. They were obviously too old looking for the teenage characters they were playing and displayed none of the naiveté, natural charm or teenage persona that the Elm St. films from the 80's were blessed with.

What is the point of introducing the first victim; who we really knew nothing about and acted and sounded like a jerk and then kill him off in the first 5 minutes. Maybe young teenagers might find this distressing, but it displays nothing but scorn for the rest of the audience especially the older fans. 'Aliens Vs Predator Requiem' is another case point example. When are these contemporary horror filmmakers going to awaken to this???

The one star I give this film is only awarded for Jackie Earle Haley, who imbued his Freddy Kruger with a menacing and cruel edge without going over the top. It's a nightmarish shame the rest of the film let his talent down.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Visual overkill to mask a weak execution

[3/10 · 1 January 2010]

I am an ardent admirer of Peter Jackson's 'Heavenly Creatures' and rate it #1 in my top 5 drama films of all time thus far. I was looking forward to seeing this film adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel—which I have not read—as it sounded like he was going back to his 'Heavenly Creature' roots with the story that was presented. I had read some disappointing reviews before seeing 'The Lovely Bones' so did not go in with much expectation but kind of hoping that the detractors may be wrong: unfortunately they were right.

Where to begin: 1/ I found the acting weak and forced. Mark Whalberg was miscast and was so obvious at playing emotional and serious rather than being the feeling, like much of the movie there was no finesse to his performance. Rachel Weisz had hardly much to do at all and her role seemed lost and neglected—but I would put this down to editing choices. Stanley Tucci and Saorise Ronan fared better, but they are better actors than Whalberg so that goes without saying. Susan Sarandon was just a gross caricature.

2/ Like Sarandon's performance, there was no subtlety to the presentation of the film. It's like Peter Jackson was too concerned with making a great looking technically impressive film which has overshadowed the human element of the story. Personally, I found some of the CGI effects second rate like something I would find in a television commercial: it just did not grab me and was surfeit.

3/ While it appears that much effort had gone into the production design with some meticulous detail, it looked overdone and so fake 70's the actors looked like they were playing dress up and acting like they were still in the 21st century. The supporting roles were nothing to write home about at all and were just plain embarrassing to watch in some scenes. 'Heavenly Creatures' had strong performances, from then largely unknown actors and this film had nothing exceptional to offer in the thespian stakes, yet had a big name cast.

4/ I was not connected or emotionally involved in the proceedings, due to the over-importance of the pyrotechnics on display and the screenplay was choppy and all over the place: too much forced fed sentiment. Maybe I missed something, but the style of the film did not mirror the substance and potential that was on offer and what could have been a moving and distressing experience ended up being distanced and flaccid.

A huge disappointment!

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

The Deer Hunter of 80's slashers

[7/10 · 14 February 2009]

This early 80's horror flick is one of the best of the slasher genre. It has a great setting in a small Canadian mining town - which has it's streets and buildings drenched with red and pink valentine decorations - which is a surreal contrast to the cold and sombre setting that foreshadows the real pumpers that eventually pop up in crimson heart shaped candy boxes.

The scenes filmed in an actual mine - where the protagonists are trapped with the killer lurking around with a sharpened pickaxe - are expertly filmed with plenty of style and a menacing atmosphere. The acting is decent and although some of the characters act like jerks they are likable and human enough for the viewer to care about them. They are all working class stiffs and just want a good time and relief from the reality of their everyday situation. You want them to have their valentine party that has been denied them for obvious reasons.

Notorious for being one of the most censored films by the MPAA at the time of release to avoid an 'X' rating, it is now available in an uncut form on Lionsgate DVD. The death scenes are much more detailed and graphic, but either version is worth watching for the flourish that the director and his cast and crew have imbued into this little horror gem.

House of Wax (2005)

Just like the good ole days!!!!!

[8/10 · 22 July 2008]

It was a nice surprise to see a modern horror movie, that evoked the same kind of nostalgic feeling in me that I get when watching some good old 70's/80's horror films.

'House Of Wax' is leisurely paced and builds up to an awesome climax that is a visual treat. The film manages to build up a dark palpable tension and has a creepy Gothic atmosphere; unexceptional - though interesting - protagonists and a fine (award worthy) psychotic performance by Brian Van Holt.

For a modestly budgeted horror film, H.O.W. is technically excellent in all departments. Although gory in sporadic bursts; it is the undercurrent of sadistic violence; it's threat of what might or can happen, that lifts this film out of your typical run of the mill slasher flicks.

In my personal opinion, the best horror film of the noughties so far! Dazzling!

No Country for Old Men (2007)

"I always thought when I got older God would come into my life........He Didn't"

[8/10 · 6 January 2008]

Brilliant! Well almost. This disturbing morality tale by the Coen Brothers, is a superbly directed; written; acted and photographed dramatic thriller that left an indelible imprint on my memory hours after viewing. It is a multi layered film for discerning film goers and will not be everyone's cup of tea but one which I found strong and invigorating.

It is a film about our actions and the consequences they result in. How our characters can contrast with the surroundings and environment in which we live. We call the shots and pay the price, which affects not only our own fate but inadvertently those around us.

The script is peppered with wit and dark humor and Javier Bardem as the main villain is downright chilling and creepy ***Spoiler Alert***Like life, the climax of the film is downbeat and offers no satisfying resolution, but to my perception this is what gives the film it's potency and edge. I must add though, that it was a mistake to not include the showdown at the motel near the climax of the film. The events that had transpired and had ostensibly appeared to be building up too a violent and suspenseful confrontation between Lewelyn and Chirguh, my expectations were suddenly deflated and I felt cheated when an off screen shootout occurred and the Mexicans decided Lewelyn's fate. This deceit was a poor choice made by the filmmakers, considering that the films end left one hanging.

If you are willing to go the distance, enter this country at your own risk - you may find it a rewarding journey but be prepared to get shaken not stirred.

Into the Wild (2007)

Too Much Penn - Not Enough McCandless

[6/10 · 1 December 2007]

Having not read the book, I can only take from Chris McCandless's experiences based on what I saw in the film 'Into The Wild'.

As a film I found many extraordinary things about it. The splendid cinematography is the first that comes to mind; many of the performances–particularly Hal Holbrook–who was a stand out and the interesting story/screenplay that director Sean Penn had to work with, which he painted over a broad canvas.

I do have some issues with the way it was presented. The narration by McCandless's sister; the passages that flashed across the screen from Chris's letters to Wayne who we really didn't get to know much about in the film and the non linear representation of the story—these things were too distracting for me too get fully immersed in the proceedings. It took me almost a restless hour before I began to settle in and my mind was constantly reminded that I was watching a movie. I feel this is due to Penn's disordered screenplay and self conscious directing style—the actor mugging into the camera??? Being aware of who the director was, I feel that more of Sean Penn's sensibilities and politics came through rather than that of the lead character and has let the film down slightly.

The choice of Eddie Vedder to score some of the music and songs throughout the film and the structure of the screenplay appears to come more from Penn's own psyche rather than what could have worked better for the films narrative. I personally feel a more linear/mainstream structure to this film would have benefited the story more. The representation of the themes expressed don't appear tempered or balanced enough—too anti this and anti that. Again it felt like too much Penn coming through.

William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden had thankless roles as McCandless's parents and were wasted screen time. Any other lesser known actors could have portrayed these roles with what little they were given to do; as was with Vince Vaughn's character. Catherine Keener was perfect along with Hal Holbrook and I didn't have any issue with young Emile Hirsch in the lead role.

Through the events portrayed in the film I admire McCandless's tenacity and passion for pursuing the life and dream he desired. However, I found him arrogant and deluded not to mention hypocritical in denouncing the so called civilized world into which he was born. Alright! Chris had some childhood/upbringing issues but who doesn't. He was educated; intelligent and loved; but many of his actions— particularly those involving his family appear selfish. After the distressing incident with the Moose, Chistopher McCandless should have surrendered his ego and made an attempt to turn back home. To my mind he is not a hero and does not deserve to be martyred. It was a shame how this bright young mans life ended up - but perhaps his fate was deserved.

Halloween (2007)

Rob Zombie's reshaping of a genre classic is a failure!

[2/10 · 26 November 2007]

After the impressive 'Devil's Rejects', I eagerly awaited this remake of John Carpenter's seminal 70's horror classic. With Zombie at the helm I had high expectations, but alas, these went unfulfilled. The first part chronicles a young Michael Myers home life, which I feel is totally unnecessary and failed miserably in trying to give Myers some kind of warped reasoning for his psychotic state of mind—nature vs nurture??? The psychology wasn't erudite or edifying enough to ring true. Who Cares what made Michael the monster he became: Michael Myers just is and that is what makes him a personification of pure evil. His enigma is more terrifying than his pathology.

The second part–detailing Myers return to Haddonfield several years later–just doesn't hold a candle to the frightening masterpiece Carpenter created almost 30 years ago. As in the best horror films, style and atmosphere should mirror substance to give the viewer something to grasp on too; especially when there is a meager story at play. There are no real genuine scares here just arbitrary shocks and the look of this film is ugly and harsh with unappealing performances from it's main protagonists.

Zombie's first 2 cinematic ventures were homages to horror and action films past–ala Tarantino style and succeeded due to his love and passion for the 70's era and mood. He may have done better making a sequel to the abysmal 'Halloween - Resurrection' rather than this turgid remake of the original vision. Watch Steve Miner's terrific ' Halloween H20' instead; or better yet, go back to where it all began.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

The Utlimatum Of Celluloid Self Abuse - Ever!!!!!

[1/10 · 21 September 2007]

20 Minutes into this film I had to close my eyes as I could bear it no longer. What was with the jerky camera movements and fast cutting from scene to scene? The shots were all over the place and made me feel nauseous. The longest shot - from what I saw - was about 3 seconds long and thats being generous. There was no opportunity given to observe anything real, as though the director was trying to mask something from the viewer - maybe inept incompetence as a film maker. There are many other films made with the hand held camera approach to add a sense of realism; but not to this epileptic extreme.

I haven't seen the first two 'Bourne' films, but this one had such a high user rating I was intrigued. Well! If this is the kind of ego based rubbish Hollywood wants to force feed the ignorant masses and drain them of their $$$$ let them have it: I'd rather be in the minority and retain my dignity.

****FOOTNOTE**** This film won all 3 Academy Awards it was nominated for including Best Film Editing. It should have been for most edited film - what a joke!

Prophecy (1979)

Robert Foxworth's perm is scarier than the monster......

[6/10 · 30 July 2007]

...... but the creature itself isn't half bad considering that this was made in 79'- pre CGI. The film has some great expansive wilderness scenery and an effective score by Leonard Rosenman. It has a great opening which in a sense promises more than the rest of the film delivers—quite plodding for the most part—but this is really a minor quibble. The acting is decent and there is enough tension generated by the opening sequence to keep ones interest throughout the proceedings.

There is minimal gore, but the tone of the film is relatively intense and serious, with a violent undercurrent that is more implied than expressive and adds to some well mounted terror sequences. The last half hour certainly isn't dull and is filmed with panache and a great deal of swampy atmosphere.

This is a very hard US PG rating (pre - PG13 days). A brief fight scene involving a chainsaw and an axe (although by no means graphic) is like something seen in a more exploitative hardcore action film. Had the film makers pushed a little stronger and bloodied a little more and went for an R' rating, this film may have become a minor horror classic considering the talent involved. As it stands, its still a hoot and well worth a mention in your DVD creature feature collection.

Hostel: Part II (2007)

Can't wait for Hostel: Part 3

[7/10 · 17 June 2007]

Wow! I lapped up every minute of this fine polished sequel to Eli Roth's raw and unnerving 'Hostel'. It ended quite abruptly and I just sat there with my mouth agape. I just wanted more and there are not many modern day horror films I can say that about.

The first 'Hostel' took me by surprise and I found it to be more compelling than I had anticipated. This second installment is equally enthralling and grabbed me by the......... well if you have seen this film you will know what I'm talking about.

Although bloody and sadistically violent; it is also darkly funny and populated with some of the strangest; menacing and unusual looking characters to grace the silver screen in quite some time. I felt I was in 'Argento' territory here during some of the sequences and this is most certainly not a bad thing at all. The design of the film was great, with some excellent cinematography and evocative music that all melded together to create an exciting; tense and dare I say entertaining movie experience. Not for the faint of heart—but it wasn't made for pussies!

A View to a Kill (1985)

A minority opinion but................................

[8/10 · 4 May 2007]

.........as far as I,m concerned; 'A View To A Kill' is the second best Roger Moore 007 adventure and one of the best of the series.

What more could you want in a Bond Movie - Christopher Walken; Grace Jones; Tanya Roberts; great locations; superb action set pieces and stunts. Admittedly, Roger Moore was beginning to show his age but who really cares, he still manages to pull it off and make it his own. Moore as Bond is suave and savvy and always gave his all.

I have read a a lot of backlash in regards to Christopher Walken's characterization of Max Zorin, some complaining he is too bland and colorless for a Bond movie villain. I feel that Walken has given us a subtle and realistic villain; one who's psychosis is bubbling away under his cold and arrogant exterior and is likely to erupt at any time. This is evident near the climax in the mine shaft sequence and makes his Max Zorin all the more dangerous and deadly.

With a 'A View To A Kill', Moore bowed out with a bang not a whimper!

Moore Bond Films, as I would rate them:

#1 The Spy Who Loved Me'77 #2 A View To A Kill'85 #3 For Your EyesOnly'81 #4 Octopussy'83 #5 Moonraker'79 #6 The Man With The Golden Gun'74 #7 Live and Let Die'73