Halloween Horrors: Greenlee Gazette's Scary Movies to Avoid

With most of my movie lists, I'm telling you which films are worth a view for your Halloween weekend. In this case, I'm going to tell you what to avoid.

Images from source, Wikipedia

Some movies are so bad, they're good. This list is of horror movies so bad, they're just bad. Some of them may have one or two redeeming features, maybe one memorable scene. But by and large, anything on this list should be avoided. Do not get the DVD if it's at Big Lots for $3. Do not get it for 50 cents at a yard sale. Do not watch it on cable while you're laid up with the flu. Avoid. As in don't watch.

Greenlee Gazette's Top 10 Scary Movies to Avoid

In no particular order. . .

1. The Happening (2008) - This movie was marketed as sort of a psychological thriller/sci-fi/pseudo-horror film, you know. . .like every other M. Night Shyamalan movie. This overrated director/producer/writer hit his nadir with this one, one of the worst major studio films ever made. Technically, it doesn't look so bad. It's not the cinematography or the editing. I'll even give Shyamalan props for the production values in general. That does not make up for the utterly unbelievable, unconvincing and strange dialogue, plot and acting by all concerned. Mark Wahlberg couldn't even save this one. See my full review here:
DVD Movie Review: The Happening

2. Soul Survivors (2001) - This one slid under my radar for a long time. It has cover art evocative of practically every teen horror film of the last dozen or so years, with its lineup of sexy young actors, lead by Eliza Dushku. Or rather, she's featured most prominently on the box, but is a supporting actress in the movie. The film tries to do too much, tries to make itself deep, and in doing so, comes off as a convoluted mess. In fact, it feels like I've seen a similar concept in a different film. It has the type of ending that leves me thinking, "Okay, so why did I just watch that?" Casey Affleck and Wes Bentley are cuties, and I'm a huge Dushku fan, but this one is worse than just "meh." It's a waste of time.

3. The Fog (2005) - Don't ask me how I've avoided the original version of this film for 30 years, but I've never seen it. All the better then to watch the remake, right? I mean knowing nothing about the story, it could work all on its own merits. No. Dreadful. Boring. Pointless. I tried to make it through, and shut it off before it was over (possibly with 5 or 10 minutes to go, seriously). It's long, it meanders, and is not at all what it seemed to promise. John Carpenter has done much, much better than this. Sorry, even Superboy/Superman Tom Welling wasn't enough.

4. Cloverfield (2008) - Given the people behind this film (J.J. Abrams and Drew Goddard), and the premise (big monster attacks Manhattan, in real time), this should have been great. It's not. There are things of technical interest, the way the film is shot and constructed. But the story? No.

5. April Fool's Day (2008) - Unlike the original (see here), this movie isn't particularly funny, nor is it entertaining. It's only nominally a remake, and utterly skippable. Do so.

6. War of the Worlds (2005) - Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg and a concept by H.G. Wells. What could go wrong? Everything. As a long-time Wells fan, I've liked many different versions of this story, from the book to the 80s TV series. But this big, Hollywood "event movie" was even a bigger letdown than Cloverfield or The Happening. Not as bad as The Happening mind you, I just had higher expectations.

7. Psycho (1998 Remake) - Gus Van Sant remade--shot for shot--Alfred Hitchcock's beyond classic original. Why? Nobody knows, not even Vince Vaughn or Anne Heche.

8. Fear Dot Com is a pointless, convoluted, headache-inducing, mess of a movie that isn't worth anyone's time, ever. Not for free, not even if the only other things to watch are The 700 Club, The Nanny, Cop Rock and According to Jim. The acting is odd, the photography is drunken and dark, the plot is threadbare, even the soundtrack sucks.  Play Scrabble by yourself.  Vaccum under your sofa cushions. Count the kibble in your dog's dish. Clean out your freezer. Do anything else besides watch this festering pustule of a movie.

9. Rob Zombie's followup to his remake of Halloween, Halloween II. Terrible.

10. Any post-Scream horror film, with DVD cover-art consisting of 4-6 pretty young actors, lined up for a glamor shot (see Soul Survivors, above).

The Rudest (and Funniest) Bomb Movie Review You'll Ever See: PIXELS

I've never heard of MovieBob, but I'm a brand new, instant fan. It's like someone took The Rude Pundit, crossed him with Lewis Black, hopped up the result on energy shots and gave him the task of reviewing a shitty movie. It's spectacular, and from the looks of things, more entertaining than the movie by a long shot. But be warned: it's profane. In a good way, but your boss (or your spouse or your mom) might night think so.

You've been warned.
 

Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th!

I know, I know, I've talked about slowly returning to blogging, but where am I, right? Well, my excuses are thin. I've fallen from the habit. But The Other Half is gone for a long stretch, and I'm going to try to get back into the game. Great day to start, a weekend, where blogging is always light, right? So, what easier way to re-start, than to start with a rerun of. . .

Happy Friday the 13th everybody! If you've read this blog even a little bit, you know that I'm a cheesy horror movie fan. And there is no cheesier series of horror films than the Friday the 13th series. From the beginning, it was a rip-off (but the first one!) of Halloween. But you could safely say that Halloween as a franchise was born due to the success of Friday the 13th. The following blog post was written for my annual Halloween scary movie retrospectives. But every time there is a Friday the 13th on the calendar, these movies come back into vogue.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, worst acted and least impactful story wise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother, and Adrienne King as "the final girl." Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. And pretty much put the slasher genre on the map (even if it did take the cue from Halloween). Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 - Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the lengthy recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask. Gone is the notion of revenge, Jason just kills everything in his path now. I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Final, yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was all the way back in 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover(!?). ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reins. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The Friday feel is still there, but just barely, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. Not very gory. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. But it adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. The cryogenic scene, though? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. And I'm still confused by Jason's new fear of water. Maybe the "New Line" Jason is an alternate version. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Regardless, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will ever be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Halloween Horrors: Greenlee Gazette's Scary Movies to Avoid

With most of my movie lists, I'm telling you which films are worth a view for your Halloween weekend. In this case, I'm going to tell you what to avoid.

Images from source, Wikipedia

Some movies are so bad, they're good. This list is of horror movies so bad, they're just bad. Some of them may have one or two redeeming features, maybe one memorable scene. But by and large, anything on this list should be avoided. Do not get the DVD if it's at Big Lots for $3. Do not get it for 50 cents at a yard sale. Do not watch it on cable while you're laid up with the flu. Avoid. As in don't watch.

Greenlee Gazette's Top 10 Scary Movies to Avoid

In no particular order. . .

1. The Happening (2008) - This movie was marketed as sort of a psychological thriller/sci-fi/pseudo-horror film, you know. . .like every other M. Night Shyamalan movie. This overrated director/producer/writer hit his nadir with this one, one of the worst major studio films ever made. Technically, it doesn't look so bad. It's not the cinematography or the editing. I'll even give Shyamalan props for the production values in general. That does not make up for the utterly unbelievable, unconvincing and strange dialogue, plot and acting by all concerned. Mark Wahlberg couldn't even save this one. See my full review here:
DVD Movie Review: The Happening

2. Soul Survivors (2001) - This one slid under my radar for a long time. It has cover art evocative of practically every teen horror film of the last dozen or so years, with its lineup of sexy young actors, lead by Eliza Dushku. Or rather, she's featured most prominently on the box, but is a supporting actress in the movie. The film tries to do too much, tries to make itself deep, and in doing so, comes off as a convoluted mess. In fact, it feels like I've seen a similar concept in a different film. It has the type of ending that leves me thinking, "Okay, so why did I just watch that?" Casey Affleck and Wes Bentley are cuties, and I'm a huge Dushku fan, but this one is worse than just "meh." It's a waste of time.

3. The Fog (2005) - Don't ask me how I've avoided the original version of this film for 30 years, but I've never seen it. All the better then to watch the remake, right? I mean knowing nothing about the story, it could work all on its own merits. No. Dreadful. Boring. Pointless. I tried to make it through, and shut it off before it was over (possibly with 5 or 10 minutes to go, seriously). It's long, it meanders, and is not at all what it seemed to promise. John Carpenter has done much, much better than this. Sorry, even Superboy/Superman Tom Welling wasn't enough.

4. Cloverfield (2008) - Given the people behind this film (J.J. Abrams and Drew Goddard), and the premise (big monster attacks Manhattan, in real time), this should have been great. It's not. There are things of technical interest, the way the film is shot and constructed. But the story? No.

5. April Fool's Day (2008) - Unlike the original (see here), this movie isn't particularly funny, nor is it entertaining. It's only nominally a remake, and utterly skippable. Do so.

6. War of the Worlds (2005) - Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg and a concept by H.G. Wells. What could go wrong? Everything. As a long-time Wells fan, I've liked many different versions of this story, from the book to the 80s TV series. But this big, Hollywood "event movie" was even a bigger letdown than Cloverfield or The Happening. Not as bad as The Happening mind you, I just had higher expectations.

7. Psycho (1998 Remake) - Gus Van Sant remade--shot for shot--Alfred Hitchcock's beyond classic original. Why? Nobody knows, not even Vince Vaughn or Anne Heche.

8. Fear Dot Com is a pointless, convoluted, headache-inducing, mess of a movie that isn't worth anyone's time, ever. Not for free, not even if the only other things to watch are The 700 Club, The Nanny, Cop Rock and According to Jim. The acting is odd, the photography is drunken and dark, the plot is threadbare, even the soundtrack sucks.  Play Scrabble by yourself.  Vaccum under your sofa cushions. Count the kibble in your dog's dish. Clean out your freezer. Do anything else besides watch this festering pustule of a movie.

9. Rob Zombie's followup to his remake of Halloween, Halloween II. Terrible.

10. Any post-Scream horror film, with DVD cover-art consisting of 4-6 pretty young actors, lined up for a glamor shot (see Soul Survivors, above).

Halloween Horrors: Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th

Okay, another Halloween Horrors repeat. It's not like I couldn't write a new post on the subject, I could recite it in my sleep. But it would be a paraphrase of what is below, so what would be the point? The fact is, the Friday the 13th movie series is one of the highest grossing horror franchises in history. And so, no Halloween movie suggestion list would be complete without it, even though the movie series kind of sucks. And I Love. Every. Installment. I'm a horror movie masochist that way.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, worst acted and least impactful story wise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother, and Adrienne King as "the final girl." Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. And pretty much put the slasher genre on the map (even if it did take the cue from Halloween). Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 - Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the lengthy recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask. Gone is the notion of revenge, Jason just kills everything in his path now. I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Final, yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was all the way back in 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover(!?). ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reins. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The Friday feel is still there, but just barely, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. Not very gory. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. But it adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. The cryogenic scene, though? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. And I'm still confused by Jason's new fear of water. Maybe the "New Line" Jason is an alternate version. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Regardless, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will ever be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Halloween Horrors: Guide to Friday the 13th

Okay, another Halloween Horrors repeat. It's not like I couldn't write a new post on the subject, I could recite it in my sleep. But it would be a paraphrase of what is below, so what would be the point? The fact is, the Friday the 13th movie series is one of the highest grossing horror franchises in history. And so, no Halloween movie suggestion list would be without it, even though the movie series kind of sucks. And I Love. Every. Installment. I'm a horror movie masochist that way.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, worst acted and least impactful story wise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother, and Adrienne King as "the final girl." Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. And pretty much put the slasher genre on the map (even if it did take the cue from Halloween). Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 -Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the lengthy recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask. Gone is the notion of revenge, Jason just kills everything in his path now. I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

 

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Final, yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was all the way back in 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover? ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reins. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The tone is still there, but just barely, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. But it adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. The cryogenic scene, though? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. And I'm still confused by Jason's new fear of water. Maybe the "New Line" Jason is an alternate version. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Regardless, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Movie Review: Man of Steel

Compare and contrast to the photo below. Yeah, this is
an new Superman. Image from Forbes.com.

As a DC comics fan to nearly my infancy, I've been starved for representation in the movie adaptation realm. Yes, Batman has been amply represented, but he was never one of my faves, which has left me very little over the years. So, seven years ago when Superman Returns finally came out, I was ecstatic. I'd take him any way I could get him, and how I got him wasn't too bad. Brandon Routh looked the part, and was a decent actor. Kevin Spacey out-hackmaned Gene Hackman. And it kept the vibe of the classic Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve era.

It wasn't the best movie ever, but was far from the worst one, even if you confine yourself to the comic book world. Contemporaneous reviews back me up on this too, Superman Returns was generally well received. But the film was saddled with a lot of baggage, especially the two decades of development and expenditure leading up to it. And when it wasn't a mega-worldwide blockbuster with stellar reviews, it was recast as a flop, a failure. No.  Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was a flop and a failure. But I protest too much. I'm aware that I am in the minority in my appreciation of the 2006 film. And this many years later, I accept that 2013 was not too soon for a reboot.

C'mon, everybody, was it really so bad?
Image from Fanpop.com

Boy howdy did we get a reboot. Spurred, no doubt, by Marvel Comics' stunning string of successes (just ignore Daredevil, Electra, Ghost Rider, The Punisher, The Punisher again, etc.), not to mention legal matters from the heirs of Superman's creators, DC and Warner Brothers got it together at last. Man of Steel is finally here, and is its own kind of Superman. And unless sales deflate on a scale never seen before, it's already on track to be one of the most successful superhero films in history. For once, the hype, the marketing, and the buildup paid off. It's a freakin' great movie.

With over $200 million spent to make it, I guess it should be really good, but look at the recent Star Trek sequel. Its budget wasn't quite that big, and did respectable business, but has been belittled and berated all over the internets as an under-performer, and a disappointment (again, not to me, I dug it). Today's blockbusters are judged as much for how much money they haul in, as they are for actually being good entertainment.

But I'm off on a tangent here. We're talking about Man of Steel, so named to align with Batman's Dark Knight trilogy. The movie is star-studded, with huge names (Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne), and lauded TV stars (Richard Schiff, Christopher Meloni). It starts by creating a whole new planet Krypton, with a re-imagined origin story. It ably combines the elements from Krypton in Superman: The Movie, the John Byrne era Superman comics and the classic silver/golden-age Superman comics.  The reasons behind Krypton's eventual destruction resonate with earthly concerns of today, and the villains consigned to the Phantom Zone (as in Superman I & II) have much more back-story and motivation.

Every adaptation monkeys with the "S" shield, none get it right.
This is one of the better ones, though.

Clark Kent's arrival on earth and growing up years are wisely mostly confined to flashbacks, in nice little nugget-sized factoids, woven adeptly into the story. Since almost everyone already knows about Clark Kent, Ma & Pa Kent, and the rest from Smallville, other TV shows, movies and seventy-five years of comic books, a more through story is unnecessary. Thank you, movie gods! The back-story leading up to the meat of Man of Steel does a good job of showing us how he got here, how he grew up, and where we are now, without belaboring any of it. And it manages to shed all of the Donner/Reeve years while doing so. With beefy, very different looking Henry Cavill playing Clark/Superman, it really does feel brand new. Even the costume (which is updated quite a bit) is given a reason for existing that is far and away better than any previous adapation. The Movie tried, with Marlon Brando's S tunic, but this movie got it right.

Given all of the fan mockups of Jusstice League posters
online, there are high hopes in fandom
land that Man of Steel begets lots of DCU movies.
Image from YoungJusticer.tumblr.com

Once Man of Steel gets going, it really gets going. Previous Superman movies are going to look like high school stage productions in retrospect, after this one. It really looks like super beings pummeling the stuffing out of each other. There's a little to complain about here, if you--like me--have a little difficulty following fast-paced battles in movies. It wasn't like Lord of the Rings, where there are hundreds of participants (I couldn't deal with it, sorry), so I managed. But there is a lot of whiz-bang here. Not to mention a lot of destruction. You thought The Avengers knew how to destroy a city? Well Smallville got a lot smaller, and Metropolis is going to be rebuilding for years.

If I had any other complaint about the movie, it would be one abrupt transition in the film. The bad guys are really making a mess, and things look bad. Supes is getting his clock cleaned. Then, all of the sudden, the good guys have a plan, and put it into action. There felt like there was a scene missing there. But at 2-1/2 hours long, they must have needed to speed things along. Ultimately, I left the theater feeling that it was the best Superman movie ever made. It topped Star Trek: Into Darkness (which I loved), comparatively speaking. And it made me excited at the prospect of more in the series, more in the DC Universe, and a hope for a Justice League movie!

This is a Superman I want to see again, whether he's called Man of Steel, Last Son of Krypton, Man of Tomorrow or just plain Superman. Oh, and as minor character Carrie Farris (awfully close to a Green Lantern character name) says at the end, "he's kinda hot." Perhaps the understatement of the year.

My grade is: A - Highly Recommended

Star Trek Into Darkness, a Mini Movie Review

Image from Wikipedia

On Friday, we did a rare thing. The Other Half and I not only went to a movie theater, we kept a prearranged "date" with a couple of friends to do so. This almost never happens. Particularly the cinema thing. As much as I love superhero, horror and sci-fi movies, I seem to always procrastinate until the Blu-ray comes out. I mean, even the entire phase one of Marvel Comics' massive movie blitz were all seen on our DLP TV, rather than at the movies. The "always wins" exception to that is any version of Superman, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th (yes, really) and Star Trek.

I've labeled this as a "mini" review for a reason. I've just read the Zaki's Corner review of Star Trek Into Darkness, and his writing simply puts mine to shame. Though I disagree with his C+ grade, I can't deny that he's the superior blogger. So, as Bart Simpson says, "can't win, don't even try." So, I'll just give you a little more surfacy review, and give you Zaki's link at the end.

I'll start with an observation that the commercials and other miscellany that precedes a film these days are a crashing bore. I still love the movie previews, but I'm astonished that the theater chains actually brand these "pre-shows," and act as if they've done you a favor by making you sit through them. But once the Paramount logo whooshes on the screen, and the surprisingly already familiar Star Trek (2009) theme played, I felt a little sense of glee. Also a sense of why did we have to wait FOUR YEARS for a sequel? But I digress.

Into Darkness stars with a pre-credits sequence that puts you right into the action. It's removed from the main storyline, but sets it up well. Chris Pine really evokes William Shatner to me (though maybe not as much as Zachary Quinto's Spock captures Leonard Nimoy), and his ice blue eyes really pop on that big screen. We didn't go to the 3D version, partly due to cost, and partly due to the fact that I have great difficulty seeing 3D movies. But this movie is stunning, even in 2D. We saw it on a digital DLP screen, which maybe helps.

They certainly look the part. Image from USAToday.

I can't get into the storyline much without spoilers. Suffice it to say that there is more than one villain, and their motives are a matter of perspective. If you're a longtime Star Trek fan, you'll pick up on some clues early on, and you may deduce who the main villain "really" is. There are several allusions to past Treks, one in particular. Whether these nods tickle you--or irritate you--will depend upon how meta you like your pop culture. I appreciated it to a point, and then I actually said to my self, "No. Don't say it." And then the character did. Ugh.

But I found that to be one of the only moments I didn't like. The movie is relentless in its pacing, actually making me feel a bit exhausted. In a good way. I remember years ago, the first time I saw Rutger Hauer's The Hitcher. That movie wore me the hell out, and Into Darkness did that, but with a whole lot more whiz-bang. One thing I liked about this movie was its scale. Everything is big. The starship bays. The engineering section of the ship. The cityscape of San Francisco in the 23rd century, which features in a smashing ending. Where Star Trek: The Original Series could feel claustrophobic, and even its planet-scapes felt small, this movie just feels big.

There are several plot complications, and our heroes are in lethal situations many, many times. There are perhaps a few too many familiar tropes they could have left out (especially the trite "dangling by one hand" near-death experience). And though our heroes ultimately prevail--as you knew they would--this Trek has an unusually high body count. Then again, in the previous film, the entire planet of Vulcan was wiped out, so maybe not.

The ending of this film is interesting. I don't think I'm spoiling much to say that at the end, it feels like the crew of the Enterprise is about to actually start their careers, as though it ends at the beginning of a hypothetical new Star Trek series. But, at two movies in to the new adventures, it actually feels kind of weird. Particularly since that's kind of where the previous film left us. So, if you're like Zaki, and found this to be a middling installment, you can actually ignore it, and go into Star Trek III (actually XIII) as though it followed the 2009 film!

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler alert or not. . .

Some people lament the J.J. Abrams era of Star Trek, decrying its action and flash (and lens flares!) at the expense of character development, and Roddenberry-esque themes. I don't. I still have my hundreds of hours of classic Trek. They didn't go anywhere. I find these new films to be a great addition to what came before, and they've surely breathed new life into a moribund franchise. Now, can they bring us another one before Quinto and Pine are in their forties?

My review: Highly Recommended (B+)

And here is Zaki's Corner's Review

Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th

It's Friday the 13th, y'all! You know the drill!

Happy Friday the 13th everybody! If you've read this blog even a little bit, you know that I'm a cheesy horror movie fan. And there is no cheesier series of horror films than the Friday the 13th series. From the beginning, it was a rip-off (but the first one!) of Halloween. But you could safely say that Halloween as a franchise was born due to the success of Friday the 13th. The following blog post was written for my annual Halloween scary movie retrospectives. But every time there is a Friday the 13th on the calendar, these movies come back into vogue. Better get it in now, this is the last one of the year!

Original post from October 2011.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, acted and impactful storywise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother. Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 -Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask.  I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover? ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reigns. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The tone is still there, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. Adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. But the cryogenic scene? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Still, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Quickie Movie Run-down, Part 2

Images from Wikipedia

What's a movie post without the inevitable sequel? Well, I wasn't finished watching movies, but since my vacation is over in a few short hours, I'm betting that I don't squeeze in another one. So, here is my take on the rest of my vacation movie viewing list.


The Adjustment Bureau - This is a Matt Damon movie, based on a Philip K. Dick short story. Dick's stories are often filmed, but not always well. This one is sort of mixed. Bureau plays as more of a love story with some sci-fi/fantasy elements. I like Damon, which helps a lot. Not everyone will dig it, but I thought it was worth a view. *** (out of 5)

Weekend - The only "gay cinema" selection I viewed over the past week turns out to be very good. And that's rare for the genre. It isn't a major Hollywood production or anything. It's a British import, and is essentially just a quickie one-weekend love story. The accents can be a little thick, and hard to follow. And if you aren't interested in a gay love story, don't bother. But the performances are completely believable, and I cared about the characters. ***

Limitless - I'd watch Bradley Cooper read a newspaper for 90 minutes, but fortunately, this movie is quite engaging. The premise has Cooper's shiftless character taking a drug that allows him to use his entire brain all the time. This gives him a four-digit IQ, and turns him into an unbeatable business man. But the drug is highly sought after, and also rare, putting Cooper and those around him in constant danger. I really liked it, though my Netflix kept fritzing out, causing much irritation. Not Bradley Cooper's fault! ***-1/2

Quickie Movie Run-down

Okay, I know I usually name my movie reviews "mini" ones, because I don't usually write feature-length reviews. Well, we're going micro for this one. Here is my take on a variety of recently watched (or re-watched) movies.


Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - The fourth MI movie is good for what it is. It's the best one I've seen, actually. But I'm still irritated that they took the popular series--which has an established format--and basically chucked most of it in favor of Tom Cruise action/adventure. I'll never forgive them for what they did to Jim Phelps. But this installment almost redeems them. I dug it. **** (of 5)

Piranha (2010) - This sequel/remake is pure schlock, but doesn't pretend to be much else. It was very obviously originally in 3D, which may have obscured the fakey effects a bit. The blood is hyper-red, and the gore is plentiful and extreme. Many recognizable faces appear, including Elizabeth Shue, Jerry O'Connell (whose makeup effects are mondo grody), Christopher Lloyd, Richard Dreyfus and Adam Scott (Parks & Recreation). There is no redeeming value in this one, but it does entertain. * (But as a guilty pleasure? ****)

Lots of skin--and lack of it--for boys and girls to
ogle in Piranha

Fright Night (1985) - I rewatched this one after having reviewed the remake. It is still very entertaining, but is a product of the eighties. Stephen Geoffreys' acting as "Evil Ed" is really amazing, which I'm not sure I noticed before. Cheesy, but fun. ***

Paranormal Activity 2 - I'm one of the few people who found the original PA to be kind of lame. I mean, I liked the actors, particularly Micah Sloat, but it just didn't scare me. The conceit of the original was that it allegedly really happened. Part 2 continues that, and even includes the original actors characters before they "died." There are a few good scenes, but far too many static shots of home surveillance video, with the viewer combing the image for something unusual happening. Sometimes it's a billowing curtain, sometimes a door creaking open, sometimes a pot falling off a pot rack. Thrilling. Not. **

Mini Movie Review: Fright Night (2011)

Okay, so one of the things I wanted to do with my vast (now, nearly depleted) Christmas vacation, was to catch up on some movies. I don't get out to the moving pictures much, unless my friend Stupid Monkey Planet entices me out for a brew and a view.  So, one of the 2011 movies I missed was the remake of the classic 80s horror/comedy flick, Fright Night. The original is treasured by folks of my vintage (seventies/eighties pop culture fiends), but it is not--by any stretch--award winning cinema.

Image from Wikipedia

The original Fright Night starred a pre-Herman's Head William Ragsdale, a pre-Married. . .with Children's Amanda Bearse, a pre-gay porn Stephen Geoffreys and a post-Susan Sarandon Chris Sarandon. It was as much humor as horror, and is a pastiche of the 80s. I loved it then, I loved it later, and I. . .kind of. . .like it now. It is simply a product of its era. So, quite rightly, a remake should be of its current era.

Whether it is or not is a question for a future time, and for a student of the twenty-pre-teens. As it is, I quite liked it. Anton Yelchin (2011's Star Trek's Chekov) stars in the Ragsdale role of Charley Brewster. As in the original, Brewster is the unfortunate neighbor of new home owner Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell), a vampire. As in the original, Brewster comes to realize Dandridge's real nature with the assistance of his nerdy friend Evil Ed. And Evil Ed gets to live up to his name this time too.

Chris Sarandon, the original sexy vampire.

The new version amps up the effects (the original's were effective the first time, but don't hold up well upon repeated viewings), and has the advantage of almost thirty years in technology. Farrell is at least as sexy as Sarandon (who appears in a cameo), but lacks the subtlety of the original. The change in venue to Las Vegas makes sense, but will not fool a near-native like me. And there is something about modern movie making that simply surpasses the art of the 1980s. But the charm of the original is lacking.

I liked 2011's Fright Night. It even made me jump at least once, matching the original. But will it rate in my lifetime top 100, to be viewed over and over as I age into oblivion? Probably not.

My rating: *** (on a scale from crap to *****, genre always kept firmly in mind)

Halloween Horrors: Scary Movies to Avoid

It's that time of year again, and it's my fifth Halloween on the blog. So, for the next week and a half, I'll be re-running, re-writing or coming up with new lists of horror films to complete your Halloween weekend. The scariest, the goriest, the funniest, and of course the worst horror films. Let's start with the ones to avoid.

Images from source, Wikipedia

This is the third Halloween season for Greenlee Gazette, and one of my favorite times of the year. Why? Because it gives me an excuse (as if I needed any) to watch horror movies! I have several "Top 10" lists of various categories of horror movies that I've written over the last two years (which I'll be sharing again soon). I had my favorite scary horror movies, my favorite funny horror movies, and even "so bad, they're good" horror movies.

The one category I forgot? Well, I did a list of "bad" horror films, but there is something to enjoy about most of the movies in that list. No, this list is of horror movies so bad, they're just bad. Some of them may have one or two redeeming features, maybe one memorable scene. But by and large, anything on this list should be avoided. Do not get the DVD if it's at Big Lots for $3. Do not get it for 50 cents at a yard sale. Do not watch it on cable while you're laid up with the flu. Avoid. As in don't watch.

Greenlee Gazette's Top 10 Scary Movies to Avoid

In no particular order. . .

1. The Happening (2008) - This movie was marketed as sort of a psychological thriller/sci-fi/pseudo-horror film, you know. . .like every other M. Night Shyamalan movie. This overrated director/producer/writer hit his nadir with this one, one of the worst major studio films ever made. Technically, it doesn't look so bad. It's not the cinematography or the editing. I'll even give Shyamalan props for the production values in general. That does not make up for the utterly unbelievable, unconvincing and strange dialogue, plot and acting by all concerned. Mark Wahlberg couldn't even save this one. See my full review here:
DVD Movie Review: The Happening

2. Soul Survivors (2001) - This one slid under my radar for a long time. It has cover art evocative of practically every teen horror film of the last dozen or so years, with its lineup of sexy young actors, lead by Eliza Dushku. Or rather, she's featured most prominently on the box, but is a supporting actress in the movie. The film tries to do too much, tries to make itself deep, and in doing so, comes off as a convoluted mess. In fact, it feels like I've seen a similar concept in a different film. It has the type of ending that leves me thinking, "Okay, so why did I just watch that?" Casey Affleck and Wes Bentley are cuties, and I'm a huge Dushku fan, but this one is worse than just "meh." It's a waste of time.

3. The Fog (2005) - Don't ask me how I've avoided the original version of this film for 30 years, but I've never seen it. All the better then to watch the remake, right? I mean knowing nothing about the story, it could work all on its own merits. No. Dreadful. Boring. Pointless. I tried to make it through, and shut it off before it was over (possibly with 5 or 10 minutes to go, seriously). It's long, it meanders, and is not at all what it seemed to promise. John Carpenter has done much, much better than this. Sorry, even Superboy/Superman Tom Welling wasn't enough.

4. Cloverfield (2008) - Given the people behind this film (J.J. Abrams and Drew Goddard), and the premise (big monster attacks Manhattan, in real time), this should have been great. It's not. There are things of technical interest, the way the film is shot and constructed. But the story? No.

5. April Fool's Day (2008) - Unlike the original (see here), this movie isn't particularly funny, nor is it entertaining. It's only nominally a remake, and utterly skippable. Do so.

6. War of the Worlds (2005) - Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg and a concept by H.G. Wells. What could go wrong? Everything. As a long-time Wells fan, I've liked many different versions of this story, from the book to the 80s TV series. But this big, Hollywood "event movie" was even a bigger letdown than Cloverfield or The Happening. Not as bad as The Happening mind you, I just had higher expectations.

7. Psycho (1998 Remake) - Gus Van Sant remade--shot for shot--Alfred Hitchcock's beyond classic original. Why? Nobody knows, not even Vince Vaughn or Anne Heche.

8. Any Hellraiser film after the first two or three, maybe after the first (still a classic).

9. Any Halloween film beyond the original, with the possible exception of parts II, 4 and 5. I'll except the Rob Zombie remake, but his sequel is definitely in the "avoid" list.

10. Any post-Scream horror film, with DVD cover-art consisting of 4-6 pretty young actors, lined up for a glamor shot (see Soul Survivors, above).

Movie Review: Scream 1, 2 and 3 Revisited

All images from Wikipedia

Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson's much anticipated Scream 4 (or SCRE4M, if you prefer) comes out in a couple of weeks, right before my (gasp!) 45th birthday. As a long-time horror movie junkie, I'm very excited about this. The original Scream was something of a reinvention of a long stagnant movie genre. It influenced nearly every horror movie that has come since, if not within the films themselves, at least in the movie posters and DVD/Blu-ray box art. That lineup of attractive stars in front of a splashy logo, some drippy, bloody and/or torn looking graphic? Scream did that first. It spawned I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend and countless other imitators, many (including Scream itself) with a string of sequels.

What set Scream apart from earlier slasher movies was a subversion of horror movie cliches, a winking "genre savvy"-ness by characters within the film, a writer that was raised on  pop culture (hell, he created Dawson's Creek), a mixture of humor and horror, and the biggest thing of all: known stars. In the old days, horror movies--especially the slasher type--might have a marginally known character actor (Hope Lange, John Saxon, Betsy Palmer), but were mostly stocked with a bunch of unknowns. Your Kevin Bacons and Johnny Depps became well known of course, but nobody knew them when they starred in the first Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, respectively. Scream started the trend of stocking a horror movie with a roster of up-and-coming young (typically very attractive) actors, often from hit teen TV shows.
And all of this new stuff was put into the hands of the very capable Craven, creator of Nightmare and several other standout horror classics.

But Scream was 15 years ago now. All of that novelty has been absorbed and trodden and retreaded to death by now. We've segued through (and passed?) torture porn like Hostel and the endless Saw series. Scream--often thought of as something of a horror parody itself--was parodied in the first of the also endless Scary Movie (which curiously was the working title of Scream) films. Indirectly, Scream is responsible for the horrible stream of "Movie" movies that came after. So the movie that started all of that, and its sequels, are now part of nostalgia, with a patina of prestige and respect, but they've grown rather hazy, at least in my mind. So, I set out this weekend to rewatch them.

I have Netflix on my Blu-ray player. I have the full (expensive) cable setup with HDTV OnDemand movies out the wazoo (HBO, Showtime, Starz, Epix, Vutopia, etc.). In all of that, only one outlet had any of the Scream series, and it was part 3. Way to go, movie programmers. So, I set out to Fry's Electronics, figuring they'd have all three parts, probably with deluxe DVD and Blu-ray sets to commemorate the 15th anniversary and the new sequel. Wrong! After much, much hunting, I found parts 1 and 3 on DVD only for $9.99 apiece. They're collectors editions, I guess, but the director's commentary on part 1 was from 1997, so they're nothing special.

Missing part 2, I decided to try Target. Nothing. I went to Costco. Ditto. I tried Sam's Club. No dice. At Wal-Mart I got a little luckier. They had part 2 on Blu-ray (only) for $15. One copy, neither of the other two movies. I'm a little stunned at the lack of foresight by the movie studio, the stores and the television programmers. Or, maybe the new sequel isn't predicted to drum up much of a buzz? Regardless, I settled in at home after my quest to enjoy the entire (so far) saga. [Here there may be spoilers]

Scream (1996) starts the ball rolling in a seemingly novel (but cribbed from Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 classic Psycho) way, by killing off the seeming star of the flick early on. Neve Campbell turns out to be the central figure (the last girl, in slasher-speak), and she is aided by bitchy newswoman Courtney Cox and goofy cop, David Arquette. This sets up a sort of triad of stars that runs through all of the films, including the new one.  As in many old 80s slasher pics, the new murders happen one year after another terrible event. Not surprisingly, the events are related in obvious and not so obvious ways. The movie misdirects you into thinking several people could potentially be the killer, and also plainly directs you to doubt yourself. Along the way, several characters comment on the events as though they know that they are in a horror movie. They mostly die anyway. Nothing about the movie hints that there is an inevitible sequel.

Scream 2 (1997) picks up a couple of years later, with Neve's character now in college. Her genre savvy pal (Jamie Kennedy) is there with her, being one of the few to survive the first movie. Neve's got a hotty boyfriend (Jerry O'Connell) and new friends, and she's a budding actress in the college play. And then, suddenly people start dying again, seemingly at the hand of the same ghost-faced killer from the original story. The problem is, the original killer(s) died. Of course, in a horror movie, dead doesn't always mean really dead. Is it the same guy(s)? Is it the new boyfriend? The surviving pal? Goofy cop Dewey? Bitchy reporter Gale? Cotton (Liev Schrieber), the guy who almost got executed when Neve's Sydney character misidentified him? Or someone else? The answer(s) feel a little out of left field, or at least they did on my first viewing. But today, in context with just having watched the first movie, it didn't feel like such a bad fit. Not as good as part one, but pretty good.

Scream 3 (2000) looks and feels different, and indeed it is largely written by a different person. The setting has also changed from small town America to Hollywood. The movie-within-a-movie idea began in part 2, with Stab, a slasher picture based on Courtney Cox's character's tell-all book. Here, Stab 3 is in production, and much of the action takes place at the movie studio, which has rebuilt the original small town on a set. Movie in-jokes abound, such as "Jennifer Jolie" playing a version of Cox's reporter, and being told "sorry it didn't work out with Brad Pitt."  There are new characters, an old character that comes back (sort of) even though he's dead. And the killer still looks the same, but is a different person, that manages to tie in to the rest of the story.  By itself, Scream 3 is an enjoyable movie. But it suffers in comparison to the first two.  Also, Neve Campbell is at best a supporting player in this one, with Arquette and Cox (the latter with an atrocious hairdo) doing the heavy lifting.

Overall, they did a commendable job of tying the three films together. It stretches credulity a little, that the killer in the third movie motivated the killers of the first. Much like Back to the Future Part III, where they managed to create back story that worked, and Saw (from part 2 forward) where it got too convoluted, Scream 3 uses story elements from the first movie, and substantially rewrites what really happened, without contradicting anything. One thing I have to wonder though, is if they ever considered casting Neve's brother, Christian Campbell for the role that Scott Foley played? It would have been a very good fit, but might have given away the ending too easily.

Scream: highly recommended
Scream 2: highly recommended
Scream 3: if you liked the first two

Movie Review: Hit and Run

Image from Wikipedia

Every couple of weeks, I try to use the On Demand feature of my cable box, to help justify the cost of my exorbitant monthly fee. Every week, the various channels have a helpful "Just In!" listing, but usually there isn't a lot that interests me. So, I'll drill down the list in the hopes that something jumps out at me. This weekend, I took a chance on a 2008 movie called Hit and Run, which was listed as a thriller.  The synopsis said it was about a girl who goes out drinking, and then goes home, only to find (later) that there is a man impaled on the bumper of her Jeep. Okay, I'm in! (Here there may be spoilers.)

I used to drive a Jeep, and the girl in the movie drove a similar (though older one), making the setup very relatable.  I don't make it a habit to drive drunk--quite the opposite, actually--but in the nine years I owned the Jeep, did I ever drive when I probably shouldn't have?  Nothing jumps immediately to mind, but probably. Luckily, I never hit anything in such a state. In fact, I never hit anything at all at any time in those nine years. Guess I'm due.

Anyway, the film starts out with the girl's night at the bar, and then the long (very long) drive to her house. The credit sequence is very splashy, which is weird. And the "near miss" she thinks she had along the way, and the unobstructed headlight spray from her Jeep made her unknown "hit and run" rather implausible.  The girl's behavior afterward to cover up her actions are also a little over-the-top.

Things calm down a bit, and her marginally ethical boyfriend decides to help her. And then he doesn't, then does again.  Boyfriend gets iced by the presumed dead victim, and hereafter, the film makes no sense whatsoever.  We find out via a news report that the victim was bipolar. So is the movie. It veers wildly from scenes of relative--if tense--calm, to outrageously manic.  Our bipolar victim becomes mindless killer, seemingly indestructible. He is also somehow all-knowing, aware of the girl's identity, address, and phone numbers.

Countless wild rides in the Jeep go to-and-fro, with the victim and the girl alternately having the advantage. Several return trips are made to the scene of the crime, and my finger hovered over the "stop" button many times. I should've gone with that impulse.  There was no one to root for in this movie, not the girl, her boyfriend, the victim or even his family.  The girl turned out to be somewhat indestructible (and bonkers) herself, surviving a severe bite, multiple stabbings, and a long ride strapped to her own bumper (which was rammed at least once into another car).  To top it off, it was obvious that the ending was trimmed to exclude the survival of the victim, just by the slow zoom to the one good eye he had left. His eye didn't open, but I'm positive they filmed it.

I thought when I started typing this review that there might be something coming that would tie this film together. I thought they might explain how the girl was found out. Nope.  The movie just gets worse and worse, and at times reminded me of the abysmally bad Truth or Dare? A Critical Madness, the low-rent, cult 80s slasher movie.  This one doesn't even merit "so bad, it's good" status.

Avoid at all costs.

Halloween Horrors: Guide to Halloween, the Michael Myers Saga

I'm revisiting many of my scary movie lists over the next two weeks, with rundowns of my favorite (and least favorite) horror movies in various genres. One of the trends in horror movies over the years is the horror franchise, and along with that, remakes.  Here's my take on the Halloween movie franchise. Keep in mind, the ratings are genre-specific, and don't necessarily apply to other movies in general.



Image from Wikipedia



Halloween (1978) - John Carpenter struck gold with the original in the series. He created the faceless killing machine (Michael Myers), the "you're dead if you have sex/drink/party/do drugs" horror cliche. And Carpenter's score for the film is amazingly creepy. Easily the best in the series, in fact the best of the genre. And Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic, as was Donald Pleasence. ****

Halloween II (1981) - Picks up immediately after part one, and holds very close to the tone and the quality. More gore, more violence and more inventive kills are a consequence of the other slasher picks being made at the time, and cause many to dislike this entry. Curtis and Pleasence still are in top form, and Michael Myers seems to meet his end. In fact, unless you're fanwanking, you can't really explain his later resurrection. Also notable for the fantastic soundtrack, an improvement on the original. Great to have on the stereo to creep out the trick-or-treaters. ***

Image from Wikipedia

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) - The creators decided to drop the storyline, and try a different sort of Halloween movie, which was pretty good, but disappointed most fans. It had nothing to do with the previous films, other than the producers, and similar eerie music. Had it been successful, there were supposed to be other unrelated, Halloween-themed movies in the series. The film had one of the coolest logos in the whole series, as seen in the image on the right. **

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) - They went back to the original story (and dropped the roman numerals), which continued the storyline of Michael Myers, and ignored the ending of the second movie, where Michael Myers clearly died. The great thing about Halloween 4 was that the characters reacted like normal people--trying to get the heck out of dodge--and died anyway. Very close to the tone of the first two, and a great performance by Pleasence. ***

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) - OK, but weaker than the previous films. Continues the storyline from part 4, but adds a psychic angle, shifting the tone of the series. **

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) Dropped the number, and tried to add new elements that weren't in the previous films (Michael was a Druid?). The series was running out of steam. *

Halloween: H20 (1989) - 20 years into the franchise, this entry tried to reinvigorate the storyline. Donald Pleasence had died, but Jamie Lee Curtis was back, and much of parts 4, 5 and 6 were ignored. They even brought in Janet Leigh (Jamie Lee Curtis' real mother, and star of Psycho). H20 was an improvement, but the concept was really running on fumes. **

Halloween: Resurrection (2002) - The less said about part 8, the better. Updates the series for the internet era. Not an improvement. Don't bother. *

Halloween (2007) - This film was ultimately unnecessary, as the original was impossible to top. The attempt to reboot the series, and bring it into the 21st century isn't a total misfire, but is kind of pointless. As far as remakes go, it isn't bad.  Malcolm McDowell does an okay job as Loomis, but nobody can replace Jamie Lee Curtis.  **

Halloween II (2009) - Terrible. That is all. Zero Stars