Just Another Pissed Off Geek

When watching The Final Destination I tried to do one thing and that was to not let the 3D gimmick get in the way of my observations on the movie.  I first watched it in 2D then in 3D so I could see just what the difference was, which in truth turned out to be not a lot of difference at all.

The basic plot of the movie is almost a carbon copy of the first three movies.  A big accident happens and a random teenager has a “flash forward” to the whole thing; which includes the nice opportunity to see his friends die one after the other.  Waking up from the vision he drags them all out of the place before they die (dragging a few people along just for the fun and obviously because they needed to keep the number of deaths up throughout the movie).  Anybody who has ever seen the other Destination movies now start to feel at home as each of the survivors is not so mysteriously killed to rectify the issue that they should already be dead.

One difference I noticed with this movie is that there are no obvious stars , or at least actors you’ve noticed in the other Destination movies.  These could all be bit part players in daytime soaps for all know and the acting at times is on part with those shows too.  As harsh as that sounds it’s not important to the movie at all really because all of the actors are pretty much there as meat to be ripped apart for our pleasure.  One thing I will complain about is the fact Tony Todd is missing from this movie (he was also lacking in the third movie even though he was used as the voice for the devil on the rollercoaster ride I believe).  Todd made an interesting impact on the first two movies as the strange mortician who turned up to explain to the kids that the grim reaper was after them and fixing the mistake.

The thing that really bugged me about this movie is it was unintentionally funny, it was so cheesy at times that there was no real impact in the deaths.  This could arguably be a spoof of the original movies but if it was, it would have been a good spoof.  If they billed it as a spoof I think I’d have been more lenient on my views really because as a horror movie it was very weak really and should have been a straight to DVD sequel.  The 3D is just a gimmick here used to get a very below par movie into the movie theatre.  Yes, the 3D is handled better than in movies that have been converted to 3D; this one was 3D from the outset so filmed to really push that element at the watcher (pun intended).  The problem is this does not help the movie.  If they forgot the 3D effects and just added a darker tone with more believable deaths? It may have been a better movie.

5/10

Being a friend of Pzomb’s for a while now it was kind of self-evident that we would eventually come to some sort of collaborative effort. I am SoulIsTheGoal, a friend of Pzomb’s from Twitter and will be an addition to this site as a games reviewer. Hopefully you will enjoy what I write, and if not then we will have to find some way of setting fire to your crotch.
~SoulIsTheGoal~

I’d say my favourite horror movies would be zombie movies but werewolf movies come a quick second.  American Werewolf in London was a movie that had the biggest impact on me as a child and I think it gave me a love of horror movies for life.  This is the reason I’m going to list my top five Werewolf movies.  I love other werewolf movies but these would be my top five I think, although that could change.

5.Dog Soldiers
To me Dog Soldiers is one of the best horror movies to come from the last decade.  Using a mixture of buddy movie, Evil Dead style cabin in the woods style and adding some badass werewolves into the mix we got an awesome movie.  Everything worked for this movie from the awesomeness of Sean Pertwee and his tattoo monologue to the nice touch of comedy this movie is a must see.

4.The Howling
This movie came out around the same time as American Werewolf in London and strangely enough I saw it around the same time.  Although this movie is good American Werewolf will always be better.  The Howling could have been at number two for me quite easily but the next two are two classics that can not be forgotten.

3.The Curse of the Werewolf
Three things worked for this movie.  The first is that it’s a Hammer Horror, second it was a good re-imagining of the werewolf story that worked very well and the third was Oliver Reed.  Reed is one of the best actors to ever come out of England and in this movie he really is on top form.  I’m sure any Hammer fan will have seen this movie and agree with me when I rate it as one of the best movies to come from them.

2.The Wolfman
Everybody who makes such a list as this should have The Wolfman in their list.  This is the movie that started it all and would influence just about all werewolf movies that came after it.  All fans of horror should have seen this, it’s a part of movie history.  (although I say this movie started it all I do know that Werewolf of London was in fact the first werewolf movie, but the Wolfman was more popular.  Just felt I had to note that).

1.American Werewolf in London.
One of my favourite movies of all time, there is no argument for me that this movie will always be number one in my werewolf top five.  The level of comedy is perfect as these are the types of movies that Landis does best and the gore is set at a perfect level for all you gore hounds.  This movie also has the best human to werewolf transformation that you will ever see and no CGI was used.  A must see on blu ray which also comes with an excellent documentary about how it was made (Beware the Moon).

Movies that should be in this list but did not make it: Wolf with Jack Nicholson, Wolfen, Underworld (the werewolves were arguably quite impressive).  I’m sure I left some out so leave some comments and I’ll apologise maybe.

Thanks to @mattscutt on Twitter for pointing out that I missed out some very important movies here.  The Ginger Snaps trilogy.  Although they did not make my top five (I’d put Ginger Snaps at number six) they are three good movies that deserve to be mentioned.  They are an excellent re-imagining in the werewolf genre that have to be recognised for how smart and inventive they are.

Let The Right One In is a truly beautiful movie.  It’s a movie about a friendship between a child and a vampire trapped inside the body of another.  It’s not a natural friendship, it’s a relationship between a predator and its prey but against all the odds it just happens.  I’ve rated it before as a must see movie and I stand by that.

What annoys me though is the remake “Let Me In”.  When I heard about it my first thought was why? Why remake something that is good enough and has only just come out recently? It’s money of course.  One positive reason I could see also was that if the movie is made in English then it would reach more people and they would have the chance to enjoy the story.  Things of course do not always go that simply.

In recent interviews I’ve read people comparing the remake to Romeo and Juliet but with little kids.  Now am I the only one seeing issues with this? Firstly that’s an over simplification of the relationship between Oskar and Eli.  The other thing is it’s not really a love story, save that for Twilight.  The next part mentioned was how it won’t be like Twilight because Eli wears old tattered clothes, she’s not as fashionable as the Twilight vampires.  Now I have a huge problem with this.

Let the Right One In is about a vampire, it’s not about sparkly emo vampire like creatures who hardly ever even touch blood.  Eli is a cold hearted killer and is shown to be that way throughout the movie (the original at least).  The so called love story is very subtle and plays out as more of a friendship between two very lonely creatures who are just looking for companionship.  Eli may be a vampire and Oskar may be a human being but Oskar is not a normal boy.  Oskar is a shy boy who is estranged from society apart from the love of his parents and the bullying from school.  He collects stories of murder and even practices how he would attack people who hurt him.  He’s not your average little kid.

Eli although she is in the body of a child is not a child in any way.  She is a killer who is hinted to be hundreds of years old, and at times she even seems to age on screen as hunger or the vampire within her takes over.  She does not feel guilt for her actions she kills to survive, she is what she is.  If the remake tries to bring emotion out of her and implies she shows guilt for her actions then they miss the point of what she is.

I doubt Hollywood can get this movie right, especially looking at what news is coming out about it.  The current climate for vampires is disastrous for horror fans as the real money is seen to come from teenagers who just want to see Twilight and anything like it.  This is why Let Me In will not work, they can either give the horror fans the movie they want (and look at possible low sales as a result) or “Twilight” the story up and alienate the fans of the original movie (which will make more money and result in a success).  As we live in a society where money is god, the horror fan will come last and so will the vampire.

The original interview that caused my bitching:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/5613/chloe-moretz-on-playing-a-vampire-in-let-me-in?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Feast Trailer

As a movie fan I always notice that it’s impossible to see every movie released.  We try though don’t we?  Some movies are just lost in the huge lists of ones to see.  Feast was one of those for me.  Even before I watched the movie I noticed something strange; Executive producers Ben Affleck, Wes Craven and Matt Damon.  To me that was just weird.  Ben Affleck was “da bomb” in Phantoms though yo.

Feast starts off at a running pace, it hardly gives you time to breathe.  Before you know it you are in the bar where most of the action will take place and you are given an introduction to each character in the movie.  This in itself is quite entertaining as the on screen description of each character gives them a life expectancy which is surprisingly effective in giving you a hint of how the movie is going to be (or so you think).

What I enjoyed though was the amazing way in which it pulled you into that mistake because Feast decides to break every rule it just set up and breaks certain taboos that most horror movies originating in America seem to have.  What you are left with is a very gory and very funny movie that turns the whole world you are watching on it’s head.

One thing I have to say though is if you don’t like movies with bad taste then don’t watch this, but why am I even saying this? If you are reading this review you’re a horror fan.  Forget that, you’ll love it; from the baby monster than humps anything that movies to the awesome script or just the all out gore you’ll just sit there laughing to yourself and enjoying every minute of it.

The main characters in the movie are well acted and surprisingly believable for this type of movie.  This is a B movie in every way; especially its heart and you can tell the actors have fun with it.  Henry Rollins plays a character that moves in and out of his typical role (think Wrong Turn 2 for what I mean by typical role for him), he lasts long enough in the movie to have some funny scenes especially when all the advice he’s giving is wrong.  Jason Mewes also stars in this (well he is a buddy of Affleck and Damon so I guess that got him in).  Although a short role it’s also enjoyable with a nice death scene to keep us all happy.

One awesome thing I have to mention too is Clu Gulager is in this movie.  He was in Return of the Living Dead and as we ALL know that movie was awesome.

I’ll admit I loved this movie and the main reason is it has B movie roots which it clings to, paying homage to some truly great ancestors.  This movie reminds me of some really good movies like Tales From the Crypt: Demon Knight, Evil Dead and Dog Soldiers.  People who have seen these movies will know why, it’s a movie about being trapped in a building surrounded by monsters who literally want either your soul or just to rip you apart.  If the movie is done right you get a story that is part character piece part gore fest and this is what the movie manages.  You care about the idiots and losers who find themselves in the bar and you care about their stories (although simple they are easy to buy and easy to remember).  I recommend horror fans watch this, especially in a time when horror is being toned down to barely anything resembling horror.

8/10

Inside(À l’intérieur) is one of those movies that you hear people talk about as being gory and a “must See” a word of mouth hit.  Unless you are a horror geek you’ve probably had no interest in it or even heard of it but if you can stomach it it’s a much watch.

Inside is the story of Sarah who loses her husband in a car accident but she survives carrying his baby.  As the birth of the baby nears she shows no interest in the child almost seeming to reject the fact it’s even been born.  This is when the woman turns up.  It starts with a simple knock on the door asking to use her phone (which reminds me so much of a Clockwork Orange).  When Sarah refuses to let the woman in the woman appears at the window and tries to force her way in.  After calling the police and making sure the house is safe she finds she is far from safe and the woman is in the house.  Even more worrying for Sarah it is not Sarah herself that the woman wants but her unborn baby.

Inside is a very effective film and hits you with a ton of bricks continuously until the very end.  The violence is very realistic, aggressive and unrelenting as both women struggle for control over the situation the woman has put Sarah through.  It’s almost a battle of wills over who will have the baby by the end of the movie.  The fact that the battles between the two and also various other characters trying to help Sarah happen in 3 small rooms creates a very tense and claustrophobic experience for the watcher.

The most claustrophobic element of the movie surprisingly enough though is the relationship between Sarah’s body and her baby.  As if to hammer home that Sarah is pregnant and is being attacked the director shows clips of the baby in distress as its mother is attacked, this is done obviously to enhance your pity for both the woman and child.  It’s something most movies would not have the balls to do, or would even do really, yes it “went there”.  What I mean by that is it takes a pregnant woman and puts her in jeopardy.  It’s not a case of us thinking about when she gets struck in the stomach during an attack it’s that you get to see the baby grimace as it feels its mother struggling, you almost experience it’s shock which sometimes is hard to sit through.

This movie is a must see for any horror fan really.  France is quickly becoming one of the best countries for horror at the moment, especially extreme horror.  Along with Martyrs and Haute Tension they are three of my favourite European horror movies.  Spain sits alongside it of course with movies such as [Rec] but it’s the French that seem to go for violent and extreme violence and show they have the balls to do so when Hollywood is softening up what they term as “horror”.  Hollywood can have their Twilight movies I’ll stick to movies like Inside.

If there is one thing people must watch at Christmas it has to be a version of Scrooge.  Based on the Charles Dickens a Christmas Carol it is the story of a grumpy old miser who hates Christmas.  When visited by three ghosts during the night of Christmas Eve he is shown the error of his ways.

Scrooge is part of our culture; there is no way of getting around that really.  I’m sure everybody has heard somebody getting called “a Scrooge” if they show signs of hating Christmas or even “bah humbug” by the cynical Christmas hating people out there when they see others enjoying the festive spirit.

One thing I noticed about myself is I have an obsession with this movie and the people who played the titular character so I thought I would do a top 5 to show who I think are the best and of course why.  So let’s begin.

5.Patrick Stewart

We all know Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard of the Enterprise, the bald headed sometimes Borg always hero who pretty made Star Trek the Next Generation arguably the best Star Trek but there was (and now is again) a time when he was a Shakespearian actor.  This pretty much means he can be one hell of an actor when he wants to be and have we ever seen him acting badly? I doubt it quite honestly.

In 1999 in a Christmas Carol Stewart took the part of Scrooge and did a very good job.  Why does this not put him at the top of this list as the best Scrooge? Because of the competition he has to be called the best Scrooge.  He beat George C Scott and Albert Finney to take this fifth spot so he’s beaten off stiff competition to get to this point

4.Scrooge McDuck (voiced by Alan Young)

How could a cartoon character beat Patrick Stewart on this list? It’s very simple really.  Mickeys Christmas Carol is one of the best versions you will ever see.  Part of the magic is that you see all the cartoon characters made famous by Disney taking roles you know from the classic story.  My favourite may be Goofy as Marley, he manages to get the storyline points over to the watcher yet still manages to keep his “goofy” character alive by falling over his chains and being the usual klutz that he is.

This is about Scrooge of course so I can’t finish talking about this version without mentioning Uncle Scrooge of course.  How can you not love Uncle Scrooge? So popular that he went on to have this own cartoon with his Nephews in Duck Tales? I bet you can hear the theme in your head right now can’t you? Uncle Scrooge is the perfect character really he was made for this cartoon but went on to live the life that only Scrooge could, even though it’s arguable that in Duck Tales he seems to have forgotten what the ghosts told him and is still being greedy, typical of him I guess.

3.Bill Murray

Bill Murray played Scrooge? Well you could argue that his character in Scrooge is not actually CALLED Scrooge but we know that the story is most definitely a Scrooge story.  Murray plays Frank Cross a TV executive who is taught the meaning of Christmas by the three ghosts who seem to haunt everybody at Christmas Eve.  This version of Scrooge is arguably the funniest and Murray is on fire with this character.  If he does anything well he does the cynical but lovable man who should be so easy to hate (because they are creeps) but is too likable a character to hate.

The most entertaining part of this movie has to be Murray’s interaction with the ghosts, especially the Ghost of Christmas Present who in this version is a psycho fairy who takes a lot of pleasure from beating up Frank at every possible chance.  What makes this version so good for me is the heart and love that is put into it and the task of making it work of course is all on Murray.  He seems to relish playing this character and gives an unforgettable performance (but come on, has he ever let us down with a comical character?).

2.Michael Caine

Yes, Michael Caine makes it to number 2 and it’s not just because of the Muppets.  I could probably write a few thousand words totally gushing out my love of the detail gone into this movie especially with the puppets.  This movie has Sprocket from Fraggle Rock in it HOW can it lose? (what you didn’t notice him, watch again he appears on scenes where Scrooge is walking through the streets).

Caine though is excellent in this movie.  He portrays one thing that to me has been an on running theme with all the actors I’ve mentioned and that is the portrayal of emotions.  Scrooge is a character that has a lot of heart, yes he starts out the movies as a grumpy old git but we see from his past what has turned him this way and we see through the present and future how he allows himself to change BECAUSE he has that heart, underneath all the layers of greed and hate there is a man full of lost love in there.  That’s why Caine is so good in this role.

Caine is an actor who can convey all the emotions required in his acting and he makes us believe that he is really feeling them.  One thing I hate is an actor that can’t do that, that try their best but in the end just come across as fake and a bad actor.  Caine seems to really enjoy this role and working with the Muppets and his enjoyment works with the excellent production to make a movie that would even melt the most adamant Christmas hater’s heart.

As with Mickey’s Christmas Carol this version of a Christmas Carol gains so much from the presence of the Muppets.  All the favourite Muppets get roles in the story and to add to the comedy some even break roles and fall back into their Muppet characters.  Funniest example of this is Sam the American Eagle having to be told by Gonzo not to say America but to say British.  It’s the little touches like that that pull in our love for the Muppets and help make this movie so special.  The Muppets and Michael Caine, who would have thought that combination, would have been so perfect?

1.Alastair Sim

Alastair Sim is so good in this movie that you never question it, he just IS Ebenezer Scrooge.  His acting is so perfect that you really feel for him and what he has to go through in this movie.  You have to remember really that the ghosts are taking him through painful memories, the hard harsh reality of the present and the horror of the future that he is making for himself and others.  Sim makes us feel compassion for the character and makes us empathise with a man who has gone through such hurt around Christmas time that he has given up on the season and given up on human nature.

He shows us a character who has fallen in love with the only thing that he knows can’t leave him; money.

This version of a Christmas Carol is dark, it’s gothic and it’s a perfect ghost story for Christmas Eve.  By the end of course the tone changes as Scrooge becomes the different man and we see such a change in Sim as he dances around his bedroom and conveys such happiness that we fall in love with the character.  The likability of such a character is down to the actor and Sim is perfect for this really as he drags us into Scrooges world with such a perfect performance that you’ll remember it above all other versions of Scrooge.

I could be called biased for saying that, but the fact is I’ve seen this movie every Christmas for the most of my life and it never gets old.  I would warn though try to get the black and white version and not the “colourised”.  I prefer it in black and white and find the colourisation method they used to really add no real improvement to the movie at all.  Black and white just has the perfect feel for old movies like this, we don’t need to see somebody can colour in a movie to try convince us the strange results are realistic.

“You missed out….”

Yes, I know I missed out some very good actors in this list.  George C Scott, Albert Finney even Kelsey Grammer all did very good version of Scrooge but this is a top five list, I can’t fit everybody on it.  I could list every single person who has played the role and then give my opinion on them but really what would that achieve but for me wasting my Christmas creating such a huge list?

A Christmas Carol is a story that will be used for inspiration again and again probably for the rest of time.  We’ve even had the 3D fun fair ride version which I’m yet to see so won’t comment on.  I will say though from the scenes I’ve seen I think I prefer the un-3D version of the story.  I want to enjoy Scrooge’s emotional journey.  Not his journey up into the sky or jumping around on the roof.  I’ll stick to my good old black and white version and enjoy one of the best Christmas and ghost movies every made.

Twilight annoys me, that’s the simple way to start this really.  I can understand why it’s such a success for teenage girls sure, it’s just like a typical magazine they read (full of men with no tops on).  Even past the sexual factor though there is another thing, people assume it made vampires and werewolves sexy.  Did it? Or did it turn them into whiney little school boys who should have left school over a year ago and “tribes” who are at best shape shifters rather than werewolves.

Vampires will always be sexy and it did not take Edward to prove that to us.  Look at Dracula, he can hypnotise people to do whatever he wants until the point at which he “penetrates” them and they become his.  I’m sure you noticed my sexual innuendo there and there was a point in it.  The vampire mythology is one of sex and societies fear of the freedom of being a sexual being.  Remember, we live in a society where sex is something that should be hidden and to be ashamed of (or that’s what we are taught all the time).  Established fonts of all knowledge such as the church tell us sex is something that will cause us no end of troubles, think of Adam and Eve.  It’s only when Adam and Eve taste the “apple” from the “tree of knowledge” that they are driven out of the garden of Eden for being unclean remember,   it’s the metaphorical roots of the teaching to us that sex is bad.

That is why vampires are seen as such evil characters.  They represent sexual freedom and the evil lure of sexuality upon we innocent pure children of God.  Silly isn’t it really when a lot of peoples so called “faith” is diluted to a point nowadays that we either have no belief of a God or “sin” then confess to try and rid ourselves of the guilt of doing things that we actually enjoy.  The vampire is a “demon”, he or she does what they enjoy and that is drinking blood.  It’s the sharing of bodily fluids from person to person, it’s the lust to devour that person and consume them.  Now tell me, does that remind you of Twilight? No? Probably because Twilight is more a warning to keep your virginity and look at the emo vampire that cries all the time because he did “it” and now sparkles in the sun, how pathetic quite honestly.

Now to the “werewolves” which I can’t really comment on in Twilight to be fair as I’ve not seen New Moon as of yet, I can still look at the “traditional” werewolf of course.  The werewolf like the vampire is a creature of lust, but also destruction.  He/she is the creature that lusts after the taste of flesh and the need to consume.  They lack no control and just as the vampire where a legend created to warn people the evils of not living a stable life within society.  I will say though that the werewolf is often the more tragic character who is forced against their will to turn into a beast when the moon is full.  How did they obtain such a curse? The passing of bodily fluids of course, blood and saliva.  It is a werewolf’s bite that causes the transformation and it is often pushed onto them against their will.  You could probably argue that the werewolf legend was a warning to people that if you have sex then you too will become this beast who lusts after innocent virginal people and take them against their will.  They are the work of the devil! Evil! No matter if the curse was passed onto them, they are a beast and should be killed.  Hardly seems to fit with the Twilight angry teenage shape shifters we see in New Moon does it?

So yes, Twilight annoys me.  It’s not the fans or their beliefs, let them have it and enjoy it but if anything I hate that the books were ever written.  Nothing against writing about werewolves and vampires but if the writer states that she hates horror and has never read anything else about the subject as research for her books? That quite honestly is a slap in the face for the legends and mythology of the creatures she is writing about.  I’d have thought the number one rule of writing such books would be to research what you are writing about.  If a book was written about drug addicts or alcoholics would you just write the book based on a very minimal knowledge of the subject material? I bet not, because it would come across as very immature and full of inaccuracies from the writer.  That is the problem with Twilight really, it’s very immature in its portrayal of the vampire and werewolves and even immature in its portrayal of love between two characters.  The “love” in Twilight seems to come down to stalking, selfishness and control;  If that’s love then what have I been doing wrong all these years because I’ve never had that kind of love.  We’re ok though, Twilight will teach all the little teens that that’s the way you should love people, they’ll be a generation of stalker emos and everything will be fixed.

Jennifer’s Body is a strange horror movie, you could say that it’s not even a horror movie at all just a teen comedy with the added teenager deaths to add the drama to it.  I know people would think from that I’m describing it like Heathers, but this is not Heathers because Heathers was a lot more intelligent than this with a far superior script.

Jennifer’s Body is of course the story of Jennifer.  She’s just a bitch, simple as that.  Stuck up her own ass is how I’d describe her quite honestly.  She has a friend Needy, who is ironically quite need and for some reason takes all the abuse from Jennifer.  Jennifer decides they must go see the latest emo band at a bar outside of town, it’s quite a shame really that this band ends up sacrificing Jennifer so that they can get some success (even if they do still suck after they make the sacrifice).  Once she is sacrificed Jennifer returns but can only stay living and look pretty as long as she eats boys.  So using her feminine charms she seduces several of her school friends and eats them.  Needy noticing this obvious change in her friend finds she is the only one to stop her.

I’ve heard many things said about Jennifer’s Body and quite honestly a lot of it I don’t agree with.   One example is that the movie is a feminist movie because of the way Jennifer dominates the men and eats them; I beg to differ on that point.  Is it a feminist belief that a woman must use her body to control men to get what she wants? That she must become a tool of their lust so she must survive? That she can only survive because of men? No, that’s not feminism at all.  If anything Needy is the “feminist icon” of this movie, she is the girl who must take on the beat (Jennifer) and save the day.  She shows the real strength in the movie and she is in fact the star, even if Jennifer should be (I mean come on Megan Fox is the big name of the movie right?).

So, why don’t I think Megan Fox is the big star of the movie? Well other than the fact her acting sucks in this she has one of the worst scripts to work with ever.  Everything that comes out of her mouth is a metaphorical mess of over complicated vocabulary that could have easily been said in far fewer words and a lot more intelligence.  The blame for that of course is in Diablo Cody’s style of writing.  I’m not going to hate on the woman because I think she’s quite good.  I loved Juno and it’s “hip” vocabulary was not an issue at all, and in this movie Needy also uses this style but to less of a degree which I find to be way more tolerable.  Yes, it’s ok for the script to be all “hip” and “cool” but don’t overdo it.  Jennifer’s style of talking in this movie comes across as highly annoying and in a way it could have damaged Fox’s ability to make the character convincing.  You could also take the view that maybe it’s just Fox that can’t handle such a script and could not deliver the lines in a believable enough manner; it’s just a matter of opinion really.

So, would I recommend this movie? I say wait till it comes out on DVD and rent it.  It’s an ok straight to DVD style movie that only got in the cinemas because of Megan Fox’s name and Diablo Cody’s Oscar for Juno, and if this movie had half the style that Juno had I’d highly recommend it.  I did enjoy this movie but only when Megan Fox kept her mouth shut, then the story could progress without the garbled mess of a script.

Rating 6/10

On the final night of my 31 days of horror reviews how can I not review Halloween? It’s the ultimate movie for tonight and the one I’ll be watching hopefully later.  This will not be a review of the remake of course even though I will probably reference and bitch about the remake later, even though I will admit that I did like it in its own “typical Rob Zombie Hillbilly horror feel” type thing.  Forgive me if this turns into a comparison between the two versions but it could happen, I shall train to control myself.

I’m sure anybody reading this knows the Halloween story by now but here goes anyway.  Michael Myers as a child kills his sister who has just had sex (yes, I know so stereotypical in horror but this IS one of the movie that started that stereotype you know).  He’s stuck in a mental institute for a few decades and manages to escape with his doctor hot on his trails desperate to stop him.  So, why is Michael going home and what is he going to do on Halloween? Watch the movie and you’ll find out.

So, what is it about this movie that makes it so special? It’s arguable that Michael Myers was the first “stalker killer” in horror history.  He came before Jason, he came before Freddy he was the spark in the imagination of horror movie makers that created a style of monster that has dominated horror movies ever since.  Michael is the unstoppable boogie man who lurks in the shadows until just the right moment, but instead of the quick death he takes his time and strikes with violence and menace.  He’s no Freddy Kruger with his wise cracks and he’s no Jason Voorhees killing off anybody who appears at his summer camp, Michael is just Michael.  In the first movie he’s just a man a psychotic man, but a human being.  He can be hurt but he always manages to get up and continue his one aim, which is to kill his victim that he has chosen.  This was the movie that also brought in the idea of the virgin survivor.  The one teenager in the movie that actually survives is Laurie, the virgin little miss perfect whose friends are whores and get butchered.

The acting in this movie is perfect for it really, there is no bad acting.  Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis puts in a perfect performance but I’m yet to see a movie where Pleasance is not on form with his acting he was a true professional even in any of the bad movies he was in.  Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode was also good and this was the start of her becoming one of the “scream queens” a moniker inherited from her mother Janet Leigh for her role in Psycho.  She manages to play the virginal goody goody to almost annoying effect which is perfect as that’s the kind of role Laurie is meant to be.

So now this is where I start to bitch and complain about the remake.  Why was this movie even made? Yes, Rob Zombies version is a watchable and quite entertaining movie in itself but when you compare it to the original it has nothing on it, nothing at all.  It tries to show a back story to Michael to try and teach us why Michael became the fucked up mess he was.  I’d argue that we don’t need to see that.  Myers does not need a motive he’s just the bogeyman.  We don’t need to have a twisted version of him where he was put down by his step father and hated on by his sister which led to him killing them.  We don’t need to see that his mother killed herself over what he did.  We just need Michael.  In the original Michael was born into a normal family with no fuck ups like in the remake, they were just a family.  To me that makes the original Michael creepier.  The fact that he had no real reason in himself to turn him into the monster he became creates a more darker creature.  The remake gives us a reason to feel for Michael, to almost feel pity that this boy was so messed up by his family and in that we lose an element of Michael and we have an inferior movie and inferior monster.

So yeah, watch the original and if you want to be mildly entertained watch the remake too but I’m sure you will see the obvious difference in quality.  I won’t say I hate the remake because I quite like it but I will never like it over the original and I hope that people who see the remake and its sequel will make people want to see the original just to see how good it actually was.