RANTS & RAVINGS ABOUT HORROR - “HALLOWEEN and a New Legacy of Horror”

“HALLOWEEN and a New Legacy of Horror”

Master of Horror John Carpenter returns to the franchise that made him an International celebrity with the release of HALLOWEEN (2018) but instead of writing and & directing this latest sequel he is an Executive Producer and provides the score (with his new collaborators Cody Carpenter and Daniel A. Davies).  There is this idea that there is a need or “want” by audiences that the franchise needs to go “old school” and back to basics so returning with Carpenter is star Jamie Lee Curtis and Nick Castle (as Laurie Strode and The Shape, respectfully).  Helping to get back to this old school vibe are Danny McBride, Jeff Fradley, and David Gordon Green as the screenwriters and Green who directs.  Green made a name for himself with his debut feature George Washington (2000) but is better known for his comedies Pineapple Express (2008), Your Highness (2011), and The Sitter (2011); he soon moved on to the more interesting films Joe (2013), Our Brand is Crisis (2015), and Stronger (2017).  McBride is more known for Eastbound & Down but has shown his horror film creed with Alien: Covenant (2017).

I only mention McBride and Green as they are the key people responsible for putting this film together along with uber producer Jason Blum who came aboard to shepherd the film in a direction for a new era and audience (along with producers Malek Akkad and Bill Block).  As much as I want to say I love the idea of film-makers, in hindsight, claiming that some films/sequels/remakes/re-imaginings/etc. stray too far from the source material, there is no denying that a lot of time has passed from the Carpenter ’78 Original to the more recent Rob Zombie directed Halloween II (2009) and audiences from the ‘70s are completely different from those of the ‘00s.  Blum and company claim that there was a need to return to that ‘70s mentality of horror film that they believe audiences want instead of the more current crop of darker horror film that has a lot of gore and relies less on suspense and subtly.  Franchise films like Insidious, The Purge, Final Destination, Hostel, Saw, and Sinister have replaced the slasher films of the ‘80s and ‘90s which have continuously upped the ante on horror and gore and become huge Box Office draws.  Smaller and sometimes more critically adored films like It Follows, The Babadook, and Oculus have been critical darlings that relied more on atmosphere and mood (and less on gore) have rarely been huge Box Office draws leaving the impression that the more low-key style horror films no longer have a place with mainstream audiences.

So, how do you craft a remake/re-imagining of a beloved classic film that retains the atmosphere of the original while also appealing to modern day audiences who flocked to see the remake of Stephen King’s It (2017) and not the remake of Poltergeist (2015)?  That was the goal of the film-makers behind the ’18 Halloween.   Bringing Carpenter, Curtis, and Castle back was a great marketing gimmick to start but would the resultant film be what audiences really wanted?

Rob Zombie’s very divisive two Halloween films ’07 and ’09 was a means to ground the franchise in a “Zombie-colored” real world in which The Shape was less a Boogieman and more a human being by the name of Michael Myers, a misunderstood and abused child from a broken family that becomes a relentless serial killer.  Gone is the mystique of Carpenter’s faceless killer that was given no meaning or method to his madness; Zombie wanted to present a killer you could understand and empathize with just as much as the heroine Laurie Strode (played in his films by Scout Taylor-Compton).  The ‘00s was a time in which the faceless serial killer was passé replaced by the Dexter Morgan and Hannibal Lectors.  Zombie’s films were loathed by some but cherished by others due to his style and his need to create a Michael Myers who wasn’t simply “evil” by nature but was raised that way.  These films went against everything from the previous seven sequels but then again this wasn’t the first time the franchise was rebooted.

After a less than satisfying part V: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) and part 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) the franchise was again rebooted to dismiss all sequels except for Part II.  For Halloween: H20 (1998), Curtis returns to reboot the franchise in one of the most satisfying of all the sequels in which Laurie Strode has changed her name to hide away from her past.  This film was extremely well liked by both fans and critics as it presented a more three-dimensional heroine than had ever been presented in a Halloween film while also appealing to modern audiences with slick visuals and a young and attractive cast with seasoned professionals and comic wit.  These achievements were short lived as Part VII: Resurrection (2002) became one of the most hated sequels in the franchise. 

After the dismal reception of the non-Michael Myers starring Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1983), gears were shifted to bring Myers and Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) back from their fiery deaths in Part II (1981) for Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988).

This all being said, the Halloween franchise as a whole was rebooted three times before McBride & Green, Carpenter & Curtis & Castle, and Blum decided it was time to once again break the mold and revisit the iconic franchise by making a sequel that directly takes place after the original film and ignoring all of the past 40 years’ worth of continuity and story.  This new story had to appeal to fans of the franchise who had seen all the previous films (or at least some of them) in addition to those who had never seen a Halloween film.   Laurie Strode is a woman suffering from PTSD after the events in the ’78 Original film and been preparing for The Shape’s escape from a mental institution for forty years.  She has a daughter whom she has alienated and a grand-daughter who barely knows her, and her world comes crashing down upon her when a bus carrying The Shape and other mental patients crashes releasing The Shape to menace Haddonfield once again.

I will try not to reveal to many details of the film for those who have not seen the film but despite being a well-done slasher film there is nothing remarkably new or intriguing in this latest sequel that takes the best bits of all the sequels and mashes then together in this “best of” film.  Curtis does her very best to keep the film together but Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) is no Dr. Loomis and Will Patton is slumming as Officer Hawkins, who is trying to capture The Shape once he realizes that he has a serial killer in his town.    The bumbling cops from the abysmal Part V seem to still be working in Haddonfield now in this new film where there is an extended scene of cop banter that is completely out of place.   There is a child that believes in the Boogieman and a babysitter, but their scenes are so short and haphazard that you wonder the logic of why they are even in the film other than to have an homage to the ’78 Original and Part IV.  Curtis’ character pulls a lot from H20 and there are several nods to that film but there are a few details about the ’18 film that just had me feeling empty about the entire film.

H20 already presented Laurie Strode as a woman with PTSD but one that for the most part has moved on with her life unlike the ’18 film which presents her as a survivalist with a fortified home and a menagerie of guns.  Unfortunately, for the forty years of preparing for the eventual arrival of Michael Myers she’s a horrible shot and she never logically responds to the presence of Myers like you think someone who is obsessed with killing him would be.  She acts and reacts more for plot than logic.  Strode’s daughter Karen and granddaughter Alysson (Judy Greer and Andi Matichak, respectfully) are the best story point of the entire film that is squandered in clichés and bad memories of The Curse of Michael Myers.  I love the fact that this film wanted to present three generations of women effected by the trauma of Myers but there are too many bad decisions and character points that just seem to be there for plot rather than character.  Some of these same relationship issues were developed in Part VI and the Strode family in that film.  The ’18 film had a great opportunity to present three great women characters from different generations, but they ended up coming across as cyphers for Laurie’s familial problems rather than genuine character moments.

My next fault with the film, and this is a big one, is the presentation of Myers.  From the trailer and the vocal aspirations of the film-makers you’d be in the belief that the idea of this film is to go back to the basics of Carpenter’s film regarding how Myers was presented as a Boogieman/The Shape.  Instead, this film rehashes the brutality of the Zombie films without the since of fun or style.  Myers kills everything in his path with complete disregard and it is only by happenstance that he ultimately finds his way to Laurie’s fortified home in the final act.  It never seems like he has any purpose other than to kill-kill-kill which is unlike the ’78 Original or even Zombie’s film.  For gore fans there are plenty of deaths to add to Myers body-count but to fans of the suspense filled original it’s a bit of the same from previous films except less creative as there are many nods to deaths from previous sequels. 

There are various other faults I have with the film but the final element that I’ll discuss is simply that the film lacks any real suspense and when the characters are as hollow and uninteresting as presented her even the high body-count can’t masque what a mediocre film the final product actually is.  Now, I’m sure a lot of people will disagree with me especially considering that the film has grossed over $250 million worldwide on a $10 million production budget but I believe this is more serendipity than anything else due to the involvement of so many people from the ’78 Original.  

Now, to put this all in perspective, I must also add that I saw the far superior Suspiria (2018) the night before and the Korean language Rampant (2018) on the same day as I saw Halloween and both films were shining examples of character based horror films that had style and presented either creepy and unnerving atmosphere (Suspiria) and or action-suspense-zombie-demon horror (Rampant).  Both took clichés and standard horror conventions and presented them in new and surprising ways whereas Halloween ’18 presented the exact same thing that I’d seen before countless times.

I’ll concede that I may be a little biased since I didn’t think there needed to be another Halloween reboot especially with Curtis rebooting her own franchise, again, but the trailer did give me hope that the film would have at least been interesting having Carpenter, Curtis, and Castle involved but the only real thing of brilliance in the film is the musical score from Carpenter (and his collaborators).  The score wasn’t a retread of what came before but an evolution and attribute this to Carpenter and his team as he has found new life in his musical career having produced over the years the amazing Lost Themes I and II not to mention the Anthology album.  The music is the true highlight of the film!

Carpenter’s film career may have stalled after the release of The Ward (2010), which didn’t even get a large Theatrical release, but his music career has been nothing short of brilliant and I’m ecstatic that he’s producing better music now than he has in years.

Halloween ’18 is a monumental success story that has resurrected a fairly forgotten franchise (except for hard-core horror fans) for general audiences and there will definitely be another film which the customary result of many of producer Blum’s films has been (The Purge, Paranormal Activity, Sinister, Unfriended, etc.).  Even though I’m no fan of the film, I am more than happy to admit that the greatest result of the success of the film is that there is a renewed interest in everything “John Carpenter” and I hope that He becomes a new contributor to the expanding horror world of Blumehouse Productions as they continue to allow visionary film-makers to present their visions without studio interference which is the one thing we can all be thankful for.

RANTS & RAVINGS ABOUT HORROR – “HOW MONSTER FILMS DEFINED MY LIFE”

RANTS & RAVINGS ABOUT HORROR – “HOW MONSTER FILMS DEFINED MY LIFE”

Early this year during the 2017 Something Wicked Film Festival (www.somethingwickedfilmfestival.com), Festival Panel Moderator Jim Adams created a panel discussion that would forever define the future of panel discussions for the event (especially since I’m the Festival Director and I just hired him to be the Official Festival Panel Moderator.  One of Mr. Adams’ first duties were to come up with some original ideas for new panel discussions and thus “How Monster Films Defined My Life” was born. 

Now I know part of the reason why Mr. Adams decided on this topic for a panel discussion is because he has the podcast “Monster Attacks!” where he has spoken at length about his love for monster films.  For many people, monster films from the Universal horrors of Dracula and The Wolfman to Hammer Studios’ Frankenstein and The Mummy were defining characters of fear from childhood.  For more modern audiences there is Leatherface and that dream demon Freddy not to mention the likes of Ghostface Killer and The Jigsaw Killer.  No matter which decade, audiences have their own nightmare monster that haunts them or fascinates them to no end.

I was one of the film-makers on this panel discussion and one of the films that defined my childhood was the Joe Dante film Gremlins (1984).  I saw this in the theater in ’84 at the early age of 8 and it left an undeniable impression on me.  The monsters were both cute and cuddly and dangerous and fun at the same time.  It was like watching a bunch of unruly children at play able to do whatever they wanted.  It also had an amazing soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith (who became my all-time favorite music composer).  The film was dark and horrifying as well as funny and entertaining.  It had the perfect mixture of comedy and horror and part of that is due to the very dark photography of the film and the fluid cinematography.  It truly became one of my all-time favorite films for which my love for other monsters would grow.

 

I didn’t grow up with the black & white Universal monsters nor had I seen many of the bloody Hammer Studio films until I became a big horror fan in my teenage and college years.  The next monster I gravitated to was that of the Good-Guy doll Chucky.  When I saw Child’s Play (1988) I had never seen anything like it before.  A serial killer uses Voodoo to possess a doll and to continue his killing spree.  Even though this film played straight into horror (unlike the more comedic sequels) it still was quite fun and entertaining.  By ’88 when this film was released and I was eleven years old I had already become a horror fan but nothing had defined my true love of the genre just yet until this film.  I got the poster for the film from the nearby Video Store (how I miss these establishments) and I placed it lovingly on my bedroom wall (where it was later joined by posters of the second and third films).  It was the first poster I ever put on my wall but it would not be the last.

I followed the continuing exploits of Chucky to cinema with Child’s Play 2 (1990) and Child’s Play 3 (1991) which I had to beg my Father to take me to since I was too young for the R-Rated horror.  At this point I did come to realize how much I loved horror films but more importantly – monster films.

At this point you could say I went looking for monsters as I learned to love all monsters big or small.

It wasn’t until Clive Barker’s Nightbreed (1990) that I wished I was one of the amazing monsters that populated our magnificent world.  Barker crafted a story where the monsters were the good guys while man was the bad guy.  This film defined the idea of what a monster could truly become.  The monsters in Barker’s film were deformed and misunderstood as well as dangerous and fascinating.

It was after this that I became a true and everlasting monster fan.  From the films featuring Godzilla and his rogue’s gallery to the Cenobites of the world of Hellraiser I loved monsters both other-worldly and those more human.  My favorites were monsters not easily described or defined like those in Christine (1983), The Thing (1982), Puppet Master (1994), Critters (1986), and especially Killer Clowns From Outer Space (1988), to name but a small few.

I most certainly enjoyed the exploits of Michael Myers and Leatherface (and family) and even those Freddy films but it was with these non-human monsters that I enjoyed more and would later define my love and appreciation of horror.  For me, monsters aren’t defined as either good nor evil but in most films, they are simply just trying to survive and do what comes naturally.  This is the defining trait of King Kong and Godzilla as well as many other timeless monster films.

Serial killers and mass murders are interesting but monsters are something from the imagination where anything that can be dreamed can become a reality.  Therefore, they’ve had such a profound effect on me as not only a film maker but a storyteller and a film lover.  If nothing else, I implore others to seek out monster movies not just for pure entertainment and enjoyment but to understand oneself and the world in which we live (and the one created for the monsters to live in).  It’s never too late to enjoy a good monster film.

To view the entire “How Monster Movies Defined My Life” panel discussion go here - https://vimeo.com/238990857

"Rants & Ravings About Horror" - Week 34: “Watching John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN on the Big Screen!”

Week 34: “Watching John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN on the Big Screen!”

October 29^th marks the return of John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) to the big screen curtesy of Fathom Events.  I previously was able to take advantage of Fathom Events special screening of Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) and Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989), so I jumped at the chance to see this film the way it was always meant to be seen.

I’m actually of the school of thought where most films should be experienced on the big screen.  I’ve seen both good (The Descent, Crimson Peak, The Babadook) and bad films (Phantoms, Jason X, The Return of Texas Chainsaw Massacre) but regardless of the quality of film I always enjoyed them better on the big screen than when I subsequently viewed them a second time on DVD or television.  Halloween has the distinction of being one of those films that if you hadn’t seen when it was originally released then you would love the opportunity to one day do so.  I jumped at the chance…as any horror fan would.

Halloween, for me, is one of the best slasher films that has ever been crafted and it would influence every subsequent slasher that would come after it.  Not only that, but it would burn the name “John Carpenter” into my subconscious because his name was above the title of the film as with most of his films.  Even today the film has an effect on audiences that is undeniable.

When I stepped into the theater the audience was about half way filled with others wanting to catch a glimpse of the film.  I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the audience was filled with fans who had never seen the film on the film screen like me.  So, in a sense, we were all having a communal experience not seen since ’78 when the film was originally released.  I actually had goose bumps when I realized that I was about to finally experience one of my favorite horror films as if was the very first time.

Halloween was special to the horror genre.  It was a raw and uncompromising look at pure evil as personified by Michael Myers and hunted down by the altruistic yet jaded Dr. Sam Loomis.  Innocence and purity was personified by Laurie Strode who had to overcome pure evil in a night that belonged to the Boogeyman.  Most other slasher films relied on gore and a body count whereas there is very little gore and a low body count in this film (unlike subsequent sequels).  Carpenter’s film relies on mood, atmosphere and most importantly suspense, which is the saving grace of the film and why it still endured to this day.

Watching the film on the big screen the suspense is still there.  The mood is still there.  And the atmosphere couldn’t be more terrifying.  At ninety-one minutes the film is fast and effective still after all these years.  If the film wasn’t enough the night opened with a brief interview with Carpenter himself and a history of the film.  It’s great to hear him speak about his film over thirty years later.

Overall, Halloween is still a great film and watching it on the big screen has made the highlight of my theatrical viewing experience of 2015 as I hope it has for everyone else who was able to see this film for the first time or once again.

"Rants & Ravings About Horror" - Week 33: “The Horror Films of John Carpenter”

Week 33: “The Horror Films of John Carpenter”

John Carpenter is a name synonymous with horror.  There is not a horror fan out there that doesn’t know this name and the importance that he has had on the genre and on generations that have grown up watching his films.  It has been a while since Carpenter has released a new film (2010’s The Ward) so what better time to look back at the horrors he has concocted than Halloween where I’m sure many people sit down to enjoy one of his finest films which is the original Halloween (1978).

Growing up Halloween was one of my favorite and most influential horror films.  I was not only a Halloween fan but a Michael Myers fan as well.  This film is the reason why I love slasher films so much.  Myers is the iconic slasher whose life has gone through some amazing changes due to the talented hands that have crafted the stories and films throughout the years.  Carpenter was the first to impress audiences upon his idea of what the Boogeyman was and for many it endures to this day.  Michael Myers is the “real” Boogeyman and that is because Carpenter made him so.

In 1980 he would unleash his next major horror film which is The Fog.  Now, this is one of Carpenter’s creepiest films because it’s all about mood and atmosphere and what you don’t see rather than what you do see since everything is shrouded in the mist and fog.  This was also more terrifying for me because I identified with the young child being chased by the fog (since I was so young when I first saw the film).  This film is suspenseful and terrifying from beginning to end as audiences are placed in the tropes of a ghost story that the characters are trapped in.  I still love this movie today but for different reasons as I now know all the actors by name and love watching them crew the scenery as only they can in a Carpenter film.  Who doesn’t love watching Jamie Lee Curtis, Adrienne Barbeau, Janet Leigh, Tom Atkins, Charles Cyphers, John Houseman, and Hal Holbrook, to name a few.  This is one of the best movies of the ‘80s. 

As much as I love the previous two films Carpenter’s most realized and affecting film is ‘82’s The Thing.  This is a dark and unforgiving film that is claustrophobic yet provides one of the best ensemble casts of any of Carpenter’s films.  There is not a flaw in this film unless you think the film is too violent and too depressing which it is but that is the beauty of the film.  It is bleak and a socially conscious powder keg of a film where no one can trust their friends not themselves.  This is my favorite Carpenter film.  He was never at the top of his game as much as when he crafted this film.  With the exception of the musical score, this is pure Carpenter.  If there is one film that I tell people to see above all other Carpenter films this is it.

In ’83 Carpenter would put his own spin on a Stephen King novel with his adaptation on Christine.  This is a fun and entertaining film but was never one of my favorites.  Until I was able to fully appreciate Carpenter’s entire career, this was the film (growing up) that I always forgot he directed.  The style and execution of this film is pure Carpenter but I always thought that this film was one that could’ve been directed by anyone and it still would have been effective.  The most important aspect of this film for me is the soundtrack with the excellent choice of music (which I believe has more to do with inspirations from King’s novel but since I haven’t read this novel yet I can’t be 100 percent).  I actually haven’t seen this film in quite some time because when I’m in a Carpenter mood, this is never the film that I pull out but in terms of films based on King’s novels this is one of my favorites.

1987 saw the release of another one of my all-time favorite Carpenter films which is Prince of Darkness.  By the time ’87 came around I knew the name “John Carpenter” because his name was always above the title of the film.  This film about the resurrection of Satan by way science is one of the smartest horror films ever crafted which is both moody and atmospheric as well as suspenseful and terrifying.  Carpenter is working on all cylinders here as he captures the tone and mood of dread of his original Halloween while also capturing the comedy of Big Trouble in Little China and the science and dread of The Thing while continuing to be technically above many of his contemporaries.  The cinematography in this film is magic as is musical score.  This is not nearly as disturbing as The Thing which has turned people away but not simply seen as a “simple” slasher film like Halloween either so this film inhabits a strange place on Carpenter’s resume.

In ’94 my “guilty pleasure” Carpenter film is released which is In The Mouth of Madness.  I think with this film Carpenter is having a lot of fun and everything is on board with him.  This film has the perfect mix of established and character actors with Sam Neill, Jurgen Prochnow, Julie Carmen, David Warner, John Glover, Bernie Casey, Frances Bay and Charlton Heston.  This is a cast that shouldn’t work but does.  Despite the controversy of the film’s monsters and violence being cut, the film actually works better for not showing the monsters in full glory (like those seen in The Thing).  I think that showing the monsters would have destroyed the integrity of the story being told which is about a man going mad due to what he sees or what he thinks he sees.  This also happened to be the very first Carpenter film I ever saw on the big screen so it holds a special place for me.

Vampires was released in ’98.  This is a film I really had high hopes for because James Woods was the star (which I’ve always thought is one of the best actors of his generation).  Unfortunately, after a really stellar first half of the film it soon falls apart the moment Wood’s team of vampire hunters are all massacred.  It becomes a less interesting film from then on despite Woods doing his best to hold it all together.  That and the fact that I’ve never been a big fan of vampire films put this on the bottom of my list of favorite Carpenter films.  Surprisingly, I do believe that this is one of the few Carpenter films that I believe would work better as a television series where the story could be opened up (as long as all the violence is kept intact).

Carpenter’s most recent horror film The Ward is held less together by Carpenter’s talents and more by the performance of Amber Heard who holds the film together.  It is a slow burning psychological film which is contrary to most of his previous films unless you look back at The Fog which it has a lot in common with in terms of mood and atmosphere.  I enjoy this film and recognize that it’s not one of his strongest horror films but it is effective for the story it is trying to tell.

Carpenter has had a long and illustrious career and has provided generations with countless nightmares and for this his films and his name will endure.  I grew up watching (and re-watching) his films and will continue to do so as I pass off my love of his films to new audiences.