Hell Fest (2018)

'Hell Fest' is about a group of college students who arrive at the traveling horror-themed carnival, only for a masked intruder to begin stalking and eventually pick them off. Really, it's a slasher film so the story is naturally paper-thin but it usually doesn't matter when it comes to a cheap thrill film such as 'Hell Fest'. Sadly, the film doesn't even reach that so bad it's good of many others of its type. It lacks any creativity in its killer, it's kills, or its scares and horror fans suffer for it. Me and my friend were sitting there coming up with more creative kill scenes than this film and when you're talking to your friend in a near empty theater instead of paying attention to the movie, you know it's a clunker for sure.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I do dig slasher movies, even the very cheapest and worst stuff you can imagine, but what elevates many of those films above 'Hell Fest' is their delivery of the material. You have to give the audience the goods in a movie like this, but instead we're treated to the majority of the kills being a simple knife to the gut. This is a horror carnival, with many creative costumes and mechanisms throughout on full display to the audience. How could they have missed such a big opportunity to go really crazy with the death scenes, but this flick could have fooled me for a PG-13. The main killer seen above is also a bore, with no motivation given whatsoever, a stupid and really uninspired mask, and no resolution whatsoever which results in one of the worst movie endings I've seen this year.

'Hell Fest' is merely a hollow body of a film that takes from better slasher movies and brings nothing new to the table. It wastes it's vast potential and will quickly fade into your local bargain bin soon enough. I don't recommend it unless you are a really hardcore horror fan that has to see everything, but for the rest of you wait until something better comes along.

2/5

Halloween II (1981)

Three years and a dozen copycats later, John Carpenter & Debra Hill returned to their baby to give it the proper finale it deserved. And now here we are in 2018 and up to number eleven in the series so yeah it didn't go quite as planned. As most fans know, the film takes place directly after the original and sees Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) taken to the hospital, with Michael Myers following close behind as Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) attempts to find him. The film this time around was directed by Rick Rosenthal and he excels at getting the right look and mood that John brought to the '78 original. Cinematographer Dean Cundey would also return and even though the two films are three years apart, you really could edit the two together into a big supercut and it would look like the same film.

The score also brings back the iconic tunes with a synth flavor, with John Carpenter and his friend Alan Howarth bringing a different but still enjoyable rendition of the classic film's music. The returning cast is hit or miss in this one, with the biggest disappointment being the lack of Jamie Lee Curtis. I understand that the script doesn't call for her until those final moments, but if you're going to have Jamie Lee come back, you should take more advantage of it and not just leave her mostly comatose throughout. Donald Pleasance is wonderful as always playing Dr. Loomis and even in this and the many sequels to come he always did the best job he could with the material and clearly enjoys playing the character. It's a good thing too, because the new cast of characters are really dull and even in the early days of the slasher film they come off as too cliche. Three characters in particular you don't get to know enough to feel bad for them when they are eventually bumped off even if one or two are surprise kills.

The other major problem with 'Halloween II' is that you can tell it hasn't been pieced together well, with an opening murder being thrown in just to up the body count along with people disappearing or other quick cuts here and there. This is because the film was to be more like the original, with atmosphere and traditional scares being quickly replaced by more gory deaths and exploitative nudity. If you haven't checked it out yet, grab the Scream Factory Blu-Ray and check out the TV cut to see a better idea of what was originally intended. Overall though, it's not that they threw in the gore that makes 'Halloween II' a downgrade, but rather it's sloppy attempts to throw it in that keeps it down for me personally.

Even to this day, I still prefer 'Halloween II' above the others (though come October 19th, I may change my mind). It's still a solid sequel that you could easily watch as a double feature with the original and it still has the best team behind the camera. It's a solid 'good, not great' movie but one I'm sure most of you will still enjoy for the holiday.

4/5

The House with a Clock in its Walls (2018)

Director Eli Roth is not known for being one of the better horror filmmakers out there. From 'Cabin Fever' to 'The Green Inferno', his work has ranged from above average to downright abysmal but thankfully he has been saved by the most unlikely thing: a family friendly horror film. 'The House with a Clock in its Walls' is by far his best work thanks to it's well made script, awesome cast, and the same charm that 'Goosebumps' has. The film's story comes from the 1972 novel of the same name and tells the tale of a young boy named Lucas who comes to live with his uncle (Jack Black). It doesn't take him long to realize that there's more to his new home than meets the eye, and he must deal with malevolent forces that threaten his town and the world.

Like I mentioned before, the film takes many cues from Sony's 'Goosebumps' film from 2015 and seeing as how Jack Black also starred in that film, it's not hard to see the comparisons straight away. That's not to say the movie is a copy and paste re-working, but rather it works just as well by knowing the core audience and makes it just tense and spooky enough for them while also entertaining both children and their parents. Only a few jokes kind of flop and some will find Black's performance no different than others he's done, but overall I was pleasantly surprised by how well written this screenplay was. It doesn't rely on crude humor, save for one or two, and instead goes for a dry humor with some effective visual gags to go with it. The funniest moments were between Black and Cate Blanchett, who plays his neighbor and best friend. Watching them bicker back and forth is the best part, and they work off each other very well. I also love the cinematography of the film, recreating the 1950's very well along with playing up the Gothic imagery perfectly. It can lean towards the trope side of things, but I always love watching an old fashioned film like this and the visuals reflect the story, the time frame, and the tone perfectly. 

There are some negatives that tend to plague many films in general, with the biggest being the villain. I won't spoil anything here, but I have to say their motives were not only weak, but they seem crammed into the film at the last minute as if they forgot to put an antagonist into it and rushed something together. I know this isn't how the novel portrays it, so the screenplay while being well made compared to other children's films does have this major flaw. The only other antagonistic character we get is a cliche school bully that adds nothing to the film other than a quick laugh at the end so overall I will say that while it doesn't ruin the movie for me personally, the villains are very weak.

Overall, I walked out very satisfied and happy with 'The House with a Clock in its Walls'. Eli Roth has shown that he does indeed have the talent and ability to tell a good story without going over the line. His stories always had the idea down, but he would always stumble on the execution and yeah, this isn't a perfect film or anything and I wouldn't recommend it over 'Goosebumps', but it's a great Halloween film for the family and I would recommend you take them this holiday. It's funny and has just the right amount of spookiness for everyone to enjoy.

4/5

Halloween (1978) Review

40 years ago on Halloween night, Michael Myers stormed through the box office and changed the horror genre and film in general. It's subtle approach and the unique talent of John Carpenter and his crew has resulted in one of the best horror movies of all time that even after four decades sticks with us. The story for the few of you who don't know, starts on Halloween night in 1963 when a young boy named Michael Myers murdered his older sister at random. He then spends the next 15 years in a facility until the infamous holiday rolls around again and he escapes captivity, wreaking havoc wherever he goes.

While the film has the typical horror tropes you would expect, even at the time it's director John Carpenter, writer Debra Hill, and cinematographers Tommy Wallace & Dean Cundey that elevates 'Halloween' above the others and their contributions really help the film look, sound, and overall feel better than those that came before and the many, many imitations that came after. Even the sequels to 'Halloween', which we will get into later this month seem to miss the mark when it came to the subtle but creepy atmosphere, long and perfectly paced tension, and strong and impactful violence and scares that don't go too far but still leave their mark.

Carpenter spent much of his $350,000 budget making sure his film stood out and give the look of a big budget horror film. Using the Panaflex/Panavision camera he gives what could have been a small scale film a much more professional look. The film's look is also thanks to Dean Cundey, who would go on to work on some of the biggest films of all time, including my favorite film of all time 'Jurassic Park' and even with 'Halloween' you can see the man's strong eye for cinematography. The crisp, dark blues and warm oranges he would become known best for are on full display here and each shot is so great to look at, and always feel alive, as if you the viewer are there. They don't feel like set pieces like a lot of films tend to do and the immersion helps make the scares more effective.

Other than Michael Myers himself, the film's biggest claim to fame is its iconic theme song and score, created by Carpenter himself. It's simple, but highly effective like 'The Exorcist' before it and the moment the film starts, and that theme begins you are instantly hooked. The eerie pumpkin dimly lighting the background as the credits roll gets the viewer pumped for the movie. It's one of, if not my favorite opening credits in film history. The sequels would go a little far with their scores, creating overly elaborate and louder pieces that shoehorn in the theme and ultimately I really haven't cared for Alan Howarth's recreations for the sequels. The original score was simple but effective and there was nothing like it at the time and really nothing like it today in horror movies.

Now, I know it's pretty uncommon (but not unheard of) to talk ill or negative of 'Halloween'  nowadays but the film isn't without its flaws. Even back in 1978 many reviews were mixed, citing the exaggerated acting of PJ Soles and Nancy Loomis and even some felt Donald Pleasance went over the top as Dr. Loomis. I do often criticize the acting when viewing the film with friends or other fans, mostly towards Soles, who I'm sure is a very nice lady but she is annoying and her dialogue is tedious, repetitive and at times feels very out of place. It seems that Carpenter did have a hard time writing the three female characters, but even though Debra Hill attempted to fix it up they really don't have much of a personality and they feel like they belong in one of the 'Halloween' knock-offs rather than 'Halloween'.

Do I think 'Halloween' is John Carpenter's best film? No. Not really, but it is the film that got him attention and it will always have its significance in film history and even 40 years later it still influences filmmakers and entertains horror movie lovers.

5/5

The Predator (2018)

'The Predator' is a bizarre mixture. It has many good elements, but overall it falls apart by the end of its two hour running time. This film is set on Earth again, this time with a rogue Predator attempting to bring an advanced weapon while avoiding a genetically enhanced member of his clan. It's more than a little disappointing to go into a movie called 'The Predator' and have them barely show up. They pop up here and there but like the rest of the film, it's choppy, uneven, and quick at best. I guess I should talk about the biggest negative first, and that's the film's uneven and extremely bad editing. The short version is 20th Century Fox decided that the film needed some last minute re-shoots, including the entire finale. For those not that knowledgeable about the film world, re-shooting usually translates to "something bad has occurred" and 'The Predator' is a perfect example. The re-shoots don't do the film any favors and ruins what could have truly been a great sequel rather than a mediocre one at best.

Characters will be introduced then vanish, as will plot lines or character development. The film's human antagonist is shown to be a gigantic asshole and you get this build up that he will get what he deserves in the end, only for him to yep you guessed it vanish during a fight scene and never shows up again. The end battle in general is completely rushed and we see characters just get offed one by one in less than ten minutes. It's lazy and destroys all that development with these characters, and it's a damn shame because this is one of the best casts of the 'Predator' series. They're likeable, funny, and each are fleshed out just enough to make us like them. They are truly a nice throwback to the 1980s and fit the film perfect. While the story and its structure are a complete mess, there are things to like about 'The Predator'. The characters like I said are well written and provide some funny dialogue throughout. I also enjoyed the score, which includes all of Alan Silvestri's themes from the first two films and also thought the film was well shot, except during the end when the film goes into 'AVP Requiem' territory and is pitch black for a lot of it.

Sometimes however, the throwbacks can be cringe worthy ("Get to those choppers!") and while it does have some impressive special effects and gore, there's far too much CGI blood and guts and it looks pretty bad. The Predator designs and puppetry are excellent though not that different from the other films and we do have some interesting ideas, such as Predator Dogs though they don't provide much substance to the film. 'The Predator' was one I really was looking forward to, but has ended up topping 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' in being the biggest disappointment for me this year. The studio interfered far too much and left this film to die a painful death. They didn't care if Shane Black's film made sense, but just that it makes money for two weeks then leaves. This could have been so much more and I really love Black's work, but this is such a step back from his earlier films. It's a watchable film, and I was enjoying it while I sat there but thinking about it on the way home I thought less and less of the film. What a sad year its been.

2/5

Predators (2010)

20 years after 'Predator 2', we finally see 'Predators' from famous cult film director Robert Rodriguez. This time, we meet a gang of various soldiers, murderers, and crime lords dropped onto a mysterious alien world, and they soon realize that they have become game to a pack of Predators. While not the most original idea the 'Predator' series has had, but it's nice to go back to the jungle for this one. We also get to learn a lot more about the race of Predators (or Yauija as they're called in the comics) and their culture. It's always interesting to learn more about these creatures in each installment and by far the best part of them. That can also be the to the detriment of the series as well because in all three installments I feel more interested and invested in the Predators and not its prey. This is due to the human characters in each film (even Arnie) don't have much personality to them beyond the usual film tropes and 'Predators' I feel commits this cinematic sin the worst. We have the macho mercenary, the token female, the token minorities, cliche convicts with lots of tattoos, cliche Yakuza who is silent but wise...you get it.

So if the characters in 'Predators' are dry and bland, how about the Predators themselves? Well despite the fact that the film does dive deeper into the lore, the hunters themselves don't change much from the past two films, aside from a couple of scenes showing their culture's beliefs and rituals which was cool to see. The action is top notch here and rivals the '87 original but at the same time, it can be a bit too long in between these awesome action scenes and instead we get quite a bit of exposition along with an attempt at a big twist that simply doesn't work (thanks to Fox's marketing). I will say that I think 'Predators' is the best looking of the trilogy, with lots of crisp colors and beautiful cinematography. The alien world presented is quite nicely detailed and gives both a sense of familiarity and otherworldly. The score is also quite good, though the film seems quiet in a lot of places.

I feel that I'm in the minority and say that I really don't enjoy 'Predators' as much as others seem to. It's the one I go back to the least and really prefer '2' over it. Not to say it's bad, in fact I'd say it's about as good on a technical level but it's too similar to the original and I'd just rather watch the original. If you've not seen it, then give it a shot. It's a solid 'good, not great' movie to waste time with.

3/5

The Nun (2018)

Warning: Some mild spoilers are contained within this review. Thank you, and enjoy.

'The Conjuring' back in 2013 was a breath of fresh air for horror fans. After a decade of found footage films and torture porn, it was nice to go back to basics without resorting to cheap gags and jump scares. 2018's follow-up film 'The Nun' is sadly none of those things but rather just feels like a film the studio needed to churn out quick to keep their 'Conjuring Universe' alive. The film's story is yet another prequel, this time set in 1952 where a priest and a nun are sent to a mysterious Abbey in Romania after a supposed suicide of one of their residents. Once there, they find that an evil presence has trapped them and is looking for a human host to escape. 

The biggest issue with 'The Nun' is that it has to be connected deeply with the 'Conjuring' and 'Annabelle' films, to the point that the screenwriters and filmmakers have no creative freedom as the story and its ideas are already carved in stone. This is a problem that plagues many prequel films, but last year's 'Annabelle: Creation' proved that if done well and by a good director you can get a great final product. Here we simply have a jump scare fest that takes far too long to get going and by the film's climax, you simply don't care anymore. The film's continuity with the others in the series cause giant holes in the film, such as the priest being unable to use the Nun's true name to fight her, or explaining how one of the nun's from 'Annabelle: Creation' managed to escape while the rest did not. None of these are ever answered along with a lot of other plot holes.

What I did like was Taissa Farmiga as the young nun in training, who like her older sister Vera is very likeable and I felt the most connected with her. The priest played by Demián Bichir also did well, but the material he's given to work with is extremely weak. His character basically boils down to a really cliche rip-off of Damien Karras from 'The Exorcist' and the film would probably play better had he had a better contribution to the overall story. Speaking of 'The Exorcist', this film just apes everything about that classic film without bringing anything new to the table. You get the violent twisting and contorting, you get animals attacking, you get objects thrown all about, and everything else in every other demon movie. 

While I won't say 'The Nun' was worse than 'Annabelle', it's a huge disappointment that strays far away from the high quality films that preceded it. It's a good example of showing that we maybe don't need a cinematic universe for every little thing nowadays. 'The Nun' shows all the cracks and they can only get bigger from here. I think it's time to give this series a rest and try out something new.

2/5

Predator 2 (1990)

'Predator 2' arrived in theaters during the holiday season of 1990, and while it didn't receive many positive reviews, it was a financial success though not as much as Fox had hoped. Today, the film has slowly been given a much warmer reception, and is considered a cult classic or underrated sequel by many fans. I myself saw 'Predator 2' before the original on late night TV back in the mid 90s and while the film is much different than what I saw back then, I never forgot the film or its unique alien creature. I had just begun to enjoy Fox's other series 'Alien' at the time, so to see that they had another cool alien monster my 8 year old self began to soak up any information, toys, and games I could of both series. So I think it's safe to say that I am a fan of 'Predator', but it's been 28 years since the release of the film and the major question here is whether or not it still holds up today. The short answer is yes, but not without showing its age a bit.

Granted, some of these critiques were present even at the time of its original release that were a sign of the times, but I think the biggest complaint the general audience and critics had with 'Predator 2' was oddly not its extreme violence (though this was the first film to be threatened with the brand new NC-17 rating at the time) but rather it's dialogue and crude language. Why critics had such an issue at the time is beyond me, but come only two years and Quentin Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs' seemed to slip by these critics. Anyway, the language isn't the issue here but rather the dialogue, characters, and the overall screenplay. Setting the film in Los Angeles was a good decision and overall the best route to take the series at the time but unlike the Dark Horse comics at the time, the film doesn't really utilize this location very well. It instead shows a pretty generic city, filled with the usual graffiti, grime, and crime everywhere and is really just a lazy way to depict LA, particularly at the time when you had films like 'Die Hard' and 'Lethal Weapon'.

The film's biggest issue however is the characters starting with Danny Glover. Now, Glover is an exceptional action star in 'Lethal Weapon' but here he phones it in, playing a renegade cop who doesn't listen to authority and breaks all the rules, and he's a loose cannon (you get it). I feel that Bill Paxton's 'Lone Ranger' should have been the story's focus, as he has the best dialogue along with having so much charm and funny moments throughout but he is sadly no more than a side character. Ruben Blades and Maria Conchita Alonzo have little personality and really don't stand out to me here, which makes Danny Glover's character motivations feel that much weaker. The stand out after Paxton is Gary Busey as a Government agent looking to capture the Predator and use his technology (because that always goes well right?). While he doesn't go to the over the top level he's known for, he's a compelling villain and a good foil to Glover.

The Predator is once again played by Kevin Peter Hall (in what was sadly his last role) and the effects have been perfected and given much more detail thanks to the Stan Winston effects team. This is my favorite version of the Predator and I feel that Kevin gave him such a good personality and made him truly come to life. The scenes involving the Predator doing his thing are also pulled off much better, with some truly gruesome scenes and we get to see much more of his arsenal which would become staples in the comics and video game series. Its a shame that the original NC-17 cut is still missing to this day and in a world of DVDs, it's aggravating that so many films have missing scenes or cuts when we have a medium for such things. The action scenes in general are good, especially the opening gang war and final battle between Glover and the Predator. They are shot well, sound great, and have all the tension and bloody action you're looking for.

'Predator 2' is far from perfect, it has bad writing and relies too much on violence but at the same time I still have a soft spot for it. It was the first film I got to see in the series and while 2010's 'Predators' is technically a better sequel, I still go back to this one more often. That film is a good one (and we'll get into further detail later) but 'Predator 2' is one of those rainy day films. It's only an hour and a half and a fast one at that so if you need a good time waster that won't disappoint then there are much worse choices than 'Predator 2'. It's not as bad as the critics say, but don't go in expecting the original film, but instead just have some fun with it.

4/5

(( RIP Kevin Peter Hall))

Predator (1987)

'Predator' is probably the most well-known film in Arnold Schwarzenegger's career, next to 'The Terminator' but unlike James Cameron's film, I think the biggest stand out was the titular alien hunter and it's unique design that has kept audiences enthralled with the series through what will soon be four films (and two unfortunate spin-offs). For those who haven't yet seen 'Predator', the story is about a group of mercenaries lead by Dutch Schaffer (Schwarzenegger) who are mislead into thinking they are conducting a simple rescue mission in the jungle. Once there, they realized they've been set up by Schaffer's friend (Carl Winslow) and it only goes from bad to worse when a mysterious and invisible creature begins to stalk them one by one.

The film's simplicity is what gives it its best strengths. The film is quite isolated despite being set in the deep jungle, and we only have this small group of tough, badass, and really likeable and funny characters. Even Winslow's character, despite coming off as a bit of a tightwad comes to redeem himself and helps the group fight off the Predator. A lot of the film's dialogue is thanks to director Shane Black, who not only starred in the film but provided a few script revisions that really helped out the film big time. It's his additional humor and characterization that gives the audience a likeable cast and not just muscle heads we want to see fall to the Predator.

But like I said, the titular alien is the highlight of the film which is both good and bad. The good part is that for 1987, the film has some great special effects that still hold up today and actor Kevin Peter Hall brings the Predator to life and gives him the personality and movements that has made the character a pop culture icon. The main issue with 'Predator' though is that had 20th Century Fox never explicitly tell anyone in trailers, posters etc. what exactly the Predator or its nature was then I feel the film would have had much more suspense and some great build up. The opening shot is a spaceship flying to earth before we cut to Arnie and his crew. I feel it would have worked better had they begun with the mercenaries and slowly reveal that the Predator is an alien. Instead the drastic tone shift from Arnold Schwarzenegger action film to sci-fi/horror survival film still gives me whiplash.

Thankfully, the film goes at such a quick pace with lots of gory action scenes to keep most fans of the genre happy and every time I pop it in my DVD player, I instantly get into it. 'Predator' may not be as great as the 'Alien' franchise, but it's a great series on its own and this first entry is one of the 80's best.

4/5