Change Your Image
dans_junk10
Reviews
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Why does someone always have to spoil things!
As a major horror fan I've seen a lot of crap in the past but crap horror is certainly a genre that can be tolerated and enjoyed in the right frame of mind - there's no way I'd own all the Friday the 13th movies on video if not.
Over the years I've been particularly forgiving of the "Halloween" series mainly because I think the first movie is an outright classic and the characters it created were certainly good enough to continue as a franchise - the series since then has had it's ups and downs but Halloween:H20, the 7th sequel was in my opinion a great film - it captured the mood of the original, brought back important members of the original cast and the ending was an absolutely perfect way to finish the franchise - with this in mind, why go on?
Well as fat execs sat around the table the thought of an 8th sequel popped in to their brains. Clearly by this time nobody could care less about the movie anymore because nothing decent story-wise could be further developed - no, this time around money was clearly the only motivation.
SPOILER! In my opinion Halloween:Resurrecion makes two fatal errors {or rather director Rick Rosenthal who should have known better does}. For starters, and simply put it's just awful. The set-up is far too gimmicky and sets the movie in a very limited time scale {clothes aside Halloween could have been in any era}. The film's characters are a horrible bunch of charisma-free smart arses who spew a lot of cultural references that are obvious now but in just a few years will mainly be rendered obsolete. I'm afraid to say I cared not an iota about one single character in the movie and could certainly remember only a few of their names just a few moments after leaving the cinema. They're all horror movie cliches which I thought we'd done a long time ago - post modern 90's horror belongs in the nineties.
Characters aside though is the movie scary? A resounding no on that scale - for one if your characters are unlikeable then you'll be rooting for them to get it not to run away. Deaths are unimaginitive, lots of them are offscreen {not a bad thing if done with suspense} and most shocks are achieved with musical stabs and characters jumping out on each other. Secondly, I thnk an attempt at humour was made during filming but somewhere it got lost - what may have seemed a cool idea in production just doesn't work on screen - Busta Rymes character for a start practising Bruce Lee-style kung-fu on Michael Myers. I also hear that the ending was re-shot to make it better - if this was the case then I dread to thnk what they rejected - I'm afraid making the audience believe the killer is dead and finishing with him opening an eye is so hackneyed - I think they used that one in a Friday the 13th fifteen years previously.
To it's credit the film does have one great scene when the Rymes character is dresed as Michael Myers only to encounter the real killer - this flash of ingenuity only depresses you further as you think what could have been.
Man more questions go unanswered? Why do the group all end up alone in such a tiny house? Why does nobody hear anyone else scream? Who's controlling the net cameras that follow Michael around the house {and why don't they tell anyone about it?} and why seemingly is only one group of teenagers watching the damn broadcast in the first place? {Oh yeah I forget so the contrived "text messaging" ending can take place}
Most importantly and I'm sorry to go on is the lack of respect the film displays for the previous movies {specifically 1, 2 and H20}. By killing Laurie Strode they're messing with a formula - one that has been around since 1978 when Halloween 1 came out. To simply kill off a lead after so long changes the way you see the original because no matter how much you root for her you know that ultimately Michael will kill her. H20 wrapped things up so perfectly and so satisfyingly that there was simply no need to continue. At least a decent justification of the sequel would have sufficced but Resuurection's explanation of "oh it was someone else" just does NOT cut it.
I can only hope now that either a Halloween 8 will be made {because Resuurection has no number as it were} to wrap things up properly again. If not however I will simply block this film from memory and assume H20 was the end of the saga.
Dimension Films, Rick Rosenthal and Moustpha Akkad - hang your heads in shame for the irony of making "Resurrection" the complete opposite! The death of the Halloween franchise.
The Maury Povich Show (1991)
Sexist nonsense
It's such a relief to see that I'm not the only one to think that Maury is really trying to prove to America {and wherever else this crap is aired} that men truly are the scum of the earth. As some have pointed out, Maury seems to have about 5 topics and keeps going back to these same topics every time {FYI "Paternity tests", "abusive husbands", "fat babies", "are these men or women?" "and ain't freaks funny and entertaining"}. The lowest of the low however is the constant male-bashing, though this is prevalent in most talk shows nowadays, whether it be fathers denying their babies or husbands beating their wives. Of course everyhthing always follows a set template.
1} The woman comes on first and is allowed to put across her story first - soft music may play in the background or a short film about them with soft focus and mood lighting. If the woman cries even better as the audience's quota of "aaaahhhs" goes up. If the woman has "attitood" expect to hear the mainly female audience to whoop like animals.
2} Play a clip of the man uttering expletives, shot against smoky new york background in black and white and harder music. Have the man walk out to boos and cat calls without any calls from Maury for them to listen to his side of the story.
3} Have Maury interrogate the man and laugh at any protestations from him and deny all his excuses - have the usual ritual of the woman pointing to the baby on the screen and saying "you look the same" despite all babies looking the same! Have audience members helpfully stand up and call the guys scum amid audience cheers.
4} If it's revealed to be his baby have the audience, the woman and Maury to all act smug, boo the man and laugh at him and generally make him feel like scum. If it is revealed the woman was wrong Maury must deliver sympathy to her and fail to make any apology to the man who has been put through this ordeal. Oh and any suggestion that a woman might be violent towards a man is usually greeted with cheers and calls of support from the audience.
Maury, you are a disgrace!
The Shining (1997)
Incomparable
Most criticisms from people on here about Stanley Kubrick's original film seem to lie with the fact that he deviates from the book. I'm reading the book at the moment and whilst I'm enjoying it, there's a lot of potential American-style schmaltz. Secondly the book is too long and condensing it was really the only option to make it into a mainstream film.
What annoys me more though is people insist the mini-series is better as it's "like the book" - to me this shows absolutely no imagination. If you've read the book you'll know exactly what happens and it really is directing by numbers. All events in the series take place, chronologically as they do in the book. All the director had to do was shoot everything and throw it all together, without any question of how to approach a scene as he obviously just lifted all the ideas straight out of the book.
The idea about a man on the brink of insanity is really the core of the Shining, both in the book and the 1980 film. The whole question of whether supernatural forces are at work is somewhat questionable in the film, but in the mini-series the viewer is given no choice, as the supernatural is signposted at every opportunity. In the movie just one look from Jack Nicholson can send chills down the spine - the mini-series insists on make-up and CGI to say "look, scary movie".
Whether you dislike the 1980 shining because it deviated from the book is largely irrelevant. The fact remains, this mini-series is very badly produced. Steven Weber is far too nicey, nicey to be at all convincing as the film's villain. DeMornay is fine but can't convery Shelley Duval's sense of desperation. Melvin Van Peebles is also okay as Hallorann but cannot hope to achieve what is a beautiful and wistful performance from Scatman Crothers. However what really spoils the film for me is Courtland Meade's performance as Danny. I felt absolutely no sympathy for him and actually found myself rooting for Jack to get hold of him in the end. The kid sound like he has a permananent cold and for some reason seems unable to close his mouth. I lost count the amount of times Danny went off into a trance and his parents asked "Danny are you okay" - wake up lady, staring into the distance with a despaired look on his face is ALL Danny does! I also thought some of Danny's dialogue in the book sounded too advanced for a five year old and hearing it uttered aloud on screen reveals it's true ridiculousness. Danny Lloyd's performance in the movie was beautiful - a kid who clearly wasn't stupid but was fairly confused as to what was going on around him. What a shame we never saw this fine actor again.
Add to the inferior casting are a number of poor production values. The hotel, rather than the imposing, dark Timberline lodge used for the movie, is a rather jaunty looking place which is all too quaint. In the movie, just the sight of the hotel is scary - in the series, the reaction is more of an "oh is that it". Another truly awful thing is the use of moving objects whenever characters leave a room. Oh look the Torrances aren't in the room anymore, lets make the door close by itself, swing swing by itself etc..... Lastly the score is terrible - all jaunty one minute when it is totally inappropriate and should be dark and brooding and at other times clearly trying to copy the original to dreadful effect.
Fair enough, dislike Stanley Kubrick's original for it being too different from the book. I personally prefer the film and it's themes myself. However, don't for once think this is a good mini-series just because "it's like the book". Any old director can take a book and translate it directly to screen. It takes someone like Kubrick to take a source material and develop into something completely his own.
Finally my perception is many people preferred the mini-series as there was little need to think as everything was so clearly spelled out. In Kubrick's film a lot was left open to the viewer to interpret themselves, which in my opinion makes it a much more personal movie. However looking at another comment on here that said "Kubrick's was okay but it wasn't scary - the mini-series had things jumping out at you and stuff" I am beginning to realise that the age of dumbing down is upon us.