Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Thing (1982)

    Well, this is it both for this year, and this decade. So, to celebrate the end of era, I decided to go back to a film I did back when I was doing short versions of these on my Facebook page way back when. It has come to be one of my all time favorite horror movies. So, to close out the last Masterpiece of Horror Theatre review of the 2010's, here's John Carpenter's The Thing . (Apologies for the lateness. I haven't had a great couple weeks, and there is a lot to go into, especially the history, so I need a bit more time to process it all.)
     "Who Goes There" was first published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1938, written by the legendary editor of the magazine John W. Campbell (for context, he would go to discover authors like Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, Theodore Sturgeon etc., among other... stuff, shall we say). The story of a group of Antarctic scientists fighting off a strange shapeshifting alien was well-regarded, and in 1951, producer Howard Hawks and director Christian Nyby loosely adapted into the film The Thing from Another World, which is regarded as a classic in 50's science fiction. In 1976, producers David Foster and Lawrence Thurman proposed a close adaptation of the original novella to Universal. Universal acquired the remake rights from Wilbur Stark, who owned several RKO Pictures, and began searching for directors. John Carpenter, who was heavily influenced by Hawks as a director and a fan of the original (having featured it briefly in the original Halloween) was approached as early as 1976 (while fresh off the success of Assault on Precinct 13) , but had to wait until Halloween was a big hit. Even then, being a huge Howard Hawks fan, he was reluctant to approach the project until reading the novella and finding a new angle to explore the story. The screenplay went through several writers (including Texas Chainsaw creators Tobe Hopper and Kim Heinkel, the former of who was attached to direct before Carpenter), before actor and writer Bill Lancaster (son of Burt, and known at the time as the writer of The Bad News Bears) came on, writing something very close to the original novella. As with most of his films, Carpenter himself would make some rewrites to the script. Many of Carpenter's collaborators would return for this film. His The Fog cinematographer Dean Cudley would make his debut in a Hollywood feature with this. Special effects creator Rob Bottin, whom Carpenter also worked with on The Fog, would do the legendary special effects. Escape from New York star Kurt Russell would headline the movie, along with newcomer Keith David. Unlike much of his filmography, Carpenter did not score this film, instead giving the duties to Italian composer Ennio Morricone (known for his collaborations with Sergio Leone, another director Carpenter admired), whose synthesizer score would define the film for many people. Bottin would work incredibly hard to bring the unique of a strange, shapeshifting alien to life, often working incredibly long hours, using a 35 person crew (including legendary special effects creator Stan Winston to help with the dog design), and was even hospitalized for exhaustion. The film was shot in the fall 1981 in Alaska and British Columbia, with interiors filmed in the Universal lot. Released on June 25th, 1982, it was drowned financially among the many other famous films released that year, including ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (indeed, some associated with the film have blamed it and its more optimistic view of aliens for The Thing's failure), Blade Runner, Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Conan (1982 was a really good year for genre films). Not helping was savaging by critics, who were aghast at the fairly bloody nature of the effect. Carpenter himself was especially hurt by The Thing from Another World director Christian Nyby lambasting the film as too gory. However, eventually, the home video market and television would give the film a new, younger audience, who would adopt the film as a classic of the horror genre. Over time, it would come to be regarded as one of the greatest horror movies ever made and a major influence on many horror and science fiction media (you might've seen this film shown in Stranger Things), and many directors who were still frightened by it. The film has even become a tradition for scientists stationed on the seventh continent. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, it is screened every February to commemorate the beginning of winter in the South Pole. Carpenter himself would come to call this his favorite of the movies he's made and the first of the Apocalypse Trilogy (with Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness) . For my part, it is not only one of my favorite horror movies, but one of my favorite films, period.

     The film opens with an alien spacecraft crashing to Earth, so.... yeah, you know what you're getting into. Soon after, American scientists including MacReady (Kurt Russell), Blair (Wilford Brimley), Childs (Keith David), and Dr. Cooper (Richard Dysart) take at an Antarctic base witness a man on a helicopter (Larry Franco, one of the producers) chasing a sled dog across the snowy plains, trying to shoot it. When the helicopter crashes, they confront the man, who yells in Norwegian, while the dogs warms up to them. When the Norwegian shoots at them, he is killed by station commander Garry (Donald Moffat). The scientists take the dog in, while MacReady and Cooper go to the Norwegian station to investigate. They find it abandoned, with a mysterious block of ice carved out, a heavily disfigured frozen corpse, and the frozen body of a strange creature. Blair performs an autopsy of the creature, only to find it having regular human organs. The dog soon arouses the fear of the other dogs at the station kennel, which causes it to reveal itself to be some eldritch abombination that kills and absorbs the other dogs, before Childs is able to put it down. Blair also autospies the dog to find whatever took it over can make a perfect imitation. As they use the Norwegian data to track down a dig site to a large alien ship (estimated to be 10,000 years old), Blair also discovers that the alien cells can absorb, assimilate, and imitate any other cell. And when Bennings (Peter Maloney) is absorbed, it can be any one of the crew, and they would never know who it was until it was too late....

    I honestly don't know where to start with the great things about this film. I suppose I could start with my own personal favorite thing about the film: The production design. The settings used, whether the cold sterility of the base, the harsh Antarctic landscape or the devastated Norwegian base, help add to the atmosphere of isolation and paranoia. You feel just as lonely as the characters in the film, watching them handle an impossible situation and slowly devolving and turning on each other as they try to figure out who might be the alien. The fact that it is primarily set at the base, and thus it becomes intimately familiar to viewer, adds to this, as even this becomes untrustworthy and isolated as the film goes on. The special effects are simply some of the best put to film. The alien is incredibly well designed, with a unique, ever-changing look which instills a lot of fear just looking at it, and especially watching it transform from seemingly innocuous organisms and see it brutally kill the people on the base. There is one particular transformation towards the end that is seared in my mind due to both the look of the alien and the sheer intensity of the scene. Oh, yeah, the disturbing effects and the viciousness by which they are used make incredibly scary. It is horrifying seeing this creature put out of nowhere, especially after tense scenes of the crew arguing and fighting, and they go on long enough that they instill themselves into your mind. Ironically, these keep you invested in the film itself, as the scale of the threat is abundantly clear. It is a creature that can be any living thing, that can take on its form to the smallest cell and absorb it. It can be anyone, and if it escapes the uncolonized Antarctica back to civilization, mankind is doomed. Despite it being a strange being with motives beyond the comprehension of mankind, one of the other best things of the film is the fact that the scientists act like scientists. They investigate, they hypothesize, they test, and it helps them combat the creature to the best of their abilities, while still being human enough that they still don't know whether their colleagues have become a creature beyond their understanding. It helps keeps us invested in the characters, while still fearing for their safety. I would use the term "Lovecraftian" as many others have (indeed, many have speculated "Who Goes There" was written in part because of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness) to describe the overall feeling of the film. The idea of a being that is completely beyond human comprehension and dumb fleshbags unable to deal with it or get any help from elsewhere to really combat really fits into the Lovecraftian Cosmicist worldview. It is a nice metaphor for the helplessness of mankind in the face of a dangerous, unknown universe (or fickle, mercurial people) and the lack of a loving god to help us against it. Finally, the score by Ennio Morricone is iconic, of course, helping cement the atmosphere of sheer helplessness in the face of a menace beyond knowing.

     Not much here on the other hand. Some parts can get a bit confusing if you're not paying attention, and sometimes you confuse the names of characters, but you can follow each character, their roles, and what happens pretty well regardless.

     So, like I said, this is probably one of my all-time favorite horror films. I've seen it a few times since that first Facebook review years ago, and I'll probably watch it again for many more years. It is a great film. Not just a great horror or a great science fiction film. A great film, that works on so many levels, and reveals something about humanity that it is uncomfortable and disturbing to ponder. It is mandatory viewing for horror and science fiction fans, of course, but even if you don't like these genres (or are squimish about blood), it is well-crafted, well-written and well-acted enough to be worth at least one view (again, it is fairly bloody, so be warned). It is always a pleasure to watch this film.

    So, that concludes the Masterpiece of Horror Theatre for this year and this decade. I really hope you enjoy reading these as much as I enjoy writing them, and I hope it convinced you to seek out something new to watch for the Halloween season. I want to thank you all for reading these for all years, whether on Facebook or the Linkara rip-off videos I did also on Facebook, or on this blog, and I look forward to doing them again next year along with a very Summer of  Terror I plan for next year. I don't know what I have planned for November, but I hope you stay tuned for that. To close out, here's noted SF illustrator Wayne Barlowe doing a version of the creature from "Who Goes There"

   Happy Halloween, everyone
     

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre-- The Fly (1986)

     I don't think I've done a David Cronenberg film during the 6 years I've been doing this, and that's a huge blindspot, given his immense influence on the genre. Born in Toronto, he was inspired by college classmate David Secter's film Winter Keeps Us Warm to go into filmmaking, starting with small arthouse productions before going in partnership with fellow Canadian filmmaker Ivan Reitman, who produced his breakthrough 1975 film Shivers, the first to show his signature brand of body horror. By the 1980's, he had gotten more acclaim for surreal horror films like Videodrome, Scanners, and The Dead Zone. He was working on an early draft of Total Recall (adapted from Phillip K. Dick's story, "We Can Remember For You Wholesale") for producer Dino DeLaurentiis when he was approached to a remake of The Fly, which he had to turn down due to that prior commitment. The idea to remake The Fly originated from producer Kip Ohrman, who approached screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue (Psycho III, The Hounds of Baskerville) to write the project. Together with producer Stuart Cornfield, they pitched a remake idea to 20th Century Fox,  with the conceit that, unlike the original's sudden transformation, the remake would feature a gradual metamorphasis. Fox was impressed, but was unimpressed with Pogue's first draft. Cornfield was able to get Fox to distribute the film if they got a new producer. Mel Brooks (yes, that one) agreed to be that producer. (He produced a number of serious films, including David Lynch's Elephant Man, through his company Brooksfilms and kept his name off the credits so that people wouldn't expect a comedy, which he also did here). Eventually, Cronenberg left Total Recall over creative differences, and was able to accept the role as director, as well as completely rewriting Pogue's script, only keeping the element of gradual metamorphosis. A then-mostly unknown Jeff Goldblum was cast after many actors were approached or auditioned, in spite of the studio fearing that he couldn't carry a feature film by himself. Chris Walas, a special effects and make-up artist whose credits included Airplane, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Gremlins, did the effects for the film, including the legendary transformation sequences. Released in 1986, the film would gross $40 million at the box office, and would garner critical acclaim, and even an Oscar for Best Make-Up. The film still holds a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the tagline "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" is now a cultural touchstone.

      Scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) wants to impress journalist Ronnie Quaife (Geena Davis), so he shows her his newest project: a teleportation device. Brundle wants Quaife to remain silent on the issue, at least until he could test it appropriately. Quaife documents Brundle's experiments and eventually becomes romantically involved with Brundle, earning the ire of her jealous editor Stathis Borans (John Getz). After a failed experiment with a baboon and a successful one with the baboon's brother, Brundle decides to take the plunge himself, testing the device with himself inside. However, he doesn't seem to notice a fly coming into the other pod. And while he emerges fine, he starts to exhibit strange symptoms.....

     First, the special effects and production design of the film are stellar. Especially the teleportation and transformation sequences, and Goldblum's make-up. The pods look distinct, the computers look real. The dark corridors of the lab, lightened only by the lights of the teleportation or blue street lights, help set the mood of the film, especially at the end. The make-up and effects on Goldblum as he steadily transforms into a bizarre fly-human hybrid is very terrifying and visceral,, especially as it reaches its later stages. It is hard to watch because it is so disgusting (especially the skin). That in and of itself might've worked all to sell the horror on its own, but what really cements it is Goldblum's performance. Not only does he subtly show the personality changes the character goes through, but he shows a lot of physicality in his performance, making subtle changes to his gestures, movement, and voice as the transformation ramps up, and he has to deal with both wanting to change back and the increasing fly take-over of his mind and body. This kind of subtle acting shines through, even under the layers of make-up. I complained about the slow story in the original, but since this one has more of an emphasis on the gradual transformation, it works to build up the eventual monster, and the pain it causes both for Brundle and Quaife.  Finally, the score by Academy Award winner Howard Shore is very creepy and gives an impression

    If there was a problem, it's a bit too short. I feel more could've been done to show Goldblum's transformation before the physical changes become more and more prominent. The changes to his personality and physiology worked incredibly well, and I wish they had more scenes focusing on that, especially since it could showcase Goldblum's performance even more.

     I think I love this movie. It was so good, it's somewhat stunning. This movie is of course, something of a cultural milestone, but I didn't expect it to be this good and this powerful. This is quite a masterpiece, and I highly recommend to anyone, not just fans of horror and science fiction. Even if it is disgusting, the craftmanship is so well-done, it can be forgiven.

     Alright, we continue on Friday with the first Scream. 

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

      I talked about Platinum Dunes, and their horror remakes a bit last year. With the success of the Texas Chainsaw and Friday the 13th reboot, a reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street was the logical next step.  Producers Brad Fuller and Michael Bay, as well as director Samuel Bayer (a music video director making his first and last feature film, at least as of this writing), screenwriters Wesley Strick (known for writing the 1991 remake of Cape Fear) and Eric Heisserer (who would write the script to Arrival) followed the approach Platinum Dunes took with Friday the 13th, and simply took the best elements of the series to try to capture its essence, in particular making Freddy a darker character. Notably, Freddy was made a child molester rather than killer, an idea Wes Craven had discarded for the first film, and given a redone design more realistic for a burn victim. However, they also decided to make a straight remake of the first film, unlike the composite Friday the 13th. While Craven himself was upset at not being consulted, Robert Englund was more supportive of the remake, feeling that CGI could better capture the dream sequences. Replacing Englund in the iconic role was Watchmen's Jackie Earle Haley (who had, incidentally, played a child molester in Little Children),who had auditioned for the first film, but was passed over for his friend Johnny Depp. The film was shot in two high schools in Illinois, specifically for their pools. Released on April 30th, 2010, the film would be box office success, but panned by both critics and audiences.

       The film opens with Dean Russell (Kellan Lutz) in some diner, where he falls asleep and encounters a mysterious man. He wakes up when friend Kris Fowler (Katie Cassidy) meets with him. When Kris leaves for a bit, Dean falls asleep, and the man (Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley)) slashes his throat, in front of Kris and their classmate Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara). At his funeral, Kris has her own dream of Freddy, and finds an old photo of her and Dean as pre-schoolers, even though they met in high school. Kris soon encounters Freddy in her dreams, and Freddy quickly murders her while her ex Jesse Braun (Thomas Dekker) watches. Jesse warns Nancy about Kris death, before his arrest, where Freddy kills him as well. Now, Nancy and friend Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner) must find out their connection to this man they call Freddy and why he's going after them.

      First and foremost, I like Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy. He's definitely not doing an impression of Robert Englund, and tries to make the character his own. Haley's Freddy is more seething and methodical than the more proactive, cackling Freddy Englund did. Not saying it's necessarily better, but it is different, and Haley's presence as an actor really helps sell this performance. The fact that his appearance is more realistic also helps.  As a straight remake, it works, not entirely imitating the 1985 film but still having the basic elements. The practical effects were well-done.

     Instead of the elaborate, dreamlike, well, dream sequences from the franchise's past, we get really dark corridors and a really bad looking version of the boiler room. That also extends to the actual scares, which forgo the terrifying and interesting kills in favor of boring, poorly edited kills. This is really the central problem of the film: it feels less like a Nightmare film, and more like a Saw knock-off. Very little about it stands out amongst other slashers of the 2000's, and it might not have garnered much attention had it not been a remake of one of the most iconic horror films of all times. Out of all the movies, even the bad ones, there were memorable or interesting parts to them. I saw this film only last night, and I'm already beginning to forget large chunks of it. Even though I wrote a whole review on it, I'm going to forget I saw this film or even I do remember, I won't remember what happens in it.
   
     So, this really takes the spot as the worst one, but only because it is so bland and generic. If it were more hilariously or absurdly bad, it would at least be memorable, but unlike those entries, this just feels like a Nightmare film with all the edge, all the intrigue sanded out, replaced with generic Aught's era "scares", and bland Platinum Dunes production design. Definite skip.


     So, that ends Summer of Terror for this year. Overall, yeah, Nightmare on Elm Street definitely had more consistent quality in their films than Friday the 13th. I've liked a majority of the films in the franchise, and they are pretty interesting both as horror and just films in general. Like I said in this review proper, even the bad ones (except this) had moments that were interesting or warranted a second look. I can tell that the people making these had passion for the material, and were willing to make decision to explore the world of this franchise and its characters, even if it didn't always work. Of these, the first one is probably the best, followed by New Nightmare and the 3rd one. So, yeah, I recommend watching some of these, if only for the fantastic segments some of them have. I wish I could say good night or something, but it's the early afternoon when I'm writing this, so.... here's a photo I took of a Freddy sweater signed by Robert Englund at the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle a few weeks ago:

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Night of the Living Dead (1990)

          I mentioned last time the original went into the public domain due to a mishap regarding the title card and the copyright notice. Sadly, this, and a lengthy legal battle with the distributor, meant Romero himself did not profit much off the original. He feared, given this, that a remake would be made without his involvement (indeed, a spiritual successor was made in 1985, Return of the Living Dead, with the involvement of screenwriter John Russo, and several unofficial sequels were made). So, when Menachem Golan (formerly of Cannon Films, and now the head of "21 Century Film Corporation") had interest in remaking the film, Romero, Russo, and original producer Russell Steiner signed on.  Tom Savini, who I've mentioned numerous times, was chosen to direct. Romero had hoped he could do the effects for the original, but he had been drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. After years of working together, Romero encouraged Savini to direct the remake. Romero was still heavily involved, rewriting the original screenplay he wrote in the 60's, and even ghostdirecting some scenes. When he was off-set, however, Savini would clash with the producers on a regular basis. This led to an unpleasant experience for him, especially since his ideas were vetoed. Like the original, the film was shot in and around Pittsburgh, though, obviously, with the prestige now attached to this project, extras from as far away as Kentucky were recruited. In the lead roles of Ben and Barbara were Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman(the latter was Savini's college acquaintance). With a much higher budget of $4.2 million, it managed to make a profit, but was savaged by critics, with Siskel and Ebert putting it on their worst of the year list. However, it would eventually see renewed interest on home video, and today stands at a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes.

      The plot remains unchanged. Barbara (Patricia Tallman) and Johnny (Bill Moseley. Yes, that Bill Moseley) are visiting their father's grave, when Barbara is attacked by a mysterious assailant with pale skin. She escapes while Johnny fights him off, but finds more figures with severe scars and pale skin following her. She eventually finds a farmhouse, which is also infested by these creatures. However, Ben (Tony Todd) comes in, and they fight them off together. As they contemplate their situation, they met other survivors Harry and Helen Cooper (Tom Towles and McKee Anderson) with child Sarah (Heather Mazur), and Tom (William Butler) and Judy (Katie Finneran). They find that these "ghouls" have infested the place, and they struggle to survive the night.

     The impression I had from reading this was that it was mostly a straight remake of the original, with the original script. That is not true. It has some distinct differences, which work in its favor as a remake. It modernizes the film, it explains some aspects, it fleshes out some of the characters. This makes the film distinct enough from the original to be considered its own product, along with implementing the themes of the later Dead films, which show humans as just inherently flawed as the unthinking zombies. At the same time, despite being in color, Savini manages to emulate the way the original used shadows and spacing as the main focus, and was able to create an experience similar to watching the original. While the ending doesn't have as much shock as the original, it is still satisfying, with the full extent of the events weighing on the characters.

     The main problem I have with the film is largely that its leads feel too .... Action movie. The original mostly kept the characters as competent, but realistically, and were largely powerless when the situation went south for them. However, here, they regularly beat zombies in such a manner that stretches imagination. It ruins the emersion for me. Like I said, the ending didn't have as much impact now, since the lead survives and joins the vigilantes. Also, one of the characters (who was unambiguously hostiles) is killed in what seems to be a moralistic choice.

      I liked this. Obviously, it wasn't as good as the original, but it managed to capture what worked about the original, whilst doing its own thing. So, I'd recommend it to those who like the original, or those who like zombie movies.

       Next time, we go to another classic, this time of monster movies with The Beast from 20000 Fathoms.

Current Film Reviews- Billionaire Boys Club

         So, given that I did another film that was released to VOD before it was to hit theaters (November Criminals), starring Ansel Elgort, when I learned this Ansel Elgort feature was coming to online streaming before theaters, I figure I might as well do it. Though, this has a legitimate reason that it is being dumped. This was going to be released last year, but was shelved because.... Kevin Spacey plays a fairly large role in the film. I'll be upfront with this: if you feel uncomfortable watching a film with Kevin Spacey, don't watch this at all. I will not discuss his role except in the synopsis. That said, I understand a little why the distribution company Vertical Entertainment decided to ultimately release this. They couldn't really do a All the Money in the World, and have Spacey removed entirely. He plays a large role in the story, and by most accounts, they didn't have the budget to anyway. At the same time, as Vertical stated upon announcing the film's release, they didn't want the hard work of the rest of the cast and crew to go to waste.While I (as you will read) ultimately didn't care for the final product, I can understand that, since film is a collaborative process, and the other hardworking members of the cast and crew deserved the chance to see their own work on the film released, despite the actions of Spacey tainting most of it. Still, once again, Kevin Spacey is in this, and if you don't want to watch him, I recommend not watching it. Even you don't, do not watch this.

       Based on a real-life incident (as many of these films are), in 80's Beverly Hills, Dean Kearny (Taron Egerton) and Joe Hunt (Ansel Elgort), friends since their school days, have grown dissatisfied with their position in comparison to their richer friends, including Charlie Bottom (Thomas Cocquerel) and the Biltmore brothers (Jeremy Irvine and Ryan Rottman), so decide (with little explanation as to how they came to this conclusion) to do get-rich quick scheme involving gold investment. With the help of Ron Levin (Kevin Spacey), they have some minor initial success, which enables their wealthy associates to also invest. While Gold goes down, thus causing them to lose money, Hunt and Kearny decides to pretend that they were continuing to gain money, whilst using the money from previous investors to pay new investors. Whilst Levin seems to help them out at first, they find that success on these grounds is tenuous.

       A couple minor good stuff in this. Taron Egerton has a flawless American accent, and his performance is probably the best in the film, easily making him an ambiguous character whose motives and backstory are not clear. Ansel Elgort is at least trying, and he's better here than he was in November Criminals. Emma Roberts (oh, yeah, she's in here too) does fine as Elgort's love interest, though she isn't given enough to work with. Judd Nelson as Elgort's father also has some standout scenes. 


      I've made it clear before that one of my least favorite genres is the "Criminal American Dream". I should probably call it by what it is, the "Scorsese knock-off". I don't hate all movies that utilize it, nor am I inherently against the genre, but my main problem is how homogeneous these films tend to be. They all have the same style, they basically have the same characters, and basically have the same plots, beat for beat. Ultimately, you eventually can just predict the entire plot of one of these just based on how they frame the story and what the plot is about. This is like if they took the essence of these films and made another one based solely on it. Let's see it is 1.) Based on a true story, 2.) Stars one or two people dissatisfied with their lack of wealth and seek to rectify it, 3.) Features their success in some faulty, non-legal manner, 4.) Sees tensions rise, 5.) features a tragedy that ultimately precludes their decline, and 6.) set in the 80's. It even has a voice-over. That is my main problem, really. This is just another Scorsese Knock-off, atop a bunch of other Scorsese knock-offs that just aren't fresh and original anymore. Not helping is the confusing plot, which doesn't make what the characters are doing clear, so their dealings just come off confusing and convoluted (I had to look up later what had actually happened to make sense of it.)

     This really isn't worth watching. Whether Kevin Spacey was in this or not, it wouldn't be a film that would really be entertaining unless you've never seen Goodfellas, Casino, Lord of War, Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, War Dogs, or American Made. If, regardless of its unoriginality, you enjoy this genre, than maybe you'd find some entertainment in this, but it doesn't add anything to the genre, nor does anything another example hasn't already done. Just skip this, whether on VOD or when it comes out in theaters next month.

(If you're curious on the remake tag, there was technically a 1989 TV film, starring Judd Nelson in the Joe Hunt role, which is why he is here incidentally, so this is technically a remake.)
      

Current Film Reviews- The Equalizer II

       The first R-rated film I ever watched in theaters was 2014's The Equalizer, a remake of the popular 80's TV series and starring Denzel Washington in the lead role. That distinction would imply some sort of affection or fondness for the film, but I actually barely remember anything about it. I'm not even entirely sure what it was about. I know it had to do with Washington's character fighting off Russian mobsters and the climax took place in a home goods store, but that's about it. Honestly, there isn't much context that is needed for this. Even though I couldn't remember the first one, I could follow this fine.

       Set an indeterminate amount of time after the original, Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is now a Lyft driver, who continues to do the occasional job on the side. We start in Turkey, where he saves a young girl, after her Turkish father kidnapped her from her American mother. Despite the brutality and efficiency with which he does these jobs, he still has a very friendly relationship with the people around him. After his apartment complex is vandalized, he strikes a mentorship with Miles Whittaker (Ashton Saunders), an aspiring artist. He, however, is thrust back in action when his former CIA associate and friend Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed in Brussels. He soon finds himself investigating a conspiracy to take him and others affiliated with him down, and he must stop it at any cost.

     What really elevates this from B-list action schlock is Denzel Washington's performance. He really sells this character, both as a brutal enforcer and a friendly guy helping his neighbors. There are some legitimately great scenes of him either dealing with the situation or simply interacting with Ashton Saunder's Miles Whittaker. He is really the reason this film (and for that matter, the first one) are at least somewhat compelling. The action helps, often being both exciting and slightly terrifying. It was a satisfying experience, at the very least. It provides what it is selling, Denzel Washington beating up crooks while giving life lessons.

      I normally don't really quibble with plot holes, because honestly, I don't notice that much whilst watching a film, but I pretty sure this had a number of loose ends. Without spoilers, I still wasn't sure what the main villain's motivation was, or how he got his associates.  I also wasn't entirely sure why Melissa Leo was in Brussels. I know it had to do with a murder there, but I don't think they ever explain who that character was or why he was specifically murdered.  It doesn't help that this film has a real pacing issue, with the main plot sidetracked to deal with Washington going about his everyday life. I didn't know when this film was ending, since it doesn't feel like it was building up to something.

      I didn't hate this, just like I didn't hate the first one. It gives what the first one gave, some decent actions and some nice character stuff from Denzel Washington. However, the first one at least had the distinction of being the first R-rated film I ever saw. I'm probably not going to remember that I ever saw this. Honestly, a better version of this, at least in regards to action, is Upgrade, which came out about a month ago. If you want a fun action thriller with a hard edge, I honestly recommend that. If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this, and if you didn't, this isn't really an improvement. Just seeing here thinking, I'm already beginning to forget about this film. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre's Summer of Terror- Friday the 13th(2009)

    In 2003, the same year Freddy vs. Jason came out, the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released. The original 1974 feature, along with that year's Black Christmas  had typified and started the slasher craze of the 70's and 80's. So, it is fairly appropriate that it would start off its own chain of remakes (including Rob Zombie two Halloween remakes, and  a 2007 remake of Black Christmas). The Chainsaw remake was the first film produced by Platinum Dunes, the production company belonging to director Michael Bay and producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller. The Chainsaw connection goes deeper, as New Line, inspired by the success of that film, approach Platinum Dunes with the idea of reinvigorating the Friday the 13th franchise the way they did for the Chainsaw franchise. After the director for that film's prequel, Jonathan Liebsman (later known for those forgettable Ninja Turtle reboots) was considered, Chainsaw director Marcus Nispel was chosen to direct. Instead of creating another sequel, they decided to reboot the franchise, using elements from the first four films, . Freddy vs. Jason writers  Damian Shannon and Mark Swift were brought in because of their adept knowledge of the franchise and its history. They tried to avoid being another sequel or origin story, but still pay homage to the series.  Since Platinum had to work with all the rights holders for each part of the franchise, this would be the first time Paramount was involved in a Friday the 13th since the failure of Jason Takes Manhattan in 1989, as international distributor (New Line would continue as US distributor). In the long tradition of stuntmen playing the man behind the mask, Derek Mears was cast as Jason, reinterpreted more as a territorial killer than a methodical revenge seeking one. Released on the February Friday the 13th of 2009 (which is one day before Valentine's day, incidentally) it would be the second highest grossing film of the franchise, with mixed reception. In the past 9 years, a 13th film has been planned, but is currently stalled due to an ongoing legal battle between Victor Miller (the screenwriter of the original), and current rights holder Crystal Lake Entertainment (headed by Sean Cunningham).

      Beginning in June 13th, 1980, in a remake of the climax of the original, a camp counselor (Stephanie Rhodes) at Camp Crystal Lake beheads Pamela Voorhees (Nana Visitor) after the latter went on a rampage through the camp. Her son Jason (Caleb Guss) watches on. 30 years later, a group of teens, including Whitney (Amanda Righetti), Wade (Jonathan Sadowski), Richie (Ben Feldman), Mike (Nick Mennell), and Amanda (America Olivo) head to the area to set up camp and find some marijuana growing in the bushes. There, Wade tells the story of Jason Voorhees, which the other initially dismiss. However, as Whitney and Mike explore an old abandoned house (with a familiar shrine), Jason subsequently kills them off one by one, until only Whitney remains. Two months later, another group of teens, now Trent (Travis Van Winkle, apparently playing the same character he did in Transformers. Jason vs Transformers....),  Jenna (Danielle Panabaker), Chelsea (Willa Ford), Bree (Julianna Guill), Chewie (Aaron Yoo), Nolan (Ryan Hansen) and Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta) are heading to Trent's summer house for vacation. They have a brief run in with Clay (Jared Padalecki. I kind of wish there was a Dean joke I could make, because it's rare that I can make an appropriate Gilmore Girls reference), who is looking of his sister Whitney. While Trent has an aggressive encounter, when he comes back around the cabin, Jenna is willing to help him look. Jason begins his own attack, and we learn Whitney is still alive, trapped because she resembles a younger version of Pamela.

        It's clear that the screenwriters had taken the best parts of the first four films and condensed them. We see Pamela's death, the shrine that Jason keeps to her, Clay looking for his sister (a reference to the Hitchhiker in the Fourth one, with elements of Tommy Jarvis), Jason getting the hockey mask, and various teens coming camping. It works, and helps get to the meat of the entire film without any tedium or distractions. I was worried when the film seemed shadowy and unwatchable, but you can see everything fine. It has the signature series excellence in effects and gore, with some creative ways of showing the various character. I was a little apprehensive of Jason being more of an aggressive killer, but it works, though I will say it feels more like Leatherface than Jason. Most importantly, despite the more modern setting, and updates, it feels like a Friday the 13th film, with all the tropes and elements that make a good entry in the series work. It was also nice to hear the old theme for the series.

       It's established that, even when Michael Bay isn't directing, his fingerprints are all over anything he's involved with (I can't imagine what that documentary about elephant poaching he's involved with will be like). This is not an exception, with his various minor annoyances all over . It's especially worse that a lot of these characters are the slasher film teens, so their unlikeability increases with Bay's tendency towards distateful characters. There's characters to root for, but you kind of just wait for those you don't like to be offed. Honestly, while the "back-to-basics" part is not bad, I think it could've benefited from the supernatural twist that later films gave Jason. This would make more distinct from Leatherface. I also feel it might've worked with more fan service.

       I enjoyed this, despite my own trepidations going in. It feels like a Friday the 13th film, in a good way. It has what makes the series work, and knows how to use it to great effect. If you're a fan of the series, or just want a good horror film for this Friday the 13th, this is a good option, and a good film for those unfamiliar with the series.

     Well, that's it. 12 films in 12 days. I wasn't terribly into the first one, but as I've gone through each of these entries, I see what made this series such a classic. It might get formulaic, but some were able to take that formula, and bring it in interesting directions, or even just make it entertaining without really becoming too repetitive.  Regardless of who's playing him, Jason, despite his lack of emotions, is a dynamic, interesting presence, and whether he is haunting Crystal Lake, roaming the streets of New York, or is in Space, he is always the best part of any of these films. I've only disliked two of these (the two New Line Cinema ones), and even those still had some elements that made them enjoyable. Of these, I'd say the second and sixth ones are my favorite, because they were able to use the formula to its maximum potential, and I've had a good time watching most of these. I'd end with a glib reference to the series (i.e. So, next time you plan a visit to Crystal Lake), but frankly, I'm glad I'm done, because I did have to watch a film a night, and a review the very next day. At least, nothing major happened that disrupted this general schedule. Anyway, thank you all for reading all of these and joining in my journey through this series, and next week, I am doing The Equilizer 2, so hopefully you join me for that.

Film Review: The Jungle Book

      A very common complaint about the modern film industry is that everything is derivative. Most of the big blockbusters are either adaptations of popular superhero comics, young adult novels, novels in general, or are outright remakes. Whilst not necessarily invalid, this doesn't mean that any of these films are bad by any measure. Most of the Marvel films have garnered mostly critical acclaim, for instance. And the recent crop of Disney live-action reimaginings have seen some positive reviews. Given Disney's recent live action offerings (John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland), perhaps that's a bit of relief to the House of the Mouse. Especially the critical and financial success of today's subject, The Jungle Book. The success of this, and other recent live action remakes, has ensured that other Disney animated films are remade. Relatively recent ones too, like Mulan or Aladdin. But, is this truly as good as the critics say. Let's take a look.

    A remake of the 1967 Disney animated film (which is, in turn, very loosely based off the first three in the 1894 collection of stories of the same name by Rudyard Kipling), The Jungle Book revolves around Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a feral child raised in the jungles of India by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During the dry season, a "Peace Rock" is revealed in a dried river, which is an indication of a truce amongst the animals. Basically, during this period, carnivores can't eat herbivores. However, during this truce, the ruthless tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), learns of Mowgli's existence. Given his hatred of humans, Shere Khan demands that Mowgli be turned over to him, or else. Mowgli decides, in order to protect the wolves, to leave, and his mentor, the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him to the man village. Mowgli is reluctant to go to the man village, given his upbringing by wolves. However, Shere Khan ambushes Mowgli, and separates him from Bagheera. Mowgli wanders the jungle, encountering colorful characters, the sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) (who doesn't at all look like a sloth bear, a very small thing that bothered me through the film), the Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). Can Mowgli evade Shere Khan, or can he control the power of man's red flower (and apologizes if that song's stuck in your head for the next week) to defeat Shere Khan.

       First, the film looks very impressive. Very distinct and colorful. The talking animals feel real, not just computer constructs. The jungle also looks very lively, and very real. While I do often complain about the use of 3-D in films, I did think this looked very impressive in 3-D, and if you wanted to watch it, I do recommend watching it in 3-D, because it does enhance the look of the film. Most of the actors do fine. Neel Sethi wasn't great, but I'll give him a pass, because he's only ten, and I'd feel like a jerk for criticizing his performance. Ben Kingsley and Idris Elba do fine in their respective roles (Kingsley sounding very similar to Bagheera's original voice actor) . Bill Murray was perfect casting as Baloo, and he is, of course, very entertaining to watch. And Christopher Walken as King Louie was hilarious. He's supposed to menacing, but with Walken's signature voice, and him randomly breaking into the chorus and second verse of  "I Wanna Be Like You", it was frankly hard to take him seriously (also, insert Donald Trump joke here). He's not bad, by any means, and when he chases after Mowgli at the end of the scene. I just cracked up during his appearance. It was entertaining to watch.

     A few odd, superfluous choices bothered me through this film. Like I said, Baloo is supposed to be a sloth bear, as he was in the novel and the film. However, this is what he looked like in the film:

Source: http://morungexpress.com/the-jungle-book-trailer-mowgli-is-back-with-his-army-of-wild/

And here's what a sloth bear actually looks like:

Source:http://wildlifesos.org/indian-sloth-bears/

  That relatively minor thing bothered me. King Louie being a Gigantopithecus also was unnecessary. India and Sumatra are not that far away, You could just had an Orangutan wash up there after a storm or something like that. Having him be a prehistoric ape seems excessive. Also, he and Kaa were just devices to explain important plot points. Otherwise, they serve no real purpose in the story. The rendition of "I Wanna Be Like You", like I said, comes out of nowhere. They sing "Bear Necessities", of course, but it made more sense in the scene it was in. While they are trying to take the animated version, and make a more serious version, they also bring in elements from the Kipling stories. The Wolves play a larger role, as they did in the story, the Law of the Jungle poem is recited, the monkeys are called "Bandar-Logs"(and they butcher the pronunciation of it) and several minor characters from the book make cameos. This doesn't come off as a way to balance the two, since most of the rest of the film is derived from the 1967 film. If you're going to remake the 1967 film, you could just take elements from that. Don't randomly place stuff from the novel, and do nothing with those, because none of those additions really add to film. Finally, the ending completely misses the point of the story, both the book and the Disney film. I won't spoil it, but you've seen or read any variation of this story, you get the general message of it. However, the ending just completely botches it, and misses the whole point.

    If you were looking for a film version, which is very close to the Kipling stories, like I was, you will sadly be disappoint. Just for some recommendations in that case, animator Chuck Jones (who was a very prominent animator in the Golden Age Looney Tunes shorts, and later directed How the Grinch Stole Christmas) did an animated TV special based on Mowgli's Brothers in 1976, which is considered one of the closest adaptation of the story ever made (Sadly, he was never able to adapt the other two stories.) If you enjoyed the Disney version, it isn't a musical, and it is more intense, so you might not enjoy it as much, though you might like the Bear Necessities rendition. Some might enjoy just the visual and the action sequences, so I'd recommend it. Overall, this was okay. Can't really muster any strong emotions about it. It wasn't nearly as good as the original. In fact, just watch the original. It has all the classic songs, and the decent animation. Yeah, it hasn't held up particularly well, but it is much better than this. However, this wasn't bad. Just, not really interesting or new. Hopefully, the Warner Bros version coming out next year will provide a more interesting retelling of this story.