Review: Halloween (1978)

When I decided to do my John Carpenter marathon, I debated skipping this movie.  What review could I write that would anything new to this heavily-discussed masterpiece?  Is there anything to add to the discussion at this point, 48 years later?  In some ways, it is easier to discuss the sequels (and their wide range of quality) than the original, since - outside of Halloween II (1981) - they are much less discussed and picked-apart as this one.

This is, quite literally, a perfect horror movie.  Moody, atmospheric, almost elemental in its storytelling, it's not surprising that the movie is credited (incorrectly, I might add) with being the first slasher - while Black Christmas and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre predate it, the influence this film had vastly outshines those films, great though they are.

The film almost reads better as a fable: this is a battle between Good (Laurie Strode, famously played by Jamie Lee Curtis in a star-making performance) and Evil (The Shape - sometimes called Michael Myers - as played by Nick Castle).  Only the pure can survive the corruption of Evil's creation, and God help anyone else who encounters it.

The film also has it's soothsayer in Donald Pleasence's performance as Dr. Sam Loomis, one of the all-time great horror performances (expect me to make that statement in several of Carpenter's upcoming films - part of his legacy is ushering in some of the best the genre has ever seen).  His various monologues and asides provide just the right amount of heightened surrealism to the movie that gives it that elemental feel.

Carpenter also did composing work for this film, and created one of the best musical scores of all time, with the title theme being recognizable to even the most unlearned of movie buffs.  The cinematography - done by Dean Cundey - is also a standout part of the film.  Bright yellows during the daytime, and an almost impossible blue to the night scenes, Cundey's contributions cannot be understated.

This is one of those horror movies that I think everyone should watch.  Not just because I am a fan of horror, but because it is a standout in a genre that has far more duds than it has masterpieces.

10 out of 10.

(A fun aside:  One of the movies watched during the babysitting scenes is 1951's The Thing From Another World - a movie that Carpenter would remake 6 years later)

Review: Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Now this is a great movie!

Part of the reason I wanted to do a John Carpenter marathon was because there were so many I had never seen.  While Dark Star was more of a mixed bag, Assault on Precinct 13 very quickly won me over.  A low budget exploitation film where Carpenter had complete creative control, this film follows Lieutenant Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) as he is assigned to a precinct shortly before it closes.  On this last night, a series of incidents results in Ethan, along with prisoners Napoleon Wilson and Wells (Darwin Joston and Tony Burton) and secretary Leigh (Laurie Zimmer) having to fortify the building as a gang out for revenge attacks.

This is a mean movie.  It opens with police killing a group of gang members (which is somehow not the inciting incident, though it contributes to it), has a little girl shot while buying ice cream (the real inciting incident), and brutally kills off the majority of the cast during the initial onslaught by the gang members.  While a few do make it past that initial onslaught, none outside that main four (and Mr. Lawson, the father of the murdered girl) last terribly long into the movie.

What follow is a fight for survival, with a tentative alliance between the prisoners and the police officers as they try to survive the hail of bullets.  While this is an action movie first, the dialogue between the members of this alliance is legitimately good, far better than one would expect in an exploitation movie.

Stoker and Joston both do an excellent job.  Stoker elevates a fairly stock character, while Joston has to maintain an air of ambiguity his entire performance - something he more than succeeds at.  The smaller roles are also strong, with Nancy Loomis as secretary Julie being a stand out.

I cannot say enough good things about this movie.  Carpenter makes the set feel like a character, and not a single shot is wasted.  The viewer never gets confused about the layout, and the ever-present threat of the gang helps provide an almost oppressive tone.

I would definitely recommend this to fans of the action genre, and even those that are more cool on it.  This is the John Carpenter quality I expected.

8 out of 10

Review: Dark Star (1974)

This review feels like it needs a multitude of caveats.  It was originally a student film, but had edits and reshoots to get to theatrical length.  Said edits shifted it towards a G rating, and said reshoots were a year after the first version of the film was completed.  The resulting film is charming despite (or because?) it wearing its low budget on its sleeve.

Set in the mid-22nd century, the movie follows the crew of the Dark Star, a scouting ship with a sentient AI managing the ship's systems that also has sentient bombs to deploy on unstable planets.  The crew has been on its mission for 20ish years, and their ship is suffering from numerous malfunctions, which has also caused the death of their commanding officer.  The remaining four members are in various states of cabin fever and try to keep themselves entertained in various ways.

Did I mention the film is a comedy?

The comedy is hit and miss, with some bits working especially well: a series of scenes where Pinback (Dan O'Bannon - who also co-wrote the film) is trying to recapture an alien he has brought onboard as a sort-of mascot is fairly solid, and a conversation between the ship and the bomb is also fairly amusing.  But for every scene that works, there is another where the humor doesn't quite land.

The movie is mostly interesting as the first film directed by John Carpenter.  While you do see some of his trademarks, it doesn't quite showcase just how talented he actually was, nor would any contemporaneous moviegoers have expected that the maker of this movie would eventually make three of the greatest horror movies of all time (Halloween, The Fog, and The Thing).

Would I recommend it?  Yes.  The special effects are dated (again, this movie wears its low budget on its sleeve), the acting is a weird mix of good and bad (each actor has good scenes and bad scenes), the story is fairly barebones (though it spins some gold despite this), but despite these criticisms, the movie works.

What would I rate it?  That isn't a simple question.  As previously mentioned, every comment feels like it needs a caveat.  However, I did enjoy the movie.

I'll give it a 6 out of 10, but I could get away with giving it anywhere from a 5 to an 8 depending on my mood.