Review: Halloween Ends

In my review for the last movie in this franchise (probably the most vitriolic review I have ever written), I alluded to writer/director David Gordon Green and writer Danny McBride having the mentality of knowing better than the audience what they wanted.  To paraphrase, the movie radiated a feeling of 'This is what you will like!' in direct contrast to what did and didn't work in the first of this new trilogy.

I am sad to report that the finale has the same attitude.

It's not that I wanted this movie to be bad - it's that I expected it to be.  And after watching it, my expectations were sadly met.  The movie had the potential to rebound from Halloween Kills and finish strongly - the final battle between Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney, with original actor Nick Castle providing some voicework), 40+ years after they first met.  Instead, both characters are relegated to the sidelines, with the bulk of the movie focusing on an entirely new character and the final battle between these legends relegated to the C plot.

I do have to give credit to Rohan Campbell, who plays new character Corey Cunningham.  He is basically forced to carry this entire movie by himself and tie together the various threads and themes scattered amongst the narratives.  He doesn't quite manage it - I don't think any actor could, to be honest - but he gives it his all, and he manages to give a truly great performance despite the writing and directing working overtime to prevent such a thing from occurring.

Jamie Lee Curtis also does a fine job, though the movie asks her to do precious little.  It asks slightly more of Andi Matichak, returning as Laurie's granddaughter Allyson, mostly because of how much she interacts with Corey.  Will Patton also reappears though I cannot figure out why - they built him up to be a much more important character in the previous two movies than he ended up being in this one.

None of the performances are bad - there is a character I think most will find grating, but that is an intentional choice, I think.  It's just that they are constantly doing battle against a script that wants to do more than what has ultimately ended up on the screen.

Another bit of credit I'll give to this film over the previous one is that the gore - of which there is plenty - is much less exploitative.  Which is an odd thing to say, given some tongue-related shenanigans that happen in the latter half of the movie, but there you go.

Overall though, the movie is just a mess.  It doesn't seem to know what sort of statement it wants to make - though it definitely wants to make one - and it definitely misunderstands what the audience wants and expects from what is supposed to be the grand finale of the Halloween series.  While the previous film was offensively bad, this one is just kind of stupid.  It will be easier to rewatch than Kills is, but I can't think of a better example of damning with faint praise.  It is just as terrible as the previous entry, and only those who are fully committed to the series should bother to see it.

3 our of 10

Reviewed Too Late: Ghostbusters: Afterlife

 

There's comfort in nostalgia.  Going back to when things were 'simple' or 'better' - and I use those terms loosely - can make a viewer enjoy something even when it has various faults.  They will gloss over such things.  But what if the nostalgia ends up overpowering the experience?  What if the very nostalgia used to sell a movie to the public is ultimately that film's undoing?

Ghostbusters: Afterlife depends on nostalgia to a fault.  It is so scared to be its own movie - so scared to allow the franchise to grow - that it ultimately fails itself by the climax, resulting in an enjoyable if disappointing experience.

I'll admit that I think the original Ghostbusters is only an above-average high-concept comedy.  It is not an unassailable classic, and I think that perhaps many around my age might be misattributing some of their love for the cartoon based off the movie back to the film.

It's not a bad film.  I want to make that clear.  Of the admittedly small number of movies I've seen from 1984, I'd still rank it in the top 5 easily.  But it is also not without faults, and the deification of it was ultimately what brought this sequel down.

Set in the present day, the film primarily follows the family of Egon Spengler as they go to his farmhouse in Oklahoma shortly after his death.  Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), granddaughter of Egon and a budding scientist herself, soon discovers much of Egon's equipment and, the story pretty much tells itself from there.

And I do mean that it tells itself: Not only was I able to correctly call that the Keymaster and Gatekeeper would be mother Callie (Carrie Coon) and teacher Gary (Paul Rudd), but I also accurately predicted that Lucky (Celeste O'Connor) would also be possessed at some point.  I would be going into even more spoiler-y territory to reveal other predictions that were made, but pretty much the entire ending is telegraphed to an almost absurd degree.

Which isn't to say the film is unwatchable - again, there is comfort in nostalgia.  The child actors do an amazing job of carrying this movie - with a particular shoutout to Logan Kim as Podcast, a love-him-or-hate-him character that I found terribly amusing.  O'Connor also manages some fun moments with an underwritten character, and Grace ably carries the main narrative.

Moving the location from a major city to a small town was a smart choice also - it allows the action to differentiate itself from the previous films.  The main critique I'd have is the weird choice to have a small town in Oklahoma in the year 2021 have the feel of the 1950s.

There are other odd choices scattered throughout the film - the most egregious to which take place at the sheriff's office - but nothing that ultimately hurts the film.  Any and all choices that bring it down lie in the final part of the movie.

Spoilers!  Do not continue reading if you do not want to know how the film ends!

The decision to have the original Ghostbusters appear at the end of the film could have worked.  It could have been a passing-of-the-torch moment where they help the new generation (Phoebe, Lucky, Podcast, and Trevor - played by Finn Wolfhard) subdue the baddie (Gozer, again) before ultimately allowing them to continue the business.  Instead, Phoebe's moment is literally taken away from her as Egon's ghost appears and stands with the original Ghostbusters to defeat Gozer.

Seriously, the final defeat of Gozer literally cuts off Phoebe so that only the original ones can be seen.  It's tacky and undercuts her journey in so many ways that it almost made me hate the movie.

Spoilers end!

While the ending ultimately keeps me from recommending this movie, it is still an enjoyable enough experience.

6 out of 10, maybe 6.5 depending on the day you ask me.

Who I'd Save: Resident Evil

When I decided to make Resident Evil the next series for Who I'd Save, I had only ever given a repeat watch to the original movie.  I had seen Apocalypse, Afterlife, and Final Chapter before, but not since their original theatrical releases.  So I thought it would be fun to rewatch all of those, plus finally see the two I had missed (Extinction and Retribution).

What I was not prepared for was how convoluted the storyline was (exacerbated, I'm sure, by watching all of them on consecutive days) and how creatively they bring back cast members who had previously died.  Sometimes without explanation.  So this might get a follow-up post where I talk about all of the movies and what did and did not work, and I am going to go ahead and say that no clones will make this list.

Resident Evil: Ms. Black

We'll start off with a more novel choice: Opening scene character Ms. Black (changed to Ella Fontaine in the novelization).  She seems smart and no-nonsense, and actress Indra Ové spins gold from the little she is given - This is a character that, if they had decided to spend more on them, it wouldn't have bothered me.  Alas, she doesn't survive past the cold open, but I'd find a way to get her out of The Hive if I could.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse: Nicholai

It was between Nicholai and Terri for this honor, but Nicholai won out due to being played by Farkus himself, Zack Ward.  Nicholai is more than willing to team up with other survivors and even ends up dying trying to protect Angela.  Plus, surviving the apocalyptic wasteland in Extinction would have been much easier with another trained soldier.

Resident Evil: Extinction: Carlos

I mean, who else could it be?  The closest thing to a love interest that Alice gets throughout the series, plus it's Oded Fehr, who I will always have a soft spot for due to The Mummy.  It's such a bummer that he is able to get the antidote in Apocalypse, only to be bitten by fucking LJ (Mike Epps) - who decided to hide the fact he was infected - a movie later.  At least he goes out in a blaze of glory.

Resident Evil: Afterlife: Crystal

I think a major reason I would save Crystal before any of the others in this movie is because her death feels like such bullshit.  Granted, not everyone can go out in a blaze of glory, but give her a better one!  So she gets saved for that reason.

Resident Evil: Retribution: Luther

I really liked this character, and actor Boris Kodjoe also.  And he gets so close to escaping at the end of this one, but then Evil Clone Rain (Michelle Rodriguez) has to fuck it all up.  And really, he was sacrificed because they didn't want to kill Leon (Johann Urb) since he is important in the games - but guys, he is only in this movie, you can kill him and keep Luther!  Granted, the start of the next film makes you wonder about all of the survivors of this one, but I can easily head-canon their survival.

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter: Cobalt

Honestly, none of the new characters really made much of an impression in this one.  Before deciding on Cobalt (who proves to be fairly brave and a bit badass), I considered the emaciated woman (Siobhan Hodgson) that gets killed just before being rescued by Alice or Abigail (Ruby Rose).  I even considered Doc (Eoin Macken) just for the shits and giggles of it.  But, in a movie filled to the brim with red shirts, I decided to go with the one that would be the most interesting to get more of.

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City: Lisa

I am making an assumption with this one - we get no visual confirmation of her death, but with all of Raccoon City being destroyed, it feels like a safe one.  Mostly, this poor woman is who I'd save because of the hell she's been through, while still saving Claire and Leon. 

Alright, that covers this film series - next up will be the Scream franchise, maybe - what should I do after that?

Review: Gwendy's Button Box

Reading Stephen King's collaborations with other authors always makes for an interesting review.  Mostly because I am familiar enough with King's style at this point - 40+ books into his bibliography - that I can generally figure out which parts have his fingerprints all over them.  It's not so much that I attribute everything good to him and all of the weaker aspects to whomever joined him: King has his own criticisms and even a few novels that I'd consider outright bad.  It's just that his writing is so identifiable that when it obvious that it is the contributing author that is writing, it is easier to assign them blame.  In the case of Gwendy's Button Box, Richard Chizmar managed to mimic enough of King's style that the novella flows almost seamlessly.

No, if I have any criticisms of this story, it is that it very much feels like Part One in a series (which it is) and that it neither author ever really lets the narrative breathe.  From the moment that Gwendy gets the titular box until the ending, the story moves at a breakneck pace.  King's strength has always been how he can make his locations and characters feel lived-in and lively, but this novella has none of that.

It is still a good yarn, make no mistake.  It's just one that is maybe a little shorter than one would want from it.  There is something to be said for a tight, simple story, but there's too much unanswered in this one - though maybe that will be fixed in Part Two (written only by Chizmar).

To get to the actual story:  Gwendy meets the mysterious Richard Farris as a young girl, who gives her a button box - one button gives her some candy with magical properties, one button gives her a rare silver coin, and eight other buttons how an unnamed power to them.  After Farris gives her the box, Gwendy learns the burden of having such an item in her care, but also goes through the crucible of earning the gift given to her.  Without going into further detail: the box has a weighty responsibility to it, and Gwendy was chosen by higher powers to shoulder said responsibility.

Far too interesting a premise for a measly 166 page book that covers 16ish years of Gwendy's life.  But again, there is a Part Two already out and a Part Three about to be - maybe they will answer my questions and fill out the story in such a way that the overall tale will be satisfying.

3 out of 5, with the option to raise it after reading the other books.

Stats:

Pages: 166

Movie?: None currently planned

Dark Tower?: Roland Farris links it to the Dark Tower pretty unambiguously

Child Deaths?: A friend of Gwendy's dies during her high school years, plus references are made to the Jonestown massacre and the many children that died there.

Book of the Month: January 2019

Offered Books:

The Night Tiger by Yangsze Choo

Golden State by Ben H. Winters

The Silent Patient by Alex Michaelides

Maid by Stephanie Land

Golden Child by Claire Adam

Selected:

The Silent Patient by Alex Michaelides

Other Purchased:

None - yet

I am in the minority opinion on this book.  It has the distinction (along with the previously reviewed Future Home of the Living God, The Perfect Mother, and The Chalk Man) of being one of the rare books to get the 'dislike' option when rating it at the Book of the Month website.  Contrast this with it making the finalist list for Book of the Year at the same site - in fact, as of the typing of this review only 3% of members who have voted have given it the dreaded 'dislike.'  Why does my opinion differ from so many others?  The ending, my dear friends, the ending.

I'm not going to lie: this book had me going.  I tore through it eagerly wanting to see how it resolved itself.  Any mild qualms I came across were pushed aside as I powered through to see what happened on the fateful night where Alicia Berenson murdered her husband.  Then, in the last 20 or so pages, it all fell apart.  The reveal was so convoluted, so stupid, that it made me angry that I had read the book with such passion.  In fact, so angered was I by the ending of the book, that looking back at the minor qualms I had made me feel like I had ignored numerous red flags placed throughout the novel.  The story itself had tried to warn me of the imminent disappointment... and I ignored it.

To expand on my brief summary above, Alicia Berenson has murdered her husband - both of them fairly famous - and then refused to say anything about what had transpired that evening that had caused her to shoot him multiple times.  Five years have passed, Alicia has been committed, and Theo Faber - a criminal psychotherapist - works for the opportunity to examine the famous mystery.

It is here where the first of the major red flags appears: Alicia starts talking to Theo fairly quickly.  This isn't much of a spoiler (there would not be much of a novel without this development), but no one really comments on his quick success.  There's a few passing mentions of his ability to get her to open up, but for a well-known woman who famously refused to speak for five years.  It feels like, at the very least, the other doctors should have reacted.  Someone needed to remark on it, and the fact that no one really does destroys the world-building done up to this point.

I can't much into details of the other parts that should have served as a warning to me - far too plot relevant to reveal - but they are very much in the same vein as the above one: Why hasn't anyone else comment on [x]?  Why did no one think to [y]?  All of them could be addressed fairly quickly and without a bunch of text but they just aren't.

And it pains me, because so much of the novel is so good - Theo and Alicia are interesting characters and the pace of the book is well done.  The tone is well-managed without ever being too much.  Really, if the ending had so completely and utterly disappointed me, it might have been one of my favorites of the year.

But again, I am in the minority on this opinion.  This book is widely beloved by those that read it: I cannot give it a recommend, but with the caveat that most people definitely would.

1.5 out of 5 - maybe a 2 out of 5 depending on my mood.

Author Links:

Alex Michaelides

Who I'd Save: Friday the 13th

If a horror movie is worth a damn, you inevitably have victims that you wish would have survived.  Maybe you connected with the character in some way, maybe they were sympathetic, maybe you just think the death they received was gratuitous or especially horrible.  Hell, maybe you just think they are attractive and hope for an appearance in the sequel.  Whatever the reason: you want them to survive, but they didn't.  So I thought it might be fun to go through several of the franchises I own and pick out who I would save.  And what better to start with then the most prolific of the horror movie franchises (give or take Hellraiser)?  So, without further ado, here is the character I would save from each of the twelve Friday the 13th films.

Friday the 13th: Brenda

This was a hard one: there are at least three that I would spare from their fates:  Annie, who was just excited to cook for and work with kids and Bill, who just seemed like a solid guy, were the other two I considered.  But for me, Brenda strikes me as the most unfair of the kills in the first movie.  Mrs. Voorhees is punishing the counselors for not protecting Jason, but she kills Brenda who runs out into a storm (in her nightgown!) when she hears a child crying for help?  If anything, Brenda should have been deliberately spared - it's not like the camp was going to open with the five other murders that had already occurred.  Brenda deserved better!  Also: how often is a non-nerd character shown just reading for fun in a horror movie?

Friday the 13th Part II: Vickie

This one was fairly easy: Vickie is a sweetheart and the gusto with which she pursues Mark (pictured above with her) is probably the most relatable subplot from amongst the doomed counselors.  She at least gets to last the longest of those left behind.

As an aside, I think most people would pick Mark since it kind of sucks to be stuck in a wheelchair with a murderer stalking about, but I kind of appreciate the chutzpah of killing him - given the period in which the film was made, it feels slightly taboo, particularly with how graphic it is compared to the other deaths.

Friday the 13th Part III: Vera

Vera gets the shit end of the stick.  The first of the main group to get killed (though Shelly is the first to encounter Jason, he lives long enough to die in front of Chili), she's an add-on brought along to potentially hook up with Shelly.  Even then, when she very kindly turns him down, he still calls her a bitch.  She's even trying to get some of Shelly's stuff that fell into the lake out when Jason comes along and kills her.  Vera deserved better.

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter: Mrs. Jarvis

Another character done dirty.  Mrs. Jarvis lives on the lake with her two children - why does Jason suddenly go after them?  Is it because of the teens next door?  That isn't her fault!  Plus, it sucks that our final two - Trish and Tommy Jarvis - are orphans at the end of the movie.  Plus, she doesn't even get an onscreen death or even an acknowledgement of it during the movie.

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning: George

I was tempted to go with Joey, if only because preventing his death would have saved the entire cast, but that feels a bit like cheating.  Instead, I'll go with George, the grandfather of Reggie who seems like such an odd kill.  Granted, almost all of Roy's kills don't make sense (Vic, the one who kills Joey, is ironically one of the few survivors of Roy's rampage), but for all appearances, George was very kind and helpful to all of the troubled kids, so killing him seems more like increasing the body count than out of any real motivation for Roy.

Honorable mention to Vinnie and Pete, who I have as a gay couple in my head-canon.  They were just passing by, no reason to murder them.

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives: Lizabeth

This one was an easy call: Lizbeth saw Jason standing there threateningly, and was very quick to say 'Let's GTFO' - if only her companion, Darren, had heeded her advice.  Instead, they both bite the dust.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood: Melissa

An odd choice, to be sure, but we stan an unapologetic bitch.  Melissa wears it like a mark of honor, and even has one of the most honest reactions to someone telling her about Jason - thinking it is a crazy story.  Granted, he is very real, but can you blame her for not believing Tina or Nick?

Honorable mention on this one goes to Eddie - a victim of Melissa's machinations.  But that has more to due with nerd sympathy than anything else.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan: Colleen

There were several victims I would spare in this film, but Colleen tops the list:  The kind teacher to final girl Rennie, Colleen doesn't even get the dignity of dying by Jason's hand - instead dying in a car explosion after Rennie hallucinates a kid Jason in the middle of the road and crashes their vehicle.

Honorable mention to Eva, whose death always seemed especially brutal to me (I think it had to do with how Jason threw her to the ground after strangling her) or J.J. who just wanted to play her guitar.

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday: Vicki

The second Vicki on our list!  She's much more of a badass though - when the Robert-possessed Jason starts murdering everyone at the diner, she quickly busts out a shotgun and also impales him with a metal rod.  Not bad for a non-final girl!  She also is just an all-around helpful person, and it sucks when she gets killed.

Jason X: Sergeant Brodski

Guy sacrifices himself to stop Jason and save the remaining people from the Grendel.  Just an all-around badass, and one of the few characters to have a normal name.

Freddy vs. Jason: Linderman

This has more to do with the actor - Chris Marquette - being on Joan of Arcadia, than anything to do with the character.  I guess there is some nerd solidarity in there, but most of my sympathy belongs to Mark.  However, Mark is a Freddy victim, not a Jason one, so Linderman gets the tiebreaker.

Friday the 13th (2009 Remake): Jenna

Given the fact that most of the characters suck in the remake (a product of the tendency in the late aughts to make all of the victims assholes), Jenna is pretty much a no-brainer.  While Chewie and Lawrence aren't too awful, they also don't do anything to help Clay find his sister, so Jenna gets the save.  Her death was honestly shocking to me when I first watched the film, so losing that fake-out is a bit of a bummer, but again, I'd like the non-crappy character to live.

And that covers all of the films!  What series should I do next?

Review: Halloween Kills

 

What an absolute and total piece of shit. That alone could be my entire review for this movie, but even that simple sentence - as all-encompassing as it is in my complete disdain for this self-important crime against the franchise - is not enough to satisfy me.  This movie both does and doesn't deserve the time and effort I am going to put into this review.  I am so angry at this film - and imagine that word used in its most pretentious form, because the director and writers very obviously refer to this movie in such a way - that merely dismissing it is not enough.  This is the cinematic equivalent of a festering boil sitting a half-inch from an unwiped asshole - pulsating and leaking pus - and I am going to lance this motherfucker.

Set immediately after the events of 2018 Halloween, this movie looks at what worked and didn't work in the previous entry, and doubles down on every single part that didn't work and tells the audience 'You will appreciate it his time!'  It's fitting that a key piece of imagery in this movie is a baseball bat, since director David Gordon Green and writer Danny McBride metaphorically beat the audience into submission with their 'vision' of what should be enjoyed when watching a Halloween film.  Not what people actually enjoy, mind you, what they think you should enjoy, and it's your fucking problem if you don't.

(As an aside, I realize that there is a third person credited with writing the screenplay, but I am confident that all the worst instincts of this script can be traced to McBride, with an assist from Green, so Scott Teems escapes my wrath for now)

They think they have done something so special - so subversive and hardcore and never-before-seen - when they have done something so utterly basic and trite and predictable.  "Look, we brought back a whole bunch of characters from the original movie - played by their original actors! - and you don't know who will live and who will die!"  Wow, just like how Halloween 6 brought back Tommy Doyle (played in that film by Paul Rudd in his debut) or how H20 brought back Marion Chambers as it's opening fucking kill.  Wow, how brave and different, you guys.

It's not even shocking when they kill the (vast majority) of those characters off - it's so obvious that the whole reason they were brought back for this movie was for that very reason.  If anything, they used those characters as a crutch to carry the weight of their 'message' (a stupid been-done-a-thousand-times-and-better-by-any-Living Dead-movie message: Who are the real monsters?) In fact, the whole major plot point of Tommy Doyle starting a lynch mob that goes after the wrong person (spoilers, fuck you) is so completely unnecessary to the plot of the film that it feels added in to give the movie a proper runtime more than to do anything worthwhile.  Well, a proper runtime and another needlessly gory death to add.

Jesus Christ, the gore in this movie.

I appreciate good gore effects - I will sing the praises of 1980's The Thing or 2010's Piranha 3-D to anyone willing to listen - but this movie goes right past excessive straight into exploitative.  It's one thing to show a brutal head crush or stab wound, it's quite another to linger on the suffering of the victim, or to all but caress the visual with the camera.  There's a difference between 'look at this cool shit we did with a gore effect' and what this movie does.  This movie enjoys the suffering it inflicts on the mostly-nameless victims.

And understand, this movie has a high kill count, and precious few are ones we have any connection with.  This is why bringing back the original characters all but assures their doom: The movie does nothing to make you care about any of the victims.  It's counting on nostalgia to make you care about these characters, given how precious little we get of them prior to the mayhem.  The only characters to get any sort of character work are the black couple seen getting into their car from the first film and the gay couple.

And now we are going to talk about that gay couple.

Played by Michael McDonald and Scott MacArthur, it is very obvious from the get-go that you are supposed to laugh at these characters.  The affectations, the ridiculous behaviors, the fact that they refer to each other as Big John and Little John - these characters are ridiculous and on the same level as Deputies Nick and Tom from Halloween 5 - the two deputies that famously had clown music accompanying their every appearance.

This movie so thoroughly ridicules the two - spending as much time on them as they do several of the returning characters, which is damning on multiple levels - that when Michael appears to inevitably kill them (they live in his original house) the audience at the theater I was at laughed as they were stalked.  They even laughed as they were murdered, which was a real comfort to me as I sat watching the movie with my boyfriend.

I can tell with these characters and the gratuitous kill of the possibly-gay child in the 2018 film that, again, they think they are doing something different and edgy with their movie.  And it might've been if this film had come out sometime during the first two seasons of Family Guy, since that is about the level of edge it actually is.

(And for those that might try to defend the child murder in the 2018 film, it is implied that Michael kills another in this one - but it is only implied, not shown - and you will not convince me that the sexuality of the two characters didn't play a part)

This movie also makes goes to Thorns levels of stupidity with Michael's apparently supernatural powers.  He teleports, he has ninja skills, he is impervious to gunshots and stab wounds - it's a miracle they kept him contained for 40 years, given his superhuman abilities.  And this isn't a few minor instances, like in the 2018 - there are major points in the film where Michael is able to apparently fight off 8+ people - all of who are wielding weapons of their own - with ease.  And in both of these cases, he has been stabbed/shot/beaten/burned beforehand.  There's even a scene where he expertly kicks a door to knock a gun so it faces the person shooting it as it fires.  And it is just as ridiculous as it sounds.

I fucking hated this movie.  I don't think a horror movie has completely and utterly pissed me off to this level since 2014's Tusk.  That movie was terrible because it was obvious that everything about it was half-assed.  This movie obviously had lots of effort put into it, but apparently no one around to throw ice water on the production crew to keep them from masturbating to their own awesomeness.  At least Jamie Lee Curtis and Judy Greer got paid (and they both gave performances far better than this movie deserved ).

Oh, also: fuck the ending.  We all knew there was going to be a third one, but ending it they way you did?  Fuck the director and fuck the writers for thinking that was acceptable.