It sounds odd that I had never seen True Lies until just a few months ago. I always had a little tinge of interest in it, but until recently, I just never capitalized upon it. I do think James Cameron has done some marvelous work over the years, and it’s nice to see that he did take the chance to do something more fun-filled after a lot of films of thematic heaviness. While I didn’t love True Lies, it does have its great strengths and unfortunate weaknesses wrapped up in a very entertaining spy thriller.
Special agent Harry Tasker (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a top spy in the ultra-secret Omega Sector – although to his wife Helen (Jaime Lee Curtis), he’s just a boring computer salesman. When Harry’s two lives unexpectedly collide, both he and Helen find themselves in the clutches of international terrorists, fighting to save not only their marriage, but their lives.
In what I believe is a rare occurrence, I actually agree with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert about this film, in most part. The opening and ending are great, exciting, engaging action excellence, but the middle section is drawn out and throws the film off the rails a little. This is in relation to the entire Bill Paxton segment where Harry Tasker learns that Helen has been seeing another man on the side who feeds her false stories of him being a secret agent. Paxton’s character turns out to be a sleazy used car salesman conning women with his tales of international espionage and intrigue, and Harry proceeds to use his resources to pull one over on the guy while attempting to inject some excitement into his marriage via subterfuge. This segment is not a bad idea, but the fact is that it is dragged out for over thirty minutes and runs through some overly long comedic bits. There is so much that could have been done to chop this down considerably and make it far more snappy and to the point.
I hate to keep being proven right about my reservations about James Cameron’s lax storytelling post-The Terminator, but the evidence keeps surfacing with every film of his I see. When he had a tight, restrictive budget forcing him to be innovative in a constrained run time, he put together a film of tight rhythm and energy. Once he was given larger and larger budgets, and was allowed to indulge himself on screen, he began to slow down the pace of his films with extended second acts that could have definitely been tightened up for a more punchy experience. The other problem with this divergence in focus is that the actual plot with our villains vanishes for the entire time the film is concerned with this marital infidelity plot. With such a thrilling action chase scene to build up the film’s villain, the movie wholly shifts focus away from that plot, and a lot like the T-1000 in Terminator 2, the actual villain is completely absent for most of the second act of the movie. He only reappears when the movie realizes it needs another action sequence. If Cameron could have found a way to keep both the action centric terrorist / secret agent and married life plots going by interweaving them, I believe that would have been great, but it’s ultimately much more compartmentalized until the third act arrives.
Regardless, Cameron is still able to direct some of the best action sequences to date. The opening escape sequence is explosive and smart with the right amount of wit and sly humor. Indeed, I was vastly impressed with the chase sequence that starts off with a public bathroom fight and shootout, and then, sees the film’s villain, Aziz, take off on a motorcycle and Harry pursues him on horseback. They gallop and zoom through Washington, D.C. streets, stores, a shopping mall, elevators, and a high rise balcony. Cameron pushes this sequence to the absolute most fun hilt, and it proves to be very original and imaginative. The climax of the film with the helicopter rescue from the out of control limousine, and then, the fighter jet explosive awesomeness really makes this one of the biggest Schwarzenegger action spectacles ever. These are some of the most incredible action sequences that either James Cameron or Arnold Schwarzenegger have ever been involved in, and they deserve to been seen by any serious action movie fan.
And Arnold Schwarzenegger really does seem to do some of his best, most dynamic work with James Cameron. The two clearly work so perfectly together based on a very trusted friendship and collaboration. This time out, Arnold gets to be more light hearted and fun. Harry Tasker is a clever character who thinks on his feet, and improvises some tight scenarios with suave charisma. By no doubt, there are some James Bond comparisons you could make, but that can be done with nearly any secret agent action movie. Harry’s a light-hearted, caring family man who is not nearly as adept at his home life as he is in espionage.
Jamie Lee Curtis is really fun and solid as Harry’s wife. We get to see her go from this simple, wholesome, innocent woman to a more empowered, assertive character. Yeah, Helen has to liberate herself with a sexy striptease, but it’s really just done in good fun in the film’s context. Helen is attracted to Bill Paxton’s character because he tells her exciting stories of peril and danger, and so, Harry chooses to give her an adventure of her own. Curtis really embraces the role in all its facets giving us a sweet character that is able to rise to the task of danger and peril.
Now, it does seem to take the right director to craft Tom Arnold’s humor down the correct path. Surely, many have found him annoying or obnoxious elsewhere, but he really hits all the comedy beats just right. He never pushes it over the edge, and doesn’t come off like a buffoon, which would have been extremely easy to fall into. Him and Schwarzenegger have very good chemistry playing off of one another lightly and naturally.
On the far more serious side, Art Malik has a great threatening look of intensity to him that perfectly aids him as the film’s villain, Salim Abu Aziz. He’s an excellent fit for this ruthless, violent radical terrorist who consistently proves to be a major adversary to contend with. He truly added the serious counterweight the film required to the light hearted tone it employs throughout. His partner in crime is Tia Carrere’s Juno Skinner, a slight femme fatale that catches Harry’s attention early on. Surely, Carrere has never been a great actress, but she does quite good work under Cameron’s direction being charming and alluring when necessary as well as cutthroat and vile when the facades are dropped.
In some smaller roles, you’ve got Charlton Heston in a solid, brief appearance as the head of Omega Sector baring a nasty scar and eye patch. This sort of shows that True Lies is not taking itself too seriously. It’s allowing a little satire and jokiness to seep into the flavor of the picture. Also, Eliza Dushku appears in an early role as Dana Tasker, Harry and Helen’s daughter, and she does a great job showcasing a lot of tough attitude and dimension she would come to be known for. Everyone in this cast really does a fine, respectable job with Cameron’s material. It’s both a fact of good casting and solid directing.
This was James Cameron’s follow-up to Terminator 2 after he took a few years off, and in that time, visual effects continued to evolve a little. Largely, the digital effects work is very subtle not requiring anything so innovative as a liquid metal cyborg assassin. Yet, it’s interesting to see that today, you’d like see those Harrier fighter jets done mostly as CGI in most shots, but here, we get the real thing on film and it looks exponentially superior to any digital effect. The green screen shots are about as good as they get, and Cameron uses as many practical elements to give the action set pieces a very realistic weight. This is just how digital effects should be used – to aid and enhance the practicals in addition to achieving what little practicals cannot achieve. The use of practical effects adds more realistic weight to everything that I immensely appreciate.
True Lies is a very entertaining film with a fun mixture of concepts that is much lighter than your typical James Cameron fare. I think every idea he had here is solid and when it clicks, it excels beyond expectations. That is essentially the action-centric plot aspects, and while the humor is greatly well done, it dragged down the middle of the film. I honestly feel that humor works best when it’s snappy, sharp, and punctuated correctly. The comedy segments of True Lies are drawn out too long, and diverge the film away from its more exciting aspects. I believe the script could have been tightened up in that second act by shortening some of these sequences, and resulting in a sharper and more to the point second act. I do like the idea of showing the light-hearted suburban home life of this international secret agent, and the fun marital twists and turns that Harry and Helen take. However, I feel the film eventually forgets to meld its ideas together for a long period, and diverges away from the action film aspects for too long. Just when the secret agent plot was getting interesting and truly exciting, it ditches it for a good half an hour.
Regardless, I would still recommend True Lies. As I said, the action sequences are spectacular on every level showcasing the best of what Arnold can do, and demonstrating that James Cameron is one of the best directors of action out there. His dynamic visual style is wonderfully realized by Russell Carpenter’s exceptional cinematography. He didn’t work with Cameron on any other picture, but that would be hard to tell because the film has all of Cameron’s visual signatures. The blue, moody tones and great camera work with excellent close-up shots and push-ins all punctuate what you expect from James Cameron, and Carpenter truly hits it all dead on the mark. There is plenty of entertainment value to gain from True Lies, but even despite the R rating, it’s fairly light on graphic violence. So, in a way it appears more tame than previous Cameron or Schwarzenegger action films, but for the lighter tone used here, it seems more appropriate. As I said, I feel the film could benefit greatly from a tightening up of its humor, or at least, allow the secret agent action plot and the family life comedy to interweave in that second act. As it stands, the film veers off track for a good thirty minutes in the middle, and doesn’t get back on track until the terrorists burst back into the film in a rather unexplained fashion. It’s all good stuff from start to finish, but I just feel it would have worked better in a tighter package.
When I see the name Platinum Dunes attached to a horror remake, I hang my head in a wholly disheartened state. While I did enjoy their remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on its own merits, everything after that has been stuck in the mud sinking further and further into uninspired junk. I’ve given them fair chances, but they have failed in such colossal ways. The final nail in the coffin was this remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. A cluttered, drab, plodding mess is what this film turned out to be, and even not comparing it to Wes Craven’s original classic, it’s still a poorly executed film.
Five teenage friends living on one street all dream of a sinister man with a disfigured face, a frightening voice and a gardener’s glove with knives for fingers. One by one, he terrorizes them within their dreams – where the rules are his and the only way out is to wake up. But when one among them dies, they soon realize that what happens in their dreams happens for real and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. Buried in their past is a secret that has just begun to be revealed. To save themselves, they must plunge into the mind of the most twisted nightmare of all: Freddy Krueger
Okay, remaking A Nightmare On Elm Street is not an outright terrible idea. There are certainly ways to expand upon the original idea, enhance the effects, and execute it with a new, yet still effective style. Surely, a sequel could just as easily do the same, but for whatever reason, despite the massive success that was Freddy vs. Jason and the fact that Robert Englund could easily reprise his iconic role, New Line Cinema chose to just remake the original. However, no one involved in this film did anything to make this a film worth making. I think it’s easier for a franchise to recover from a bad sequel than a bad remake. With a bad sequel, you still have better moments in continuity and filmmaking efforts to build upon, and if the sequel is bad enough, like Highlander II bad, you can disassociate it from continuity. A bad remake stops progress dead in its tracks because the beginning of this new continuity is not well received, fans don’t like the direction the property was rebooted into, and the general fan base doesn’t want to see more of it. There’s next to nowhere to go, and that’s why you rarely see sequels to remakes.
Jackie Earle Haley is an excellent actor, and I have very much enjoyed him in a couple of roles. There was a potential for him to deliver something impressive and unique here. There are a few things he does that were new and original in terms of mannerisms. However, by no fault of his own, neither the script nor director gave him anything worthwhile to sink his talent into. Krueger is poorly developed as the filmmakers try to take him in a different direction, but the entire premise backfires in such a sloppy, brain dead way. Trying to suggest that Krueger was wrongfully accused and unjustly murdered could work under more talented screenwriters and filmmakers, but it’s just handled stupidly and with no forethought. However, the biggest issue, for me, was that Haley was too recognizable even under that very good make-up job. When I saw this theatrically, I had just seen Haley regularly on the Fox television series Human Target, and so, his face was very familiar to me. Even the voice he uses is essentially that of Rorschach from Watchmen with a slur. It feels like a half thought out package, at best, which is an accurate blanket statement for this entire movie.
A problem arises with the performances by its young leads. This film does quite a good job accurately portraying sleep deprivation with people being frayed, exhausted, drowsy, and essentially very drained of energy. Unfortunately, that also creates a set of performances that are drab, lifeless, and generally disinteresting. The thing is, in none of the previous Elm Street movies did I ever have a problem with the actors actually putting energy into their performances when they were meant to be sleep deprived. For one, the make-up department did their jobs in weathering the young actors to look the part, much the same is done here, but secondly, energy and conviction are exactly what are needed to make these performances not just good but engaging.
Honestly, I don’t even think the lackluster acting is the fault of the cast. There are some very strong talents here such as Rooney Mara as the film’s lead Nancy Holbrook and Thomas Dekker, who I know well from the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series. I think the blame is entirely in the hands of director Samuel Bayer. My point of proof here is Clancy Brown. Let’s put The Kurgan aside. Go watch Kathryn Bigelow’s Blue Steel, and you will see a charismatic, lively, and excellent performance by Brown in a very grounded role. The main difference is that’s Kathryn Bigelow, an Academy Award winning director who has done increasingly incredible work over the years. Samuel Bayer is making his feature film directorial debut here after almost two decades of directing nothing but music videos. This movie does look fantastic, but beyond the great visuals, there is nothing here that impresses at all. That’s what I keep seeing from all of these Platinum Dunes directors – movies that have excellent visuals and polished cinematography, but are very hollow, uninspired, and unimaginative. Music video directors know how to make a good looking product, but have next to no experience working with actors to craft anything more than superficial performances. Surely, sometimes you get a Russell Mulcahy or David Fincher, but there are far more directors like Samuel Bayer and Jonathan Liebesman that come around who just have little to no talent working with actors and drawing out a strong performance from them. They are good visual storytellers, to a degree, but lack the multi-facetted skills required to be a full-fledged filmmaker.
I think the biggest shortfall of this film is the lack of genuine suspense and tension. I was only afraid of another jump scare coming out of nowhere, and frankly, it kept me too on guard. I kept bracing myself for another cheap scare. This film just throws jump scare after jump scare after jump scare at you. It takes no talent or skill to have someone jump out of the shadows with a loud musical stinger behind it. It’s cheap and worthless. And some of the gags are so blatantly setup that I called them before they even happened. The result of all this is the fact that Freddy doesn’t feel built up enough. He’s not a looming figure screwing around with you making you squirm. He’s the boogeyman jumping out at the shadows every chance he gets like a kid on Halloween, and that’s simply a hollow, go-nowhere idea that shows the difference between a blunt, shallow filmmaker and someone like Wes Craven or James Wan who knows how to build up atmosphere, tension, suspense, and manipulate the nuanced aspects of a film to truly scare you.
Aside from the respectable, moody cinematography, I will give credit to the film in that the tone is kept serious. There is no camp humor or jokey qualities to it. The filmmakers try to keep it very solid, focused, and dramatic. Sadly, the skill of the filmmakers is too thin to hold the weight that the film should have. The entire film does feel like a product designed to grab dollars and be forgotten. There is no artistic passion behind any of it, and the quality of the story suffers for it.
As I said in a previous Elm Street movie review, I do applaud that the various filmmakers always tried to introduce new, fresh ideas into the franchise, and never just laid back on carbon copy sequels. The downside is that the new ideas haven’t always worked, and the entire plot of misdirection regarding Krueger’s possible wrongfully accused back story is poorly handled. The way Krueger acts throughout the picture doesn’t lend credence to a man who was dealt a grave injustice, but an evil, sadistic man who enjoys torturing and slaughtering people. All the while, our lead characters are running around trying to unravel a mystery that ends up being a red herring, and thus, it was all just a giant waste of the audience’s time and attention. The idea is not executed well to misdirect an audience, and there is ultimately no pay-off for it, regardless. Not to mention, it’s an extreme plot contrivance that every single one of these kids blocked out the memory of Fred Krueger and their time at that school. So, it was a potentially interesting idea, but with how short-sighted every idea is in this film, it had no hope of actually developing into anything close to its potential. That is another easy, blanket statement to apply to everything in this film.
The visual effects of this remake are really not very good. For one, there’s no excuse whatsoever for CGI blood in an A Nightmare on Elm Street movie. NONE! It looks cheap and unconvincing. There are a number of effects here that are passable, but the bad stuff really just jumps out at you. Also, this movie proves that a simple practical effect and some artistic vision trumps digital effects. The scene of Krueger pushing through the wall, which was achieved in the original with Robert Englund literally pushing himself against a latex wall above Heather Langenkamp, looks like flat, uninspired garbage in this film as a digital effect that seems like a leftover from The Frighteners. And on a similar level is Platinum Dunes’ regular composer Steve Jablonski’s score. Where Charles Bernstein’s score for the original was fresh and inspired with a perfect nursery rhyme style theme, Jablonski’s score is forgettable and entirely typical. The original Elm Street theme appears only once, and that is when the film’s title card slams onto the screen. It’s never heard again, and once again shows how little reverence these filmmakers had for the property they were dealing with.
And while the supporting cast is decently well acted, no one stands out. No one really takes the stage and defines themselves apart from anyone else. I do think it was a poor decision to not have a John Saxon style character here. A mature adult character with compassion and a level head who could carry substantial weight with him. Yes, there are actors here with that capability, but the writing and directing take no advantage of the talents that it does have to make these characters anything but mediocre, drab, and shallow. The whole film does feel like it’s playing it a little too safe, including the acting. If they pushed the boundaries further, maybe it would be more engaging and potentially scary. Craven’s original film did things that were original, new, and innovative. This remake just comes off as a tired, passionless piece of merchandise.
Quite frankly, there was no one trying on this film. They followed the script like a blueprint and just created a film as flat as the paper that script was printed on. One of Platinum Dunes’ big problems is that they keep getting music video directors who have no experience with a script, actors, or crafting scenes, only in creating a three minute long marketable image for a band. They really need to get a real director who knows how to create an engaging ninety minute story with dimensional characters and coherent plotting. Not to mention, a filmmaker who can actually make a suspenseful, scary horror film.
Greetings, everyone. As you may have noticed, the posting of new movie reviews oddly ceased last month in the middle of what was supposed to be a very productive Forever Horror Month. I do not know when or if written reviews will return to Forever Cinematic. Firstly, I have had less free time on my hands to devote to writing of any kind as I have taken on a lot more hours at my place of employment, and I regularly get only a single day off at a time. However, if the desire was still there to write these reviews, I’d find some time somewhere to make progress on ones that have sat partly finished for months now. Unfortunately, despite exposing myself to more movies this year than any previous year, and writing more reviews than ever before, the feedback, comments, and interaction on this blog have gone down considerably. Perhaps, there may still be a number of you who appreciate the reviews I have written here, but the evidence of that is almost non-existent at this point to where I feel like I’m writing for almost no one but myself.
I know that when I announced the video movie reviews earlier this year I said that they would not replace, only supplement the written ones. That has now changed. The video reviews will continue to be produced, but because of the time consuming nature of them, they will be rather infrequent most months. Frankly, the video reviews have helped build up the subscribership and exposure of the RavensFilm Productions YouTube Channel, and they have gained some very positive feedback. Also, the YouTube Channel is now monetized meaning I earn money practically anytime someone views one of those videos while the affiliate links and banners on this blog have not be prosperous at all. In every way, the YouTube videos have expanded the fanbase and given me new motivation to work harder while here on the blog, fanbase has seemingly dwindled along with my motivation to continue producing content for it.
Again, for those who have enjoyed, or at least, respected the insights and opinions I have offered here in the written word, I greatly appreciate your time and attention. The fact is that the amount of time, care, and extensive thought I put into these reviews is more than I can justify if next to no one really seems to care what I have to say in the written medium. You can continue to follow future HD video reviews on YouTube. I hope to see you there. This blog isn’t disappearing, but I can’t say if new reviews will surface again here. I never wanted to see this blog simply whimper and dry up, but the potential for a surgance is not impossible. Only time will tell.
Stallone and Schwarzenegger finally teaming up in a big action movie should be a major event, and Escape Plan seemed like it had that potential from the trailer and the general premise. In the right hands, this could have been forged into a highly entertaining and exciting film. Unfortunately, at no fault of Stallone or Schwarzenegger, Escape Plan falters in a lot of ways stemming from the fact that it’s backed by a director, screenwriters, editor, and cinematographer that really have nothing of good, special note to their credits, and that really shows.
Ray Breslin (Sulvester Stallone) is the world’s foremost authority on structural security. After analyzing every high security prison and learning a vast array of survival skills so he can design escape-proof prisons, his skills are put to the test. A new, shady job to test out a CIA prison facility goes awry when he is abducted and incarcerated in a master prison designed based on his analytical work. Once inside, he finds an ally in fellow inmate Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who agrees to help him find a way out. Now, Breslin needs to escape and find the person who put him behind bars.
This is not a bad movie, but it has a number of obvious flaws that prevent it from really capitalizing on its assets. Escape Plan’s problems really begin with the screenplay. I don’t think this movie is very well written, let alone well executed. Firstly, the film becomes so pre-occupied over and over again with showcasing Ray Breslin’s long-winded analyses and exposition of his elaborate escape plan scenarios that it sucks up valuable, extensive screentime for it. Screentime that could have been used to actually establish and develop some characters and personalities in this movie. A good screenwriter could have deconstructed these moments far better and streamlined them for a much snappier, more succinct narrative. Instead, screenwriters Miles Chapman and Jason Keller decide to overcomplicate matters to the detriment of the film. For a while it seemed like Schwarzenegger’s character was merely there to give Stallone someone to dump exposition upon because it was so bluntly handled, and it doesn’t progress too far beyond that. Anyone who has read my reviews before knows how in-depth I go into performances and characters, but there is really next to nothing to comment on about these performances. It’s not a fault of the actors, but the material they are given.
I own a good thirty movies starring Stallone and/or Schwarzenegger with Rocky III and Predator being my respective favorites of theirs. I’ve seen them in great movies and bad movies, but they’ve always delivered on their exceptional charismatic screen presences. Here, there’s just extremely little material for them to inject any charisma into because it is so entrenched in exposition. There are one or two sparks of fun chemistry between them, but it’s very fleeting when that’s exactly what should have been here in abundance. What depth of character we get is merely a few lines of dialogue talking about a single aspect of their back stories, which is just more exposition and doesn’t give us much of a personality to grasp onto. There’s more gained from Breslin than Rottmayer, but it’s very marginal. The fact of the matter is that the script is very flat and unimaginative. If Stallone and Schwarzenegger were not cast in this movie, I don’t think I’d care to maintain any attention on Breslin or Rottmayer at all because the screenwriters do nothing to actually create any characters to care about.
However, even if the characters aren’t all that interesting or dimensional like Marion Cobretti or John Matrix, if the film they are placed into is exciting and entertaining enough with clever, sharp dialogue, it can still work and bring out the better qualities of the actor. Unfortunately, while Escape Plan maintains a solid pacing that doesn’t make it feel like a nearly two hour long movie, the action is very minimal. There are some prison riots, a few beat downs, and an attempted prison break or two, but in terms of straight up action like shootouts and fights with the villains, there’s very little until the climax. The film was a decent, easy watch, but never did anything ever come out and blow me away. There are even points in time where it seemed like it was edging towards something purely awesome, but then, it comes up quite short. So many things factor into that including some poorly structured and executed sequences.
To that point, the editing in many cases is very incoherent. The prime examples are that there are montages of sorts showing Breslin getting tortured, or simply showing his plans going into motion. These sequences are so sloppily edited that I couldn’t understand the narrative or linear flow through them at all. They’re a real mess of chronology that was quite confusing. Tying into that is the flat, bland direction that really never gives life to the proceedings of the plot. Intercutting between The Tomb and Breslin’s team throughout the second act just felt clunky and uneven. There’s little coherency or urgency put into what Breslin’s team is doing to give a crap about them. They ultimately don’t do crap until the last three minutes of the movie, anyway. And those characters are poorly conceived and flatly written to be either very obvious or simply not worth devoting your attention or interest in. Again, the actors aren’t bad, they just have crap to work with. Scenes are just strung together very haphazardly giving you a lack of context, narrative flow, or natural segues. While I’m certain that a better editor couldn’t have radically improved this movie, it at least would have made it far more coherent and smoother.
Now, the only real shining quality of this movie, which is also the one person who seems to be having a delightfully fun time, is Jim Caviezel. His villain of Warden Hobbs is very charismatic, smarmy, and particularly sadistic, but Caviezel avoids going over the top. He keeps it low key and fairly subtle while still delivering an especially enjoyable adversary. He definitely was putting his full commitment into this role, and he embraces it with plenty of imagination and zeal. I love the little nuances he adds to Hobbs such as being very meticulous in his appearance and manner. Caviezel is an actor I really like I lot from The Count of Monté Cristo to Outlander to Person of Interest, and seeing him as a villain here is wonderfully entertaining. He made the movie particularly enjoyable, and Vinnie Jones does quite a charismatic job as Hobbs’ right hand man Drake. There’s also an unexpected appearance by Sam Neill as the prison doctor. He also does a fine job with what little he is given to do. It’s clearly another case of having an actor I really like making the role any bit enjoyable or interesting for me.
Escape Plan attempts to have some semblances of plot twists or turns, but some are so obviously telegraphed or simply amount to nothing that you wonder what the point was. I believe to have a good movie you really have to start with a good script, and this movie didn’t have one. Even then, this film needed a far better, more talented director to maximize its potential. If you handed this project over to a highly experienced action director like Renny Harlin, John McTiernan, Walter Hill, or, if he were still alive, George P. Cosmatos, I think this could have had some potential for success. They would have molded and refined the story and given it the competency and life it needed. They also would have tailored the script to the strengths of it leads so that charisma and personality could have lived and thrived on screen. Alas, we are left with the movie we have, which is probably good for a rental, but not much better. There’s no need to see Escape Plan on the big screen, unfortunately.
So, over twenty years later Rick Rosenthal would return to the Halloween franchise for this entry. I honestly have never liked Halloween: H20 for a multitude of reasons, and I don’t wish to sit through it again to review it. Thus, I was so immensely glad that this film promptly retconned the ending of that movie, and allowed for Michael Myers to live again and not die like a punk. I know there are those who disagree with that feeling, but so be it. While I do find this sequel enjoyable to a degree, it does have valid issues to critique about it.
For the first broadcast of the new reality website Dangertainment, a group of college students are hired to explore the ruins of the house of infamous murderer Michael Myers. Six cash-strapped friends decide to explore the home, but what they don’t know is that Michael is on his way home back to Haddonfield after a fateful confrontation with his sister Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). Now, being broadcast across the internet, these unsuspecting victims will fall prey to Myers’ methodical blade.
If this movie was made ten years later, it probably would have been a found footage horror movie. Very little would have to change to accommodate that approach, but thankfully, that’s not the case here. I can understand why this story idea was used. This is the eighth movie in this franchise, including Season of the Witch, and a studio is going to feel like they need a fresh gimmick to drive in audiences. Paramount felt the same thing when they made Jason Takes Manhattan. The problem is that these ideas are usually not all that favorable with audiences. I love slasher movies, but I do like someone doing something fresh with the formula every so often. Frankly, I think Halloween: Resurrection executes this idea as well as it can be. In fact, it has some strangely honest commentary on reality television. Dangertainment mocks up the entire Myers house with false clues about Michael’s upbringing because they know actual reality is boring. No one would watch a bunch of people wandering through an empty house. The head of the company, Freddie Harris, has to dress it up and create an illusion and sell it as reality so to make it entertaining. I like that the Freddie character does come around to denouncing that illusion and the using of Michael Myers as a sound bite to drive viewership up. It shows an effort on the part of the filmmakers to make something of the premise, which is indeed dated. Halloween: Resurrection might be far from the pinnacle of this franchise, but it’s far more consistent than the rushed mess of The Revenge of Michael Myers.
If you watched the trailer for this you might believe that Jamie Lee Curtis had a larger role in it than she really does. Her story is confined to the opening sequence at a psychiatric hospital where she has her final confrontation with Michael. A quick summation at the film’s start states that Michael Myers had switched outfits with a paramedic before the last film’s climax, and it was that poor soul with a crushed larynx that Laurie decapitated. What ensues in this opening sequence with Laurie and Michael puts the storyline to rest. I’m sure there are fans who did not like this at all, possibly as much as I hated the ending of H20, but taken on its own merits, it is a well done sequence that is to the point. Laurie doesn’t go out in a blaze of glory, but really, you shouldn’t set your expectations that high for this movie. It’s just not that ambitious.
I do really like the look of this sequel. It makes great use of atmospheric lighting. It has the polish of a major studio feature, but Rosenthal and his cinematographer just know how give it that shadowy, moody quality. True to the John Carpenter roots, there’s some very solid use of blues and fine steadicam work. The video camera footage of the internet broadcast is about what you’d expect in the pre-high definition digital era. We get more and more of it as the film progresses, and you could take it or leave it depending on your disposition towards it. It has some effectiveness in certain sparse moments for us to see things from the characters’ point of views, which is evocative of the found footage genre like The Blair Witch Project had already shown, but there’s nothing special to witness here in that regard.
The biggest highlight of this movie is that I absolutely LOVE the score by Danny Lux. I honestly believe it is the best score of the sequels. Lux adds a heavier punctuation to the familiar themes, and overall, he crafts a more haunting, partially gothic aura to the film. It’s a score that really soars far above the quality of the film it is attached to. Regardless of what you think of this movie, you should definitely give this score a standalone listen. It is immensely effective. Danny Lux does an amazing job with it.
Now, I don’t think this is a bad cast. For the most part, they do come off as fairly standard slasher film fodder, but this cast does seem like they are putting forth an honest effort. Each one tries to make their character enthusiastic, charismatic, and somewhat entertaining. There’s no real standout, but everyone essentially delivers a performance of a consistent, equal level. I wouldn’t say this new cast features anything approaching greatness, but it’s good for the expectations you would likely have.
Bianca Kajlich does well in making Sara a relatable and sympathetic lead. There’s very little to the character, same with everyone, but there’s enough of a decent, vulnerable person in her performance for it to work. She has this internet based relationship with the high school freshman Myles. Through that, they’ve built a foundation of trust and friendship, and it plays fairly well into the movie near the climax. Ryan Merriman is endearing as Myles. He’s definitely the audience’s conduit into having sympathy for the victims. He and his friends are at a Halloween party watching the online stream of the Myers house expedition, and witness the horror as it progresses with little to be able to do about it. Despite Myles and Sara being strictly internet pals, Merriman does a fine job creating an emotional connection between both characters. It’s almost a shame that the film never allows them to actually see each other face-to-face.
The role of Freddie Harris is indeed filled by Busta Rhymes. Clearly, he didn’t need to be in this movie, but I will give him credit that he doesn’t slack off. He portrays a role that’s within his ability as a charismatic salesman, but also does a fine job with the more fearful, regretful moments later in the film. We surely could have done without the Kung Fu fight against Michael, but at least the filmmakers did enough to set it up earlier on. In the fiery climax, he’s certainly played up for the sake of his fans, and it does feel rather out of place. You might as well have Arnold Schwarzenegger charge in there for as much as its played like an action hero moment. It would be essentially the same effect.
The role of The Shape is filled by Brad Loree who I feel does a decent job. It’s definitely Dick Warlock inspired, but not quite so rigid. His performance is simply okay. It doesn’t standout, the same as the rest of the cast, but it works fine for the demands of this film. Also, while he is listed as 6’2”, I think the baggy coveralls make him appear smaller in stature than he likely really is. The mask for his Michael Myers could have done with a little less airbrushing detail, but really, no sequel has really gotten the mask to look right compared to the original film. I’m not sure why that’s been so difficult.
The most important question, though, is if this film is scary. Well, it has the potential to be depending on how weathered of a horror fan you are. Rick Rosenthal really does a lot to set a strong visual atmosphere conducive to scaring an audience. There are plenty of spooky moments of Michael Myers lurking in the shadows, only seen in glimpses. It certainly has moments that could scare certain people, but generally speaking, it’s not going to do much for the seasoned horror fan. Especially ten years on, with the far more intense films we’ve gotten in this genre, regardless of your preference, Halloween: Resurrection is fairly tame. Even John Carpenter’s original is not really an effective horror film anymore to me, but I respect it immensely on every artistic level. It is, after all, the movie review of mine that launched Forever Cinematic in the first place.
The Halloween franchise is kind of a mess. There are a lot of subjective ups and downs depending on what storylines you enjoy. For me, I really liked where things were potentially going with the sixth film, The Curse of Michael Myers, mainly in its Producer’s Cut form, but so much tanked that potential resulting in Halloween: H20. I hated that film for killing the continuity and storyline that I loved, and intending to dispatch Michael Myers in an unimaginative, bullheaded fashion. This sequel ultimately feels like a weak whimper trying to extend the bankability of the franchise just a little further without enough ambition or unique talent to elevate it. It just tries to be a fun slasher flick, and if you take it as that, it’s fine. I can sit down and burn ninety minutes with it on a whim, but it’s entirely forgettable and dismissible. Aside from the potentially divisive opening with Laurie’s death, it really plays it safe with an either fun or lame premise. Essentially, you can take this film or leave it. If it’s on cable, and you’ve just time to kill, it’s a decent watch. I would like to give it a better recommendation, but knowing that there are a some far stronger films in this franchise, I can’t give it any further credit than this.
There has been one conspicuous omission from my reviews of the Halloween franchise, and it is this first sequel. The reason for this is, one, I have never really written a full review of it before, and secondly, I’ve never really cared for it at all. This stems from the fact that it has very little to offer me as either a fan of John Carpenter’s original or as a big slasher movie fan. Simply said, so much of it just doesn’t appeal to me. From the reworked score to the bland hospital environment to the clear shift from atmospheric horror to a reliance on gore, this isn’t the Halloween sequel that I want to see. Even the ones that are technically worse films, they have an entertainment value that I can indulge in on some level. There are many reasons why this film doesn’t even give me that much.
Picking up exactly where the first film left off, it seems the inhuman Michael Myers is still very much alive and out for more revenge as he stalks the deserted halls of the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital for Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). As he gets closer to his main target, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) discovers the chilling mystery behind the crazed psychopath’s actions
It might sound somewhat unfair, but the vast majority of my gripes with this film are in comparison to John Carpenter’s original. However, with the fact that this film picks up exactly where the first left off, it demands that comparison because it is trying to convince us that this is a seamless continuation of that movie. The problem is that it doesn’t feel seamless in many aspects, and they are largely on the technical side. Still, there are issues with the quality of the script, and just the effectiveness of Halloween II as a horror movie that I wish to address.
To be straight up honest, I do not like the score for this movie at all. Yes, they are the same themes with John Carpenter and Alan Howarth doing the score, but the overly saturated synthesizer sound has never been to my liking. It doesn’t sound like a horror movie score to me. It sounds silly and over bloated. The first film’s score felt far more subtle and artistically applied. To me, the score for Halloween II just evokes no sense of tension, suspense, or chilling atmosphere for me. There are many instances where a strategic use of score could have been utilized to craft great suspense and nerve-racking tension, but instead, it’s dead silent. This score relies more heavily on the musical stingers, and feels poorly implemented overall. Carpenter’s scores usually craft a brilliant soundscape for a unique auditory experience, but there seems to be a significant lack of score in the moments where it should flourish.
Now, this is a very well shot movie, done so again by acclaimed director of photography Dean Cundey. It has some very good lighting schemes in certain scenes, and the continued use of the Pana-glide camera work is excellent. Director Rick Rosenthal does make an effort to emulate John Carpenter’s visual style, but I have always felt that the color palette of Halloween II was never quite right when compared to the first film. The hospital interiors feature a terribly bland color scheme, as most hospitals do, and because of this, it doesn’t have any of the visual pop of the first movie. There are no daytime scenes to soak in that late autumn feeling as this is all set at night, and really, it feels like it could be any night of the year. The film also lacks the atmospheric blue tones that Cundey used in the original as well as several other films he’s shot. Also, when I look at this film in certain instances, the lighting just doesn’t look quite right. The feeling, the mood, the balance of light and dark, at times, doesn’t feel consistent with the first film. This is especially evident when new footage is spliced into the revisited footage from the ending of Halloween. It’s not even knowing that it is new footage married with old footage. Back to the Future, Part II did this sort of thing seamlessly, and was also shot by Dean Cundey. These issues, I think, also stem from the fact that the first movie was a late 1970’s independently produced film while this is an early 1980’s studio produced sequel. It is inevitably going to have a slightly different visual feel due to extra money, studio mandates, a shift in filmmaking aesthetics, and a change of directors.
Even then, Rick Rosenthal’s film was tampered with by the studio and Carpenter as they felt it was too tame in comparison to other recent slasher films. While I can see the clear evidence of that since there is a definite lack of suspense, although much of that is, again, due to the absence of a score in key scenes, this is a sequel that didn’t stay true to its predecessor. Yes, of course, this is a slasher film that is going to follow many of the tropes of the genre which were originated in Halloween. However, this sequel feels like it’s trying to fit in with the Friday The 13th style slasher film craze instead of staying true to the Halloween style slasher. The genre exploded after the success of Friday The 13th, and it became very indulgent in gore and sexuality. It essentially became exploitative in that regard, and this film embraced that mentality whereas Halloween was a film built entirely on suspense and atmosphere. There is some suspense here, but it is especially sparse. Instead of holding to what made Halloween successful and effective in the first place, Halloween II tries to conform to what was popular at the time, and thus, feels second rate to me. Rick Rosenthal tries to match Carpenter’s style in many regards, but then, Carpenter comes in and tries to veer it away from what he originally did. It’s certainly not a film that is one director’s vision, and even then, Rosenthal isn’t given much to work with to make this as good as the first movie. I really didn’t get the feeling that there was enough creative effort put into this film to make it succeed in the creative vein.
One of the bigger problems here is that Halloween II feels scattered. The first film had a distinct plot progression as elements gradually converged with one another in a tight, cohesive way. This sequel is extremely loose in that regard. Laurie is essentially a stationary target throughout the movie, spending a good chunk of it asleep or screaming, but Michael Myers roams about the hospital killing everyone else while Loomis is out scouring the streets for Michael. No longer is Loomis in sync with his prey anticipating his psychology and instinctual impulses. He’s tagging along with the police instead of driving the narrative forward. Even the majority of his dialogue feels retreaded from the first movie as he re-explains the history of himself and Michael, and his talk about evil incarnate. It entirely feels like it is only there in case someone watching this movie never saw the first one. Even Donald Pleasance seems a tad monotonous delivering this reworked dialogue. While his performance is still of a high quality, there’s just nothing new for him to do here. The film also hardly feels like it’s building any momentum. John Carpenter reportedly had a very difficult time coming up with a story for this film while writing the script, and it really does show. Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode have next to nothing to do here except uncover newly conceived secrets about Michael and Laurie’s past, which amounts to nothing. There’s no mounting tension heading into the third act, and Laurie’s chase scene earlier on is very mild and slow paced. This film doesn’t offer a sense of escalating threat until the last few minutes before Loomis engulfs himself and Michael in an inferno. The pacing is very monotonous because the story is very loose and lacks directional momentum.
The supporting characters here are mostly a lot of interchangeable hospital staff going about their mundane duties getting killed, and an audience likely couldn’t care less about any one of them. They feel like standard, hollow slasher film fodder, but without even the crutch of a stereotype to make them funny or entertaining. Carpenter’s original was smartly and greatly cast filling out very lively characters, but here, there are just so many throwaway characters with very little personality that very little care was needed to put together a memorable supporting cast. Even Sheriff Brackett vanishes from the film after learning of his daughter’s death, and so, we get new police officers who have really nothing fresh or pertinent to contribute to the story.
And it really is a shame that Jamie Lee Curtis got hooked into doing this film. It is an utter waste of her talents. She spends the majority of the film either laying in a hospital bed, running away from Michael Myers, or hiding in a parked car. This is a sequel that brings people back to simply do nothing new or challenging. To me, it’s another sign that there was a lack of creative drive behind this. Every character feels either generic or wasted. Also, since Jamie Lee Curtis had since adopted a shorter hairstyle, she had to be fitted with this blatantly obvious bad wig. This just further adds to the nagging inconsistencies between the two films.
Now, I know there are people who are fans of Dick Warlock’s Shape, but I have never liked his lethargic, robotic movements at all. If this movie is supposed to pick up at the exact moment the first left off, there should have been a demand for consistency. Nick Castle’s Shape moved with a relentless fluidity. He felt like a shark hunting his prey with a fierce single-minded focus. Warlock is so horribly stiff that I see no ferocity or cunning intellect here. Before, Michael’s actions had a clearly evident intelligence and deliberateness behind them. He stalked his prey with patience and purpose. He observed them before striking. Here, he just shows up and starts killing like a mindless machine, and to me, that’s just not interesting or intriguing at all. Warlock is a great stuntman, but as Michael Myers, he does nothing good for me.
I can appreciate some bad slasher movies because many of them at least show that they are trying. Their end result might not be creatively successful, but the filmmakers put forth a visible effort to make a somewhat effective horror film. For me, Halloween II doesn’t even give me that much. I find it to be a very dull, bland, and boring slasher movie. It has none of the atmospheric tension or magic that John Carpenter harnessed for the first movie, and the story is very lazy even for a slasher film. I think Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is the vastly superior sequel in every aspect. Also, released the same year, I passionately believe that Friday The 13th, Part 2 is one of the best slasher films ever made. I don’t hate Halloween II. It just doesn’t do enough either way to motivate a passionate response from me. Any other films in this franchise I don’t end up reviewing are simply because I don’t wish to subject myself to them again or even for the first time.
I don’t think any of the sequels to The Howling have a good reputation, and that’s quite clear from this very first one. You cannot take this movie seriously, which goes under either the subtitle of Your Sister is a Werewolf or Stirba Werewolf Bitch, neither of which can be taken very seriously either. However, you can have a vastly inferior sequel that is surely not a good film still be a greatly entertaining one. If you want to trade scares for some stupid werewolf action then Howling II might be for you.
After countless millennia of watching, waiting and stalking, the unholy creatures known as werewolves are poised to inherit the earth. After newscaster Karen White’s shocking on-screen transformation and violent death, her brother Ben (Reb Brown) is approached by Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee), a mysterious man who claims that Karen has, in fact, become a werewolf. But this is the least of their worries as to save mankind, Stefan and Ben must travel to Transylvania to battle and destroy Stirba (Danning), the immortal queen of all werewolves, before she is restored to her full powers!
I honestly don’t know how this film was approached as a sequel to The Howling. Practically no effort is put into making it feel or look like a natural continuation of that story in that world with those characters. Howling II can only be described as seemingly taking place in the B-movie alternate universe of the first movie to where artistic brilliance and visionary storytelling is replaced with as much “new wave” music inspired flash and cheesy goofiness as possible. Just how they recreate the ending of the last film as a lost piece of news broadcast footage says enough with horrendous makeup effects and an actress who bares zero resemblance to Dee Wallace. Sadly, that’s just a taste of what’s to come.
Some of the editing in this movie is just bad. Certain sequences are choppy, have little coherence to the action that is occurring, and frankly, just comes off like a perplexed mess at times. The plot is much the same. Much of it is rather laughable changing werewolf lore for silly reasons. These werewolves apparently have no vulnerability to silver, and titanium must be used. Of course, stakes through the heart and holy water being some of the weapons of choice here clearly reek more of a botched up vampire screenplay than a werewolf one. So, yeah, this wasn’t a screenplay with much thought put into it, but how stupid this thing is along with some of the performances simply turns this around to being entertainingly bad. The first movie really did, reportedly, throw out a lot of what was in Gary Brandner’s novel, and if his work on the screenplay for this film is any indication, it was likely all for the best. The quality of this sequel is not built on its execution, but the script itself and the ideas it conjures up. You really can’t watch Joe Danté’s original movie followed by this and see any correlation of tone, concept, or artistic quality between them. Howling II is simply pure 1980’s cheesy entertainment value. Scares don’t factor into it, just a lot of jovial laughs because the movie is played so straight.
As ludicrous as the film makes itself out to be, when you have Christopher Lee unloading all of this exposition it’s hard not to buy into it all. With Lee being as stoic and imposing ever, the silliness of the movie is simply enhanced to higher levels of awesomeness. Whether he’s Count Dracula, a Dark Lord of the Sith, Saruman, or anything else, Lee sells every role he takes on with total earnestness and theatricality. That is no different with his performance as Stefan. Of everyone here, he plays it the most dead straight, and is the most awesome because of it. However, when he was cast in Gremlins 2, Christopher Lee apologized to director Joe Danté for having starred in this silly sequel to his remarkable film. That’s some class right there.
Mostly going for broke through his enjoyably non-dimensional acting talents is Reb Brown. His reactions to Stefan’s exposition is probably the same as the audience’s – total, eye-rolling disbelief. It makes for some funny moments, but it’s really when Reb delves headlong into his guttural screams as he blasts away with a shotgun at this film’s sad excuses for werewolves that his base level entertainment value comes to light. A good performance? Not by a long shot, but like so much here, it’s all a lot of bad junk that compiles into a raucous fun time.
Of course, rounding out the cult following cast is Sybil Danning who is here simply to add a busty sexy appeal, and she surely excels at that. However, the werewolf sex scene in this film is purely gratuitous while being entirely unappealing to look at. Whereas the first film made it a great melding of eroticism and primal terror, this sequel just throws in a sex scene for the hell of it and decides to glue a ton of cheap furry makeup on the actors. Aside from Danning ripping off her top, there’s nothing worth seeing in this sequence, and you can stick around for the end credits to see that bare-breasted moment repeated a total of sixteen times.
The werewolf effects in this sequel are not close to being even second rate when compared to Rob Bottin’s amazing work on the first film. They are cheap and often cheesy. Most times, the filmmakers try to disguise them through all the terrible rapid fire, incoherent editing, or by having people be chased by a steadicam point of view shot. Unfortunately, there’s no real hiding substandard quality like this. These bad makeup effects, along with a couple of cheap visual effects, are yet another thing that makes this movie as enjoyably bad as it is.
I suppose the one genuinely good thing in Howling II is the new wave rock main theme by Babel, which is repeated every few minutes. It’s a really catchy tune, and so, it’s not at all a burden to hear again and again and again. However, what score there is beyond that isn’t much worth noting. I’ll also say that the movie is fairly well shot with some good production values and art direction. So, it’s not a poor film to look at. It really is just some of the sloppy editing that makes so much look incompetent.
Like I said, there is nothing here that is remotely scary, but when the shotgun blasting, titanium stake stabbing, and magic wielding action begins, it’s quite enjoyable in all its over-the-top cheesiness. Seeing Christopher Lee and Reb Brown standing back-to-back gunning down crappy looking werewolves is about as much fun as it sounds. Howling II is a terrible sequel to the visionary original, but if you take it as it is in being a film that feels like it exists in an entirely different universe than the first, you can have a lot of fun watching it. It’s just pure B-movie indulgence.
Good werewolf movies are difficult to come by. Most just don’t find a way to make them interesting, alluring, or entertaining like vampire films are more easily able to do. However, there are a few universally accepted classics of this subgenre, and this 1981 film from director Joe Danté based on the novel by Gary Brandner is indeed one of them. For me, it’s a movie that’s taken some time to get into. The first time I rented it on VHS I was working twelve hour shifts to the early morning hours, and fell asleep halfway through, same as with The Amityville Horror. This time, I gave it my full attention and patience.
Severely shaken after a near-fatal encounter with a serial killer, TV newscaster Karen White (Dee Wallace) takes some much-needed time off. Hoping to conquer her inner demons, she heads for “the Colony,” a secluded retreat where her new neighbors are just a tad too eager to make her feel at home. Also, there seems to be a bizarre link between her would-be attacker and this supposedly safe haven. And when, after nights of being tormented by savage shrieks and unearthly cries, Karen ventures into the forest to find answers, she makes a terrifying discovery. Now she must fight not only for her life, but for her very soul.
The Howling is an extremely slow burn film. Joe Danté gives you only the vaguest of teases early on hiding his ravenous creatures in the shadows and brief glimpses, which can be effective. The best execution of this is in the first act of the film where Karen encounters Eddie, the supposed serial killer portrayed by Robert Picardo. The use of darkness, suspense, and subtle backlight is a brilliant work of art. However, my suspicions from way back on first viewing were right in that we don’t see a werewolf in all its full glory until well past the halfway point in the movie. Until then, Danté takes the time to utilize some psychological aspects as Karen is haunted by her experience with Eddie. She is hit with nightmares and startling visions that heighten her fear and paranoia. This film is a bit of give and take. You certainly go into this wanting to see the werewolves reeking havoc often, but you have to wait a very, very long time to get to that point. However, once you do, the pay-off is excellent as Danté doesn’t hold back anything.
Many would know the special make-up effects work of Rob Bottin from John Carpenter’s The Thing, but that would be another year after this picture. Here, he creates some of the most amazing werewolf effects ever. Everything is so lifelike with very fine details and textures in addition to very elaborate methods used in the transformation sequences. Today, it would all be digital effects, but in 1981, you needed a practical effects master to realize something of this stunning vision of horror. The full size werewolves are wholly frightening as they tower probably at a good seven feet tall with every ferocious quality imaginable. What Bottin accomplished here will truly unnerve and terrify many. How he did it on a $1.5 million budget, even in 1981 dollars, just floors me.
This is also one of the absolutely most beautifully shot horror films I’ve ever seen. Joe Danté and his cinematographer John Hora utilize some very inspired camera angles and compositions. However, the most gorgeous aspects are the brilliant backlighting and the use of colored gels to create a wonderful haunting atmosphere. There are films that are simply shot in color, and then, there are films that utilize color in remarkable ways. The Howling is truly the latter as these reds, blues, and greens highlight the creepy and eerie moments like fine brush strokes of artistic inspiration.
The Howling does more than simply give you werewolves slashing and gnawing on humans. Firstly, it has some satire on the entire self-help movement. Trying to aid those afflicted with being a werewolf with therapy and a push towards integration into society is handled with the right kind of wit without being comical. Joe Danté definitely has that talent to fuse horror and humor such as with Gremlins, but he keeps things on point with the horror and barely diminishes that at all. Furthermore, this film gives us a strange but perfectly executed mix of sensuality and terror in one sex sequence. Once again, the artistic beauty of the film is on display as two people engage in sexual activity at a campfire, but as the act becomes more virile, the beats within are unleashed and they begin to transform. What begins as very erotic turns into a frightening, primal act that still gets the heart pumping. This is a very tantalizing and compelling sequence melding these two things together in a very provocative way.
The cast of this horror classic is jam packed with excellent acting talents such as Dee Wallace, Patrick Macnee, John Carradine, Kevin McCarthy, Robert Picardo, Noble Willingham, Dick Miller, and several others. Every single one of them does a solid job bringing forth the distinct qualities of their characters’ personalities. In particular, Dee Wallace leads the film with the right level of vulnerability and traumatic unease. The fear the audience regularly feels is channeled through her performance, and the journey her character goes through in this results in a unforgettable conclusion. Also very notable is Robert Picardo proving yet again that I know he’s a great actor. What he does as the supposed serial killer Eddie is tremendous and dead-on-the-mark showing a very subtle intimidation factor with his restrained charisma and clear full fledged absorption of this character into himself. He also acts through all the wickedly good make-up with exceptional ease. He might have only a few brief scenes, but he really becomes one of the most memorable things about this cast.
The ending of The Howling is fantastic and frightening. First off, the entire third act is just excellent every step of the way as we finally get our full helping of werewolf awesomeness in a hair-raising escape sequence. However, what comes after that when Karen returns to the television studio for her news report is exceptionally tragic and clever. What she sets out to accomplish with her live report is smartly turned on its head by these filmmakers. Almost no one believes what they see and dismiss it as a high quality fabrication. They believe it to be spectacle instead of the raw, chilling reality that it is. The film concludes on a very signature Joe Danté beat of wit and humor. He has always been a unique filmmaker infusing a special, unmatched blend of the bizarre and the humorous with excellent results.
Now, is The Howling a horror movie for everyone? Maybe not. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t enjoy sitting around for fifty minutes before we get a real good look at a werewolf, which I honestly had an issue with. After Karen’s early encounter with Eddie, there’s very little horror or suspense to engage you on the horror movie level until you’re more than halfway through the movie. The characters and performances are perfectly fine to move the plot forward in the interim, but there’s hardly anything to get your heart pounding with terror in that time. However, I appreciate the artistic brilliance of this film, and anything that doesn’t quite work for me is possibly more attributed to just not being quite my style. I also wholly endorse teasing us with the werewolves, much like Ridley Scott did with his creature in Alien. Build up suspense with it, and then, once you finally reveal it, you’ve got a great, startling moment of awe. This is a remarkably well made movie, and one that absolutely has its rabid fan base that I entirely respect. Whether or not the slow, slow build up and reveal is to your taste, this is one of those horror essentials you need to see. The pay-off for that build-up is definitely well worth the wait, and seeing what practical effects could achieve back in the day will show you what CGI has almost never been able to replicate.
In the early 2000s, Sylvester Stallone was struggling to rebuild himself from some of his cheesy action movies of the 90s, and these efforts didn’t all meet with much success. Get Carter is a remake of a 1971 film of the same name starring Michael Caine in the title role, and this remake was received with negative criticism and a poor box office take. However, I saw this film on opening weekend, and I have very much liked it ever since. Having still not seen the original movie, I imagine I have the ability to view it much more objectively. Still, almost any movie promising Sylvester Stallone in a fist fight with Mickey Rourke and a hilarious John C. McGinley is pretty cool to begin with, but I honestly feel the film has a lot of worthwhile merit in many regards.
His name is Jack Carter, and you don’t want to know him. When it’s your time to settle your debts, you pay what you owe, or Carter will make you pay. While working for the mob in Las Vegas, Carter (Sylvester Stallone) learns that his brother has died, and returns home to Seattle in order to learns the how’s and why’s. His brother left behind a wife, Gloria (Miranda Richardson), and a teenage daughter, Doreen (Rachel Leigh Cook), which Jack feels he must now take care of since he was not around when it mattered most. Though, when digging into the death of his brother, Jack comes to suspect that is was no accident, and that someone has to pay up.
Now, what even some of the middle of the road reviews gave credit to was that Stallone is solid as Jack Carter, and I enthusiastically agree. I really like that Jack is a guy who carries a weight of regret with him to where he has this post-facto sense of responsibility. He might be a guy who beats people up for a crime syndicate, but there’s a certain moral compass to Jack which Stallone grasps onto perfectly. There’s a lot of subtlety to his performance showing the superb reversal on the over-the-top action hero roles of Judge Dredd or Demolition Man. He brings with him a low key presence of intimidation, but still finds those moments of clever signature Stallone charm and wit. Jack Carter has a warm heart and compassion for those he cares about, and this comes so very naturally to Stallone. There’s such a great depth of dimension to what he does here. Sly gives us a complex character who intensifies the emotional drive of the film. It’s also amazing seeing how bulked up Stallone got for this movie. He’s larger than ever, and it really works for Jack’s tough, bad ass presence. Yet, it is that softer side of Jack Carter that really impresses as he shows a lot of pain after a certain point really hitting you deep in the heart, and that translates into a venomous vengeful determination in the film’s third act. It’s an awesome, compelling performance by Sylvester Stallone that amazingly reminds you that he can be a stunning, complex actor. I think it’s one of his best performances since First Blood.
A lot of the depth of heart and substance is carried on through Miranda Richardson and Rachel Leigh Cook. Richardson is great as Gloria who is in this constant uncertainty about Jack. At times she can confide in him about her problems with Doreen, but at other times, can condemn Jack for bringing further trouble upon them and being absent from their lives until Richie died. Richardson has pitch perfect chemistry with Stallone standing strong on her own while showing the emotional turmoil inside. Meanwhile, Cook very easily endears herself to Jack and an audience with some sad sweetness and sympathetic charm. As certain things are revealed, and far more tragic layers are peeled back from Doreen, Cook is really able to demonstrate the soul of her heartbreaking talent. It really ends up being the pulsating emotional core of this film.
I really like the scenes between Stallone and Mickey Rourke. These are two actors who genuinely seem like they enjoyed working off each other. They’ve got the right rhythm and chemistry that these two characters should have being old acquaintances and all. Rourke has the right charisma and air of sleaze as Cyrus Paice which makes him very entertaining to watch, but also, a real piece of scum that you want to see get busted up by the end. Rourke and Stallone are two buffed up bulls ready to lock horns regularly, and when they do finally trade punches, it’s a straight up bad ass brawl.
Anyone who loves John C. McGinley’s comedy work would also love him here. He plays Con McCarty, an associate of Jack’s in the Las Vegas syndicate, and I swear he ad-libbed the majority of his dialogue. It is just so brilliantly quick witted, off the cuff, and hilarious that he’s an utter, endless joy. It’s a performance like this which shows that this is a film that is interested in balancing the heavyweight drama with sharp beats of levity. And Alan Cumming is quite good as the geeky wet rag dot-com millionaire of Jeremy Kinnear who has gotten in way too damn deep with seedy individuals. He is a pleasure to watch in this role as Stallone looms over him with his brute intimidation. Of course, Michael Caine does a fine job in a somewhat small role as Richie’s now former employer, and Caine and Stallone have some solid scenes together. Apparently, even Caine endorsed Stallone as a respectable successor to his original role, and including him in this cast was a really nice touch.
I really adore the look of this film from director of photography Mauro Fiore. It’s soaked in this somber tone of overcast gloom of blues and greens that really absorb you into the tone of the movie. Director Stephen Kay really pushed hard to have this filmed in Seattle, and the beauty of the rain soaked city makes the film feel a little more unique. There’s also some unconventional style to Get Carter that might not work for many films, but all of the artistic flourishes really meld together beautifully, in my opinion. The strategic slow motion beats add a sense of grace to the photography, and Fiore moves the camera extremely competently with plenty of steadicam. I like that when Jack’s whole world turns upside down so does the camera accentuating a particularly unique filmmaking style that I really like here. There is some stylish editing with a few jumpy cuts, flash frames, and speed changes. I could see how some would find that irritating, but I really got absorbed into the mindset of this movie. Stephen Kay uses these stylistic choices to slip you into a character’s perception such as Jack’s world fracturing. Get Carter was edited by Academy Award winner Jerry Greenberg who also edited The French Connection, Apocalypse Now, Kramer vs. Kramer, and Scarface. Here, he superbly executes Stephen Kay’s vision right from the opening credits sequence onward.
There is a great, moody collection of music here in addition to Tyler Bates’ unique and stylish score. The original theme for the 1971 film by Roy Budd is utilized and remixed for this remake, and it is a beautiful composition that just tingles my senses. There are some techno tracks infusing some dance club style vibes into the movie. I particularly love the ethereal Moby track during the funeral scene. All of this music creates a very soulful or energized originality to this film that melds well with its visual stylings.
There is some really well put together action including a couple of very smart, tense car chases. Action directors who love their shaky cam could learn something from this film. Stephen Kay does make use of some unsteady photography and tight framing, but the editing is properly paced so to not confuse an audience. There are quick cuts, but because the lighting is clear, the compositions are just right using good angles, it all works. The latter car chase is really great, and it has a really cool stunt crash at the end. Yet, while there is exciting action, this film maintains that emotional and character based focus as Jack Carter delves further into the seedy underbelly of Seattle.
When Jack goes into full-on revenge mode, this movie gets dead-on bad ass. The grit really surfaces in the visual style and Stallone’s performance. Everything gets pretty dark and intense as Jack deals out his sense of personal justice in violent, sometimes lethal ways. This is a revenge movie driven by a lot of emotional depth and substance. Jack is going to clean out the trash, but the mending of emotional wounds is just as important to him, if not more so. It’s all wrapped up in his personal sense of obligation to the extended family he’s neglected, and a need to prove to himself and others that he can be a better man than his history has shown. There’s also a subplot where Jack Carter is involved with the syndicate boss’ woman back in Vegas, and this runs through the film a little. It’s another emotional tether that puts stress upon Jack especially when Con is sent to “take care of business” with much intended finality. Most revenge movies are just about the violent retribution, but this movie really delves you deeply into the hearts and souls of its sympathetic characters.
Get Carter is damn good, in my opinion, because it does take the time to develop its character and give you a dimensionality to connect with. You feel Jack’s pain and his need to put things right, and your sympathy easily flows for Doreen as the film progresses. Stephen Kay did do a really exceptional job with making these characters feel poignant, and have the consequences of everyone’s actions feel like they carry the weight of the world. This is really the kind of revenge thriller that truly captivates me because it’s not just gunning people down for ninety minutes, which does have its satisfying qualities. The substance of everything here saturates the film, and Stallone carries it all so amazingly well. The ending might have used a little more weight and veracity, but the payoff is satisfying regardless. I highly recommend this remake of Get Carter. If you’re a Stallone fan, like me, you should definitely give this a watch.
Michael Mann is indeed one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. Without him, I would not be the independent filmmaker that I am today dabbling in the neo noir world of crime thrillers. For Mann, his theatrical career began here with this sleek and stylish picture headed up by an incredible performance from James Caan. The cinematic visuals of Miami Vice were forged here, and the foundations of the thematic material that would be refined in Heat and Collateral were laid with Thief. While Mann had directed and co-written the television movie The Jericho Mile before this, featuring some very familiar traits, Thief was the start of every signature quality that Mann is best known for, and it is a film that should be given its proper due respect and recognition.
James Caan plays Frank, a professional jewel thief who wants to marry Jessie (Tuesday Weld) and settle down into a normal life. In order to achieve his dream of a family, Frank–who is used to working solo–has to align himself with a crime boss named Leo (Robert Prosky), who will help him gain the money he needs to begin his domestic life. Frank plans to retire after the heist, yet he finds himself indebted to Leo and he struggles to break free.
I was captivated all over again by Thief just from the beginning as it enveloped me in the sheen of its rain soaked Chicago nighttime world, and the sleek, stylish score by Tangerine Dream. This was the first film of Mann’s I ever saw, and I was blown away by it well over a decade ago. One of the most lasting impressions is indeed Mann’s neo noir cinematic style. Everything he does here really defined so much of the 80’s with the synthesizer score and the masterful visual storytelling. When you see the sleek and rock solid camera work in Thief, it’s sad to see how horribly Mann has embraced the incessant handheld camera work as seen in Public Enemies. The compositions here are dead-on-the-mark, and shots like pushing in through the drilled hole in the safe early on just show the enveloping visual brilliance of Mann. He knew how to suck you into this world, and keep you hooked in for the long haul. Thief was shot by first time cinematographer Donald Thorin who would go on to lens Purple Rain, The Golden Child, Midnight Run, and Scent of a Woman, to name a few. There was clearly no one better for him to be under the direction of than Michael Mann, and Thorin did a stunning job shooting Thief.
This is undeniably James Caan’s movie through and through. It is no mystery why this is Caan’s personal favorite performance of his. He is simply excellent, intense, and touchingly dimensional here. Frank is a man who’s had a lot of bad turns in his life spending a good chunk of it in prison, and is now struggling to reach a blissful goal of a happy home and family. He is a definite tough guy able to be a threatening presence, and has the charismatic bravado to back it all up. Frank’s not much of a subtle individual, but he’s a man who feels he has no time to dance around the subject. Every word he speaks is carefully selected and clearly conveyed which makes him appear well-spoken even if he’s not the best educated man. Caan injects the right amount of confidence into the role to mask Frank’s occasional naivety. Caan’s favorite scene is the highway oasis diner scene where Frank details his life, hardships, and dreams to Jessie. This scene shows the subtle emotional qualities of Frank to see the better man underneath all the bullheaded machismo, and this scene strips him down to bear his heart to her. Frank shows that he is charming, sweet, and very human. Despite the hardened criminal life he has had, all he wants is a simple, happy life, and that desire is much of what endears him to an audience. However, in the end, he must return to his base, primal convict mindset to survive.
Tuesday Weld holds up very strongly opposite Caan with both an enduring spirit and a gentle tenderness. Like Frank, Jessie is also a tough person who really now reveals in an ordinary life, and what begins as a very combative relationship soon warms up to very heartfelt levels. There’s a solidly genuine chemistry between Weld and Caan that brings a lot of heart and depth into this very gritty, hard edged crime thriller. Their final parting scene is powerful on so many heartbreaking levels, and shows, definitively, that Tuesday Weld was no lightweight acting talent.
There is a startling turn that Robert Prosky achieves as Leo that solidifies him as one of the best mob figures in cinema for me. For so much of the film, he’s a fatherly figure giving Frank every means to achieve his goals, and being nothing but an agreeable, upbeat, friendly facilitator. He gives Frank high line scores, an adopted child, a home, and much more. The problem is that once Frank tries to sever ties with Leo, he’s given a very sobering reality check – everything Frank now has is essentially owned through Leo, and he can rip it all away. This scene is where Prosky transforms into a cold, heartless, ruthless man who will have Frank’s friends killed, prostitute his wife on the street, and put Frank completely into indefinite servitude. Prosky becomes flat out chilling in this scene as a man you utterly do not want to cross, but the price for having this comfortable life comes at too high a cost for Frank. So, he has no choice but to retaliate by burning it all down.
Michael Mann did a very clever thing in casting the supporting cops and criminals, and thus, made it very authentic to Chicago. All of the cops were cast with ex-convicts including John Santucci who was the basis for Frank, and all of the criminals were cast with actual Chicago police officers such as Dennis Farina in his first on-screen role. This way, we got very open and honest portrayals of the not-so-straight-and-narrow Chicago police of the time. This sort of close knit connection to the authenticity of these sides of the law carry over into the intricacies of the heists. None of the heists here are sensationalized or simplified. We see the complex and highly involved process that Frank and his crew have to go through to take a single score, and this is achieved with great skill. The depth of detail that Mann shows us allows for the audience to appreciate the triumph of the score. Furthermore, all of the equipment featured was accurate to how they were used in the film, and considering the film is based on a novel by a convicted thief, none of this should be too surprising. However, it demonstrates the intense attention to detail that Michael Mann consistently put into every project he took on, and that has always impressed me and has really set Mann’s work apart from all others. Lesser filmmakers would gloss over the details and sensationalize the story, but the grit is in the details.
There is also a good but small performance by Willie Nelson who portrays a mentor of Frank’s that is dying behind prison bars. Caan and Nelson have only one real scene together, but it really brings a lot of the life and philosophy of these criminal characters to the forefront. And Thief really is built so much on personal philosophies such as lie to no one, be the boss of your body, or live your life on your own terms. This all feeds into how Frank navigates this film. He divulges everything to Jessie because his previous marriage fell apart due to his lies. He is hesitant with going into business with Leo because he enjoys answering to no one and calling his own shots, and is ultimately why he makes the radical decisions he makes at the end of the film’s second act.
Frank’s actions in the third act might seem like those of a young man of heated passion, as they are somewhat impulsive and absolute, but they fit Frank’s “the boss of my own body” attitude. He will not allow the terms of his existence to be dictated by another, and if that is the cost of having all the things he desires, then he’d sooner see it all turned to ashes. Frank returns to that prison attitude of “nothing means nothing,” and it frees him to destroy it all and go after Leo without any attachments. This is clearly a precursor to the philosophy of Neil McCauley in Heat that, “Allow nothing to be in your life that you cannot walk out on in thirty seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner.” All of this makes for one awesome, amazing finale that just certifies James Caan as a bad ass. How Frank’s stalking through Leo’s house unfolds, with almost dead silence, is perfectly executed. The quiet tension just unnerves you, and builds up that tingling anticipation until all hell breaks loose. From there, it’s all scored with this excellent track from Tangerine Dream that I love. And overall, their score is innovative and captivating. It all reflects Michael Mann’s signature vibe perfectly with sleekness and edge.
Thief is an intensely exciting movie with a very grounded feeling. Seeing Mann’s visual style unfold here is amazing, and James Caan puts on an excellent, versatile performance that enhances every compelling element of the movie. It’s stunning to see how quickly Mann evolved in his career where so many of the ideas and visual storytelling here would be refined and matured within three years for the launch of Miami Vice, and the major leap forward taken in 1986 with Manhunter. Whether you are a Mann or Caan fan, this is a film you cannot afford to overlook. No one makes crime thrillers quite like Mann did as he made sure every quality and acting talent was superb and pitch perfect while always delving into the humanity of the story. With Mann it’s always about the characters, and you see the depth of that care put into this movie. If you want an even further in-depth look at the films of Michael Mann, I immensely endorse the video essay Zen Pulp: The World of Michael Mann. It is remarkably insightful that really inspires me.