Reviews by Movie Maniac

David Arquette is a man who has gone from the heights of popularity to a Hollywood afterthought but, unbeknownst to most, he's also a man that earned the hatred of an entire subculture and was deemed one of its most destructive elements. Yes, for millions of people David is not only that guy that used to be in movies but he's the downfall of a prized illusion. It was his role in that catastrophe, and his dedication to it, that damaged his professional career and made him go from red carpet darling to industry joke. Add to that chemical dependence, a bad heart, and a slew of psychological issues and you have a man fighting against a tide to try to keep his head over water. This is where "You Cannot Kill David Arquette" finds the affable actor and, in all honesty, makes its initial master stroke by giving us the ultimate underdog to cheer for.

The documentary follows David as he sets out on a journey to redeem the one moment that changed his entire life...the moment he became WCW Heavyweight Champion and essentially insulted an entire business. Any wrestling fan knows this watershed moment as one of the key turning points in the industry but to the average Joe this hardly registered. For an untrained outsider to win something that was the linchpin of an entire form of storytelling and mythology was a spit in the face of everyone that valued that form of entertainment. What is amazing about this doc is how it makes the non-fan understand the gravity of David's unintentional faux pas and, in turn, its effects on him as a person. Better yet, it makes you root for him as he struggles to shake off the aftermath. The David Arquette of this film is a man in utter need to claim something as a victory and so he sets off to right the wrong that set his life in disarray by attempting to earn his place in wrestling history as a beloved figure instead as an absolute pariah.

And so, an unfit and deeply damaged individual sets on a path that takes him from backyard wrestling bouts, to locker rooms full of amateurs and professionals out for his blood, to the land of lucha libre, and more. Along the way David's love for the very industry that reviles him becomes your love for it (even if you're not a wrestling fan) and his desire to earn respect is not only something you root for but something you absolutely want for him as it seems to the be sole thing keeping him out of the darkest places in his life. The ups are highs that elate the viewer and the downs will come with a grim shadow of realization that even a movie can't paint over the realities of life. By the end of the movie, you'll love David Arquette and want only the best for him. I promise you.

If you've never understood why people are so passionate about wrestling this documentary will probably finally enlighten you. Not only does it provide a peak behind the curtain of the industry but the movie as a whole is much like a wrestling show part work and part shoot. That is to say, storytelling and narratives are in play as much as reality. The movie works you like a storyline in wrestling would. It plays with your emotions by mixing reality with fabrication to create a result. In a way, the documentary is a love letter to the art of wrestling. You'll see moments created for camera pay off in reality. You'll see an illusion created and then revealed. If you're a fan of wrestling, this will please you to no end. If you're new to it, it will fascinate you about an entire business and art.

"You Cannot Kill David Arquette" is not only a great documentary about wrestling...it might just be the best one I've seen on it. Both an homage to what makes wrestling work and an ode to the burning passion that fans and wrestlers both have for the pastime. Better yet, the doc is the tale of the ultimate underdog trying to come out on top against all odds. Arquette lays bare his soul, warts and all and he is, like any good wrestling character, the only thing you'll want to cheer for. It's an emotional ride. Funny at times, tragic at others, and always fascinating. I cannot recommend this one enough. I give this documentary 10/10.

You can't even fairly call the 2010 remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" a divisive film. It is, in fact, largely hated or just outright purposely forgotten about in the horror community. When it does crop up in conversation it is mostly referred to with tones of derision or dismissiveness before the subject is promptly changed but are things really all as bad as everyone would have you think? As usual, no. Don't get me wrong, the remake is far from a perfect film. It is hobbled by a variety of issues that are worthy of criticism. More often than not these are hyperfocused on in reviews and much of its strengths are cast aside.

Nostalgia is a son of a bitch, I've found and, in the case of a Freddy movie, any self-respecting horror fan will tell you that no one can be Freddy save the wonderful Robert Englund. With his distinctive body language, spot on delivery of gallows humor, and unique facial features, he very much defined the character in a way that may never be surpassed. He is so good, in fact, that many a fan conveniently forgets how truly abysmal some Nightmare movies truly are. It's easy to forget when the guy can entertain, after all. Ironically, it is Freddy's character that proves the saving grace of the remake. Given what we know about people's inclination to stick by Englund (and rightfully so) this made it an uphill battle for the remake to remain memorable. At the end of the day, however, the elements surrounding the nightmare dwelling Freddy Krueger are its strongest elements and a reason it might merit a rewatch for some.

First the problems, and there are many. The film is plagued by a strange languid detachment to its atmosphere. Everything seems to exist in a world apart from our own. If this was purposely (and effectively) done, this could of serviced the idea of a nightmare creature's reality affecting people or even those guilty for his death feeling "set apart" from their fellow townspeople. Alas, it just gives the film a distinct lack of realism. These don't feel like real people or events for the bulk of the film. Contributing to the widening chasm between reality and fiction is the cinematography which seems both too polished for a horror film while, simultaneously, looking too monotone and bereft of vibrancy.

Gratefully, extensive CGI is not used but the few times it is it proves underwhelming. Most notable is the callback to the original Nightmare movie where Freddy stretches through the wall to menace our protagonist. What looked stunning then looks outright bad in this version. In fact, a lot of the callback kills prove largely ineffectual in comparison to their original counterparts. Whether this has to do with the front half being somewhat of a limp effort to create suspense or just outright lack of creativity, I'll leave up to you.

The film is also populated by fairly capable actors, at least as we normally see them in other movies. In this movie they all seem barely there, the possible exception being Clancy Brown as a parent and school principal (though he has little screen time). Again, i'm at a loss whether the director intentionally instructed everyone to behave like they're drifting through scenes (as one would in a dream) or if everyone was just checked out for what they were doing. I am not counting Jackie Earle Haley in this criticism, he will be discussed later on.

One of the most egregious mistakes the movie makes is depending on a bevy of jump scare tactics throughout. Mind you, I'm not in the foolish camp that dismisses all jump scares, there is rarely a horror film without them, but it's all in the execution. At this point in our pop culture we are so used to jump scares that they must truly be built up and earned to not become fodder for eye-rolling. Well, they don't bother to build any of them up here. Some are fine because the moment didn't require much buildup other than expectation (two mirror gags come to mind) but most are just awfully unwarranted. If they'd taken those out and just let the scene unsettle by its very nature it would of done much to improve the final product.

So, by now you're thinking I've planted this bad boy straight in the garbage bin and then chucked that off a cliff. Well...

Here's the thing. The movie handles Freddy pretty well. I know, I know, Robert is Freddy. I'm not saying he's not. What I am saying is Jackie Earle Haley is a surprisingly disturbing version of Freddy that makes his own way and almost single-handedly saves this film from being absolutely forgettable.

A lot of hubbub was made about how Freddy's burned look was too strange or "cat-like" by many folks but, personally, it doesn't bug me one bit. Well, except in the way it's supposed to. The fused skin, the large raw skin patches, the taut skin, slit eyes, and virtually non-existent lips are all pretty much what a real burn victim would look like. In all honesty, it's pretty uncomfortable to look at.

Also, this Freddy doesn't revel is constant jokes or dark humor as we had grown accustomed to but rather hearkens back to the original Freddy with his morbid glee in the pursuit of the kill. If a joke or two slip out they're coupled with a devilish mirth we can hardly get behind. You see, this movie knew we come pre-loaded with expectations on Freddy's motivations but the film throws us a minor curveball by going back to something even Wes Craven ended up taking out of the script before he shot his original version. This proves to be the most distressing element about this portrayal...Freddy here is unarguably a child molester. Who you gonna cheer for now?

It always fascinated me to see crowds of fans cheering Freddy on as he eviscerated and tortured youths onscreen. It was what arguably destroyed the franchise as it opened the door for humor far wider than one might expect as it would serve as a balancing factor. Well, we all know that got way out of control in the original series. This movie has absolutely no sense of humor to begin with (which comes to its detriment, initially) but when it turns the screw on us that lack of humor suddenly becomes justifiable. These are damaged kids burdened by psychological trauma since childhood. Then the film tells you what you never wanted to know (but should of), Freddy wasn't just a child murderer (or innocent as a brief red herring path would suggest), he was a lecherous pervert. So perverse, in fact, that even beyond death his interest is not revenge but to continue the cycle of abuse.

THIS is what makes the movie stand out. Freddy is a monster, through and through, both in the traditional sense and in that fantastical world. The reveal of his ultimate intent and the implications of it are truly unsettling as they are exactly what you'd imagine someone of that ilk conjuring up if they were given some form of unbridled power.

Jackie Earle Haley himself gives Freddy not only a distinctive look and delivery but the way he leans into the suggestive nature of Freddy's inclinations can't help but make your skin crawl. The moments between him and Nancy reek of filth best left unspoken. Coincidentally, that is why Freddy as a pervert doesn't become too much to handle (a scene with pictures shows particularly admirable restraint). The way Haley plays the part (and it is written) skirts close enough to the fire to make it possible to hold on, if only to see him get his. And that in itself is an achievement of its own. For the first time in a long time, you want Freddy to get his just desserts. Point to the remake. What's interesting about this dynamic is that you are kind of coerced into cheering for characters you previously thought were kinda "just there" because the film lets you suddenly see them through a vastly different lens than just people out to be killed.

We are all familiar with the Freddy backstory and this movie makes minor changes to it that not only feed into the heightened villainy of the character but give the viewer a sudden renewed interest in what's going on. One wonders what kind of movie this would of been if they'd moved these reveals up a bit earlier in the running time and shown Freddy really work his way up the roster of kids to his ultimate goal.

The "A Nightmare On Elm Street" remake will never be loved but it kinda doesn't want to be loved. Our heroine is a listless and traumatized survivor of child abuse and or villain is the lewd, dirty old man that relentlessly pursues the same goals even from beyond the wall of death. Though its flaws are impossible to ignore, I can't help but look at the strange strengths in the movie as well. Somewhere in here was a good film. As it stands, its weaknesses outweigh it but, if you can put aside nostalgia, you'll see the strengths that crop up in it's latter half with that specter we all know as Freddy.

I can truly say I don't hate this remake. Though I do not love it, I do love some of what it does and can say it doesn't deserve the reputation it has. I give "A Nightmare on Elm Street" a 5 out 10.

In "Highwaymen" a different kind of serial killer (Colm Feore) get his thrills by orchestrating disaster on the roads of America with a vehicle he's almost become a part of himself. On his tail, a man (James Caviezel) craving vengeance and dangerously close to becoming the very thing he hates because of it. A woman (Rhona Mitra) will become both the focus of one's rage and a tool for revenge for the other as their inevitable final face off looms in the horizon.

Director Robert Harmon had made quite the impact on the genre with the fantastic road thriller "The Hitcher" back in 1986 and, though he had not managed to make significant waves since, a return to familiar ground seemed like a ripe opportunity to come back swinging. With a cast full of solid talent and a compelling premise, it seemed that the cards had lined up. Alas, despite being far from awful "Highwaymen" feels more like a letdown than a revelation. From its languid pacing, its perplexing lack of desire to plumb the rich psychological blueprint of its characters, and to its bare bones approach to much everything else, "Highwaymen" shows that maybe Harmon's "The Hitcher" was more a demonstration of the strengths of its writer rather than Harmon's as a director.

Indeed, watching the film makes you wonder how sparse the script was. From minimal dialogue to scenes that stretch out too thin over the shockingly short running time the movie feels almost palpably "hollow" and for that reason longer than it really is. The entire time I kept thinking when are we going to sink our teeth into these characters? The answer was a resounding "never". More often than not we are told what to know about these characters rather than experiencing it (at one point our protagonist is privy to a confounding amount of knowledge about the villain that he had no way of knowing). Given what would of been done instead of this lazy approach, it's a real shame to see things go down as they do.

James Caviezel is a fairly talented actor but he barely feels present in the movie. He comes off as more of a vague idea that the production wants you to feel. Rhona Mitra's character feels like a plot necessity that the writer's clumsily fit into the screenplayfor the sake of giving you an impression about someone else. A cop supporting character (Will Macklin) is about as unfulfilling and unnecessary as they could of made it, especially given that legal repercussions seem to barely exist in this cinematic world. Even Colm Feore's villain Fargo is neutered of menace by barely being onscreen and never fully allowed to play with the character when he is. Fargo could of been one of the most intriguing serial killers on film with a unique M.O. and motivation, look, and a great actor behind the threat but he falls way too short of the goal.

The best I can say is that it never devolves into utter ineptitude, it's fairly well shot but that's far from praise and that the concept/idea is so strong and full of promise that you keep watching in hopes that the production will take advantage of it. They never do.

Conceptually "Highwaymen" shows a lot of potential and, indeed, inklings of that remain in the final product but, alas, the film mostly feels like a missed opportunity which is an absolute shame. I give this film a 4/10.

The young virginal innocents of Cherry Falls are falling victim to the knife of a mysterious killer with ties to the town's past in this ridiculously stupefying post-Scream slasher. One red herring after another, a contrived plot, and tons of improbable situations later and you'll sit there agog knowing you've seen something undeniably bad but also hilariously watchable, if only for how much nonsense posing as subversiveness is lobbed at the screen.

Perhaps that is the biggest issue with "Cherry Falls", its transparent attempt to defy the genre constraints only to fall face first into them and devolve into nothing short of a clusterfuck. Here we have our virginal final girl Jody (Brittany Murphy), daughter of the town Sheriff (a defeated looking Michael Biehn), thrown into the crosshairs of a comically overdressed killer linked to a town scandal. If you've seen it once, you've seen it a million times but maybe not quite like this. Where Scream cleverly dissected the slasher sub-genre playing with its conventions with a wink and smirk but never losing a semblance of realism or respect for the subgenre, "Cherry Falls" decides that the way to subvert something is to just pull random crap out of a hat every now or "do the opposite" and then and call it a day. To its credit, these maneuvers prove to be the only reason to watch this befuddling picture.

You will be subjected to all of the following; Teens so flagrantly old that you'll begin to appreciate previous offenders of this genre trope, red herrings so heavy handed that they become burdensome to put up with as you wait for the final reveal, dialogue so unbelievable that you'll wonder not only how anyone thought teens talked that way but that ANY human talked that way, scenes so unfathomably stupid that they incite laughter (a father telling his daughter to lose her virginity to remain safe comes to mind as does a schoolwide orgy for the same purpose), a "subversion" of the evil boyfriend trope so out of left field that it will have you in stitches, and a final reveal so camp, unearned, and shoehorned in that it is not only groan-inducing but also evokes a genuine "what the fuck" moment. Also, strap in for an ending that has to be one of the most impotent in slasher cinema.

As "Cherry Falls" slips and tumbles before you in all its clumsy swipes at turning tropes on their head, it becomes sillier and sillier. I'll admit to having a big, dopey grin on my face the whole time but it was more so one of disbelief than one of ironic glee. This is not a competent example of the genre but it's also not a good example of a film defying that structure. I'm sorry, but just doing the opposite of the expected becomes a tired joke in itself. In short, "Cherry Falls" is just a stupid movie rife with mind-mindbogglingly dumb characters that spit out annoying nonsense dialogue and do even more incredulous things. For a slasher movie to have these complaints lobbed at it is no new thing but for one trying to hard to cleverly defy tropes it's a death knell. By the end you'll wonder if this was an attempt at intentional humor that tried so hard that it just ended up being a pure camp film or the results of someone who thought they were making something legitimately good. I honestly don't know anymore.

I will say that "Cherry Falls" ends up being entertaining as a curiosity more than as a movie. You'll be relentlessly amused that anyone thought any of this crap would pass as entertainment, much less clever entertainment. It borders on satire with its relentless need to make things so absurd but it also simultaneously makes you wonder if that's intentional at all. It defies its out intentions. The movie is an implosion on celluloid.

Are there positives? Sure. You will be genuinely interested in who the killer is if only because it's so obviously not all the suggested ones (alas, the answer is so godawful you'll laugh). It's also nice to see Brittany Murphy (RIP) onscreen. She is genuinely affable and a delight and it makes you wish she'd been in more stuff (and better stuff at that). There is a legit clever moment at the end where (SPOILER) our main characters become complicit to the goings on and essentially perpetuate the very behavior that begin the whole rigmarole. (END SPOILER)

"Cherry Falls" never saw theatrical release because it kept getting an x-rating for scenes of a sexual nature. Though no intact copy of the full cut is available there does remain descriptions of what was cut out and it basically boils down to nudity and some gore. I highly doubt adding that back in to the current product would change much. The movie ended up being showed on the USA network and has since garnered a cult following. I, for one, will not be in their ranks. I give "Cherry Falls" a 3 out of 10.

A woman seeks the truth behind the accusations of murder lobbed at her brother and finds herself plunging deeper into her past. As her investigation unfolds she finds disturbing connections between her family and the legends of the Candyman, a mythic figure that the lower income denizens of New Orleans speak of only in whispers.

It would of seemed almost ironic, given the thematics of the film, if the continuity of the original "Candyman" would of served as the true basis for a sequel. Maybe even "sacrilegious", given that the titular boogeyman had died and a white woman had taken his place. Though there was no true need for a follow-up it was inevitable given the critical (and financial) response the original garnered. Three years after the exceptional first came the anti-climax that was "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh".

No longer attached were director Bernard Rose, whose reimagining of the source material resulted in a transcendent horror experience that demanded the respect of both haughty critics and the hoi polloi with its audacious social commentary weaved seamlessly into the fundamental beauty of a monster flick. Instead, the reins were handed off to one Bill Condon whose career is far from a disaster but not an especially remarkable one either. Clive Barker, the producer and writer of the short story that inspired the original film, returned to his production duties and even had his hand in the conceptual foundation. The beloved Tony Todd would reprise his role as Candyman, after all none could truly replace him. Finally, Philip Glass' score form the first movie is recycled (less effectively) and a few new cues are in play. In short, the film's grasp to its predecessor is tenuous at best.

Indeed, "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is best described as a vastly inferior retelling of the same concept. And believe me, when I say inferior, I mean it. Everything in this movie struggles to function at levels below the benchmark of quality that similar elements worked without a hitch in the first. The narrative is overly convoluted and bloated, the actors are abominably shoddy, the effects go from unimpressive to embarrassing, the direction is an abomination, and, worse of all, they reduce Candyman to a stock horror villain. The affair as a whole feels more like a poor direct-to-video effort than a legit picture.

A "whodunnit" setup sends events in the movie into motion and overstays its welcome with a ridiculously prolonged search for the truth that, unfortunately, any viewer with an iota of sense has figured out in the first few minutes. It's irritatingly interminable and then some. The movie also attempts to further pad this out by introducing a menagerie of sublplots and supporting characters that seem to come and go at a moment's whim only to reappear just when they've been completely forgotten about. I wish I could say they return due to some ingenious plotting mechanism but they usually crop up out of convenience to the shambles of a story.

Oh, and don't get me started on a startling overreliance on the cheapest of jump scares. Cats hopping out of cupboards, hands on shoulders, mysterious hobos popping into frame...we've seen them a million times if we've seen them once. It's almost as if the studio or director were not confident enough in the material so they just riddle the picture with these undeserving "scares". Some are so incompetently set up that they actually show you the thing that is supposed to startle you before the scare happens.

Most egregious is how they utterly destroy the mystique and almost regal aura of the Candyman. In the first he is a mystery, a legend born of belief and looking not only to recover all he once lost in life but to reinstate his presence by exercising his will. He is like a romanticized haint of gothic literature, doomed to walk the mortal coil. His appearances are sparse but meaningful, his plight sympathetic despite his methods being ghastly, and there is method to his madness. In the sequel he is reduced to a slasher, often killing without rhyme or reason or for the sake of splatter and thus obfuscating the empathy we as viewers felt for him in the first. Not that the filmmakers didn't try to exploit that too. Indeed, here we get an unflinching look at the gruesome lynching that made him the Candyman but it falls flat, looks cheap, and, most offensively, further humiliates the character by retconning his history to be that of a slave rather than a freeman.

Gone also are the stinging overtones of social commentary about privilege, racial and social divisions, perceptions based on class or color, and the power of belief. We are expected to find the location (a wasted opportunity since it was New Orleans) and fleeting glances at its populace sufficient "commentary". They didn't need to make a particularly elevated film to make a good sequel (the first walks a fine line and manages to still be as much a monster movie as a piece of social commentary) but here they don't even bother to give Candyman the honorary of "monster", he is just a poor man's slasher. They even introduce an "out of the blue" mcguffin that can defeat him that is as cheap as the jump scares given there was no previous mention of it. Tony Todd does his best with the role but the material is poor, the dialogue weak, and the director has no idea how to shoot him in the effective way Bernard Rose did. Often times he is over exposed or framed in such a way as to look downright silly or pedestrian.

The sound design too can't even replicate the Candyman's omnipresent, breathy vocals. He sounds as average as you and I. The music feels ill fit and uninspired. Glass' repurposed themes don't match the material and the new compositions add very little. Effects? Physical ones are lacking and there is a woeful use of mid-90's CGI that goes over as well as you think.

"Canydman: Farewell to the Flesh" was an unnecessary follow-up but its worst crime is that it doesn't even bother to be that. It trods over the material that spawned it and spits on its memory. It is cheap, ugly to look at, poorly constructed, badly acted, and terribly written. It is a sequel best forgotten. There are a few moments, here and there, were you get glimpses of a decent idea or two, but they come an go so fast that you'll forget they were ever there. I give "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" a 1/10.

There was another sequel that followed this that is somehow worse. In the near future we will be getting a reboot to the franchise that directly follows the first and ignores this one and part three. Hopefully it will not fall into the same abyss that this one did.

"Vox Lux" is a very interesting experience more than an interesting film. Not to insinuate I'm trashing it out the gate. On the contrary, I much admire its dedication to a style so divergent from the Hollywood standard that it beckoned me to continue watching even when you feel like I'd lost grasp of the film's intentions. Naturally, this approach is enough to alienate a large portion of any potential audience if they are not inclined to consume a structure that almost seems purposely pretentious at times and genuinely, intensely philosophical at others. The film truly manages to walk a tightrope that gives it both scale and scope and the feeling of an art house film. I wish I could say that it's a brilliant piece of work on either end but, though it keep me fascinated in its own special way, it remains more of a curious piece than an outright masterpiece.

The story follows the rise of a teenager named Celeste (played by Raffey Cassidy for the first half) who, in the wake of a school shooting, is cast into a spotlight and soon finds herself in a whirlwind of celebrity as she is groomed to become a pop star. Divided into several acts which give us a peek into different portions of her life (Celeste is played by Natalie Portman in the film's latter half), we begin to see the disastrous effect of celebrity on her innocence. As she was affected by tragedy, tragedy and the surrounding world begin to affect her life and art and, as the film progresses, they affect the world around her.

"Vox Lux" is a visually alluring picture. If you're a fan of cinema, the filmmaker's approach to this movie will grab you and not let go. From its lighting, to its aspect ratio, to its eclectic structure, to its use of a narrator the vague nature the film inherently hooks you in, dangerously skirting the precipice of feeling like an overt effort to stand out. Narratively, the film is something of an obtuse beast, at times seemingly dead set on defying expectations and at others leaning so hard into a concept that you begin to question its intentions.

In line with this, our main character is not a particularly likable one. This is yet another angle that can potentially drive away an audience. I've always been intrigued by stories that dare to challenge the viewer with a detestable protagonist and, admittedly, this was part of the fascination I had with the picture. Too boot, she lives in a world that is as ugly as she is. Given the idea that she is catalyzed by events and in turn affects others, this fits in perfectly with the tone but does not necessarily make for a comfortable viewing experience.

In short, "Vox Lux" is not for everyone. It is a very brazenly unfriendly film but for that reason it is a very fascinating film. What made it work for me, beyond the morbid interest in its defiant approach and its unique presentation, WAS how it unflinchingly it holds a mirror up to the flaws in its characters and the world they populate. The film finds its beauty in presentation but definitely not in its narrative building blocks and, shockingly, that feels very intentional. This makes for a dissonant but intriguing watch, if you're not immediately turned off by it.

"Vox Lux" is a somewhat enigmatic piece but it does eventually come together as a harsh character piece. Its cryptic finale suggests a far colder ambition in Celeste that makes you reevaluate all the moments in her life in a new light. Par the course of the film, this only makes her even more unlikable than you previously thought. Almost as if the movie's rebelliousness is punctuated by a character arc opposite that of the status quo.

Indeed, "Vox Lux" defies expectations constantly. Sometimes to its benefit and sometimes to the bafflement of the audience but it never lost my rapt attention. It is not a perfect film and it is most definitely not a film that many will take to. That being said, it is a film that can most definitely be called unique. If your interested in something that is completely against the grain, then it might be for you. Upon first viewing I give it a 7/10 but I have a feeling that will improve upon repeated viewings as it is most definitely a film that begs to be revisited.

I kept putting off watching 2018's "Halloween" because every single Halloween movie with Michael Myers in it has disappointed and not once lived up the original. Though he is one of the most persistently popular characters in horror history, Michael Myers is also one so grossly misunderstood and misused that it has rendered every attempt at a sequel flawed or downright awful with Myers himself a pale imitation of the version we saw in the original.

As time passed it became a downright chore to watch a new installment or attempt to remake or reboot the series. When it was announced that there would be yet another attempt to correct the past mistakes and make a direct sequel to the first, I was not particularly excited. Not even when John Carpenter (writer/director/composer of the original) gave it his seal of approval did I warm up to the idea. As much as I love the man's work he'd also been partially responsible for the tragically flawed original follow up "Halloween II" (1981). In short, his approval meant nothing and I was burnt on the whole franchise. That being said, as a card-carrying horror fan it was inevitable that I'd have to see it and so I did just that, Years late perhaps but I did my duty.

The results? Well, after the chills subsided, I had to slap myself out of my delighted daze and admit that I was as shocked as anyone that at long last a "Halloween" sequel would at long last live up the standard set in the first film. THIS is the "Halloween" follow-up that I always craved.

Picking up four decades after the events of the first movie, we find ourselves facing Michael Myers as emotionally blank, disturbingly patient, and mysterious as he was when we first saw met him. He is set to be moved from one institution to another, a choice that deeply rattles the very woman he victimized that fateful night long ago, Laurie Strode (a returning Jamie Lee Curtis). Strode's trauma has rendered her a paranoid survivor but also as single-minded as MIchael in her goal to obliterate him. It has also alienated her from her daughter and her family and made her something of conundrum to many in the public eye, where views on Michael even show signs of softening. But Halloween night approaches and nothing can stop two old enemies from meeting yet again.

Such is our setup and what a riveting one it is. Michael, long stripped of his mystique and menace by a series of garbage sequels, is adamantly set in stone as an object of fear from the goosebump-inducing intro and the air of ominousness around him only increases as the movie moves along. This flick truly GETS Michael. This is no simple superficial emotionless killer. This Michael is the blank totem of unstoppable, inevitable fate with a motive so mysterious to all but him that there is no choice but to truly call him a boogeyman. Previous attempts at sequelizing the series cheapened the character, reducing him to just a series of kills, character quirks, and, worse, trying to explain the driving force behind him. This movie makes none of those mistakes. This movie brings that MIchael from the original roaring back into the lives of the denizens of Haddonfield.

The most important of those denizens is, of course, Laurie Strode who here has become something of the antithesis of Michael. Nay, a negative reflection of him. She too is single-minded, she too is deranged in her own special way, and she too is capable of inflicting tremendous damage. The theme of unavoidable fate permeates the original movie, here fate drives Michael and Laurie to their ultimate confrontation.

More than that, however, we have a theme of cause and effect binding this particular film together. Michael's actions caused Laurie to become the "anti-Michael". In turn, her drive to defeat him drives her daughter to estrangement and to purposefully be the "anti-Laurie" in every way possible (which naturally puts her in some dangerous cross-hairs). Interestingly, Dr. Sartain, who has been treating Michael in the interim, becomes something of the anti-thesis of his mentor Dr. Loomis. Where Loomis feared Michael and held him as a representation of true evil in the original movie, Dr. Sartain is drawn into the mystery of Michael's motive to the point of near adulation. (One of the most chilling scenes is an imitated voice cameo of Donald Pleasance as Loomis talking about the need to destroy Michael that does wonders for the flick). It's this cocktail of character work in conjunction with the theme that constantly kept me hooked in and teeming with anticipation for that final act.

In the end, this is Laurie's movie. It is her security and survival we root for. It is her opportunity to finally shake off the psychological trauma she's been burdened with for years that we want most. By God, we want her to kick Michael Myers' ass! This is yet another reason this movie stands head and shoulders above the slew of inferior attempts at sequels. It does not stoop into turning Myers into the killer we cheer for. it keeps him cold, blank, and ruthless...a true villain to fear and despise. The kills aren't something we crave to see but rather sit and watch agog or in shock. He is truly the villain and Laurie, in turn, is truly the heroine.

That is not to say that the movie doesn't acknowledge what came after the original. There are plenty of odes to the slew of sequels that were attempted previously (most notably "Halloween II"). Even the underappreciated (and non-Myers' related) "Halloween III: Season of the WItch" gets a nice tip of the hat. You'll see shots, sets, and setups that hearken to other movies and, in all honesty, do it better. Despite this, the movie never derails and becomes a lesser form of entertainment. It does not want to be those movies, it merely says to fans of them "we see you", a truly wise choice. When Michael begins his rampage those looking for their fill of blood will be sated, sure, but here it doesn't come off as exploitative and only serves to cement the truly fearsome shadow that Michael casts.

John Carpenter, his son Cody, and Daniel Davies compose one of the most stunningly beautiful scores in horror. Yes, the iconic theme returns but, more importantly, the new material is an absolute gold mine. Gorgeous work in that department. Additionally, horror set pieces are tense, effects are top of the line, cinematography is gorgeous, the acting is superb across the board, call backs are welcome and never overwrought, and, yes, Michael's mask doesn't look like shit like it did in the majority of the previous sequel attempts. In short, I found it impossible to find fault with the movie.

"Halloween" shares the exact name of the movie is is a direct follow up to. No numbers, no added words to designate it as a sequel. This choice kind of baffled me a bit when I first heard that but, having seen it, I feel it is so appropriate. "Halloween" IS "Halloween" in spirit and in form. "Halloween" is on par with the original material. "Halloween" is a truly amazing sequel that walks in lock step with its predecessor. A rare achievement indeed.

I never saw the day where I'd be happy at a sequel to Carpenter's classic, much less a day where I'd fall in love with one. There is no true sequel to the first other than this one, in my eyes. If the original classic gets a 10/10 then this one does too. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Ever wondered what would happen if you dropped the main character from "Gravity" into the world of "The Abyss" where she encounters creatures with the dynamic of those from "Deep Rising" only following the more serious template of "Alien"? Well then, "Underwater" is the movie for you. The sad news is that it doesn't reach any of the heights of the movies it so liberally cribs from, the good news is that it's still a fine enough b-movie thriller.

Let's be honest, the moment Stewart was cast the chips were stacked against this movie in the eyes of the general audience. She's not particularly made a positive impression on moviegoers despite some more serious, and less seen, roles proving she has at least some talent to work with. However, once the very obvious influences this movie culls its material from became clear the pushback was overwhelming. People, for the most part, dismissed it and it came and went at theaters like a brief blip on the radar. I'm not one to quickly dismiss homage (or even outright thievery) when it comes to art, however, and I made a mental note to eventually make up my own mind about "Underwater".

That time has come and gone and the results are in, as they say. My conclusion? "Underwater" is a relatively inoffensive b-movie knockoff of far better films but far from the disaster that everyone swore it would be. Any seasoned cinephile knows that knock-offs and cash-ins are par the course when a movie makes a ton of money. hell, all the aforementioned movies had a series of other knock-offs already. Any reasonable cinephile will also admit that they have partaken and enjoyed a variety of knock-off movies despite how they pale in comparison to the film they're so blatantly ripping off. As it stands "Underwater" is a film that will possibly garner a small cult following given its strengths and its simple structure. Give it some time and you'll see.

Stewart plays Norah, a cynical and nearly hopeless mechanical engineer working in a deep sea drilling rig that has begun to drill near the Mariana Trench. After an unexpected tremor leads to the partial implosion of the station, she and her remaining crew must make it across dangerous territory to find the final escape pods...but they may not be alone in the mysterious depths. And that's your plot, straight to the point and barebones and, you know, sometimes that's okay.

In a brave (some would say foolish) move the filmmaker's chose to place the brunt of the character work on Stewart's character. Stewart has never been the most expressive of actresses, sometimes she's downright horrible because of this (Twilight, Snow White and the Huntsman) and sometimes she can crack out something good despite her shortcomings (Clouds of Sils Maria, Still Alice). Here they leaned into her characteristic detachment and made it part of the main character's state of being. Norah, like Sandra Bullock's character in "Gravity", is a woman who has lost her way and purpose in life after losing an important person but circumstances force her into action and soon her arc leads her to find said purpose. The biggest shocker is that Steward does a fine job in portraying this character and making her the anchor to the other ones. It's not overt and refined and much of the supporting cast are set dressing to interact with her and affect her character arc but in a quick moving thrill-ride of a movie we don't need a deep dive into everybody else.

Indeed the film runs at a steady clip, the chaos erupting not long after a brief "essentials-only" intro and the path toward safety being charted as we go. This services the film in the sense that it leaves us little time to linger on character work that would otherwise be important in a more steadily paced flick. It also keeps the momentum....until it doesn't. If there is one outstanding weakness in this movie is that somewhere toward the middle it loses a bit of it's steam by either taking too much time to breath or just bombarding us with moment after moment of this run. Add to this the somewhat viewer unfriendly murkiness of the location and the frenetic film-style and as a viewer you might find yourself losing a bit of interest. That being said, the ship does right itself in time to usher in its conclusion which is actually pretty neat. Again, nothing new if you've been around the block but neat nevertheless.

"Underwater" breaks no new ground, instead it chooses to blatantly pick and choose from a variety of superior flicks but it is also just a popcorn chewing fun time if you stop tightening your asshole like a prude. For fans of the Lovecraftian there is a visual nod in this that, like the rest of the film, is superficial but fun. I give "Underwater" a positive 5.5/10

"The Exorcist" spawned many imitators but nary an equal in its day. "Beyond the Door" was one of those pretenders that made a slight impression in some circles, not for its quality but rather for its reckless decision to dive headfirst into the supernatural aspects. While it has some supporters, it truly stands out more as an example of the folly of leaning into the wrong aspects of something successful.

"Beyond the Door" follows the story of a female plagued by demonic possession . As a result of this, her house and family are thrown into turmoil as her symptoms worsen. She is the defacto Regan McNeil of this film but that is where similarities to "The Exorcist" cease. The film somewhat admirably (though ultimately foolishly) chooses to play a game of opposites with its story.

While "The Exorcist" first introduces us to Father Merrin, a devout priest who has faced evil in the past and been strengthened by that encounter, this movie introduces us to an acolyte of the Devil who has failed his evil master and been given one more chance to extend his life and fix things. Instead of a child being possessed we have a woman, newly pregnant, and already with a brood of her own. She, unlike Regan's mother is happily married. Most notably, this movie chooses to focus on the horrific aspects of supernatural torture rather than the dramatic stories of those affected by undeniable evil like in "The Exorcist". Even the moments when science is brought in to try to explain the affliction are tampered down in this.

It's almost as if the writers thought that all this subterfuge would obscure the obvious fact that they were cashing in on the notoriety of another movie. Naturally, their efforts are all for naught. All these overt changes serve only to emphasize why "The Exorcist" is so well regarded rather than to make this movie stand out. "The Exorcist", for all its head-spinning and pea soup vomit, was actually a story about three divergent faith paths and how they cope when being faced with undeniable forces of evil. Beyond the Door falls apart because it almost solely focuses on the goop and shock tactics.

Indeed, the character work here is atrocious. Everyone is so one-dimensional that they literally rather spend time on shots of people walking rather then attempt to further develop them into more palatable characters. Any semblance of personality is immediately dashed by horrendous dialogue and even worse dubbing (some of which grants a child of about 6 years old the voice of a teenager). An opening narration bursting with exposition, robs the story of any potential surprises it may have held (not that they would of been effective otherwise).

"The Exorcist" ended in a melancholic but heartening way. Sure, the bastion of good died but he died in his faith. Yes, the doubting priest sacrificed his life for that of a child but he did so having gone from doubter to believer. In "Beyond the Door" they play that opposite game again and it's possibly the only time the movie comes close to working. Our devil's acolyte is revealed to have been the true focus of the affliction, just the Evil One playing one last game with the fool that followed him. I'd call this a spoiler but the opening narration ruins it and all the glaring missteps in between make it worthless. Then we have one final "reveal" (again ruined by the opening) that, under better circumstances, could of been a genuinely creepy moment but here just makes you roll your eyes.

This movie was produced by Italians (who at the time were notorious for cashing in on a craze) and it shows. We have the requisite wholesale dubbing of voices and sounds, a wildly inadequate soundtrack, laughable effects work, a focus on the visceral, and, of course, an utter disregard for quality. Some films deserve a second look despite their flaws and even exploitation can have its day but "Beyond the Door" deserves to be left at the bottom of the trash heap it was plucked from. 0/10

Galaxy of Terror (1981): A slapdash rescue crew is dispatched to retrieve any survivors of a mishap on a distant space colony at the edge of the universe only to find that they are drawn into the clutches of the very thing that put the people in peril.

One of the multitude of "Alien" knockoffs that actually managed to garner its own cult following on both its outrageous nature and its more clever elements. It bears all the markings of a Roger Corman production like stunt casting, excessive gore, cheap physical effects, low grade production value, uneven acting, and borderline ridiculous writing BUT also happens to be notable for being one of James Cameron's early credits as a crew member before becoming a director.

As is typical of Cameron now, he bulldozed himself to higher status in the production with his innovation and heavily influenced the film. The ultimate result is still encumbered by the weak direction, acting, and writing BUT bears the occasional moment of ingenuity and campy allure.

Helping the affair along are the appearances of genre favorites like Robert Englund and Sid Haig in prominent roles as well as an assortment of crazy and strange effects set pieces that resonate if not for their effectiveness, for their outlandishness (I'm looking at you "worm rape sequence").

What is ultimately most fascinating about "Galaxy of Terror" is that a very transparent knockoff of "Alien" ironically went on to heavily influence Cameron's own later production of an "Alien" sequel, "Aliens". From imagery, to plot beats, to characters and concepts, "Aliens" is just Cameron reworking this movie into the canon of another series.

Equally interesting is how much "Galaxy of Terror" borrowed from sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet when it came to disposing of its canon fodder cast. This choice would later visibly influence movies like "Event Horizon" and their more psychological approach to terror in space that still managed to root around the visceral.

Make no mistake, "Galaxy of Terror" is not a strong film. It is riddled with a variety of issues that render it best suited for cinephiles that have a hankering for b-movies and schlock. That being said it is a b-movie with much more promise than disappointment. One wonders what could of been had it been in more capable hands. If cult film is your thing then you'll understand why I give Galaxy of Terror a 5/10.