31 Days of Halloween

The people who made the sequels didn’t understand what made the first one good.

Day Twenty-Four


Film Year: 1979
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Yaphet Kotto, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, Ian Holm, John Hurt
Riff Year: 2008
Riffers: Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett
Selected Short: Safety: Harm Hides at Home (also riffed by Michael J. Nelson)

Your home is crawling with hazards! You are not safe! EVERYTHING WILL KILL YOU! In fact, never mind, because you're already dead; killed by your stupid house. That, at least, is the heartwarming message of the short Safety: Harm Hides at Home. "But RiffTrax," you say, "many shorts have already exposed the obvious truth that my home is a deadly, sinister trap, ready to spring at any moment. What's so great about this one?" Aha! Do other shorts feature the groovy safety dominatrix Guardiana? Well, one other one does, but then so does this one!

So buy it and laugh* along with Mike, Kevin and Bill.

*A thin, strangled laugh designed to cover up your growing panic as you realize your house is trying to murder you.

Aware! Alert! ALIVE!

Not all aliens are out to kill you. This short features friendly extraterrestrials seeking out every worthy crossguard on the planet and bestow superpowers upon them. This particular crossguard becomes Guardiana the Safety Woman! In this short she saves a kid from cooking a hamburger and scolds a refrigerator vandal of handling a gun.

This ill-advised attempt at making safety “look cool” is pretty hilarious on its own. If anything the riffs are just seasoning, but they do love to pick at the funny effects, squeaky alien voices, and Guardiana’s knack for digression onto different safety topics that aren’t relevant. This short is an all-time favorite and Guardiana has since become one of my favorite Rifftrax characters.

And now our feature presentation...

Hey you young whippersnappers -- you thought that "Alien" was just Predator's sparring partner, didn't you? Not so, Padawans. "Alien" (who, in a series of HUGE coincidences, happens to BE an alien, AND stars in the movie ALIEN! Weird!!) first took Hollywood by storm during the heady, Jimmy Carter-filled days of 1979....back when a long, long pan over a hot-glued spaceship miniature made the first generation of geeks wheeze in delight, and reach for their inhalers. ALIEN starred a pair of plain white underpants worn by a young, little-known actress named Sigourney Weaver.... who later went on to start in ALIENs 2 though 37. (The underpants retired to Sedona, AZ. shortly after filming.) It also featured a pre-Hobbit Sir Ian Holm, a pre-wand-wizard John Hurt, and a pre-Mormon Mafioso Harry Dean Stanton. And you'll never forget Bursty, the impish-but-loveable little chestbursting alien baby! Join Bill Corbett and Kevin Murphy as they riff on this sci-fi / horror / underpants classic. NOTE: This RiffTrax Presents will only work with the Director's Cut of Alien!



Kevin and Bill find themselves Mike-less once again in this riff of the sci-fi classic Alien. Well, to be more specific it’s the 2003 re-edited version of the sci-fi classic Alien which almost everybody ignores. I’m actually somewhat amazed they chose the director’s cut to riff for this Trax, since they usually go straight to the theatrical edit (except in those cases where they use an alternate cut by accident ::cough::Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country::cough:: ). In the case of Alien, using the director’s cut doesn’t really make a lot of sense, since every DVD of the flick had the theatrical version and only special editions carried the director’s cut. But whatever the reason, this riff exists and hey, I just happen to have a director’s cut of Alien to watch, so I win either way.

Personally for me, Alien is one of those movies I respect more than I enjoy. Honestly I have that reaction with a lot of Ridley Scott’s movies (save the occasional Thelma & Louise or Matchstick Men). Like a lot of his work, Alien is very pretty to look at but the plotting, characters, and construction of it just aren’t my tempo. It’s a movie I find very little interest in outside of how well made it is. Even Sigourney Weaver, who is a great actress, doesn’t do much for me here. Her iconic character of Ripley is basically just another asshole in a cast of assholes. It wasn’t really until the sequel that I started to enjoy her as a character (and most of that is regulated to extended cut of that particular film).

I wasn’t sure how well Alien would lend itself to riffing, because of the pure craftsmanship involved there’s not a lot to poke fun at. One thing I didn’t take into account is just how little dialogue is in the movie, and the Rifftrax for it is saturated if nothing else. If you want bang for your buck on jokes, this Alien riff will provide you with almost nonstop dialogue between Kevin and Bill. And during the lengthy portions of the film where little to nothing is going on except searching or running, Kevin and Bill even put on little skits for our amusement.

But are there jokes at the movie’s expense? Yeah, of course there is. There’s a lot said about how drawn out the movie is, but what pleased me is that they don’t fall back on generic “I’m bored” riffs. They turn it into something of a gag where they portray themselves as an audience with ADD, and it’s pretty funny. There’s also reference to how dated the film is technology-wise, with a great quip early on that this technology pre-dated Windows...and it ran better.

Alien pleasantly surprised me. This was a Trax I’ve had for a while because I wasn’t convinced that the movie was workable, but this is a really solid effort. Occasionally it does lapse a bit as the movie drones on a bit, but this is a wonderful entry in the Rifftrax Presents catalogue.

I missed a lot of days so here's the Nightmare on Elm Street series.


A Nightmare on Elm Street


With my Universal Monsters selection dwindling, I figure I should start going through some new horror franchises and the 80s slashers seemed a good place to go next. I've seen the original films from most of the majors (Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.) but the sequels are almost all blind-spots to me. From what I hear, I'm not missing much, but it's fun to go through a series and I'm starting with A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Though it does follow many of the genre conventions, it is important to note how A Nightmare on Elm Street differs from slasher movies. Freddy Krueger himself is a much more colourful and talkative villain than the likes of Michael and Jason, and his overtly supernatural powers allow for some creative set-pieces. This is probably where the original film shines the brightest. Wes Craven stages a number of creative set-pieces which take full advantage of Freddy's powers, leads to some horrific moments, and are nicely varied. On a deeper level, the notion of a force which can enter your dreams is an ingenious concept which Nightmare may not have invented (Lovecraft says hello), but it does use it to excellent effect. Craven often blurs the line between dreams and reality and the urban legend aspect of the story works really well. The film also seems to be a metaphor for how kids cope with the flaws of their parents. Freddy is only after these teens for vengeance on the parents, but there are other little details like Nancy's Mother's alcoholism.

Of course, the film does still boil down to a crazy person killing teens with a blade, but it executes on this formula pretty well. While the acting isn't necessarily amazing, the four main teens are all distinct personalities and watching Nancy become stronger and more determined to beat Freddy is rewarding. If the film is lacking in places, it's that I don't think the film has the same level of atmosphere as something like Halloween or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Additionally, I think the film goes a bit off the rails at the end, from the solution to Freddy to the bizarre cliffhanger ending. It's not exactly terrible, but it does feel like Craven ran out of ideas rather than the story concluded naturally. Still, this is undoubtedly a classic of the slasher genre and I'd argue it is worthy of its reputation.

A-


A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge


The first Nightmare on Elm Street sequel is most famously known less for any creative horror set-pieces or the characterization of Freddy Krueger, but more for the coded gay subtext which permeates through the film. That is indeed the most interesting part of the movie. Following the signs is reminiscent of finding the hidden meanings in Production Code era Hollywood and it does add a subtext to the film which is appreciated. Unfortunately, basically everything else here is terrible. None of the set-pieces show any creativity and in fact, most of the movie is just dull. It takes so long for Freddy's plan to get into action and when it finally does there isn't much there. And then there's the fact that the film completely abandons the logic of the series. Freddy doesn't really invade dreams here, his plan is instead to posess the body of a teen and kill through him. Why does he need to do this? Why not the dreams? Why this kid in particular? The film never really answers these questions.

I do appreciate the film is at least trying to go a different route than the original movie, but the execution is completely botched. There just isn't enough going on here. Most of the film is just dull and when the filmmakers finally gave the audience Freddy the results are not very inspired. The gay subtext is at least interesting, and the film does have some impressive make-up effects, but when everything else is so dull, it's hard to get too excited about these tiny victories.

D-


A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors


The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise took a nose dive with its first sequel, but part three does a lot to get the series back in track. First off, the film does a good job returning the series to its roots while still breaking away from the formula. Freddy once again terrorizes teens' nightmares, but the film is set in a home for troubled teens who have been victimized by Freddy father than a high school. So, the movie feels like coming home while still expanding the series mythos. On that note, this entry also gives us Freddy's backstory, which fits the folklore vibe of the first film, and we also get the return of Nancy. I wouldn't have given Heather Langenkamp much credit as an actress, but her presence is very welcome here. The cast in fact is surprisingly likable, and folks like Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne certainly help.

The film also does a pretty good job building tension and the horror set-pieces are generally quite good. There's definitely some creativity on display and the filmmakers generally have a lot of fun crafting these scenes. They also hit a good balance between entertainment and horror. For as fun as the film is though, I do think it falls short of being really good. For as great as it is to have Nancy back, the film doesn't actually do much in exploring her relationship to Freddy and I don't think it closes out their storyline very well. In fact, the third act in general doesn't really deliver the way it should.

As a horror movie, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors might only be solid, but as far as slasher sequels go, that's pretty damn impressive. If nothing else, the film uses the core aspects of this series to its advantage. Also, Dokken fucking rocks.

B-


A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master


After walking the line between formula and new ideas effectively in part three, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master goes back to formula. We're back to a high school setting and the fact that these teens had spent a long time in a special facility for troubled kids is minimized. That in itself isn't necessarily a huge problem, what is an issue is the horrendous acting which runs through this beast. Pretty much everyone here who isn't named Robert Englund is terrible, and even Englund I take issue with. Well, I guess it isn't really his fault, but it is this entry where Freddy starts to move from horror villain to wacky comedian who acts like an asshole. That can be entertaining and Englund is fun regardless, but I do miss a Freddy who I could actually be scared of. The film is also drenched in 80s cheese in a way which becomes really distracting.

The film does at least provide some fairly neat set-pieces, and in the third in particularly does build some decent energy. Overall, the film is watchable enough in the moment but is lacking in a lot of places.

D+


A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child


The fifth entry in the Elm Street franchise does improve over the last film. For one, this thing isn't drowning in the 1980s, which is nice, and it also has a more interesting set-up given that it involves pregnancy and parenthood. The film's tone is also a lot stronger and generally the horror vibe comes through well. Unfortunately, the bad acting that marred the last film is in full force here and Freddy continues his descent into wacky comedian. It's a shame because there is some really good stuff here and if the filmmakers had more fully committed to a serious tone they might have really had something.

C-


Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare


The Nightmare on Elm Street series has always seemed to have better sequel potential than most other slasher films, but said sequels have been repeatedly bogged down by problems which drown out the potentially creative things the filmmakers could do with the concept. Nowhere is this more true than Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, a film which indulges in all of the series' worst aspects. The acting is terrible, the characters are boring, and there is almost no attempt to create any creepy tone or atmosphere. Perhaps worst of all though is, at this point, Freddy has fully descended into wacky cartoon character than master of horror. From the tacky Wizard of Oz opening to the fucking powerglove, the character is just a goofy jokester and the set-pieces are more built around comedy than ever. The climax in particular, which incorporates 3D glasses into the plot, is obscenely stupid.

Had the film fully embraced comedy I might have been able to roll with this, but the story as written is actually pretty dark. In fact in theory, there's actually an interesting premise here. I'm not really down with the no additions to Freddy's mythology, but the notion that Springwood's child population has been entirely wiped out by Freddy, the remaining adults are nuts, and the town exists in a place of convoluted time has a ton of potential. Unfortunately the sloppy execution ruins all of that.

Pound for pound, this has got to be the worst of the Nightmare series, to the point where it has me reconsidering some of the lower scores I gave to earlier entries.

F


New Nightmare


By the time the 1990s rolled around the Nightmare on Elm Street series had fully descended into bullshit. Enter original writer/director Wes Craven, and to his credit he brought a pretty neat high concept to the movie. New Nightmare takes a meta approach where it follows the real Heather Langemkamp as she begins to be haunted by a demon taking the form of Freddy Krueger. There's an interesting subtext here about how making horror effects the makers, as well as how telling horror stories acts as a way to address one's own darkness. That's an interesting angle and Craven takes the film a lot more seriously than most of the sequels. The film is fully committed to actual horror and does strive to maintain a sense of dread. It isn't nearly as effective as the original nor are the set-pieces as interesting, but it's more respectable than most of the series.

Coming with this darker tone is a slight revamp of Freddy who has an updated design and, more importantly, any sense of the wisecracking jokester the character devolved into his long-gone. That's something of a double-edged sword though. Much as the humour became grating, Freddy's personality is a big part of why this series is special. As opposed to a mute killer, the sheer glee Freddy took in being evil made him special and creepy. Removing that, your left with a cool design with some neat powers, but it lacks character. In fact, it actually takes quite a while for Freddy to actually show up, with the first third of the movie playing out closer to The Omen, what with the weird acting child.

Looking at the movie as a whole, I'm ultimately mixed. The film is almost certainly one of the better films in the series, I like the themes, and I appreciate the seriousness with which Craven approached the material, but this isn't really the slam dunk I was hoping for. The set-pieces are fine but unexceptional, the film mostly plays to formula despite the meta element, and the removal of Freddy's personality is a serious omission. It's an interesting little watch for fans of the series or horror movies in general, but on the whole it isn't wildly exceptional.

C

HALLOWEEN (1978)

On Halloween night in 1963, 6-year-old Michael Myers killed his sister with a kitchen knife. 15 years later, he escaped from a mental institute. So you better watch out because The Boogeyman might come after you next! As you can see, what makes John Carpenter's Halloween a masterpiece of the horror genre is its camp fire inspired story. The film takes place in an ordinary suburban town with ordinary people. And when Michael Myers shows up, he murders his victims in a - somewhat - realistic manner. The audience can easily identify with all of this because everything presented on-screen could possibly occur in real-life. Also, Michael Myers is a very creepy serial killer. He doesn’t automatically strike or taunt his victims. He spends a lot of time in the corner and in the shadows observing everyone. And then attacks when the moment is right. Now, adding to all of this is Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis. He is Michael’s psychiatrist. In many of these slasher movies, the killer gets to roam around freely, but here, you have someone constantly on the hunt for him. Plus, having someone of Pleasence caliber gives the film a lot of class. Which is just icing on the cake. Carpenter uses everything in the director’s playbook to ensure total satisfaction from the audience.

HALLOWEEN II (1981)

In the original Halloween, Michael Myers goes after a trio of babysitters and whoever happens to be caught in the middle. The only survivors are Laurie Strode, played by Jamie Lee Curtis in her film debut, and the two kids she was looking after. Laurie sacrifices herself for the children and in turn is rescued by Dr. Loomis. Loomis shoots Myers six times and the impact pushes Myers off a balcony. When Loomis looks out the window, Myers is gone. The sequel picks up at that exact moment. Loomis continues his search for Myers while Laurie gets medical attention. In the end, all three characters end up at a hospital for one final confrontation… or so they think. On paper, this is a good idea, but it is executed poorly. For starters, Laurie ends up at the emptiest hospital I’ve ever seen. There’s less than 10 people there in general. It feels like a movie set instead of a real location. Secondly, if she was attacked by a serial killer that is still on the loose, then why is there no security around her? Or better yet, why is there ONE security guard in the entire hospital? And finally, if Loomis is so smart, why didn’t it occur to him that Myers might show up at the hospital to finish the job? He spends 97% of the movie running around town and causing mass hysteria while Myers is at the hospital killing people. Then, in a twist ending, it is revealed that Laurie is Myers’ sister. She was put up for adoption after Myers was locked up. So now, Loomis is like, “Oh! He must be at the hospital then.” And by the time he shows up, everyone is dead except for Laurie. Then he must rescue her again. This time he does so by setting himself and Myers on fire. If only he could have set this film on fire as well. Look, no one expected director Rick Rosenthal to top, or even equal, the original. But he could have at least tried. This is a very lazy sequel and put the franchise on life support right from the get-go.

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS (1988)

John Carpenter didn’t direct any of the sequels but he remained as a writer, producer, and music composer forHalloween II. And as far as he was concerned, that was the conclusion of Michael Myers’ tale. So for Halloween III: Season of the Witch, he decided to turn the franchise into an anthology series. Each movie would feature a new scary story that takes place on Halloween. For that installment, he hired Tommy Lee Wallace to write and direct while he remained as producer and co-music composer with Alan Howarth. What Wallace created was a spooky tale about a mysterious company releasing a magical mask that will kill children on Halloween night. LikeHalloween II, it’s a good idea executed poorly. But for mass audiences, it was more than that. Without Michael Myers and his iconic theme music, they didn’t care and the film flopped at the box office. At that point, Carpenter and his producing partner Debra Hill sold their rights to the franchise and paved the way for Michael Myers’ return.

Released and taking place 10 years after the original, Halloween 4 revolves around Michael Myers’ niece Jamie Lloyd, played wonderfully by Danielle Harris. Without much explanation, it is revealed that Laurie and her husband are dead, and so Jamie is now living in an adoptive home. Following the events of Halloween II, Michael Myers has been in a coma all these years and suffering from severe burn marks. Out of nowhere, he awakens and escapes once again. And once again, Dr. Sam Loomis, with his own battle scars, chases after him. This time, however, the stakes will be raised. In a brilliant decision, screenwriter Alan B. McElroy and director Dwight H. Little devise a structure of escalation. In the beginning, Jamie and her adoptive sister Rachel, played very well by Ellie Cornell, are having a rough morning. Jamie is depressed because of nightmares and Rachel has to cancel plans with her boyfriend. Afterwards, we see Jamie getting bullied at school for being the niece of The Boogeyman while Rachel has a fight with her boyfriend. Later that night, while trick-or-treating, Rachel catches her boyfriend with another girl and Jamie momentarily gets lost. Then, when they believe the worst has happened, Michael Myers makes his move. He cuts all the power and telephone lines in town. That causes mass hysteria and he uses the opportunity to massacre the police department while crazed gun-nuts start shooting innocent people. In the middle of all this, Jamie and Rachel seek shelter at the Sheriff’s home. Unbeknownst to them, Michael Myers is already in the house. After battling him there and later at Jamie’s school, they get on a car and drive out of town. But once again, Michael Myers is one step ahead. He’s under the car, then climbs up and attacks them. What follows is a brief moment of luck when police arrive and shoot Myers until he falls on a ditch and hopefully to his grave. Now there should be peace again - but - the movie ends with a twist. Back at her house, Jamie grabs a kitchen knife and stabs her adoptive mother while Dr. Loomis screams in terror.

Wow! Halloween 4 is an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride from beginning till end. In my opinion, it’s - by far - the best sequel in the series. As well as one of the greatest slasher films ever made. Fans, in general, have issues with it for various reasons but none of those bothered me. Halloween 4, to me, is a very enjoyable movie.

HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS (1989)

Halloween 4 ended on an amazing cliffhanger suggesting that Jamie would follow in her uncle’s footsteps. Instead, it ignores all of that and restores the status quo. The movie begins with Michael Myers once again surviving after being shot. He goes into hibernation and awakens the next Halloween. Meanwhile, Jamie has spent that year at a mental institute and as soon as her uncle awakens she has a strange psychic link to him. Every time he kills someone, or is just simply lurking in the shadows, she gets visions of it. Eventually, she escapes the institute and tries to stop him. Keep in mind that this is a 9-year-old girl. When she shows up, he remembers that he hasn’t killed her yet and goes after her. That’s when Dr. Loomis shows up and saves the day again. This time, however, he’s fed up with all of this and uses Jamie to set up a trap for him. It has its hiccups but it ultimately works. Michael Myers is arrested and there’s peace in the world again. Right? Nope. A mysterious man dressed in black shows up, kills everyone at the police station, and sets Michael Myers free. Oh boy! Well, overall, this is a very flawed but enjoyable sequel. The filmmakers made a lot of stupid decisions and some of the new characters are annoying, but they counter that with excellent kill scenes and riveting performances by Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasence.

HALLOWEEN 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (1995)

It has been six years since the disappearance of Michael Myers and his niece Jamie Lloyd. Then one night, Jamie’s voice can be heard on the radio. She’s pleading for help. It catches the attention of Dr. Loomis and Paul Rudd. They investigate and discover the in-bred child of Jamie and Michael. I kid you not. Meanwhile, the Strode family has moved into Michael Myers home. As you can imagine, Myers returns to kill everyone at his house and chase after those who took his child. That all leads to the revelation of the man dressed in black as well as the supernatural cult that’s controlling Michael Myers. This is, of course, the simplified version of the plot. To the movie’s credit, it’s very ambitious and has fascinating characters. However, the film had a very troubled production. Everyone was fighting over creative differences and it resulted in two versions of the movie. Both of them are a mess. But, they’re worth watching because they explore the mythology of the franchise. They even manage to squeeze in Season of the Witch. Nonetheless, it’s tough to overlook the flaws, so I have a lot of mixed feelings. By the way, Halloween 6 features the last film appearance by Donald Pleasence. He passed away shortly after shooting wrapped. It’s also the last installment in the series to be scored by Alan Howarth, who took over musical duties for John Carpenter. He generally did a good job.

HALLOWEEN H20 (1998)

I remember when this movie was released, everyone made fun of the title. “Oh, does it take place on water?” was the very common joke. But the title stands for the 20th anniversary of the original film. To celebrate, they made a movie that ignores all the sequels. Although there are some vague references to Halloween II. But it is generally accepted that this is a direct sequel to John Carpenter’s original.

The film begins, well, 20 years later. Laurie Strode, once again played by Jamie Lee Curtis, has changed her identity and now lives in Northern California with her son. Then, Michael Myers randomly shows up and tries to finish the job. This time, however, Laurie is tired of being scared and fights back. The movie ends with Laurie decapitating Michael Myers. That would have been a fitting conclusion to the original series but they had to ruin it with one final sequel.

Halloween H20 is directed by Steve Miner. He is a veteran horror filmmaker whose credits include two Friday the 13th installments. Miner goes back to basics and brings Michael Myers back to reality. Because of that, this is generally considered the best sequel in the franchise. However, I’m going to disagree. To begin with, it was silly to ignore the other sequels. I understand things got messy but they could have just retconned a few things instead of flat-out ignoring them. By making this decision, they’re creating a giant plot-hole. I mean, what exactly was Michael Myers doing for the past 20 years? Was he living a quiet mid-western life? Secondly, for like an hour, nothing happens except fake-outs. That’s the most annoying thing you can do in a horror film. Especially one featuring Michael Myers. What makes the character standout is the lurking, but since Laurie lives in a gated community, he is nowhere in sight till the end. So instead, they use fake-outs to make up for it. It’s cringe inducing! And finally, the movie was produced by Kevin Williamson and the Weinstein brothers. They literally had just struck gold with Scream and used the same playbook. The script, the casting, and the visual style are Scream-esque. They even use Marco Beltrami’s music from Scream in many scenes. I want to watch Halloween not Scream!

HALLOWEEN RESURRECTION (2002)

Like Halloween 6, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, they slap fans in the face by resurrecting Michael Myers in the most idiotic way possible. Then, they have the nerve to kill Laurie Strode. It’s unforgivable! But on the other hand, I enjoyed everything else. Basically, the movie revolves around a group of people staying at Michael Myers house on Halloween night and broadcasting it on the Internet. Director Rick Rosenthal, who helmedHalloween II, does a great job of exploring the technological side of the story. In particular, the scene where the main girl is sent texts of Michael Myers whereabouts while running away from him. Also, despite the criticisms, Busta Rhymes is hilarious. He plays the organizer of the webcast and steals every scene he’s in. Even the ones featuring Michael Myers. And for the last film in the original series, it was a good decision to have it take place almost entirely at Michael Myers house and then burn it down with him inside it. Granted, H20 had a superior conclusion but this is second best.

FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980)

In 1957, a boy named Jason Voorhees drowns in summer camp because his counselors are too busy having sex to notice. So, from 1958 to 1962, his mother goes on a killing spree and the camp is shut down till 1980 when some very naive teenagers decide to re-open it. Despite warnings from the townspeople, they spend a day preparing Camp Crystal Lake for the summer. Then, as expected, the killings quickly commence. There’s some cool things to point-out about the original Friday the 13th. For starters, Kevin Bacon is in it. Secondly, the killings are creative for a low-budget horror flick. Thirdly, Pamela Voorhees is a great villain. And finally, the last scare is a genre classic. But with that being said, the movie kind-of sucks. The characters are largely forgettable. The violence is pretty tame. There’s barely any sex and nudity. And, the film tends to drag a lot.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART 2 (1981)

Jason resurrects from his watery grave, and after getting revenge for the death of his mother, he sets out to continue her killing spree. Part 2 follows the same structure as the original but it also improves on it. The pace is a lot better. The characters are slightly better. The kill count increases. And it has an awesome finale. Also, Jason is not wearing his hockey mask yet and he isn’t physically imposing either. He’s basically a hillbilly with a bag over his head. Then, when they reveal his face, they use a sitcom freeze frame so you can admire the make-up effects. It’s very amusing, and perhaps, a superior version of the character.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART III (1982)

This is mostly a pointless sequel. It makes no effort whatsoever to advance the storyline besides giving Jason his iconic hockey mask. It’s also disappointing that Jason is a major bore. However, the killings weren’t too bad and Dana Kimmell, as the lead actress, was fun to watch. The way she ultimately defeats Jason was cool too. Although I didn’t care for all the last minute dream sequences. Just kill Jason and roll credits.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER (1984)

What’s nice about the so-called “Final Chapter” is that the filmmakers added more meat to the story. We get the typical teenagers on vacation, which includes a pre-fame Crispin Glover (Back to the Future), but also a guy searching for Jason so he can get revenge, and a family living next door to the teens. Jason, meanwhile, is superhuman for the first time. He crushes a guy’s skull with his bare hands. When he throws a body through a window, he takes down the entire wall. He breaks doors in half with his fists. He might be a Michael Myers copycat, but his appeal starts to make sense at this point. So, overall, this is a very well-made movie. It’s, arguably, the best in the series. And the icing on the cake is Corey Feldman as Tommy Jarvis. When he kills Jason at the end, it is very disturbing and sets up Tommy as a very interesting character for the next two films.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING (1985)

This was the first Friday the 13th I saw, back when I was a kid. Even though it’s the fifth installment, I considered it a good introduction to the franchise because it has a good premise, a few memorable kills, and excellent nudity. The story revolves around a teenage Tommy Jarvis trying to mentally recover from the incidents in Part IV. He goes to a rehabilitation camp that’s upsetting the townspeople because they don’t want a bunch of unstable teens roaming around. Their concerns are justified when people start getting killed. The kills are quite good and very funny. There’s a dude who gets murdered while peeping on a couple having sex. Another guy is killed after taking a s–t. And my favorite is the girl in her room doing the `80s robot dance when the killer shows up. Notice I didn’t say Jason. That’s because he isn’t the killer this time. It’s an impostor. The first film had Jason’s mom. Then the next three sequels had Jason. And now they wanted someone new. That’s a great way to keep the series fresh. But fans were disappointed about that and this movie became the black sheep of the franchise. Which is amusing because this is one of the better installments in the series.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VI: JASON LIVES (1986)

Jason returns for what is considered the fan-favorite of the series. It’s also has some critical acclaim. The film uses comedy, as well as large-scale action sequences, to freshen-up the franchise and it results in a very awesome movie. Another stand-out element is the inclusion of children. Watching Jason, who is now a full-fleshed horror monster, terrorize a group of kids adds more tension to the film. Speaking of the young ones, this is the final installment to feature Tommy Jarvis and he goes out like a badass by killing Jason in a very memorable way.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD (1988)

Jason Lives was a horror-comedy with a decent budget. Since it was a success, you’d expect the series to continue in that direction. Unfortunately, they decided to go back to square one. Well… sort of. Once again, we get the low-budget horror film about teens being killed in the woods, but this time the lead character has telekinetic powers. That makes the climax very fun to watch but everything else is boring and by-the-numbers. This is where the franchise starts to go downhill. SIDE NOTE: This is the first installment featuring Kane Hodder as Jason. He ended up playing Jason the most times.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN (1989)

WARNING: The title is misleading. Only 40 minutes of the movie take place in New York City. And only a few minutes of it are actually shot on location. The rest of the running time is spent on a boat en-route to the big apple. It’s a disappointment to say the least. However, it’s not a terrible film. There are a few things to admire. Like when Jason is walking around Times Square. Or the scene where one of the teens tries to get into a boxing match with Jason. He throws a few punches but gives up when Jason feels no pain whatsoever. Then Jason punches him ONCE in the face and it’s so powerful that his head flies off his body. It’s one of the funniest moments in the series. And, I really enjoyed Peter Mark Richman as the a-hole guardian of the lead character. He’s easily the best actor in the entire franchise. By the way, the lead is played by Tim Allen’s sister-in-law on Home Improvement. She’s the one Tim accidentally saw naked. Kelly Hu is also in the movie. And during the Times Square scenes, you can see a billboard for the 1989 Batman movie. So, despite the disappointments and some pace issues, it’s still worth checking out for all the little moments.

JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY (1993)

Jason Takes Manhattan was Paramount’s last involvement with the Friday the 13th franchise till the Michael Bay produced remake. The series was sold to New Line Cinema, which is why this movie ends with a cameo by Freddy Krueger. New Line wanted to make Freddy vs Jason since day one. The Necronomicon also makes an appearance. As some of you may recall, one of the proposed sequels for Freddy vs Jason involved Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy. So with that in mind, here’s the plot for Jason Goes to Hell. After a decade-long killing spree, the government get involved and send a swat team to blow up Jason. However, his heart keeps on beating. When the coroner sees that, he feels compelled to eat it, and that’s how Jason gets a new body. But it’s only the first of many bodies he possesses till he can track down his relatives and use their body to be reborn. There’s a catch though. His family is the only one that can permanently kill him. So, he’s going after them at great risk. As you can see, the movie is ridiculous but that’s okay with me. I don’t even mind the straight-to-video/Roger Corman/SyFy feel to it. What really grinds my gears is the story. It makes no sense. The whole reason why Jason kills teens in the woods is to avenge his mother. So why would he attack his relatives? It’s a bit hypocritical. Also, why would he even want his old body back? Possessing other people gives him an advantage. Then there’s a bounty hunter, played by the always awesome Steven Williams, that knows about Jason’s supernatural abilities and becomes a guide/mentor to the Voorhees clan. How is that even possible? Where did this guy obtain that information? And why does he have this knowledge and not the Voohees family? The script is such a mess that I’m surprised a studio paid millions to turn into a movie.

JASON X (2002)

After 22 years and 10 movies, we’ve finally reached the end of the original series. Unless you want to count Freddy vs Jason as the conclusion. But even then, this is the chronological finale. The movie begins in the year 2010. The government has finally found a solution for Jason: freeze him. Then in the year 2465, a group of medical students find the body and take him on a spaceship ride. As you can imagine, once Jason awakens from his cryogenic sleep, all hell breaks loose. The best kill, by far, is when he freeze’s the blonde girls head and then smashes it into pieces. So to give the filmmakers some credit, they took advantage of the spaceship setting very well. The movie is very cheesy and SyFy-esque but it’s very enjoyable because of the humor and creativity involved with this new scenario. Like for example, there’s a scene towards the end where the survivors blow-up their spaceship after getting rescued. It’s followed by a shot of Jason floating in space towards them. When you see that you just have to laugh. People love to hate Jason X, but I think it’s a lot of fun. My only true criticism is the music. It’s awful. Harry Manfredini writes good horror music but once you start adding comedy, sci-fi, and action, he’s out of his comfort zone.

THE REMAKE (2009)

Michael Bay’s production company, Platinum Dunes, has been remaking horror movies for the past decade. That has upset many people for good reasons, but here’s one that’s actually very good. It’s perhaps even great. Their Friday the 13th remake begins with Jason’s mother being killed in 1980 and Jason being a witness to it. In the original, supernatural forces resurrect Jason after his mother’s death. Here, they never explain what happens. The movie then fast-forwards to 2009 and we see a group of teenagers camping near Camp Crystal Lake. It doesn’t take long for Jason, with a bag over his head, to show up and kill everyone except a girl who resembles a young version of his mother. She also happens to be the sister of Supernatural’s Jared Padalecki and so a month after her disappearance he shows up to look for her. Meanwhile, a group of college kids show up to party at a cabin. Some people complain we didn’t need these characters, but considering the great amount of sex and violence we get, I’m not going to complain. It’s also during this section of the film where Jason gets his famous hockey mask. So anyway, eventually, Jared Padalecki finds his sister and they defeat Jason. Now all this may seem like standard Friday the 13th stuff but it works. For starters, the remake features elements from the first four movies while also telling it’s own original story. So it feels more like a tribute than a remake. Secondly, Jason comes across as human. He isn’t the slow moving super villain we’re used to. Instead, he’s this big guy who lives off the land and viciously murders anyone invading his turf. It’s a more interesting version of the character. And finally, the inclusion of Jared Padalecki’s storyline gives the audience something they can emotionally connect to and then root for at the end. Jason is always the highlight in these film’s, so it’s nice to finally put the spotlight on the hero. So… if you haven’t watched the remake, give it a chance. You might like it.

Though there are a variety of J-Horror movies out there, in the popular consciousness the genre is largely defined by two series: the Ringu series and the Ju-On series. The latter of those series was the source of the 2004 American film The Grudge (a film I’ve never seen), which was largely based on the 2003 Japanese film Ju-On: The Grudge. This was not, however the first movie in the series. That distinction actually goes to a direct-to-video film Ju-On: The Curse, which was followed by another direct-to-video sequel called Ju-On: The Curse 2 (Ju-On, incidentally, is Japanese for “Curse Grudge”). These micro-budget films were well received and led to their semi-sequel/semi-reboot Ju-On: The Grudge getting a theatrical release which was a hit and its remake would become the one clear financial success to come out of the gold rush to bring other J-Horror films to American after the success of The Ring. All of these films including the direct-to-video ones and the American remake and its first sequel were directed by a guy named Takashi Shimizu, who by my count has directed at least six of these things and the franchise has gone on since then and has produced no fewer than twelve different movies across its various iterations including one released just last year which was a crossover between the Ju-On ghost and the Ringu ghost.



The sheer number of these movies suggests that there must be something to them that’s appealing, but I really didn’t care for what I saw in this first and presumably best film in the series. The film, like a lot of these movies, is about people forced to contend with a vengeful ghost (ghosts?) and this ghost is particularly murderous. The spirit’s modus operandi is to curse anyone who enters the house it died in and comes into contact with anyone else who already has the curse… and that’s more or less all that happens throughout the course of the movie. People enter the movie, get cursed, then die something like ten minutes later when the ghost decides the time is right. Few characters are in the movie long enough for you to really care about them before they’re killed, and just to make matters even less clear the movie is told outside of chronological order to no real effect. The basic mechanics of how the ghost stalks and kills (appearing and disappearing, that croaking sound) have a certain creepy quality to them, but their effect is quickly diminished with repetition over the course of the film. There also isn’t really much to this ghost at the end of the day, it’s not trying to tell its story like the ghost from Ringu, it’s not trying to make some elaborate statement about the loneliness of death like the ghosts in Pulse, and it’s not even trying to find a new mother like the ghost in Dark Water, it just wants to kill everyone and that doesn’t make for a terribly compelling film.

** out of Five

Day 25: Disparate Vampire Films


Vampyr


Vampyr is Carl Theodor Dreyer's take on vampire mythology. The film is strange, atmospheric piece where a young man is besieged by all-manner of creepiness and it's never totally clear if what we're watching is real or a manifestation of the dude's fears. The rules are not clearly defined and in fact the actual narrative is kinda disposable. I don't doubt these factors played a big role in the film's initial hostile reputation, but that isn't totally fair. The focus here is definitely more on the atmosphere, which is excellent. The film does a great job creating a creepy, other-worldly tone with some sinister visuals and amazing camera work.

Then there's the fact that Vampyr sits very much between two different worlds of filmmaking. Technically a sound film, Vampyr plays out much more like a silent movie, with only the occasional bits of terse dialogue could have easily been title cards. Normally, this sort of half-and-half approach is awkward, but it works perfectly for Vampyr, lending to the dreamlike vibe. Beyond that, the commitment to silent technique allows for much more ambitious cinematography. Vampyr is maybe lacking the substance to take its place among Dreyer's best, but it is a highly compelling watch a unique take on the vampire movie.

A-


What We Do in the Shadows


What We Do in the Shadows is a mockumentary about a handful of vampires living in a flat in modern day New Zealand. It was also a breakthrough film for co-director Taika Watiti. Hunt for the Wilderpeople definitely showed a lot of growth as a filmmaker, but just in terms of comedy, I think I preferred this scrappier effort. The filmmakers put a fair amount of thought into vampire lore and they also draw on this tradition well for comedic possibilities. Purely the visual of Peter had me laughing. The cast also have a great dynamic and there are a number of witty lines sprinkled throughout. A lot of comedies in this style tend to rely on improv and I'm sure that's also the case here, but it's also clear that some real craft went into putting this together and the jokes seem well thought out.

The actual story to this thing is kind of disposable, but I laughed consistently the whole way through and generally just had a fun time watching this. By no means a classic, but a really enjoyable movie, one I could see myself throwing on again.

B+

I'll admit this one is a bit of a stretch but...
Deliverance is a very interesting blend of adventure movie and suspense thriller. Calling it a horror movie is perhaps a bit of a stretch but the redneck killers are pretty close to being outright monsters so it almost fits and, well, the squeal like a pig scene is certainly horrific. At the very least it does for river canoeing and rednecks what Jaws did for swimming and sharks. The movie is often framed as a movie about how scary the South is, which it is sort of but what does get forgotten sometimes is that the good guys in the movie are from Atlanta and are themselves Southerners. First and foremost the film is simply really well crafted. This is something that is sometimes remembered as this grimy 70s movie but its actually a pretty elegantly crafted and large budgeted thriller with some pretty elegant camera work and some very carefully staged sequences. The film also has a really strong cast both in its main stars and in the odd looking hill people it finds to populate it’s side characters. The film’s other big asset is that it has a rather gripping concept with its characters forced to make some really tough decisions about how they’ll have to respond to a difficult situation.

****1/2 out of Five

Day Twenty-Six:


Film Year: 1999
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment
Riff Year: 2008
Riffers: Michael J. Nelson, Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett
Selected Short: Seat Belts: The Lifesaving Habit

Do you hate stuff that's designed to save your life? Does the inconvenience of having to flip the safety off your handgun before you use it to open a beer bottle drive you INSANE? Do you snicker and point at children wearing bicycle helmets, contemptuous of their willingness to believe "The Man"? Do you wiggle your way out of roller coaster restraints so you can raise both middle fingers boldly in the air?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you're going to absolutely hate Seat Belts: The Life-Saving Habit. This plea for reason provides a snapshot of some anti-seatbelt sentiments from the early 1980s. For example, "I've never worn one, but they look uncomfortable," "Hey, I'm a busy guy, I don't have time for this," and "Children are invincible." The film confidently (or, more often, passive-aggressively) debunks these powerful straw-man arguments in a noble attempt to save lives and subliminally advertise the safe, luxurious Audi sedan. One assumes the filmmakers went on to champion other controversial stances, such as "you probably shouldn't let your kids swallow broken glass."

Climb into the back of a pick-up truck with Mike, Kevin, and Bill and ride down a bumpy road to a destination called Seat Belts: The Life-Saving Habit!

Haley Joel Osment would see a lot less dead people if most of those bastards wore their damn seat belt! This safety film demonstrates why a safety belt is so important to both you and your family. Got an excuse to not wear one? Well, you’re an idiot.

“Listen and weep as the announcer begs the parents to love their children.”

This short is less silly than most, in fact it’s quite well made and effective. What makes this particular short riffable is the snotty characters giving their half-assed excuses for not wearing a seat belt. And what sucks is that we know there are a lot of people out there exactly like this. The riffing targets these people and points out their inane logic and even taking it to the next level for even more hilarity.

This sport’s one of my all-time favorites. Maybe even my favorite period. It’s twenty minutes of solid laughter that’s highly recommended.

And now our feature presentation...

M. Night Shalalalalalalalalalala-tee-da burst onto the scene with the biggest suspense thriller of 1999 (well, right behind a relatively short list of films that includes Analyze This, Wild Wild West and Varsity Blues.) Haley Joel Osment delivers the most miraculous performance ever given by a toddler (he was just 18 months old when he was nominated for the Oscar!) and Bruce "The Return of Bruno" Willis turns in yet another trademark performance as a guy who seems sort of tired and annoyed. When a guy in his underpants shoots a child psychiatrist (who, to be clear, was also wearing underpants, he just happened to have pants on over them) his life is turned upside down (the guy wearing pants over his underpants, that is, not the guy only wearing underpants.) Why does his wife seem withdrawn and narcoleptic? Why do the local children taunt him and call him "Casper"? Why does he seem tired, run down, just sort of dead?

Watch along with Mike, Kevin and Bill as they unlock the most unlockablest secrets of "The Sixth Sense".*

*This is the 1999 film, not the 1972 TV show starring Gary Collins. Gary Collins apologizes for the confusion.



1999: The year everyone was obsessed with The Sixth Sense, a story about a boy who can “see dead people” and his psychiatrist who may or may not be a spoiler. Everyone who went was whispering excitedly about the ending so not to ruin it for the virgins. Amazingly the ending wasn’t spoiled for me on The Sixth Sense by the time I watched it on home video. What ended up ruining it for me was by the time I got there I didn’t really give a shit. I was an early teen at the time and everything was stupid, especially popular things.

In the years since I never gave it a rewatch. What was the point? If so much hinged on the ending and I already knew it, what would I gain from watching it again? To an extent I wish I could erase the ending from my memory and watch this movie fresh as an adult to have an actual reaction to it.

Watching it for a second time now, trying to find something to appreciate out of it, I find that...I kind of don’t give a shit.

It’s not that it’s a bad movie, it’s fine. I’m just not invested in it. There are moments where Shyamalan-isms grind my gears, but they are fewer than other choice films I could name. The acting goes into the monotone whisper he likes to push all too often, as I find myself failing to grasp any human emotion to latch onto, but at least it mostly stays sensible with its acting. Save for a few moronic “lolwut” scenes.

It’s well structured, and Shyamalan does some fine cinematography and visual suspense, though the drama often falls flat for me. There’s a small exception to the scenes between Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment, who have a very interesting relationship with each other that the movie luckily rides so hard on. I guess I see why people like it. But I’m just not compelled to watch it again. Maybe in another 18 years...or the next time I want I want a good laugh via Rifftrax.

Speaking of, even if I were in love with the movie I’d have to admit that this is prime Rifftrax fuel. Self-serious movies like Shyamalan’s filmography always make the best riffs. And while The Sixth Sense is a much better movie than The Happening or The Last Airbender, this might just be my favorite of the three Shyamalan riffs they’ve done. To be fair, it helps that the movie is more interesting than the others, but it also helps that the boys are just in the zone.

They always have fun with Shyamalan’s overwritten, melodramatic dialogue where you can just feel all the actors waiting for the other person to finish their line so they can start their own. They push the dialogue into more colorful territory, adding to it and playing with it. I’d daresay they make the movie more organic than it really is. A great example of this is an ending scene where Haley Joel Osment reveals to his mother he can see dead people, which is a scene that should work in theory but I don’t feel any emotion during it because these people feel fake (like most M. Night Shyamalan characters). But the failed drama of the scene provides a perfect grip to hold, and there are enough dramatic pauses (more than your average Twilight movie) for them to keep it consistent. I laughed consistently throughout this one, because they are the perfect wacky contrast this movie needs to just tip over the edge into comedy territory.

This is the last Rifftrax of my marathon that’s brand new to me. I had actually initially didn’t have this one in the line-up even though I wanted it in, because I didn’t have a DVD of this movie at my disposal. By some act of fate, by God, or a ghostly Bruce Willis watching over me, I actually had one drop in my lap two weeks ago and changed plans mid-marathon (for those curious, I originally was going to do Mothra in its place). Whatever was the cause of this domino effect, I am grateful. This Trax is a winner.

No-one reviewed the original IT this season?

Shaaaaaame.

Ew. That's low, even for you, you saucy charlatan. All those tentacles...