31 Days of Halloween

SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK (1991)




As a kid in the early 1960's, Jim Norman (Tim Matheson) witnessed the murder of his older brother by a group of greasers. And he got his revenge by instigating their death when a train ran over their car. Fast forward 20-something years later and Jim returns to the small town where his brother was killed to get a teaching job at the High School. Then, to his shock and terror, some of his students are those greasers. They've returned from the after-life to get their revenge.

Based on a short story by Stephen King, Sometimes They Come Back is a very emotional movie. The filmmakers want the audience to feel the pain and horror of the main character. But unfortunately, they weren't entirely successful. The greasers are very one-dimensional and cartoon-ish. It's difficult to take them seriously. And the back-story of how they killed Jim's older brother seems very far-fetched to me. They wanted to rob him, but since he didn't have any money, they stab him instead. Okay?

Overall, it's a very good movie and also very mainstream friendly. Horror fans and non-fans can enjoy it and watch it together. It's just missing certain ingredients that could have helped it become another classic Stephen King adaptation.

B+ 

Big fan of this in my youth. 

Never got around to watching the sequel though, 'Sometimes They Come Back...Again'. I think I was put off by the hilarious title.

Were the sequels based on King stories too, do you know?

The sequels have nothing to do with Stephen King. He wrote the original short story and that's it.

Heh, nice to know I get the benefit of the doubt.

It's awesome how you're open to other opinions.

He still needs to watch Jason X, Jason vs Freddy and the Michael Bay remake. So he ain't done yet.

I'm open to all sorts of opinions...all of mine 

I need to watch those Rob Zombie Halloween movies. Other than that, I'm done as well. I'm debating whether or not I should watch Saw and Hostel and all those damn Torture Porn movies. They're not my cup-of-tea, but what else do I have? I've already seen Universal, Hammer, Argento, the slasher films, Paranomal Activity. I don't know... maybe I'll get into Roger Corman's Edgar Allen Poe movies.  

DAY FIFTEEN: HANNIBAL WEEK - PART THREE: HANNIBAL (2001)



Ridley Scott's Hannibal doesn't have the best reputation.  Many cite it to be a lesser work than its predecessor, focusing mainly on its story and desire to show the violence in more detail than Silence of the Lambs as reasons why.  I can certainly see why this movie wouldn't be for everyone, but personally, I still dig it quite a bit.  Right off the bat, Ridley Scott gives this sequel a different feel than the original; whereas Lambs seems to fit more neatly into the category of 'psychological thriller' most of the time, Hannibal contains elements that can classify it more as horror -- and I really like that tone Scott brings.  Of course, this also has to do with the Thomas Harris source novel, but I still appreciate how effectively different Hannibal feels.  Just like Jonathan Demme before him, Ridley Scott creates a very palpable atmosphere of dread that's easy to get swept up in.  Does showing more of the violence cheapen things any?  Well...yes and no.  Yes, it sometimes feels like the film is simply going for shock value (though now I'd say this isn't the most violent interpretation of Hannibal Lecter I've seen) but no, because I think it solidifies the fact that we're "out of the constraints," so to speak, not unlike the character of Hannibal himself in the film.  Anthony Hopkins is once again in top form as the character, still as cunning and intelligent as ever, and we now get to see that intelligence put to use away from his cell, making him more of a danger and threat than before.  And Hopkins' wry/dark sense of humor is still really enjoyable.  Julianne Moore steps into Jodie Foster's shoes as Clarice, and while the performance isn't as great as Foster's (could it ever have been?) it's nonetheless very solid in its own right.  If Moore comes off as more aggressive than Foster, it's because the character has changed into that between films, and Moore plays that well.

Getting more into the story, I like it.  The portion devoted to Hannibal outrunning and outsmarting Inspector Pazzi in Italy is the highlight of it all, but I also found myself caught up in the Mason Verger storyline as well.  Gary Oldman plays Verger in a really good performance and makes for a fun villain.  As the film goes on, the tension builds more and more until we reach the climax, which is both a crazy and riveting sequence.  I acknowledge that the film can get messy, but I think it's a pretty glorious mess that I get a dark, twisted kick out of.

***1/2 /****

I gave Zombie's Halloween one star when I saw it back in 2007, which is tied with The Happening the lowest star rating I've given to a movie I saw in theaters since I started blogging in 2007.  That said, when I look back on the movie I don't remember it being that bad.  I think maybe I was thrown off by how utterly unlike the original it was stylisticlly or maybe I was just on a high horse about it being a remake of a movie that didn't need remaking.  I wonder if I might like it more if I saw it again with a more open mind... or maybe if I saw it again I might just be reminded about how loathsome it is and come away thinking I was right the first time.  Zombie's Halloween II on the other hand was just a mess that seemed like it was thrown together half-heartedly and is barely worth discussing.

Oh and I gave "The Happening" a 2/10 so a 1 star review myself, that's one that I look back on and cannot believe I paid to see it.