Apparently Jason Voorhees is a mere mortal after all. 'Tis a sad day in the world of horror, as we mourn the loss of Richard Brooker. Unless you have lived in a cave for the past 30 years, you should know that Richard Brooker took on the role of Jason Voorhees and made horror history. Brooker played Jason in "Friday the 13th Part 3", and was the first Jason to don the infamous hockey mask, making it a worldwide icon of horror. Richard effortlessly and brilliantly re-invented Jason Voorhees, and it became the definitive Jason to many a horror fan.
To this day, I still tell anybody that listens that the only good "Friday the 13th" films are the first 4, and after going back and watching them all in a marathon, I firmly stand by that opinion. Richard's performance made a huge impact on me in my youth, and I would like to take this moment to thank him for his contribution not only to the "Friday the 13th" films, but to the world of horror in general.
Okay, so today is all about "April Fool's Day". I'm celebrating my love for it by showcasing the wonderfully creepy score Charles Bernstein did for the film. Bernstein, who also scored the original "A Nightmare On Elm Street", offered up a sadly overlooked piece of music for a usually overlooked piece of film. It's a downright awesome score, and although hard to find, is well worth the hunt. It's one of those fantastic 80's synth scores, and you just can't beat that. Here's a taste.
On top of being one of the best sci-fi/horror films of all time, Carpenter's classic also boasts a stunningly eerie score by legendary composer Ennio Morricone. It's a superb and chilling piece that perfectly compliments the bleak terror of the film. Good stuff.
Hey kids, it's that time of year. Summer is here. Which means lots of camping, floating, and such. Well for me, at least. I live on the lake. Pretty much always have. My summers as a child consisted of lots of camping, floating, swimming, and frolicking in the woods. And being scared silly by tales of Mrs. Voorhees and Cropsey around a campfire.
Because of that, I've always had a yen for camp-themed slashers or those that take place in the woods. There is indeed something frightening about being out in the woods, cut off from civilization. Sitting around a campfire, you truly don't know who is watching you, off in the distance. You're vulnerable. You're out of your familiar element, away from the comforts and safety of home. FRIDAY THE 13TH, THE BURNING, and MADMAN are just a few 80's horror films that offer a nice, woodsey vibe. Got a good scary store to tell? Let's build a campfire and scare the kids, shall we? I've got the marshmallows if you care to join me.
So I finally got around to watching "V/H/S" last night. I'd been practically dying to see it, as I'm a regular junkie for horror anthologies. And.... I'm still scratching my head over it. For a film that was supposed to "restore my faith in horror films", I'm afraid it did quite the opposite. First of all, I never lost faith in horror films. Yes, horror today is in a dreadful state. Sure. But if I had truly lost faith in horror films, then I wouldn't still be watching them. I'd wanted to see "V/H/S" since it came out, as I'm usually a huge fan of the "found footage" flicks. I shoulda just kept waiting.
Here's the premise. Apparently, a group of douche-bags are hired to break into this desolate, country home and steal a video tape. We are never told why they are stealing this particular tape, or what is on it. Nor are we told who exactly wants this tape stolen. Once the douche-bags arrive, they find a man's dead body sitting in a chair, and a hub of tv screens with tons of video tapes lying around. Apparently, they don't know which tape to retrieve, so they start popping tapes in, and we are treated, we assume, to the stories on the tapes. I say assume here, because I honestly didn't know what the hell was going on the entire time I was watching.
There were some very scary scenes in "V/H/S", but it's such a muddled mess, those scenes are robbed of any impact they might have made. One of the stories, the one with the bug-eyed weird girl, is actually quite good and disturbing... and I thought it might not be half bad. But 30 minutes later I found myself thinking meh... then another scary moment would happen, only to follow it up with meh... again. Back and forth. Finally, we admitted defeat about an hour into it. We finished it, but barely. This was the longest movie of my life, it seemed. Just when I thought it was over, someone pops in yet another tape with even more footage. Too many stories to digest, for sure.
All this footage is just hurled at us in intervals, and we are somehow supposed to find time to thread it all together into some sort of coherency. Is all this footage somehow connected? Obviously it is somehow, as all these tapes are found in this deserted house. But why? What was the purpose of breaking into the original house to steal the tape in the first place? lots of douche-baggery to be found, but not much plot. I found it pretty stupid and un-realistic that a bunch of goons would just break into a house, find a dead man there, and just non-chalantly blunder around while still filming the festivities and going through video tapes. What is up with the disappearing dead guy? Was it him who wanted them to come steal the stupid tape in the first place? Who's the naked guy running around? And why should we honestly care? This movie reeks of pure laziness.
Another complaint I have about "V/H/S" is one I find myself applying to many modern horror movies. Whatever happened to likable characters? I couldn't wait to see this entire cast dead. Like, for real. I certainly wouldn't want to know anybody in this movie in real life. Well, except maybe for the naked guy in the first story... Everything in "V/H/S" happens to fast, we have no time whatsoever to relate to these characters, or ultimately care what happens to them. And they're just not likable people. In classic horror films of the day, we actually liked many of those characters. Whether it was sassy Annie from "Halloween" or goofy Ned from "Friday the 13th", they were fun. Memorable. Somewhat real. We invest time in them, and are ultimately affected by what happens to them. Not so much here. This all seems very contrived, for the most part. With all the talent involved, I was honestly expecting something more. This was nothing I haven't seen before, honestly.
So that's my take on "V/H/S". This was the first "found footage" flick that I honestly did not like. It's sad, because it had such potential! I still think had they cut this in half, and fleshed out say, three of the best stories, this might have been more powerful. But alas, they didn't. Oh well. I suppose I should wrap all this by trying to find something positive to say about this flick. There is definitely some imagination at work here- maybe a bit too much. This movie could easily be split up into two separate films, which I think would give the finished project much more impact. As it is, it's simply way too much crammed into one big mess. There are some genuinely frightening moments in "V/H/S", and some pretty cool effects as well. However, to me, it just doesn't all gel together like it should. There are too many pointless stories going on, and not enough emphasis on the backbone which should tie it all together neatly. Seems I'm getting negative again. I think you get the drift by now anyway.
Wes Craven followed up his infamous LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and his controversial THE HILLS HAVE EYES with the superbly entertaining made-for-TV horror flick SUMMER OF FEAR, based on the young-adult mystery novel by Lois Duncan, and stars the one and only Linda Blair. Of course it sounds irresistible, and well, it is.
Rachel, perfectly played by Linda Blair, is your typical, free-wheeling teenager who loves horseback riding, has a major crush on a boy, and pretty much lives a golden life. However, her world is shaken up one sunny morning with the stunning news of the death of her aunt and uncle, who along with their housekeeper, died in a car accident in the Ozark Mountains. As a result of this tragedy, their teenage daughter Julia, played by Lee Purcell, is coming to live with Rachel and her family. And suddenly all hell breaks loose.
Rachel likes Julia at first, who comes across as rather mousy and scared of her own shadow. But Rachel soon realizes there is something mysterious going on with dowdy Julia, as she seems to be taking over Rachel's life, her family, her crush, and her friends- which by the way, is played by none other than Fran Drescher from "The Nanny"! Soon Julia starts dressing like Rachel, even copying her hair, as the whole thing builds to a completely satisfying catfight showdown of a climax.
Now even though this is a Wes Craven production, don't expect a brutal exercise in horror. However, it's a nifty little nail-biter that's solid and campy and all-around entertaining. Craven knows what he's doing here and doesn't disappoint.
SUMMER OF FEAR is one of the best known made-for-TV thrillers of the 1970's and 80's, and there's plenty of reasons why. Check it out, kids.
John Baxter (Tony Roberts), is a skeptic who works for Reveal Magazine. His job is to debunk ghost stories and claims of haunted houses. In a questionable case of real estate, recently divorced Baxter decides to buy the infamous house in Amityville, Long Island. Why not? Well, to solve the mystery of 112 Ocean Avenue and see it it's legit, or a bunch of bunk.
Turns out his daughter Susan is none other than 80's icon Lori Loughlin, who would go on to a different house in a few years. The wonderful Candy Clark plays Melanie- John's faithful photographer assistant and who does not think any of this is a good idea. Baxter's grumpy ex-wife, played by Tess Harper, is also vehemently against this arrangement. And surprise- spunky Meg Ryan shows up as Susan's best friend. Don't you just love the 80's.
This was the second sequel to the hit classic THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. Cashing in on the hot but very brief 3-D craze of the time, AMITYVILLE 3-D, along with FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 in 3-D and JAWS 3-D, all made a memorable 3-D horror trilogy of the early 80's. Is it any good? No... yet I find it irresistible all the same. This was the first sequel in the series not to continue the existing storyline, and it plays with the idea that maybe the house itself is infamous, but could still be seen as a hoax. This is a curious entry in the AMITYVILLE series. It was the last movie before the series turned to utter shit, for one.
I'm reviewing it because it's included in the fabulous box set with the first two films, and anyway it's not terrible. There are lots of things I actually like about AMITYVILLE 3-D. It's damn weird, for one,and oddly entertaining.
This sequel really does kinda veer off into Crazytown, and that's part of its charm. We're treated to Meg Ryan wanting to hump a ghost, flying swordfish, ouija boards, purple floating mists, more flies, and a freaky demon that comes out of the well right at the end and burns a guy's face off (Jim from DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN)! It builds to a rousing climax that literally brings down the house, and ends on an ominous and mysterious note. While nothing memorable, it's still a totally enjoyable slice of 80's b-movie camp heaven and part of a pretty strong haunted house trilogy. And don't go any farther than this installment. Trust me.
I think it's kind of cool that for whatever reason, AMITYVILLE 3-D, FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 in 3-D, and JAWS 3 IN 3-D were all third sequels, and all in 3-D. These movies were a huge fucking deal deal back in 1982 and 1983, and a lot of memories are attached to them. That alone give this movie cool points. Another golden HBO staple right here.
It's definitely the odd man out of the original trilogy, but that makes it sort of endearing to me. The first two AMITYVILLE films were serious attempts at scary movies. I think they were going for that with the third, but it somehow came out rather campy and curious instead. It should have truly ended here though. It would have been a respectable horror trilogy and that would have been that. But no.
Based on the best selling novel by Peter Benchley, JAWS tells the story of a Great White shark terrorizing resort island Amity, New York. It starts off with an amazingly scary opening scene. A woman goes for a midnight dip in the ocean, alone. She is brutally attacked and killed by some unknown creature in the water.Turns out to be a shark attack, and that shark is hungry. The beaches happen to be packed as it's the middle of summer, and it's a regular smorgasboard for the shark. Chief Martin Brody, of the Amity Police, soon finds himself on a quest to find this elusive beast and destroy it before it destroys the entire town. This is classic nature run amok, man versus monster stuff.
A conversation came up the other day, concerning JAWS and whether or not it was a legitimate horror movie. It got rather heated. There were a handful of people who honestly thought JAWS was cookie-cutter Spielberg fluff that just wasn't scary. The arguments against it being a true horror film were that it was rated PG for one, that sharks weren't scary, and that it was more of a mainstream action/adventure movie with some scary overtones. Now for the arguments concerning JAWS being a deserving horror classic.
It undeniably and legitimately scared the living shit out of pretty much the entire world in the mid-70's, and made an entire generation afraid to go in the water. And in the process forever tainted the reputation of the Great White shark, and sharks in general. Our fear of sharks today all stem from JAWS. Now granted, humans have always feared the creatures of the deep. But it was Spielberg's masterpiece that truly created a worldwide terror of sharks that is as strong today as it ever was. If that's not a horror film, then I don't know what is. On Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, JAWS was awarded the #1 spot, which apparently surprised many. But if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. It created a massive cultural fear that lingers to this day, and that's pretty remarkable, if you ask me. It terrified people about going into the ocean like PSYCHO scared people from taking showers.
JAWS kicked off a wave of knock-offs, including PIRAHNA,ORCA: THE KILLER WHALE, ALLIGATOR, GRIZZLY (substitute shark for bear...), and countless others. Not to mention a slew of its own sequels. It truly was a phenomenon, and one of the biggest blockbusters of the decade. Recent horror flicks OPEN WATER and THE REEFall owe a nod to JAWS. Spielberg's classic is still influencing filmmakers almost 40 years later.
This film boasts a score that's every bit as recognizable and iconic as HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13TH, and PSYCHO, and forever made Great White sharks a monster in our eyes. It's most deserving of its status not only as a classic film by Steven Spielberg, but a classic horror film as well. The handling of the suspense, the looming dread, the frightening sense of the unknown... all handled perfectly here. Horror means scary, and JAWS has certainly scared enough people. It's a genuinely entertaining and immortal creature feature that easily ranks among the classics of horror.
It's one of the biggest films of all time, kids. It's aged remarkably well, and looks downright sensational on blu-ray. An enduring classic!
The Jonathan Elias score from the 1984 classic "Children Of The Corn" is a chilling and superb piece of work that owes a great deal to the scores of "The Amityville Horror" and "The Omen". However, "Children Of The Corn" is a completely original piece of work, with its own mood and tone. It's dark, 80's synth all the way, and it's now available in a 25th Anniversary re-issue from Varese Sarabande, and sounds better than ever.
It's a spooky and ominous piece, and it perfectly captures the menacing mood of the film. The film, along with the score, has settled quite comfortably into cult classic status over the years. It's a must-have for horror score lovers, and is generally easy to find. And definitely worth the hunt. It's honestly one of the stronger horror scores to come out of the great 80's, and probably the most known score from an 80's Stephen King production. I'm actually listening to it now. Creepy stuff. Here's a sample.
NIGHT SCHOOL is a super-fun lost slasher from that most rad year in horror, 1981- and it's got everything a slasher fan could want. Okay, so not much in the gore department, but stick with me here. Boy, did I have fun with this flick last night. An absolute blast from start to finish!
It seems a series of brutal beheadings are terrorizing students at all-girl Wendell College in Boston, and baffling police as well. The victims all happen to be students of the womanizing Professor Millet's night classes, and he's sleeping with them behind the back of his girlfriend, played by Rachel Ward (in her film debut). It appears the heads of the victims are all being found near or in water, and police can't seem to make heads or tails of the case. Did I mention the killer rides a motorcycle? And that Professor Millet also owns a motorcycle? And that the lesbian headmistress of Wendell College is determined to protect her students and school at all costs, including possibly bedding a few nubile beauties in the process? I'm not making this shit up. All this and more awaits you in NIGHT SCHOOL.
It's a peculiar slasher. While it does incorporate many of the classic early 80's slasher characteristics and plot devices, it sometimes leans more toward mystery/thriller territory, which certainly isn't a bad thing. It fits in well with films such as EYES OF A STRANGER or VISITING HOURS. There are many things I liked about NIGHT SCHOOL. The killer, for one. Some scoff at this murderer, but I don't know, I found him kinda cool. He reminds me of Maxwell Caulfield from GREASE 2 gone berzerk.
There are some creative murder sequences in NIGHT SCHOOL, and I also liked the Boston locations used in the film, and the mood it gives the film. It was totally believable, and I'm a sucker for the college slashers of the 80's anyway. NIGHT SCHOOL also has some pretty good production values, some decent acting for once, a rather menacing score, and genuine suspense and chills to boot. There's not much blood, but the killings are quite vicious and disturbing.
I think it's a somewhat underrated slasher that's finally finding not only an identity, but an audience as well. It's a fun and engaging murder mystery that despite its shortcomings, still manages to be thoroughly entertaining and a hell of a lot more fun than the 'slashers' being passed off today. Great, cheesy fun all around.
Charles Durning had a fine and distinguished career, spanning decades and appearing in countless good movies over the year. A constant presence in both films and television, he became a familiar face. Seeing him on the screen became comforting almost, as if he were a relative. Among his countless roles he played over the years, his work in the horror classics "When A Stranger Calls" and "Dark Night Of The Scarecrow" definitely made an impact on me. Durning was a fantastic actor, and always gave every role 150%. His appearances in "Tootsie", "Home For The Holidays", "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas", and "Dick Tracy" are equally memorable, and just a few of many.
After the failure of the much-hated yet very underrated HALLOWEEN 3: SEASON OF THE WITCH, the powers-that-be knew (or thought they did) that they must bring back Michael to satisfy the hordes of blood-thirsty movie-goers in the late 80's. Which really doesn't make sense, as by then the slasher genre was pretty much dead anyway. APRIL FOOL'S DAY, from 1986, was a clever tongue-in-cheek satire of those hoary slashers of the early 80's, seeming to already know the genre was on its way out. And, by the mid-to-late 80's, the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and HELLRAISER films had ushered in a new dimension of supernatural terror. Jason Voorhees was having a hard enough time keeping up with the changes in horror, so why they felt compelled to resurrect Michael Myers is honestly beyond me.
Now it was the 10th anniversary of the original so I'll give them that.... but still. Nothing against Michael Myers- he's my favorite slasher. I can't praise the first two HALLOWEEN films enough. But I truly feel the story had been played out by this point. I've said many times before and I'm saying it again- I feel they should have still forged ahead with the whole HALLOWEEN anthology films after killing off Michael in Part 2, which was the original plan in the first place. Those two films alone would have been a great contribution to the classic slasher genre. But oh no. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing a good horror icon being milked to death until it reaches a point of utter absurdity- it's happened to Dracula, Frankenstein, and countless others. And it happened to Michael Myers when some noodle-head decided it would be cool to bring him back to life.This is when the HALLOWEEN films jumped the shark, in my opinion. Not the third one. This one. HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS starts off promising- the opening credits are quite effective. So good, in fact, that nothing else in the entire film lives up to those first few minutes. A wonderfully sinister atmosphere is established with the credits and the score that really captures the spirit of the season, but don't get your hopes up, kids. All hopes are shattered once the story begins. And it goes a little something like this.
Michael Myers has been in a coma for the past ten years since terrorizing Haddonfield and Laurie Strode. Myers is being transferred from Ridgemont Federal Sanitarium to good ole' Smiths Grove. Our favorite final girl, Laurie Strode, is what the fuck are you telling me here dead- YES, DEAD!?!.... but her daughter, Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris), is alive and well and living in Haddonfield. Jamie was adopted by the Carruthers family, and is plagued by nightmares of Michael (?). I don't know either. Suddenly Michael awakens in the ambulance after hearing one of the orderlies talking about his niece, escapes, and immediately sets his sights on little Jamie. Being Halloween night, little Jamie goes out trick-r-treating, unaware that she's now the target of her uncle's rage. Frazzled Dr. Loomis is still around preachin' the gospel, and rushes to Haddonfield once again, foaming at the mouth. The chase is on to protect little Jamie. There are several things I found horribly wrong with all this.
First off- why in the world would you kill off Laurie Strode? Unforgivable. Blah. Second- Danielle Harris. I'm sure she's a lovely lady and actress, and this is nothing personal against her earlier, but her character really grated on my nerves. I tried to accept it all, and just couldn't. It was difficult for me to accept this shrieking little girl as Jamie Lee's replacement. Third- the mask is just not the same. Like, at all. It just looks too silly to me to take seriously. This is not the terrifying Michael Myers of my youth who haunted my dreams. He's just not scary this go 'round. Michael has no neck in this installment, and seems to be sporting some Joan Crawford-worthy shoulder pads here. The finished effect is just goofy looking, sorry not sorry. Fourth- the characters are not one bit likable. At all. I was furious a mere 30 minutes into this movie, and wanted them all dead immediately.
And what is up with the current residents of Haddonfield? You would think after the events of the first two films, that it wouldn't take an act of Congress to get them the least bit concerned about the return of the masked killer.It seems to take practically the entire movie to convince them they are in any sort of danger. Snore. Fifth- does nobody remember the ending of HALLOWEEN 2? Laurie shot out Michael's eyes, right before Dr. Loomis blows the hospital up, remember? I suppose I should find some solace in the fact that the awesome Donald Pleasance returned for this dreck, but I couldn't help but feel slightly embarrassed for him the entire time.
Now I'm completely in the minority here, and perfectly willing to accept that.I used to think I was the only one who loved HALLOWEEN 3, but the film is a bona fide cult classic today. I still find the third film to have far more creativity and actual intelligence involved- whereas this one is just re-hashing somebody else's original ideas to capitalize on the 10th anniversary of the first film. HALLOWEEN fans vehemently love and defend this sequel- and that's fine. But it's just not HALLOWEEN to me. The absence of John Carpenter, Debra Hill, and Jamie Lee Curtis is glaringly obvious, and probably is a large part of my dislike for this movie. And this is just NOT Michael Myers either- it's somebody pretending to be him, and badly at that. He is about as scary as Richard Simmons, honestly. And what's up with the hair on this mask? In some scenes he resembles a manic Neil Diamond.
If it were me, I would have celebrated the 10 year anniversary of the original HALLOWEEN simply by re-releasing the first two films in theaters to show audiences what started the slasher craze in the first place. HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS just does not bring anything new to the table. It's not a terrible film. It's not a glaring disappointment. It's greatest crime is that it's boring. Slashers were pretty much dead by 1988, and by that time of the decade, most were pale imitations of HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH anyway. So.... I don't really see the point of this. Oh well. If you have never experienced a HALLOWEEN film or the terror of Michael Myers, I suggest picking up the first two sequels and leaving it at that. The intentions of this film were good, but the finished product just doesn't do Carpenter or Curtis justice. Maybe it was just a product of its time. Maybe I was somewhat jaded as a wee junior in high school. Maybe it was Maybelline. Or maybe it should have never been made at all. Because all it really accomplished was opening the door for even more mindless and ridiculous sequels. I don't hate this film. But I don't understand the love for it either. I'll give it one more try, and maybe I can find something in there I missed.
P.S.- the original movie poster is pretty awesome, I will give it that!
.jpg)
.jpg)
