Whether you find Stephen King’s book “The Shining” scary or not, you have to admit the story involving the character of Jack Torrance is a fascinating albeit tragic one. Here’s a guy looking to redeem himself after his alcohol addiction severely hurt his son, and now he’s alone with his son and wife to look after a secluded hotel for the winter season. Something in the hotel feeds his inner psyche and causes him to go insane. What saves his soul and his family’s life is one last act of redemption that puts a stop to the haunting, but even that has a horrific tragedy to it.
And you could say the 1997 miniseries adapted from the book (by King himself) captured that very well. But when it comes to scares, we all remember the excellent 1980 Stanley Kubrick adaptation, “The Shining”…because it was scary as hell!
But first, let me address the two huge elephants in the room. One is the horrid directing tactics Kubrick was known for, particularly when it came to directing Shelley Duvall, who plays Jack’s vulnerable wife Wendy. If you watch the making-of documentary (directed by Kubrick’s daughter Vivian), you get a taste of just how cruel Kubrick was to Duvall and how exhausted Duvall was as a result. (Kubrick was a master director, but if you looked up more about him, you’d realize…he was kind of an ass too. You can’t get away with this stuff today.)
And the other is…King hated the movie. He’s warmed up to it a little since then, but in adapting his novel, King felt betrayed by the different vision Kubrick had come up with. He referred to it as “like a big, beautiful cadillac with no engine inside it.”
One of his biggest problems with the movie was the character of Jack Torrance, played by Jack Nicholson. He felt that Jack was crazy from the moment he entered the film and got crazier as the film continued.
And that, to me, is what I find interesting about this version of “The Shining.” Whereas the novel and the miniseries are more stories about redemption, the film is a straight-up horror story about a psychopath who has a chance at redemption and, instead of taking it, ultimately loses himself to the madness. He IS crazy from the moment he takes the job at the hotel, and we do hear of the incident in which he hurt his son Danny which caused him to quit drinking. We can sense that he’s hurting inside and it’s a different kind of withdrawal process, different from the original story, that is causing him to want to break out of his shell. The hotel uses THAT against him, acting as a poison working through Jack’s defenses until he has nothing left to shield himself from them and he fulfills what feels like his destiny. And Jack has no chance of saving himself by the time things go from bad to worse.
At least, that’s how I see it. There are a lot of intriguing theories people have come up with after seeing this film countless times. (I wonder if any of those people were the ones who hated it originally because it didn’t explain everything that was on its mind…)
The film looks great. It’s the kind of otherworldly feel that only a master like Stanley Kubrick could bring to the screen. The cinematography is top-notch and the production design is utterly impressive. And it feels cold–so cold that you feel uncomfortable all throughout the film and yet you keep watching because it’s so effective. It especially works because the real fear is open to interpretation. Nothing is spelled out for the audience.
Oh, did I mention that Kubrick and Duvall for nominated for Razzie Awards for this film? As if you needed another reason to not take the Razzies seriously!
Critics didn’t quite know what to make of “The Shining” when it was first released. Audiences were even more confused. But since then, it’s gotten people talking about how strange and metaphorical it is, and now it’s considered a classic in the horror genre. And every time, I watch it, I get chills running up and down my spine.
I think much of the reasoning as to why has to do with the final shot: a photograph that says much and yet says nothing at the same time. What does it mean??
The moment that gets under my skin each time I watch it is late in the film when Wendy discovers what Jack’s been writing this whole time. You think he’s been working hard on his new novel, but instead…it’s just this line repeated on hundreds of pages: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That doesn’t merely cement Jack’s “crazy” status…instead, it shows us how long he’s been going crazy! (“How do you like it?” “AAHH!!”)
On its own, “The Shining” is a masterpiece regardless of its source material. It takes you on a bizarre trip into madness and forces us to observe as someone slowly but surely loses what was left of his sanity. In the process, we get many scary details, such as creepy ghost twin girls, axe murders, and a chase through a snowy hedge maze…
“REDRUM!” “Here’s Johnny!” “Come play with us, Danny. Forever…and ever…and ever.”
John Carpenter reportedly didn’t put as much passion into the 1983 Stephen King adaptation “Christine,” because he was still going through depression brought on by the overwhelmingly negative reception of “The Thing,” a film he put his heart and soul into…
I honestly couldn’t tell, because I think “Christine” is one of his best films.
Seriously, I love this film. And it’s a film about a killer car–you’d have to be a very skilled director to make something like that work. Even though this was basically a work-for-hire, Carpenter didn’t treat it as such…or maybe he did, and it still turned out well despite that.
I think part of the reason the film works is because of two things. One is the lead character, Arnie (Keith Gordon), who is already a creep and a dweeb before his influence from the malevolent presence inside the car turns him into a jerk with aggressive tendencies. That not only makes his story more interesting but also more tragic in how his story ends. He’s basically made a deal with the devil, to get the girl and look cool, and in exchange, he’ll do what he feels needs to be done (or what Christine tells him needs to be done).
And another important reason it works is because of the slow buildup to the true terror that occurs midway through the film. We’re already put in a realistic setting, and the characters of Arnie and his best friend Dennis (John Stockwell) feel real enough, and because of that, we’re more able to accept when the supernatural takes over and the car has a mind of its own that goes on a killing spree against Arnie’s bullies.
And when the car does spring into action, it makes for some pretty awesome chase sequences. My favorite scene is one in which Christine chases the bully Moochie–I especially love when Moochie stops and looks back where he was being followed, only to find that it’s coming another direction.
Stephen King has always been good at revenge stories, which is why it’s satisfying when so many of the crappier people in “Christine,” based on his novel, get their comeuppances. But did that one guy seriously have to get inside the car? It’s almost like he was asking to be squashed to death. (Actually, Darnell’s death in the book was crazier than that…look it up if you want.)
And there’s the climax with Christine going up against a bulldozer–simply put, it’s awesome!
I’m not going to lie–“Christine” is my second-favorite John Carpenter film. “Halloween” is first obviously, and “The Thing” and “Starman” are fighting for the number-three spot, while “They Live” and “Big Trouble in Little China” fight to squeeze into the top-5…it’s difficult, guys. I love “Christine”…probably even more than the King book.
I didn’t know it at the time, but one of my favorite movie directors as a kid was Joe Dante. When I was growing up and while I didn’t know the name of the director, I watched a lot of his movies (“Gremlins,” Matinee, “Small Soldiers,” “Innerspace,” among others) and noticed many similarities that I enjoyed watching–goofy lighthearted fun, some dark comedy, referential in-jokes about classic cartoons, and good fast-paced entertainment (oh, and a Dick Miller cameo appearance in each one of his movies).
And the one I watched the most in my childhood was definitely his sci-fi fantasy, “Explorers,” about three kids (two of which are played by a young Ethan Hawke and a young River Phoenix) who are launched into space via their own homemade spaceship and actually make contact with an alien species…
OK, that premise does sound admittedly ridiculous, but surprisingly, this movie manages to tell its story in a plausible way (plausible enough in its setup, anyway). The kids are portrayed as real kids and the film takes its time to show how they’re able to create their own flying spaceship; the first 40 minutes shows how it comes from a simple discovery to a way of getting in touch with aliens who send out signals even in their dreams. Later in the film, they do go up in space and find an alien spaceship. People are split about this film–they either like it or…I don’t think there’s anyone who hates it, but there are people who lose interest when the kids go into space.
It wasn’t well-received when it was originally released in theaters and that it’s grown a cult following over the years. What people seem to agree on is that while the setup is suitably serious, the payoff is just plain silly. And I would have to agree; it seems writer Eric Luke suddenly remembered he was writing a kid’s movie and decided to throw in a cartoonish punchline to everything being set up before so that the younger viewers will be amused. The weird thing is, the buildup actually promises something more than that, like something along the lines of “Close Encounters,” where the kids stumble upon something big. But they instead find a couple of goofy aliens who love to watch television and impersonate any Earth pop-culture icon that can think of. It is kind of a weird turn that this movie makes. I didn’t mind it as a kid because I liked the aliens and thought they had some funny charm to them.
This is going to sound strange, but I don’t really mind it that much. While I should give it a negative review because the film is kind of inconsistent in that sense, I…kinda like some of the stuff having to do with the aliens. It’s cute, it’s amusing enough, and I love Robert Picardo as the zany alien Wak. On the one hand, it’s a huge disappointment. On the other hand, it’s…cute?
I can’t help it. I have a real soft spot for this film. Is it great? No. Is it silly at times? Absolutely. But there’s something so inventive and charming about it that makes it fun to watch each time. It’s charming with a whimsical spirit to it; I like how it shows step-by-step the construction of the kids’ spaceship; the set design of the alien spaceship looks fantastic; and all three kids are likable. The payoff may not be what its buildup may have promised, and I can understand why people wouldn’t like it because of that. (Even Siskel & Ebert summed it up with a strong point: “One of the things you don’t want to know in a space film is that it’s less interesting up there than it is here.”) But I still enjoying watching this one every now and then.
I was talking with a friend recently about why I enjoy Jordan Peele’s films, and my reason for it just came to me–it’s because they represent the best of two different types of horror films we often see in terms of pure terror. Does he want to make a piece of mainstream entertainment in the horror genre? Or does he want to make a more sophisticated, artistic, allegorical film?
He does them both. If you want to analyze Get Out and Us, you can. If you want to be entertained, you can. It’s the best of both worlds.
“Get Out” was my favorite film of 2017, so I was excited to see how Peele’s next film would turn out. From the trailer, I could see that it was another horror film and details were left thankfully vague. I didn’t want to be like those people who were so excited to see M. Night Shyamalan’s “Unbreakable” because of how much they loved “The Sixth Sense,” only to be let down because, guess what, they expected another “Sixth Sense” and it wasn’t another “Sixth Sense” because it’s was freaking “Unbreakable” which is freaking awesome and– My point is I tried not to overhype myself for “Us” because I knew it wasn’t going to be “Get Out.”
If “Get Out” is in my top 100, then Us is probably in my top 200-300 (which still means I think it’s pretty great).
Peele knows the horror genre is perfect for the concept of allegory in fable, like a cautionary tale or a morality tale or a social commentary or whatever. What do the “Tethered” doubles in “Us” represent? I think it’s safe to deduce that it’s about the haves and the have-nots fighting themselves.
You have the father, Gabe (Winston Duke, amazing here), showing off his newly-purchased boat and pushing his family to go hang out on the beach with wealthier friends. You see the fancy devices of those same friends failing them in a darkly funny, ironic way. You listen to what the Tethered, particularly Red (who’s the only one that speaks), has experienced and how it’s a dark, twisted parallel to what all these people have experienced. And then, you put it all together after the remarkably brilliant ending and you have this beautifully twisted horror film that provokes thought and discussion.
Just like “Get Out.” But for different reasons, which I was more than thankful for.
My favorite scene: the entire home-invasion sequence that starts off the central terror for our key characters is wonderfully done. From Winston Duke’s hilarious attempts at trying to resolve the issue before it starts, to Red’s horrifying story she shares with the family, to everyone’s individual battles with their Tethered selves, to the resolution that makes you sigh with relief (except we know it’s far from over…). It’s all just an example of great filmmaking. If I had to pick an individual scene from this entire section of the film, I guess it’d have to be Red’s story because of how well Lupita Nyong’o plays it.
Now I want to tell this story:
I know a person (who will be anonymous) who is very picky about the movies she chooses to watch, meaning she doesn’t particularly care for horror films. The day after I saw “Us” in a theater, I told her about it and she didn’t care at all what I say and then proceeded to give her own theory about what she was so certain happened in it without having seen it…I then told her, “That’s not what happens at all.” Going against my better judgment, I gave away all the secrets of the film to her, and then to my astonishment, she replied, “Wow…that sounds really interesting!”
Later, she told me that she did see the movie and that it was one of her favorites of the year.
I really like “Halloween”…er, Halloween 2018…couldn’t they have called it “Halloween Returns?” I get why they wouldn’t call it “Halloween II,” seeing as how there are already two “Halloween II’s”…then again, there are now three “Halloweens!!”
How about “Halloween: 40 Years Later?” Or “Halloween: Laurie v. Michael?” Or “Halloween: The Return of Great Filmmaking & Good Reviews For a Halloween Movie?”
I’ll stick with calling it “Halloween 2018” because to me, there’s only one “Halloween”: John Carpenter’s Halloween, one of my favorite scary movies of all time.
David Gordon Green’s “Halloween?” It’s good too. I liked it when I first saw it in a theater. A few more viewings at home, it gets better.
SPOILERS!
Why do I like it so much? Well, for one thing, it’s the “Halloween” sequel I was waiting for…mostly because it pretended that the other sequels didn’t exist. (Not only are Michael Myers and Laurie Strode not blood-related anymore, but also, Ben Tramer is probably alive again!) I know a lot of people don’t like the idea of retconning everything in previous sequels, but…c’mon, did you really believe Laurie Strode was Michael Myers’ sister?
Btw, I don’t hate “Halloween II”–I only hate parts of it.
Secondly, they got David Gordon Green as director and he’s tackled every other genre but horror–he and his co-writer Danny McBride (yes, THAT Danny McBride) have a clear admiration for the source material, and so they put their talents to good use here. They pay homage to parts of “Halloween” while adding some new, modern techniques. (And that goes for the music too–its alterations add to the more tense sequences late in the film.)
Third, they got Jason Blum as producer–he can make three “Halloween” sequels at the cost of one “Friday the 13th 2009!” (You don’t need 19 million dollars to make a slasher movie!!)
And fourth, much of this film is hella tense! I can’t remember the last time in a slasher movie where I actually FELT the fear of a teenager about to be killed by a masked madman. And the climax with Laurie? Awesome.
Maybe it’s because I’ve seen this new “Halloween” so many times, but I don’t really have that much to complain about anymore.
A lot of critics complain about the random comedic bits thrown in here and there–I don’t really have a problem with it. To me, it just shows more atmosphere. Even the dad’s unfunny “peanut butter” joke…it’s a dad joke. Of course it’s not meant to be funny.
Oh, and what about the jerk boyfriend who survives because he’s never seen again for the rest of the movie? I like my horror films to be unpredictable. If he comes back in “Halloween Kills” and/or “Halloween Ends,” I dunno–maybe he has a Steve-from-Stranger-Things type of development or maybe he gets killed in the first act of “Halloween Kills.”
What about the kid that Vicky was babysitting? He’s never seen again either….that’s because he was the smart one for getting the hell out of the house!! Aren’t we always complaining about horror-movie characters NOT doing that? Actually…I heard a theory that since “Halloween Kills” is supposedly more intense and takes no prisoners, this kid, Julian, is probably going to die…man I hope that’s not the case. That’d be like killing John Connor in “Terminator: Dark Fate.” (Wait…)
What about Judy Greer’s character of Laurie’s daughter and the line everyone makes fun of (“The world is not a dark and evil place! It is full of love and understanding!”)? Guys…she had a rough childhood and she’s married to a loser. It’s not that hard to get why she wants to believe everything is fine.
But what about the doctor who turns out to be evil and then gets killed?……..Well OK, I think that part could’ve been developed a little more. Makes me wonder if they’re going to try something like that in the sequels.
If I keep thinking about how the sequels will turn out, I’m gonna turn into a disappointed “Star Wars” fanatic.
I like “Halloween 2018”–I like Jamie Lee Curtis, I like the atmosphere, I like that it feels more like Halloween night than the original “Halloween” (to be fair, this one has a bigger budget, so they could afford more decor), I like the pumpkin in the opening credits, I like the climax, and more importantly, I like that I can like a “Halloween” movie again.
And I look forward to seeing “Halloween Kills”…and then “Halloween Ends”…and I’m sure that’ll be the last we see of the Boogeyman…
Back in my university days, I was studying the art of documentary film. I developed a true fondness for cinematic non-fiction such as “Hoop Dreams,” the “Up” series, “Life Itself,” “Streetwise,” “The Thin Blue Line,” “The Decline of Western Civilization Part II,” “Paradise Lost,” “Touching the Void,” “Roger & Me,” “Trouble the Water,” among others–all of these films took great measures in making real-life stories into compelling cinematic art.
One of my absolute favorites then and now was and is Morgan Spurlock’s “Super Size Me,” a documentary that told a serious message in a thoroughly entertaining way. I think it was this film that taught me that when it came to documentary filmmaking, entertainment can be just as important as telling a compelling story. Likable people become dramatic characters, performance art helps illustrate points, the narrator could be a wisecracker, and so on.
Morgan Spurlock puts himself at center-stage in his own movie, “Super Size Me,” in which he decides he’s going to go on a month-long diet of nothing but McDonald’s–if McDonald’s doesn’t sell it, he can’t eat it. And if he’s given the option of Super Size, he HAS to take it. (Since this film’s release in 2004, McDonald’s has gotten rid of the Super Size Option–though, they claim the film had nothing to do with that decision.)
Spurlock is a very likable guy, so I have no problem following him on this journey to see what would happen if he stays on this ridiculous diet for a full 30 days. And more importantly, he doesn’t shy away from showing what eating fast food day after day does to a person with no balanced diet. For example, one day, he’s sitting in his car, going to town on his Super Size double quarter pounder cheese meal, enjoying a sugar high, and unable to finish it before he has to upchuck. This is only the beginning…
He frequently visits three physicians to keep track of what this food is doing to his health. What happens is he gains close to 25 pounds, his liver malfunctions, his sex drive is low on energy, and he has heart palpitations.
There’s a reason my mother, who is a high-school Family and Consumer Science teacher, likes to show this film to her classes.
We also join Spurlock on certain detours, as he visits people who are also affected by fast-food effects and also takes a look at public schools to compare cafeteria lunches. The message is clear–we as Americans consume too much fast food, which doesn’t do well for our health, and we need to either have a more balanced diet or swear off it entirely. If not for Spurlock’s vision, drive, and biting wit, “Super Size Me” would simply be a PowerPoint presentation not worth spending too much time talking about. (I’m looking at YOU, “Forks Over Knives.”)
Plus, the experiment is a great hook–it’s one thing to be told fast food is bad for you; it’s another to see it demonstrated.
And yes, I know the effect is not the same for everybody–there have been people besides McDonald’s spokesmen that argue that this diet allows weight and cholesterol reduction. And I know Morgan Spurlock is aware of this too–but c’mon, it’s his movie. His main goal isn’t to keep his audience away from McDonald’s but simply to show what heavy consumption of McDonald’s COULD do to people, like what it did to him. He’s showing us in a lighthearted way an understanding of what we’re eating.
Btw, check out “Super Size Me’s” DVD extras–there’s another experiment Spurlock tries out, with different burgers and fries; watch what happens with McDonald’s fries after a while…
I remember when I first saw this movie about two cons being trapped on a speeding runaway train, I was confused because it was nothing like the action films I had seen before. I think I was expecting something like “Speed” (runaway bus) or “Unstoppable” (another runaway train)–a lot of thrilling action, speeding through the city, likable heroes to save the day, not much to provoke thought, just a hella good time. But that’s not what I got with “Runaway Train”–it took me a while to realize how brilliant it was.
The film stars Jon Voight and Eric Roberts as Manny and Buck, two convicts who escape from an Alaskan maximum security prison and hop aboard the caboose of a train going along the snowy, desolate railroad. (Already, the setting was different than I expected–how many action films take place in snowy, bleak Alaska?) But what they don’t realize is that the conductor has suffered a heart attack and fallen off the train. There’s no one on the train to shut it down as it accelerates and the dispatchers do their best to handle the situation, and Manny and Buck are none the wiser until the train runs through and smashes the caboose of another train. They also meet a worker on the train, named Sara (Rebecca De Mornay), who is also powerless to stop the train but at least knows how to slow it down. Meanwhile, the prison warden is aware the convicts are on the runaway train and is hellbent on making sure he gets to them before the train derails…
With the exception of the desolate Alaskan landscape, this sounds like your typical action flick, right? Well, if I told you this was based on an original screenplay by Akira Kurosawa, then you might get an idea as to what’s really on this film’s mind. There is some good action, to be sure (a lot of the stunts in this movie, I can’t believe they had the budget to pull them off!), but “Runaway Train” is more about philosophy and character. It asks questions such as:
What does it mean to be “free”? What makes man different from animal? And why is it that modern technology can solve some logical problems but not problems that require human thought? This film is intelligent enough to provoke those questions.
Jon Voight turns in what I think is his career-best as Manny–make no mistake: this guy is not your traditional hero. He is dangerous and twisted and obviously sentenced to life in prison for good reason, and as the movie goes on, he keeps you guessing as to whether or not he’s worth rooting for. He does know what a normal life is like–when the younger, more excited, less experienced Buck brags about all the outrageous things he’s going to do now that he’s free, Manny lays it all down realistically in a great speech that says everything about what he wishes he could do. But late in the film, I’ll be terrified of what he’s about to do and I’ll see him as the villain, and then suddenly I’ll be invested in him as a hero again because of the choices that he makes. And then, right at the end, without giving away spoilers, his last action becomes one that everyone will want to talk about afterwards.
My favorite scene: the ending. I already said I wouldn’t go into it here, so I’ll just say that no matter how many times I watch this film, this final moment never ceases to amaze me.
So, what did Siskel & Ebert say about one of my favorite movies back when it was originally released in 1985? Well, Siskel didn’t like it; he admired Voight’s performance but criticized Roberts’ manic energy, De Mornay’s seemingly pointless character, and even the shots of the speeding train. Ebert, however, loved it, calling it “a reminder that the great adventures are great because they happen to people we care about.”
I’m with Ebert. And I think I like “Runaway Train” just a little more than he did–it’s one of my favorite movies.
Director Andrew Davis is best known for action films like “Code of Silence,” “Under Siege,” and “The Fugitive”…but my introduction to his work (and still my personal favorite of his films) was his 2003 Disney adventure flick “Holes,” based on the Louis Sachar novel of the same name. I’ve loved this movie since I was 10 years old, and it’s still in my personal top 100 even today. So I’m gonna talk about it!
What is it about this movie that still appeals to me as an adult? Honestly, it’s the same thing that appealed to me as a kid. It’s a wonderful mix of legend, charm, mystery, fate, and whimsy–and all around just a clever story (wonderfully adapted for the screen by author Louis Sachar himself). Add to that some of the most convincing juvenile ensemble acting in any movie (right up there with “The Goonies” and “It”), some legitimate intimidating threats, and damn good directing by Davis, and this is a movie that both kids and adults can enjoy!
Stanley Yelnats (Shia LaBeouf) is the young hero of the story. He seemingly comes from a century-old family curse, which his family blames on when he’s falsely accused of a crime, stealing a famous athlete’s shoes (really, they just landed on his head) which were supposed to be given to charity. His punishment is serving time at Camp Green Lake, which isn’t as fun as it sounds–it’s really a desert bunkhouse surrounded by thousands and thousands of holes. He has to join his bunkmates (each with their own quirky nicknames–X-Ray, Armpit, Magnet, etc.) in digging one hole per day–five feet deep, five feet wide (though really, it just has to be as long and as deep as the shovel being used–that’s the system the boys use anyway).
Why is this? Well, Mr. Sir (Jon Voight), a boorish ominous supervisor, tells Stanley: “You take a bad boy, you make him dig holes all day in the hot sun, and it turns him into a good boy. That’s our philosophy here at Camp Green Lake.”
I think it’s right about here, early on, that Stanley suspects that something is up, that they’re obviously looking for something–the audience is already thinking it, I’m sure. (I was.) But Mr. Sir is so imposing and Stanley’s counselor Dr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) seems like a good listener but is always easy to brush something off and the number-one rule is not to upset the Warden (Sigourney Weaver)–and if Mr. Sir can get upset, I don’t think any of these kids want to cross the Warden! So, I let it pass and enjoy the ride.
There are also parallel stories told in flashbacks. One story shows us how the curse began and another, which is probably the most heartbreaking arc of the story, involves a schoolteacher (Patricia Arquette) who becomes an outlaw whose legacy’s trail of blood leaves clues for our present-day heroes to find, making for a fascinating mystery to be solved. It’s wonderfully smart and creative and intriguing to see how these pieces fit together in each timeline.
There’s also a lot of time dedicated to showing Stanley fit in at camp. He soon earns the respect of his bunkmates–X-Ray (Brendan Jefferson), Magnet (Miguel Castro), Squid (Jake Smith), Zigzag (Max Kasch), Armpit (Byron Cotton), and Zero (Khleo Thomas)–and is even given a nickname of his own (“Caveman”). The way these kids interact feels like these are real kids joking with each other. And they’re all acted greatly. There’s also a real heart brought to light when Zero, often ostracized by the rest of the group, helps Stanley, who in turn teaches him how to read. Their partnership that develops as the movie continues is one of the highlights of the movie.
That’s another thing I love about “Holes”–even as there’s a lot going on here, it takes its time with the character interactions and the progressing adventure and the compelling mystery, and it doesn’t feel forced. Something else I love is that despite the fantastical material, it all feels downplayed, making for a convincing feel in style and tone. Even the villains, played by Weaver, Voight, and Nelson, could have easily played their roles over-the-top, but they’re kept in check too–it’s like they knew they were still making a Disney movie but a different kind of Disney movie.
Oh, right. I forgot about the yellow-spotted lizards. This is the one thing that doesn’t hold up as well, particularly when they use poorly-rendered CGI lizards to chase and/or bite some of the characters. I can easily tell which lizards are real and which ones are fake, which kind of takes away the fear factor a little bit.
But that’s really the only nitpick I have with this movie. I even like Henry Winkler as Stanley’s father who tries to find a cure for foot odor–I bring this up because most people tend to see this arc as too silly, but I didn’t mind it.
I love “Holes.” I love both the book and the movie. I’ve watched it a thousand times before, and I’m sure I’ll watch it a thousand more times in the future.
Oh, and I even like the rap song performed by the young actors. I know some of you who grew up with this movie are humming it right now…
Yep, Creed II now joins Rocky, Rocky II, and Creed in my collection of favorites. In fact, God’s honest truth here…I even think about “Creed II” more than I think about “Creed!”
“Creed” is a great film and an even greater sequel in the “Rocky” franchise (or rather, “Rocky/Creed” franchise). It breathed new life into the story of the familiar character of Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), gave us new engaging characters in up-and-coming boxer Adonis “Donnie” Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and deaf musician Bianca (Tessa Thompson), and didn’t need to retcon the other sequels in order to further the story. Director/co-writer Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station, Black Panther) did a remarkable job here.
I love it. It’s great–and so is “Creed II.”
Ryan Coogler isn’t at the helm this time (though he did help produce it; he’s also a producer for the upcoming “Creed III”). But we have Stallone writing again (co-writing this screenplay with Juel Taylor, with story by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker) and welcomed a bright young director named Steven Caple Jr. (whose debut film “The Land,” I did see after my initial review of “Creed II”–very good work; check it out!). Plus, Ivan Drago, the Russian super-boxer from “Rocky IV” played by Dolph Lundgren, is back–and what’s even better is that Lundgren (along with Stallone, who created the cartoonish-villain character of Ivan (“I must break you”) Drago way back in the 1980s) humanized the character years later for this story.
That’s one of the things I, as well as other “Rocky” fans, love about “Creed” and “Creed II”–the events of the otherwise-silly (but still somewhat awesome) “Rocky IV” (particularly the death of Apollo Creed at the hands of Drago in the ring) are carried over for dramatic effect and consequence. Drago and his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) are the antagonists of “Creed II,” and they feel more like real people with emotional conflict surrounding them, thus making the familiar character of Ivan Drago all the more interesting. When I learn about the shame he went through in his home country after he lost to Rocky in the ring decades ago, and now he’s training his son to be the next best killing machine decades later, I’m very curious to see which direction he’ll go in the final act when a lot more is at stake than in your typical sports drama. (It’s also great to see Brigitte Nielsen back and reprising her role from “Rocky IV” for a few minutes of screen time–even her appearance leads to dramatic tension late in the film.)
The heroes are still very appealing. Donnie is still cocky and abrasive, but he’s also still learning (the hard way, to say the least) and he has moments of greatness in him. I liked Bianca better in this film than in the previous film, though that may be because I like her and Donnie together now that they’ve been a couple for a while. (I felt the same way about Adrian in “Rocky II”–by the way, I love the callback to the proposal scene from that movie.) And of course, there’s Rocky Balboa himself–still getting older, still long past his glory days, but most importantly, still there for those who need him. Just when I thought “Creed” gave us what was left of Rocky’s complexity, “Creed II” reminds us that while there’s still Stallone, there’s still Rocky–and he’s always welcome anytime.
There’s a lot for me to really like about “Creed II,” and I can’t wait to see “Creed III” (which is directed by Adonis Creed himself, Michael B. Jordan). I’ll keep seeing these movies if they keep giving me people to care about and emotional weight to be invested in.
And keep an eye out for this Steven Caple Jr. character–I think he’s going places.
SPOILER WARNING! I’m going to try my best to be as vague as possible in summarizing some plot details for those who haven’t seen the Netflix horror trilogy as of yet–but you can’t be too careful.
Three horror movies in three weeks? Exclusively on Netflix? Sold!
The Netflix miniseries known as “the Fear Street trilogy,” directed by Leigh Janiak and based on novels written by R.L. Stine, was quite the event in the summer of 2021. Each film in the trilogy paid homage to popular horror films and tropes of a certain time while telling a bigger story about the setting, its characters, and what haunts both of them.
The three films were released on a weekly basis, and to make matters better, each installment got better as they went along. Let’s talk about them:
Fear Street Part One: 1994
Smith’s Verdict: ***
“Fear Street Part One: 1994” is influenced by 1990s slasher films, most notably “Scream” (right down to the stunt casting at the beginning, declaring the trilogy’s first victim). There’s a lot of ’90s nostalgia (including maybe too much of the ’90s-centric soundtrack), some surprising twists, grizzly horror sequences, and yes, a lot of blood. (Note: This is not R.L. Stine’s “Goosebumps” material being adapted here–this is hard-R (or hard-TV-MA) material we’re dealing with here on Fear Street.) What results is a decent slasher flick that will get people interested in checking out Part Two of the series.
Also like in “Scream,” we get references to classic horror films such as “Jaws,” “Night of the Living Dead,” and “The Shining.” But this first installment of “Fear Street” may remind people more of Netflix’s popular series “Stranger Things,” which like this film involves a lot of nostalgia (this is as deep-rooted in the ’90s as “Stranger Things” is deep-rooted into the ’80s) and savvy teens solving deadly mysteries. It just so happens these kids are going up against zombies and slasher killers (and zombie slasher killers).
“Part One: 1994” is set in Shadyside, a mid-American town with a dark history of gruesome murder that dates back centuries. These murders are different time after time, but there are similarities that some locals can’t help but notice–but just to say people from Shadyside are simply bad seeds is an easier pill to take than to believe people from Shadyside are cursed, right?
Wrong.
But just ask the locals of the neighboring town of Sunnyvale, where everyone is rich and safe and looks down at Shadyside like they’re no better than sewer scum.
Another massacre has occurred in Shadyside, this time by a killer in a skull mask. (Something that adds to the mystery is the revealed identity of the killer right away, thus raising interesting questions already in the first act.) But things are about to get a lot worse, as a group of Shadyside teenagers accidentally disturb the resting place of a witch who cursed the town centuries ago and is responsible for the string of different local murders to come. What was whispered about (and even joked about) before is now all too real for these kids, as they are stalked by figures that represent Shadyside’s history of murder. These risen-from-the-dead monsters include: a psychotic milkman, the aforementioned skull-mask killer, a summer-camp slasher (who looks like Jason from “Friday the 13th Part 2,” with the burlap sack over his head), and my personal favorite, a happy-singing female slasher who delights in slashing with a straight razor (and singing a happy tune).
The key characters are Shadysiders Deena (Kiana Madeira), her brother Josh (Benjamin Flores Jr.), and her friends Kate (Julia Rehwald) and Simon (Fred Hechinger), plus Sunnyvaler Sam (Olivia Scott Welch), who used to live in Shadyside before moving. (Deena and Sam also used to be a couple before the move affected them both.) They need to figure out why the killers keep coming for them and solve the mystery of the curse before it’s too late.
What results is a wild goose chase and numerous clues to follow along, as well as some gruesome kills amongst characters (including one notably graphic scene involving a bread slicer which is definitely one-of-a-kind), that make “Fear Street Part One: 1994” an entertaining thrill ride to go along for.
Upon first viewing, the characters aren’t much to write home about (though Josh the kid brother was likable enough and Kate and Simon had some funny lines here or there), and even though I commend this horror series for giving us an LGBT couple in Deena and Sam, I didn’t care for either of their characters because they seemed thinly drawn…which is why I’m glad this is a trilogy and not just one stand-alone movie, because that leaves room for opportunity to get the audience to care about the characters by the end.
Did I? Well, let’s find out, ’cause I was going to check out Part Two anyway.
Fear Street Part Two: 1978
Smith’s Verdict: ***
Well, while some questions may have been answered in “Part One: 1994,” there’s still plenty of mysterious territory for “Fear Street Part Two: 1978” to delve into. The film begins in 1994, where Deena visits the reclusive Shadysider C. Berman (Gillian Jacobs) and demands answers, knowing she went through events similar to her and her friends. Knowing full well what she’s talking about, C. Berman tells a story and takes us back to the summer of 1978…
Welcome to Camp Nightwing, where the feud between Shadyside and Sunnyvale has the kids partaking in a brutal game of capture-the-flag. (Sheesh, for all the crap Sunnyvale dumps all over Shadysiders, why do Shadyside kids even go to this camp?) Sarcastic and trouble-making Shadysider Ziggy (Sadie Sink, Max of “Stranger Things”) is particularly chastised (and even hung up on a tree and burned on the arm–YIKES, kids can be cruel!), while her older sister Cindy (Emily Rudd) tries to keep out of trouble, thus straining the sisters’ relationship.
Oh, and get this–apparently, the only campers who smoke dope and engage in premarital sex are the ones from Shadyside. Because, of course. Sunnyvale always has to have the morality, don’t they–let’s not forget they’re the ones who spend the duration of the camp dumping all over their neighbors. (With the summer-camp setting, “Part Two: 1978” is obviously paying homage to “Friday the 13th,” but its bullies are just as ruthless and mean-spirited as those in another summer-camp slasher-horror flick, “Sleepaway Camp.”)
Oh, and only a Shadysider must be possessed by a demonic curse, thus embarking on a killing spree about the campground. That’s exactly what happens, as Cindy’s mild-mannered boyfriend suddenly becomes a violent axe murderer and chases his girlfriend and her friend Alice (Ryan Simpkins, “Brigsby Bear”). Thus, we have the origin of the Camp Nightwing Killer, who was brought back from the dead in “Part One: 1994.”
Secrets are revealed, the body count rises, and despite being a summer camp with many different places to run and hide, there’s very few options left for our main characters to run and hide as they try to figure out how to survive the night. “Part Two: 1978” is an effective chiller made even better with the context of its previous chapter–not only am I entertained (and suitably creeped out) by the material, but I’m involved in a decades-long mystery I want to learn more about.
And it got me interested in seeing “Part Three: 1666,” which would undoubtedly give us the origin of the notorious witch and the curse laid upon the town. Will it disappoint?
Fear Street Part Three: 1666
Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2
Nope. It didn’t disappoint. They saved the best for last.
And what’s even better is even though I didn’t “love” Parts One or Two, I was thankful for watching them to get to this point. Even the 1994 characters of Deena and Sam, neither of whom I cared much about in “Part One: 1994,” grew to become more compelling characters that I cared very much about here in Part Three. How? Well, I won’t say here.
And again, I’m trying to be careful here in mentioning plot details, especially now that we’re at the end of the trilogy. There’s still a possibility that some readers of this review haven’t seen the trilogy yet.
Anyway, now we’re in the year 1666, and we’re going to get the answers we’ve been waiting for. How did everything in this setting lead to all the mayhem and terror we’ve come to encounter in 1978 and 1994? Is there more of a connection than we initially thought? We’re put right into how it all happened here. (And to make things a little more interesting, pretty much all of the characters in this mid-17th century era are portrayed by actors from Parts One and Two.)
We’re taken to 1666, at the establishment before Sunnyvale and Shadyside were divided in two. Right off the bat, I buy the setting. The costumes and sets are authentic enough and the cinematography helps bring me into the era. Sometimes, the accents are muddled and there are some historical accuracies to needlessly nitpick, but let’s be fair here–this isn’t “The VVitch.”
Sarah Fier (Madeira again), who will become the notorious witch who cursed Shadyside, gets involved in a secret romantic affair with Hannah (Welch again)…which doesn’t bode well at all when the village’s water is poisoned, the food supply is spoiled, and the local pastor commits an unspeakably evil act. Thus, everyone in the village is convinced there is evil brought upon them and are looking for someone to blame–and sadly, two women being intimate together is enough to make them the target of a witch-hunt. (The social commentary here is surprisingly very effective.)
There is a real witch around here, one that reads from a book of spells, and…really, I should stop here in discussing the 1666 story. Let me just say that this film is a solid case for the heard-before messages of “don’t believe everything you hear” and “history is made by the winners.” I was surprised to find myself really getting into the sad plight of these protagonists and what sacrifices were made that split the establishment into Shadyside and Sunnyvale and cursed the town of Shadyside for centuries to come. When it reached its climax, I was surprisingly emotionally invested. Where I enjoyed having fun with Parts One and Two as cheesy entertaining slasher flicks, Part Three pulled the chair out from under me.
We do return to 1994 (complete with the title card of “1994: PART 2”), so that Deena and surviving co. can use what she learned about the true origins of the Shadyside curse to bring an end to it all. While the 1666 portion, which takes up half of the film’s running time, is the most riveting and intriguing and even emotional of Part Three, I’m still glad I stuck around for the remainder of the 1994 story. Not only does the Deena-Sam relationship redeem itself to the point where I cared deeply for them, but we’re also treated to one crazy (and blood-splattered) climax that brings the previous monsters back for one last hurrah. And it’s a lot of fun to watch.
And so, I’ve completed the “Fear Street” trilogy and had a very good time. What a finish!
How good was “Fear Street Part Three: 1666?” It made me appreciate the previous films a little more than I did before. That’s why as much as I recommend Part Three, the whole trilogy deserves to be seen as whole.
Smith's Verdict 