Vasile Flutur as Mitchell Jillian Geurts as Jessica Joy Shatz as Molly Dustin Austen as David Kyle Ingleman as Brock Brian David Tracy as Arnold
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
89 minutes
As someone who genuinely enjoyed the first Hell House I was surprised when a sequel was coming out by the same director. I was curious at how Cognetti would manage to expand on his found footage universe. Would the series take a dive and become a repetitive snore fest like the Paranormal Activity franchise or would it try and innovate and be something new? Unfortunately, by the halfway mark I knew I was in store for the former. Hell House II feels like an attempt to capture the same lightning in a bottle that it’s predecessor managed to but doesn’t have nearly the same polish or sense of intrigue. There are a few nice moments scattered throughout but by and large the movie feels uninspired and pales in comparison to what came before.
The movie picks up 8 years after the tragedy of Hell House and follows investigative journalist, Jessica, and a ragtag team of assistants as they try and discover the secrets of the Abaddon Hotel and the tragedies associated with it. Just as you’d assume creepy stuff happens, random specters are sighted, and things get eerie quick. Unfortunately, most of the scares don’t land because there’s no reason to care for any of the characters.
The first movie works because it gives the audience time to know and understand the characters and their relationships with/among each other. I got their personalities and formed a bond with them, so watching the horrifying events happen to them evoked a level of sympathy. This is mainly due to how authentic and natural the cast comes off. I genuinely felt like I was watching a group of friends get entangled with something beyond them and not some actors trying to emulate that.
The main cast in this movie doesn’t manage to evoke those or similar feelings. The story splits Jessica’s group into two near the very beginning and never brings them back together so a large swath of potentials interactions are forgone. The people we do follow barely get anytime to to mingle before things start going bump in the night so they immediately rush into survival mode. As a result, they all just come off feeling like tropes as opposed to fleshed out characters worth caring for. Interactions between them come off like throwaway moments meant to pad the run-time and/or exposition dumps that are supposed to serve a stand-in for real characterization and storytelling. Everyone’s motivations feel forced and/or undeveloped and it makes sympathizing for their circumstances that much harder. For example, the movie needs Jessica to come off as feverish in her aspirations and willing to do whatever it takes to get the information she needs. This would help make sense of her refusals to back down in spite of the circumstances understandable as opposed to inconceivable. The story never gives Geurt the chance to convey this trait. Instead of feeling realized with intention and drive, she comes off like an NPC in a detective game who’s pre-programmed to make awful decisions because that’s what “real” journalism ,aka the story, requires. This displacement between what the character needs to emote to feel real versus their apparent motivation is present in most of the main cast outside of Ingleman. No one feels grounded or relatable.
I think the movie would have benefited immensely from more time to breathe with all the characters. Getting to know them more intimately would have helped understand their driving factors and would’ve helped me get over their incredibly, inconceivable, stupid decisions. Context changes the way decisions are perceived and this movie lacks that for its characters. It’s a shame because I think the few good scares in the movie suffer a lot as a result. In theory and partly in practice they work. It’s just their execution in relation to the characters feels detached and doesn’t stick in the mind after initial watch. That’s arguably the most important part of a scare. It’s ability to haunt you after having seen it.
Furthermore, while the purpose of the first movie is clear – a “real” documentary of a tragedy – this movie never makes it clear who is presenting the story of the Abaddon Hotel and why the audience should care. Video clips from the beginning of the movie recount the stories of individuals who entered the hotel and disappeared, but they just feel like disconnected scares that tell the audience very little new information. By the end of the movie the purpose of the documentary is no less clear. The story makes sense in a narrative context, but it doesn’t fit the style by which it’s told. I feel like the movie would’ve been more interesting as a straight up supernatural horror film as opposed to a found-footage style film. Granted, that would mess up the whole found-footage trilogy Cognetti was going for , but I think the franchise would’ve been better off as a result. It certainly wouldn’t feel as jarring. I just couldn’t stop thinking about why someone would cut and edit a piece like this and who they would show it to , so I could never get into the movie’s “purpose” as a documentary.
All this being said, I do enjoy the way the movie ends. Key revelations are made that connect the mythos of the first and second movie in a way that excuses some of story issues I’ve outlined. There’s a connective tissue that’s given life which fully gets to breathe in the final part of the trilogy. Without the foundation of the ending here, the third part of the franchise wouldn’t work as well , and that’s a movie I really enjoy. Does that mean I give Hell House LLC II a pass? No. Not even close. Just because it works in the context of a trilogy doesn’t give it an excuse for being boring and mostly uneventful in end of itself. It’s not a movie I would watch as a solo billing and even when I find myself in the mood for a franchise re-watch, I usually skip all the way to the end for this one.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel leaves a lot to be desired and oftentimes comes off like a sad attempt at recreating the much better Hell House. The scares don’t hit, the characters are unrelatable, and the plot feels underdeveloped. I’d only recommend to this to fans of the first because the ending does add to the mythos of the latter and set up for a much better sequel .
Rating
4.2/10
Grade
F
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Amy Steel as Ginny John Furey as Paul Adrienne King as Alice Steve Daskewisz as Jason
Release Date
1981
Language(s)
English
Running Time
87 minutes
Friday the 13th Part Two is one of the few horror sequels that manages to take what was interesting and effective in the first movie and add to it substantially.The story is better paced than the originals with kills being effectively spread throughout the movie to keep the tension and excitement more constant. Characters are given time to develop and become people who you can root for. Jason is actually the villain (even if not adorned with his iconic hockey mask) and adds a certain level of brutality to the kills that was missing before. This is a sequel that has everything a fan of the original could want and more.
The movie opens up with a quick recap of the end of first movie which is then revealed to be nightmare Alice is having/reliving as a result of her trauma . Within a few moments she’s unceremoniously killed by Jason with a cut to the title card. Normally the death of a previous final girl in such a mean spirited fashion (coughs in Halloween 5) gets me upset , but Alice was such a non factor in the first movie (one of my major criticisms) that it almost feels nice knowing that we’re getting someone new. After the title card, the story picks up 5 years with the reopening of a camp on the shores of Crystal Lake. Cue title card.
The first thing the story does that’s a marked improvement over its predecessor is clearly establishing a crew of characters with identifiable traits. Paul, the camp owner, is a well-mannered guy trying to do good for his students and those that they’ll interact with. Ginny (our final girl), his girlfriend, is a fun loving, witty, child psychology student. When the final act starts and and her back is pushed against the wall, you really appreciate how well her characters strengths are set up earlier. She’s resourceful and tenacious in a way that places you squarely in her corner. The main set of campers that are set to be slaughtered by Jason are, for the most part, likable and fleshed out just the right amount. Performances feel genuine and the staffers feels like young adults just messing around with one another. Characters get to interact with each other over elongated periods giving the audience a reason to care about their ultimate fates.
Likewise, there’s some thought given to developing Jason. He’s not just some hulking monster in the woods waiting to kill nubiles. His actions feel purposeful and the way the film subtly (and not so subtly in one particular scene) builds up his psychology and way of life raises a lot of interesting questions. Unfortunately, not all of those questions get answers that feel acceptable, the biggest being how Jason is alive despite being “dying” decades previously. The whole driving force behind Pamela’s murder spree in the first movie is her belief that Jason had died because of negligent camp counselors. If he hadn’t actually died, then that means he was just living out in the forest relaxing. If this was the case, then why didn’t he act to help his mom when she was struggling? The film would like to have you believe he witnessed her death and took revenge; that’s what the opening sequence with Alice was supposed to indicate. It’s just that that requires uprooting the basis of the whole story or coming up with a convoluted headcanon to explain what’s going on. This is a problem that’s endemic with the franchise. It rarely knows what it wants in the moment, so there are a lot of retcons/oddities in the plot that make otherwise interesting moments confusing. That being said, I think the good outweighs the bad and got over the issue on my third play-through.
Now one thing that the first installment got right was the kill scenes due to the practical effects magic of Tom Savini. Despite not being able to get him on the second movie, the kills and their respective brutality are still on display (even if they don’t reach the same consistent heights). In fact, one of my favorite kills in the franchise happens early on and it might be one of the most mean spirited slasher kills I’ve ever seen. It’s just brutal and demonstrates (as if we even needed it) that Jason has absolutely no qualms with who he murders.
Unfortunately even though the movie makes huge strides in improving and refining the slasher formula , there’s more than one oddball moment that feels out of place with the realism and sense of urgency that’s being set up. For example, there’s a moment where a group of characters makes a gruesome discovery only to be stopped in the act. However, the spectacle they came upon is never mentioned by anyone else despite its potential importance in saving future characters lives. There’s another moment where Jason comes upon a character and they literally just stand there waiting to die. While there aren’t a lot of weird moments like these, they definitely stick out like sore thumbs and make the movie feel more uneven.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Friday the 13th Part Two is a rare sequel that fixes its predecessors mistakes while building on the aspects of it that fans love. Sure there are some oddball moments that feel out of place with the more grounded and realistic setting the movie tries to go for. Thankfully, none of these moments derail the movie when it’s at its best – delving into the psychology of its killer and providing tense and effective kill sequences.
Rating
8.5/10
Grade
B+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Haley Bennett as Hunter Conrad Austin Stowell as Richie Conrad Elizabeth Marvel as Katherine Conrad David Rasche as Michael Conrad Laith Nakli as Luay
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
English
Running Time
94 minutes
Rotten Tomatoes describes this movie as an “unconventional approach to exploring domestic ennui” in its Critics Consensus section. After having seen the movie twice, I can say this summation is anything but accurate. A movie about domestic ennui would explore the way a subject feels a sense of purposelessness in relation to their household/household duties. Swallow is so much more that and plays out more like a character study of newlywed wife, Hunter, succumbing to the pressures of performing to her new husband,Richie, and his family’s expectations developing pica, a condition characterized by eating inedible objects, as a result. It’s not that shes bored with her “duties” and is listlessly wandering around trying to find something to do so she dabbles with eating inedible objects for fun. It’s more so that the pressures and expectations she’s put under compounded with with pre-existing underlying issues leads to her eating as a psychological response to the alienation and trauma she’s processing.
As someone who loves horror, I rarely find myself scared to the point of wanting to look away while watching . This movie is an exception and makes Hunter’s acts of swallowing inedible objects absolutely painful to watch. It’s not just that the objects themselves are threatening and dangerous looking, which they are; it’s that the sequences play and build upon circumstances that could really happen. Pica is a real condition that’s been documented. As someone who’s loved eating ice since I was a kid, the idea of being inexplicably drawn to eat something dangerous is a genuine fear of mine. Likewise, an awful family/in-law situation stressing out a new wife is something that a lot of people can relate to. Grounded rules and situations like these are why the movie works. The circumstances that make up the “scare” sequences are grounded in reality and relatable enough so the uncomfortable moments feel like they could happen to someone we know, if not us outright.
Every action that Hunter takes, has an emotional undercurrent that drips off the screen and makes you invested in her journey and what happens to her. This is all because of Haley Bennet’s performance, without which movie would fail to work. She starts off so eager to please, trying to fill in the roles that her passive aggressive husband and in-laws expect her to. There’s a genuine earnestness in how she tries to curry favor. Likewise, her dejection and respective attempts to regain adoration are painful to watch because the conclusion feels almost foregone. When she eats her first object, there’s a mystery in her eyes as she decides to ultimately take the plunge. Then when she accomplishes her task the delight and genuine happiness she feels radiates (accompanied by some upbeat snazzy tunes). It gives these moments a perverse feeling. You know they’re wrong. They’re painful. But for her, they almost feel like escapes from the emotional and psychological hellscape she finds herself in. Such eccentric behavior could come off as just creepy, but instead comes off as kind of endearing. As the stakes ramp up so does her emotional range and it’s quite a trip to see where she ends up by the end of the movie.
The movie is also gorgeous to look at. There are certain scenes that are draped with a rich red and a deep blue akin to something out of Suspiria (a movie I genuinely love). It gives the movie a phantasmic feeling as the colors drape over Hunter during long takes that linger on her expression. I love the use of close up shots of objects and Hunter’s reactions to them generate an incredible amount of unease and tension despite it being obvious as to what she’s going to do. I also genuinely appreciate the way the characters are blocked off in group encounters. The way the Conrad family is positioned to Haley often highlights the discrepancy in their power and reinforces the underlying nature of what the “family’s” relationship really is.
Unfortunately, while the movie’s ambitions are lofty, the execution in the latter half of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. There are sprinkles of greatness, but they feel rushed and haphazard. There’s a pivot in the third act that feels like it could have hit the mark if it was set up and developed better, but unfortunately feels unearned. It’s not that I think everything needed to be explained. It’s more that I think the plot elements that the third act tries to build on aren’t present enough to justify the importance they’re given. This is a shame because the ideas driving the ending make a lot of sense from a thematic perspective. Isolated, I like them a lot. Unfortunately, in the context of the narrative they feel like bits tacked on to the end as opposed to natural extensions of the story.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Swallow is a wonderfully unique horror that focuses on real grounded scares as opposed to tired tried cliches. Somehow the story of a newlywed with a snooty wealthy husband and in-laws developing an odd eating condition wherein she eats dangerous inedible objects is incredibly relatable and touching. I found myself earnestly invested and horrified as a result. (I averted my eyes more than once on my first watch through.) Sure there are some rough patches namely, a third act that I think was rushed compared to the rest of the story, but the movie is genuinely unique. Thought it doesn’t always hit its marks, its unique blend of body and psychological horror is one that I’ll be thinking about for a long time.
Rating
8.8/10
Grade
B+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Matilda Lutz as Jen Kevin Janssens as Richard Vincent Colombe as Stan Guillaume Bouchède as Dimitri
Release Date
2017
Language(s)
English, French
Running Time
108 minutes
I’m not the biggest fan of rape and revenge stories because I think most of them rely too much on the shock and exploitative nature of the rape and violence as opposed to the revenge by the survivor. As a result the exploitative nature of the movies tends to crowd out any big thematic takeaways about (feminine) agency and the way dominant powers can be usurped. Thankfully, as the title would suggest, Revenge is a story that focuses more on the survivor’s story than her abusers’ actions. Don’t get me wrong. The movie definitely doesn’t hold back punches when it comes to demonstrating the brutality our lead goes through. It’s just that it manages to do it in a way that focuses more on the horror of the power dynamic than just shocking imagery.
The story follows Jen and Richard, a couple on a romantic getaway that’s quickly interrupted when the latter’s two friends, Stan and Dimitri, show up at the house they’re staying in. As soon as they show up the mood in the house changes. There’s a palpable tension that keeps building, just waiting to explode and explode it does. Jen is violated, brutalized, and left for dead. Thankfully, the violence and brutality of the actions is demonstrated not by some grotesque demonstration of the act proper. Instead, it is the actions/reactions of the 3 men towards the “situation” that demonstrate just how depraved their behavior is. Though they’re similar in terms of their general orientation towards the situation (and women), Fargeat made sure to carve out unique identities for each of the scumbags. I was surprised at how well each member of the trio stood out. It’s easy to bog down the antagonists in these types of movies and make them all just a vacuous evil with varying shades, but Revenge teases out the nuances in their perception of women and violence demonstrating that toxic masculinity can come in different shapes and sizes, each perpetuating a misogynistic culture in their own ways.
Likewise, Jen is far more than the eye candy she’s made out to be in the earlier portions of the movie. When she’s first introduced she comes off as a pretty socialite who’s trying to enjoy her getaway despite the presence of her lovers new friends. She dances and parades with a full confidence and swagger. The camera lingers on her body in a provocative voyeuristic fashion, demonstrating what her male audience is paying attention to. After her traumatic encounter she draws upon a well of genius, tenacity, and rage to find a way to survive. Clad in the same previously sexualized garb, cut up and damaged, and covered with blood she goes out to execute her plan of action. Her transformation feels surreal with her subsequent revenge feeling more like a fantastical imagining of how it should go down rather than how it would in another movie. Some people might see it as unrealistic, but the movie fully embraces the dream like and seemingly magical logic of Jen’s journey so it never feels like a real issue. It helps that antagonists are all characters you actively want to see suffer, so there’s a great sense of catharsis in watching Jen proceed down her bloody path. Lutz’s performance is what keeps all these elements tightly knit and effective. Despite having only a few lines in the movie, everything from the way she holds her body to the way her face reflects her mood and outlook reinforces exactly what she’s thinking and what she’s planning on doing. There’s no need for words. What she wants is clear and her previous calls for help fell on deaf ears so the time for words are over.
The way the scenery and sound design reflect the changes in Jen and her subsequent journey are what push the movie over the edge. The color scheme of the vacation house she starts off at along with her wardrobe is fun, exciting, and bright with pretty pinks and nice yellows.As she goes along her journey her outfit becomes matted in blood, becoming dark and gritty matching the hellish desert landscape. While she might’ve been the prey back in the house, out in the wild she’s the huntress. Early on there’s a beautiful closeup shot of her blood pouring out in big drops, hitting the ground (and one particularly unlucky ant) like a series of explosions. Each drop is punctuated with the sound of a gun shot. It’s a highly effective scene that marks the beginning of her transformation and indicates to the audience that the power dynamic has started to shift. Moments like these are scattered through the movie through cuts to obviously symbolic imagery, vague fantasy sequences, and poetic flourishes that feel too good to be true.
Of course none of these elements would work if not for the tightly knit, well-paced story, that knows exactly when to push on the gas pedals and when to slow down. Blood and gore are used effectively. There’s a lot of it by the end, but it feels well earned as opposed to over the top. There’s never a boring moment in the movie and once the third act gets underway the movie becomes a non-stop, white-knuckled, cat and mouse chase that has to be seen to be believed. The way the camera moves with the characters as they frantically chase after one another adds a healthy dose of tension and disorientation which keeps you wholly engaged.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Revenge is an action packed story that subverts and plays with genre tropes and expectations to wild success. While it might feel too fantastical for those looking for an incredibly realistic revenge story, it absolutely delivers for those willing to give themselves over to the surreal way events unfold. This is a rape and revenge story that manages to keep the focus on the survivor and her journey to overcome and survive. It’s enthralling, well paced, and is packed withsymbols and images that’ll have you thinking long after the run time.
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Dick Warlock as Michael Myers
Release Date
1981
Language(s)
English
Running Time
92 minutes
Halloween II picks up immediately after the end of Halloween with Laurie being transferred to a hospital following her near fatal encounter with Michael. Unfortunately for her he’s not only alive but he’s also looking to finish what he started by taking her out of the picture. What follows is a Halloween skinned Friday the 13th style slasher that’s packed to the brim with spectacular kills and a score that’s as iconic as the originals.
I’ll be honest. I think that Halloween II introduces a plot point/reveal that the mainline Halloween franchise has never been able to satisfyingly deal with. It’s the core behind Michael’s motivation and deflates a lot of the ambiguity that makes him so frightening in the first movie. As a result everything from the first movie feels off. Myers goes from “the Shape” to a person with human desires. The issue is the movie then tries to reconcile that with his general supernatural and distant characterization and it comes off as confusing. Furthermore, the way the reveal happens is so cheap and tacked on that the entire movie feels like it could have happened without this scene’s inclusion. It feels lazy and out of place, which is made all the worse because it is literally the driving force behind the story.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I can absolutely say this movie is entertaining if you can look past this plot point. The kills are creative and the set-ups are well worth watching. There’s one scene in particular where a nurse thinks Michael is her lover, whom she doesn’t realize has already been killed off. Watching the scene play out demonstrates the fundamental identity issue with the movie. The scene is terrifying because you know what’s going to happen and the nurse’s manner of death is particularly dreadful to imagine. However, the drawn out almost comical nature of it feels counter to how decisive and no-nonsense he feels in the first part. It’s not like all the kill scenes are like this. In fact, Rosenthal has more than his fair share of voyeuristic camera kills like Carpenter had made all the more interesting by the long white hallways of the hospital. It’s just that when a kill happens that doesn’t fit in the with that general current you can feel how out of place it is. If you’re just looking for a slasher with innovative and entertaining kills, this movie has them in spades and I can see why so many fans of the franchise have a fondness for this movie.
The score is also noteworthy for being nearly as entertaining as the original’s, which I think is one of the most immersive scores in horror cinema. Carpenter’s new rendition of the iconic theme is similar enough to evoke the feelings of nostalgia but feels new and energetic. Granted, I love synth music but I also think the score perfectly captures what the movie wanted to do in hearkening back to the original while being it’s own thing. I love how the usually sweet and soothing “Mr. Sandman”by The Chordettes is utilized in the movie. It comes off as sinister and unnerving in context which I think is testament to how well Rosenthal nails atmosphere. The first time I heard it play while watching I thought it was coming from somewhere else because of how odd its selection felt in such a movie. However, if you ask me now, I can’t imagine the movie without the song.
The one aspect of the movie that I genuinely enjoyed and think was pulled off well throughout the movie is the fear of the holiday of Halloween. The idea that it’s a holiday filled with fear and repression is exemplified through multiple different actions that are only tangentially related. Near the beginning of the movie a child is in the Emergency Room and we get a glimpse of his bloodied mouth. It hearkens back to rumors of razors in candy-bars and the fear that our own neighbors could harm our children. Moments like these add a much needed texture to the movie that place the central conflict within the schema of traditional Halloween scares and fears. It doesn’t elevate the movie up to where Halloween is, but it certainly gives the movie a more distinctive identity than just die fodder die.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
I have a love hate relationship with this movie. On the one hand I love that it feels and plays like a continuation of Halloween . You could literally play this as soon as the first movie ended and it would feel like one fully encompassing piece. The similarity is so uncanny that fan-cuts mixing the two movies feel seamless without close inspection. Unfortunately, this latter half of the two-parter undoes a lot of what made the original so frightening and interesting, settling instead for a Friday the 13th style slaughter fest with a hackneyed plot that serve as the story’s main driver. It’s an entertaining gore-fest but feels less elevated in its themes and atmosphere.
Rating
8.0/10
Grade
B
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Iván Massagué as Goreng Zorion Eguileor as Trimagasi Antonia San Juan as Imoguiri Emilio Buale Coka as Baharat Alexandra Masangkay as Miharu
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
Spanish
Running Time
94 minutes
My usual experience with horror titles on Netflix has always been the following:
If I scroll and find the movie myself the movie is anywhere from decent to excellent (ex: Gerald’s Game).
If I hear about the movie through the grapevine and check it out it’s usually a huge disappointment (ex: Bird Box,)
Given that, I was fairly certain that The Platform would be another over-hyped but underwhelming addition to the online horror streaming collection. You can only imagine my surprise then when I immediately wanted and proceeded to replay the movie after it had ended. Gaztelu-Urrutia’s science fiction thriller is one of the most layered, intimate, and entertaining depictions of the dark underbelly of capitalism I’ve had the pleasure of seeing. It’s a movie that not only deserves the praise it’s getting but honestly feels like it’s getting undersold.
The story takes place in a large tower comprised of multiple vertically stacked floors, each floor housing two residents. Each floor is identical in makeup and has a rectangular shaped hole in the center of it. A platform stacked with food starts at the top floor of the tower and travels through the holes all the way down. People are free to eat how much ever and whatever they want from the platform during the time it lingers on their floor but have no food for the rest of the day once it goes to the next floor. Every month people are reassigned to new rooms with no guarantees of where they’ll end up.
The environment serves as the perfect playground to explore class conflict. People on the upper floors have no personal incentive to partition food for those below outside of potential empathy if they had experienced hunger on a lower floor during a previous cycle. The question the movie wants to answer is whether or not it’s possible to create an escape out of such a system or find a way to survive in it. Can individual action galvanize change in a system where there’s no guarantee of the security of one’s future? That’s a pertinent question that policymakers are struggling to answer right now during the Corona epidemic as some people hoard supplies for themselves while others donate to the less fortunate. The separation between floors helps elucidate the dissonance people experience as a result of possessing relatively more power than their peers. People hate those above for disrespecting them and in the case of the movie not giving them food, but they simultaneously choose not to extend the concern they wish they received to those below. It’d be funny if it didn’t ring so true with reality.
Obviously such discussions require nuance and ambiguity. That’s where this movie shines. The majority of the narrative is dialogue between Goreng, a man who voluntarily entered the tower, and the various peoples he meets on different levels. Every participant he runs into is a stand-in for a different sect of society and their relation to resource distribution. It can feel a bit too on the nose with characters insulting others with jeers like “communist” or racial slurs. However, most of these details are meant to distract both Goreng and us, the audience, from the structural information asymmetry at play. With no resources or methods to vet others information, every interaction becomes suspect. Is what’s being said true or is it only being said to curry favor? Maybe the correspondent thinks what they’re saying is true when it’s not because they heard it from somewhere else. The movie constantly reveals pertinent information only to contradict it a few scenes later. It forces you to ask who’s really doing what and for why. You really appreciate how layered the (mis)direction and (mis)information go because they reveal the way knowledge is conditioned by power and used to reinforce different schemas of social control, both good and bad. It’s all about ideology.
Thankfully, in spite of being dialogue heavy and primarily taking place in one setting, the movie never feels boring. This is due in part to some great editing choices and performances. Whenever a moment feels like it’s just about to get too long the movie cuts to a nightmare sequence, psychological hallucinations, or an outside perspective of the events leading to Goreng’s experiences in the tower. Each cut feels like it comes at the right time and always adds to the subtext in a way that doesn’t outwardly reveal as much as the dialogue heavy scenes. It’s markedly subtle. Lighting and color are also used to great effect both as plot devices and as a mood amplifiers. The palette is usually a gray-blue but gets enveloped in a red lighting, similar to what you’d see in a dark room, during more important moments. It’s a visual jolt that lets you know something’s going to go down. Furthermore, the movie is just as violent as it is cerebral and horror fans looking for some gory visceral scares will definitely have a good time with some of the more brutal moments. As you would imagine people on the brink of starvation are more than willing to do what they need to ensure they have something to eat and the movie plays with that tension to create some genuinely stressful white-knuckle situations.
Now as much as I love this movie for what it does, I think it does feel a bit too convenient at times. There are some characters that feel tailor fit for the situation as opposed to feeling like real people who just happened to have the skills to solve the situation at hand. I didn’t think it was a huge issue, but it does make some sequences feel more allegorical than grounded. The movie also revels in mystery and shows a lot of interesting scenes and moments that have to do with but are not within the tower but never expands on them enough. It’s not that the inclusions are ineffective. It’s more like they’re missed opportunities that could have made the movies themes pop out more. Finally, the ending is polarizing. It’s intentionally ambiguous and is open to interpretation. I personally love it and think it’s the only way the movie could have ended. However I also know people who thought the ending was a let-down that didn’t make use of all the momentum leading up to it.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Platform is like if Cube got a modern face-lift and dealt directly with the horrors of neoliberal capitalism. The story is nuanced, brutal, and more pertinent now than ever. If you’re looking for clear answers you might find yourself frustrated. This is a cerebral horror that delivers on its themes and its scares in equal part.
Rating
9.2/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
François Simard Anouk Whissell Yoann-Karl Whissell
Principal Cast
Munro Chambers as The Kid Laurence Leboeuf as Apple Aaron Jeffrey as Frederic Michael Ironside as Zeus Edwin Wright as Skeletron
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
95 minutes
Turbo Kid is possibly one of the most endearing movies I’ve seen in the past decade and is a movie I genuinely think will be a cult classic in a few years. I have no idea why this genre-defying one-of-a-kind love letter to the 80’s and early 90’s that manages to package a heartwarming message with an off -the-walls chaotic story in a way that makes sense has managed to be so overlooked and underrated. If you thought that sentence was a run-on, you’re not even ready for the roller-coaster of frenetic energy that is this absolute shot of adrenaline to the heart. If you’ve been looking for a movie to just find that spark or feel some genuine joy , in these times especially, and the trailer seems like it’s up your alley, do yourself a favor and watch this ASAP. As of 3/27/20 it’s available on Amazon Video and is free for Prime Members.
The movie follows the Kid, a teenager scavenging a post-apocalyptic 1997 wasteland for artifacts to trade in for food, water, and most importantly , comic books featuring the hero (and the Kid’s role model) Turbo Rider. When our fairly reticent protagonist runs into the bubbly,high-energy, pink-haired delight that is Apple he gets unnerved by her overt kindness and tries to escape to his underground lair. Thankfully, his attempts to get away are thwarted as Apple manages to find him. Once he realizes he’s stuck with her, the two strike up a friendship that is threatened by Zeus, the man who claims dominion over the wastelands. Forced into action, both the Kid and Apple have to find a way to survive against all odds.
I won’t spoil the journey, but the way the movie jumps from bit to bit is genius and reflects an adept understanding and appreciation of 80’s and 90’s culture. It’s not so pronounced as to distract from the overall story or the themes, but it will definitely elicit a chuckle from fans of the time period. For example, Frederic, a cowboy who feels like a Clint Eastwood character from a Western, is tough as nails and is best known for being a champion arm-wrestler. You read that right. Forget gun-slinging. Turbo Kid‘s post-apocalyptic universe uses arm-wrestling with high stakes as the principle mode of competition. I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw the first match go down as though it was a serious shoot out. Turbo Rider’s blaster looks exactly like Mega-Man‘s arm cannon which is a great reference. It’s made comical because despite such technology existing, Apple and the Kid have to traverse the environment on bicycles. The juxtaposition of the futuristic and the retro creates this cool feeling of being somewhere different but familiar.
The story works and is allowed to get away with these absurdities because the core relationship between the Kid and Apple is heartwarming and filled with a real spirit. It’s the glue that holds every other element of the story together. It starts with just how much life both our lead actors bring to their roles. Chambers is great at portraying that awkward shy loner type that the Kid starts off as. He feels like he lacks a genuine of knowledge at how to deal with a social butterfly like Apple is both endearing and comedic in it’s own right. You can tell from his facial expressions and awkward physical posturing he’s not used to social situations at all , let alone with gregarious pink haired girls. He’s stuck, alone, in the wasteland and can’t help but running from the first sign of amicability. It’s what makes his subsequent relationship with Apple so meaningful. It’s not that she’s his sole reason for doing anything. It’s more so that she sparks in him a desire to change by demonstrating a genuine appreciation of life and its simplicity (a slight crush doesn’t hurt). Likewise, Leboeuf absolutely knocks it out of the park as Apple. Her genuine love and excitement for each and every little thing is infectious and completely feels genuine. I was shocked at how much I believed her eccentricities instead of laughing at them. She somehow manages to convey it all through her gaze, which she holds for these precise periods of time that somehow convey her enthusiasm and energy authentically. It sounds weird to describe it, but if you watch the movie you’l get what I’m saying. Both of them play off each other so well and you can genuinely feel the friendship budding and blooming between them. It’s natural and actually goes through some serious issues in a way that’s lighthearted and authentic.
A common criticism I’ve seen (and felt after I watched the trailer) is that Apple’s your typical Manic Pixie Dream Girl who exists for the sole sake of motivating the Kid to go on and embrace life for what it is. I’m happy to report that the movie never falls into the same trappings. The storytelling and setting make it apparent that the Kid hasn’t had a friend in forever , so Apple serves as a much-needed social companion for a fairly alienated fellow. Furthermore, Apple has her own desires, chief of which is being the Kid’s friend. While there are hints of romance between the two (which feel cute and natural as opposed to forced) , the focus is on their friendship and what that means to each of them in an increasingly desolate world. The reason I cheered for them to overcome all the odds wasn’t so they could end up being a couple or having some final kiss. It’s because it’s clear they have so much fun just exploring the world and interacting with each other that I can’t help but get invested. It’s an infectious joy and their friendship feels emotionally poignant and grounded despite the nature of the story.
Now all of this story and character work would’ve been great on it’s own, but it’s elevated to the next level because of the sheer aesthetic that is Turbo Kid. From the beautiful and vibrant costumes that help the characters stand out from the background to the amazing props that feel like items taken straight out of video-games the movie feels like a fever dream come true. As a huge horror fan, the slapstick gore is what served as the cherry on the top. There are huge bursts of blood and body mutilation during key action scenes but they come off as morbidly comedy. These moments don’t happen every-time violence goes down and only happens when it serves as a comedic punchline to a moment. The synth score absolutely delivers on all fronts and is actually MEMORABLE in a sea of 80’s synth score homages. I could actually feel the spectrum of emotions as different pieces came on, each one only playing when absolutely necessary, coming into the background like the theme song would in a video-games. When everything starts lining up, you can tell that this movie is genuine through and through and has a cohesive and resonant message at the heart of it.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Turbo Kid is a love letter to 80’s and 90’s movies that takes inspiration from a hodgepodge of sources and manages to incorporate all of them in a cohesive, thematically tight, and genuinely touching story. The core friendship between the main characters is one of the most touching I’ve seen in a long time and gives the movie a touching spirit that’s rare. If you need a cheer me up and can let go of your cynicism for a while, I think you’ll find a lot to love in this deft genre-blending gem of a movie
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
François Simard Anouk Whissell Yoann-Karl Whissell
Principal Cast
Graham Verchere as Davey Judah Lewis as Eats Caleb Emery as Woody Cory Gruter-Andrew as Farraday Tiera Skovbye as Nikki Rich Sommer as Officer Mackey
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
106 minutes
After the absolute blast that was 2015’s Turbo Kid, I was more than excited when I saw the writer-director trio behind it had made this 80’s inspired horror mystery about a group of high schoolers trying to track down a local serial killer. Though it didn’t quite reach the peaks of the trio’s first movie, Summer of 84 has more than enough heart , spirit, and tension to entertain genre fans or people looking for a well-executed murder mystery story.
The story follows Davey, a 15 year old paperboy neck deep in conspiracy theories, who starts to suspect his friendly neighborhood cop, Officer Mackey, might actually be the dreaded serial killer terrorizing his small suburban neighborhood. Hungry to get to the bottom of the case, he enlists the help of his friends: Eats,Woody, and Farrady. What stands out the most about the group of four is how well defined they are as individuals and in relation to one another. Their conversations feel like they have a genuine history and weight behind them even if at times its just a series of quips back and forth. Davey, on top of being the conspiracy theorist of the group , is also the one most invested in the excitement the morbid situation presents him and his otherwise sheltered suburban life.Eats is the typical abrasive loud-mouth of the group. Woody is nervous, loyal, and defensive about his Mom. Farrady is know-it-all of the group. These characteristics might be interesting in end of themselves, but their origins reveal a lot more. Angst doesn’t just come from somewhere; there’s always circumstance that informs it. Discovering what that background is is what the movie is all about.
Davey tells the audience as much in a voice-over near the beginning of the story where he warns that anything that could be happening behind anyone’s closed doors and you’d never know. The normal and routine could just be a smokescreen or deflection to cover up something more sinister. Or it could just be that- normal and routine. The story explores this idea not only through the mystery and investigation at the heart of the narrative but also in the way background details regarding different characters get revealed. For example, Davey learns that his former babysitter’s parents are getting divorced when his dad casually lets it slip that he heard something. It’s telling in how quickly they all accept the news almost like we hear what we want to hear. In a world where we quickly accept or deny information based on how well it coheres with other facts we process, how easy is it for an action to be construed as being intended in one way verse another? Watching the characters wrangle with that question is what keeps the movie entertaining. Even as someone who thought the ending felt predictable, I didn’t feel upset because I think the movie is deft in how it applies this sense of misdirection up until the big reveal.
Speaking of misdirection, Rich Sommer deserves a serious round of applause for playing the main suspect, Officer Mackey, with just the right amount of ambiguity. Every action he takes feels like it could either be malicious or it could just coincide with regular behavior. The way he emotes simultaneously feels genuine and for a specific purpose and trying to figure out whether or not he’s really the killer places you directly in the protagonist’s corner only to take you out of it again. If he wasn’t capable of switching from charming to menacing at the flip of the hat the mystery at the heart of the movie would never work.
If you’re a fan of 80’s inspired music and references, this movie has them in spades. The sound is synthy and hypnotic like you’d expect and I snapped along to the music more than once. The terror and danger of the situation the boys get themselves into during their mystery is conveyed almost perfectly through the tenser tracks that had my heart pumping in anticipation. Don’t worry if you’re annoyed of the 80’s aesthetic ; it’s never forced down the audience’s throat. Yes the characters talk about Episode VI and Gremlins but it only happens once.
My biggest issue with the movie is the ending. It felt predictable and even thought it was executed to a T, I expected more. The issue is at a certain point it becomes obvious that the story is kind of locked into certain paths which makes guesswork easier.There’s one scene that’s left in the second act that almost feels like the directors intentionally letting the audience know who to suspect. That being said watching it all come together in the third act is immensely satisfying because it plays on the depths of what you’ve learned up till that point as opposed to pulling any new twists or turns. It’s subversion done well and to an an effective degree. I just wish the lead up to it involved more red herrings and the story went off into zanier directions to force the characters and the audience to confront their biases in a more rushed and frantic way.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Summer of 84 is an 80’s fueled murder mystery that prioritizes mood and atmosphere over visceral scares in its exploration of the way we mediate our public image and likewise attempt to understand what others “really” mean by their public images . From the dynamic synthy-techno score to the fleshed out and realistic characters, it’s clear that a lot of love and care went into making the movie feel aesthetically on point without sacrificing nuance or personal identity. Thought it doesn’t tick of all my boxes , the movie’s fun ,energy, and willingness to experiment more than justifies a watch.
Rating
9.4/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode James Jude Courtney as Michael Myers/The Shape Judy Greer as Karen Andi Matichak as Allyson Nelson Haluk Bilginer as Dr. Sartain
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
106 minutes
Michael (James Jude Courtney) stands chained up. Michael (James Jude Courtney) stays with his back turned to Aaron(Jefferson Hall), Dana (Rhian Rees), Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) Aaron (Jefferson Hall) tries to elicit a response from Michael with the latter’s iconic mask. Michael (James Jude Courtney) is “woken” by the mask but exhibits no overt changes in behavior. The film starts on a provocation. Journalists want to investigate Michael and see what makes him tick, but he refuses to give them even an inch.
The film opens in a psychiatric hospital. A psychiatrist working at the institution, Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) escorts two true crime reporters, Aaron (Jefferson Hall) and Dana (Rhian Rees), for an interview with the subject of their latest investigation, Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney), before he’s transferred to a more maximum-security prison. The duo approaches the serial killer, but Michael doesn’t budge; he stays with his back turned to them. But he’s very much aware of their presence as evidenced by a “reverse” over-the-shoulder shot.
Frustrated with the lack of discernible response, Aaron steps forward and taunts Michael with the latter’s iconic mask, hoping that the provocation will elicit a response. But the response comes from the other patients around Michael who start to panic and become disturbed due to the sight of the mask; the lingering presence of evil is palpable. The cries of the patients interrupt and disorient Aaron’s attempted interview but he persists, desperately asking Michael to say anything.
Title card. The jack-o-lantern is crushed. The jack-o-lantern starts to rebuild itself. The jack-o-lantern lights up and is fixed again. The title sequence references the original movie and makes the viewer aware that this sequel is about Michael’s rebirth; far from being crushed, the specter of Halloween is back for more carnage.
Suddenly, the title card drops and the iconic Halloween theme starts to play; Michael doesn’t need to speak when the music does it for him. The intro sequence pays homage to the original film’s opening. In the 1978 classic, the camera slowly pushes into a jack-o-lantern, becoming the “point-of-view” of Halloween itself. In the 2018 sequel, the camera pushes in on a broken and beaten jack-o-lantern which recovers back into its original form – a rebirth. If the original signified the birth of Michael, then this narrative is about the resurrection of the Boogeyman.
Aaron and Dana leave Michael and head towards Laurie (Jaime Lee Curtis); if the killer won’t talk, get the survivor to fill in the blanks. Aaron narrates his report on the drive over and gives us the subtext in not-so-subtle fashion. Have Michael’s actions had an impact on Laurie such that the latter has become metaphysically changed by the encounter. Has one monster made another?
Laurie’s house is gated. Lights on the top of Laurie’s house. Lights surrounding the outside of Laurie’s house. Cameras record the property.Laurie’s compound might as well be a prison with how secure the area is. Cameras, lights, and locks pervade the area and make it apparent that Laurie has learned from her encounter with Michael. Security is paramount.
The answers to these questions become murky as the reporters arrive at Laurie’s gated compound. They speak with her through a security system in order to secure an interview but receive no response until they offer to pay a fee. The gate opens and they’re allowed entry. But the inside of Laurie’s compound is even more securitized than the outside. Cameras and lights surround the outside. It’s clear that Laurie’s confrontation with Michael has radically transformed her, forcing her to live her life with a neve-ending fear of the darkness and the forces inherent to it.
Aaron and Dana mention as much in their interview with Laurie, probing into how the incident derailed her life. It’s apparent that the duo doesn’t believe in the legend of the Boogeyman and see Michael as just another serial killer waiting to be examined, a profile to be added to a personality database. They suggest that Laurie’s obsession with the myth of Michael have cost her dearly. She’s had multiple failed marriages. She lost custody of her daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), years ago and now lives estranged from any family. Instead of continuing to live her fear in deference to idea of Michael qua inexplicable evil, they suggest that she communicate with Michael and lay her grievances to rest.
But they don’t understand what Michael is or the nature of what he put Laurie through so many years ago. They don’t understand that the person known as Michael is nothing more than a moniker for a force unconstrained, an evil with no direction. Laurie knows they don’t care about such proclamations, so she end’s the interview almost as soon as it starts and sends the duo out after getting payment.
Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) looks outside and sees Michael. Michael (Nick Castle) stares at Laurie. Allyson (Andi Matichak) looks outside and sees Laurie. Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) stares at Allyson. Laurie seems to have adopted some of Michael’s mannerisms; her encounter has caused her to become a specter to her own family. Her concerns might be justified, but her actions have caused such division that she has to meet up with her granddaughter in such a roundabout fashion.
Meanwhile Laurie’s granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), asks Karen if Laurie was invited to a celebratory dinner. Karen claims that Laurie was too busy to come, but Allyson knows that Karen most likely never sent an invite out. This becomes clear when Allyson peeks out of her classroom window and notices Laurie standing outside staring back at her; this is an explicit call-back to the original Halloween where a young Laurie peeked out and saw Michael staring back at her. In spending decades preparing for Michael, it seems that Laurie has adopted some of his characteristics. Allyson calls this out when the grandmother and granddaughter reunite outside. The latter pleads with the former to give up the obsession with Michael and return to a semblance of normalcy in order to engage with the family again.
But Laurie is right and Michael proves that her concerns are more than valid when he manages to escape from the bus transporting him for his prison transfer. Now free again, the shape is more than ready to begin his nightmarish slaughter. However, this time there’s a party that’s willing and who’s trained the majority of her life for such an encounter.
The film’s set-up offers a lot of promise by building upon the original’s themes in an organic fashion. Laurie becoming jaded and militaristic after her encounter is understandable. She witnessed a person survive fatal wound upon fatal wound with no genuine injuries. She’s the only one to have an understanding of the terror he brings, so she’s focused on eliminating him and not understanding him. Opposing her are parties that attempt to domesticate Michael, either because they have trouble evaluating what he’s done in a grander or context or because they believe that his drive towards destruction contains within it some kernel of truth which can help inquiries into the psychological nature of evil. All the while, Michael kills without reason and gives no indication that he cares or remembers any of the parties desperate to control him.
If done properly, the narrative could have interweaved between all the different strands chronicling Michael and taken the question of how narratives form around evil to its most literal sense. Alas, the narrative fumbles around with its ideas in haphazard fashion, wasting much of its potential in favor of scraping the surface of the most basic themes. Part of this stems from the noted sub-text problem above; much of the story relies on characters explaining the themes and ideas as opposed to showcasing the same visually or through the sound design, so there’s a constant discord between what the films aspiring to be and what it manages to achieve.
This is an effect of the film’s misguided focus. Instead of building up its primary cast of characters and letting them get entangled naturally as the night builds up, the story gives them only the basest amount of characterization necessary to get them ready for the next story beats. Time that could have been used to flesh out the characters and make their journeys more engaging is spent on building up Michael’s soon-to-victims. These characters are little more than “cannon fodder” and do nothing but converse in “comedic” [1] Comedy is subjective, but most of the jokes between minor characters are irritating more than anything else. fashion. Cuts from the main storyline to these characters are meant to introduce a levity and get the viewer to care about the carnage to come, but the conversations between said characters are so insipid that not only do they not get the viewer to care about what’s to come but also serve as an ugly contrast with the purported severity of what the film is trying to do. It’s hard to take Michael seriously as a threat when his violence is intercut with small talk and comedic banter.
In this sense, what’s missing from the 2018 incarnation of Halloween inherent in the original is a sense of gravitas capable of transforming the on-screen violence into a nightmare that gets under the skin. Without this severity, the discussions of the film’s subtext by major characters feels even more out of place. Consequently, while the film’s depiction of Michael’s night of violence is technically satisfying, none of his murders rises past the level of momentarily shocking spectacle.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Halloween is one of the better attempted sequels to John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 classic, Halloween, but is still a far cry from the original in terms of its ability to leave an lasting mark of fear on its viewers. There’s a missing gravitas that makes this update to the slasher franchise feel lacking, but the technical competence and general respect given to the original film make this more than satisfying for fans looking for decent Halloween or slasher fare.
Rating
7.5/10
Grade
B
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Nick Castle as Michael Myers Will Sandin as young Michael Myers P.J. Soles as Lynda Nancy Kyes as Annie
The title sequence to Halloween is a work of art in itself. The iconic theme song plays getting the audience uncomfortable and entranced at the same time as the camera zooms in slowly towards an eerily lit jack-o-lantern. The camera seemingly goes into the void within the pumpkin before the setting and date are revealed.
John Carpenter’s iconic Halloween theme song plays the as camera zooms in slowly on a jack-o-lantern whose inner light seems to be flickering menacingly, complimenting the unsettling music which feels like something out of one of Argento’s giallo movies. Eventually the light from the pumpkin fades and the screen blacks. The menacing theme transforms into a Halloween mantra being collectively chanted by children as on-screen text indicates the setting is Haddonfield, Illinois and the date is Halloween, 1963. The screen blacks once again before the camera seemingly moves left, out from the darkness of the title screen to a view of a typical suburban house.
The camera moves left from the darkness and opens on the Myers house.The entrance of the Myers house.Jack-o-lantern present at the front door of the Myers house.Judith Myers( Sandy Johnson) and her boyfriend (David Kyle) get amorous with each other. The latter wears a clown mask during lighter activities. Judith Myers( Sandy Johnson) and her boyfriend (David Kyle) go upstairs. Michael darts to the front of the house.Judith’s room’s light is on. As the couple gets ready to have sex the light in the room goes off. Michael enters the back of the house.Michael grabs a knife from the drawer.Michael waits for the boyfriend (David Kyle) to leave the house. Michael picks up David’s discarded mask and puts it on. The clown mask fills the frame with darkness. Michael goes towards Judith (Sandy Johnson). Michael stares at the phallic motion of the knife as he stabs Judith. Michael’s parents show up. Michael’s parents take off his mask revealing Michael’s (Will Sandin) identity as a child. The camera cranes away as if recoiling from impact of Michael’s (Will Sandin) actions.The first scene is presented as one continuous take in an attempt to give us a full run-down of Michael’s decision making process. The camera appears from the blackness of the title sequence suggesting that Michael’s point-of-view is akin to the spirit of Halloween’s point-of-view, charging him with a supernatural sense of agency. As he moves from camera to camera, it becomes apparent he’s fixated on his sister and the sexual activities she’s engaging – the extent and nature of this fasciation is unknown in spite of the fact that we’re literally in Michael’s shoes. As he realizes his sister is engaging in sex, he goes to the back of the house – his impermissible desire is granted access through unregulated passages. It’s through this entry that he gets the knife and same mask used by his sister’s partner – both parts somehow necessary for him to engage and enjoy the murder . It’s only after the prohibited act that he’s allowed to access the normal entrance to the house when he exits the front door. When the mask is removed and it’s revealed he’s a child, we recoil along with the camera at the shock that the murderer is someone who should be considered a source of innocence, not heinous brutality. It’s a shocking opening that lets the audience know the stakes of what’s to come and makes Michael’s presence one to be feared because we’re incapable of understanding him in any way.
The camera moves forward and it becomes apparent that we’re in a point of view shot – the subject of whom is yet to be revealed. We move towards the house where we see a young man and women engaging in amorous activity. As the two move around the house in their playful flirtations, the young man picks up a clown mask. All the while the subject of the camera, the point of view by which we’re experiencing the scene, darts around from window to window to keep an eye on the two before they eventually make their way to the woman’s bedroom . When the lights go off in the bedroom, the camera’s subject runs from the front of the house to the back of the house, picks up a knife, and waits for the boyfriend to leave the house before going upstairs to where the girlfriend resides. At the same time, the soundscape which had consisted of only diegetic noises – the call of birds and the sound of footsteps – gives way to another distressing Carpenter track which creates a feeling of distress – is this what the camera’s subject hears or is this music coming from elsewhere?
It’s at this point the subject’s hand reaches out to grab a clown mask on the floor putting it on over their face, thereby obscuring both their own face and the camera’s view in a shroud of darkness. From this newly adorned “vantage” point, the subject walks towards the unsuspecting victim-to-be who remains in the nude. She turns and looks at the intruder exclaiming, “Michael” before being brutally stabbed to death. The camera’s subject, Michael (Will Sandin) as we know now, takes more visual pleasure in watching the knife glide through the air, penetrating and coming out, than he does in watching the damage being done to the body. He looks at the lifeless body for a moment, as if trying to process what has happened, before going downstairs and leaving the house from the front door where two adults, make his way to him and remove his mask.
Point of view changes and the camera looks at Michael, now revealed to be a young child in a clown costume holding a bloody knife. His face seems untroubled given that he’s just murdered his sister. Horrific doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the revelation that such violence could happen in a safe environment, let alone by a child. Echoing this sentiment, the camera slowly cranes away from the scene of domestic terror both giving the audience time to process what’s happened while letting the impact of Michael’s brutality be felt visually as an inexplicable shock that can’t be contained.
In under 7 minutes, Carpenter’s masterpiece delivers not only one of the best title card sequences in cinema but also one of the greatest opening scenes. Both movements serve as thematic calling cards for the movie while blending into one another, setting the groundwork for what’s to come both at the level of Halloween and at the level of the slasher genre. A journey through the “mind” of “Halloween” as we traverse from the jack-o-lantern’s inner darkness to the point of view of Michael, tying his subjectivity with both the holiday and the force of darkness itself. The location – a suburban house- and Michael’s geographical route- going from the front of the house to the back – makes it apparent that the supposed protection of the suburbs is unable to contain deviancy which will always find a way in. The intimate relationship sex and violence that serves as the foundation for all slashers is enforced by the chronology of events – Michael’s sister has sex and is then murderdered immediately after- the phallic nature of the stabbing itself – two types of penetration- and the transference of the mask – lover turned into murderer. Finally and most importantly, from start to finish, the tension never lets up. We start uneasy because of the music and end completely shocked by the events that transpire – perfectly primed for what’s to come.
The main story picks up 15 years later in Haddonfield on Halloween once again, this time on a young woman, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). Unlike our introduction to Michael, our introduction to Laurie is one from a distance, from a more objective neutral position. We observe her leaving her house, talking to her father, calmly walking the streets before running into one of the neighborhood kids, Tommy Doyle (Brian Andrews). As she goes through her daily pattern we learn that she’s a down-to-earth nerdy type with a keen sense of perception and end up getting in her corner empathizing with her. However, our growing fondness of her is matched by a parallel sense of dread, as we’re shown early on that an recently escaped Michael (Nick Castle) has taken notice of her and her friends. It’s the perfect set-up.
First we see the monstrosity of the villain whose point of view is given a special privilege by being the first vantage point by which we experience the movie. It’s shot as though its one cut, meaning we get to see every detail he sees. Despite the fact that we experience his subjectivity so intimately we are unable to understand it – why does Michael kill his sister on this night in this way? Then we see the domesticity of the hero whose point of view is framed more objectively. However, we’re able to understand her reasons for action and her motivations. It’s a conundrum in comprehension as the point of view we should be more intimate with-Michael’s- is the one that escapes us, demonstrating the imperceptibility of evil and the way it escapes understanding. By tying both these character introductions in the same suburban environment, Carpenter is able to set their journeys up in parallel, as though two sides of the same coin – the normal domestic order and the sinister chaotic underbelly inherent within.
Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) lays in bed. Sherriff Brackett (Charles Cyphers) and Dr.Loomis (Donald Pleasence) investigate the old Myers residence. Our heroes are all agents associated with a normally functioning social order where peace and idyllic life is preserved. Laurie is a model student and responsible babysitter. She represents the ideal “good kid.” Meanwhile Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett are representative of the medical and legislative orders respectively. The movie constantly highlights the tact and perceptiveness of its heroes to make their struggles all the more terrifying. For if our most perceptive struggle at the individual and communal levels, what hope is there for us really?
This schema becomes more nuanced with the inclusion of the movie’s deuteragonist, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who acted as Michael’s psychiatrist after the latter’s initial murder and is now obsessed with tracking him, Michael, down after his escape to prevent more violence. He spends the majority of the movie with law enforcement and can therefore be seen like Laurie, as an extension of a normal “acceptable” order. Thus the stage is set – a metaphysical battle in suburbia – between an unspeakable force of evil that can’t be controlled and the agents of “good” that desperately try to keep the peace by maintaining order. The movie reveals that the domains of safety we’ve constructed – homes, adult defenders, even institutions are unable to provide real security against evil.
Tommy (Brian Andrews) leaves Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) starts to sing to herself. Michael (Nick Castle) shows up behind Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) intruding the frame with his presence. Michael constantly takes control of frames that were free of his presence earlier acting as a force of cinematic horror. Early on, the camera lingers on Laurie and Tommy as they walk. Tommy leaves one way and Laurie proceeds to walk down the street singing to herself. However, the tranquility of the song is interrupted as Michael enters the frame from the right, reminding us that he’s the one in control and that no scene is ever “safe” from his presence.
Even the frame isn’t safe from Michael’s influence as he threatens to take control of any shot at any point. There are multiple moments in the movie where Michael appears for just a moment, usually as a kind of taunt to Laurie, before disappearing back into the background. He will only be seen when he wants. There are other moments where an objective shot of Laurie and/or her friends lingers for just a few moments longer than usual before Michael shows up in it, thereby transforming the shot into a point of view complete with the sound of his breathing invading the soundscape. Whenever any of the discordant themes play, our eyes immediately start looking at the screen alert that Michael is present. Passing cars go from everyday neighbors to a serial killer in the wait. Every bush goes from innocuous to a possible hiding spot where one will meet their demise. This anxiety over Michael’s presence is exacerbated by the way cinematographer Dean Cundey lights scenes, often times allowing only just enough light to see our victims’ faces and their immediate surroundings. When Michael eventually comes out it feels mythical, like he’s literally forming from the darkness – a callback to the transition from the title sequence to the opening which showed his point of view emerging from the blackness of the screen.
Combined with his physical appearance, it’s no wonder that Michael is so terrifying. His iconic white mask gives his presence an incomprehensibility that terrorizes by evoking the image of a human while being so radically anti-human, thereby causing an uncanny valley that’s disturbs us [1]Lay, S. (2021, April 8). Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy. The Conversation. … Continue reading This effect is amplified because we know under the mask is a “human”, so our struggle at reconciling his existence with our ideas of normalcy is made all the more disturbing. In many ways he feels similar to the xenomorph from Alien – the corporealization of violence qua sexuality- a predator made from aspects of humanity taken to extremes . Given the introduction, we know the mask warps perspective shrouding everything in a darkness. His obsession with the mask thus cements his association as a harbinger of darkness. Thus, the movie transforms Michael into the truest form of the Boogeyman – he has the power to dominate the movie at any point, inflict violence on anyone, and is imperceptible. Transformed from a person into a force truly evil.
His presence only works because it’s positioned against the countervailing heroism of both Laurie and Dr.Loomis. From the very start Laurie demonstrates her intellectual capacity, demonstrated by the fact that only she seems aware of Michael at any point. Her perceptiveness gives her an edge up compared to her friends because she’s aware of the danger. Her wit and quick-thinking skills are utilized in ways that are intelligent, naturally line up with the plot, and don’t require some horrible exposition earlier on to set up. She’s one of the best models for the “final girl” archetype for a reason. Even in the moments where Laurie seems to be at her wits end she never loses her tenacity towards trying to solve the problem. Dr.Loomis, gives the movie a more cerebral philosophical side. As Michael’s former psychiatrist, he has a lot to say both about his former patient and the logistical problems that arise with trying to deal with genuine evil through normal social channels like the law or medicine. Pleasence manages to deliver the severity and dangers Michael poses in a way that grounds our seemingly supernatural antagonist in a very real setting. Some lines about Michael being pure evil could come off as melodramatic elsewhere, but here they feels as real and important as the everyday medical prescriptions we receive and follow. Without Pleasence’s delivery, Michael risks feeling too phantasmic and gimmicky. With his delivery, Michael becomes the Boogeyman incarnate.
Both characters are positioned as serious and resourceful. Both characters are positioned as being able to adapt to situations. Both characters are aware of Michael and what he can do. It’s precisely because the both of them are portrayed as heroes capable of saving the day that their subsequent inability to handle Michael’s reign of terror creates such a resounding sense of despair. If they can’t handle it, what hope is there for containing such evil?
It’s precisely because Halloween forces us to probe this question at every point – start to finish – that it has remained one of the greatest movies – horror or otherwise- from the date of its release. It takes the working parts of some of horrors best – the soundtrack from giallo, the camera movements from Black Christmas, the perversion from Psycho, and so on – and packs them into a tightly packed thriller that never lets up, constantly building up a palpable dread as it forces you to question how the characters will find a way out of the hellscape they find themselves trapped in. From the very start of the movie, we’re made aware of the stakes making every encounter feel unsafe. We’re left fully at the mercy of Carpenter, who relishes in teasing us with Michael’s appearance, making us almost beg for the violence to start so the tension can end. It’s no wonder then that Halloween has served as the archetype for the slasher-genre decades since inception.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Halloween is considered the best slasher for a reason and any fan of the horror genre owes it to themselves to watch the movie that pioneered/refined most of the tropes and camera techniques we’re familiar with today. The story of Michael Myers, the masked immortal Boogeyman, is timeless, violent, and genuinely frightening . From the iconic theme song to the brutality in each murder scene, it’s clear that Halloween is a cut above the rest in both presentation and execution. It’s plot might be simple, but Carpenter’s direction elevates it into a masterpiece that’s stayed scary since it first came out in 1978.
Rating
10/10
Grade
S+
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Lay, S. (2021, April 8). Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/uncanny-valley-why-we-find-human-like-robots-and-dolls-so-creepy-50268.
