jackalman22 Reviews

Resident Evil (2022)

From a diehard, lifelong Resident Evil fan (and writer)

[7/10 · 2 August 2022]

I avoided watching this for the first week it was out. Frankly, I was scared and ready to be disappointed. From the trailer that seemed mismatched to the tone of the franchise I've grown up loving and idealizing despite its flaws, to the the knowledge that prominent game characters are either absent or fundamentally changed from the source material, I cringed at what appeared to be yet another haphazard attempt at adapting something that, frankly, shouldn't be that hard to adapt.

I'm happy to say that I was not only wrong, but pleasantly surprised at how faithful to the source material this was given how fundamentally different it looks at first glance. To illustrate this, I'll be comparing the series ("RE:N (for Netflix)") to the 2021 film "Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City" ("RC") for this review.

Superficially, RC featured things we've been wanting in a Resident Evil movie for years: an adaption of both the Spencer mansion from the first game, as well as the events in Raccoon City from the second game. The film featured adapted versions of beloved characters, as well as some iconic monsters. Oh, and slow zombies. We also saw the likes of Lisa Trevor, themed keys from Resident Evil 2, STARS, the RPD, a bit of the Redfield siblings, on top of a somewhat unique interpretation of the Umbrella / Raccoon City relationship. Even with some of the changes made to smush two games' worth of story into a movie that was under two hours, on paper this can sound like a pretty faithful adaptation.

Unfortunately, RC was plagued with non-existent character depth, a script that needed several more drafts, and really questionable choices when it comes to cinematography and CGI. Even with some of the familiar plot beats and set pieces from the first two games, the movie itself didn't feature compelling characterizations, tension, or writing.

Despite sharing little in the way of existing characters, RE:N succeeds in featuring strong performances, a compelling (and somewhat original) narrative that technically exists within both the real world and some version of the game canon, and most importantly, solid writing. It's a dual narrative in the style of many recent shows, telling two different stories in two different time periods, bouncing back and forth between the two as it progresses.

For the most part, this works. Despite some questionable decisions by the adult version of main character Jade, I thought characters were well developed in their motivations, and the world they inhabited felt realized and lived in. For a show that is not only adapting the tone and lore or a long running series that has a convoluted storyline, the show manages to naturally present the lore while introducing both a post apocalyptic world in one narrative while illustrating the complex history of a shady pharmaceutical giant and the city/people it owns. This is a lot for one show to tackle and introduce in eight episodes, and while some subplots (like the journalist's storyline) seem to fizzle out, they all feel like they naturally belong in the world that this show creates.

A YouTuber by the name of Ink Ribbon - another Resident Evil diehard - wisely pointed out that this show captures the vibe of the "files" players read in the games when exploring the environments; I.e., stories of characters wrapped up in the nefarious world of Umbrella. The show does this by seeding and threading elements of suspense, mystery, action, and horror, all centered around sisters Jade and Billie, the daughters of this show's interpretation of Albert Wesker.

In keeping with the Paul W. S. Anderson movies being their own alternate universe hybrid of the games' stories and wholly original stories, RE:N manages to exist closer and adjacent to the games universe while being slightly "alternate" as well. In this version, Umbrella successfully covered up the Raccoon City incident, but in a way that would exist in the shocking sensibilities of today's world: they're corrupt and many people know it, but they're so big and influential as a company that they're able to get away with it. This lent itself well to the younger versions of the main characters learning about the lore of the company/games in a way that felt natural rather than one big info dump. Accomplishing that is an example of the strong writing.

The "future" timeline of the show plays out more like a post apocalyptic zombie show, but with a twist. Umbrella monsters plague the landscapes and countrysides of forgotten communities, and it's heavily implied that prominent parts of the world have altogether crumbled following the mayhem of 1998 (the original Raccoon City incident), as well as the events of the "past timeline" (the New Raccoon City incident). We get to see a desperate society of people trying to survive or fight back against Umbrella, who's developed into a more overtly totalitarian entity compared to the sly pharmaceutical giant casting a large shadow in years past.

Both timelines play out as action thrillers with character dramas at the centerline. Sisters Jade and Billie navigate teenage life while trying to figure out what their father is up to, and for the most part these events all unfold in an intriguing manner that manages to feel both believable and compelling. High school characters aren't going to be everyone's favorite, but the show writes and handles them well. I stayed for the dynamic between the sisters, as well as the complex relationship they have with their father.

Speaking of which - changes to the source material aside - I loved Lance Reddick as Wesker. He gives strong performances (literally), and what the writers did with his character while still being inspired by some of the game lore felt well realized. He manages to be mysterious, restrained yet emotional, and nuanced. Another character I felt was well realized was Evelyn Marcus - an original character inspired by the games who serves as yet another complex, villainous presence. Along with the character Baxter (another fun villain who doesn't get enough screen time to develop), she gets some of the strongest lines in the series.

There's a lot more I can say about this show, but I have the sneaking suspicion that, like me, many people went into this experience ready to hate on it. It isn't perfect - while it successfully and steadily builds tension, the last two episodes felt a bit rushed in their pacing - but it does succeed in capturing the aesthetic, vibe, and emotion that a Resident Evil series should: viruses, monsters, a corrupt corporation, and characters trying their damnedest to survive it all. The dual narrative can be clunky at times, but it's written and directed competently, featuring well implemented easter eggs and references to the lore that exist closer and more compellingly adjacent to the game canon than any adaption before it. While some of the references aren't 100% game accurate (fast zombies and Dr. Salvador, I'm looking at you), they in no way detract from a solid and competent narrative.

And given how incoherently previous adaptions like RC tried to take a swing, sometimes an original but competent take on the source material is a better choice.

If you're on the fence, give this show a chance and watch it with an open mind. It is very much "its own thing," but it's a well realized story with multiple layers that mostly lands on its feet. It is, by far, the best Resident Evil adaptation we've gotten. While I worry about what preemptive conclusions do for this show's word of mouth, I would happily sign up for future seasons.

Notes from Melanie (2019)

Charming, Meta, and somewhat wayward

[7/10 · 25 November 2019]

Been a longtime watcher/reader of Stuckmann's work. His love of cinema & storytelling is prevalent throughout this short. It's generally agreed that telling a complete and competent story in fewer pages is immensely challenging. While this film does stumble over its own jokes in the beginning, I think Stuckmann managed to capture a lot of heart in this dual-layered narrative.

On the surface we've got a writer attempting to write his next big movie while consulting a friend/colleague for workshopping notes. Underneath that surface is a piecemeal revelation of a man who recognizes that he's partially sold his soul to earn money by cranking out horrendous scripts, mourning the fulfillment he's given up while at the same time striving to make his way back to it. Throughout the process of the feedback he receives from Melanie, we learn more about his fears and wounds -- not only in terms of how he feels he's betrayed his own values, but in terms of a more existential dread that no one will remember him -- at least not for anything good.

That more existential dread of living, existing, and dying without leaving a poignant mark, I think, calls into question a conflict/fear that many people have -- especially people who find fulfillment in creating: wanting to be remembered, but fearing that they won't. A desire to create paired with a fear that what's created will be no good, and that the "no good"-ness of it will be what they're remembered for. As a relatively new filmmaker (at least from a filmography standpoint -- we all know Stuckmann's been Stuckmannizing since childhood), I thought this poignant theme was a hell of a bold emotion to showcase as a thesis of this film. Executing it with notes of comedy, drama, tension, and romance was ambitious and entertaining, although I'm not sure all of those notes landed.

This film is dripping with Stuckmann's voice and style. The interspersed absurd comedy that's also steeped in movie references, while fun, does at times detract from the more poignant themes of legacy and existential dread. The cutaways to various other films-within-the-film are downright hilarious (I love that Flickinger is in all of them), but I do think there were one or two too many.

I liked the chemistry between the two leads. I thought they worked well together, and I felt that the script demonstrated enough of their history while not leaning on or stumbling over it. For such a contained "bottle" of a story, it makes sense that much of the growth and revelations emerge through dialogue, however I felt that some of the dialogue was a bit spoonfeedy. What I would have liked more of would have been more moments of vulnerability from the characters, especially Joe. He embodies this hyped up screenwriter-type who's just so excited about pumping out a script and finding that next big thing, but it was when he was showing his own "laments" (paralleling the summary of the script he's writing oh so nicely) that I really felt invited into his mind and heart.

The earlier half of the film is infused with his zany energy that, while still part of him, prevented me from getting to know Joe more deeply. It was when Joe spoke about his past hurts (both professionally and personally) that I felt much more interested and invested in him. And I like that ongoing tensions within this now-broken relationship served as a bit of a catalyst for those vulnerabilities to emerge. What wasn't so clear in the film was why their relationship ended in the first place, and it would have been nice if this were explored in parallel with why Joe decided to go "path of least resistance" with his lowbrow scripts, and why Melanie ultimately distanced herself from him. I thought that particular theme (Joe's tendency to go for what's easy / skirt around the tough stuff) could have been explored more meaningfully.

A real strength of this movie is its use of momentum on all sensory fronts: music, dialogue, shooting. When excitement is injected into the story, or when lament swells up, the music matches...as does the camera work. All of these elements really coalesced to a solid package and appeared to work in sync with one another.

I want to talk about the "meta" components of this film. There's a risk in any story-within-a-story narrative that things can come across as too spoonfeedy or obvious. Overall, I felt the parallels worked without the film hitting us too over the head with them. Joe writing and explaining a script called the "Puppet's Lament" which serves as a reference to his own plight, which could arguably be applied to Stuckmann himself, is explored without being the punchline that anchors the entire story.

There's an exchange near the very end of the film between the two leads in which, while discussing the ending of Joe's revised script, a parallel is made between the "ending" of not only Joe & Melanie's arc, but of the short film we're watching as well. For a movie that is partially about writing, this was a risky thing to portray through dialogue. That being said, it worked for me. I thought it was executed with a lot of heart and sweetness, to the point where it left me smiling. I thought the note to end the film, i.e., the question that it leaves the viewer -- and Joe -- with, landed really well for me. It takes a lot for this to be conducted in such a way so as to not become cheesy, and I think Stuckmann -- oh dear lord -- stuck the landing of this ending really well. I don't think I've seen camera angles that tight on characters faces, but I thought it really captured the intimacy and closeness of that moment really well. Not sure if it was intentional (my guess = yes), but: the camera angles and distance of the shots were a lot father at the start of the film. As the story presses on and the characters reconnect, the angles get closer, exemplifying not only their reemerging connection, but the tension and closeness with which we experience these characters as well. Nice work!

Aside from some over-reliance on silly humor, some spoonfeedy dialogue, and some missed opportunities for depth, I thought this was a fun film with lots of ambition with something to say. Competently helmed and written, and executed in such a way that the parallel themes and dual narratives didn't stumble over themselves. Keep it up, Stuckmann.

The Twilight Zone: The Comedian (2019) Season 1, Episode 1

Thought-Provoking, Strange, Effective

[8/10 · 5 April 2019]

The Twilight Zone has always been hard to describe. My understanding of the Twilight Zone (in its original run) is that it portrayed stories in which characters are placed in philosophically thought-provoking yet impossible scenarios. The moral and existential dilemmas that then arise from these scenarios offer an intriguing and insightful exploration of humanity and inner conflicts, often painted in creatively strange ways.

I think a lot of people think of the Twilight Zone and envision aliens, conspiracies, and alternate dimensions. While some of these outlandish scenarios often serve as a fun and fitting backdrop for Twilight Zone stories, they themselves are not the core ingredients. What I loved about "The Comedian" is that it portrayed the eerily lonely life of a person who is faced with the choice of chasing after what he desires the most at increasingly dire and often scary costs. It threw in a supernatural premise that then set the story and character arc in motion, and managed to portray a rather contained narrative with chilling implications. Definitely something that can benefit from a rewatch or two, but accessible enough to hook people in to the tone and style of the new series.

Kumail Nanjiani gave an excellent performance while conveying the dark side of what I imagine many fame- and glory-seeking performers often struggle with. I think he did an amazing job. The show is shot very stylishly without drawing too much attention to itself, and I appreciated the bookended narration offered by Jordan Peele.

Despite the presence of supernatural elements and conundrums of the moral and philosophical variety, my prediction is that the rather grounded premise of this episode may turn some people off -- namely those who were expecting the more superficial themes of "alien, sci-fi, and conspiracy" to be present.

This is a solid return to form for the series, but as with the original Twilight Zone, it might struggle to find an audience. And that may have something to do with people's expectations being unable to connect with a show that's difficult to define.

Check it out, turn on your brain, and enjoy the ride.

11-11-11 (2011)

Bold Idea Marred by Rushed, Spoon-Fed Execution

[4/10 · 29 August 2012]

A title like "11-11-11" is going to attract attention, but it is not the central focus of this movie. What could have been a very clever film ultimately stumbles, not from a lack of creativity, but from unpolished execution.

The interactions between brothers Joseph and Samuel feel natural and engaging. Joseph is an atheistic realist, jaded and haunted by the loss of his wife and son. He is also a novelist with a large readership. The film opens by putting us right into Joseph's despair, and while haunted dreams pave the way for plenty of imagery, they are a haphazard way to gain sympathy for a character. That being said, the focus of the movie is not on Joseph's loss, and as such, we're given an adequate snapshot into what he's been through. The movie succeeds in showing Joseph as a man recovering, attempting to seek support from others by staying active and talking about his problems. The movie does not get bogged down on Joseph's career, instead featuring it as an asset that comes back in an important way once the movie comes to a close.

Once the plot brings Joseph to Spain, the movie also succeeds in terms of dialogue. Hearing two brothers—one an atheist, one a pastor—banter about faith and religion is an interesting dynamic, one which is sure to evoke responses from viewers. The dialogue avoids being preachy, giving us some nice character idiosyncrasies, all the while leaving the viewers to decide whether or not they side with Samuel or Joseph.

Joseph's interactions with Anna and Sadie are underwhelming by contrast. Sadie works as an almost-love interest, however when it comes to standing on her own, she is an afterthought that really only matters once the ending comes full circle. The same can be said for Anna. Both roles were well-acted, but not enough time was spent with them to really pack a punch.

A pervasive image in this film is the pattern of the number 11. The film wisely avoids the pitfall of what could've essentially been a ramshackle Da Vinci Code / conspiracy type of movie, and fully acknowledges its presence. The dialogue considers and refutes the idea of the pattern, namely in Joseph's conversations with Samuel and Sadie. Instead of focusing on fear/paranoia, the film humors and refutes the pattern recognition, and then takes us into the existence of the occult.

As far as the plot and story are concerned, we have a mixed bag of hits and misses. Suffice it to say, this movie follows the template coined by the Saw franchise. Many seeds are planted throughout the story that lead to a twist ending, and in the last 5 minutes of the movie, a retrospective montage is shown to the viewer, explaining how the main character was manipulated into playing into the antagonist's trickery.

Visually, the film takes its time. We are presented with a few "boo" moments, but the bulk of the scares come from lingering, disturbing imagery. Joseph's father is downright creepy, and the demons are menacing. These images are often presented as: we the viewers see them, but the characters on- screen overlook them, moments which serve to heighten tension.

At a very high level, this kind of story is effective. When looked at more closely, said effectiveness is only as good as the execution. While the pieces all fit together (the retrospective montage at the end is quite clever), the spoon-fed nature of the manipulation works against the film. Had the Saw-like retrospective not been shown to us, I'm left to wonder how effective the film's ending would have been on its own. Despite how well the pieces fit, the misdirection and manipulation by such a trusted character is muddled by the film glossing over the poignant themes driving the story, and instead barrels forward with the plot a bit too quickly. It's one thing for the details to fit together and make sense, but if their effectiveness hinges on the director explaining them to us, the execution must be re-thought.

Many revelations are shown during the climax, and while they all amount to a clever ending, the execution prevents the impact from resonating. Not enough time is spent on, and not enough depth is given to, the supporting characters (specifically their interactions with Samuel). A bit too much time is spent on 11-11, and Joseph becomes too slave to the plot in the third act (as opposed to a strong, active character). Had the planted "seeds" been given their due emphasis, the movie's conclusion would not have flown quite so under the radar.

Muddled emphasis and focus are the movie's biggest downfalls. There's a great story to be told about "God vs. Satan" and the way we conceptualize religion—specifically the subjective natures of good vs. evil, and the way in which the masses perceive it— but it gets diluted by the 11-11 symbolism and detective-story antics. Other poignant topics include: the strength of a book and the weight of its readership/influence. I for one would have been very impressed had the film tread into territory where it caused viewers to actually question "which side" they believed in, whether the story we know about 'Jesus' and 'God' came about in a manner similar how Satan and Samuel do so in the conclusion of this film.

Ultimately, the movie approaches interesting topics, but never fully commits to them. It gets bogged down on symbolism, and the under- developed characters are unable to uphold a very clever, interesting plot.

I'm convinced this movie should not have been called '11-11-11.' The title grabs attention, however (like the film itself) it draws attention away from the real focus this story could have had.

I liked this movie, but I wanted to like it more. Misdirection and manipulation are effective storytelling strategies, however they should not come at the cost of half-execution, or spoon-feeding the viewer.

Stargate Universe (2009–2011)

A Different But Very Worthwhile Stargate

[8/10 · 21 November 2009]

When SGU was first announced, I was among the camp of fans who cried foul and resisted the show's flimsy premise and overall unwelcome existence. Still bitter about the abrupt ending of Stargate: Atlantis, I was angered that such a show could be cut down during its prime, with so many plot arcs and potential to be seen. Needless to say, while Universe offered some solace in the form of general Stargate continuation, the lack of direct ties to previous Stargate shows had me concerned even further. Atlantis was a spin-off of the original SG-1 (which, in itself, was a continuation of the feature film). Not only that, but ample time within SG-1 was dedicated to establishing both the characters, setting, and original air date of the Atlantis pilot.

None of these were present for Universe.

However, after watching the first half of Season 1, my opinions and reservations have changed. I was immediately pulled in by both the show's sense of immediacy and its overall darker atmosphere. No longer do we have the colorful sets of Atlantis and the free-roaming capabilities of gate travel as seen in the previous shows. Instead, we have a dark, claustrophobic ship whose breadth is not unlike the city of Atlantis itself. Some might argue that the ship is something of a bore, with metallic greys and blacks that are uninteresting to look at. To counter this, I would direct their lines of sight to the shining displays of light exhibited while the ship is traveling in FTL (faster than light) travel, which is the majority of the show's running time. This color scheme provides a stark contrast to the ship's intentionally prison-like atmosphere, perhaps indicative of how tormented the ship's crew is on a daily basis. Here they are, roaming the farthest reaches of space, and while there is beauty to be seen, few of them get a chance to truly appreciate it. Additionally, a significant chunk of the show takes place on Earth (which, if people recall, was one of the major selling points of SG-1), another nice contrast to the ship's monotony.

This brings me to the characters. Many viewers who've decided to give this show its due process have noted that, while the show is interesting, little has happened yet in the form of plot progression. To this, I would say that this observation can be attributed to Universe's shift in focus when compared directly to SG-1 and Atlantis: more than anything else, this show is character driven. While there have been encounters with hostile (microscopic or otherwise) extra-terrestrials, planet exploration, and general emergencies both on and off the ship, Universe stands out from its predecessors in that its fuel is placed in the strength of the characters.

From the get-go, the show is rife with internal politics and conflict. They react realistically, saying things we might say in such situations. The core cast is not limited to simply interacting with one another. Crew members interact frequently with supporting cast members, many of whom are quite interesting and colorful in their own right. Some are even given a great deal of screen time, indicating that some may be returning to fill more regular roles in the future (Ming-Na's Camile Wray comes to mind). Instead of building a show around an idea or a specific enemy, emphasis is anchored in character personalities, interactions, and drama. Detractors have cried foul at this, since the show's story is less predictable and tangible than previous Stargate iterations.

However, I think it's important to realize that it's necessary to establish characters first, and then build a story around them. This time around, we do not have a simple expedition leader and a central group of four team members a la SG-1 or Atlantis. This time, Universe gives us a widely irregular demographic of individuals, shoddily restrained by the military hierarchy and general rules of a civilized world. Leadership, while established, is blurred often through the agendas of several key characters. Even then, conflict and tension are ever present (a must for good television, nowadays). Some agendas, while overt and simple to understand, are countered by still others that have yet to show their true colors.

Dr. Rush (a brilliant Robert Carlyle), I'm looking at you.

Much like a good novel, Universe's writing has shown maturity since SG-1 and Atlantis. For better or worse, this is a show that requires that viewers approach it with an open mind. It also requires a great deal of investment from viewers in that they will need to put in the time getting to know the characters. Once that happens, I am hopeful that they will find the show that much more enjoyable. With solid characters as a foundation, a show can physically do anything (or, close to nothing) and still be entertaining. A good writer can depict a person sitting in a chair in an empty room for ten pages, and still make it engaging to the reader. I'm of the opinion that SGU is capable of the same, and that with time, the show will indeed blossom.

This positive review is perhaps indicative of the show's uncertain current status. Praising in some respects, neutral in others. I've enjoyed Universe's shift in atmosphere, as well as its emphasis on characters, even if few things have tangibly "happened" to the crew just yet. I think the show has great potential, and I think this season has done a fine job thus far of adding an incredible amount of layers to the characters. Whereas previous Stargate shows had a habit of making supporting (and sometimes, main) characters painfully one-dimensional, Universe is portraying them as complex and unpredictable at times.

In a word, human.

Overall verdict: Good television. Well acted, well written, with plenty of potential down the line. Bear in mind that just because the enemy doesn't have a face (i.e., Wraith or Goa'uld), it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Halloween (2007)

An atmospheric re-telling that drips with Rob Zombie's style

[7/10 · 2 September 2007]

As with any remake, I approached this film with caution. Too often are remakes handled improperly, flawed wholly by the filmmakers' misinterpretations of what made the originals so effective. Every so often, whether in the horror genre or some other film category, a remake comes along that, for the most part, succeeds in doing its original inspiration justice.

Rob Zombie's Halloween is indeed one of those remakes.

More of a re-imagining than a strict remake (as a remake usually implies a carbon-copy of sorts), Halloween '07 brings us deeper inside the mind of Michael Myers, effectively bringing in elements of both tragedy and misfortune with regard to the legendary killer's motivation for killing. He starts out as highly disturbed youth, troubled by a slightly dysfunctional family and the verbal and physical abuse at school. The way young Michael reacts to these external factors gives us insight into how unhinged his mind really is, and despite the best efforts of those who care for him, his plunge into madness is almost inevitable. Keeping in tandem with Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects," one cannot help feel a trace of sorrow for Myers' downward spiral, regardless of how he handles his circumstances.

The chain of events (with the exception of the third act) in this remake remain, for the most part, unchanged with regard to the original film's plot. Michael is transferred to the mental asylum and placed under the evaluation of Dr. Loomis. Despite the seemingly earnest efforts of Loomis to help Michael, we further see that Michael's situation is indeed a hopeless one as he delves further and further into darkness. His general apathy for the suffering of others is shown particularly well since, as both a child and an overwhelming adult, he continues to kill without consequence. Another element that was handled quite well was the concept of Michael's mask. The reasons why he makes and wears his masks are fully explored this time around, cluing the viewers in to why he behaves the way he does.

Indeed, I thoroughly enjoyed Rob Zombie's take on John Carpenter's classic. The origins of Michael Myers were portrayed as a fairly believable, moody, and altogether tragic turn of events. Much like real life serial killers, the tell-tale signs portrayed by little Michael before his life as a killer begins are very realistic and accurate. Once he begins his downward spiral, you actually feel everyone's pain. One murder in particular that occurs when he is an adult is quite painful to watch, mainly because the person he kills is the last person you'd expect him to lay a hand on. Alas, the same scene effectively shows Michael's complete disregard for human life as his fall into madness comes full swing.

The movie was far from perfect, however. Despite the strong and unique direction, I felt as though certain characters were underdeveloped. Sheriff Bracket was sorely underused, in my opinion, as were the Strodes. Once the film was over, I immediately found myself thinking that the interaction between Laurie Strode and her parents could've been fleshed out more. Between the parents in particular, some hints for the audience regarding Laurie's past would've fit into the film nicely. Furthermore, despite the brief length of her role, I wanted to see more of Deborah Myers' (played sufficiently by Sheri Moon Zombie) mental anguish upon her reaction to her family's turmoil.

On the subject of characters, I just want to point out that Laurie Strode was portrayed and acted fairly well by Scout Taylor-Compton, as evidenced by plenty of the on-screen chemistry between her, her friends, and the youngsters she's watching over. Not to mention, her screaming abilities follow the footsteps of Jamie Lee Curtis quite well. Daeg Faerch, in a very creepy role, powerfully portrays a young Michael Myers. Malcolm McDowell, despite his character being somewhat underdeveloped, gives a fairly warm and well-acted performance as Dr. Loomis, and Brad Dourif was a welcome surprise as Sheriff Brackett.

A worthy mention goes to Tyler Mane as the adult version of the new Michael Myers. While not much can be said about a silent role, Mane's on-screen presence is nothing short of daunting, and the fear he induces in both his victims (not to mention the audience) is nothing short of staggeringly menacing. The final confrontation in the third act is particularly well-shot, and the silence of his character is almost deafening as he attempts to reach out to one person in particular. Indeed, most roles, even the short-lived ones, were portrayed with an apt mixture of humor, fear, and charisma. A particular favorite of mine was William Forsythe's role as the estranged boyfriend of Deborah Myers.

Aside from the technicalities, the movie dripped with atmosphere, personality, style, and overall believability. Rob Zombie's take on Halloween may have been different, but it is, in my opinion, both a valid and an effective one. The origin of Michael Myers' insanity was a great approach, hands down.

All in all, a job well done on Zombie's part. In my opinion, the nay-sayers' arguments are not sound in the least; they simply cry foul at the very idea of a remake more than anything, and refuse to give the film a chance. Its departure from the overall mystique inherent in Carpenter's original does not hold water as far as I'm concerned. Zombie's approach makes sense, and the fact that we're inside Myers' head does not detract from his scariness. He's still incredibly imposing, and his disregard for human life is all too apparent as the film progresses. His silence speaks volumes, and the brief glimpses of his eyes are extremely haunting.

Fans of the original can still prefer John Carpenter's original, but I urge all viewers to approach with an open mind. Gory, dark, stylish, and consistently entertaining, Halloween '07 drips with Rob Zombie's technique and overall quirkiness.

Overall, a worthy re-telling of a classic with its fair share of twists.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Aja sees Craven's 1977 and raises him one HELL of a remake

[8/10 · 15 March 2006]

Alexandre Aja, you have a new fan.

Before this movie was released in theaters, I made sure to watch Wes Craven's original endeavor. Let me just start out by saying that compared to today's standards and conventions, Craven's classic "The Hills Have Eyes" seems almost mild when compared to Alexandre Aja's remake. However, purists too skeptic to check this movie out should rest assured that the film is very, VERY faithful to the original. The characters, story, and overall progression of events remain unchanged, however, the quality of all said elements has increased dramatically since the original 70s release. Furthermore, like any other quality remake, there are twists, there are surprises, and for people who think they're getting the same film with updated technology, think again.

The film starts out with the nuclear bomb test-radiation disclaimer, and from there, to those who've screened the original, the familiar New Mexico desert setting is presented for all to take in. Make no mistakes, though. Aja never misses a beat, and he makes sure to take advantage of any opportunity he can when it comes to scaring the living crap out of the audience.

After a very vivid and graphic opening, the film gets rolling, mixing elements of freshness with both nostalgia and familiarity. People who saw the original will know what they're looking at, however their eyes will also be glued to the screen due to the overall difference in presentation and cinematography. The familiar gas station attendant is shown to the audience, and soon after, the Carter family + in-law stroll in. From there, the real fun begins.

Aja and his fellow screenwriter did an amazing job adding depth and dimension to the family members, ensuring that throughout the course of the film, people in the audience would certainly be able to connect with or identify with at least one member of the Carter family. This is accentuated by very strong performances by all the actors. Recognizable, seasoned actors are chosen for the older family members, while younger, relatively lesser known actors are chosen for characters like Bobby and Brenda.

I really could not complain with any of the performances. With all the craziness and gruesome things happening to the family, the actors' reactions are all portrayed very realistically, with emotions dead-on with very few hiccups in line delivery. One performance that stood out in particular to me was definitely that of Aaron Stanford (Pyro, X2 and the upcoming X-Men 3). Despite the fact that Standford was merely a year old when the original 'Hills' was released, he more than proves his acting credibility and fits the role of Doug very well. He does the role justice, and fills the shoes of the protagonist very well. I could go on and on about the performances of the rest of the cast (which are all extremely solid), but you want to know more about the movie, right? One cannot help but compare this film to original. There are 3 reasons I feel Aja's remake tops Craven's original: 1) the emphasis Aja places on the Carters, 2) the make-up effects, 3) the excessive gore.

Whereas Craven gave the deformed family clan plenty of screen time in 1977, Aja opts to shroud them in mystery for much of the film's duration. In many ways, the family emphasis is almost reversed in either film. Aja makes sure to hide the deformed family members from the viewers until just the proper moment, while Craven made their names and personalities as clear as day. I personally think the less information there is about something, the scarier it becomes to the person dealing with it. Aja realized this, and presented it very well.

Speaking of presentation, one cannot help but watch in sheer awe and amazement at some of the deformities displayed by the irradiated family members. I personally have not seen such drastically deformed individuals first hand, and I'm not sure how accurate their portrayals were in 'Hills' '06, but one thing is for sure: they were damn gruesome. Do not be fooled, the little child shown in the commercially televised trailer is NOT representative of the rest of the film.

And then there's the gore. Ah, the gore. Monsieur Aja, you are the brainchild of modern horror, and you definitely know how to ride with the best of them. No body part is taboo in this film, and for all you gore fanatics out there, there are no annoying instances where the camera "looks away" when someone or something is, say, struck with the menacing swing of a weapon. For all those who've said "But I wanted to SEE what happened to him!", rest assured, you will indeed see what happens to everything in this film.

The Hills '06 will satisfy your blood-lust. Alexandre Aja takes Craven's original film and builds on it in just about every way. Better acting, better visual effects, better make-up, better story presentation (i.e. no unanswered plot holes or abrupt "halts"), and much, MUCH more gore. This film is not for the squeamish, and it is my opinion that it will suppress the doubts of any skeptics who, upon seeing this film, may have badmouthed horror movie remakes in the past.

Only thing that caused me to dock it a point were the questionable courses of action some of the characters took. Alas, such things may always fall into the category of "typical horror movie no-no's." Furthermore, I wasn't really horrified while watching this movie. A more accurate description would be that I was highly impressed and satisfied.

Horror movie fans: see this film as soon as you can. Non-horror movie fans: if you see this, prepare to have your world rocked.

See this movie people, it's pure gold.