Name that Movie: Is it...Naked Demon Summoning Circle?

Last week, I was flipping through the channels (finally got cable!) and testing myself as I am wont to do. The test is to see how quickly I can name the movie that is showing. My goal is always to get it before I hear a line of dialogue, and as my former roommates can attest, I'm pretty damn good at it. Yes, I have quite an exciting ninjaesque life. Anyway, on this particular night, I was totally stumped. I stared on and had absolutely no idea what I was watching. I couldn't even begin to come up with something. The scene, however, was totally amazing, so I let it go.

A young Alexis Arquette (The lovely Sherpa nailed that, I didn't recognize him out of drag) was walking around some sort of sacred circle. From the lighting, you could tell some dramatic ritualistic shit was about to go down. Finally, a ring of flames emerges in that “hey, we totally just lit a ring of gasoline” type way. Then, what you think is a demon emerges. At first it's a bit gooey and gross, and the demon has kind of a weird pengina. Like a doll or a Swede. But then it goes into that wacky sort of fast-forward editing (like you'd see in a movie starring Sindbad), and the demon transforms into a teen, and he and Alexis engage in some witty banter/what-do-you need-me-to-do-master talk.

My question is this: What the hell movie was I watching?

I did some work on IMDB, and I'm pretty sure I figured it out, but if any of you know it or have a guess, I would love to hear it. I'd also like to get this going as a regular segment, but I tend to have big hopes that never quite work out when it comes to that stuff.

Silence, S'il Vous Plait.

Rage Goes On: CTC Defends/Trashes Halloween

The Halloween debate continues here at GIK. BTS and myself have weighed in, and now CTC (a relative newcomer to the world of Grieco) lays forth his treatise:

Here is an interesting little fact that I don’t know if you are aware:
I saw Halloween 2 before I saw the original, so to me, Carpenter’s
version was a very interesting back-story to what I had assumed in my
youth was a slash-em-up spookfest. I feel this perhaps gives me
perspective – even on the original – regarding questions I had that
were not answered in Carpenter’s and how perhaps they were better
addressed in Zombie’s, but alas, I digress.

Let me begin by siding with Mssr. BTS in his estimation of Zombie’s
body of work. I prefer Corpses to Rejects because I feel it is a
better example of what he ultimately is as an artist – a homageur. The
characters that he created for Corpses are less Chainsaw and more
specifically the lesser-known Midnight (aka Backwoods Massacre) by
John Russo of Night of the Living Dead fame (and interestingly Tom
Savini’s first picture). While this may seem immaterial, it speaks to
the depth of small nods he makes throughout the film (in Halloween,
the appearance of Ken Foree and Brad Dourif). While I agree with Mssr.
BTS’s claims regarding the exploitative nature of Rejects, I felt it
ultimately was some psycho road film in which the actors were asked to
review their previous performances and show up on set ready to work.

In looking to compare someone as stylized as Zombie to someone so
seemingly hands-off as Carpenter, we must seek out those elements of
Zombie that we can detect and ask why did he treat this aspect
differently than ol’ what’s-his-nuts. To me, it comes down to very
basic aspects: the mask, Dr. Loomis, Michael’s back-story, and Laurie.

Remember that time in the original when Carpenter took the time to add
significance to the mask and why Michael felt compelled to wear it
even in the face of an escaping victim? Didn’t think so. Zombie not
only shows us a young Michael showing propensity towards face-wear
prior to his initial murders, he gives that actual mask gravitas
through Michael’s ultimate return to the scene of the crime to
retrieve the objects that emotionally tie him to that place and the
events of his past that have brought him to his current state. Also,
you have to admit, it was pretty freaky in an almost medieval way that
the young Michael began to vanish behind his shroud and as he aged,
created and surrounded himself with various horrific visages to
reflect his own inner-ugly.

And to that point, I must address Dr. Sam “Sutherland in Animal House”
Loomis. While I agree with you that the portrayal of this character is
uckingfay udicrouslay, it brought to the fore hitherto undiscussed
aspects of his character (strike 2, Mr. Carpenter). While the mystery
of the originals “bogeyman is true” (ironically, far better executed
in Corpses) is an unique element, in today’s world of Court TV and
true-crime obsession, a kid who killed his family would be
international news and therefore would make the man who was in his
care, somewhat of a de-facto celebrity, ie. Vincent Bugliosi, attorney
against the Manson family. In that line of thinking, I can take no
real issue (other than “it wasn’t like that in the real one”) with
Loomis doing a book tour. But why was Pleasance merely an exposition
device with a pistol? McDowell’s Loomis has a journey which shows him
as a flawed character who must ultimately deal with the ramifications
of his own hubris (I said I could fix him and I failed miserably),
instead of a man possessed. Ahab, indeed, but Ahab with no reason
beyond “He got out. I got to get him.”
And now the back-story – For what it was, I thought the back-story was
great for what it was. Imagine that part of the movie as the basis for
any other movie and you would have a nice start to a new-age slasher.
The resistance can then only be “well it’s not how the other Michael
Myers was”. I realize that on the surface you have abusive family,
stripper mom, long hair, metal t-shirt. Let us not forget: Rob Zombie
is a ROCK STAR! Digging deeper into the prequel part, it was almost a
pastiche of modern research into the triggers of serial killing –
animal abuse, bullying, over-protective mothering, over-active
imagination (pretty much your run of the mill theater major, as well),
with the true inciting incident being the transfer of aggression from
a defenseless animal to the vengeance on a bully – which I don’t care
how squeamish you are – was the one of the more effectively brutal,
yet actually supported plot points I have seen in recent horror. And
to further respond, you said there was no suspense, what do you call
the moments beginning when he straps down the step-father through him
being in the back seat of the squad car? You knew what was going to
happen and he just walked you through it at his own twisted leisure.
“A” for effort, Rob.

Finally, we have the little sister. As I said, I saw part 2 before the
original, so I knew the back story, and still there is very little in
there at all. How does he even know what she looks like? I don’t
recall her saying “I’m adopted and this is the house where my crazy
brother killed everyone” in the moment where she drops the key off at
the house in the original. Whereas in this one, Zombie gives us the
picture. Zombie gives us a memory of him showing tenderness towards
her as a baby. Zombie gives some existence of a family after Michael
is whisked away into Loomis’ care as opposed to Carpenter’s dreamy
isolation during Loomis’ therapy. Did Michael want to kill her? I
don’t know… and it gives Michael… here we go – an inner-conflict! Oh
my God! Did Rob Zombie give Michael Myers a journey?

All in all, I’d see it again, but it was not that good. B-

BTS Coins Phrase, Reviews Halloween

BTS has returned from a viewing of the new Halloween and has posted a comment on the picture, my review, and "WTEG." Here is BTS' take on the situation (CTC, where is yours, sir? Where is yours?):

I just saw Halloween. First let me say that I really like Zombie's other films. The Devil's Rejects is pretty much as over the top as you can go. He has a nice clear mission of taking the genre (which is not really horror) to another level. The fact that he chose to take on a masterpiece like Halloween proves that he may be a fucking idiot. Like I said, horror is not his genre. He makes white-trash-exploitation gore (WTEG). To use this treatment on the Halloween concept is patently abhorrent. It's the worst. This is a class-less, crappy and worthless piece of cinema. Basically like if Grindhouse were a remake of Wild Strawberries or something (wait, that might be a really good idea...).

I hated this film so much that I really really wanted to leave the whole time. However, my viewpoint is a good bit different from MC's. I found no evidence of Zombie's skill here, and I thought the nods to the original series were a little insulting. Also, the only tolerable thing about the film was McDowell's performance. I love that man. And what else is he going to do with what Zombie gave him than play Polonius??!! All in all, whatever. This movie should be burned and forgotten forever.

Rage Not Stopped: Zombie Butchers Halloween

Spoiler Alert: This is a rare occurrence for GIK. I am going to review a movie that just came out that many of you might actually want to see, so if you don't want to know plot details of the new version of Halloween, please stop reading. However, if you would like to hear about how Robb Zombie wasted my time and kind of crapped on my favorite horror movie, please feel free to peruse the following:

Halloween
Now, I've complained about horror remakes before, but this one was different. Like many of you, I am a bit obsessed with Halloween and Michael “The Evil on Two Legs” Myers. Since I was appalled by H2O and didn't even bother to see Resurrection (as they totally ignore 4, 5, and 6), I was excited to see Halloween get back to its roots. I was also excited because people who are smarter than me tell me that Zombie is a great director. I personally couldn't make it through House of 1,000 Corpses, but Zombie has always seemed like a cool guy that I would like to party with, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
That being said, there are moments in Halloween where you can see that the man has some true skill, but they are few and far between.

Problem 1: The Prequel
Zombie basically made the decision to turn Michael into the protagonist of the movie. While many of you will argue that Michael is the protagonist of the original series, he is not the protagonist of the original film, as that honor lies with Laurie (Jamie Lee) or Loomis if you really understand what it's all about. Because Michael is now the central figure, we are treated to what was probably 30 minutes but seemed like an hour and half of his youth. Gone is the cherub in the pristine clown costume from the original. Now, Michael is the product of a white trash fantasy. His mom is a stripper with a heart of gold, his stepfather is an abusive drunk, and everybody says fuck all the time. Michael spends his days killing small animals, getting picked on at school, wearing Kiss shirts, and covering his face with a clown mask. We see him make his first kill (the beating of a bully with a baseball bat that is more bloody and violent than the entire original movie). Now, I am no puritan, but it all seemed a little out of place in a Halloween picture.
Ultimately, the background story reduces Michael Myers (aka The Shape) into a stereotypical abused kid-turned-killer. It makes him far less intriguing, and it's a pain in the ass waiting forever for him to turn into an adult.

Problem 2: The Giant
When we finally do get to see Michael all growds up, he's a giant. Seriously, the guy playing him looks like he's 6' 7” and about 300 lbs. He looks like a damn wrestler. I mean, he even wears this homemade mask when he's at Smith's Grove, and he totally looks like that WWF (cold day in hell when I call it WWE) guy (Kane?). Again, this is just one more thing that makes him less scary. Meyers is precise and relentless. You can run, jump, hide, climb a roof. It doesn't matter, Michael is going to just keep walking after you, and you are going to die. This Michael looks like he's going to throw you into the ropes and then hit you with a chair that Bobby “The Brain” Heenan threw him on the sly.

Problem 3: Loomis
Oh, shit this is a big one. Dr. Samuel Loomis is my favorite character in the Halloween series, and one of my favorite characters of all time in anything. As played by the incomparable Donald Pleasence, Loomis is part Lear, part Ahab, and all awesome. Well, Malcom McDowell's playing flippin' Polonius up there, people. It's bullshit.
Between the long-haired hipster Loomis in the '70s and the book tour Loomis of present day, it's all crap. McDowell (whom I usually like) just isn't bringing the gravitas or the madness. It sucks. He's got nothing.

Problem 4: Blood = Scary?
There are two legitimate scares in the film, and any other frightening moments are created entirely by Carpenter's original score. There is no suspense at all in the movie, and because Laurie is reduced to basically a minor character, you don't give a shit about her or Tommy Doyle (that's Paul Rudd in Part VI, son). It's just blood and brutality and not an ounce of subtlety. In an interview, Zombie said something like he wanted to make Michael Myers scary again. Well, he failed. The sense of dread that exists in the original is nowhere to be found, and the mystery and horror of Michael have been cast aside for typical tricks that every director who wants to be Tobe Hooper seems to use. Speaking of, Halloween isn't Chainsaw, and most of the crap that's getting slung in this movie doesn't work for either anyway.

The Good
OK, now that I've gone off, let me say that there are some good things about the picture. The 15 minutes before the last 15 minutes are solid. Michael's relationship to Laurie is much more clear (Carpenter kind of let it go and tacked it on to Part II), there are some nice homages to the first (Blue Oyster Cult), and best of all, the girl who plays Jaimie in Parts IV and V plays Annie in this. She's perhaps the best child actor ever (her “Uncle Bogyman” line is a heart-breaker and her scream is unrivaled), and luckily for her she grew up to be totally hot. There are some moments that will disturb you because you think of her as a little kid, but once you realize that in real life she's only two (or one) years younger than you, you should be OK. Oh, and I kind of have a little crush on Zombie's wife (she plays Michael's mother).

That's it. I don't fault Zombie for trying, but when you take on Halloween, you better bring something to the table, as BTS and I did for our outline of what should have been Halloween 7. This picture failed me in many ways, and made me angry in many others.

CTC, I await your rebuttal.