Showing posts with label Halloween. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Halloween. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Thoughts on the Announced "Exorcist" Trilogy

DGA Quarterly Magazine | Fall 2008 | Shot to Remember - The Exorcist

The Exorcist ranks amongst the most seminal horror films, right up there with The Shining, Night of the Living Dead and Psycho. It's spawned a couple of sequels, two very different prequels (from Renny Harlin and Paul Schrader) and a two-season TV show. But it's William Friedkin's original that endures, a film whose power to terrify comes from grounding the horror in a believable reality. The film made people feel like it could happen in their homes or down the street.  It received 10 Oscar nominations and won for William Peter Blatty's screenplay (adapted from his own novel) and Best Sound. And like many classics it's once again getting a continuation. 

Blumhouse is producing a new Exorcist trilogy, similar to the new Halloween films. The trilogy will follow the original film, with Ellen Burstyn set to reprise her Oscar nominated role as Chris MacNeil, the mother of the possessed Regan (Linda Blair). And David Gordon Green, who directed 2018's Halloween sequel and the upcoming Halloween Kills, is set to direct. While producer Jason Blum has alluded to this sequel ignoring the previous sequels Green has said those films are "acceptable mythology."

I wish they hadn't announced a trilogy before the first film is even released. It already makes me feel cynical towards the whole endeavor. I believe it's important to just make a good movie first before thinking about sequels. You run the risk of making the first film more set-up than story. And while I liked aspects of Green's Halloween it felt like it needed some streamlining. There were several subplots which could have been nixed. And having the same director as the Halloween sequels already makes it feel like Blumhouse is counting on replicating the success of the last Halloween film. I don't want Green to repeat himself, doing the "trauma affecting three generations of a family" story. 

There's also the problem being too reverential towards the original. I get it, The Exorcist is an amazing film but it's difficult to recapture the film's impact. It's better just to go in your own direction, similar to the already made sequels. I haven't seen John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic. I know it's infamously bad but it feels it at least did something different. I have seen Exorcist III, directed by Blatty himself, and that is really good, containing maybe the best jump scare of all time. The Exorcist has influenced exorcism movies ever since it's release so the challenge Green is faced with is how to make it fresh.

I know I'm sounding really down on the idea of these movies and I don't want to be. I believe in being open-minded towards upcoming movies. I am interested in what the story is going to be and seeing Burstyn again- and possibly Blair- is alone an exciting prospect. I hope the movies can surprise us as to what story they're telling. 

So, what are your thoughts on The Exorcist sequel(s).  Comment and let me know.


Saturday, 3 November 2018

The Boogeyman: "Halloween"

Image result for halloween 2018 poster


Mild Spoilers Below

What's most impressive about the Halloween franchise is its status as a franchise at all. John Carpenter's original 1978 film was so simple and mystique-indrenched; the idea of making sequels was counter-intuitive. Halloween's ending is so haunting in its implication evil never dies, that Michael Myers presence will always be felt by families of his victims. Despite the film's supernatural undertones regarding Michael the film feels grounded in everyday reality. And there's no explanation as to why Michael killed his sister Judith and the other babysitters, with only Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) surviving. The last image of Laurie in the film is her crying after being saved at the last moment by Michael's doctor, Doctor Loomis (Donald Pleasance), who shoots him out a window (and then sees Michael's body has disappeared) Laurie has survived but she's been scarred by the horrific murders Michael committed.

The latest chapter in the franchise, simply called Halloween, takes this final shot of Laurie and asks how this night would've affected her 40 years on. The film cleans the slate, asking us to ignore everything post the original film, nixing the twist that Laurie and Michael are half-siblings. and gets back to the more grounded reality of the original, with Michael being caught that night and locked up for 40 years. Laurie is still traumatized by her encounter with Michael, which has complicated her relationship with her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak). I'll admit I was surprised when it was announced the film would be a direct sequel to the original, with the franchise's major twist being gone. But now I do think it was a smart choice to ignore the sequels and just tell a story about the the legacy of trauma on a family.

I will say, I'm mixed on the overall film. I feel there's some good and even great stuff but the film feels like it should've been better given the pedigree. This feels a little too much like just another Halloween sequel. However, I think it's a good horror film and with some distance from expectations and a re-watch down the line, the film will likely come across a little bit better.  

Image result for halloween 2018





We're introduced to both Michael and Laurie through the perspective of two British journalists/podcasters, Dana Haines (Rhian Rees) and Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) who are investigating Michael and Laurie. The introductory scenes with Michael and Laurie are bookends to the main credits; The film parallels victim and victimizer in several ways. The first is how neither gives the two any information. Michael doesn't speak even when Aaron shows him his mask. Laurie, while she does speak to Aaron and Dana, doesn't offer any "fresh insights" or  sympathy towards Michael. Aaron and Dana want to be objective but Laurie doesn't believe Michael is someone who should be understood. 

The other way in which Laurie and Michael are paralleled is they're both prisoners. Michael is in jail  whereas Laurie has made herself a prisoner of her trauma and anger, locking herself in her house, equipped with a security system and basement full of weaponry. We learn Laurie trained Karen from a young age to defend herself. I couldn't help but be reminded of Sarah Conner, who prepared her son for the robot apocalypse. Except in this case, the situation is more realistic- Karen isn't the only hope for mankind, just another person who- in Laurie's mind- could fall prey to the horrors of the world. Karen tells Laurie in one scene that the world is a wonderful place, which a little naive and I'm not Karen entirely believes it. 

While Laurie may have been too extreme a mother, she has a point that the world isn't safe. Laurie knows firsthand that your normal way of life can veer off in to a nightmare. The film does appear to want to have it both ways: to show Laurie as someone who wasn't a fit mother while still arguing the value of her teachings. Because of Michael, Laurie's relationship to her child was irrevocably changed. And we eventually learn that Karen has taken in her mother's lessons and his her mother's daughter.

Allyson is caught between her mother and grandmother, an unwilling observer to that relationship. Laurie comes to Allyson's school to give her the money Aaron and Dana gave her for the interview. Laurie is the grandmother who'd like to have more of a relationship with her granddaughter but the rift between her and Karen makes it difficult.

The film urges us to ask the question one of its characters puts forward: Is what Laurie went through comparable to the other horrors of the world?; but we have to understand what happened to Laurie would always be a part of her. Laurie hopes Michael does eventually escape so she can kill him. Maybe if she kills him, she can finally be at peace. Thankfully the film doesn't offer an easy answer but does suggest only through shared hardship can the Strode women truly heal their wounds. 

On the night he's being transferred to a new facility, the bus he's on crashes. There's a subplot involving the "new Loomis" Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) and his fascination with the relationship between Laurie and Michael. While the brother/sister connection is gone the film still is curious about the metaphysical connection between the two, how Michael was affected by the murders he committed and not killing Laurie. This subplot could've been developed a little more. His eventual motives and plan remain vague even by film's end.


Image result for andi matichak halloween 2018





I think the film would've been better if it just focused on the three Strode women instead of the teenage stuff, though I could've watched a whole movie with Vicky (Virginia Gardner) and the kid she babysits, Julian (Jibrail Nantambu). That kid was a hoot and Gardner makes Vicky in to a genuinely likable young woman. Matichak's reaction while confronting he boyfriend Cameron (Dylan Arnold) is also surprisingly authentic. However, the teenage stuff in the original was used to contrast with Michael's presence throughout but here it all feels like a distraction from the more appealing story involving Laurie, who sometimes drifts in to the film's background. 

Curtis is honestly great here, bringing a lot to the film beyond what's just in the script. The scene where's she waiting in her car outside of the facility from where Michael is being transferred displays Laurie's torment from what happened all those years ago and Curtis really sells it. Laurie could've just stayed home but she needed to see him, to drink in that pain and anger.

Greer remains a wildly underused actress, though she gets a great moment near the end which is one of the best payoffs I've seen in a horror movie in some time. Again, I wish we spent more time with Laurie and Karen, since it's supposed to be the emotional core of the film. For me, their relationship didn't affect me as deeply as I would've desired. 

Image result for michael myers halloween 2018


I realize I've talked this much without mentioning the film's director, David Gordon Green. Green has had a peculiar career, starting out as indie auteur whose films George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow earned him comparisons to Terrence Malick. He then moved on to directing the stoner comedies Pineapple Express and Your Highness before returning to indie dramas, including last year's Oscar hopeful Stronger with Jake Gyllenhaal. Green clearly doesn't wish to pinned down and directing a direct sequel to a horror classic is another indication of this desire. Green equips himself pretty well to the horror genre; the opening sequence/cut to credits was enough to get me hyped for the rest of the film and the bathroom sequence is another standout. Gordon homages Carpenter without feeling like he's aping him too much. Speaking of Carpenter, he returned to score the film along with his son Cody Carpenter. And it's a strong composition, with "Halloween Triumphant" being a standout. 

Returning to what I said before, Halloween is a good horror which will definitely benefit from some distance from the expectations inherent to a film of this kind.. The film's strong performances and fine craftsmanship make this a respectable sequel, though I think could've been even deeper and more haunting.