Connect with us

Editorials

‘Halloween Ends’ Is Just the Beginning: Reflecting On One Year of Corey Cunningham

Published

on

October 14, 2023 is many things to many people. It’s Mother’s Day in Belarus, for instance. It’s Usher’s 45th birthday. But perhaps most importantly to the readers of Horror Press, it’s the first anniversary of the release of Halloween Ends, one of the most divisive sequels in a long-running slasher franchise that is more or less composed entirely of divisive sequels.

Now that we’ve had a year to rest on our laurels and think about it, it’s time to really drill deep and reevaluate one of the most controversial elements of the movie: Corey Cunningham. 

Warning: This article contains spoilers for 2022’s Halloween Ends.

So What’s Corey Cunningham’s Deal?

Halloween Ends is (allegedly) the final movie to feature scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis in the role of Laurie Strode, the longtime Final Girl for the iconic serial killer Michael Myers. It is also the end of director David Gordon Green’s trilogy of Halloween legacy sequels, the first two of which took place on Halloween night 2018 before time jumping several years into the future. In the meantime, we are introduced via prologue to Mr. Cunningham (Rohan Cambell), a college student who accidentally kills a child he is babysitting.

In the intervening years, rumors have swirled around Corey as the townspeople of Haddonfield, Illinois have turned against both him and Laurie (blaming her for provoking Myers into his spate of 2018 killings). Although Myers has not been seen since then, Corey is relentlessly berated and bullied to the point that, when he accidentally discovers the killer’s hiding place, he takes Michael on as something of a mentor, like a nonverbal, bloodthirsty Big Brother. Thus Corey and Michael go on a killing spree while Corey romances Laurie’s granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak), who is also somewhat sick of the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is Haddonfield.

Why Fans Dislike Corey Cunningham

Corey is dead, largely by his own hand, as of the middle of the third act (to frame Laurie for his own murder, however briefly), which clears the stage for the promised showdown between her and Michael. However, the bulk of the body count in the first two acts comes from Corey rather than Michael, which is precisely why his character has been widely reviled by fans of the franchise. In addition to being a newcomer in the 13th entry of a long-running series, Corey took a lot of the spotlight that could have gone to Michael, also giving the murders a very different flavor from the previous movies. Go figure, a brooding bad boy with luscious curly locks doesn’t exactly exude the same vibe as the hulking masked killing machine that fans have come to know and love.

Advertisement

Should We Cut Corey Cunningham Some Slack?

It is undeniable that Halloween fans do not like it when Michael Myers is sidelined unexpectedly. This was the case with 1982’s Halloween III: Season of the Witch, the aborted attempt to abruptly swerve the franchise into an anthology format. However, while the Myers-less movie was widely despised at the time, a major critical reevaluation has taken place in recent decades and led many fans to swing back in the other direction, celebrating its unique spirit and abundance of goopy special effects. If anything, these days you’re more likely to run into someone overvaluing it as a knee-jerk response to its many years in the Halloween doghouse.

Reexamining Corey Cunningham’s Thematic Purpose

Now that the heat of the moment of the Halloween Ends release has cooled, it’s time to look at Corey with those same unbiased eyes. Because a lot about him works, especially when put into the context of the trilogy as a whole.

By the end of the mob justice finale that graces 2021’s Halloween Kills, it has become quite clear that David Gordon Green and his co-writers are intent on using this new trilogy to point a mirror at Haddonfield and the way it creates the monsters that stalk its streets. Whether this is a good idea is up for debate, but it is nevertheless a big, splashy, vaingloriously unsubtle announcement of the trilogy’s thematic intentions.

Corey Cunningham is the human embodiment of that theme, also bringing Halloween 2018’s theme of generational trauma full circle in the form of a character who handles his own mistreatment much much worse than the women of the Strode family. Because of the multiplicity of themes he serves, he is simultaneously a foil to Laurie, Allyson, and Michael Myers himself (just saying – it’s probably not a coincidence his name rhymes with “Laurie”). While that’s a lot to put on a character we just met, Rohan Campbell shoulders the burden admirably well, couching his pent-up rage inside an adorkable wounded bird charm that effectively delivers years of character arc in just a few scenes and at least almost credibly sells Corey and Allyson’s romance.

The Flaws in Corey Cunningham’s Story Arc

I said “almost,” because the Halloween Ends screenplay consistently lets Corey down as much as it builds him up. While the title already reveals that this isn’t a torch-passing movie that will set Corey up to carry out further murders in future sequels, his ultimate fate proves how little function he has in his own story. When the movie kills him off, it instantly forgets about him, wrenching itself back into place during the Michael Myers showdown it always passed itself off as being. This cuts off the possibility for any sort of effective storytelling about Corey (Corey-telling?) at the knees.

Advertisement

This isn’t even the first time the movie has feinted toward telling a more interesting Corey story. His blossoming relationship with Allyson has the potential to go full Bonnie and Clyde and thus present a truly meaty emotional challenge for Laurie to face. But this simply cannot happen because that storyline would render Michael Myers completely useless, which a Halloween movie in the 2020s just can’t do. So Corey’s storyline, while attempting to move forward, keeps butting up against the brick wall that is Michael, entirely failing to fit into this Myers-lite narrative whether we put on our “Halloween III was good, actually” hats when watching the movie or not.

It’s Time to Forgive Corey Cunningham

What all of this adds up to, for this author anyway, is a character that is worth existing, but who is locked in a desperate search for a movie that can support him. Halloween Ends is not that movie, no matter how much film theory you can toss its way like life preservers off the deck of a sinking ship. But none of this is strictly Corey’s fault. He’s not an active impediment to the movie, just an element with much more potential than there was room for. Was it a mistake to put him in Halloween Ends? Probably. But there are a lot of elements of the trilogy that never quite found their place (just look at what Halloween Ends does with Kyle Richards), and Corey is merely one of them, not necessarily a film-breaking flaw in and of himself.

Brennan Klein is a millennial who knows way more about 80's slasher movies than he has any right to. He's a former host of the  Attack of the Queerwolf podcast and a current senior movie/TV news writer at Screen Rant. You can also find his full-length movie reviews on Alternate Ending and his personal blog Popcorn Culture. Follow him on Twitter or Letterboxd, if you feel like it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

Tim Burton, Representation, and the Problem With Nostalgia

Published

on

Tim Burton was not always my nemesis. In the not-too-distant past, I was a child who just wanted to watch creepy things. I rewatched Beetlejuice countless times and thought he was a lot more involved in Henry Selick’s The Nightmare Before Christmas than he actually was. I was also a huge Batman fan before Ben Affleck happened to the Caped Crusader. To this day, I still argue that Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne was one of the best. So when I tell you I logged many hours rewatching Burton’s better films in my youth, I am not lying.

However, as I got older, I started to realize that this director’s films are usually exclusively filled with white actors. Even his animated work somehow ignores POC actors, seemingly by design. This is sadly common in the industry, as intersectionality seems to be a concept most older filmmakers cannot wrap their heads around. So, I was one of the people who chalked it up to a glaring oversight and not much more. I also outgrew Burton’s aesthetic and attempts at humor when I started seeking out horror movies that might actually be scary.

I Was Over Tim Burton Before It Was Cool

So, how did we get to episodes of the podcast I co-host, roasting Tim Burton? I kind of forgot about the man behind all of those movies I thought were epic when I was a kid. In huge part because his muse was Johnny Depp, whom I also outgrew forever ago. I wasn’t thinking about Burton or his filmography, and I doubt he noticed a kid in the Midwest stopped renting his movies. I didn’t think about Burton again until 2016 rolled around.

In an interview with Bustle for Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, the lack of diversity in Burton’s work came up. That’s when the filmmaker explained this wasn’t a simple blunder or oversight on his part. He also unsurprisingly said the wrong thing instead of pretending he’d like to do better in the future.

Tim Burton said,Things either call for things, or they don’t. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch, and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, let’s have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just… I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, that’s great. I didn’t go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies.Bustle

Advertisement

Tim Burton Is Not the Only One Failing

We watch older white guys fumble in interviews when topics like gender parity, diversity, politics, etc., come up all the time. It’s to the point now where most of us are forced to wonder if their publicists have simply given up and just live in a state of constant damage control. However, Tim Burton’s response was surprisingly offensive in so many ways. The more I reread it, the more pissed off at this guy I forgot existed after we returned our copy of Mars Attacks! to the Hollywood Video closest to my childhood home. While I knew I wouldn’t be revisiting Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, his explanation for the almost complete absence of POC in his work burst a bubble. 

We Hate To See It

Tim Burton’s own words made me realize so many obvious issues that I excused as a kid. Like Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in Batman, it was the only time I remembered a Black actor with substantial screentime in a Burton film. Or that The Nightmare Before Christmas was really named the late Ken Page’s character, Oogie Boogie. As a Black kid, what a confusingly racist image with a helluva song. So, Burton saying the quiet part out loud is what led me to reexamine the actual reasons I probably stopped watching his work. His problematic answer is also why I don’t have the nostalgia that made most of my friends sit through Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

I love the cast for this sequel we didn’t need. I am also delighted to see Jenna Ortega continue working in my favorite genre. However, from what I heard from most of my friends who watched the movie, I’m not the only person who has outgrown Tim Burton’s messy aesthetic and outdated stabs at jokes. I am also not the only one paying attention to what’s being said about the Black characters on Wednesday. Again, I’m always happy to see Ortega booked and busy. However, I also refuse to pretend Burton has fixed his diversity problem. If anything, this moves us deeper into specific bias territory.

Tim Burton’s Bare Minimum Is Not Good Enough

He will now cast a couple of Brown people, but is still displaying colorism and anti-Blackness. Histhingsseeminglycall for thingsthat are not Black folks in key roles that aren’t bullies. He still feels that’s his aesthetic. If we are still dragging him into the last millennium, will he ever work on a project that truly understands and celebrates intersectionality? Or will he continue doing the bare minimum while waiting for a cookie? I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care anymore. I’m not the audience for Tim Burton. You can say mythingsno longercall for thingshe’s known for. In part because I’m over supporting filmmakers who don’t get it and don’t want to get it.

If a director wants to stay in a rut and keep regurgitating the mediocre things that worked for him before I was born, that’s his business. I’m more interested in what better filmmakers who can envision worlds filled with POC characters. Writer-directors that understand intersectionality benefits their stories are the people I’m trying to engage with. So, while Tim Burton might have had a few movies on repeat during my VHS era, I have as hard of a time watching his work as he has imagining people who look like me in his stuff. I will never unsee “let’s have an Asian child and a black” in his offensive word salad. However, I don’t think he wants me in the audience anyways because he might then have to imagine a world that calls for people who look like me.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Editorials

No, Cult Cinema Isn’t Dead

Published

on

My first feature film, Death Drop Gorgeous, was often described as its own disturbed piece of queer cult cinema due to its over-the-top camp, practical special effects, and radical nature. As a film inspired by John Waters, we wore this descriptor as a badge of honor. Over the years, it has gained a small fanbase and occasionally pops up on lists of overlooked queer horror flicks around Pride month and Halloween.

The Streaming Era and the Myth of Monoculture

My co-director of our drag queen slasher sent me a status update, ostensibly to rile up the group chat. A former programmer of a major LGBTQ+ film festival (I swear, this detail is simply a coincidence and not an extension of my last article) declared that in our modern era, “cult classic” status is “untenable,” and that monoculture no longer exists. Thus, cult classics can no longer counter-culture the mono. The abundance of streaming services, he said, allows for specific curation to one’s tastes and the content they seek. He also asserted that media today that is designed to be a cult classic, feels soulless and vapid.

Shots fired!

Can Cult Cinema Exist Without Monoculture?

We had a lengthy discussion as collaborators about these points. Is there no monoculture to rally against? Are there no codes and standards to break and deviate from? Are there no transgressions left to undertake? Do streaming services fully encompass everyone’s tastes? Maybe I am biased. Maybe my debut feature is soulless and vapid!

I’ve been considering the landscape. True, there are so many options at our streaming fingertips, how could we experience a monoculture? But to think a cult classic only exists as counter-culture, or solely as a rally against the norm, is to have a narrow understanding of what cult cinema is and how it gains its status. The cult classic is not dead. It still rises from its grave and walks amongst the living.

Advertisement

What Defines a Cult Classic? And Who Cares About Cult Cinema?

The term “cult classic” generally refers to media – often movies, but sometimes television shows or books – that upon its debut, was unsuccessful or undervalued, but over time developed a devout fanbase that enjoys it, either ironically or sincerely. The media is often niche and low budget, and sometimes progressive for the cultural moment in which it was released.

Some well-known cult films include The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994), Showgirls (1995), Re-Animator (1985), Jennifer’s Body (2009), and my personal favorite, Heathers (1989). Quoting dialogue, midnight showings, and fans developing ritualistic traditions around the movie are often other ways films receive cult status (think The Rocky Horror Picture Show).

Cult Cinema as Queer Refuge and Rebellion

Celebration of cult classics has long been a way for cinephiles and casual viewers alike to push against the rigid standards of what film critics deem “cinema.” These films can be immoral, depraved, or simply entertaining in ways that counter mainstream conventions. Cult classics have often been significant for underrepresented communities seeking comfort or reflection. Endless amounts of explicitly queer cinema were lambasted by critics of their time. The Doom Generation (1995) by Gregg Araki and John Waters’ Pink Flamingos (1972) were both famously given zero stars by Roger Ebert. Now both can be viewed on the Criterion Channel, and both directors are considered pioneers of gay cinema.

Cult films are often low-budget, providing a sense of belonging for viewers, and are sometimes seen as guilty pleasures. Cult cinema was, and continues to be, particularly important for queer folks in finding community.

But can there be a new Waters or Araki in this current landscape?

What becomes clear when looking at these examples is that cult status rarely forms in a vacuum. It emerges from a combination of cultural neglect, community need, and the slow bloom of recognition. Even in their time, cult films thrived because they filled a void, often one left by mainstream films’ lack of imagination or refusal to engage marginalized perspectives. If anything, today’s fractured media landscape creates even more of those voids, and therefore more opportunities for unexpected or outsider works to grab hold of their own fiercely loyal audiences.

Advertisement

The Death of Monoculture and the Rise of Streaming

We do not all experience culture the same way. With the freedom of personalization and algorithmic curation, not just in film but in music and television, there are fewer shared mass cultural moments we all gather around to discuss. The ones that do occur (think Barbenheimer) may always pale in comparison to the cultural dominance of moments that occurred before the social media boom. We might never again experience the mass hysteria of, say, Michael Jackson’s Thriller.

For example, our most successful musician today is listened to primarily by her fanbase. We can skip her songs and avoid her albums even if they are suggested on our streaming platforms, no matter how many weeks she’s been at number one.

Was Monoculture Ever Real?

But did we ever experience culture the same? Some argue that the idea of monoculture is a myth. Steve Hayden writes:

“Our monoculture was an illusion created by a flawed, closed-circuit system; even though we ought to know better, we’re still buying into that illusion, because we sometimes feel overwhelmed by our choices and lack of consensus. We think back to the things we used to love, and how it seemed that the whole world, or at least people we knew personally, loved the same thing. Maybe it wasn’t better then, but it seemed simpler, and for now that’s good enough.”

The mainstream still exists. Cultural moments still occur that we cannot escape and cannot always understand the appreciation for. There are fads and trends we may not recognize now but will romanticize later, just as we do with trends from as recently as 2010. But I’d argue there never was monoculture in the same way America was never “great.” There was never a time we all watched the same things and sang Madonna songs around the campfire; there were simply fewer accessible avenues to explore other options.

Advertisement

Indie Film Distribution in the Age of Streaming

Additionally, music streaming is not the same as film streaming. As my filmmaking collective moves through self-distributing our second film, we have found it is increasingly difficult for indie, small-budget, and DIY filmmakers to get on major platforms. We are required to have an aggregator or a distribution company. I cannot simply throw Saint Drogo onto Netflix or even Shudder. Amazon Prime has recently made it impossible to self-distribute unless you were grandfathered in. Accessibility is still limited, particularly for those with grassroots and shoestring budgets, even with the abundance of services.

I don’t know that anyone ever deliberately intends on making a cult classic. Pink Flamingos was released in the middle of the Gay Liberation movement, starring Divine, an openly gay drag queen who famously says, “Condone first-degree murder! Advocate cannibalism! Eat shit! Filth are my politics, filth is my life!”

All comedy is political. Of course, Waters was intentional with the depravity he filmed; it was a conscious response to the political climate of the time. So if responding to the current state of the world makes a cult classic, I think we can agree there is still plenty to protest.

There Is No Single Formula for Cult Cinema

Looking back at other cult classics, both recent and older, not all had the same intentional vehicle of crass humor and anarchy. Some didn’t know they would reach this status – a very “so bad, it’s good” result (i.e., Showgirls). And while cult classics naturally exist outside the mainstream, some very much intended to be in that stream first!

All of this is to say: there is no monolith for cult cinema. Some have deliberate, rebellious intentions. Some think they are creating high-concept art when in reality they’re making camp. But it takes time to recognize what will reach cult status. It’s not overnight, even if a film seems like it has the perfect recipe. Furthermore, there are still plenty of conventions to push back against; there are plenty of queer cinema conventions upheld by dogmatic LGBTQ+ film festivals.

Midnight Movies vs. Digital Fandom

What has changed is the way we consume media. The way we view a cult classic might not be solely relegated to midnight showings. Although, at my current place of employment, any time The Rocky Horror Picture Show screens, it’s consistently sold out. Nowadays, we may find that engagement with cult cinema and its fanbase digitally, on social media, rather than in indie cinemas. But if these sold-out screenings are any indication, people are not ready to give up the theater experience of being in a room with die-hard fans they find a kinship with.

Advertisement

In fact, digital fandom has begun creating its own equivalents to the midnight-movie ritual. Think of meme cycles that resurrect forgotten films, TikTok edits that reframe a scene as iconic, or Discord servers built entirely around niche subgenres. These forms of engagement might not involve rice bags and fishnets in a theater, but they mirror the same spirit of communal celebration, shared language, and collective inside jokes that defined cult communities of past decades. Furthermore, accessibility to a film does not diminish its cult status. You may be able to stream Tim Curry as Dr. Frank-N-Furter from the comfort of your couch, but that doesn’t make it any less cult.

The Case for Bottoms

I think a recent film that will gain cult status in time is Bottoms. In fact, it was introduced to the audience at a screening I attended as “the new Heathers.” Its elements of absurdity, queer representation, and subversion are perfect examples of the spirit of cult cinema. And you will not tell me that Bottoms was soulless and vapid.

For queer communities, cult cinema has never been just entertainment; it has operated as a kind of cultural memory, a place to archive our identities, desires, rebellions, and inside jokes long before RuPaul made them her catchphrases repeated ad nauseam. These films became coded meeting grounds where queer viewers could see exaggerated, defiant, or transgressive versions of themselves reflected back, if not realistically, then at least recognizably. Even when the world outside refused to legitimize queer existence, cult films documented our sensibilities, our humor, our rage, and our resilience. In this way, cult cinema has served as both refuge and record, preserving parts of queer life that might otherwise have been erased or dismissed.

Cult Cinema Is Forever

While inspired by John Waters, with Death Drop Gorgeous, we didn’t intentionally seek the status of cult classic. We just had no money and wanted to make a horror movie with drag queens. As long as there continue to be DIY, low-budget, queer filmmakers shooting their movies without permits, the conventions of cinema will continue to be subverted.

As long as queer people need refuge through media, cult cinema will live on.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement