Connect with us

Reviews

TRICKS ALL AROUND, NO TREATS: A Spoiler-Filled, King-Sized Review of ‘Halloween Ends’

Published

on

For a point of reference on how baffled and taken aback I was by this movie: I, no joke, felt like I was dreaming this film up midway through the screening at my theatre. Regardless of whether you enjoy it or not, you will be captivated by this movie the whole way through. And that’s all there is to say that won’t spoil things. Skip to the bottom for my summary review and to avoid the

SPOILERS AHEAD

I’m not going to do my usual synoptic blurb I put at the front of my articles. Having to sum up Halloween Ends is a confusing task. The movie itself is a confusing question of whether a roadmap was made or not by Danny McBride and David Gordon Green following the triumphant ending of Halloween (2018) and the fun, but admittedly mindless roller coaster ride of Halloween Kills.

Ends makes little to no sense with the tracks laid by the first two films in the trilogy (quadrilogy, if you include the original ’78 film) and can only be described as a feverish script being performed by delirious actors, all filmed and edited by unsteady and shaking hands. In short: Michael’s mythical reveal of immortality at the end of the last movie is all but glossed over in favor of a plotline where he has to get his strength back through the murders committed by an ersatz of The Shape in the form of newcomer Corey Cunningham (played by Rohan Campbell).

I think?

Advertisement

I say I think because the movie, unlike previous dabblings into the occult with the likes of The Cult of Thorn, Halloween Ends never truly tries to explain how Michael’s newfound legend status power-up works, or really what the point of any of this is. If he’s fueled by the paranoia and fear of the citizens of Haddonfield, he should be operating at peak condition by the beginning of the film and slaughtering in droves. If he’s only fueled by Laurie’s personal demons and fear of him, he shouldn’t be able to lift a finger and should still firmly be in that sewer that Corey drags him out of to go on a vengeful, Punisher-esque series of kills to try and clean Haddonfield of evil people. If that is his goal, again, unclear. Because what does Michael even need any more than to finish his contractual obligation to be in this? His hatred of Laurie seems to be a fairly low priority, in a movie all about finishing their legendary feud.

Beyond the fact that they’ve given a dog-eating silent psychopath a partner in crime (which is a Halloween franchise sin if I could ever think of one), how Michael even goes about choosing Corey as a vessel for his evil influence doesn’t make any sense, as most of this film doesn’t: things simply happen until they don’t need to. Corey’s involuntary manslaughter of a child and being bullied by local teens somehow baptizes him in evil to become the apprentice of The Shape…until it isn’t enough, and Michael kills him. Relationships shift in this film on a dime, as do motivations and any general sense of direction as it tries to navigate to the promised clash that was all we really saw in the promotional material for this film.

The movie takes great actors and gives them a clammy, terribly written script to work with that turns all of their characters into buffoons whom all sound like Tim and Eric characters, or worse, true crime show hosts waxing philosophical about the nature of evil. Their dialogue and the placement of the scenes are so asynchronous to the movie’s pacing that it feels all too fast and all too slow all at the same time.

And so sadly, the biggest victim in Halloween Ends is one of its most promising characters. The movie, for some bizarre reason, discards the wonderfully charismatic Andi Matichak and Allyson with her. Allyson was a complex character who thanks to this film goes from the inheritor of a terrible burden, the burden of fighting off an immortal evil, a bearer of unfortunate and violent history, to being a side character in her own film. A woman with as little screen time as they could give her, who becomes the dawdling, flat love interest for the film’s newly introduced main antagonist. It’s vexing how shafted she gets by this screenplay.

I wish I could say on a technical level it redeems itself with some cool kills and gory effects, but it has three interesting ones out of a dozen or so forgettable murders that happen in this film, even if the rest are well-done practical effects. The camera work is nauseatingly bad, with random little zooms and distracting camera movement littered throughout it. The film doesn’t aesthetically fit with its sister entries, with lighting that feels overexposed. And beyond the cut-in montage of all the times Laurie and Michael have fought to remind you what is at stake here, the editing is nothing to write home about.

Advertisement

When it tries something new, it flops face first into a pile of pumpkin guts at the expense of 2018 and Kills; when it attempts to evoke the old films, it helplessly fails at pulling your heartstrings. In the end, every person in Haddonfield follows a car with Michael Myers strapped to the hood, performing a sort of macabre 5k fun run for capital punishment before they toss his mutilated body into an industrial-sized car shredder in a junkyard. And really, is there a more appropriate metaphor for how this movie treats the potential of the films that precede it than that?

BOTTOMLINE: For the most part, the entire movie is a wheezing, asthmatic crawl to the finish line on the final third of the course. Halloween Ends is a true-blue disappointment. Its raisins, razor blade apples, and Necco wafers all in one bite. And while I encourage you to watch every movie I review and see how you feel about it yourself; I have to warn you that you will most likely be upset with this if you’re expecting a more thematically cohesive David Gordon-Green’s Halloween trilogy.

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

[REVIEW] The Unconventional Extremity of ‘Demonlover’ (2002)

Demonlover (2002) follows a French-based company, Volf Corporation, which is in the process of acquiring a Japanese animation studio. Diane (Connie Nielsen) is leading the acquisition after successful corporate espionage takes her boss Karen (Dominique Reymond) out of commission. Karen’s assistant, Elise Lipsky (Chloë Sevigny), vows to make sure Diane doesn’t have an easy go with any of this. Once Volf Corporation takes control of the Japanese anime studio, they try to set up a deal with an American distribution company called Demonlover, which is run by Elise Si Gibril (Gina Gershon). It soon comes to light that Demonlover is nothing more than a front for an extreme interactive torture website called the Hellfire Club.

Published

on

As a horror-centric publication, how do you follow up the month of October? It’s our Super Bowl, our Grand Prix! Curator of all things Horror Press, James-Micael Fleites had the best possible idea for the month of November: New French Extremity. New French Extremity has a few films that always come to mind when discussed with films like Martyrs, Frontier(s), and Haute Tension. But many great New French Extremity films don’t get the recognition they deserve–and the ones that don’t deserve it still need to be discussed.

The first one I think is necessary to discuss is one that teeters on the idea of horror: Demonlover.

Demonlover (2002) follows a French-based company, Volf Corporation, which is in the process of acquiring a Japanese animation studio. Diane (Connie Nielsen) is leading the acquisition after successful corporate espionage takes her boss Karen (Dominique Reymond) out of commission. Karen’s assistant, Elise Lipsky (Chloë Sevigny), vows to make sure Diane doesn’t have an easy go with any of this. Once Volf Corporation takes control of the Japanese anime studio, they try to set up a deal with an American distribution company called Demonlover, which is run by Elise Si Gibril (Gina Gershon). It soon comes to light that Demonlover is nothing more than a front for an extreme interactive torture website called the Hellfire Club. (If you thought reading that was tedious, you can only imagine how long it took me to write that.)

Let’s get the two positives out of the way first. At its soul, Demonlover tries to exist as a commentary on our extreme desensitization of violence in the modern age. Much of this desensitization started in the late ’60s when the Vietnam War was televised into people’s homes and furthered by Ted Turner’s obsession with money and the creation of the 24-hour news cycle. That was all the catalyst. When Al Gore invented the internet, that’s a joke, we had no clue just how awful the outcome would be. Demonlover’s commentary on violence in consumed media is important, but that’s really all it has going for it. Is that one piece of commentary worth an over two-hour-long student film? (More on that later.) There’s also the commentary on corporate espionage, but it falls flat compared to the rest of the film’s commentary.

The second, and final, positive aspect of Demonlover is the acting and specifically Connie Nielsen, Chloë Sevigny, and Gina Gershon. Simply put, they are bad bitches and I love them. The ‘extremity’ of this film (I watched the unrated director’s cut) wasn’t really anything to write home about, leaving the majority of carrying to these three women. It’s hard to say I didn’t like this film when the performances were as powerful as theirs were.

Advertisement

And that’s it. The film as a whole feels like a first-draft freshman film school drivel. It’s unfocused when it needs to be focused and focused when it doesn’t. The only other film I’ve seen by writer/director Olivier Assayas is his segment in Paris, Je T’aime so I can’t effectively comment on his overall style. But Demonlover feels like Assayas had an overall grand idea that became bogged down by personal preference, kinks, and an overinflated ego.

If I had a friend who said they wanted to watch a real art film, there is no way I would show them this. Because that’s all Demonlover is: an attempt to make an art film with some commentary. Assayas tries to assault your senses with sex, blood, and “authentic” violence but fails at nearly every aspect. Demonlover feels nothing more than self-masturbation; a film that proves he’s holier than thou. And let me tell you, he is far from that. At its core, Demonloveris a two-hour-long horror-adjacent exercise in futility.

Continue Reading

Reviews

[REVIEW] BHFF 2024: ‘Timestalker’ Is Timeless

Timestalker follows Agnes (Alice Lowe) through multiple decades throughout her shared life; from the 1800s to the present day, to the 1980s, and countless other decades. Agnes happens to run across the same guy in each life: Alex (Aneurin Barnard). Their strained, often one-sided love, spans their respective lifetimes in fascinating ways. While Agnes searches for her love she finds herself on the receiving end of a scorned lover by way of Nick Frost. Can Agnes and Alex find the love they are seemingly destined for?

Published

on

As someone who reviews horror content, I tend to be picky about what I decide to watch. I know what I like and what I don’t like. I cannot stand time loop films. They just don’t work for me, from Groundhog Day to Happy Death Day. And time difference love films like The Lake House? Don’t even get me started. That being said, if I stumble upon one of these types of films that pique my interest, I will go out of my way to check it out. When I read about Alice Lowe’s directorial follow-up to Prevenge, I was excited but still skeptical. Prevenge was an exciting and well-put-together horror film that caught me off guard and I knew I had to watch whatever Alice Lowe made next.

Timestalker follows Agnes (Alice Lowe) through multiple decades throughout her shared life; from the 1800s to the present day, to the 1980s, and countless other decades. Agnes happens to run across the same guy in each life: Alex (Aneurin Barnard). Their strained, often one-sided love, spans their respective lifetimes in fascinating ways. While Agnes searches for her love she finds herself on the receiving end of a scorned lover by way of Nick Frost. Can Agnes and Alex find the love they are seemingly destined for?

Since I mentioned it at the top, let’s discuss the time aspect. It should be noted that this is definitely not a time-loop movie in the typical sense. Writer/director Alice Lowe handles the time-jumping aspect of Timestalker with ease and class. Rather than trying to find some overcomplicated and underdeveloped explanation for the film’s timeframe, Lowe does something rarely seen. You can take what Lowe tells you in the third act at face value. Do you believe it or not? There’s probably no wrong answer. But if you dig a bit deeper, and believe in love and whimsy, there’s a whole other element to Lowe’s craft. (Getting into it would be too much of a spoiler.)

Honestly, I’m happy to say this is one of the very few time-based films that works incredibly well for me.

Lowe struck gold with her casting and brought multiple A-list British actors on board. First, and foremost, Alice Lowe. Lowe stuns with her lead portrayal of a character I’m pretty sure she wrote for herself. And rightfully so. Lowe’s comedic timing is unparalleled, and she’s not afraid to make herself the butt of the joke.

Advertisement

Scipio (Jacob Anderson) is an intricately written character and almost a mouthpiece for the audience. Jacob Anderson is, aside from devilishly handsome, a thrill to watch. He blends into the background when necessary and chews up the scenery when needed. But it’s Nick Frost who steals the show. Whether he’s huffing and puffing after Agnes or literally barking like a dog, you can’t help but giggle (and sometimes gasp in shock) at his performance. Also, it’s always a blast to see Kate Dickie in anything.

Timestalker was introduced by a couple of people. Caryn Coleman, of The Future of Film is Female, said something incredibly interesting about Timestalker. There will be discussions about whether or not this film is considered horror or sci-fi but according to Coleman, “It’s a horror film about love.” I couldn’t say it any better myself.

This film is not your typical horror film. It’s a deconstruction of what horror means to people. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to love or be loved. In this modern age where Vice President nominees tell you you’re less of a person for not having kids or being married by a certain age, the idea of love is being retconned. If your love isn’t the way it’s “supposed to be” then you’re wrong. And that’s bullshit.

Timestalker is a fun and fascinating breakdown of what is. I don’t think this film will work for everyone, and I’m about 80% sure a particular group of people (looking at you, Vice President nominee, and fans) will take away the wrong message from this film. Those who get this film will get it. Those are the people Alice Lowe made this film for.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement