Halloween 3: Season of the Witch - You will probably hate this film (personally, I loved it)

Let’s get it out of the way... ‘Halloween 3: Season of the Witch’ was a critical (and more importantly) commercial failure.  Basically, after the highly successful (and profitable) ‘Halloween’ and ‘Halloween 2’ people were expecting big things from the third instalment.  The first two were about a – seemingly unstoppable – killer called Michael Myers and his relentless desire to generally murder youngsters.  However, Part 3’s ultimate ‘failure’ was that it basically has nothing to do with the first two instalments.

Part 3 is a completely new story which doesn’t follow on at all.  And that was the main ‘problem’ people had with it.  So, it got immediately slated and has kind of fallen off the radar, as far as horror movies go. 

However, if you don’t really look at it as a ‘Halloween’ movie and simply a stand-alone horror film, it does tend to take on a life of its own.  We join Dr Daniel Challis when a possibly mentally-unstable old man is brought into his hospital, only to be murdered in very suspicious circumstances.  Therefore, Dr Dan teams up with the man’s grieving daughter to investigate.  And, their investigation takes them to an out-of-the-way town in the middle of nowhere, run by the – somewhat creepy – Conal Cochran.

First of all, Dr Dan is a rather different hero.  He isn’t very reliable, frequently forgets to visit his ex-wife, buys his kids rubbish present, flirts with pretty much anything in a skirt in the hospital where he works and then sleeps with younger women in meets in a bar (all while wearing a handkerchief hanging out of the back of his trousers).  And, did I mention while he’s doing all this he’s also trying to save the world from cyborg robots and fiendish occult plots.

But, dodgy heroes aside, the film is actually pretty creepy.  First of all you have the music (which is done by horror legend John Carpenter) which adds to the dark, unsettling atmosphere.  Then you have Dan O’herlihy, playing arguably one of the most nasty villains in cinematic history.  He really does have a plan or two up his sleeve and it isn’t nice!  Then you have the general gore.  It’s hardly a ‘gore-fest’ but when the gore comes, it’s pretty gruesome and what isn’t gory is pretty unsettling.
If you want to give Halloween 3 a go, don’t view it as part of the franchise.  Just be in a mood for a darkly-nasty horror tale.  It’s also probably best to put at least half of your brain on hold for the duration – that way you can ignore the odd plot hole.  I don’t care what people say about it.  I still love it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Gallowwalkers - Alas poor Wesley, I knew him well

I think most Wesley Snipes fans will always remember him best from things like ‘White Men Can’t Jump, Passenger 57, Demolition Man’ and the ‘Blade’ trilogy.  It’s because of these fun little classics that I chose to watch ‘Gallowwalkers.’ I did a little research before I sat down and watched it.  I saw it had a (current) rating of about 3/10, but I thought, ‘Hey... it’s got Wesley Snipes in it – it can’t be THAT bad!’

How wrong I was.

Normally, when you review a film, you try and get across a brief summary of the plot.  I can’t though here.  I really didn’t understand what was going on.

It’s a Western, only with zombies in (parts of) it.  Plus the baddie has no skin.  I think he came back from the dead.  Snipes is... someone who did something during his tragic childhood and now has to kill people.  Mainly undead people I think. 

And that’s about it.

What follows is one – seemingly random – scene after the next where something happens.  Only we don’t really feel any one scene is actually connected to whatever’s gone on before.

Basically, it’s a mess.

And it’s cheap.  It’s possibly one of the cheapest-looking films I’ve ever seen.  Most of it looks like it’s been filmed in a parking lot somewhere out the back of a convenience store in Texas.

And don’t get me started on the dialogue.  That’s so bad I won’t even go any further.

Just believe the reviews on this one.  It’s as bad as 90% of people say it is.  And they’re right.  Just avoid and remember Snipes at his best.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh - Could have been sooo much worse

‘Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' is an absolute masterpiece of cinema.  Well, sort of.  No, it's not that good really if you're looking at it as a stand-alone film, but - in terms of 'horror sequels' (i.e. a set of films which get dramatically worse with each new instalment) - it's not that bad.  Yes, of course the original was better - how many sequels really do improve?  But, and I say again, it's a horror sequel, therefore it should probably be afforded a little more slack than most films.

In the first outing we're introduced to the urban legend of 'Candyman' - a sinister figure who appears in the mirror behind you if you say his name three times.  And then he helps you brush your teeth.  Or kill you.  In fact, mainly the killing part.  And in quite a grisly fashion with a hook and much angry violence.  Anyway, he's back and people are still yapping his handle at their bathroom mirrors in order to prove the legend is merely a myth.  And then they die.  Unless the story dictates that he doesn't want you dead.

In fact, this is just what happens to our hapless nineties heroine, played by Kelly Rowan.  She only goes and stutters his name in the mirror five times, only to find he wants more from her than to open her neck up with a hook.  And so, she has to find a way of banishing him, or just generally getting the hell away from him before he slaughters everyone she comes in contact with. 
Yes, hardly an inspired horror plot, but its main saving grace is Candyman himself, Tony Todd.  No matter how good the original was, my gripe with it was that he wasn't in it enough.  Here, his part has been well and truly beefed up to give him much more screen time and he seems to be really enjoying his stint as the deliciously-evil and sadistic monster and he ends up giving a performance that will cement him as a horror villain on a par with Freddy Kruger, Pinhead and Jason Vorhees.

Even though the film looks a little dated by today's standards and, judging by the hair and clothes, there's no doubt it was filmed in the nineties, the film-makes didn't seem to scrimp on the special effects.  And, when I say effects, I basically mean gore!  And, isn't that what most of us horror fans come to see?  I don't think any 'claret-lovers' should leave a viewing of 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' feeling short-changed regarding the amount of body parts sent flying during the film's runtime!

Like I say, it's not perfect, but it is a sequel to a far superior horror gem.  Don't be too harsh on it and, if you like horror films in general, you should get something out of this, even if it's just an appreciation of just how well Tony Todd can command his presence on screen.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Assault on Precinct 13 - Pretty entertaining remake

The original 1970s 'Assault on Precinct 13' was hailed as a 'classic' John Carpenter film and is still held up as an example of tense, action film-making from the era.  I didn't think that much of it.  I've only seen it the once and I thought it was okay.  I remember the basic story - a police station comes under siege from shady and overpowering external forces and the cops and robbers trapped inside must band together in order to survive.  About the only thing I can remember was that everyone made a really big thing about the guns having 'silencers' on them.  Maybe it was because I was watching it in the eighties and silencers were common by then - I don't know.

Anyway, from what I can remember, the 2005 remake follows the premise pretty well.  Ethan Hawke is a cop who was injured in the line of duty and now spends his days running the sleepy Precinct 13.  However, one New Year's Eve, his team of tired old coppers get more than they bargained for when an infamous criminal played by Laurence Fishburne arrives in a prison bus that has been diverted there due to poor weather.  Now, everyone finds themselves under fire from rogue coppers (with more than just silencers!).

I've mentioned the two main characters, Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne (who probably shines more than his 'heroic' opposite!).  Naturally, they're given the bulk of the screen time and a certain degree of character development, but there are actually quite a few others there as well.  Some - semi - familiar faces who are also stuck in the building while head crooked cop Gabriel Byrne has his men lay waste to the building in order to get his man are Brian Dennehy, Maria Bello and John Leguizamo to name the main ones.  Because there are so many cops/crims alongside the principal cast members you could be forgiven for thinking that they're only there to be wiped out and, you're - sort of - be right.  Many get what's coming to them (and some who definitely don't deserve what they get!), but they all feel like real characters rather than just 'filler' cast members there only to die.  I'm not saying that a few of them don't descend into complete stereotypes at one stage or another, but they're all reasonable enough to be at least partially memorable.

There's a fair bit of gore and strong language contained in this film and it deserves its 'mature' rating as it certainly doesn't pull any punches.  So you need to be okay with plenty of the red stuff flying out of the (numerous!) headshots that seem to crop up here.

Over the years I've watched this film at least four times.  I'm not saying it's the most amazing film ever, but it is just a simple, entertaining action film (that's quite tense and works well as a 'siege movie').  I'm aware that people who loved the original don't really approve of the remake treatment being applied to this (I have my own gripes with enough remakes of my favourite films, too!), but, for someone like me who, for whatever reason, never really 'got' the original, it's actually quite a lot of fun if you're in the mood for something like this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Flatliners (1990) - Yeah, pretty spooky

I watched 'Flatliners' back in the early nineties when it first came out then completely ignored the pointless 2017 remake and didn't watch it for almost thirty years.  I couldn't remember much about it, short of the basic premise of how a group of young medical students are experimenting with 'near death' experiences.  However, I think I actually enjoyed it more today than I did all that time ago.

Modern' horror seems to fall into one of the following categories: zombie film, slasher film, or one of those films where something spooky happens to a family and no one believes them until some CGI demon is staring them in the face.  Perhaps the reason I enjoyed 'Flatliners' is because it doesn't fit in to any of those supernatural sub-genres.  There is certainly a threat coming from some other world, but the characters need to establish exactly what it is on their own and it's not simply some monster than can be easily-banished with the help of an old priest and a young priest.

The cast is as good as it's going to get for 1990, mainly consisting of icons (of their day) such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon and an indeterminate Baldwin.  Now, they could all headline a film on their own, so getting them all together in one place definitely makes it a bit of an 'ensemble cast.' Also, they all get their own individual stories which allow us to get to know them a little better than some later movies with multiple stars (poor Oliver Platt really couldn't compete with that quartet and gets the rawest deal of on-screen time!).

I suppose the general look and feel seems a little dated now.  There's a hell of a lot of neon on display which, combined with the hair and costumes, really does pinpoint this film as a late eighties/early nineties offering.  You really don't realise how much fashion has changed until you watch 'Flatliners!' However, for all the neon and smoke bellowing up from unseen points in the floor (seriously, if you played some sort of 'drinking game' where you took a swig every time you saw a weirdly-placed plume of smoke, you'd be out of your head before the title card came on screen!), director Joel Schumacher does a very good job at creating a unique and creepy atmosphere.

If you're looking for a spooky movie to watch with friends that doesn't involve flesh-eating cannibals, torture p0rn or men in masks with chainsaws, then give this a go.  You should become immune for the huge haircuts after a while.  Yes, the 'logic' of what they're actually doing may seem a little questionable, but it was the eighties and we all played with near death experiences back then - trust me!

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

A Lonely Place to Die - Don't believe the negative reviews!

I remember when I first saw 'A Lonely Place to Die' I really enjoyed it, then I read the reviews and it seemed that it was one of those films that you either love or hate.  It's about a group of friends who spend their free time climbing crazy heights up mountains (each to their own, eh?).  Then, one day, when they're out in the middle of nowhere (and there's absolutely NO cell phone coverage - seasoned horror fans will know that's a bad sign in itself!), they come across a young girl imprisoned underground in the middle of a wood.  Naturally, being the good folk they are they set her free.  However, those who captured her in the first place don't take too kindly to this sort of 'meddling.'

It seems that the people who didn't like the film all say the same thing: that it starts off well, but goes downhill in at roughly the midway mark.  I guess I can - sort of - see where they're coming from.  The beginning of the film starts by building up the relationships between the characters due to the general banter between them all.  And we find ourselves genuinely caring about the group of friends and not want to see them brutally gunned down or plummet out of the sky off a cliff and embed themselves in the rocks below.  However, I wonder where the people who didn't like the film saw it heading?  What follows - and I hope this isn't too much of a 'spoiler' - is a cat and mouse-like chase between the nasties who imprisoned the young girl and those trying to save her (and, in doing so, themselves at the same time).

Personally, I found the second half of the film to be a natural progression of the events which were set in motion at the beginning.  Yes, you could say that the second half of the film almost feels like a completely different film to how it began, but I didn't mind it at all.  I liked the characters and, although the antagonists were hardly 'fleshed out' to any great lengths other than they were 'baddies' who kidnapped people, I wasn't expecting some sort of amazing, character-driven epic.  It is what it is and I enjoyed it for what it did.  I suppose if I did have to offer one criticism it's that the film's lead (Melissa George) doesn't really do much in the way of acting for the second half.  I've seen her in enough other films to know that she's a very competent lead and could do better than the script (or lack thereof in the second half!) gives her to do.  All she really does is run away.

It's also totally worth mentioning the scenery, as it was filmed in some fantastic locations which really do a great job at showing just how, well, 'lonely' some parts of Britain really are.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Untouchables - Can't touch this

It's hard to believe that once upon a time, buying a bottle of WKD Blue from Tesco's on a Friday night could have bought you a one-way ticket to the slammer.  However, in 1930s America (aka the era of 'prohibition,' i.e. making alcohol illegal) this was basically happening.  Luckily, for us hardened drinkers good men like Al Capone ensured that we could still get drunk outside the local Weatherspoons and start a fight with someone smaller than us... or something like that. 

Actually, it wasn't quite like that.  No matter how silly banning booze may sound to us, it happened and violent gangs flouted these laws, most famously Al Capone.  That was why the city decided that a special police task force should be compiled to combat such nefarious criminal activity.  Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) was put in charge of stemming illegal liquor activity in the city of Chicago and, at the same time, bringing down the most wanted of criminals, Al Capone (a padded out Robert DeNiro). 'The Untouchables' tells the, er slightly fictionalised, story of this.

If you've ever done any research into this period of American history then you could probably make a twenty page list of the inaccuracies in this filmic interpretation of the actual events.  For example, hero and villain never really met in real life and Elliot Ness was unhappily divorced, as opposed to his ideal life we see on screen.  However, despite these sorts of points making the film more historically accurate, I'm pretty sure they would also make it a damn sight less enjoyable.  And it is very, very enjoyable.

First of all there's the cast.  Whatever you may think about Robert DeNiro's more recent output, there's no denying that in 1987 he was still at the top of his game and he gives an excellent performance as the film's antagonist - the only complaint being that he's probably not in it enough, seeing as he - like the real life Al Capone - spent most of his life hiding in one luxury dwelling to the next.  Kevin Costner was a gamble for the lead.  This was before he was Robin Hood and his Box Office draw was questionable at the time as to whether he could headline such a big budget film.  However, the film-makers made up for this by casting Sean Connery as his right-hand man (and, in doing so, helped market the film on the former Bond's inclusion).  There's a young Andy Garcia in there too, but it's DeNiro, Costner and Connery who you're going to be the most interested in.

Overall, it's a highly-entertaining gangster movie.  Yes, it probably condenses more action into the film than should probably be there, but it makes it all the more entertaining for doing so.  You probably don't have to be that into gangster/crime movies to appreciate this - definitely holds up to this day.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather