DIRECTED BY
John Hough
STARRING
Romy Windsor - Marie Adams
Michael T. Weiss - Richard Adams
Suzanne Severeid - Sister Janice
Anthony Hamilton - Tom Billings
Lamya Derval - Eleanor
Dennis Folbigge - Dr. Coombes
Norman Anstey - Sheriff
Genre - Horror/Mystery/Werewolves
Running Time - 88 Minutes
I haven't reviewed a werewolf movie in a while, so I decided that for the last entry for Sequel September II, I would step back into the HOWLING franchise. As some of you know, I'm a fan of the original 1981 THE HOWLING starring Dee Wallace. It's not as good as AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, which came out the same year, but it's a well-told werewolf story with great looking lycans and a memorable atmosphere. But very quickly, the installments released afterwards just went downhill.
THE HOWLING II: YOUR SISTER IS A WEREWOLF is a terrible movie. The acting is bad. The direction isn't all that stimulating. The story is beyond stupid. But at least it has Reb Brown, Christopher Lee, and Sybil Danning [who shows her boobs quite a lot] helping make the film memorable and worth a watch just to laugh. Then HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS was released, involving a hybrid of werewolves and kangaroos. It's even worse than YOUR SISTER IS A WEREWOLF, but at least it tries to do something different from the standard werewolf narrative.
And then we have HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE. Acting like a sequel, it's really a remake [or reboot] in disguise - as it pretty much tells the story from the original film, but in a way that's closer to the novel written by Gary Brandner. Oh man, if I were Mr. Brandner, I would have shot anyone involved with this production with a silver bullet. HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE is probably the worst sequel I've watched for this month's theme. Just a really pointless exercise of torture if you ask me. How can a more faithful rendition of the original story actually be WORSE than the film loosely based on the same story? Not even the full moon knows.
PLOT
Marie (Romy Windsor) is an author who seems to be struggling with some nightmares and visions - bad enough to send her to a hospital. She continues to see a frightened nun (Megan Kruskal) and werewolves surrounded by fire, not sure what to make of each. Since her doctor believes that she's just stressed out by her overacting imagination [he sure sounds like a duck...], Marie's husband Richard (Michael T. Weiss) has decided to take her to a small town named Drago [I must break you...] to relax for a few weeks. However due to the strange townspeople in Drago, and Richard's sudden attraction to one of them (Lamya Derval), these visions just get more intense until she slowly realizes she's in werewolf territory.
Hmmm...I think I may have seen this movie before.
REVIEW
I have three words for HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE:
WHAT THE FUCK!?
I will give the filmmakers this: one of the words in the full title definitely describes this abysmal sequel. It's like a bad dream you can't wake yourself up from for 88 minutes. Who in the hell thought that remaking the original HOWLING would solve the franchise's problems? Especially when this film just makes the first film that much better than I had thought it was prior to watching it! As a sequel, it sucks. As a remake, it's even worse. I've seen a lot of bad sequels before and during my blogging days. HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE is definitely near the front of the line.
There's really no point in going in depth in terms of the narrative. It's the same fucking movie as the first film. Just with lamer special effects [although they are the film's only highlights], worse acting, a duller script, and inept direction.
- Main character gets a nervous breakdown.
- Her husband decides to help her go to a small, quiet town to relax and live life stress free for a while.
- The townspeople are all weird and creepy, creating a mystery for the town's secret.
- One of the characters is a big ol' whore who seduces the main character's husband and turns him into a werewolf during sex.
- The main character, getting some sort of lead from an outside source, realizes she's surrounded by werewolves, and seems to be the only one who can stop them.
Gee, I wonder how this will all turn out...?
Seriously, if I wanted to watch this story play out on screen, I'd watch Joe Dante's THE HOWLING. At least that film had a genuine mystery, great actors, cool visuals, and a quick pace. This film is the total opposite and a total failure. It's funny how the more faithful adaptation is a total snorefest.
We do get some different takes on certain plot points that weren't in the first HOWLING. There's a character named Ben, who I believe may or may not be Australian [depending on which scene he's in]. He's Marie's co-worker and potential love interest, even though Marie's married to Richard. Ben isn't subtle with his feelings, although Marie is totally clueless. Honestly, Ben doesn't add much to the film but putting a slight wedge between Marie and Richard. And even that doesn't go anywhere. What a waste of a character.
There's also Sister Ruth, who seems to have been a victim of Drago. Even though she's dead, she appears to Marie and warns her like some nut to get out of town. Janice, who used to be a nun with Ruth, acts as the person who figures out the legend before anyone else, although it takes 70 minutes for Marie to actually believe the only smart person in the movie. I will admit that Janice is probably the best character in the film by default, only because I didn't want her dead right away [even though I wanted it to happen eventually just because she's in this God-awful flick!]. Still, at least there was one character who didn't give me the urge to roll my eyes.
My biggest issue with the screenplay is the attempt to create some sort of great mystery that didn't need to even exist. In the original film, the mystery worked because the theme of the "howling" meant more than just standard werewolves. It was a metaphor for the beast within all of us. There was subtext in terms of the wolves, as well as the mystery of what they looked like. By the time you get to PART FOUR, what's the mystery? The werewolves?? THERE'S A FUCKING WEREWOLF ON THE COVER! I KNOW WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT! WHY ARE YOU MAKING THESE CHARACTERS SO FUCKING STUPID JUST TO SELL A NON-MYSTERY?? AND WHY IS THE MYSTERY SO BORING?? AND WHY AREN'T THE CHARACTERS SMARTER OR MORE SUBTLE ABOUT IT?? WHY?????
...Sorry. My brain overloaded on the stupidity and pointlessness of this screenplay. Seriously, you don't see werewolves until the last 10 minutes because the supposed mystery is building to their presence - even though you know you're watching a HOWLING sequel, which is a franchise centered on fucking werewolves.
FUCK THIS SCRIPT. I CAN'T EVEN...
The best moments in the film involve the special effects work. They're not super duper amazing or anything. But compared to everything else, it's pretty memorable for the right reasons. The werewolves look pretty good, that is when you can really see them, and the melting scene with Michael T. Weiss is pretty awesome. Too bad these effects happen way too late. I'm sure most people won't even bother getting to these scenes due to turning the film off out of boredom. Skip to the last 20 minutes if you want to see the good stuff.
The direction by John Hough is terrible. I can't believe this is the same man who directed 1973's THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. There's nothing interesting about this movie visually. There's a ton of filler. The pacing is molasses. It's pretty much a point-and-shoot affair. There's nothing stylish or slightly inventive about HOWLING IV. No atmosphere. No tension. Hell, even the editing and continuity between shots are terrible. Just because a film is low budget and filmed to go straight to video doesn't mean it has to suck. But this film definitely does.
The acting is no better really. Romy Windsor isn't captivating enough as an actress to really carry a film like this. She doesn't react to things realistically enough and comes across looking like an airhead due to the bad direction and her character portrayal. I'm sure she's a better actress than this, but this was not Windsor's role. Worse is Michael T. Weiss as Richard. Best known for his lead role on TV's The Pretender, Weiss makes a robot look more human than he does. He's just really bland. Suzanne Severeid as Sister Janice was okay, but not given anything interesting to do. Anthony Hamilton as Tom Billings may make the women swoon with his accent and his good looks. But his acting is the equivalent of watching paint dry. Just terrible. Nobody in this movie comes out smelling like a rose. Bad script + Bad acting = God-awful movie.
THE FINAL HOWL
There are a few worse sequels than HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE. I honestly don't know what anyone was thinking while filming this. The story, which is the same as the original film, is just lifeless, pointless, and terribly written. The direction by John Hough is awful. The acting is miserable. Besides the special effects, there's nothing worth watching about one of the worst horror sequels I have ever had the displeasure to watch. I couldn't recommend a movie less. This is one full moon worth skipping for sure.
SCORE
0.5 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
Don Mancini
STARRING
Jennifer Tilly - Herself/Voice of Tiffany
Brad Dourif - Voice of Chucky
Billy Boyd - Voice of Glen/Glenda Ray
Hannan Spearritt - Joan
Redman - Himself
John Waters - Pete Peters
Jason Flemyng - Himself/Santa
Steve Lawton - Stan
Genre - Horror/Comedy/Supernatural/Slasher
Running Time - 84 Minutes
PLOT
Glen/Glenda (Voiced by Billy Boyd) is a living doll who has no idea whether he's a boy or a girl. Not only that, but he's been trying to search for his parents while being abused as a ventriloquist dummy in Europe. He's also been having nightmares about murdering people, which comes to be a shock to him since he's so polite and peaceful.
While watching television, Glen/Glenda notices that Hollywood is filming a movie based on the lives of serial killing doll couple Chucky (Voiced by Brad Dourif) and Tiffany (Voiced by Jennifer Tilly). Noticing a resemblance, Glen/Glenda quickly packs his things, escapes, and leaves for Hollywood to reunite with his parents. What he doesn't realize is that Chucky and Tiffany are animatronic puppets being used for the film, which stars Academy Award nominated actress Jennifer Tilly in the lead role - who feels her talent is being wasted in such drivel while Julia Roberts steals all of her roles.
Glen/Glenda encounters the puppets, uses the voodoo amulet that transfers souls into bodies, and reads the words. This awakens both Chucky and Tiffany, making them pick up where they last left off. Chucky, wanting Glen to be a boy, decides to teach him how to kill. Tiffany, wanting Glenda to be a girl, tries to stop killing but feels addicted to the act of violence. What Chucky and Tiffany do agree on is that they want to transfer their souls to Jennifer Tilly, Redman, and get Tilly pregnant with Chucky's sperm to transfer Glen/Glenda's soul into the baby.
REVIEW
SEED OF CHUCKY has to be one of the most surreal sequels in any horror film franchise. Let's get this out of the way - while BRIDE OF CHUCKY had enough tension and terror to still be considered horror even with all the humor that surrounded the story, SEED OF CHUCKY drops the horror and plays the story strictly for laughs and shock value. While BRIDE OF CHUCKY managed to balance the horror and comedy quite well, making it successful, SEED OF CHUCKY tips the film too much into comedy that it loses the essence of the CHILD'S PLAY franchise. This wouldn't be too much of an issue if SEED OF CHUCKY was hilarious from beginning to end. But the film isn't, which pretty much showcases the many flaws this film possesses.
The biggest issue I have with SEED OF CHUCKY is the character of Glen/Glenda. I get that he's supposed to pay homage to Ed Wood's 1953 film GLEN OR GLENDA - which was a movie with themes of cross-dressing, gender bending, and transexuality. I get that he's supposed to be similar to Norman Bates, who is repulse by his parents murder but dresses like his mother while committing similar acts. I get that the whole Glen or Glenda issue is a running gag and a plot device to create a rift between Chucky's and Tiffany's relationship. But the character him/herself really does nothing for me. It's a shame that two huge personalities like Chucky and Tiffany have such a drag [no pun intended] of a child like Glen/Glenda. The film is really narrated through his eyes, as he struggles with his genetic code to kill by watching his parents commit acts of murder. Glen/Glenda takes away much of the focus of the film for me, since Chucky's and Tiffany's eventual actions are for him. Chucky wants to make Glen masculine by teaching him how to kill. And Tiffany wants to domesticate Glenda by steering him away from that, although she has trouble making that happen. I guess this is all supposed to be comical in some way, but I barely chuckled during the Glen scenes. It takes an interesting theme that commentates on the superficiality of Hollywood and turns it into a spoof of some reality show that involves a dysfunctional family who don't really see eye-to-eye. I'm glad to hear that Glen is pretty much disposed off in CURSE OF CHUCKY because, while an interesting idea that goes back to the Universal Monster days, it's executed poorly.
Honestly, the humor comes from the meta-narrative that makes fun of Hollywood and the media. The best moments come from Jennifer Tilly's role as herself. The fact that she allowed herself to be the butt of so many mean and cruel jokes just for laughs makes me respect this actress more. She comes across as a conceited, high-maintenance bitch who believes her star should shine brighter than most other actresses, feeling that starring in a horror movie is beneath her talent. The running gag with Julia Roberts stealing her roles is pretty funny. Tilly mentions she could have played Erin Brocovich without a wonder bra, and learns Roberts is the #1 choice to play the Virgin Mary in a film directed by rapper Redman, of all people. Ironically, Tilly pretty much entices Redman with sex to play a woman of purity. I also enjoyed the BOUND reference to get Redman aroused more. Plus, Tilly is beaten with a bunch of fat jokes and food references - which were based on Tilly's personal feelings on losing some weight before filming SEED OF CHUCKY to look more "Hollywood". In a lot of ways, Tilly is the star of the film and sometimes overshadows Chucky and family. The first half of the film is strong because the focus is mainly on Tilly's "life" and the stereotype she plays up to. I really enjoyed this portion of the film because the humor didn't feel forced. Tilly went along with everything, which made the plot device work.
I also enjoy the commentary on the media when it comes to celebrities and serial killers. There's a film being made about Chucky and Tiffany, which seems to celebrate their actions rather than condemn the two. The paparazzi harass Jennifer Tilly about the murder of a special effects man, asking about grisly details about what she saw. Ironically, Tilly uses it to gain some publicity and attention for herself. A paparazzo, Pete Peters played by John Waters, spies on Jennifer Tilly in a compromising position with Redman for a tabloid scoop. The joke leads into Peters filming Chucky masturbate into a cup, getting excited about a little person playing with himself in Jennifer Tilly's house in one of the funnier moments of SEED OF CHUCKY. The fact that Waters is filming something to twisted makes the joke work better than it ought to, because it's so his style. While a bit juvenile at times, SEED OF CHUCKY does have some clever and witty stuff going for it.
I did think the last act was pretty weak though. It's when the jokes start to run out of steam, as the focus is on Tilly's pregnancy and the possession angle. Sure we get a PSYCHO moment with Glen, and even a THE SHINING reference with Chucky and an axe. But there's a lot going on and writer/director/co-creator of CHILD'S PLAY Don Mancini seems to want to tell multiple stories by sacrificing some logic and even believable characterization. Tilly's pregnancy and then her desperation to see her babies feels a bit forced since she wasn't pregnant all that long. Glen's split personality would have been great if it were established from the start. Just because a character has nightmares about murder doesn't mean he/she is going to become one. The stuff with the possession towards the end is a bit murky, although I did get what happened. And even the final moments just feel tacked on to leave it open for another sequel. I can't say I wasn't entertained by most of this portion of the film. But I wish it was told better and given more weight. The Glen/Glenda stuff gets old by this point, and watching Chucky and Tiffany want to kill each other again was already done in BRIDE OF CHUCKY. I find it odd that Chucky would rather stay a doll with notoriety than become human again - especially when this has been his M.O. for the previous FOUR films! I think Mancini could have pushed the envelope more with the pregnancy stuff like he did with most topics in the first half of the film. It felt too safe and predictable towards the end.
By the way, the Britney Spears moment still gets a kick out of me. So stupid, yet pretty funny.
SEED OF CHUCKY isn't really a horror film, but the gore still remains. The highlight has to be the decapitation scene right after Chucky and Tiffany are revived by Glen/Glenda. The way the head moves upwards toward the screen makes it made for 3D if the recent fad had been around at the time. We also get stabbings, acid to the face, a person being gutted from the groin up to the abdomen - revealing guts, and the Britney Spears car crash. For a film that steers away from the horror, it sure loves displaying vicious carnage. Not sure how violent CURSE OF CHUCKY is, but SEED is definitely the most brutal of the first five films.
The direction by Don Mancini is better than his hand at storytelling. I thought he directed SEED OF CHUCKY like a pro. I loved the style of the camera movements and how things were lit and framed. There is a bit of atmosphere, although the tone is much lighter. The pacing was very good, as the film never wore out its welcome. I wish someone else had helped him with the screenplay, but he did really well visualizing his project.
The acting is alright here. Brad Dourif can play Chucky in his sleep at this point. Jennifer Tilly nailed both roles she played really well. She was a great sport for letting Mancini make fun of her. And I agree with Chucky - she does have great ta-tas. Billy Boyd was good as Glen/Glenda, although I'm not a fan of the character. Former S Club 7 member Hannah Spearritt was decent as Joan. I wish they had given her more to do because her arc seemed flat. Redman was Redman. He didn't impress me all that much, but I didn't think he was all that terrible. John Waters is perfect as the sleazy paparazzo. That dude is awesome no matter what he does.
THE FINAL HOWL
I get why a lot of people look down on SEED OF CHUCKY. Out of all the CHILD'S PLAY films, it's the most different in terms of tone, atmosphere, and even genre as it focuses more on comedy than on horror. I hated this film when I watched it years ago, but I enjoyed myself after a re-watch. Still, it takes the humor a bit too far, as a lot of the jokes are a mixed bag. But even with its uneven screenplay, the direction is good, the acting is above average [Jennifer Tilly is pretty great in this], and the violence is pretty brutal when it happens. Not as good as BRIDE OF CHUCKY, but definitely better than CHILD'S PLAY 3. Still, I'm glad CURSE OF CHUCKY has brought the franchise closer to its horror roots, as SEED OF CHUCKY is a decent experiment at something different that doesn't completely work.
SCORE
2.5 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
Ronny Yu
STARRING
Jennifer Tilly - Tiffany
Brad Dourif - Chucky
Katherine Heigl - Jade
Nick Stabile - Jesse
Alexis Arquette - Damien Baylock
Gordon Michael Woolvett - David Collins
John Ritter - Chief Warren Kincaid
Genre - Horror/Comedy/Supernatural/Slasher
Running Time - 89 Minutes
PLOT
A busty blonde named Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) bribes a cop to steal the doll remains of Charles Lee Ray a.k.a Chucky. Apparently Tiffany was Chucky's long-time girlfriend when he was human, and she wants to reunite with him in some way by bringing him back to life. Since Chucky was left in pieces after the events of CHILD'S PLAY 3, Tiffany stitches him back up and does some voodoo to bring his soul back.
When Chucky murders a wannabe paramour of Tiffany's (Alexis Arquette) in front of her, she's ecstatic that her spell worked. But when Chucky realizes that his doll body won't be able to do much with Tiffany's adult body [especially when she treats him like an actual doll, which upsets him greatly], Chucky murders Tiffany and transfers her soul into a female doll. While Tiffany is upset at first, she makes the most of it due to her love for Chucky.
Chucky and Tiffany, wanting to get rid of some dead bodies, learn along the way that an amulet needed to transfer souls into human bodies has been buried in Chucky's human grave. And due to the murders, which has Chucky's fingerprints on the bodies, the authorities plan on exhuming Charles Lee Ray's body. Using a pair of young lovers (Katherine Heigl and Nick Stabile) who want to get away to get married, Chucky and Tiffany hitch a ride to New Jersey where the amulet is located to start their new lives once they take over the bodies of the unsuspecting young couple.
REVIEW
Since CURSE OF CHUCKY is finally out on VOD, and will be out on DVD and Blu in October, I figured it's the right time to discuss the last two sequels prior to CURSE's release - BRIDE OF CHUCKY and SEED OF CHUCKY [next review]. That being said, I still don't understand why so many horror fans look down on BRIDE OF CHUCKY. Even when I had first watched the film back in 1998, I thought this was definitely a huge upgrade from the disappointing third installment from 1991. Maybe it's because BRIDE OF CHUCKY has the SCREAM effect - a horror film that's so aware of itself, that it tends to be more of a comedy with a wink to its audience rather than a scary movie. I can see why a certain audience would turn their nose up at that. But BRIDE OF CHUCKY, even 15 years later, is still a fun, entertaining, and even clever film that gives the CHILD'S PLAY franchise a fresh coat of paint it needed once the Andy Barclay story was done.
Seriously, was anyone scared of Chucky by this point anyway? Hell, he was on an episode of WCW Monday Nitro to promote this damn movie! How is anyone going to take this character seriously? I think it was a great idea to make him a bit more comedic, while keeping a bit of that sadistic side we fans grew to love. Add in a doll love interest in Tiffany, and you have Chucky feeling fresh again because he has new motivations and a backstory to now play with, even if it is for laughs.
Speaking of Tiffany, it's interesting to see the type of woman Chucky would be in love with. She doesn't take Chucky's crap, which makes Chucky fall more in love with her, as well as having a bigger urge to kill her when she steps in his way. Their Bonnie and Clyde relationship is pretty much a realistic portrait of most couples out there - two people in love with each other who constantly fight to maintain some level of power over the other. Sure, most couples don't consist of two serial killers. But the fact that they're dysfunctional makes him easy to identify with. This is also helped by the two human characters, Jade and Jesse, who display this idealistic portrait of two people in love. They come together stronger when outside forces want them apart. When bodies pile up around them, they doubt each other's involvement, yet still love each other and end up getting married. In fact, their relationship is one that Tiffany has always dreamed about. But like a lot of women, she ended up with the bad boy she thought she could change, but couldn't. I've read and heard a lot of people knock the Jade and Jesse characters because they claim the two don't add much to the film other than a plot device for two shells that Chucky and Tiffany want to transfer their souls into. But the couple is there to differentiate the Chucky-Tiffany partnership, giving us a look at the couple they want to be, but never will due to their past and bad habits.
I will say that other than Chucky and Tiffany really, the other characters don't really have much characterization. Jade and Jesse are likeable, and I love how they doubt each other when the authorities believe one or both are behind the murders. But we don't really know much about them besides the fact that they come from two different worlds and her family wants to drive them apart - like Romeo & Juliet. But they're really supporting characters to two dolls who have 10 times the personality they each contain. David, the best friend, is the voice of reason and gay, which gives him his personality stereotypically. Chief Kinkaid is just a prick who wants to control his neice, Jade. There's nothing much to any of these people. It's the Chucky and Tiffany show.
Also, why do Chucky and Tiffany need this special amulet to transfer their souls anyway? I remember Chucky doing pretty damn well without it in the previous films. I get that there would be no story without this motivation, but it feels kind of forced.
I do like the homages to other horror films in BRIDE OF CHUCKY. There's the obvious BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN reference [the film is actually playing on television] during Tiffany's death scene which leads to her soul being transferred into the doll. The opening sequence, inside the police evidence room, shows Freddy Krueger's glove, Jason Voorhees' hockey mask, and Michael Myers' William Shatner mask as items. And John Ritter's death scene involves nails that impale his face, making him resemble HELLRAISER's Pinhead. All of this is done tongue-in-cheek, which makes it work really well.
BRIDE OF CHUCKY is pretty bloody for a horror-comedy. I thought John Ritter's demise was pretty fun to watch. I love the mirror murder inside the hotel, as Tiffany throws a bottle of champagne towards a ceiling mirror, which shatters and stabs the couple to death who were laying below it. And the best one had to be the truck accident that splatters a character into pieces as it rams into him. Of course, both Chucky and Tiffany get beat up as only these dolls could as well. I thought the death sequences were visualized extremely well.
Ronny Yu, who would later direct FREDDY VS. JASON, really breathes new life into the franchise through his visuals. Yu injects a ton of style in this film, with bluish tints, crazy angles, and adding a rock/metal soundtrack that energizes the scene it accompanies. The pacing is wonderful, the editing is slick, and the picture quality is quite nice. I also thought the CGI effects were done believably. While there's no real suspense or tension, BRIDE OF CHUCKY isn't meant to be a true slasher/horror film anyway. I thought Yu gave the film a ton of energy that made it fun to watch.
The acting is decent enough for the film, to the point where it doesn't really drag it down. Brad Dourif reprises his voice role as Chucky, which always puts a smile on his face. He's the only actor I can picture voicing the character. Dourif's voice alone gives Chucky a ton of personality and charisma. Jennifer Tilly looks great, and her helium voice fits Tiffany well. I thought Dourif and Tilly had nice voice chemistry with each other, making their banter a hoot at times. Nick Stabile and Katherine Heigl are decent in their roles of Jesse and Jade. Stabile comes from the world of soap operas, so he's really in the film because he looks great without a shirt. Heigl fares better, as this role led to her being cast in Roswell a year later. Too bad her ego pretty much ruined her career in recent times. Gordon Michael Woolvett is pretty good as David, who has a memorable exit. Nice appearance by Alexis Arquette as a wannabe goth boyfriend for Tiffany. And the late, great John Ritter is fantastic as the evil Chief Warren. I really miss that dude.
THE FINAL HOWL
A lot of fans consider BRIDE OF CHUCKY the downfall of the franchise. However, I think it revived it and reboots the series into a different direction. The script is funny and aware of itself. The death sequences are pretty neat. Ronny Yu's direction is fun and energetic. And the acting isn't all that bad. Sure it's not a slasher film like the first three CHILD'S PLAY's that came before it, but I respect that the film took a risk in turning into something more of a horror-comedy that poked fun at itself. I think BRIDE OF CHUCKY is a fine sequel that I still enjoy quite a great deal. It's a stupid movie, but it's a stupid movie that made me laugh for 89 minutes. It doesn't go too over the top with its subject matter, which unfortunately will be something to discuss when I get to the next sequel in the franchise.
SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
Damiano Damiani
STARRING
James Olson - Father Tom Adamski
Jack Magner - Sonny Montelli
Burt Young - Anthony Montelli
Rutanya Alda - Delores Montelli
Diane Franklin - Patricia Montelli
Moses Gunn - Detective Turner
Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Haunted House
Running Time - 100 Minutes
I think I've made it pretty clear on this blog that I'm not a fan of the successful and overrated 1979 film, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. I don't get how this supposed true story about a haunted house that drove people crazy enough to murder their own members of their family has become so darn popular, that it spawned multiple sequels, books, and even a recent documentary. While I'm sure the story itself and the novel that grew from it frightened people at the time, I just roll my eyes at the whole "franchise" now - especially when many have proven the story was pretty much made up for publicity.
Out of eight original films and a 2005 remake, I've only really been a fan of two of them [although I'm sure I'll enjoy some of the other films after a re-watch, as I remember some of them being sort of guilty pleasures at times]. One, being the Ryan Reynolds remake that I actually enjoyed more than the James Brolin/Margot Kidder original that bores me to no end. And the second one happens to be the film I'm reviewing here - AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION. Whether or not it's really a prequel or a sequel [I'll get into that issue later] to the first film, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that AMITYVILLE II takes what the first film had set up and really kicks it in the ass. It's rare for horror sequels to be better than the first movie. But AMITYVILLE II happens to be one of those exceptions. Screw the Lutz family! Give me some of that Montelli drama any day of the week!
PLOT
Supposedly taking place before the events of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, we witness the story of the previous family that had lived in the house - the Montelli's. Right from the start, things don't look all that great - especially when the patriarch, Anthony (Burt Young), is nothing but a Debbie Downer who takes out his anger physically and verbally on his wife (Rutanya Alda) and his children. It's his eldest son, Sonny (Jack Magner), who feels the blunt of it, causing tension within the family. The kid may be smiling on the outside, but he's miserable emotionally and mentally due to his abusive father.
As the family moves into the house, the demonic spirits that live inside begin to prey on every weakness the family has. Things move around by themselves. The spirits draw on walls, calling the family "pigs". The spirits sexually touch the mother, who has been feeling sexually deprived for a long time. The eldest sister, Patricia (Diane Franklin), starts feeling seduced by their presence. And Sonny begins hearing demonic voices telling him to kill through his Walkman.
Slowly but surely, the house begins to possess Sonny, as he's the angriest of the entire family. Now under the influence of evil, Sonny wastes no time molesting his sister, confusing her sexually. He also gets more violent with his father, who the demons want dead. Delores [the mom] and Patricia begin seeking the guidance of a local priest, Father Adamsky (James Olson), to bless and cleanse the house. However, his holy presence just makes things worse - eventually making him realize that Sonny is a vessel for the house's evil. Can Adamsky exorcise the spirit out of Sonny in time, or is the entire Montelli family doomed?
REVIEW
THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is a slow paced, subtle thriller that wants to be scary. However, it ends up feeling dry - presenting a boring tale that's less about George Lutz being possessed by evil and more about the Church's feelings on the matter [which was presented in a pretty bad light]. AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION doesn't waste time on those sort of things. It just wants to creep you out through striking visuals, gross special effects, and a fast paced narrative that will keep you entertained for 100 minutes. In that sense, this sequel is a winner and a much needed improvement over the 1979 overrated "classic".
The first two films in the franchise are really presented differently due to each being a product of its time. The first film, which was capitalizing on the demonic craze that took over pop culture and the news during the 1970s [THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, etc.], wanted to create a haunted house story in which the evil was everywhere and couldn't be stopped by any force of good. This sequel is an obvious product of the early 1980s. The special effects are more elaborate and gross. The presence of evil is more subjective and concentrated on one single individual [Sonny], giving it strength to prey on the other members of Sonny's family.
We don't see the evil really in the first film. Sure, George Lutz is possessed and treats his family like a grade A jerk. But you never really feel a true threat to the Lutz family. They were also allowed to escape the house, which seemed to destroy any evil influence on them. In this film, the evil is more powerful, angrier, and truly a threat not only to the Montelli family, but anyone preaching the word of God. The fact that when the night Sonny must murder the rest of his family, the house shuts itself so no one can get in and get out, make AMITYVILLE II must creepier and bleaker than its predecessor. I think it also helps that this film is loosely based on the Ronald DeFeo Jr. story, in which DeFeo murdered his entire family in 1974 - claiming he had been possessed by an evil spirit from within the house that made him do the deed [although there hasn't been any proof]. But really, AMITYVILLE II just feels like a better haunted house/possession film than the original THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. It's not just because we really see the effects of the situation, but because more is done with the situation that makes us invested in it more. The sequel doesn't take itself as seriously, making it a bit more horrific, yet fun, as well.
I think Tommy Lee Wallace, who had written the screenplay, was also influenced by other films that were very popular at the time. The possession element is obviously a take from 1973's THE EXORCIST. In fact, the last minutes of the film are pretty much the greatest hits of that very film, where the priest going against The Church to exorcise the spirit out of Sonny, who pretty much talks dirty at him and reveals the priest's sinful thoughts about Sonny's younger sister, Patricia [Father Adamsky wanted to deflower her, but Sonny got there first]. There's even the obligatory scene where Father Adamsky wants to the spirit to enter his body to save Sonny. While it's inferior to THE EXORCIST on every level, at least it works within the context of the story and leaves the film on a downbeat note.
Wallace also turns AMITYVILLE II into a slasher film of sorts at times. While not a traditional one like HALLOWEEN or FRIDAY THE 13TH, you can clearly see some of the tropes being used. We get the first person point of view by the villain. We see members of the family being stalked and bothered by the evil presence. And we get the chilling scene of Sonny going after each member of his family with a shotgun, killing them one by one to satisfy the demonic force. It's not really a surprise since Wallace was part of the creation for the 1978 HALLOWEEN that he would present some of the story in such a way.
There's also a subplot similar to POLTERGEIST, which was released a few months before AMITYVILLE II. I'm sure POLTERGEIST wasn't an influence for the house being built on top of a burial ground of sorts. But it's interesting that both films had a similar reason for the demonic spirits around the same time.
I also gotta admire Wallace for taking things to the lengths that he does within the narrative. The main character actually murders his family in the middle act, which one would believe could be a character's thoughts or dream. In fact, Father Adamsky [who was actually seeing this violence in his sleep] wakes up startled in the next scene and decides to go to the house to check up on things. Then we learn that the events we witnessed really did happen, leading to the entire third act of the film. I think the fact that the murders weren't fabricated makes their timing more shocking and effective. I liked that it wasn't placed at the end, which would have been very predictable.
I also feel the sexual content must have really made some people uncomfortable back in 1982. The evil spirit sexually caresses the matriarch, Delores, who hasn't been with her husband that way in many years. And then the spirit, now possessing Sonny, seduces his sister Patricia into getting naked and eventually having sex with her. Incest is always a touchy subject, but it's a subject that's usually implied or teased, rather than actually accomplished. But the incest really raises the drama for Patricia and Delores. Patricia, who feels it was wrong to sleep with Sonny, still feels attracted to him in some way. And Delores, noticing how Sonny would caress Patricia, is not only repulsed by the sin, but almost seems jealous that her daughter is getting some action while she's in a dry spell. Add in the fact that Father Adamsky is revealed to also have lustful feelings for Patricia, an underage girl, and you got yourself a twisted soap opera that I was entertained by.
There's also some other subject matter, like Anthony Montelli being a real bastard to his family. The guy wasn't even possessed, and he was ready to whip his children with a belt because of the mess the house made in their presence. Hell, he even treated Father Adamsky like crap. I get that he was an atheist, but some respect would have been nice. Who would want Sonny to spare this asshole? It's no wonder he was the first person to go. I also found the scene where the younger sister covers her brother's head with a plastic bag as a joke. It was a bit morbid, especially since something like that can kill someone. I'm guessing Wallace put this in the story for shock value. Well it worked.
Do I have any issues with the story? Oh, absolutely. While I think Wallace was cool in using other films as an influence on the screenplay, it does come across as a bit derivative of better films. I have nothing against unoriginality [who can be original these days?], but I felt that the inspirations were a bit too on-the-nose. THE EXORCIST moment played out exactly like THE EXORCIST. Did the house really need to be built on a burial ground like POLTERGEIST? And what was up with the transformation that almost resembled something out of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON? In fact, much of the ending tended to rely on the presence of other films in order to finish the story. Honestly, much of the final act [which I didn't hate] had a much different tone and feel to the hour that came before it. It was like watching two different films that really didn't go together. Was it a complete failure? Not at all. But some of it felt forced just to capitalize on the horror trends that were still popular at the time.
I also didn't have much sympathy for the characters, which probably made the film more entertaining on a superficial level for me. The parents weren't that likeable. Anthony was an abusive prick, while Delores was too passive about the situation that made her hard to root for. The children weren't developed all that much. Sonny was only interesting once the demon possessed him. Patricia was just a tool to have someone pure being corrupted by the evil around here. Even Father Adamsky was revealed to be a pervert by the end, even though he was a good match for Sonny. I guess we weren't supposed to care about any of these people since they were nothing but lambs to the slaughter anyway. Still, I found the Lutz family more likeable, even if they were as dull as watching paint dry.
By the way, when does this film even take place? It's supposedly a prequel to THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, which is obviously taking place in the 1970s. But we see 80s cars, 80s fashion, and even a Walkman that throw away any sort of time continuity between the first two films. There's still a debate whether this film is really a sequel and not a prequel, although the events in this film reveal what happened inside of the house before the Lutz family had moved in. Call it a big goof, I guess.
The special effects in AMITYVILLE II are definitely a step-above anything presented in the first film. While a brutal film, the film isn't particularly gory until the end. Obviously influenced by Rick Baker's and Rob Bottin's works on AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING respectively, While the work of Glen Robinson, John Caglione, Stephen DuPuis, and Ed French don't come close to the imagination of Baker and Bottin, the visual spectacle of watching Sonny being possessed is quite interesting. Mainly, the special effects are just skin bubbling underneath the surface on the hands, neck, and even face. The biggest effect happens at the end, where Sonny's face begins to erode into a demonic form that was hiding underneath the shell. Not sure if it was actually needed, but I can definitely admire the hard work that went into it. Other than that, it's not really a violent film. Even the scene where Sonny shoots down his family is more implied than anything, with blood splatter here and there.
The direction by Damiano Damiani, in his first and only English speaking movie, is pretty damn good. With editor Sam O'Steen on his side [he edited ROSEMARY'S BABY], AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION flows better than expected. The picture looked good. The shot scales, composition, and framing were on the mark. The pacing is well done, as the film breezes by. And there's a ton of style visually, with Damiani's love for first person point-of-view shots and 360 degree overheads. It's a visually engaging film that feels more kinetic than the first one.
The acting is good in AMITYVILLE II as well. Burt Young, of ROCKY fame, is fun to watch as the abusive father, Anthony. He's pretty much Uncle Paulie, but with more Ike Turner in him. James Olson is a very good actor as Father Adamsky. He had some ridiculous dialogue at times, but he made it work for his character. Jake Magner carried the film very well as Sonny. I really like the conflict Magner displayed, although he was more fun to watch as a possessed shell for a demon. Diane Franklin is really cute, and quite convincing as the innocent Patricia. And Rutanya Alda is a bit melodramatic for my tastes as Delores. But she wasn't in the film all that much to be annoying, so I'll let it slide.
THE FINAL HOWL
I honestly consider AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION the best installment of a pretty uneven franchise in terms of quality. It does have continuity, tone, and even some character issues. But it's a more entertainingly twisted version of the first film, now with influences from THE EXORCIST, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and even a bit of POLTERGEIST towards the end. The possession angle is played with well, the direction is very strong and stylish, and the actors really elevate what could have been a piece of pure schlock. It's a sequel that may turn people off due to issues of abuse and incest that play a big role in the narrative. But along with the 2005 THE AMITYVILLE HORROR remake, AMITYVILLE II is probably the only time I don't regret spending time in this stupid haunted house. Compared to the first film, this sequel is the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition the franchise really needed at the time.
SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
Brian Yuzna
STARRING
J. Trevor Edmond - Curt Reynolds
Melinda "Mindy" Clarke - Julie Walker
Kent McCord - Colonel John Reynolds
Basil Wallace - Riverman
Sarah Douglas - Lieutenant-Colonel Sinclair
Mike Moroff - Santos
Pia Reyes - Alicia
Sal Lopez - Felipe
Fabio Urena - Mogo
Genre - Horror/Zombies
Running Time - 96 Minutes
PLOT
Curt Reynolds (J. Trevor Edmond) is the rebellious son of Colonel Reynolds (Kent McCord), the head of researching the military chemical Trioxin, which is able to bring back the dead to life. Apparently, the military wants to use zombies as a force to combat opponents during potential wars. Hearing about a test that his father and colleagues are doing one night, Curt invites his girlfriend Julie (Melinda Clarke) to check it out. Sneaking in using his father's stolen security card, Curt and Julie watch as a corpse is re-animated with Trioxin, then shot with some sort of tranquilizer. However, the experiment fails and leaves a couple of causalities. With all the commotion, Julie and Curt escape.
Colonel Reynolds, upset that his experiment failed, learns that he's being transferred to another department. Curt is upset by the news, not wanting to move away from Julie or their friends. Curt and Julie angrily leave and ride their motorcycle down a road. However, Julie begins seducing Curt on the bike, causing them to crash. Curt is fine, but Julie hits a telephone pole, snapping her neck and killing her. Distraught, Curt decides to bring Julie back to the research facility to bring her back with Trioxin.
The Trioxin brings Julie back to life. But instead of getting the old Julie back, the current Julie doesn't feel like herself. Her skin is cold, her body aches, and she's hungry for brains and human flesh. After a bad incident where a gang shoots a grocery store clerk for money, Julie bites one of the members. Upset about this, the gang [as well as the alerted police] chase Curt and Julie off. The couple heads into the sewers, where they meet a homeless man named Riverman (Basil Wallace), who gives them shelter and advice. However, the gang finds them and wants revenge. But Julie, now having pierced her skin with metal to ease the pain, is starving for human flesh - with the gang as her targets. Will the gang satisfy Julie's hunger for good, or did Curt make the worst mistake of his life bringing Julie back from the dead?
REVIEW
HITS
- A more serious story. 1985's THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD is one of my favorite zombie films of all time - maybe even my most beloved due to its humor, soundtrack, and memorable moments [Tarman!]. And while many seem to dislike it, I still find RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD PART 2 to be pretty hilarious with its stupidity - although it's clearly inferior to the first film. RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 has no real connection to the first two films, besides the appearance and use of Trioxin. But it steers the franchise back in a more serious direction, which is actually refreshing since the first two films tended to rely on humor at times.
ROTLD 3 is pretty much the zombie version of Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet". They're a couple who will stop at nothing to be together - even if parents or death want to interfere. Even as a zombie, Julie refuses to satisfy her hungry for brains and flesh on Curt due to her love for him. And Curt, knowing Julie is a zombie he can't really control, refuses to abandon her. It's a totally different idea than what Dan O'Bannon had for the original film, but the franchise did need a welcome change. And I felt the love story angle really elevated the drama and the tension in ROTLD 3. I think the love story was especially helped by the fact that nothing bad would have gone down if Curt wasn't so selfish in bringing Julie back to life. Some may say he re-animated Julie for her sake. But Julie's resurrection was really for him to ease the guilt in being the reason she died in the first place. The fact that he couldn't help but criticize her zombie actions, thinking that she would return as she once was, made the angle stronger - as I could buy this dude being in denial when it came to his actions. Love can be a good thing, but it can also lead down a dark road that's hard to get off of. Love isn't perfect and is self-serving in many ways. Julie had to suffer with her metamorphosis just so Curt could feel better about things. It's true that we do hurt the ones we love.
And of course, we do get some zombie action. Julie begins biting people, which leads to a zombie outbreak outside the research center [as well as inside towards the end]. This goes back to Curt, again. Still, it's nice to see the zombies inside those Trioxin canisters again, as well as the experiments the military were doing with the gas. It explains why the zombies hunger for brains, and why they hurt themselves [to ease the pain of being dead]. It's a cool throwback to the other films that doesn't need to rely on humor to move the story forward.
- Mindy Clarke and the other actors. The actors take the material much more seriously, which really helped the surreal story work better than one would think. Melinda "Mindy" Clarke is just sensational as Julie. Not only is she super hot, pre- and post-zombie, but she's great at bringing out the emotion of being an unwilling participant in the zombie world. Her confusion to what she's hungry for, her struggle to not eat people because it scares her boyfriend, and her anger towards Curt for bringing her back are really believable. I think for those who only know Clarke for her roles on The O.C. and Nikita ought to check her out here. She's really good and carries the emotional weight of the film well.
The other actors are decent, but not as good as Clarke. But they all fill their roles to the best of their abilities. J. Trevor Edmond is pretty good as Curt. He also deals with the emotional stuff pretty well. I also thought he had good chemistry with Clarke, which elevated the love angle quite a great deal. Kent McCord as John Reynolds is okay at times, but too wooden during certain moments. Sarah Douglas didn't do much for me as Lt. Sinclair. Her performance seemed forced and off most of the time for me. Luckily, she wasn't in the film all that much. Basil Wallace is a bit over-the-top as Riverman, but I still thought he was pretty likeable. The actors who play the thugs, Mike Moroff and Sal Lopez, were good in their stereotypical roles. I thought the cast was alright for this sequel.
- Brian Yuzna's direction. Always a master in using smaller budgets to his advantage, Brian Yuzna does a fine job with ROTLD 3. His love for body horror is truly at play here, especially when it comes to the way the zombies are presented. Instead of the usual rising from the grave deal, the undead are treated like lab rats by the military. They're chained, prodded, and sometimes mutilated just to see how they would react. Julie, in particular, must stick herself with metal objects just to take the pain of being dead away - to the point where her body is mutilated with sharp objects sticking out. And Yuzna doesn't shy away from these moments. Sure, ROTLD 3 is pretty tame compared to his other works, like SOCIETY. But Yuzna's trademark is at play.
Also. Yuzna gives the film plenty of style, with cool angles, nice pacing and editing, and even some great tense moments towards the end. I also thought the quieter moments between Curt and Julie were visualized well. Just really strong filmmaking and a great move to steer away from what had established the franchise earlier. I've always been a fan of Yuzna's work, and ROTLD 3 is no exception.
MISSES
- The middle act. When it comes to filmmaking, it's always easy to write a beginning and write an ending. But that large chunk in the middle? Yeah, it can be a bitch at times. While not terrible, ROTLD 3 does suffer a bit with its weak middle portion.
I think it had to do with the characters that were introduced more than anything. I get that they were added to give Julie food to chew on, but I wish they weren't so damn stereotypical. I mean, the gang of antagonists that want to mess with Curt and Julie are probably some of the most unoriginal, cliche portraits of people I've seen in a film in a very long time. It doesn't help that they were Latinos who had to act like some snob would perceive them as. They speak uneducatedly. They're good with weapons. They need to rob stores to make ends meet. They like to sexually assault women. I'm Puerto Rican, so this sort of thing offends me - not just because it's sort of racist and ignorant, but because it's so expected that it takes away what the film should have really been about - the love story between Curt and Julie. I don't think these characters really helped that angle advance in anyway. They were just fodder for Julie's rampage. And the homeless guy, Riverman, was a black man. I mean really...couldn't the screenwriters come up with something more clever than this?
I also felt the sewer location didn't add much either. I think ROTLD 3 should have taken advantage of a more open world where Julie could really cause some chaos. I'm sure the budget had a lot to do with the setting, which is unfortunate. I don't mind the sewers, as cool stuff can happen down there. But for the entire middle act to take place in that one area ruined the flow and made the narrative somewhat boring at times. I thought the first act set up the film well. I loved the final act. And while I didn't hate the middle act, I wish more interesting things had happened to maintain the level of interest.
- The special effects. Every zombie film needs to have some decent special effects going for it. ROTLD 3 does have some cool looking zombies, like the one that was more mechanical than anything. But compared to the uber-awesome Tarman from RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD PART 2, these zombies were nowhere close.
Most of the time, the effects looked kind of fake to be honest. Whenever Julie poked herself with a metal object, you can tell it wasn't piercing actual skin [it looked a bit rubbery]. Some of the zombies looked like dummies or mannequins sometimes. It's great when a director has a concept for the effects. But if the budget can't match his imagination, it's pretty disappointing not only for him, but for the audience as well.
There's probably a reason why ROTLD 3 isn't as talked about as much as the first two films. The make up and the effects don't really hold a candle to the other films, with nothing really sticking out but Julie's transformation - and that's only because she's a hot zombie to look at. I can't blame the producers for having to use the budget they had to work with. I can only judge the final product. At least the gore was pretty good, so it wasn't a complete let down.
THE FINAL HOWL
RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 is a sequel I feel is pretty underrated. It's not as good as the first film [not many zombie films can match the quality of the original], but it's a step above the juvenile second installment. While the low budget hinders some of Brian Yuzna's ambition with less-than-spectacular looking zombies and a static middle act, this sequel does have some pretty good performances [Melinda Clarke in particular] and a love story that works better than it ought to. ROTLD 3 is the last good sequel in this franchise, as it completely nosedived after this one. Definitely worth a look or two if you want to see "Romeo & Juliet" mixed with zombies.
SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
James Wan
STARRING
Patrick Wilson - Josh Lambert
Rose Bryne - Renai Lambert
Ty Simpkins - Dalton Lambert
Lin Shaye - Elise Ranier
Barbara Hershey - Lorraine Lambert
Steve Coulter - Carl
Leigh Whannell - Specs
Angus Sampson - Tucker
Andrew Astor - Foster Lambert
Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Demons
Running Time - 105 Minutes
PLOT
INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 begins with a prologue from 1986, where a young Elise Ranier (Lindsay Seim) first meets Lorraine (Jocelin Donahue) and young Josh (Garrett Ryan) Lambert during when Josh realized he had the ability to astral project himself into The Further. The film quickly picks up where INSIDIOUS had left off, with Elise (Lin Shaye) having been strangled to death by Josh Lambert (Patrick Wilson) to his wife's, Renai's (Rose Byrne) horror. Renai knows that Josh isn't capable of murder, realizing that some other spirit has possessed his body as she doesn't recognize her husband anymore. In fact, Renai sees a woman in a black veil haunting her mother-in-law's home in which they're now staying. As Renai is freaked out that her husband may not be who he claims he is, Josh's mother (Barbara Hershey) gathers the help of paranormal investigators Specs (Leigh Whannell), Tucker (Angus Sampson), and Elise's first partner Carl (Steve Coulter) to figure out what's going on. Realizing that Josh is still stuck in the Further and finding out the spirit possessing Josh's body, the group knows that they're in more danger than ever before.
QUICK THOUGHTS
+ I really enjoyed the acting in INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2. Patrick Wilson carried the film quite well as Josh. I liked how he portrayed the struggle of both Josh in the Further, as well as the possessed Josh who became more Jack Torrence like as the film progressed. Wilson has become quite the player in the horror genre recently, which helps the genre since Wilson is more than capable as an actor. Rose Bryne didn't get to do much this time around, unfortunately, as Renai. But her fear and confusion was pretty great whenever she was on screen. And Ty Simpkins was still pretty good as Dalton, although he doesn't get all that much to do this time around either.
The reality is that INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 belongs to the supporting characters, for better or worse. Barbara Hershey gets a higher profile here than she did in the first film, providing a subtle performance as Josh's mother, Lorraine. Screenwriter Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson provide the comic relief as Specs and Tucker. With the two having a bigger spotlight here, the sequel is definitely played more for laughs at times rather than scares. Steve Coulter is also good as Carl, pretty much taking over the Elise role for most of the film. And Lin Shaye does well again as Elise. The story may not have worked entirely, but the acting was pretty solid.
+ While not as good as in THE CONJURING [still the James Wan film of the year], Wan's direction in INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 is still very good. The picture quality looks beautiful. The editing and pacing was good. The film relies more on jump scares, which worked more often than not. And the lighter tone was pretty evident as the film ran on, which made it feel different from the more serious and darker INSIDIOUS.
- Issues with the direction? There's no real style here. INSIDIOUS had a lot of cool style that added to the atmosphere of the film. THE CONJURING's biggest highlight was the visual presentation, carrying a foreboding feel that would creep you out. Even DEAD SILENCE, my least favorite Wan film, had visual style that kept you engaged. But INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 fell a bit flat for me visually. I don't know what it was. I never felt any real tension or suspense. The way the visuals were presented were pretty bland compared to what Wan had done before. Maybe Wan really is bored of the horror genre, because the visuals didn't wow me or make me feel something genuine in this sequel. I guess the lighter tone didn't help either, since I loved that the first film took itself seriously and really wanted to give you goosebumps. The sequel should have taken everything that was right about the first film and raised the volume by 10. CHAPTER 2 didn't really do that for me, even if Wan did direct a competent film.
+ I like the mystery surrounding Josh, who was possessing his body, and why Dalton was involved in the first film. Since everything was pretty much given away in INSIDIOUS, the angle as to what really happened to Josh at the end of the film was the screenplay's strongest point. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I enjoyed the investigation parts of the story, as well as how it played with the timeline when it came to the Lambert family's history with demonic spirits. The actual reveal and the backstory was pretty clever as well, and the villains did come across as threats. It also helped that the mystery took itself really seriously, matching the tone created in the first film. It grounded the story and gave it a reason to exist - when it reality it probably shouldn't.
- However, the rest of the story fell flat. It's not because the characters were bad [some were shortchanged, unfortunately] or the script was written terribly [which it wasn't]. It was because there was a lot going on that never really connected in a cohesive way until the very end. The story was a bit all over the place, with multiple subplots that probably gave certain characters more time than others that deserved that time.
The three acts couldn't have been any more different. The first act was the set up, to the point where it almost felt like filler and repetition to what happened in the first film. The second act was pretty much the investigative portion, which I dug. But the characters pretty much just walked around for most of it, trying to make the exposition interesting. And the third act was the horror show. I enjoyed the story for what it was, but I thought it took way too long to get where it was going.
I also felt the Lambert family felt like supporting characters, while the side characters took the lead here. INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 really should have been Josh's story and his struggle to return back to his body. But you got people cutting jokes, and the supporting characters taking chunks of time to figure out what's going on. Renai was criminally underused. The existence of that middle child [Foster] still irks me, because he doesn't really have much of a purpose. And the journey to get Josh back to his original body felt a bit forced and uneven.
But I still liked the narrative. Just wish it was more cohesive and tighter.
THE FINAL HOWL
I liked the first INSIDIOUS more, but CHAPTER 2 isn't terrible either. The story brings the sequel down unfortunately, although I did enjoy the mystery aspect of what's going on with a certain character. James Wan's performance behind the camera lacked style compared to his other works [THE CONJURING is a stronger movie visually], but it was still pretty good. The acting was pretty great though, especially by Patrick Wilson carrying the film. But CHAPTER 2 wants to share so many things about the situation that the story feels forced at times. While inferior to INSIDIOUS, CHAPTER 2 is still a good, entertaining, watchable sequel that will definitely find its audience.
SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4
DIRECTED BY
James Whale
STARRING
Boris Karloff - The Monster
Colin Clive - Dr. Henry Frankenstein
Ernest Thesiger - Dr. Septimus Pretorius
Valerie Hobson - Elizabeth Frankenstein
Una O'Connor - Minnie
O.P. Heggie - Blind Hermit
Elsa Lanchester - Mary Shelley/The Bride
Genre - Horror/Science Fiction
Running Time - 74 Minutes
At the birth of horror cinema, Universal Studios was king. Sure, other studios crafted their own horror films as well, but Universal had all the attention with their classic monsters that still resonate all these years later. 1931's DRACULA with Bela Lugosi started the trend, becoming quite the success and making Lugosi an icon. However, FRANKENSTEIN months later would top it, becoming one of the most beloved horror films of all time and considered one of the best Universal Monster films out there.
Due to the success of FRANKENSTEIN, Universal quickly decided on the idea of a sequel. This was very evident when the studio requested the ending to be changed so that Dr. Henry Frankenstein would survive his ordeal with the Monster. Being smart, Universal realized that director James Whale was a huge part of why FRANKENSTEIN was so successful. However feeling that the well had dried up for the story and character, Whale passed on the idea - instead, working on 1933's THE INVISIBLE MAN, which also happened to be hugely successful for Universal. Realizing that Universal would not pursue the sequel without his input, Whale reconsidered - only if he got to make 1934's ONE MORE RIVER [which marked the film debut of Jane Wyatt of Father Knows Best fame]. Seeing how Universal was catering to his every need, Whale was happy to be given creative control over the project. Feeling that he wouldn't be able to scare people again with The Monster, and believing the film wouldn't be as good as the original, Whale decided to make the sequel more of a fun affair that would elicit more laughs than screams. With playwrights William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson writing the screenplay and some of the principal actors reprising their roles, Whale directed 1935's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.
Although the film was shortened by 15 minutes and had to go through series of Hays Code censorship at the time, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was released to massive success. In fact, many consider this sequel superior to the original film. And it's easy to see why. With its immaculate direction, fantastic acting, and quick paced storytelling, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be one of the best sequels ever made - even close to 80 years later.
PLOT
In the prologue of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, we see author Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) telling her friends that there's more to the Frankenstein saga. The actual film takes place right after the end of 1931's FRANKENSTEIN, with The Monster (Boris Karloff) not dying in that fire set up by the town mob. Also not dead is Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), who recovers to marry his love Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) and denounce playing God ever again.
After being befriended by a blind hermit (O.P. Heggie) who teaches him how to speak, The Monster encounters the creepy Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger). Pretorius plans to blackmail Frankenstein in helping him create a mate for The Monster, using the body parts of grave robbed corpses. Once the Bride (Elsa Lanchester, again) is created, her lack of enthusiasm for The Monster sets off a chain of deadly events for everyone involved.
REVIEW
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN has been parodied, studied, and loved by so many, that it's one of those films people know about even if they haven't watched the film in its entirety. This sequel is a film that has so much going for it in front and behind the camera, that it deserves all the respect and adulation it receives. In fact, not only is it a better made movie than the first FRANKENSTEIN, but BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be the best horror film in the genre's Classic Era.
The story in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is fairly simple, using certain moments from the novel that weren't incorporated in the first film. Probably the most poignant scene is where The Monster encounters a blind hermit who is playing music. Not able to see The Monster's appearance, the hermit quickly befriends him - giving him a place to stay and eat, as well as teaching him speech. Even though Boris Karloff was hugely against The Monster saying a word, the speech aspect is something that The Monster is known for in Shelley's novel. But the short friendship between The Monster and this hermit is such a joy to watch onscreen, as this hermit is the only one in the film that treats The Monster like a human being in a touching scene. It's this scene where BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN reaffirms that The Monster is not the ugliest and scariest person in the film. The mob of people who freak out everytime they see him and try to kill him are more vicious than The Monster is. Tragically, the friendship is short-lived due to the locals who try to kill The Monster. But this scene just makes us sympathize with The Monster more.
Honestly, the main villain of the film is the mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius. He drinks. He smokes. He seduces The Monster in telling him that he'll be his best friend by making The Monster a female "friend" to play with. And when The Monster gets angry, Pretorius drugs him so his plans aren't ruined. Hell, Pretorius even makes us sympathetic towards Dr. Henry Frankenstein, the man who created this whole mess to begin with because he thought he could play God. Frankenstein has moved on, but Pretorius threatens Frankenstein's wife, Elizabeth - goading him into helping him create The Bride. The man is a snake, manipulating the world around him to feed his ego and power.
Speaking of snakes, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN uses a lot of Christian imagery throughout. The main ones are definitely The Monster getting "crucified" by the townspeople, and a cross of Jesus Christ nearby a grave that The Monster hides into to escape a mob of people. There's also a cross during the scene where The Monster and the hermit befriend each other, symbolizing the love Christ had for all people regardless of their appearance. Obviously, the idea of playing God with nature is definitely at play, this time with Pretorius. And ironically, there seems to be some subtext involving homosexuality between Pretorius [actor Ernest Thesiger was gay] and Henry Frankenstein - mainly for Pretorius stealing Frankenstein away on his honeymoon to create life together. There's also the friendship between the hermit and The Monster that's destroyed because it's not considered accepted by those around them. I'm not sure if that was anyone's intention [although James Whale was gay], but I can see why many consider the homosexual aspect to be in the film.
The character of the Bride herself is interesting. There's not really much to say about her, which is ironic since she's the title character. But she only appears during the last five minutes of the film, and reacts like the majority of people who encounter The Monster - screaming her lungs out. I'm really amazed how popular this character has become with such a short presence. Sure, she has an interesting look [with the big tall hair and that white streak going through it], but there's not much to her other than that.
The only other character worth mentioning is Minnie, the annoying woman who pops in whenever the film wants to lighten the tone. If there's any misstep with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, it's probably this character. She's not terribly written and is quite humorous. But compared to the rest of the film, which is pretty dark and serious in tone, she severely sticks out. I get that Whale realized that BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN wouldn't be as scary as the first. But adding this character is just rubbing it in to audiences. She doesn't hurt the film all that much really, since she's not a serious constant within the story. But she sort of distracts from the focus rather than genuinely add anything that will be remembered fondly.
The screenplay is quite strong overall, with great dialogue, nice plot twists, and continuing the idea of tolerance and "man as God" that were introduced in the first film. It's a sequel that probably doesn't need to exist, but at least it's one that's well told and follows up the first film in a logical, if not campier, manner.
The special effects and make up in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN are quite great. Of course, Jack R. Pierce's iconic Monster make up returns for the sequel. This time though, the dental plates that lowered The Monster's jaw in the first film had to be removed due to Karloff needing to speak during the second half of the film. Pierce also added scars to show the trouble The Monster had been through. The Bride make up and look are great as well, although Lanchester hated working with Pierce due to his ego.
The scene that really impressed me was the one where Pretorius shows Henry Frankenstein his jars of living things. Thanks to John P. Fulton, actors were shot in full-sized jars that eventually became matted and rotoscoped onto the film so they would look miniature compared to Colin Clive and Ernest Thesiger. I had forgotten this scene was in the film, so I was awestruck by how advanced this technique was for its time. It's sad when I'm more amazed by techniques like this over CGI. But Fulton was ahead of his time here.
The direction by James Whale is just as good, if not better, than it was in FRANKENSTEIN. I think just the use of mise en scene is just more powerful in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN than it was in the first film. Like I mentioned before, the religious imagery is aggressive, yet subtle, at the same time. There are also moments where The Monster sheds a tear, and we clearly see it run down his cheek - first when the hermit befriends him, and the last when the Bride rejects him. It's a nice touch that makes The Monster the most human character in the film. Whale is also great when it comes to pacing [a lot of action moves the film along really fast], as well as dissolves that go from establishing shots to close ups. The cinematography [very much German expressionism by John Mescall] is quite stunning as well, as the picture quality looks strikingly beautiful even after all these years. Whale may not had wanted to direct this sequel, but he took his visual presentation seriously. It's a very confident and professionally made film that carries a specific tone and a much darker, edgier look.
The acting is just as good here as it was in the original. Boris Karloff is still the star as The Monster, giving the creature life through his facial expressions, body language, grunts, broken English, and emotions. No one has played Frankenstein's Monster better than Karloff since. The man is iconic in the role because he's that good. Colin Clive returns as Henry Frankenstein, getting less to do. But he does it well. Apparently he was in some sort of accident prior to shooting, which is why he's mostly in scenes where he sits down. But Clive gives a more sympathetic turn this time around, which I thought fit his character arc well. Ernest Thesiger is over-the-top as Dr. Pretorius, but in a good way. He's evil in a campy sort of way, but you still feel a bit threatened by him. He pretty much steals the scene anytime he appears. Valerie Hobson, replacing the then-ill Mae Clarke, is decent as Elizabeth. She plays the damsel-in-distress well. Una O'Connor is kind of annoying as Minnie, but she did manage to get me to chuckle with her melodramatic acting. O.P. Heggie is cool as the blind hermit, sharing a really touching scene with Karloff. Dwight Frye returns in a different role - Karl, Pretorius' assistant. He's good in the role. And Elsa Lanchester, as both Mary Shelley and the Bride, is very memorable. I love her bird-like mannerisms as The Bride. And she can definitely scream. A very cool cast that helped make BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN a classic many still go back and watch even today.
THE FINAL HOWL
What's there to say about BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN? It's an absolute classic, with a memorable story, great acting [especially by Boris Karloff], and impressive direction by James Whale. Sure, the title character doesn't make her appearance until the very end. And not everything works within the story. But I can overlook those things since this sequel is entertaining and creates a logical continuation to where the last film left off. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is definitely a step-above its 1931 predecessor, displaying more confidence and more subtext that maintains its rewatchability. I believe BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be the best horror film of the Classic Age and will continue to leave an impression for years to come.
SCORE
4 Howls Outta 4
I have three words for HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE:
My biggest issue with the screenplay is the attempt to create some sort of great mystery that didn't need to even exist. In the original film, the mystery worked because the theme of the "howling" meant more than just standard werewolves. It was a metaphor for the beast within all of us. There was subtext in terms of the wolves, as well as the mystery of what they looked like. By the time you get to PART FOUR, what's the mystery? The werewolves?? THERE'S A FUCKING WEREWOLF ON THE COVER! I KNOW WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT! WHY ARE YOU MAKING THESE CHARACTERS SO FUCKING STUPID JUST TO SELL A NON-MYSTERY?? AND WHY IS THE MYSTERY SO BORING?? AND WHY AREN'T THE CHARACTERS SMARTER OR MORE SUBTLE ABOUT IT?? WHY?????
There are a few worse sequels than HOWLING IV: THE ORIGINAL NIGHTMARE. I honestly don't know what anyone was thinking while filming this. The story, which is the same as the original film, is just lifeless, pointless, and terribly written. The direction by John Hough is awful. The acting is miserable. Besides the special effects, there's nothing worth watching about one of the worst horror sequels I have ever had the displeasure to watch. I couldn't recommend a movie less. This is one full moon worth skipping for sure.
