My Bloody Valentine (1981) vs. My Bloody Valentine (2009)

 

Alright time to do another one. Let's get to it.

Contender #1 - My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Director - George Mihalka

Writer(s) - John Beaird (screenplay) and Stephen Miller (story)

Release Date - Feb 11th, 1981

Production - Canadian Film Development Corporation and Secret Film Company

Distribution - Paramount Pictures

Budget - $2,300,000

Gross - $5,700,000

Contender #2 - My Bloody Valentine (2009)

Director - Patrick Lussier

Writer(s) - Todd Farmer and Zane Smith

Release Date - Jan 16th, 2009

Production - Jack Murray Productions

Distribution - Lionsgate

Budget - $14,000,000

Gross - $100,700,000

Story

The story for the original is a miner named Harry Warden was once trapped with his fellow miners, where during that time we went crazy and went on a murderous rampage. Now, 20 years later, new murders are being committed, and now a group of young residents must survive against this crazed maniac.

The story for the remake is in 1998, crazed miner Harry Warden awakened from his coma and terrorized a group of young party goers, before disappearing. Ten years later it now seems like he's come back to finish what he's started.

Round #1 - Visuals

Let me start off by saying I've got nothing against George Mihalka, especially since this is the only film of his I've seen. Having said that there really wasn't anything about his style that really interested. However one could say something similar to Patrick Lussier. Although his style might have been brought down cause the movie was marketed and made for 3D.

So which one am I gonna go for, well I personally prefer the remake. Mainly cause I felt like Lussier was trying to give this movie a look to it.

Round #2 - Harry Warden

This is actually a tough one cause it mainly comes down to how you like your villain.

With the original Harry Warden, he was just a simple miner doing his job, then a terrible event drove him mad. And he really only killed the people who were responsible for the incident happening and no one else. So I guess you could kinda feel sympathetic, but he is killing people who probably didn't deserve death, but you get the motivate.

Then you have remake Harry Warden. Who's very selfless, in a very psychopathic way. You're giving the impression that the moment things looked bad Harry killed his fellow employees just to save himself. So when he goes out for revenge it's more about himself than his fellow men.

So honestly I'm calling this tie. Both Harrys, despite how little we see them, are pretty good villains.

Round #3 - Scares

I'm gonna have this one very brief cause honestly I feel both movies win. They both have great amounts of suspense and their kill scenes are really good. So this is yet another tie.

Round #4 - Story

Let's start off with the 1981 original. While I find it entertaining, the horror story is fairly standard. But, what I will give it credit for is it's character work and how realistic the love triangle is, but mainly the character work. They even made one minor character [Mabel] have some sort of charm and impact when she could've easily been a throwaway. However, the original's twist isn't very good. It almost felt like it was put in there at the last minute as one last surprise even though there wasn't any build up and/or mystery.

Which brings me to the remake. Now I didn't hate any of the characters. They were just okay. However I liked the story far more. Unlike the original the twist is pretty handled mainly cause there's an actual build up. So while I do like the characters of the original, I gonna say the remake has a better story.

Winner - My Bloody Valentine (2009)

Now if you don't agree with that then my power to you, but I just enjoyed the remake more.

That's all for now. Come back on Saturday, Oct 19th, for my review of Smile 2. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Scream 3 Review

 

Scream 3 is a slasher movie and the third installment of the franchise, and was initially going to be the final film until the series was revived back in 2011. It was produced by Craven/Maddalena Films and Konrad Pictures and distributed by Dimension Films. Scream 3 was written by Ehren Kruger and directed yet again by Wes Craven.

The story is, it's been one year after the events back at Windsor College, and a new Stab flick is being made. This attracts the attention of a brand new Ghostface killer who's targeting the cast and crew. Now, the cast along with Sidney and her friends need to find out why?

• Negatives

I've got nothing.

• Mix

One very tough thing to complain about is how it's very obvious things are toned down, primarily the violence. Nowadays when something is toned down it's because corporations are afraid of offending a whole five PC puritans on social media, however the filmmakers for this had a FAR better reason. This came out on Feb 4th, 2000. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China you might be asking? Well public scrutiny for violence in media was still going on because of the tragic school shooting at Columbine High School which occurred almost a year earlier. Because of the that the violence and horror are slightly close to a PG-13 rating than an R. So while it is a bummer things aren't as intense as the first two, you can understand why the filmmakers came to this decision.

Sorry if I put in a sad mood, but don't worry we can move onto to something far more lighter, like the comedy this time around. Well I still had a few good laughs here and there, there were a few times when the meta was going too far. Not to the point where it's like Scary Movie like I've heard some critics and/or fans say, but still a little far.

Then there's the story. Now for a while it's just like the previous Scream movies, but I think what needed a bit more work put into was the twist. Now the twist honestly could've had worked, yes it's a retcon, but similarly stories have used this retcon before and turned out great. The slight issue was the landing, it just didn't quite stick it.

• Positives

There's two very good pros to the movie. One of them being Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette continue their great chemistry that they had all the way back in the previous installments.

Then we have the pacing. Even if you hate this movie, at least you can enjoy how it keeps the ball rolling.

I by no means hate Scream 3, but having seen all of the Scream movies (almost all, Scream 7 is still in production) I do admit it's the weakest one out of the series.

My final rating is, Okay.

All finished here. Come back on Thursday, Oct 17th, for a brand new "VS." Where I'll be pitting the 1981 version of My Bloody Valentine against its 2009 remake. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Mr. Crocket Review

 

Mr. Crocket is a horror movie that's based on the 2022 short of the same name. It's produced by Hulu Originals and WorthenBrooks and distributed by Hulu. Mr. Crocket is written by Brandon Espy and Carl Reid and directed by Brandon Espy.

The story is, a mother finds a video tape to an old children's show. It seems normal until the host himself emerges from the TV and kidnaps her son. Now, she must rescue her boy from this demonic entity.

Initial Reaction

Now originally I had no plans of reviewing this, primarily because I had no idea it existed mainly cause I've pretty much moved away from streaming services' original movies, unless it was something like Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon. That all changed when I was on Twitter/X one day and an account I follow (I forget which one it was) posted a trailer, I was interested.

It looked like a horror movie take on Mister Rogers.

Cons

I've got nothing.

Middle Ground

Let me start off by saying I still had fun with this movie. Like I said previously, this is basically a horror version of Mister Rogers, Pee-wee's Playhouse, and all of the other shows in those veins. So there's some entertainment, among other things in that, however I gotta admit it can be predictable. One of those things being a character enters the frame and it's pretty obvious they're a red herring.

Pros

With the mix bag out of the way let's get into the good stuff, and there's quite a lot. One of them being some really good creepy building up. The first six minutes alone have spectacular build up and intensity going on. Then there's the practical effects. It's so nice seeing a movie use practical effects. Don't get the wrong idea there was still bits of CGI here and there, but it was pretty obvious it was barely used. I give tremendous credit to the make-up artists, the props crew, everybody who made those effects. They did a bang up job. Speaking of those practical effects, let's move forward to the kills. They're pretty creative. I won't this isn't too big of a spoiler, but I gotta say, never seen a horror movie kill someone with a bubble before. The last thing I'll credit is Elvis Nolasco's performance. Now I'll fully admit, I haven't seen any of this guy's work, but what I will say is he is awesome. He was the show stealer in this, I loved his scenes, and he played this Mr. Crocket character perfectly.

While this isn't gonna break any molds, Mr. Crocket is still a very fun horror movie and think a lot of people will get some sort of kick out of it.

My final rating is, Good.

That's gonna do it. Come back on Monday, Oct 14th, for my review of Scream 3. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Scream 2 Review

 

Scream 2 is a slasher movie. It's a sequel to 1996's Scream, thus making it the second installment of the franchise. It was produced by Craven/Maddalena Films and Konard Pictures and distributed by Dimension Films. Scream 2 was once again written by Kevin Williamson and was also again directed by Wes Craven.

The story is, it's been two years since the events of the last movie and the survivors of the Woodsboro massacre are living their lives at Windsor College. But their years of peace are over when a copycat killer is donning the Ghostface mask and targeting them.

• Negatives

I've got nothing.

• Mix

Now I think my only mix feeling was sometimes the movie can be predictable. Not all the time, but some parts you do know what's gonna happen. It didn't bother me too much because there was still a lot of things I did enjoy.

• Positives

Alright time to praising. One good aspect of the movie was the humor. Much like the first, there's great moments of both dark comedy and satire, mostly satirizing sequels, makes sense given this is a sequel. Even the dialogue can be really funny.

Then we have the intensity. While I wasn't fully scared, I can't say I wasn't tensing up quite a lot. There's this one great scene where Sidney and her friend Hallie are trapped in a police car with an unconscious Ghostface. I won't give away what happened, but believe me it's pretty nerve-racking.

My last bit of credit goes to the whodunit mystery. Now I have read people saying they found out who Ghostface was because someone barely shows up. Admittedly that was my attitude for quite a while. However I realized there was far more thought put into the mystery then I gave it credit for. When watching again I found clues to the identity of the killer and also went online where people pointed out more clues. Some of which were in plain sight and I somehow missed them. So I say the mystery aspect is far better than I thought.

Scream 2 isn't better than it's predecessor but, it's still a very entertaining sequel.

My final rating is, Good.

That's all for today. Come back on Saturday, Oct 12th, for my review of the newest Hulu original horror movie, Mr. Crocket. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) vs. Dawn of the Dead (2004)

 

At first I was debating if I should do another one of these, but people seemed to enjoy when I did with The Thing movies and the Night of the Living Dead movies. So I figured I'd do it again.

Contender #1 - Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Director - George A. Romero

Writer(s) - George A. Romero

Release Date - Apr 13th, 1979

Production - Laurel Group

Distribution - United Film Distribution Company

Budget - $1,500,000

Gross - $66,000,000

Contender #2 - Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Director - Zack Snyder

Writer(s) - James Gunn, Michael Tolkin (uncredited), and Scott Frank (uncredited)

Release Date - Mar 19th, 2004

Production - Universal Pictures, Strike Entertainment, and New Amsterdam Entertainment

Distribution - Universal Pictures

Budget - $26,000,000

Gross - $102,300,000

Story

The story for both movies is a out of nowhere a disease is spreading that turns living people into zombies. During this time a group of random people find shelter inside an abandoned mall and must find various ways to survive an undead onslaught.

Round #1 - Visuals

Oh boy, once again I'm at crossroads when it comes to how these movies were directed. Especially since once again, neither Romero or Snyder went about their flicks in any wrong with and once again their styles heavily differ from each other.

Romero definitely changed a little bit from the previous installment [Night of the Living Dead]. He definitely went just a bit bigger but still remains very subtle. Dawn of the Dead didn't have a near documentary feel like Night had, but it still very well directed.

Meanwhile you have Snyder who, while still taken time for smaller character moments, does handle the bloody and action scenes to a really good degree. Although I do get a slight feeling he was still trying to find his footing as a director.

So it's really hard for me to decide a winner. Sure I could use Romero's later zombie movies, those being Land, Diary, and Survival of the Dead, to see how he went about directing and then compare it to Snyder's, but that'd be cheating since I'm not comparing those films to the remake. I'm comparing the Dawn movies. So I'm sorry but I'm calling it a tie.

Round #2 - Monster

I'm giving it to the remake. First off, I don't care what people say, RUNNING ZOMBIES ARE JUST AS TERRIFYING AS THE SLOW ONES! Second off, no disrespect to the make-up artists of the original, but I'm not a big fan how it's just this blue-ish gray face paint. Sure some zombies do have more of a design to them, but there's so few of them. With the remake, there's a lot of zombies with more of a look to them, and if they don't have that then they at least look like people who caught some sort of disease.

Round #3 - Scares

This was honestly yet another tough decision. Both movies do have some very scary moments. While both films have the zombies as a threat, they both have other horrifying aspects to them. With the original, we're giving the threat of an armed biker gang who pretty much start a war with our characters of who should have the mall. So we get a very human threat. With the remake, we do have some tension with the human characters. That's still a slight human problem but, the main concern is that they're trapped inside the mall. Sure a mall sounds like a good idea to hideout during a zombie apocalypse, but imagine being stuck there for the longest time until you find another way out. Not only would you go stir-crazy but it's only a matter of time before your supplies run out.

So who's the winner? Well for me I'm conflicted. Both have some really good moments to them, and even in a what if scenario where I didn't find them scary, I would've found them to be pretty entertaining. So once again it's a tie.

Round #4 - Story

When it came to this section it was also another hard choice to make. Because both have some good stories to them it's just the approaches were different.

Romero story is still about people in the middle of a uprising zombie apocalypse. But I found his story was primarily about how this event is effecting people more than the living dead eating people. Nothing wrong with that especially since that was also what made Night of the Living Dead such a classic.

The story for Snyder and co's remake still had those small character scenes but it does feel like a really fun survival horror movie. Again, nothing wrong with that mainly because the end result was actually pretty good.

So it comes down to taste. Do you want a slower pace, character focused movie or a fast pace survival movie?

Winner - Tie.

Again you're probably gonna feel like this is a cop out, but honestly I really do like both movies because they both offer so much. But if you're a fan of one or the other or both then that's fine.

Anyways, that's all for now. Come back on Thursday, Oct 10th, for my review of Scream 2. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Joker: Folie à Deux Review

 

Joker: Folie à Deux is a psychological thriller musical and the sequel to the 2019 hit film, Joker. It's produced by DC Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures, and Joint Effort and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. Joker: Folie à Deux is written by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver and directed by Todd Phillips.

The story is, it's been two years since the events of the last movie, and Arthur isn't the same guy he was before, he's not even telling any jokes. That all changes when he meets mental patient Harleen "Lee" Quinzel. Now with his trial coming up, Arthur once again decents into becoming the Joker.

Initial Reaction

When I first heard they were making a sequel, at first I was against it. But with Todd coming back it did give me some hope. Although having a musical in their did strike me as odd, but hey, sometimes experimentation is better than doing the same old same old.

Cons

I've got nothing.

Middle Ground

The only slight issue I had, but it's a big slight issue is the story. Now everything revolving around the trial, that was some really good stuff. I was very much engaged with that part of the story. I even liked the whole love story with Arthur and Harley. Cause there was this whole mystery of does she love Arthur or his Joker persona? Where the slight issue comes from is the musical bits. Now I understand why there here. The movie is always bringing up how Arthur dangerously lives in a fantasy world. So it'd make sense he'd see things through a brighter lense even if things around him are not very good. However, they really could've cut some out. Some songs didn't really need to be there.

Pros

Alright let's get into the good stuff. One being the pacing. The film clocks in at two hours and eighteen minutes. But it didn't feel like that. It just smoothly goes by. Then we have the music, and by that I mean the score. Once again Hildur Guðnadóttir knocks it out of the park with her music. It still keeps some of those disturbing vibes from the first movie, but it also seems she added bits of sadness here. Which makes sense giving the movie's tone. Now let's move onto the cinematography. The look of this was absolutely stunning. It's not as dirty looking as the first, but that's fine, because whether the setting is taken place in the real world and/or in Arthur's head, the cinematography is top notch no matter what. The last thing I'll praise is once again Joaquin Phoenix's performance. I don't care if you liked this or not, you gotta admit whether good, bad, or decent, Joaquin did a tremendous job.

Now if you didn't like this movie, then that's perfectly fine. There's no rules saying you can't form your own opinion on cinema. But for me, I'll admit there are some problems. However, I feel as though the hate for this is vastly overblown. I won't say it's perfect but at the same time you won't see me jump aboard the hate train.

My final rating is, Good.

That's all for now. Come back on Monday, Oct 7th, for my post of George A. Romero's original Dawn of the Dead vs. Zack Snyder's remake of the same name. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Scream (1996) Review

 

Alright it's Halloween season! Which means it's time for some horror movie reviews! Let's do this! Oh by the way, I won't be reviewing the 2022 film of the same name and Scream VI since I already reviewed them. Anyways, let's do this!

Scream is a slasher movie that was produced by Woods Entertainment and distributed by Dimension Films. Scream was written by Kevin Williamson and directed by the late, great Wes Craven.

The story is, a masked killer is one the loose in Woodsboro. Now, Sidney and her friends must find out who the killer is and why he's targeting them, before they become his next victim.

• Negatives

I've got nothing.

• Mix

Got nothing here either.

• Positives

First off, let me just praise the pacing of this. I've seen this movie at least four times, and each time it's a breeze to get through. It clocks in at nearly two hours, but whenever I watch it it feels like only an hour went by.

Then there's the humor. This has tons of meta humor in it. Making fun of all the horror tropes that come with the horror genre, although more specifically slasher films. Now meta has been used a in recent years, for better or worse, however with Scream you don't have to worry about feeling like the characters are winking at you. All of the humor felt natural.

Speaking of characters, they're great. Surprisingly they're all so likable and you're actually rooting for a lot of them to survive. Hell I can't think of anybody that hates Dewey and let's be honest, a lot of us are a Randy.

My last praise goes to the killer himself, Ghostface. Not only do I like his creepy voice, but what always made Ghostface so terrifying and it's what makes the whole Scream franchise terrifying, Ghostface is all too human. It's not like Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees where there's a supernatural element (by the way, that's no insult to them, I like those characters). The character isn't nearly invincible or anything like it. Anybody could be Ghostface. You can imagine a real scenarios like this happening. Maybe not exactly, but creepily close, and sadly some of those did happen, but I don't blame the movie for that. That's why I hold Ghostface to such a high regard. Because the character's premise is very realistic.

Scream is not only a fantastic horror movie, but a fantastic movie in general. I strongly recommend you watch it whether you're a horror fan or not.

My final rating is, A Must Watch!

What a great way to kick off the Halloween season. Come back on Saturday, Oct 5th, for my review of, Joker: Folie à Deux. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.