(Review originally written at 26 September 2009) Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking. This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie. It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one. There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing. The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch. So far the worst out of the series! 3/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 20 September 2009) Well, this movie is a pretty messy one to watch. Things seem to happen very randomly and there hardly is a good main plot-line it follows. It's just the one even after the other, without making an obvious connection and contribution. Perhaps they though it would be enough simply showing Michael Myers killing a whole bunch of people again. The movie and its killings hardly ever become interesting though. As an horror this movie is just picking a wrong approach with its story and build-up. As shame, since before this movie the series still showed some class and were simply god movies within its genre to watch. With this movie things start to go terribly wrong. The also decided to try out some new things, by adding in some comical characters and to make the Myers characters more of a supernatural one but things simply never get developed well enough to let it all work out though. The movie basically starts of were part 4 had ended and the movie pretty much also features the same characters in it. It got shot back to back with "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers", with as a big difference though that they started on this movie without a complete script. Surely it was done for budgeting reasons but this 5th part surely doesn't benefits from it. Halve of the time the movie consists out of killing, while the other halve remains pretty much boring to watch. Especially toward its ending the movie tends to get worse to watch, when absolutely nothing good or interesting is happening. It relies mostly on Dr. Loomis' babbling, which was still a good thing to watch in the previous movies but in this movie his character just doesn't work out quite as well. Oh well, it still is a pleasure to watch Donald Pleasance though, so it can't be really said that's his fault really. At least his character is still better and more compelling than any of the other characters within this movie, which often come across as ones that add very little to the actual movie, who get killed very randomly and without apparent reason. Yes, this movie could had really used Jamie Lee Curtis again already. One of the Halloween-sequels you can really easily do without. 4/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 5 September 2009) Well, to be honest the movie was not as bad as I had feared, mainly because of the reason that it had some entertainment value in it. It's obvious that this movie got made purely for entertainment and without much else intentions. The story is simple but sort of fun and adventurous. This doesn't take away anything of the fact that it's still a pretty poorly made movie. It's a bit clumsy looking, as you can often expect from an Italian genre movie like this one. In it's era many movies like this got made and you can say that the Italians sort of founded the genre in the '50's. It's all muscles and costumes, without ever giving the movie much flair but still special typical genre feeling and atmosphere. Of course it's all rather cheap looking, with lame effects and cardboard looking sets and props. It makes the movie itself also quite lame to watch at times but again, I feel that this also adds to the movie its entertainment value. I just wished they would had spend some more time on the movie its script. The movie now feels as if the movie got shot with only a halve completed script. Lots of things often don't make sense and some things feel incomplete and unfinished. It's not a very satisfying movie to watch. Especially toward the end the movie turns awkward. It starts to become more and more messy and things start to make less and less sense. You'll loose interest about halve way through the movie, which just doesn't make this a very comfortable movie to watch. It isn't completely horrible but still pretty bad nevertheless. 3/10 Watch trailer
Hard to say what it is that makes this movie a tad bit better than most of the Columbo movies. Most likely it's the presence of Donald Pleasence. He always has been a great and perhaps also a bit of an underrated actor, who is best known for the work he did in horror movies.
But it also is the story and directing that makes this a good movie. Normally when Columbo shows up late into the story, the movie itself mostly isn't one among the best. Columbo in this movie shows up about 20 minutes into the movie. He also doesn't show up in the usual matter and we see him for the first time in his office at the police station, before he even starts to investigate the murder. And he and the killer don't first meet until well over 40 minutes into the movie. So it's a sort of Columbo movie that progresses in a non-formulaic way. I really like the storytelling and flow of the movie. For a Columbo movie it's rather long but this really doesn't matter since it's such a fine Columbo movie entry. You can also really thank director Leo Penn fr this, who also later directed the 1989 Columbo movie "Columbo: Columbo Goes to the Guillotine". It's not necessarily a slow going Columbo movie but it certainly is an easy going one, that sort of is comparable to murder-mystery movies from the '40's in a way.
It's not necessarily a well written, clever Columbo episode or one that offers many surprises but it's really that storytelling that makes the movie such a successful one. It also helps the movie that it uses some fine settings. The movie is for most part set in the winery-business, which seems to work really well for a murder-mystery.
Peter Falk and Donald Pleasence are great in their roles and also especially when they are together on screen. Besides those two the movie features also some other fine actors such as Oscar-nominee Julie Harris. Amazing how many Oscar nominees and winners always were more than happy to appear in a Columbo movie.
Especially considering its potential, this could had been a way better movie. It showed a promising concept, with cannibals in the London underground and featured Donald Pleasence in the lead role. How could you go wrong with this?
Problem is that the story doesn't move along quick enough and the events in the movie all feel rather stretched out. Some sequences and dialog are go on for far too long. But even with those extended overlong sequences the movie is still only 87 minutes short. I think this says something about the original script that just doesn't seem to offer enough. Jokes get used multiple times and some dialog seem to repeat itself, over and over again. This also really takes away the pace out of the movie at times. It tries to bend its slowness in to their own advantage, by making it part of the horror/mystery build-up of the movie but it's even too slow for that. The movie simply misses the mark with that.
Nothing wrong with the atmosphere though. It has a typical '70's (fairly cheap looking) British movie making like style all over it. The cinematography of the movie was also really good. It featured some great and 'experimental' different sort of compositions and was dark in a good- and right required way.
It's not the sort of horror movie with lots of scary moments but fans will be able to appreciate the uncomfortable dark atmosphere of the movie. Also on top of that, the movie features some pretty gory moments.
Donald Pleasence of course was a great leading man for this movie. He always seemed to add a certain amount of humor into his roles, without ever loosing character credibility, with this movie also as an example of that. Also Christopher Lee makes a great enjoyable small cameo appearance. Too bad that the movie also decided to throw in some other less interesting characters, also played by some definite less capable actors.
Not the best example of British horror from the '70's but the genre fans will probably still be able to enjoy it.
What can be more traditional movie-wise, then watching "Halloween" on Halloween eve?
I'm probably the only horror fan on this planet who hadn't seen "Halloween" yet before (the same goes for "Friday the 13th" of which I've only seen the last halve hour or so. So perhaps I don't even have the right calling myself a horror-fan.). By todays standards the movie is definitely not scary enough and most certainly not gory enough. But you need to watch this movie in 1978 perspective. The movie-making is unique and mostly defined the slasher horror-movie genre. It's influence and bar raising movie techniques and new set standards are still notable in movies this present day.
The movie really takes its time to build up the tension. No killings (with the exception of the first scene) occur until we're more than halve way through the movie. Before that the mood is set and a creepy atmosphere is created. You know that something evil/bad is about to happen but you never know when and how this is going to occur. So the tension is really well build up, which does still makes this one of the scariest horror movies ever made, despite the lack of blood, gore and actual real scare moments. John Carpenter has always been a master with building up a maximum atmosphere with minimum resources. This movie was made on a shoestring budget and this movie proofs that with true creativity and the right talent involved you can still make a classic and certainly influential movie, despite of the budget.
This is not the first slasher movie ever created but yet it's the most influential and perhaps also best known one. I think this is due to a couple of reasons. One is most definitely the earlier mentioned brilliantly build up tension and atmosphere of the movie. Another reason is the approach of the story. We often see things from Michael Myers point-of-view, sometimes we even literately look at things through his eyes. This is a approach that works creepy and mysterious. We know that he can strike anytime but yet he does nothing but observing his future victims. It provides tension created from a different original viewpoint, which perhaps works even better and scarier than telling a story from the main person's (in this case the Jamie Lee Curtis role) point of view. Also the character of Michael Myers is a reason why this movie is such a classic. He never says a word and his emotions are blank (also due to his mask of course, that we by the way rarely get to see in this movie). The movie doesn't try to explain his motivations which makes the movie all the more mysterious and creepy. It makes sure that you never know what to expect next from the killer. It makes Micheal Myers truly a classic horror character.
The movie is definitely helped by it's techniques and wonderful directing. The camera positions are all highly effective and help to create the right atmosphere and to build up the tension in some of the sequences. Also the classic musical score from John Carpenter himself, works highly effective.
"Friday the 13th" had Kevin Bacon, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" had Johnny Depp and "Halloween" has Jamie Lee Curtis as a star to be. Unlike the previous mentioned actors, Curtis never really got rid of her image as the scream queen and it doesn't seem she minds. Who can blame her, this is the role that made her famous and got her bigger and much more interesting roles. She is a great main character in this movie who is likable and recognizable as well. She isn't anything special, not the prettiest girl in school, not the bravest, borderline dorky. Point is, she is no heroic superhero character but a realistic and recognizable person instead. It makes it easier to identify yourself with and also the situations she gets in to. This in a way also directly adds to the tension of the movie. The still very young Curtis, in one of her first roles, is perfect in her role. Donald Pleasence is also present in the movie, which certainly adds something to the atmosphere and professionalism of the movie.
It's not the best but it most certainly is one of the most entertaining Bond movies to watch. Because of that reason, "You Only Live Twice" is one of my favorite Bond movies.
Basically the movie is just simple silly fun. The story is very simple and at the same time also totally unbelievable but also because of this the movie is extremely entertaining to watch. As an action movie this movie is really great. The movie is truly filled with many spectacular, if a tad over-the-top action sequences. Most action sequences don't even make sense that they occur in the movie, once you really start thinking about it but that is all part of the charm of this entertaining movie. It's a very imaginative movie that has some unforgettable sequences in it, that are both thrilling as well as spectacular.
The movie is mostly set in the culturally rich Japan. It works as a perfect backdrop for the movie and the strange unusual culture helps to make the movie an imaginative filled one. Also sequences like with 'Little Nellie' and the end fight set in the hollowed-out volcano add to the adventurous and imaginative feeling of the movie.
Ken Adam is also one of the reasons why everything in the movie works so well. As a production designer he made the right backdrops for the story and made several elements of the movie work out surprising well, such as mainly all of the sequences in the hollowed-out volcano.
Also the musical score by John Barry and the cinematography by Freddie Young are worth mentioning.
Sean Connery is good and fun as always as James Bond and he still showed good form in this movie. This time Ernst Stavro Blofeld was played by legendary actor Donald Pleasence. He takes the movie to an even higher level. He plays the best Blofeld out of the long series of Bond movies, along with Telly Savalas who played the villainous character in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
This is a fantastic fast paced, action filled movie, that has some spectacular and unforgettable sequences in it, especially toward the ending. One of my personal favorite Bond movies, of which I never grow tired of watching it.
