Tag Archives: Horror Sequel

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Decent Slasher, So-So Texas Chainsaw Sequel

Posted on by
10
Advertisements

Here we go, again. When Halloween found success going back to basics, it was only a matter of time before other horror franchises followed. Technically, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre already went this route. Before we were calling them legacy sequels or ‘re-quels’, the awful Texas Chainsaw 3D positioned itself as a direct follow-up to the Hooper’s 1973 original. But if at first you don’t succeed, you just ignore that sequel and try again. At least this time, Netflix’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre has the Halloween template. And based on initial critical responses, this legacy sequel may have tried too hard to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Synopsis

Nearly fifty years ago, Sally Hardesty survived a brutal massacre – her attacker was never caught. Now a bus of young influencers and investors have descended on a Texas ghost town with dreams of bringing it back to life. But there’s still one resident hiding in the old buildings. And once he emerges from hiding, it draws Hardesty to the town to finally have her revenge.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Puts the ‘Chainsaw’ and ‘Massacre’ In It Title

Opinions will vary on whether Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a good series entry. But director David Blue Garcia accomplishes one thing. Here, he’s made a pretty damn good slasher movie. Almost no time is wasted getting to what audiences came to see. And once the mayhem starts, Garcia rarely lets things slow down for long. Though Hooper’s original was never as explicitly graphic as its legend suggest, the legacy sequel certainly lives up to its title. Expect plenty of grisly violence rendered with some impressive make-up effects. Chainsaw mutilations, limb-snapping, hammers, broken glass – this is easily one of the more brutal slashers in recent memory.

Garcia ups the sequel’s body count in a wildly orchestrated orgy of violence.

Arguably two scenes teased in promotional materials elevate this one above other slashers. Most viewers will have plenty to say about the tourist bus scene. If you’re going to make a movie with the words ‘chainsaw’ and ‘massacre’ in the title, this is how you do it. Garcia ups the sequel’s body count in a wildly orchestrated orgy of violence. But an earlier scene set in a field of sunflowers may the best moment in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There’s actual suspense set against quiet and impressively sun-soaked cinematography. Some may take issue with Garcia’s ending. But it’s shocking and consistent with the sequel’s tone.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Doesn’t Add Much Meat to the Bone

Much of Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s problems can be attributed to a weak screenplay. Working from Fede Alvarez (Evil Dead) and Rodo Sayagues’ (Don’t Breathe, Don’t Breathe 2) story, Chris Thomas Devlin offers little in the way of a cohesive vision. For 30 minutes or so, Devlin teases several big ideas, promising a more thoughtful approach to the material. Does he have something to say about gun violence? Or maybe he wants to tackle Zoomers and the generation gap or gentrification? All of these buzzwords get a mention. And Texas Chainsaw Massacre promptly forgets them once the carnage starts. This isn’t particularly surprising since the sequel largely forgets about its own characters. Both Sarah Yarkin and Elsie Fisher are fine as the largely nondescript sister.

…Hardesty functions more like an Easter Egg than an actual character.

Two of the sequel’s bigger problems, however, are its legacy characters. Though Leatherface is a disturbing horror icon, the character works better surrounded by bizzaro family members. The Hitchhiker, The Old Man, Chop Top, Sheriff Hoyt – they’re missed her. And Garcia strips Leatherface of much of the character’s personality, Here, Mark Burnham’s Leatherface isn’t much more than a hulking killer. In spite of Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s efforts to follow the Halloween 2018 template, Garcia doesn’t give Olwen Fouere’s (Mandy) Sally Hardesty the Laure Strode treatment. In what’s little more than a glorified cameo, Hardesty functions more like an Easter Egg than an actual character.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Mostly Overcomes Its Limitations

No one is ever going to confuse this legacy sequel with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Plenty of things just don’t work here. Chief amongst the sequel’s problems, the Sally Hardesty character feels misplaced and wasted in what should be her story. Moreover, the sequel overestimates Leatherface’s onscreen presence. Nonetheless, Texas Chainsaw Massacre carves out some brutal kills in a tightly paced manner. Garcia doesn’t waste much time. Some may hate the ending, but it’s undeniably shocking. For better or worse, Netflix gives us a good slasher and a reasonably decent Texas Chainsaw movie.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: B-

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III Substitutes Grimy Gore For Tension

Posted on by
3
Advertisements

As an individual movie, Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remains among the greatest horror movies produced. Unfortunately, the legacy of its sequels, prequels, and remakes is checkered. In between Hooper’s misunderstood sequel and the crater-sized disaster that was Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, New Line Pictures took a more straightforward approach to the series. Not to be confused with the more recent Leatherface prequel, the 1990 Leatherface more openly embraced its slasher ties. But things weren’t the same by the late 1980s. And the MPAA slashed at the movie taking it down to an R-rating from an X. As a result, Leatherface barely saw the inside of cineplexes. It also didn’t help that not many people liked it.

Synopsis

Michelle and Ryan, a California couple driving cross country, get caught in a traffic jam along a long stretch of Texas highway. News broadcasts detailing a horrific discovery – a pit of mangled corpses – have attracted gawkers. When the couple takes a detour to the Last Chance Gas Station, a strange encounter turns into a nightmare. With their car broken down and lost on an empty road, a hulking, chainsaw-wielding madman hunts them.

Leatherface Ups The Gore From Hooper’s Vision, Loses the Tension

Leatherface may not be a Cannon Group group movie, but it sure feels like one. There’s a grimy feel to both it production and the gore. Though the MPAA butchered the movie, and alternative versions have floated around on home media, more recent Blu-ray releases have re-assembled much of the sequel’s carnage. And Leatherface boasts more gore than what’s present in Hooper’s classic. More recent Texas Chainsaw movies have since pushed the envelope alongside better effects. Unlike the Saw franchise or New French Extremely that would follow a decade later, there’s no real tension or urgency to the sequel’s violence. Instead Leatherface wholly feels like the empty, exploitative violence characteristic of early 80s Cannon releases.

And Leatherface boasts more gore than what’s present in Hooper’s classic.

If director Jeff Burr doesn’t display much flare with the material, he capably moves along the action. Falling in at under 90 minutes, Leatherface never drags its feet; no one can accuse this sequel of being boring. Conversely, Leatherface is also never scary. Not does it have much in the way of tension. On one hand, MPAA censorship clearly hurt some of the sequel’s story. But there’s also some wild tonal imbalances. Specifically, the sequel’s wild violence feels at odds with some offbeat humor and idiosyncrasies. In particular, Tom Everett’s ‘Alfredo’ feels like he’s trying too hard to emulate Bill Moseley’s ‘Chop Top’. Needless to say, it doesn’t work and feels out of place here.

Leatherface is Back … Along with New Family Members

Truth be told, it’s hard to evaluate Leatherface – or any of the series sequels – as part of a franchise. Texas Chainsaw aficionados will point to small details that connect this sequel to Hooper’s original, Yes, ‘Junior’ wears a leg brace, which kind of feels like continuity. And ‘dear old Grandpa’ is here. There’s also several new family members including a wheelchair-bound ‘Mama’ and a psychopathic little blonde-haired girl straight out of The Bad Seed. Where did all these Sawyer family members come from? Throw in two new brothers – a young Viggo Mortensen shows up – and maybe another brother and the Sawyer family lineage gets a bit unclear. Of course, all of those edits probably didn’t help.

Where did all these Sawyer family members come from?

Regardless it’s one of the frequent problems found in all Texas Chainsaw movies. Efforts at continuity simply highlight the lack of continuity. At least the performances in Leatherface are mostly fine. Both Mortensen and Joe Unger (Tinker) play passable hillbilly cannibals even if they’re not particularly menacing. And R.A. Mihailoff (Death House) brings an imposing physical presence to the title character. Neither Kate Hodge nor William Butler (Friday the 13th VII: The New Blood) stand out as our big-city victims. But Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, The Devil’s Rejects) single-handedly makes this a watchable sequel. For what often feels like a generic slasher, Foree’s ‘Benny’ never feels like a stock character.

Leatherface’s Limited Appeal Likely Applies to Diehard Series Fans Only

Though New Line Cinema produced this Texas Chainsaw sequel, it still looks like something The Cannon Group would have released – five or six years earlier. That is, Leatherface is a grimy, violent, and often cheap-looking movie a step out of time by the late 80s. Lacking the first sequel’s dark humor yet much better than the next entry, Leatherface is still a watchable addition to the franchise. Not surprisingly, it’s connection to the original – or other sequels – is tenuous at best. Moreover, its violence feels more exploitative than shocking or scary. But gorehounds and diehard franchise fans will appreciate it.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II Expands – and Improves – On Hellraiser’s Mythology

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

Based on Clive Barker’s novella The Hellbound Heart and made on a relatively small budget, Hellraiser surprised enough at the box office to earn an immediate sequel. Its follow-up, Hellbound: Hellraiser II, performed a little below its predecessor at the box office. In addition, critics were less impressed with the results this time around. Not surprisingly, critical reception didn’t stop the Hellraiser franchise from rolling out direct-to-video sequels for the next 30 years. More importantly, Hellbound: Hellraiser II very much deserves some critical re-consideration. In fact, there’s a very good argument to be made that the first sequel, Hellbound, may be the series’ best entry.

Synopsis

After surviving her encounter with the Cenobites, Kirsty Cotton wakes up in a psychiatric hospital where police and staff dismiss her stories. But Kirsty hasn’t escaped the Cenobites yet. The head psychiatrist of the facility, Dr. Channard, has a lifelong obsession with the occult. When his unethical experiments with other patients unlock the Lament Configuration, Kirsty finds herself in the labyrinths of Hell where the Cenobites and Julia – her dead stepmother – are waiting for her.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II a Visually Stunning Descent Into Hell

Watching Hellbound: Hellraiser II for the first time, two things are immediately apparent. First, Peter Atkins’ screenplay in its entirety didn’t make it to the screen. Choppy storytelling and outright gaps in logic abound in the sequel. Instead of focusing on Kirsty’s journey to find her father in Hell, Hellbound dovetails into underdeveloped origins for its Cenobites. The sequel also offers no insight into potentially the most interesting new character, Dr. Channard. Why does the Lament Configuration turn Channard into a Cenobite? And why is Channard opposed to Pinhead and his Cenobites? Don’t expect Hellbound: Hellraiser II to offer any answers. Maybe the studio was too enthusiastic in the editing process. Regardless the result is a surreal viewing experience.

…Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a far more visually elaborate effort than its predecessor.

Besides the sequel actually benefits from its ambiguous narrative. What else is immediately apparent is that Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a far more visually elaborate effort than its predecessor. Director Tony Randell’s vision of Hell as a dark labyrinth impresses particularly when one considers what’s still a limited budget. And yes, the special effects are dated – they overextended their budget in the 80s. Nonetheless, Hellbound is a boldly dark vision with more than enough carnage for fans. Whether it’s Channard’s morbid experiments or Julia’s bloody resurrection, Hellbound isn’t lacking for creativity. Not everything makes sense but it look good.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II Shifts Focus to the Right Characters

Though Hellbound: Hellraiser II introduces new characters and teases an old one the sequel puts most of its attention on the right ones. Peter Atkin’s screenplay dangles the return of Kirsty’s father – the original movie’s least interesting character – it instead focuses on Kirsty and her resurrected stepmother, Julia. As an ‘unofficial’ Final Girl, Ashley Laurence’s ‘Kirsty’ was one of the better characters from the first movie. Both strong-willed and resourceful, she made for an interesting foil to the Cenobites. Moreover, her ongoing conflict with Julia gives the sequel some narrative heft. And Claire Higgins’ ‘Julia’ was always the more compelling villain as compared to the relatively dull, ‘Frank’. In Hellbound, Higgins has full license to hit the ground running and chew the scenery with her wonderfully wicked character.

…the sequel probably overextends itself by shoehorning in a lose origin story.

Given the popularity of the characters, it’s not surprising that the Cenobites pop up a little more frequently in the sequel. There’s still not much screen time available for Pinhead et al, which is best for the sequel. Less is usually more when it comes to monsters. Much of the logic in the Hellraiser movies is convoluted at best, so the sequel probably overextends itself by shoehorning in a loose origin story. Yet Hellbound: Hellraiser II offers us a brief glimpse into Pinhead’s origins and humanity anyways. Not surprisingly, it’s an underdeveloped story thread. On the plus side, it at least offers some rationale for why the Cenobites come to blows with Kenneth Cranham’s ‘Dr. Channard’. Like the Cenobites, Channard – who is a fascinating villain – doesn’t get much face time. Fortunately, Cranham crafts a memorable character with the time the sequel gives him.

Hellbound Hellraiser II an Idiosyncratic Sequel That’s All the Better for Its Eccentricities

Yes, Hellbound Hellraiser II is a messy movie marked by choppy storytelling. A lot of the movie makes no sense. But it’s also these same narrative lapses that add to the movie’s surreal atmosphere. As such, Hellbound works much in the same way as other past classic horror movies like Carnival of Souls or Phantasm. It’s a captivating sequel in part due to some of these idiosyncratic features. With an expanded and visually stunning world and more of Pinhead and the Cenobites, Hellbound: Hellraiser II is the rare case of a sequel surpassing the original.

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 A Dull 80s Follow-Up To a 70s Classic

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

In the 1970s, Wes Craven directed two landmark horror movies – The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes. A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream followed in the 80s and 90s. That’s an impressive legacy. Yet somewhere in between The Hills Have Eyes and Elm Street, Craven struggled to connect with horror audiences. Neither Deadly Blessing nor Swamp Thing lit the horror world on fire. And a belated sequel to The Hills Have Eyes might have derailed Craven’s post-Freddy Krueger momentum if anyone had seen it. Though Craven started filming the sequel before Elm Street, the production ran out of money. But Elm Street’s success ensured a short theatrical release for a cobbled-together The Hills Have Eyes Part 2. Does Craven’s poorly received sequel manage some campy charm like a certain other flashback-heavy slasher sequel from the 1980s? Or is it still just a bad movie?

Synopsis

Several years ago, an inbred family of mutant cannibals savaged the Carter family. Now a group of motocross bikers make the same mistake. On their way to a race, they opt for a shortcut through a patch of the Nevada desert where the surviving members of the cannibal family waits is waiting for them.

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 Lacks Any Sort of Campy Charm

With little in the way of money but renewed studio interest, Craven clearly didn’t have the time and resources to film new scenes. Instead, the director leaned on flashbacks from the 1977 original. Like Silent Night, Deadly Night 2, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is heavily composed of old footage. Arguably, Craven even manages to ‘one up’ the Christmas slasher sequel in terms of the silliness of these flashbacks. With a lot of time needed to fill, Craven gives each returning character a lengthy flashback. Even a dog has a flashback to the original movie. Yes, a dog has a flashback. Both horror sequels cover a lot of familiar ground. Somewhere along the lines, however, Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 is a campy cult classic. The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is not.

But being boring for 80 to 90 minutes is inexcusable.

Today, non-horror fans probably recognize the ‘Garbage Day’ meme. Nothing from this sequel approaches that level of ‘laugh out loud’ stuipidity. Unfortunately, Craven’s sequel isn’t just a poorly stitched together movie. It’s a bland and, by and large, boring effort. And that more than anything else is the movie’s gravest sin. Low budget horror movies can be stupid, ridiculous, and/or preposterous. As along as audiences can suspend belief for 90 minutes or so and have fun, stupid is just fine. But being boring for 80 to 90 minutes is inexcusable. And even when the sequel ditches flashbacks and settles into its own story, the action is poorly paced. A complete lack of scares only exacerbates the pacing problem. Specifically, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is missing any sort of atmosphere and occasionally well-placed jump scares.

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 Neither Bloody Nor Scary

Similar to his feature length debut The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes is a disturbing, violent exploitation movie. Comparatively, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is a remarkably bloodless affair. Rather than tap into the same gritty violence of 70s exploitation movies, Craven’s sequel halfheartedly parrots 80s slasher movies. If you grew up in the 80s, the images of on the back of the VHS cover promised inventive, gory traps for the sequel’s motocross bikers. Nothing in this sequel remotely fulfils that promise. Though Craven’s sequel isn’t actually that messy from a technical perspective, it’s never aspires to more than dull slasher kills.

Comparatively, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is a remarkably bloodless affair.

Genre fans will be pleased to see veteran character actor Michael Berryman (The Devil’s Rejects, Death House) returning as Pluto. Only Robert Houston and Janus Blythe from The Hills Have Eyes return for the sequel. Of course, Berryman’s return makes absolutely no sense. For a sequel jammed with so many flashbacks, Craven sure hopes you don’t remember what happened to some of the characters. Aside from the retconning it takes to bring Berryman back, Robert Houston and Janus Blythe both reprise their roles as Bobby Carter and Ruby (now going by Rachel), respectively. And that’s about as interesting as the casting gets. The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 replaces Papa Jupiter with his older brother, The Reaper. Apparently, The Reaper was hanging out in that other cannibal-infested desert in the first movie. Nobody else in the sequel registers above body count or survivor status.

Craven’s Belated Sequel Feels Particularly Uninspired

Among its worst sins, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is really just a boring movie. Yes, you can tell that this was an incomplete movie rushed into release, and filled with flashbacks to pad out the runtime. But not even the inclusion of a dog’s flashback lifts the sequel to absurd levels of fun. Nothing here approaches the meme-worthy Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2. If the original The Hills Have Eyes was a brutal 70s exploitation horror movie, its sequel is a lazy, derivative slasher movie.

THE FINAL VERDICT: JUST A BAD MOVIE

Escape Room Tournament of Champions Can’t Escape Its Own Familiarity

Posted on by
Reply
Advertisements

Despite a January release date typically reserved for studio leftovers, Escape Room was a breakout hit in 2019. Even if it was a bit derivative of Saw, Escape Room’s box office numbers told a more accurate story than its critical reception. Director Adam Robitel (Insidious: The Last Key) made a fun, if not completely implausible, thriller. Given its success. a sequel was inevitable. Too bad Sony Pictures released Escape Room: Tournament of Champions amidst lingering box office uncertainty. Instead of a booming mid-July box office, Tournament of Champions came and went pretty quietly. It probably didn’t help that critics were even less enthused with the results.

Synopsis

After surviving the mysterious Minos Corporation’s deadly escape rooms, ‘champions’ Zoey and Ben set out to expose the shadowy organization. Before they get far, however, the pair find themselves trapped in a subway car. Minos has found them and once again the Zoey and Ben must work with several strangers to survive new, deadlier puzzles. But there’s a twist – each of the unwilling players is a former survivor. It’s a true ‘Tournament of Champions” where losing means death.

Escape Room: Tournament of Champions Offers More of the Same for Fans of the Original

At face value, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Escape Room: Tournament of Champions. Director Adam Robitel wastes little time with table-setting. After all, audiences know exactly what they’re signing up for with the sequel. Don’t expect many lags in the action. Robitel paces things quickly, which is probably for the best. Like its predecessor, Tournament of Champions’ story won’t hold up to much scrutiny. Moreover, Robitel knows how to build and execute a suspenseful scene. With more over-the-top ‘escape rooms’, the sequel delivers as advertised. In particular, an electrified subway car and laser-wired bank vault room provide more of the original’s edge-of-your-seat thrills. But somewhere along the way, Escape Room: Tournament of Champions stops being fun.

Robitel paces things quickly, which is probably for the best. Like its predecessor, Tournament of Champions’ story won’t hold up to much scrutiny.

In part, the sequel suffers from a feeling of ‘been there, done that’. Four different screenwriters share a credit for the sequel’s screenplay. Yet none of the writers seem willing to stray far – if at all – from Escape Room’s story structure. As a result, Tournament of Champions quickly becomes exhausting and overly repetitive. And this is a movie that barely registers in at 90 minutes. By the time the climax and big twist roll around, audiences may find themselves losing interest. Whether the twist is implausible or even good isn’t the sequel’s problem. Instead, Escape Room: Tournament of Champions rarely arouses any emotional investment. Who will survive and who will not is rarely in doubt.

Escape Room: Tournament of Champions Underwhelms Even With Two Versions

An alternate version to the theatrical release offers more proof to the lack of ideas in the writing room. Both versions offer their own, albeit, very different twists. There’s little disputing the superiority of the theatrical cut of Escape Room: Tournament of Champions. In addition to bringing back a popular character from the first movie, the theatrical cut offers a livelier jaunt to the inevitable tease for a sequel. Despite some retconning of things we saw happen in Escape Room, the theatrical cut’s twist feels a bit more thought out. Comparatively, the alternate cut’s different opening and conclusion make little sense and offer up an awkward, flat finale. Regardless both versions suggest that Robitel and company may want to re-consider a possible another sequel.

Comparatively, the alternate cut’s different opening and conclusion make little sense and offer up an awkward, flat finale.

Where Escape Room: Tournament of Champions works is with its cast. Both Taylor Russell and Logan Miller (We Summon the Darkness) are back as Zoey and Ben, respectively. And while we don’t get the same satisfying character arcs from the first movie, the relationship between the two characters at least give some emotional anchor to the sequel. We like the characters, we value their friendship, and we want them to survive. In a sequel with a more compelling story, there might be more suspense tied to these characters’ survival. Though the supporting cast is good, Escape Room: Tournament of Champions doesn’t create the same opportunities for these characters to shine.

Escape Room: Tournament of Champions …

Beware of an inferior extended cut likely meant for a Blu-ray release. The theatrical version – despite its flaws – is absolutely superior. Unfortunately, no amount of alternate versions would make Escape Room: Tournament of Champions a good movie. While it’s a very watchable (and mostly entertaining) movie, Robitel’s sequel never comes close to matching the silly fun of the first movie. After a promising start and a couple of suspenseful set-pieces, Tournament of Champions unravels in its final act. Not even four credited screenwriters seemed to know what to do with this movie.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C+

Don’t Breathe 2 Delivers More Violence, Less Suspense

Posted on by
2
Advertisements

Following the surprise critical and box office success of Don’t Breathe, a sequel was inevitable. Ghost House Entertainment and original director and writer Fede Alvarez (Evil Dead) took a little longer than expected to get the ball rolling. And the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its release by over a year. But Don’t Breathe 2 finally hit theaters last month. After subverting the home invasion thriller, Alvarez and co-writer, Rodo Sayagues, have again flipped the script. With Sayagues behind the camera this time, Don’t Breathe 2 turns its villain, The Blind Man, into the sequel’s ‘sort of’ hero. Unfortunately, critics have been less impressed with this switch.

Synopsis

After surviving his injuries and losing his home, ex-military veteran Norman Nordstrom has once again isolated himself. But after saving a young girl from a house fire, The Blind Man has a new adopted daughter. Still bitter and fearful, Nordstrom shields ‘Phoenix’ from the outside world. However, he can’t protect Phoenix from his – or her – past. When a vicious gang breaks into his home to kidnap the girl, The Blind Man unleashes his violent fury to save the one good thing he can claim.

Don’t Breathe 2 Trades Suspense For B-Movie Action Violence

When Ghost House Entertainment released Don’t Breathe, they didn’t just deliver a refreshingly suspenseful spin on the home invasion thriller. They also produced one of the decade’s best horror movies. Like most sequels, Don’t Breathe 2 mostly doubles down on its premise. Once again criminals are breaking into The Blind Man’s home. And yet again The Blind Man turns the tables on his attackers. This time around the ‘bad guys’ are more ‘bad’ and there are more of them to up the sequel’s body count. Not surprisingly, writer and director Rodo Sayagues dials up the violence as well. In fact, Don’t Breathe 2 ratchets it up to exploitation movie levels. Here, The Blind Man displays ‘Rambo-like’ invincibility.

If Don’t Breathe was tightly paced and very much edge-of-your-seat, the sequel forgoes its horror roots.

Where Don’t Breathe 2 doesn’t double-down, however, is on the scares and suspense. If Don’t Breathe was tightly paced and very much edge-of-your-seat, the sequel forgoes its horror roots. Whether this was intentional or indicative of Fede Alvarez not returning the director’s chair, Don’t Breathe 2 works better as an action movie. Yes, the sequel looks good. The production values are good and Sayagues knows how to capture the bloody action. But for such a relentless movie, there’s little in the way of tension.

Don’t Breathe 2 Asks Audiences To Perform Some Mental Gymnastics

Perhaps the sequel’s biggest divergence is its treatment of Stephen Lang’s (VFW) Nordstrom. Don’t forget, The Blind Man abducted and forcibly impregnated a woman in the first movie in the creepiest way possible. Yet for some strange reason, Alvarez and Sayagues expect audiences to buy into Nordstrom as an ‘anti-hero’. Even if The Blind Man had some sympathetic roots, this is a big leap that requires impressive selective memory. To his credit, Lang once again makes the character compelling. He’s excellent in the role but the character works better as a villain than a flawed protagonist.

…Alvarez and Sayagues expect audiences to buy into Nordstrom as an ‘anti-hero’.

Another problem for Don’t Breathe 2 is its anemic cast of supporting characters. The sequel really misses Jane Levy and Dylan Minnette (Open House). Aside from Madelyn Grace’s ‘Phoenix’, Don’t Breathe 2 offers no one with whom to empathize. There’s no likeable characters. And the movie’s villains are largely interchangeable ‘baddies’ who just up the movie’s body count. Not even Brendan Sexton III’s ‘Raylan’ registers much as the central antagonist. He’s vaguely menacing but mostly just forgettable.

Don’t Breathe 2 …

More action, more violence, fewer scares. Sometimes less is more, which Don’t Breathe 2 works overtime to illustrate. While its predecessor was a suspenseful subversion of home invasion thrillers, Don’t Breathe 2 is an ultra-violent action movie. And if Jane Levy and Dylan Minnette made for sympathetic protagonists, the sequel populates itself with unlikeable characters. Arguably, Alvarez and Sayagues’ baffling decision to turn ‘The Blind Man’ into something of anti-hero immediately sets the sequel on the wrong course. If there’s serious interest in a third movie, Alvarez et al need to make a huge course correction.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C+

Candyman Revives The Legend For the 21st Century

Posted on by
Reply
Advertisements

Nearly 30 years later, horror fans still regard Candyman as one of the best horror movies of the 1990’s. Based on Clive Barker’s (Hellraiser) short story, The Forbidden, Candyman turned its title character into a classic boogeyman while making Tony Todd a horror icon. In addition to director Bernard Rose’s haunting imagery, Philip Glass’ score remains one of the genre’s best. Now, after a year’s delay, Nia DaCosta’s direct sequel has arrived to overwhelmingly positive reviews. Like the 2018 Halloween, DaCosta’s Candyman is something of a ‘re-quel’. Though it’s directly connected to the 1992 original, DaCosta’s movie re-imagines its racial themes for our present day.

Synopsis

Three decades have passed since graduate student Helen Lyle’s infamous crimes and death in Chicago’s Cabrini-Green. Like the legend she chased, Helen has become a ghost story. When struggling artist Anthony McCoy hears the story he heads to what’s left of a now gentrified Cabrini-Green looking for inspiration. But Anthony finds more than inspiration – he stumbles on the decades-old legend of ‘The Candyman’. Soon horrific images haunt Anthony and his art as a new wave of gruesome murders begins.

Candyman Updates Its Story of Racial Violence for the 21st Century

When news broke that a new Candyman was in the works, speculation focused on whether the new movie would be a sequel or reboot. While it’s definitely a sequel with direct connections to the 1992 original, Nia DaCosta re-imagines and re-contextualizes much of the Candyman mythology. In fact, DaCosta – who also shares writing credits with Jordan Peele (Us) and Win Rosenfield – weaves contemporary racial justice issues with an expanding mythos. Initially, DaCosta introduces to a new ‘Candyman’, Sherman Fields. It’s a story of police brutality and injustice that resonates today. Eventually Candyman connects Sherman Field’s story to the original’s Daniel Robitaille. Later DaCosta connects Anthony McCoy to the original in a simple but clever way.

It’s a story of police brutality and injustice that resonates today.

As a woman of color, DaCosta also weaves the gentrification of Cabrini-Green – and appropriation of Black culture – into a more complex racial allegory. Whether it’s McCoy’s struggles amongst elitist White art culture or the introduction of Candyman’s across generations. DaCosta positions her Candyman as a statement on the cycle of racial violence in America. Where the sequel runs into some problems are the splintering of characters and subplots. Occasionally, Candyman loses its focus on Anthony to explore backstories for other characters. Perhaps it’s a case of trying to do much in 90 minutes. Still it’s only a minor quibble with the story.

Candyman Every Bit as Scary and Brutal as its Predecessor

As a pure horror movie, Candyman largely re-captures the original’s tone and brutality. Some horror fans may take issue with the CGI-inspired bloodletting. Don’t worry – it’s no less gruesome. Moreover, DaCosta proves to be inventive in the staging of the sequel’s scares. In particular, DaCosta uses mirrors and reflections in ways we didn’t see in the original movie. The results are some surprising and inspired scares. In addition, DaCosta varies her scares, alternating what (and how) violence appears on the screen. She also selectively mixes quiet, benign setting with more orchestrated scares to keep audiences off balance.

…DaCosta proves to be inventive in the staging of the sequel’s scares.

As Anthony McCoy, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II continues to build an impressive resume. Despite his hulking physique, Abdul-Mateen convinces as a vulnerable, struggling artist increasingly falling down a rabbit hole. It’s a layered performance that lends the sequel the same feeling of prestige horror that the original enjoyed. Following her breakout performance in WandaVision, Teyonah Parris is equally impressive here as McCoy’s successful art gallery director girlfriend. While some of her story thread feels slightly shoehorned into the sequel, Candyman ensures Parris’ ‘Brianna Cartwright’ is a fully realized character. And horror fans don’t need to fret. Tony Todd does make an appearance.

Candyman a Lesson on How to Revive an Old Horror Franchise

A direct sequel that acts a bit like a soft reboot, the 2021 Candyman positions its title character for new audiences and potential sequels. If its story is a bit overstuffed, Candyman still feels potent and relevant. And DaCosta ensures that its still an inventively scary and brutal movie that respects the source material. Whether you call it a sequel, remake, or re-imagining, Candyman illustrates how to re-invigorate an old horror franchise.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: A

Jason Goes To Hell Lives Up To Its Title In All The Worst Ways

Posted on by
Reply
Advertisements

After dominating the 1980’s, Friday the 13th closed out the decade with a whimper. Jason Takes Manhattan, which hit theaters in 1989, remains the lowest earning movie in the series. And its ending didn’t seem to leave much direction for future sequels. Toxic waste that first regresses you to childhood and then melts you tends to have that effect. But Jason Voorhees eventually returned in what’s arguably the worst movie in the franchise. While it took four years New Line Cinemas – the franchise’s new owner – unleashed Jason Goes to Hell in 1993. In spite of a subtitle promising it was ‘The Final Friday‘, the studio clearly had ambitions of a crossover with A Nightmare on Elm Street. That crossover would languish for a decade. What we were left with was a sequel that’s either ‘so bad, it’s good’ or just a ‘bad movie’.

Synopsis

For years, Jason Voorhees has haunted Crystal Lake. But this time an FBI tactical squad was waiting – and the infamous killer is dead. Though is physical body is destroyed, Jason’s evil spirit lives on. Now a demonic entity, Jason possesses and kills one hapless victim after another. To resurrect himself, Jason’s spirit stalks the last remaining relative in his bloodline.

Jason Goes to Hell Begs One Question – What The Hell Were They Thinking?

Over the lifespan of a horror series, it’s not uncommon for proposed sequels to become a completely different movie. Case in point, The Collector was originally intended to be be a Saw sequel. Or sometimes a series adopts an unrelated screenplay (see the Hellraiser franchise). Yet somehow Jason Goes to Hell was an idea completely intended as a Friday the 13th sequel. Yes, writers Jay Huguely and Dean Lorey drafted a screenplay where Jason Voorhees dies in the opening minutes. For the rest of the movie, Jason’s spirit possesses helpless victim’s to continue the bloodshed. For those keeping count, this would make Jason Goes to Hell the second Friday the 13th sequel where Jason doesn’t technically show up.

In contrast, Jason Goes to Hell exhausts audiences with ridiculous demonic mumbo jumbo.

While later sequels inevitably retcon their source material, Jason Goes to Hell doubles down on the stupid. Though Jason Lives technically turned the goalie mask-wearing killing into a supernatural killer it didn’t waste time explaining it. In contrast, Jason Goes to Hell exhausts audiences with ridiculous demonic mumbo jumbo. And director Adam Marcus drops visual references to Evil Dead with a Necronomicon Easter egg. Though it’s probably the sequel’s best moment, Marcus does nothing with it. Instead, the sequel gives Jason Voorhees an extended family and a demonic parasite.

Jason Goes to Hell Doesn’t Completely Forget It’s a Friday the 13th Sequel

Two years earlier, Freddy’s Dead set the template for franchise killers. Not to be outdone, Jason Goes to Hell repeats many of that sequel’s mistakes. But the fact that the sequel ignores Jason Goes to Manhattan’s ending is probably its smartest decision. Moreover, Marcus does score points for some decent kills. As far as some of the later sequels go, Jason Goes to Hell bookends itself with impressive visuals. If the sight of demons literally dragging Jason to Hell is silly, Marcus at least makes it look good. In between, Jason impales and splits one victim in half and crushes another victim’s head with his bare hands. In what’s a terrible movie, a scene where a victim melts stands out as a highlight.

If the sight of demons literally dragging Jason to Hell is silly, Marcus at least makes it look good.

Like most of the sequel, Jason Goes to Hell mixes its cast with unknowns and a few familiar character actors. Neither John D LeMay nor Kari Keegan do much to hurt or help the movie. Both actors are passable in their roles. Poor Steven Williams (21 Jump Street, The X-Files) continues a franchise tradition. As bounty hunter Creighton Duke, Jason Goes to Hell builds him up only to do nothing with him. We see you Rick and Rob Dier. Still Richard Gant suffers the sequel’s ultimate low point as the coroner who inexplicably eats Jason’s heart. Fans of the Buck Rogers television series will recognize Erin Gray.

Jason Goes to Hell is The Franchise Low Point

Let’s face it. Even if you love it, the Friday the 13th franchise has seen some low points. Jason Voorhees has been to outer space, battled a telekinetic teen, melted in toxic waste under the streets of Manhattan, and not even shown up for one sequel. But Jason Goes to Hell is the nadir of the series. Arguably, Jason Goes to Hell barely qualifies as a Friday the 13th movie. A few decent kills can’t compensate for the insulting retcon and supernatural tease to Evil Dead that never pays off. The sequel’s only highlight is the final tease of a crossover with A Nightmare on Elm Street. And fans waited ten years for that one.

THE FINAL VERDICT: JUST A BAD MOVIE