Burn, Baby, Burn!

Firestarter

Firestarter 2:  Rekindled

I read the novel, Firestarter, at the end of 8^th grade and watched the adapted film of the same name immediately after.  I don’t remember much about the book (I’m almost 38 now) and the only part of the movie I recall (at the time) being faithful was the very beginning when the father and daughter were running from government agents.  Drew Barrymore plays that daughter (the titular character) that has pyrokinesis as a result of government experimentation just 2 years after being in E.T. (1984 for those unaware of movie releases).  Stephen King is one of the few that could take a premise so simple and make it compelling---a little girl can cause fires with her mind (sounds like something a third grader would concoct).  And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again---Mr. King excels at characterizations and his characters often make the stories as much as the stories themselves.  I don’t think I would label this film horror, it being more of a chase movie and a thriller with elements of sci-fi (the All Movie site agrees with my description).  Now, this was never my favorite work of his, as it is very simple without much depth.  I don’t dislike it at all either; its simplicity itself is what makes it watchable.  Given the time of release, the realistic fires (as they all likely were real) give it a praiseworthy quality that noticeable CGI would never be able to accomplish, particularly when her powers really let loose at the end, enough to simultaneously be a pyromaniac’s wet dream and a firefighter’s worst nightmare.  The sequel, Firestarter 2:  Rekindled, a TV movie released 18 years later in 2002, was more of a remake and a sequel to the remake in one film (it was almost 3 hours, so it was certainly long enough to be 2 films!).  I say it felt more like a remake because the flashback scenes were shot with different performers at different locations instead of using footage from the first film, yet the character names were all the same (I know not what the reasoning was behind that).  It often felt more like an X-Men-type film too, there being other “mutant” kids created by a government agency and kept together in a facility.  Back to my mention of realistic fires in the first film, some here may have looked passable (particularly a flashback scene where the little girl lets loose), but many were noticeably digital.  Some of us do prefer films that were made before digital effects were completely at our disposal.  Aside from that, it isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen, but I still say it’s an unnecessary sequel to a movie that wasn’t exactly a masterpiece itself.

In conclusion:  If you have time, read the Stephen King novel and then watch the movie (again or for the first time) like my 8^th grade self did.  If you don’t have time or don’t want to make time, just watch the first movie.  I, personally, wouldn’t tell you to waste your time with the sequel, but I understand how it is in wanting to complete a series; just know that you’ll lose almost 3 hours of your life you won’t get back.  At least it was only 2 films that were made (so far) and it managed to avoid being bitten by the remake bug for a long time; I heard Blumhouse Productions plans on remaking it.  Since it was inevitable and I’m willing to give remakes, however unnecessary, a chance (I didn’t expect to like the Child’s Play remake as much as I did), all I can say for this one is that I hope the fires look realistic!  6/15/2020

---Sean O.
6/16/2020

Psycho Analyses

Psycho (1960)

Psycho II

Psycho III

Psycho IV: The Beginning

I decided to revisit this series after seeing a post about Psycho II (damn social media) and that I haven’t seen them in a while.  I didn’t watch the 1998 remake (at least my OCD doesn’t always get the better of me) because I remember it being a shot-for-shot remake in color with different performers, and that just makes it the very definition of an unnecessary remake; I watched it one time and that’s it for me!  As for the original black-and-white film, it is labeled a horror classic.  Classic, as I’ve said either in person or in one of my reviews, is a very subjective term, often coined by historians and society at large.  Just because something is labeled a “classic” doesn’t mean I’m going to like it, nor should I feel like I have to (I’m not a fan of Citizen Kane and I’ve watched it twice).  I do like the original Psycho, yes, and it’s still a good film to watch despite feeling dated (what do you expect from a movie made 60 years ago?).  I am a fan of Alfred Hitchcock, even some of his work made before Psycho; I don’t believe I’ve seen all of his movies, but I’ve seen many and am a fan of enough to call myself a fan (I’m always interested in seeing films labeled as “Hitchcockian”).  Even if you haven’t seen Psycho (or the remake, and I hope the remake isn’t the only version you’ve seen), I’m sure the twist has been revealed in much of pop culture or by word-of-mouth, but I won’t disclose it in case there’s a chance you don’t know.  Do see the original, if so, and skip the remake (OCD be damned; coming from someone with OCD); luckily I grew up in a time when most original films were the only version and I grew to love them before remakes came along.  Sequels, especially for horror and action films, are largely inevitable, and while many may not be as good as the first (often more than not) and/or unnecessary, I don’t hate them as much as remakes.  Psycho II, while not as good as its predecessor, isn’t that bad for a sequel made 23 years later (22 years have passed in the film world).  Psycho III, directed by Norman Bates himself (Anthony Perkins), isn’t bad as well despite not being spectacular; the blood surely spills more than the previous entries.  Psycho IV: The Beginning is a TV movie sequel that’s mostly a prequel via flashbacks.  While I’m not always the biggest fan of prequels, especially when they ruin a film’s overall mystery or are an obvious cash-in, this fourquel wasn’t the worst movie I’ve seen (as a standalone film).  Director Mick Garris, he who was behind other horror films like Critters 2: The Main Course, Sleepwalkers, The Stand, The Shining remake, and Riding the Bullet, adds a bit of credibility to it.  I’d still say it would’ve ended well after Psycho III, if anything, but at least they stopped at IV (for now).  I never got around to watching the Bates Motel series because I never really had a desire to and there were five seasons!  Five ten-episode seasons with a minimal 40-minutes each is an awful long prequel!  According to Wikipedia, there was a TV movie in 1987, also titled Bates Motel, that was a spinoff of the franchise.  Maybe I’ll check that out since it’s only one 95-minute movie.

In conclusion:  Watch Psycho if you haven’t already, even though you might think it’s dated and may not have patience compared to most modern films, and you could waste your time with worse if you decide to have a marathon (I like these movies in the order they were released).  Do skip the remake though, whether you have OCD or not, because it is as unnecessary as they come.  Also, if you are a fan of the original Psycho, or filmmaking in general, check out 78/52, a documentary involving a detailed analysis of the infamous shower scene.  6/7/2020

---Sean O.
6/8/2020

Nights to Dismember

Prom Night (1980)

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II

Prom Night III: The Last Kiss

Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil

Prom Night (2008)

Prom is so overrated.  I didn’t even want to go to mine.  I only went my senior year (with someone I didn’t even care to go with) because my mom wanted a picture.  I hated high school in general (I wasn’t exactly the most popular person either).  Anyway, I decided to revisit the Prom Night franchise, even the 2008 remake I know I hated, enough to only give it 1 ½ stars out of 4 (when I used to give star ratings) and to include it on my ten worst films of that year.  But, since I have OCD, usually whenever I watch a film that’s part of a franchise, I like to watch all of them, and sometimes my opinion on a movie may change over time (yes, even if I remember hating it).  The original Prom Night starring Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen definitely isn’t my favorite slasher movie.  I don’t hate it, but it’s kind of boring even as a teen movie and the kills are too few, not starting until after the hour mark (not counting the accidental death in the beginning).  Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II introduces the titular Mary Lou character in a story that’s totally different than the first.  This takes a more supernatural approach although there are deaths in a body count fashion and it’s ultimately an example of standard (yet watchable) Eighties cheese.  It also tries to emulate, not nearly as successfully, that best prom-themed film known as Carrie, the original one directed by Brian De Palma.  I do love that possessed rocking horse; it always seems to stand out the most whenever I think of this sequel.  I always thought of Prom Night III: The Last Kiss as my favorite entry in the series, but it’s still not the greatest film out there.  Sure, it may be flawed like the rest of the films, but it’s a slightly stylish teen body count movie and I’m particularly a fan of the ‘Prom Night in Hell’ scene at the end.  Whereas my buddy and fellow queer, Ron Oliver, he who directed several Are You Afraid of the Dark? and Goosebumps episodes among other things, wrote Prom Night II, here he wrote and directed.  Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil takes place in the same universe as the preceding two entries and concerns a seemingly possessed priest that escapes a certain kind of confinement and ends up targeting a group of four teens that ditched their prom.  There are an equal amount of bland kills as there are passable ones in this entry, making it a typical slasher film that isn’t anything special (much like the first film).  Lastly, I hated the remake probably as much as I did in 2008.  While the original film was largely boring, this one was as by-the-numbers as they come.  It was bland, uninteresting, dull, unimaginative, uninspired, insipid, lackluster, flat, stale, lame, you get the idea (I used as many synonyms for bland as I could).  And at least the original had a bit of mystery with the whodunit aspect; here you knew who the killer was right away and the kills were all predictable while lacking flair.  Prom Night (2008) is one of many examples belonging in the definition of ‘unnecessary remake.’

In conclusion:  While it’s definitely not the best franchise out there (it seems like I say that about a lot of franchises), it certainly has its place in the history of horror cinema.  I don’t think any of them are spectacular and the only one I completely detest is the 2008 remake.  One thing that is for sure, I have more fun with these films than I did at my own prom that I don’t even remember too much about; I don’t remember having any fun either.  Fuck prom!  And high school!  I would never go back.  6/3/2020

---Sean O.
6/5/2020