I didn't grow up a Michael Myers fan. I'm more of a Jason guy, because I like my slasher films ridiculously stupid. I have always liked the original Halloween (1978), though. I've been slowly getting around to the rest of the Halloween series over the past few trick-or-treat seasons, and this year I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007); it had its moments, certainly, but I thought it was an interesting failure instead of the bad-ass re-imagining that I was hoping for. I had heard that Zombie went off on his own for the sequel, though, which sounded like something that would play to his strengths more. Does it?
Halloween II (2009) picks up right where the last film left off. The police have arrived at the scene, and they are packing everybody up in ambulances. Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is a hot mess of blood and tears, but she is alive and she has shot Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) in the goddamned face. And chest. And she's stabbed him a bunch. Laurie is sent to the hospital to recover and Michael is sent off to the morgue. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue --- the car crashes into a cow! And, as the legends foretold, yonder bovine sacrifice will once again raise up he that is eeeveeel!!! Or, in English, Michael wakes up and heads to the hospital to share a little stabby-stabby with Laurie and whoever else wants to share.
Okay, now it's your turn to stab someone. Yay, sharing!
And boy, does he share! Security guards, doctors, nurses...Michael puts on a bit of a laceration seminar for the staff and just when he's about to do the same for Laurie, she wakes up. That's right, we had ourselves an old-fashioned "it was only a dream" moment. It turns out that Laurie did, indeed survive her encounter with Michael Myers one or two years ago. Since her family was brutally murdered, she now lives with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and his daughter/her friend, Annie (Danielle Harris), who somehow survived the fact that she looked awfully dead in the last film. The trauma hasn't been easy for anyone, but Laurie is on a nightmare-a-night diet and has turned into a (justifiably) angry young woman with finger-quotes rebellious new friends.
Whoa! Those rebels got to pose for a picture with the lead singer of Soul Asylum?
While Laurie's been bitching and moaning about surviving what appears (to her) to be a motiveless crime, Michael Myers has also been recuperating. Apparently, that whole cow revival bit actually happened, too. Michael's been living in fields and in wooded areas, healing his wounds and growing a pretty enormous beard.
THIS is why homeless people are frightening
Michael has been having dreams, too, although they might just be hallucinations. He sees his late mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and his younger self (Chase Wright Vanek), often accompanied by a white horse and snow globe effects, and they tell Michael that it's time to bring Laurie home. And by "home," they of course mean...well, that's not exactly clear. "Murder," perhaps? And why is this a pressing need after all this time? Don't ask, because nobody else will. Once again, on Halloween, Michael Myers returns to Haddonfield to murder anyone he meets on his way to finding Laurie. And, once again, Laurie doesn't get why all this is happening. But she's been having these crazy visions of a lady in white, with a blonde son and a white horse...
The acting in Halloween II isn't as good as the last film. A big part of that is because Chase Wright Vanek replaced Daeg Faerch as Lil' Michael; replacing your best actor with a better-looking but less menacing one is not a winning choice. I'm sure the change was made because Faerch literally outgrew his role, but that was still disappointing. Vanek was okay, I guess, but his character's presence in this movie was waaay overplayed and nowhere near as clever as the script believed. I was impressed by the more emotive performance from Tyler Mane, though; his furious grunts definitely disturbed me. Sheri Moon Zombie was very...ethereal, I guess. Her character didn't require much acting, and she didn't throw in any extra.
Kill, darling. And shake the snow globe.
Taylor Scout-Compton had a lot juicier role in Halloween II than she had last time, and I really regret that. She wasn't bad --- she did what I imagine the script asked of her quite well --- but she was annoying as all hell and I wanted her to die. I was impressed by Danielle Harris' supporting role; Harris once again played a victim extremely well, but she also showed off some solid dramatic chops. Malcolm McDowell's character had an abrupt shift from concerned doctor to complete prick, and it wasn't much fun to watch. I liked seeing more of Brad Dourif in this film, even if he is far more capable than his role hints at. He is the closest I have seen to a normal person in a Rob Zombie movie, and that was refreshing.
Just look at that handlebar and tell me he can't handle more!
As far as newcomers to the series go, I liked Brea Grant and Angela Trimbur as Laurie's rebel friends. They were pretty easy parts to play, but they came across as young ladies who would have been fun/trouble in college. They also had a pretty sweet set of Rocky Horror Halloween costumes.
Note: it is very difficult to find this when Google Image searching "Halloween II Rocky Horror"
In case you were wondering who the moron in the wolf man costume was, it was Matt Bush taking yet another stab at becoming this generation's Seth Green, and doing a pretty decent job of it. Margot Kidder was this movie's first entry in the WTF casting Olympics, and she was fine as Laurie's therapist. Howard Hesseman played against type *eyeroll* as an aging hippie somehow trapped in a Rob Zombie movie. The other competitors were 'Weird Al' Yankovic and Chris Hardwick, who were fine on their own, but symbolic of a problem I had with the film.
"So...this is a scene from a Rob Zombie movie? Gritty!"
Rob Zombie once again wrote and directed Halloween II (2009), this time without the burden of recreating a classic. He did do a bit of an homage to Halloween II (1981), but that was limited to the dream sequence. In all fairness, it was a pretty brutal and impressive homage, even if it was cheapened by the dream. Zombie's direction is still nasty and grimy, so no real change there. He also wrote almost all of the characters as unsympathetic assholes, but his handling of Sheriff Brackett and his daughter was surprisingly good. Actually, I was impressed by some of the ideas Zombie brought up in this film. This is the first time I have seen realistic fallout from a slasher movie, whether it be physical injuries or mental scars.
This is what happens after the credits? Gross.
Here's the thing: I find the basic fallout from the last film very plausible, and that plausibility is a welcome surprise in a horror sequel. And while I like the concept of Laurie being totally screwed in the head and Michael being more expressive after his frustration in the last film, the end result is just...abrasive. And not in a shocking sense that makes you squirm uncomfortably, abrasive in that elaborately produced way, kind of like the naughty kid who shops for clothes at Hot Topic.
Anyone who spends this much time ruining their bathroom is an interior designer, not a rebel
Zombie also fails to focus in this movie. The side plot with Dr. Loomis was uninteresting and unnecessary to the main story; all it did was take the decently interesting Loomis from the last film and make him completely despicable. Also completely worthless was every single scene showing Lil' Michael and his mom. Cut that crap out and you have a movie that is at least 40% better, 30 minutes shorter, and 100% less pretentious.
The violence was plentiful in Halloween II, so I don't have any complaints about that. There isn't as much gore or uniqueness in the kills as you might expect --- aside from a head-smashing and a dog murder --- but Michael grunted and moaned while he killed in this movie, and that was unsettling. The final scene with Annie was also pretty brutal, and --- I may be mistaken on this --- I think it's implied that Michael raped her to death/after death. His weird "mommy vision" told him to "have fun" and the next time we see Annie is with her blood ALL OVER the room, and minus her panties. I don't know why that disturbs me more than the other seventeen or so murders in this film, but it does.
Where Halloween II falls off the rails is in its portrayal of Michael. It's that fundamental. The emotionless, faceless killer with unknown motivations now has emotions, a face, and explicit motivations. I'm no Halloween purist, but that's just...not Michael Myers. Even if you give Zombie the benefit of the doubt to recreate MM however he sees fit, the things we learn about Michael by seeing things through his eyes are stupid and boring. Do you like vaguely defined dream imagery?
"If I say yes, can it pop up every ten minutes for no goddamned reason?"
What if it was awkward, clumsy, and felt out of place in the movie? Then this is the movie for you, friend! Zombie wasn't far off the mark with his dream sequences, but they were a missed opportunity. Instead of some white horse bullshit, we could have had some weird, twisted Tim Burton-esque dreamscape where Michael's actions actually make sense. Knowing what Michael sees and how far beyond crazy he is would have separated this film from the other Halloweens and still might have been interesting. In the unrated director's cut, the ending was changed to actually have Michael speak. It's not as interesting as it sounds, and Michael's anger seems curiously misplaced. It was not too surprising for a mass murderer, but it was an odd climax to a movie.
There are other weaknesses in the film, too, of course. Rob Zombie's inability to make you care about anyone on the screen is a big one. He doubles down on Michael and Laurie, but the things he adds --- dreams and unexplained shared visions --- are just awful. The complete lack of suspense was another miss. Explaining that Michael is just after Laurie, and yet he makes several pit stops along the way to murder people --- that doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit the character.
Laurie doesn't even know most of the victims, so it can't be to get priceless reaction shots like this
Overall, this was just an unpleasant experience with a few moments that gave me hope that something cool would happen. The concept of emotional fallout from the first film was one highlight, and the Rocky Horror costumes were another. I'm very happy that this movie did not try to recreate Halloween II (1981), but the fact of the matter is that the scenes that pay homage to that movie are some of the most brutal and fast-paced in the film. If some of your best scenes come from a fake-out, you have a problem. There is just so much that goes wrong in Halloween II (2009). It wants to be smart, but comes off idiotic. It wants to be disturbing, but instead becomes grating. I think it is supposed to be scary, but without any suspense or characters to care about, that's a tall order. As I watched it, I felt like Halloween II (2009) was trying to punish me for wanting to learn more about Michael Myers. This is a movie that put a lot of effort in to make me hate it. If it wasn't for those few, scattered moments of potential, I would rank this as one of my most hated movies.
While (figuratively) thumbing through my movie queue, I realized that I have not reviewed any "Massacre" movies. There's no real rhyme or reason for that; I love the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and taintpunch-hate the 2003 remake, but there are still a couple dozen other "massacre" movies I could waste a few hours watching. I opted for Sorority House Massacre, primarily because I was in the mood for something from the 80s, but also because I assumed that a sorority house would make for a high body count and amusingly broad characters. So how did that work out for me?
In case the trailer didn't clue you in, the opening credits make it pretty plain: Sorority House Massacre is going to be pretty cheap and cheesy. The credits are just an exterior shot of the sorority house in question, with a moody 80s synthesizer for the soundtrack. Even better, the entire story is told by the Last Girl, Beth (Angela O'Neill), in a flashback as she recovers in a psychiatric ward. Beth was pledging a sorority, I guess; I didn't see any sorority sisters taking her under their wing or anything, but the other girls talked about her joining, so...maybe this is the ultra-chill sorority that doesn't make a big deal out of pledge drives. Also: I thought pledges only joined sororities during pledge week --- this seemed like Beth was the only new girl around.
"Stop picking my life apart!"
*Ahem* Anyway, Beth is pledging, so she goes to the sorority house for the weekend. Of course, that weekend happens to be the one non-holiday weekend when next to none of the sisters are staying there. Man! This premise is like a scab that I can't stop picking, and I haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet! Okay, let's try that one more time. Beth is staying at the fairly deserted sorority house for the weekend with three other sorority girls. During her time in the house, Beth starts to have visions and she has a nightmare during that first night. What kind of visions/dreams, you ask?
Why are all small girls creepy, even if they're well-behaved in your dreams?
The normal stuff: blood dripping from the ceiling, a mannequin family at the dinner table, marbles spilling on the floor, and images of a mad killer. Beth's soon-to-be-besties pick up on her moodiness and know exactly what she needs --- a man and a crazy night, sorority style!
Both of which were obviously underwhelming
Meanwhile, ever since Beth walked into the sorority house, Bobby (John C. Russell) has been acting very strangely at the maximum security psychiatric hospital, which doesn't at all look like the upper floor in a typical suburban house. How strangely? Well, he's started speaking after many years of being basically comatose. Oh, and he killed his way out of the hospital, destined for parts unknown. But we know where he's going, don't we? After all, this movie needs to earn its title!
First up: the acting. There isn't any in Sorority House Massacre. Most of this cast made only a handful of movies, and a few of the main players never acted before or after. That's the talent level we're working with here, and it definitely shows. Do you like thoughtful inflection, realistic reactions, and likable characters? Then you might not want to focus on the actors in this movie.
"I'm, like, probably dying and stuff. Blarg! That sounds like a death rattle, right?"
Despite the obviously exploitative subject matter, it turns out that Sorority House Massacre was written and directed by a woman, Carol Frank. I don't want to be sexist, but I normally assume that a man would make a semi-sleazy horror knockoff like this; I hereby offer my apologies to womankind for thinking that exploitation was not an equal-opportunity film genre. This was the only movie Frank wrote or directed, and I think I know why. Take this scene:
This character's line is "You wouldn't happen to have a sweater to go with this, would you?" And the answer is surprisingly not "What are the fucking odds of that?" Even worse, another character finds a sweater to go along with it! Guess what it looked like. Go on, I dare you. That's right, tropical pukeHawaiian nightmare a crotch-length pink cardigan, of course!
It does look good, though, when you compare it to sack-shaped dresses
The script for Sorority House Massacre is hilariously bad. Aside from gems like the sweater line, when Beth has her nightmare, each one of the girls goes to class the next day (I thought this was a weekend...?) and each of their classes has something that deals, directly or indirectly, with interpreting Beth's dream. Is that not bad enough for you? How about this: the slutty girl and her boyfriend, who have only three other girls in the sorority house, go off to be alone for some sexy time...in a teepee they set up in the back yard. Really? Is it that hard to get the killer inside to kill those two? They have to look for privacy in a practically vacant building by going outside?
Perhaps shadow puppets are part of their foreplay?
Frank's direction is not much better. I think my favorite moments were when the camera is moving around, like it's a point-of-view shot, and then the killer just walks out in front of the camera. So...it's not a POV shot...the cameraman is just skulking two paces behind the killer, and one to the side?
Okay, fine. Nobody is going to watch Sorority House Massacre for the acting and directing. What about the all-important horror quality-gauges, violence and nudity? Well, the violence isn't too impressive. The body count is only six or seven, and there weren't any cool gore scenes. It was mostly "STAB! Now, stay dead!" There wasn't a whole lot of nudity, either, but there also weren't very many characters in this movie; given that handicap, I think it's safe to say that at least half of the female cast with speaking lines flashed the camera. There was also a decent amount of man-ass, too:
It's like shirts and skins playing Capture the Flag. Only instead of a flag, it's a corpse.
If you keep a careful eye on those scenes, you can occasionally see the top of Mr. Chilly Feet's underwear because the editing in this movie is completely awesome.
If you look at this movie objectively, Sorority House Massacre is an unadulterated mess. But subjectively, it was a surprisingly good time (with liquor). I mean, come on! It's not every day you come across an unapologetic Halloweenripoff that manages to fail in almost every conceivable way.
That doesn't look anything remotely like a William Shatner mask
This doesn't even try to rip off Halloween. It goes for Halloween II, with a touch of early A Nightmare on Elm Street. The entire premise is so ludicrous that it could only make it into a bad horror movie --- and it still stands out for its stupidity! I'm not talking about the whole "massacre in the sorority house" thing, either. Do I need to put up a SPOILER ALERT? No, but I will because I'm considerate. The reason the killer is after Beth is because they share a psychic bond that appears to be triggered by her GPS location; she walks in the house, and he goes nuts. Why? Because they're brother and sister, duh. Oh, and Bobby murdered their entire family when Beth was five. Oh, and the dirty deed took place in the sorority house. Because it used to be their non-sorority house. In other words, Beth forgot that her family was murdered, forgot her brother, and forgot the house she grew up in, and that exact house wound up being rented by her possible-but-not-probable-at-this-point sorority. And, on top of that, we have the psychic link thing going on. That is some gloriously unlikely shit right there, my friends.
Not diving-headfirst-though-a-2nd-story-window unlikely, but still...
So, if you want to get picky about it, Sorority House Massacre would get a standard rating of
...and even that might be generous. However, in terms of Lefty Gold, this is one entertaining movie. I recommend watching it with an intoxicated friend and try to logically explain everything you see. That might sound boring, but once you start building on your earlier logic and expanding it, you'll thank me.
There are three important things you can take from the promotional poster for Bless the Child. First and foremost, there is a "child" that "just turned six," so we have a horror movie with a child actor. Not necessarily a bad sign, but worth noting. Second, the word "bless" and the upside-down(-ish) crucifix of light imply that this is a story that will deal with Christian (probably Catholic) beliefs. That means demons, the devil and/or possession; given the large number of crappy possession movies out there, that should set off a warning light. Finally, the tagline "Mankind's last hope just turned six" tells us that the advertising team did not have anything cool in the script to draw from. To put that in perspective, Leprechaun: In the Hood has the tagline "Evil's in the house." I think it's safe to say that this is going to be a rough one to watch.
Bless the Child begins with Maggie (Kim Basinger) coming home after a long day of nurse work. Waiting on her front stoop,
though, is a bum. Maggie does her best to shoo the bum away, but it
turns out that the bum is actually her sister, Jenna (Angela Bettis)! Jenna has always been the black sheep of the family, and it's been years
since the two have seen each other. So, Jenna, how're you doing?
Yeesh. Not so well, it seems. The titular child that needs blessing
happens to be Jenna's. Jenna appears to be homeless and jobless, with a heroin habit and a
brand-new baby from an unknown father. On the other hand, it looks like
she lost the baby weight ridiculously fast. Well, that's heroin for you. After some clumsy exposition where the two family members make sure to
explain their motives and history out loud to each other, Jenna shouts
"not it" (not really) and scrambles out into the streets, leaving Maggie
to raise the infant on her own (really). Fast-forward a
few years and the infant is now Cody (Holliston Coleman), a six-year-old
autistic child. And if you've seen enough movies, then you know that
"autistic" is interchangeable with "unique." In Cody's case, she is able
to do all sorts of cool stuff, like spin things with her mind and raise
the dead. Oddly enough, adults seem oblivious to these talents, probably because they're common symptoms of autism.
Maggie only appears to be impressed with Cody's ability to
chase away her boyfriends.
"I know you look like Kim Basinger and all, but women who care about kids are a major turn-off. Later."
Meanwhile, local police have been baffled by a number of child murders in the area. An FBI occult expert, Agent Travis (Jimmy Smits),
believes that the murders have been made in a ritualistic, Satan-worshiping kind of way. But why? And how are they getting all
these six-year-old kids?
"Hey kid, do you want a nice, warm bowl of murder?"
That is when Jenna shows up again, cleaned up and with a rich husband in tow. Her husband, Eric (Rufus Sewell),
is the multimillionaire leader of a child outreach group/satanic cult, which doesn't sound like it should be a lucrative profession.
"Most of my money comes from pleasuring hobos"
Jenna and Eric want custody of Cody. But Cody doesn't even know them, much less trust them or feel safe around them. Eric gives Maggie an ultimatum --- if she fights them, he will crush her in court. But if she considers giving them custody, they will steal away Cody when she's not looking. They're tough negotiators. Why do Jenna and Eric want Cody so badly, all of a sudden? What's the deal with all the dead kids? Is it important that Cody has the same birthday as them? And why does Cody appear to have super-spinning powers? Let's just say that someone born on that particular day, six years ago, might be a child of God. Does that clear everything up? No? Tough.
Basinger, after the script hit her on the head with Christ parallels
The acting in Bless the Child should, for the most part, be varnished to keep it from harm while you try to destroy your copy of the movie. Kim Basinger is bland, at best, in the lead role. It almost feels like
she doesn't understand English, and she just memorized her lines
phonetically; she would say "we're out of milk" with the same emphasis
as "a naked man is wearing a horse carcass in my bathroom." Maybe she thought her character was unfamiliar with the concept of human emotions, or maybe Basinger is a bad actress. Rufus
Sewell, who typically relishes villain roles, isn't much better. His
problem is that his character is supposed to be evil, and Sewell
sleepwalks through the scenes where he is killing and drugging folks. He
puts most of his effort into the scenes where he tries (and fails) to out-argue a
six-year-old. As far as evil goes, that's some pretty minor league stuff, Mr. Movie Villain. Jimmy Smits is actually okay, but I question the
likelihood of a single FBI agent having the freedom to follow whatever
cases he likes. What is this, The X-Files? Christina Ricci also makes a brief appearance as a
former cult member. She gives the best performance in the movie, and she isn't even that impressive. She just spoke like a rational person.
"Seriously, it's not that hard. What's wrong with the rest of you?"
Ian Holm has an even smaller part, and is gone after a handfull of
lines. As for the rest of the allegedly main cast, Angela Bettis is
uniformly awful and alters her performance significantly in every scene
she is in. Little Holliston Coleman is fine as far as child actors go,
but her role is more of an object than a character, so she doesn't make a
great impact on the film, one way or the other.
Bless the Child was directed by Chuck Russell, who was presumably hired for his horror-directing experience. I don't know what to say about his direction. Well, I
don't know what nice things I can say about his direction. Just because the man is a veteran in the genre doesn't mean he has the slightest clue as to how a supernatural horror movie should work. The acting is
all over the place, from incredibly bland to inappropriately manic, to
hilariously melodramatic. The action is handled poorly and
unconvincingly; Russell apparently believes that severing heads doesn't
get messy until the head falls off the body.
Look ma, no arterial spray!
The pacing is abysmal. How
long would it take for a complete stranger to convince you to kidnap a
child from her wealthy and powerful rightful parents? If you answered
anything longer than "two minutes," then you are simply not qualified to
direct Bless the Child. Let me put it to you another way; in a movie about ritual worship and devil worshipers, the scariest thing is a ginger with an afro.
He sees the world with his dark eye and the nether realm with the pale one
There are two conventional ways for a supernatural horror movie to be frightening. Either a supernatural being shows up and starts some shit, or humans acting on behalf of a creature do some extraordinarily reprehensible stuff, like eating human hearts or something like that. Bless the Child opts for "C: None of the Above." Sure, there is some dabbling in both of those key areas, but the otherworldly do little damage and the most reprehensible things in the script happen completely off-camera. There are only three on-screen deaths before the climax of this movie. One is a bum who is set on fire, another is a dude who gets knitting needles in his eyes, and the other is the victim of allergies (assuming she was allergic to blunt force trauma and knives). None of these are mysterious, creepy, or show any direct connection to the supernatural stuff that is happening in the rest of the movie. It doesn't fit the tone that the film is failing to set.
Bless the Child isn't just a bad movie, though. It is thoroughly and
unintentionally ridiculous. Let's take the cult as an example. It is
most popular with teens and twentysomethings, which makes sense, because
most parents support their child's aspirations to someday drink the
Kool-Aid. What I love to laugh at with the cult is that the kids --- the
ones on the inner circle, anyway --- all dress in black, wear trench coats, and have bad haircuts. Because nothing says "join our cult"
like surly teens dressed like Bauhaus fans. The logic of the cult members is
hilarious, too. There's a fire in a church at the climax of the movie,
and some serious shit goes down. Apparently, though, nobody left the
burning building until the police showed up; some even stayed in the
fire, apparently so they could jump out and get shot by cops. Nothing tops the
arguments between Eric and Cody, though. Eric wants Cody to accept the
Devil as her buddy because God doesn't exist (because one existing
without the other makes total sense). How does he plan to force this six-year-old to join his side? Not by
threatening to kill the only mother Cody has ever known. Not by
promising to reunite her with the biological mother that she has never
seen. Not even through something primal and ugly, like mutilation. No,
Eric tries to convince her
through logic. And fails miserably.
This was in response to her saying "You first." Honest.
Dude. She's six. If you can't change
a six-year-old's mind, how the hell do you run a cult? There are all
sorts of idiotic moments in Bless the Child, and their silliness is the
only thing that makes this movie bearable.
Oh, and you know how a real horror movie would have the bad guys try to
kill Maggie? They would probably chain her up, or feed her to a demon
or something awesome. Not in this movie. No, these jerks capture her, drug her, place her in a car and stage a car accident. But they don't kill her and then fix the car to drive off a cliff, or anything reasonably simple like that.
Maggie, explaining the way they should have killed her
Instead, they set it up so that Maggie's car is speeding across a bridge during rush hour in the wrong lane; Maggie (who was drugged, but not killed) wakes up just in time to swerve out of traffic, and a nice stranger helps her not plummet to her death in the water below. Think about that for a few moments. Yes, it's kind of a waste for a complete random to be the one who saves Maggie, but that's not what irks me about this part. These cult punks are complete morons (which might explain their involvement in a cult...). First of all, Maggie is drugged, but they skimped on the knockout juice? That's incompetent, but I suppose waste not, want not; if she had died, they could save the drugs they saved on their next Oscar-winning victim. The choice in where to stage the crash was pretty odd, though. Since she was unconscious, wouldn't the cult need to spend a good amount of time and effort getting her in place and the car rigged to make the plan work? How does a downtown metropolitan area with a heavily-traveled bridge fit in to those requirements? It seems to me like they would have had to stop traffic, set up the car, toss Maggie in, and aim it at oncoming traffic. At that point, wouldn't it just be subtler to dismember her body on live television?
This is the proper reaction to that scene
I understand that a director can only do so much when the script he's working with can't even stimulate a mediocre tagline, but there's a lot of obviously stupid stuff in this movie. Had the acting been better or if the mood was even a little tense or suspenseful, I would give the director a break. Oh, well. The only thing Chuck Russell did right was editing it into a comprehensible narrative. Sadly, this movie is too slow-paced and the funny bits are too rare to make this film even approach the realm of so-bad-it's-good. Instead, this is simply an awful movie made more noteworthy by the fact that this (and I Dreamed of Africa) was Kim Basinger's first post-Oscar work. That puts Bless the Child into the same conversations where Halle Berry's Catwoman pops up, and that's never a good thing.
...and I'm only being this generous because the car crash scene almost made me spit out my beer.
Agatha Christie's character Hercule Poirot has always been difficult for filmmakers to cast. The caliber and type of actor playing the part has varied greatly over the years --- Peter Ustinov, Ian Holm, Albert Finney, Alfred Molina, and David Suchet have all worn the funny mustache --- but the general attitude toward the character has remained fairly static. Hercule Poirot is a brilliant amateur detective that earns the respect of Scotland Yard, despite his overblown vanity regarding his appearance. The Alphabet Murders decides to try something different. What if this was a mystery with a bumbling detective? And Poirot was played for laughs? Wouldn't that appeal to everybody absolutely no one?
The Alphabet Murders is based on Agatha Christie's whodunnit, The ABC Murders, minus only the plot and most of the details. The film opens with Tony Randall, as himself, addressing the camera and explaining that he will be playing the part of the great Hercule Poirot.
Subtly, no doubt
If nothing else, I have to admit that was an unexpected choice. Randall then transforms into Poirot and, after a few gags involving him breaking the fourth wall, the plot is afoot. Almost. It seems that Hercule Poirot is not held in high esteem by the British police, even as they find themselves in the middle of a murder spree. Instead of consulting with Poirot, Soctland Yard sends Hastings (Robert Morley) to guide Poirot safely out of London and on a plane to his homeland of Belgium. How well does that work? Let me put it to you this way: when Hastings is onscreen, his movements are accompanied by a tuba on the soundtrack.
Bum-ba-dum, ba-dum, ba-dum-dum-dum...
The reason Poirot doesn't oblige the Brits is because he was approached by an Amazon a desperate woman (Anita Ekberg); Poirot begins the case out of idle curiosity, but it becomes something more when he accidentally meets her on the street and she claims to not know him.
It's not surprising that he would remember her, though. Low-key outfit, lady.
Why would anyone ask for Poirot's help and then claim not to know who he is? What does this mystery woman have to do with the murder of a clown? Wait...what? A clown? Let me check my notes...well, I guess that's right. Clown murder. ***sigh***
"Is that really any more ridiculous than anything else here?"
How was the acting in The Alphabet Murders? Universally overdone. However, the script did call for broad physical comedy, so I can't fault the actors for playing to the script. Having said that, Tony Randall was dreadful as Hercule Poirot. Imagine an actor from the 60s doing an exaggerated impression of a gay Frenchman and you will have the general idea of Randall's performance.
Don't give me that look. You're the one mugging the camera for laughs.
Robert Morley played his bumbling supporting role adeptly, although he failed to provide any laughs. Morley is just very believable when he plays characters who inevitably get locked inside closets. If his character was suicidal after as a result of his own incompetence, I might say Morley did a fantastic job, but the character sadly is oblivious to failure and embarrassment. Anita Ekberg was fairly blank as the mystery woman, and the plot gives a reason for that blankness, so...I guess she was adequate? The rest of the cast is pretty unmemorable and inconsequential to the larger story, although I did recognize a young Julian Glover in a small role and Margaret Rutherford (who played Agatha Christie's other prize character, Miss Marple) had a cameo.
When I look at director Frank Tashlin's body of work, it's not surprising that he made a murder mystery into a farce. This is a guy whose biggest movies involved Jerry Lewis, so of course he spends a lot of time on "jokes" that no one could enjoy.
Get it? The mirror shows the wrong person talking!
Still, The Alphabet Murders could have been a much better movie and a lot of the blame lies on Tashlin. If his direction had actually led me to laugh, or even smirk, I would cut him some slack. Instead, he just had two funny-looking men stumble across the screen for the better part of 90 minutes without anything to show for it. The acting was insultingly broad, the editing was not crisp enough for the gags the script provided, and the mystery is just confusing instead of suspenseful. I will give credit where it is due --- there are about fifteen minutes in the final act of the movie where this mystery gets interesting. Not coincidentally, they are the fifteen minutes free of gags.
In all fairness, I should point out that The Alphabet Murders was given the comedic treatment after Margaret Rutherford starred in four semi-comedic movies based on other Agatha Christie works. It appears that this movie went a bit too far, though.
Tony Randall was never meant to be a sex symbol
It would be almost a decade before another film was made using the character of Hercule Poirot; after that, he was primarily relegated to public television made-for-TV movies. I still can't wrap my head around how awful this movie is. I've recently started to wonder if there have been any good Agatha Christie movies made, but this weak attempt left me depressed. It's one thing to make a mystery devoid of sense and suspense. It's another to do that and undercut everything with humor that makes Nancy look like a comic genius by comparison.
I typically don't punish myself by watching made-for-TV movies, but every so often, one looks so remarkably bad that I have to give it a try. I have lived in the greater Chicago area most of my life, so I was already familiar with the Drew Peterson case. I wasn't planning on watching the Lifetime Original Movie, even if it had a decently respectable actor in the lead role. No, it was the trailer that hooked me. Specifically, one line in the trailer:
"I'm untouchable, bitch"?!? After opening and closing a garage door as an intimidation tactic? Most bad movies at least try to look cool in their trailers, but this one...this had to be a gem.
Drew Peterson: Untouchable opens with a scene you've probably seen dozens of times before. Drew (Rob Lowe), fresh from sexing up his wife, Kathleen (Cara Buono), gets out of bed when one of his sons wants something; Drew doesn't see the need to be modest, though, and gives his young son quite the gander at his package. When Kathleen protests, Drew's response is "He has a right to know why they call me Big Daddy." Wait...what? Who would...why should...ow, that hurt my brain. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea.
Yeah, that was my reaction, too.
Anyway, Drew and Kathleen don't get along so well these days. Maybe it has something to do with Drew mentally scarring his sons, maybe it has to do with Drew being a sexist, jealous asshole. Whatever the reasons, Drew's eye begins to wander. That's when Stacy (Kaley Cuoco) enters the picture. She's young and pretty, but has a weakness for middle-aged men who look like douchebags, so you can imagine how her heart went aflutter when she saw this:
"I'm untouchable, bitch"
Pretty soon, the pair are having an affair. Kathleen learns about it and Drew and Stacy move in together, in a house a few blocks from the Peterson household. Not surprisingly, the longtime wife and victim of adultery is set to have a very favorable divorce settlement. And then, she dies from an apparent suicide. Huh. Well, I guess that means that Rob and Stacy get to live happily ever after.
"Ding dong, the witch is dead! Which old witch? The one I stabbed!"
No, not really. Drew's nasty side comes out of hiding again and Stacy soon finds herself on the wrong side of a "disappeared/presumed dead" situation. But can anyone bring this monster to justice? He's a police officer in his town, which essentially makes him untouchable, right bitches?
Okay, wow. Drew Peterson: Untouchable is shockingly bad. I mean, when you sit down to watch this, you know it's not going to be good, but geez! Surprisingly, the acting isn't too awful. While I still can't get over the fact that they cast a famous actor known for being handsome as Peterson, I will admit that Rob Lowe was very committed in this performance.
It's like the movie Twins!
It's not good, mind you, but Lowe never looked sheepish, even when he had to deliver some atrocious dialogue. I really hated his Chicago accent, though. It felt like Lowe got his accent from watching the Superfans SNL skits. Kaley Cuoco was halfway decent. Again, the dialogue was pretty awful; "I'm fine, Drew just threw me into the TV, but want to help me make some more margaritas?" is about par for the course. Still, she played the victim and made her sympathetic. Cara Buono was also fine as the deadest wife in the movie. The only person I had a major problem with was Catherine Dent. It's not because she was an obnoxious neighbor who managed the implausible feat of being friends with the first wife and also befriending the young homewrecker who usurped her. It's because her expression rarely shifted from being open-mouthed dumbstruck.
This is also how she reacts to the Weather Channel
On the bright side, she was the woman on the receiving end of the "untouchable bitch" line, so I suppose she did contribute something to the movie.
Director Mikael Salomon obviously had a difficult task in making Drew Peterson: Untouchable. Sure, it certainly seems like Drew murdered two consecutive wives and then bathed in the public attention he received in the media shitstorm that followed. But Peterson still hasn't been convicted of those crimes (yet). That means that the movie can't actually show Peterson killing anyone. With that significant hurdle to overcome, I think Salomon did a moderately decent job. The acting didn't exactly "wow," but the story was comprehensible. I don't know why Salomon included the bookend "look at my penis" scenes (yes, the film abruptly closes with another one), but aside from that, this was done with mild competence.
Surprisingly, no penis in this scene
And I place emphasis on the "mild." Drew Peterson: Untouchable has its campy moments that you might enjoy, but the pace is glacial. I get it, Drew is creepy. Next point.
Point taken.
Without actually seeing Drew plan or commit murder, what are we left with? Just Rob Lowe smirking when his wives die. I understand the situation, but it is definitely not very satisfying to watch.
But Lifetime movies are not meant to actually be good, are they? The big question is whether Drew Peterson: Untouchable is bad enough to be good. Not without help, it isn't. Even if you're in the mood to laugh and with a few smart-assed friends, this is not a picture you should experience sober. Try making a drinking game out of it; my wife suggested drinking whenever you hear the words "wife," "Drew," or maybe any time Drew pulls a douche move.
Get ready to drink...!
The funnybad scenes are pretty remarkable in this movie, but they are sadly too few and far in-between. As a legitimate film (even one made for TV), Drew Peterson: Untouchable is pretty darn bad.
As a social drinking game, though, it has some potential. I give it a Lefty Gold rating of
