Well, I’m giving up on physical media and going digital. It’s the end of an era, indeed.

A VHS of Back to the Future introduced me to the magic of Hollywood and I’ve been an avid film fan and collector since.

Growing up, ownership was important for watching the movies I loved, because the only options otherwise had been to watch butchered television edits or hope a copy was locally available to rent. So, I amassed a sizable VHS collection. As technology improved and better formats emerged, I filled my shelves with DVDs, Blu-rays, and 4K discs. Many believed my collection to be superfluous, but once streaming became the primary way people absorbed television and film, they began to complain of content being spread across multiple platforms, ever-increasing fees, services being temporarily unavailable, and the list goes on. I, of course, had no such problem. All I needed to do was pull a disc off the shelf, pop it into my player, and that was that.

So why would I choose to give up the freedom and security that physical media provides?

To be clear, this choice was made with extreme reluctance, but the state of physical media is so poor these days that collecting is no longer worth the hassle.

Quality control in disc production is non-existent, at least in my region of the world. Years ago, there were multiple plants manufacturing discs, but now we’re down to one from Mexico. In the last couple of years, I’ve purchased more defective discs than ever before, so my confidence in that plant has waned. 

Furthermore, studios have gotten sloppy with their packaging. They’ll stack discs on top of each other or slide them into cardboard sleeves, all of which leads to – you guessed it – scratched discs.

And trying to exchange a disc has become an anxiety inducing task for an introvert that doesn’t like confrontation.

A month ago, for example, I bought a Blu-ray from Target. The disc had a bunch of problematic scratches, so I brought it back to the service desk and asked for an even exchange.

And how did that go?

Receipt in hand, I told them what I was trying to do. The girl behind the counter said they can’t do exchanges for physical media in general, so she’d have to process it as a return. That made no sense to me, but okay. A few seconds later, she said she couldn’t return the disc because it had been opened. Baffled, I told her that didn’t sound right because I wasn’t looking to -return- the disc, but to -exchange- it, and that it’s well within their return policy to do so. I pointed out the text on their policy board that said as much. Despite the evidence in print on the wall behind her, she went to grab a manager so he could reiterate their policy. Once he realized I was merely looking to swap my defective product for a working one, he apologized, did the exchange, and I was on my way.  

As an isolated incident it isn’t the end of the world… but this happens all the time. So, between the lack of quality control and people at retail being oblivious to their own policies, I’ve come to loathe the process of buying (and exchanging) discs.

That’s not to say that digital copies are ideal.

For one thing, streaming will never match the quality of a 4K disc, which can achieve a maximum video bitrate of 128 Mbps. On average, digital streaming services top out between 25 and 30. The difference is mostly negligible in practice, but visual artifacts – such as macroblocking* and banding** – will occasionally rear their ugly heads.

I’m also wary about having my collection split across multiple storefronts. There’s no guessing where your physical copies are, but digital purchases can be split across Vudu, iTunes, Movies Anywhere and more. Each have their own caveats to consider, too:

• Movies Anywhere doesn’t sell movies, but instead acts as a digital locker for purchases you’ve made across a variety of participating studios and platforms. Unfortunately, Lionsgate, A24 and Paramount don’t have a presence here. This platform also lacks television shows.
• iTunes is a popular choice because people feel a sense of security and respect when buying directly from Apple. Apple’s not going to fold and disappear anytime soon, so your purchases should be safe for a long, long time to come. Furthermore, say you bought a 1080p HD copy of a film, but now a 4K version is available. Apple will upgrade your purchase to 4K, free of charge. Unlike Movies Anywhere, iTunes has a -lot- of television shows… just not in 4K. If you want your Game of Thrones in UHD, you’ll need to look elsewhere.
• Vudu has been a viable one-stop shop for a long time, because virtually every studio sells products there. You’ll also be able to find applicable programming in 4K, too. The downside is that they don’t offer free upgrades like Apple, so if you bought a movie in 1080p and would prefer to own it in 4K, you’ll have to double dip.

So, while the landscape of ‘ownership’ is the messiest it’s been, there are a lot of perks to digital that I’m happy to embrace.

• I won’t have to worry about disc rot (yes, that’s a thing, and I’ve had to replace a handful of titles over the years due to it).
• Swapping discs is a thing of the past.
• Streaming devices are much cheaper to replace than 4K UHD players.
• Digital copies are often much cheaper than their physical counterparts.
• Movies will be released earlier on digital.
• I can buy films and shows that never made it to Blu-ray or 4K UHD.
• I’ll never have to reorganize my 1,000+ discs to incorporate new releases.
• There’s no need to create or buy additional shelf space.
• There more I own in the digital sphere, the less incentive there is to subscribe to the likes of Netflix.

The dreaded question that friends have asked and that I’ve asked myself is, “What happens if these digital storefronts die?” To that, I say, nothing lasts forever. Sure, my discs should theoretically last forever, but what happens when companies stop making the machines that play them? You never know what the future will hold.

The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that digital is the future. Discs will be around for years and years to come, but it’ll likely be a niche market, only to be served by boutique labels that are willing to pay for timed distribution deals. 

Like it or lump it, that’s where things are headed… and as a matter of fact, we’re already there.

*macroblocking – With a less than ideal bitrate, you can get distortion in the video that looks like large pixel blocks.  

**banding – Parts of a scene with a seamless color transition – such as the various hues of blue in the sky – can appear to have visual ‘bands’ when the bitrate is low or the encode isn’t doing its job properly.

Film: Mortal Kombat
Year: 2021
Director: Simon McQuoid

I was ten when Mortal Kombat emerged in arcades, and twelve when a theatrical adaptation smashed into cinemas. Given the franchise’s violent nature, you’d think I was too young to see it on the big-screen. But the studio knew its audience would be young kids, so despite the initial script featuring fan-pleasing violence, it was ultimately tamed for PG-13. A recipe for disaster, to be sure, but the end result was an enjoyably competent cheese-fest. 

Its sequel, on the other hand, was such an embarrassing display of unbridled schlock that it killed the prospect of a trilogy. Seriously, this one ranks right up there – down there? – with Samurai Cop and The Room. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but It’s a stunning cavalcade of unintentional hilarity, and that’s putting it mildly. 

Hollywood finally gave this franchise another go in 2021, and not only that, they’ve taken it seriously. This reboot comes packed with fan-favorite characters and plenty of violence, seemingly unafraid of earning its R rating.

Still, many fans were fraught with skepticism, and who could blame them? The question is, was their fear justified?

Well, one thing’s for sure: If you require a theatrical reboot to be rich with characterization and world-building lore, then this isn’t the film for you. If, however, you have reasonable expectations for a movie based on a series of arcade fighters, then pull up a seat and relax, because Mortal Kombat is a fun flick despite its flaws.

The plot of this movie is so basic, it may as well be sipping pumpkin spiced coffee while wearing UGG boots. 

A fighting tournament pits two realms against one another, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. The Earthrealm has defended itself against the Outworld for ages, but they’ve lost nine tournaments already, and if they lose but one more, they’ll be conquered. Considering the Outworld’s champion, Shang Tsung, sucks the souls from all that oppose him, the fate of Earthrealm would be bleak, at best. So, it’s up to a handful of fighters to save the world. The roster includes many of the characters you know and love, but the story primarily revolves around Cole Young.

Oh, don’t worry. You’re not supposed to know who Cole is. He’s a new character exclusive to the film – until he’s inevitably included as DLC in a game – and I cannot understand how we’re supposed to like him, let alone root for him. He’s a poor fighter, has a bland personality, and his scripted dialogue is way below average. His journey was supposed to be one of growth, but I don’t see it because his inclusion just feels lazy. It’s like the writers couldn’t handle the challenge of developing a story around the multitude of established franchise characters we’ve known for eons. So instead, they’ve created a new vessel in ‘what’s his name’ to quickly introduce the audience to the world of Mortal Kombat.

Well, sort of. 

Despite all the fighting, there’s no tournament in this theatrical iteration. Instead, Shang Tsung is going after Earthrealm’s most capable fighters beforehand, hoping their absence during the real thing would guarantee the Outworld’s final victory.

Why would they make a Mortal Kombat film without a tournament? Because they need somewhere to go for the inevitable sequel, of course.

What’s maddening is that this film is actually book ended by the good stuff. Our first moments are spent as witness to the intense and traumatic history between Bi-Han and Hanzo Hasashi, who are Sub-Zero and Scorpion, respectively. Sadly, the film drifts away from that to regale us with a story about a failed MMA fighter. It’s too bad, because I could have watched an entire movie about the rivalry between them (psst, check out the animated feature, Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion’s Revenge, as it does a much better job of maintaining that plot thread).

At least the canonical characters are served well, and we’re treated to more than you’d think.

Old school favorites such as Sonya – and Jax, by extension – Liu Kang, Raiden, and Goro were all but guaranteed to appear, but I was pleasantly surprised to see Kabal, Reiko, and even Nitara with some screen time. Kung Lao stands out due to his confidence and poise – it doesn’t hurt that he has one of the nastiest fatalities in the film, either – but it’s Kano’s hot temper and witty one-liners that entertained the most. Seriously, he steals so many scenes the rest of the cast should press charges.

Another thing that lands well in this reboot is the tone. The creatives behind-the-scenes played this one straight, completely foregoing the melted mozzarella vibe from the 90’s. The gravity of the story can finally be felt through the film’s characters, its violence, and even its musical score. When a couple of players dust their knuckles off to duke it out, Fear Factory’s talents aren’t needed to ‘enhance’ the scene because the gravity of the situation is compelling enough. 

I’m concerned over how a sequel would fare, as the filmmakers will probably focus on so many characters that storytelling cohesion will probably go out the window. That aside, this iteration of Mortal Kombat is probably the best we could have hoped for. It’s not the most amazing action film I’ve ever seen or anything, but it was faithful to the source and thoroughly entertaining, besides. As long as your expectations are in check, you’ll likely be satisfied, if not surprised with how well this reboot lands. 

Film: Halloween Ends
Year: 2022
Director: David Gordon Green

In 2018, director David Gordon Green delivered a Halloween sequel that ignored everything after the original. So, the revelation about Michael and Laurie being siblings was discarded, as was anything that dealt with supernatural cults. No, their aim was to bring a more grounded Myers back to the streets of Haddonfield and bring him face-to-face with Strode. To that end, the film hit its mark.

The sequel, Halloween Kills, picks up directly where its predecessor left off. It was brutal and upped the ante, but many took issue with the ‘shared trauma’ portion of its narrative. While its execution was heavy-handed, I found it to be a fresh change of pace.

In previous timelines, Haddonfield had acute awareness of its history with Myers but acted like it couldn’t happen again. In Kills, however, that gruesome night in ’78 left a considerable stain on the community. Survivors have shared their stories year after year, instilling fear across the community because that’s the only way they knew how to deal with their trauma. But when the masked filleter is confirmed to be on the loose once more, the townsfolk lose their collective minds. Mobbed up and armed up, the people of Haddonfield transform into monsters themselves, an unfortunate symptom of the infectious evil that Michael had left behind. The important thing, though – besides having Michael deliver the goods – was the stage being set for an epic conclusion in the third and final film. Laurie had vowed to end Michael once and for all, and the crowd was hungry for it.

Stoking that excitement were the ads for Halloween Ends, solidifying the expectation that Michael and Laurie would have their final bout. We saw them grappling with and tossing each other around, with the promise that only one would survive.

There’s just one problem…

Those promos were one of the most blatant bait-and-switch campaigns I’ve seen in a while.

After getting beaten to a pulp in ’18, Myers had vanished without a trace and the residents of Haddonfield had trouble moving on. Laurie Strode has seemingly pulled herself together – she’s no longer a recluse and spends time whittling away at her memoir – but her granddaughter, Allyson, has been withdrawing. Whereas Laurie spent a lifetime wrestling with trauma, Allyson’s is still fresh. Not only is she reeling from the loss of her parents and friends, but her mental and emotional health has been in decline because the locals treat her like an outcast. The only thing that’s brought her a modicum of joy is a guy her age…

And that guy is Corey Cunningham, and this newcomer is the main character in Halloween Ends.

Oh yes, you read that right. The main character isn’t Michael, Laurie, or even Allyson. It’s Corey.

We meet this character in ‘19, just one year after Michael’s rampage. He’s sweet and trustworthy, but when an accident proves fatal to a child he was charged with babysitting, the people of Haddonfield turn against him. They stare at him with malice, ridicule him for existing, and bully him violently. Injured in a confrontation, Laurie brings him to the hospital, where Allyson works, and the youngsters hit it off.

Allyson likes him because he’s the only one in town that can relate to being treated like a pariah. Laurie is happy to see her granddaughter connect with someone, but it isn’t long before she becomes increasingly suspicious of Corey. She senses darkness through his eyes, but her concerns are waved off as unjustified paranoia.

You can probably see where this is going.

On paper, I appreciate the concept. Michael Myers isn’t just a monster in the flesh, but an infectious disease that can work its way through and decay a community for years, if not decades to come. It’s a powerful thing to convey on-screen, because most people have no idea what trauma looks like and how it causes people to act out. If a film can garner mainstream appeal and educate the masses to mental and emotional health at the same time, that’s a win, in my opinion.

But even if I do the mental gymnastics to judge this film on its own merits – forgetting that Michael Myers and Laurie Strode should have been front and center – Halloween Ends is still a failure. Its aim to show how large swaths of people process trauma requires film making mastery, and David Gordon Green has yet to possess the necessary chops. Sure, people will always search for a new boogeyman to blame their fear and hatred on, but the transition from ‘Haddonfield has been soured by the memory of Michael’ to ‘people can be bullied into being a psychopath’ is mishandled and quite the stretch, besides.

The idea that the only way to heal from trauma is to remove the causing trigger doesn’t echo reality in any way, shape, or form. Closure is nice and -can- lead people toward a healing path, but in most cases, people who suffer will never get such closure. They have to learn to coexist with their triggers – because virtually anything can be one – and regardless of how much progress is made, most days will still be a struggle. PTSD is a never ending fight on a mental and emotional level, and to some degree, trauma is a battle that’s never truly won. Consistent effort and vigilance is the only way to stay on top of it, but Ends doesn’t convey this with the required grace.

Green had wanted each of the films in this trilogy to feel different, and more than that, he wanted to subvert fan expectations. In an interview with Moviemaker.com, the director clarifies why he wanted to make a love story with a psychopath:

“I’ve had an itch to do a love story, which I haven’t done in a while. I tried to infuse it into my Boston Marathon bombing movie, Stronger, where the concept was so heavy. I said, ‘How do we not make it about terrorists? Let’s make it about love.’ I had a lot of those same urges to not make this just about a psychopath, without having to go into a Michael Myers psychological backstory. People have tried to do it and it isn’t interesting to me because it tends to make him less scary as an entity. But can we get into the development of evil? What a community that neglects the well being of their own can unleash on themselves in a way that they didn’t intend? That’s something that’s fascinating and I think it happens all the time.”

But psychopathy is commonly linked to both genetic and external factors, the latter of which involves physical and/or psychological abuse during childhood. Corey, on the other hand, while a byproduct of truly horrific treatment and events, doesn’t fit that mold. And to the point about a psychological backstory making a villain less interesting… well, isn’t that precisely what he’s done with Corey?

To me, it seems like Green wanted to subvert expectation just for the sake of doing so, which leaves me scratching my head. There’s a time and a place to do that with a franchise, but this wasn’t it. Furthermore, if Green never even thought about making this entry a full-length blowout between a monster and the respective final girl – which he’s on record for saying – he shouldn’t have made that a focal point just before the end credits rolled on Kills.

I’ll always be appreciative of what the first two films in this trilogy set out to do, but to have it all end like this feels like a squandered opportunity. If the director didn’t want to make Halloween films, then maybe hand the reins to someone else. The best thing this movie does is end the contract between Blumhouse and the Malek Akkad. Here’s to hoping that whatever direction the franchise goes in next, it delivers in the way that it needs to.

How do you address a film that preemptively responds to its loudest critics? I guess we’re about to find out.

If there’s one thing The Matrix Resurrections wants to drive into your skull, it’s that the symbolic meaning of the red pill and blue pill has changed with the times.

A couple of decades ago, they represented the choice between a life of ignorant bliss or accepting reality for what it is, even if the world you find yourself in is less than ideal. It was the age old, philosophical waxing of whether it’s better to serve as a cog in the machine or to rage against it.

Now, they represent the cyclical dichotomy of the relationship between Hollywood and its fans.

Lana Wachowski addresses the very meta elephant in the room by saying they don’t give a fuck what anyone on either side wants. They just want us to be aware of how vicious a cycle it can be, because the ‘hive mind’ directly influences the decisions of corporate suits. Because we’re stuck in this void where filmgoers want the same shit but also want it to feel fresh at the same time, this causes studios like Warner Bros. to break down like a computer that can’t decode logic, and thus naively attempt to do both.

That’s the best guess I have at least, anyway, because they’ve completely lost the plot.

In Hollywood’s scramble to chase after the almighty dollar – which is important, as movie theaters are walking a very frightening line between indispensability and becoming nostalgic reminders themselves – they pester directors to bring their beloved franchises back from the dead, no matter the cost. So, that’s precisely what Lana Wachowski did, and the end result is so scathing, that the modicum of heart this film had is smothered to a flatline well before the end credits roll.

Watch the film and formulate your own opinion, but don’t dismiss legitimate criticism as hive mind nonsense, conjured by mere internet trolls.

I’m usually indifferent when I don’t care for a film. Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters, for example, left me feeling bored and empty. Terminator: Dark Fate felt needless and I have zero desire to watch it again, but I wasn’t upset by it. I figured The Matrix Resurrections would hit that bar, because it was a low target to begin with.

But I found this film to be -aggressively- terrible.

What made The Matrix work so well in the first place, is that it asked the viewer to ponder very broad, philosophical questions. Yes, having humans plugged into a simulation world feels very modern, yet also timeless. It doesn’t feel as if it’s pinned to one specific era. In many ways, it was ahead of its time. The existential questions it asked still apply over twenty years later, perhaps now more than ever.

The Matrix Resurrections, on the other hand, zooms the magnifying glass in on very specific issues, and instead of going for some sort of philosophical bent, it instead feels like Lana Wachowki wound up grinding axes for two and a half hours.

The story meanders around the concept of identity a great deal. But with that caveat comes the biggest, most ironic twist of all: It severely struggles to find one of its own.

Is it a remake? Is it a reboot? Is it a sequel? Is it a love story? Is it a big middle finger to the studio that produced it? Is it a ‘fuck you’ to fans? Is it self-aware? Does it convey the director’s transitional journey?

Yes.

It’s okay if a film wants to focus on so many concepts at once… as long as the execution works. Hell, after seeing Cloud Atlas, I figured if anyone could do it, it would be them. But Lana couldn’t stick the landing. Each point and each concept were always fighting for the spotlight, shoving each other out of the way, well past the point of detriment.

Themes? Ideas? This just feels like a giant mess.

It doesn’t help that the messaging is laid on so thick, that you can practically feel the director wagging a finger in your face. That’s all well and good, but to come so dangerously close to breaking the fourth wall over and over again is… well, bad filmmaking.

Plenty have argued against such criticism, draping a heavy ‘but that’s the point’ blanket over it. It makes me wonder if the people who enjoyed it actually think this film was trying to say something meaningful, or if they were instead entertained by its compulsion to be a big-budget meme… a one-hundred and ninety million dollar meme, at that (which doesn’t include marketing costs, by the way).

Surely, the action must be worth it then, right?

No. It, too, is a disappointment. Wachowski gets ahead of this in a scene where entertainment geeks are skewering Matrix fans for caring more about bullet time than a profound story. I’m sure I was supposed to feel all, ‘oh, wow, I totally agree with Lana’s criticism of fandom on the internet’, but I can’t, not like this. Moments like these – and there are more than a few – come off as manipulative.

There was one fantastic feast for the eyes worthy of being noted – don’t worry, I won’t spoil it for you – but everything else has telegraphed choreography, passionless cinematography, and every bit of the film’s bombast is propelled by the most uninteresting cast of characters I’ve seen in a while.

Speaking of, the villains in this film fail to exude menace. That’s the whole point of having villains, right? To add danger and stakes to the story? So, where’s the threat? When are we supposed to feel a sense of peril? I get it, filling Helmut Bakaitis’ (the Architect) and especially Hugo Weaving’s (Smith) shoes is a fruitless endeavor, but their replacements should be more memorable than, say, Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith) from the original trilogy.

Wait, what’s that? You don’t remember Niobe? Well, prepare to get reacquainted, because you’ll be seeing this ‘essential’ character plenty.

To be fair, at first, I had an intense dislike for The Last Jedi. Over the course of time, I’ve come around and believe it’s quite good. That leaves me wondering if I’ll somehow swing from my initial impressions of The Matrix Resurrections to have a similar change of heart… but something tells me that will never come to pass. At the very least, The Last Jedi had a vision. It was telling its own story. The action was still quite good. Its cinematography was some of the best in the franchise as a whole. These are all things that The Matrix Resurrections lacks, and the deficit isn’t small.

Let’s hope the studios bow their heads and learn a lesson from Lana’s one-hundred and ninety million dollar burn, because when it comes to these sequel-slash-reboot projects… this ain’t it. I hate to be so crass, but this film has its head so far up its own ass, it doesn’t feel as if it was made for anyone but the director.

Give me the blue pill.

Critics and filmgoers love to rip on Michael Bay for his focus on style over substance, and with the Transformers franchise under his belt – mostly featuring films that are as boring as they are bombastic – it isn’t hard to see why. But don’t we all enjoy loud, mindlessly explosive fun from time-to-time? Of course we do, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So instead of feeding the monster of hypocrisy that dwells on the world wide web, I’ll say this: Bay’s problem isn’t his reliance on excess, but that he rarely produces characters or stories that are worth a damn. 

That’s not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water, though. 

Thanks to Bay, we’ve been graced with films like The Rock and Transformers (I don’t care what anyone says, the first one is awesome… the rest can rot at the bottom of a swamp). He’s also responsible for one of the best buddy-cop pair-ups of all time: Bad Boys. There was a magnificent blend of action and comedy, and the chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence was wondrously stunning. The sequel was more of a bloated mess from a storytelling perspective, but the action was second to none. Hell, the highway chase sequence is still up there as one of the most impressive high-octane thrill sequences on celluloid to date. But unfortunately, that seemed to mark the end for the ‘Bad Boys’ of cinema.

Until now. 

The caveat, though, is that Michael Bay didn’t return to helm Bad Boys for Life, not even as a producer (although he did have a cameo). 

But don’t be so quick to rejoice over his absence. In fact, you may actually miss his involvement. 

The third Bad Boys flick had been in development hell for a number of years, and considering it was tasked with reviving a twenty-five year old franchise, the studio seemingly couldn’t justify the high salary that Bay would require. After all, they’d have to pay star Will Smith, who is now one of the highest paid actors in the industry. Check this comparison out:

$17 million – How much Will Smith had earned filming Bad Boys for Life.

$19 million – How much the original Bad Boys cost to produce overall.

Furthermore, Martin Lawrence returned for a $6 million payday. As you can see, production costs were already mounting without taking much else into consideration, but the studio still managed to save a bit of money. The filmmakers were able to wrap things at around $90 million, and while that sounds like a lot, it’s $40 million shy of what its predecessor had cost. 

More on that in a bit, but the main question, obviously, is if this film was worth the wait.

Mike “Bulletproof” Lowry and Marcus Burnett – Smith and Lawrence respectively – are old dogs peddling even older tricks, regularly compromising justice by shooting first and asking questions later. It’s an approach their captain has never been fond of, but the number of cases closed by the duo have made them superstars within their profession… and targets for the bitter villains they’ve thrown behind bars. 

The ‘Bad Boys’ are bound by a promise to ride and die together for life, but that changes when Marcus becomes a grandfather. Before he can truly ease into retirement, Mike’s mortality is challenged in a drive-by shooting. Before long, Lowry is hell bent on revenge and pleads for his partner’s help, but is both surprised and hurt to learn that Marcus won’t get involved. He inevitably changes his mind, of course, but comes back to the fold with some conditions, including a willingness to work with a younger, fresh faced tactical unit. Their reliance on technology and playing by the rules irritates Mike to no end, but if he wants to continue working on his own attempted murder case, he’ll have to play by the rules for once.

This feels like a natural progression for the aging characters, and the friction between the comrades in blue was easily the best part of the film, at least for me. While they’ve always had a dynamic that allowed them to clash, this is far more introspective. 

Of course, Lowry doesn’t listen to Burnett’s pleas for restraint, and while that was expected, the script takes things too far. Mike’s actions come with some dire consequences, and despite that, he keeps conjuring reasons to continually justify the same old shtick. His story also comes with some revelations which are not only hard to swallow, but causes the plot to completely jump the shark. I won’t go into further detail because I’m not into spoiling movies, but the biggest twist of them all nearly ruined the latter half of the film for me. 

I’d like to excuse all this by saying, “Well, at least the action will knock your socks off.” But it doesn’t. The set pieces are noticeably smaller, and when things do transition to a wide, open space, the streets and sidewalks are empty. That’s a bit weird for Miami, isn’t it? Then there’s the cars, and how they’re handled is as egregious to me as, oh, a boom mic hovering over the players in a major motion picture. It is a filmmaker’s job to hide flaws with ‘movie magic’, but all I saw were vehicles going 45mph, and no matter how much they tried to emulate Bay’s style to hide the limits of on-location filming, their final product ultimately failed to convince. If a studio can save some cash on production while keeping the audience in the dark about it, fine, but I felt the negative impact for every penny that they’ve pinched here.

Bad Boys For Life isn’t a terrible film, just painfully average. The action, although disappointing, is still serviceable, and the combination of Smith and Lawrence still entertains. That said, you’d be much better off watching the first two entries, especially if you’re not a fan of movies that are self-aware to the point of cringe (yet another aspect where the script goes too far). And let’s face it: In 2020, ‘average’ doesn’t cut it when filmgoers have been primed for the likes of Mad Max: Fury Road and John Wick. I have no doubt this movie could have been better if the studio paid for Michael Bay’s exorbitant salary, not to mention additional funds for production overall, but as is, Bad Boys for Life is merely ‘okay’.

Film: Rambo – Last Blood
Year: 2019
Director: Adrian Grunberg

Ask anyone who one of the most pivotal action stars of all time is and they’ll probably say… well, Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the NEXT name they’ll think of will be Sylvester Stallone! With films like Cobra, Cliffhanger, Demolition Man, The Expendables, and Rocky under his belt (pun intended), he’s definitely earned his status as an icon for the genre. Of course, the character his name is most synonymous with is Rambo, an evil army deflating war machine that’s been mowing through bad guys on the big screen for nearly forty years. 

I hadn’t always been a fan of the shirtless, red bandana wearing destroyer of scum though. As a kid, I had a lot of fun with the second and third installments, but First Blood just wasn’t my cup of tea. It was too slow, emotionally vexing, and didn’t tout what eventually became the character’s signature look. Over the course of time I came to appreciate it as the best film in the franchise, although I still enjoyed parts two and three for being dumb, yet fun action pieces with ham-fisted messages. 

Then I got to experience Rambo in theaters as an adult with the fourth entry (ironically titled Rambo), and I really enjoyed it. Well, perhaps ‘enjoyed’ isn’t the word I should use. It’s somber and horrifying, but the brutality had been cranked up ten-fold making for one hell of a finale. Not just for the film, mind you, but for the franchise as a whole. The overarching saga begins with John leaving home, and it ends with him returning to whence he came. The story had come full circle and Stallone had thought it was over. But Rambo said it himself:

“NOTHING IS OVER!”

It’s worth noting that Stallone had only temporarily entertained a fifth Rambo, and even that was dependent on how well the fourth one did. The project was greenlit in August of 2019, ending up with a working title of Rambo V: The Savage Hunt. Rambo was to lead special forces against a genetically engineered creature (yes, you read that right). By mid-2010, Stallone had second thoughts and said he was done with the character. Getting this project back off the ground came in a series of stutter-steps, but plans eventually cemented in 2018 with a more grounded approach. I think we can all agree that was for the best, because the plot of any given Rambo never ran parallel to Predator. No, this franchise was about a man that’s battled mental and emotional demons since his return from the Vietnam War. 

And with that spirit in mind, Rambo: Last Blood takes place over a decade after the events in Burma, and John is taking care of his deceased father’s ranch in Arizona with his friend Maria and her granddaughter Gabriela. There are plenty of not-so-subtle clues which tell us this man is still haunted by the ghosts of PTSD. A bottle of pills is always within reach and he still has the occasional flashback. 

Oh, and he’s dug a tunnel system beneath the property which includes a forge, hidden entryways, and all the vantage points he’d need if war decided to come a-knockin’. 

Spoiler alert: It does. 

John is content with life for the most part, having watched Gabriela grow into an intelligent and respectful human being. He loves her like a daughter, and being that father-figure is all he has left to live for. But conflict arises when Gabriela learns of her biological father’s whereabouts in Mexico. She wants to drive south of the border and confront her old man and get answers for abandoning the family, but John is reluctant to give his blessing. He knows that Gabriela’s father is a bad man, and more importantly, if anything were to happen to her down there, the United States wouldn’t be able to take action. Knowing that Gabriela hasn’t had the life experience to sense and mitigate danger, John gets her to agree to wait a few years until she’s grown wiser to the world. However, the questions and feelings she harbors prove too much to bear and she travels to Mexico only to disappear mere hours later. John takes it upon himself to track her down and bring her home, but not before incurring the wrath of a human trafficking ring.  

Last Blood doesn’t hide its intentions behind ominous visuals or cryptic dialogue, and that should surprise no one as the entire franchise has bludgeoned us with opinionated takes, all centered on how governments are corrupt machines that view their living, breathing resources as expendable tokens. 

Subtlety has never been the name of the game. 

These horrors have been bashed into our skulls over the years with a cast iron skillet, and the depiction of human trafficking here is no different. Young women are drugged and beaten and there’s enough evidence on celluloid to know how they’re treated after the fact. Fortunately, Last Blood veers away from showing these atrocities. I’m not squeamish or fitted with a faint heart, but seeing kids at the receiving end of a bayonet in Rambo (IV) was tough, and I’m glad that Sylvester Stallone (co-writer), Matthew Cirulnick (co-writer), and Adrian Grunberg (director) felt that merely implying such depravity would be good enough.  

That’s not to say that Last Blood tones things down. No, Stallone takes more of a beating than we’ve ever seen, but that’s okay, because when the enemy makes the mistake of heading onto his turf… oh boy, are there buckets of blood. Stallone, even at the age of 74, is still taking bad guys down with more visceral might than anyone in the business. The grand finale is basically Rambo stealthily running through his booby-trapped underground funhouse, with more than enough skewering, maiming, and explosions to make the audience grin like dementedly happy school children.

But some people may not make it to the finale, as this film has been panned by critics and franchise fans alike.  

The 40th Golden Raspberry Awards – otherwise known as The Razzies – has made it clear that critics absolutely loathe Last Blood. It gained nominations for Worst Picture, Worst Actor, Worst Supporting Actress, Worst Screen Combo, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Remake/Rip-Off or Sequel, and Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property. With such a list of ‘accolades’ behind it, you’d think this movie was Stallone’s cry for an assisted living arrangement.

This is definitely the weakest installment to date, but I don’t think it’s as bad as all that. 

With the previous installment, I really liked how when we caught up with Rambo, he was merely attempting to lead a peaceful life through solitude. Watching him wrestle with demons that came after having unleashed his inner war machine was a welcome change of pace, and that slow-burn made the action far more impactful once he freed those demons for another episode of carnage and mayhem. It made sense for a man his age to be far more contemplative, especially because of the trauma he’s endured. 

Last Blood lacks such discipline. It attempts to pull on our heartstrings, but the emotional aspects of the screenplay are underdeveloped and the story beats are predictable, if not manipulative. John’s struggle with PTSD has been reduced to a few shots of pill bottles, and for some reason, we’re expected to care about his relationship with the unknowns that have taken care of his father’s ranch. The audience has never met these characters before, nor are they given much of an opportunity to do so. There’s even an important character introduced mid-film that barely gets any screen time. These issues could have been rectified if this film had taken its time with things, but on the flip side of that coin, a longer runtime wouldn’t have served this film much better.  

There’s a smorgasbord of unnecessary sequels out there, but this is as needless as they come. It’s just an excuse to watch Rambo tear people apart in a maze that’s not dissimilar to the boobytrapped house from Home Alone… just, you know, much deadlier. If that’s all you’re looking for with Last Blood, then you’re probably going to have a great time seeing things unfold. If you want something as finely tuned as Rambo (the fourth entry) though, you’ll probably be disappointed. 

As far as my personal enjoyment was concerned, I had a decent time with this outing. That said, I can’t in good conscience give Last Blood any higher than a ‘rent it’ recommendation. It’s streaming on Amazon Prime at the moment, so if you have access to that service, give it a watch and see how you feel about throwing some hard earned cash on a purchase in the future. 

Film: The Lion King
Year: 2019
Director: Jon Favreau

I grew up during Disney’s Renaissance era, meaning I’ve had the opportunity to see films like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King during their initial theatrical runs.

What a time to be alive!

That said, I couldn’t help but feel the House of Mouse began to fumble with the likes of Tarzan and Brother Bear (Hunchback of Notre Dame is far better than most give it credit for), but Pixar was right there to scoop up the ball and run it in for a touchdown. Yes, Disney are still making their own animated efforts independent of Pixar, but they’ve also zeroed in on producing a slew of live-action remakes. I’ve enjoyed most of them, but I concerningly held my breath when I learned that Aladdin and The Lion King were being released mere months apart. These, by far, were the ones I had worried about most, and they were coming whether I liked it or not.

The Lion King (1994) is a nearly flawless piece of animated cinema, as it featured a fantastic coming of age story complete with themes of loss, grief, letting go, and facing your fears. They were all expertly sewn with gorgeous visuals, memorable characters, and some of the most noteworthy songs in Disney’s entire catalog.

But with a film so expertly crafted, how do you produce a live-action remake that’s worthy of some roar of approval?

To start, Disney brought Jon Favreau aboard to direct. No surprise there because he had already proven his worth with the live-action adaption of The Jungle Book. That film, however, was mostly CGI. Neel Sethi (Mowgli) moved around small sets of plants inside a warehouse, but everything else had been animated to the point of photorealism. Favreau’s take on The Lion King would have no human characters though, so the entire film was to be CGI… and yet, it had still been helmed by Disney’s live-action division. Why would that be? Well, as Favreau told the Los Angeles Times:

“We built an entire VR volume that an entire camera crew could be in,” Favreau says. “We would pop on the headsets and we would all be there scouting this sort of video-game version of ‘The Lion King’ with pre-animated sequences and rendered environments. We would move around real dollies and those dollies and those wheels would be operating virtual cameras within VR. Everything was meant to emulate what the process would be like if we were filming this for real.”

This hybrid technique stirred plenty of heated discourse on the internet. Could you call it live-action if everything on-screen was created by digital artists? Could you call it animation if cameras were still being used in a three-dimensional space? Who knows, but even Disney refrained from coining this as live-action in their marketing.

Whatever you want to call it, Favreau’s The Lion King is a technical marvel. Every frame is photorealistic. Go ahead, scrutinize the grass, clouds, or animal fur. Even the lighting is on point. If it weren’t for the animals talking, you’d suspect they were real and filmed in their natural habitat. Simply put, the animation on display is one of the most impressive technical feats I’ve ever seen. I’m not one bit surprised to see this film had a budget of over $250 million, because it shows in the visual fidelity. It takes a lot of people to craft everything (digitally) by hand, and there are teams for modeling, animation, lighting, and various other visual effects. Time is also money, and it probably took at least a dozen hours to render a single frame.

Of course, you need more than top-tier CGI to make a quality film. Well, for better and worse, The Lion King is practically a shot-for-shot remake of its hand-drawn predecessor. It’s a valiant effort by Favreau – enjoyable even – but sadly, some things have been lost in translation.

Elton John, who had a tremendous hand in developing the original’s soundtrack, has recently been quoted with:

“Music was so much a part of the original and the music in the current film didn’t have the same impact. The magic and joy were lost.”

He isn’t wrong.

Seeing this iteration of The Lion King is like walking into an arena and expecting Metallica to perform, but instead being treated to a competent cover band. Sure, they’re good, but they can’t come close to producing the same energy as Me-freakin-tallica.

Circle of Life, I Just Can’t Wait to Be King, and Hakuna Matata are all here but fail to hit the emotion and enthusiasm that made their 1994 counterparts so memorable. Favreau made a very strange choice by having Can You Feel the Love Tonight take place entirely during the day, but the worst offender of the bunch is Be Prepared. I understand the marching hyenas would have been a bit much for the realism this film was striving for, but Scar only speaks his lyrics until the song’s finale. I’m not sure it would have mattered either way though, as Chiwetel Ejiofor, although a serviceable Scar, is no Jeremy Irons.

And by the way, they brought James Earl Jones back to play Mufasa – which is great, because his voice is undeniably iconic – so where’s Jeremy Irons at? Well, Disney apparently never asked him to reprise his role as Scar. Such a shame, because in my opinion, his performance was just as vital as that of James Earl Jones. Instead, the Scar we’ve been provided is merely ‘fine’. I would say the same about most of the rest of the cast, too. The standouts for me had been Alfre Woodard as Sarabi, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter’s Nala, and Donald Glover’s Simba.

So caveats aside, I’d say 2019’s The Lion King is decent. Its biggest problem is being a shot-for-shot remake of a film that’s so well-done, its music and visuals had been seared into the minds of millions over the last 25 years. So if someone translates such an iconic source directly, scrutinization via comparisons are inevitable. I try to keep an open mind when I sit down to watch remakes, but I couldn’t help but compare the differences between Zazu, Rafiki, Timon, Pumbaa, and all the rest. That said, I understand the position the director was in. If he opted to do something fresh, everyone would cry that their childhood had been ruined. And of course, playing things too safely also makes for divisive reviews, so he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. I’d wager Disney didn’t want him tampering with the original’s formula much either, so his hands were probably tied besides. Under those stipulations, I think Favreau has done as good a job as anyone could have, and although this ‘live-action’ remake hasn’t earned its place as my ‘go-to’ when I want to see The Lion King, I’m certainly not opposed to watching it again.

After all is said and done, I’d recommend this film with an asterisk: Know what you’re getting when you go in and you should be fine.

Film: Child’s Play
Year: 2019
Director: Lars Klevberg

We just went through October, a time of year when you should be watching scary movies from sunup to sundown, subsequent nightmares be damned. With a home video release at the end of September, a lot of people undoubtedly watched the Child’s Play reboot, myself included. After all, the trailers seemingly promised to bring the franchise back to its fright-filled roots, and learning that Mark Hamill had been cast as Chucky was exciting enough to warrant interest. But after seeing it, I feel bad for anyone who spent their hard earned money on this looking for scares, because they just weren’t there.

You’re probably saying, “Oh, you’re one of those people, right? Someone who hates remakes and reboots because they never surpass the originals?” But truth be told, I cut these revitalizations far more slack than most. I’d even go as far to say I really enjoyed the most reviled do-overs, such as Rob Zombie’s Halloween and 2009’s Friday the 13th. I don’t care if a reboot attempts to replicate the original or does something entirely different, because I’ll be happy as long as the end product hits its mark. That said, this take on Child’s Play just didn’t do much for me.

Oh, and just as a side note: It’s really odd to see a studio rebooting a franchise that’s still in active development. Yes, the Chucky story as we knew it took a break after the maligned Seed of Chucky, but director Don Mancini came back this decade with both Curse of Chucky and Cult of Chucky, and that continuity is set to continue with a television series in 2020. I’m not sure about this ‘two canons at once’ approach but, sure, whatever.

If you’ve seen the 1988 original, you already know some of the plot’s broad strokes. A single mom has a hard time balancing the bills and quality time with her son, so when she spots an opportunity to get him the latest Good Guy… er, Buddi doll on the cheap, she takes it, hoping this present will bring them closer together. Of course, the doll runs amok and people drop like flies, and nobody believes the poor boy when he says his new Buddi is responsible for all the carnage.

This isn’t a straight remake of the original though, not by a long shot. The original story featured an awful man that used his dying breaths to recite a spell that placed his soul in the body of a doll, and from there on out the film practically wrote itself.

This time around though, Chucky is but a mere smart toy. His AI programming allows him to tap into every smart device while being a friendly playmate for the children at home. There are safeguards put in place to ensure they don’t cuss or put people in danger, but a disgruntled factory worker alters a single Buddi chip with nobody the wiser… that is, until Andy begins to experience the result of such tampering first hand.

It was smart to modernize Chucky, at least on paper. In a world completely inundated by connectable technology, there’s real concern over what happens when a walking, talking piece of artificial intelligence goes rogue. Indeed, the absence of a soul inside the Buddi’s plastic shell makes Chucky rather frightening… again, on paper. I’ve stressed that point twice because here’s the sobering reality:

While the ideas behind this re-imagining are sharp, Child’s Play (2019) just isn’t an effective horror film.

Tyler Burton Smith’s screenplay spends a lot of time developing the bond between Andy and his new best friend, going to great lengths to show us that Chucky isn’t inherently evil.

He tries so hard to be the best thing in Andy’s life, but when he sees anyone or anything making his pal upset – like his mother’s garbage human of a boyfriend, or anyone that flat out gets in the way – the Buddi doll takes matters into his own, soon-to-be bloodied hands. And in a way, when Chucky’s scolded for exhibiting extreme behavior, you can’t help but feel sorry for him. He learns everything through observation, but without any understanding of situational context or the human element, his moral compass has little choice but to spin around aimlessly. A perfect example of this is when Andy and his friends laugh at the violence in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. So Chucky, not knowing any better, makes the connection between laughter and violence, so he grabs a weapon and makes a move, but looks genuinely bewildered when he’s yelled at and says, “But I thought it’d make you happy!” He’s just a confused little thing and the worse people treat him, the sorrier you feel… until it’s clear his innocence has been completely corrupted, that is.

And when it comes to Chucky’s descent into AI madness, it’s anything but subtle. Each time the doll’s intentions are bad, it’s forecast by glowing red eyes. I’m not sure why director Lars Klevberg thought it necessary to give the audience such a tell, but it robs the film of any sense of paranoia driven fear. In Don Mancini’s original (and now classic), he understood that the blank expression on the Good Guy’s face was creepy enough. While it may have looked innocent, we knew there was a darkness brewing beneath the surface. We wondered, ‘What is the doll thinking? What is he plotting? How far will he go?’ Our imaginations were used against us in an attempt to fuel our fear, but does this reboot care about suspense? No, we get bright red eyes, and why? I don’t know… probably because it looked cool? This would have worked in the context of a graphic novel or even as an idea during the storyboard stage, but film as a medium allows for much greater subtlety, and that’s something the director really needs to hone in on with future genre efforts.

Child’s Play also suffers from narrative choppiness and a staggering lack of surprises. It’s almost like the film doesn’t know what it wants to be.

On one hand, the core plot is a decent slow burn that builds a nice relationship between Andy and Chucky, inevitably dissipating into surrealistic mayhem. On the other hand, this tale of monstrous AI befriending a child is too tame to leave a lasting impression, despite a handful of kill scenes that come off as ‘baby’s first Saw’. There’s rarely a sense of mounting dread and each story beat can be seen coming from miles away… minus the Five Nights at Freddy’s vibe that gets introduced in the final act, and for the love of God, I sincerely hope that idea isn’t taken further in a sequel (which is entirely possible, as this film earned $44.9 million at the box office, which is quite nice against its $10 million budget).

Mark Hamill is an extremely talented voice actor – I doubt anyone will ever dethrone him as the best behind-the-mic Joker of all time – but I think the director should have allowed him to use a wider range of expression between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sides of Chucky. It certainly doesn’t help that the doll’s design has trapped me somewhere between wanting to laugh and desperately trying to not cry. I know the original Chucky from back in the day looked scarier because the Good Guy was slowly transforming into living, breathing flesh, and the designs echoed that, but Buddi, on the other hand, never seemed all that menacing.

There are certain things to appreciate about 2019’s Child’s Play, especially its bold attempt to change things up, but the package as a whole never seems to rise above mediocrity. It’s just not scary, and the humor ranges from mildly amusing to dreadfully dull. Are there worse horror movies out there? Most definitely, but there are a number of films you could be watching from 2019 instead, such as Us, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Midsommar, Brightburn, Ready or Not, Crawl, The Lighthouse… well, you get the idea.

Film: Halloween

Year: 2018

Director: David Gordon Green

The original Halloween was good enough to stand on its own, but the studio wanted a franchise. So, we got a sequel that not only delivered more cat-and-mouse goodness between Laurie and Michael, but upped the ante by revealing that Laurie was – gasp! – Michael’s sister. From there, later films introduced Laurie’s daughter, made Michael a cult conjured entity, emulated an episode of Dawson’s Creek (curse you, Halloween H20!), and introduced the masked maniac to the world of streaming (webcams in the Myers house, really?). Most of the sequels weren’t flat-out terrible, but they were unnecessary and completely missed the point. If only we could roll back the clock and give Hollywood the chance to make things right…

Or, I guess hiring David Gordon Green and writers Jeff Fradley and Danny McBride was the answer. They just made a film that ignores everything after the original, which isn’t a surprise in the age of ‘reboots that aren’t remakes’, but it was a shock to see John Carpenter return as an executive producer. 

And just like that, Halloween fans desperately wanted to see how this retconned take would fare.

“Thirty-eight years after the original Halloween, I’m going to help to try to make the 10th sequel the scariest of them all.” Carpenter said. “I talked about the Halloweens for a long time, the sequels – I haven’t even seen all of them […] But finally it occurred to me: Well if I’m just flapping my gums here, why don’t I try to make it as good as I can? So, you know, stop throwing rocks from the sidelines and get in there and try to do something positive.”

It was hard not to be excited, but I kept my expectations in check all the same. After all, Carpenter had ‘phoned in’ the Halloween II script while getting hammered, and he also served as producer on the disappointing Halloween H20. But as time went on, it sounded like everyone involved really wanted to give fans the sequel they’ve always deserved. 

I began to believe it once I saw the first trailer. It looked like Halloween. It sounded like Halloween. It felt like Halloween. But of course, trailers are extremely selective. 

So let’s cut to the chase. How is it? 

Let me get one nitpicky thing out of the way first: I really don’t like that they’ve named this film Halloween. It doesn’t work on a multitude of levels. This is a direct sequel to the original, so why is the follow-up to Halloween also called, you know, Halloween? Furthermore, Rob Zombie‘s take also had the same name, meaning there are now three franchise films with that title. I get they wanted to let people know that this would be a return to form, but that could have been handled through marketing alone. Then again, this film was a financial success and then some, so what do I know?

As far as the plot is concerned, things pick up nearly 40 years after the Babysitter Murders, and a couple of podcasters visit Smith’s Grove Sanitarium to interview Michael’s psychiatrist, Dr. Ranbir Sartain, a colleague of the now deceased Dr. Loomis. They then try to get Michael’s side of the story by enticing him with his mask, but the killer remains as silent as he’s been since the day he murdered his sister back in 1963. These true-crime ‘reporters’ then go to Laurie Strode’s house to not only get her take, but to see if they can convince her to meet with Michael for a heart-to-heart. But Laurie’s more interested in survival and revenge than having a chat under the guise of closure. 

Laurie has obsessively trained for Michael’s inevitable return for most her life. She became a proficient marksman and trained her daughter, Karen – who wants to keep Allyson’s (her own daughter) life as normal as possible – to be the same. This has strained their relationship beyond repair, so when Laurie learns that Michael is being transported from the sanitarium, she figures there’s nothing left to lose and sets out to put him down once and for all… but relents. It’s a decision she comes to regret, of course, because Michael escapes and everyone she’s ever loved is at risk of becoming his next victims. 

The plot is basic, but Halloween didn’t need an overly complicated story to get the job done, did it? It just needed to get back to basics, ditching all the Thorn cult nonsense while making Michael Myers human again. To that end, Halloween (2018) gets the job done to an impressive degree. Oh, and while they were at it, they tossed that ‘Laurie is Michael’s sister’ stuff out the window too. 

I know some people really liked the supernatural element that kept Myers coming back in many an October, but that, in my opinion, made Myers less frightening. By the time this character was established as a hemorrhoidal ghoul that wanted nothing more than to snuff out his family tree (I’m talking about Halloween 4 and 5, specifically), the world had already been introduced to Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and more. Having yet another unstoppable bogeyman was nothing special, and that’s something the crew behind this film had thankfully recognized.

“I think it’s much more horrifying to be scared by someone standing in the shadows while you’re taking the trash out as opposed to someone who can’t be killed pursuing you.” – Danny McBride

To make Michael’s mortality perfectly clear, we get brief glimpses of battle scars from his first go-round with Laurie; a scar on his neck and damage to his left eye. Further injuries are also inflicted upon him. So how is he still scary if the protagonists are able to defend themselves? Because Michael always has the element of surprise and will do things to people they’d never dream of in their worst nightmares. There are a couple of moments in this film where Michael is hidden a bit too conveniently for the sake of carnage, but many other moments are executed flawlessly. One scene in a bathroom is particularly brutal, and best of all, there’s a lengthy one-shot sequence – which you get a glimpse at in the trailer – which follows Michael down a driveway, into a garage, a house to claim a victim, and back outside again. Unlike the first Halloween, trick-or-treaters are everywhere, so because he’s wearing a mask, nobody is wise as to who he is or what he’s up to, and they don’t recognize the mask because it’s been forty years since ‘the night he came home’. 

In short, Myers gets away with murder because he’s the ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

Thankfully, Laurie is ready for him. 

I really like how her character is conveyed this time around. She’s trained herself tactically, but she’s no Rambo. Instead, that fateful evening from 1978 has left her agoraphobic, an alcoholic, and served as the catalyst for two divorces. It makes sense that this character was mentally and emotionally damaged after her encounter with Myers, and I believe it over the ‘aw gee, isn’t everything swell’ take that we got in Halloween H20. No, despite having a family, she’s kept herself focused on the night – THIS night – when Michael would return. 

“He’s waited for this night. He’s waited for me. I’ve waited for him.” -Laurie Strode

But while the studio banked on the Laurie versus Michael bout to sell tickets, the filmmakers still felt the need to line a bunch of dumb teenagers up for slaughter. Allyson conveniently serves as that generational link, and to the best that I can tell, it’s the only reason she’s in the movie. I appreciate the motivation behind giving Halloween fans what they want, but much like other sequels in the franchise, they’ve missed the point. We actually had an opportunity to get to know and care about Laurie and her friends in the original, but the kids this time around feel like an afterthought. Still, they serve their purpose and it’s great to see Michael doing what he does best. These scenes are good old fashioned Halloween fun, so this complaint is minor.

The only serious flaw in this film is Dr. Sartain. What an atrocious character, that one. Loomis’ successor has an ominous, mad scientist-like vibe, which does nothing to hide one of the biggest twists in the film. I’m sorry if this comes as a bit of a spoiler, but it needs to be said: Sartain’s job is to lull us into a false sense of security and turn our expectations on their head. This could have been a potentially welcome change of pace but the entire thing was mishandled. Halloween REALLY wants you to believe he’s the next Loomis, and even Laurie reminds us of that. But his very being is so obviously off-kilter, you can tell he’s a bad egg from the start. I won’t go into further detail, but I don’t know a single person that cared for this character or how he fit into the overall plot.

But despite such issues, Halloween (2018) feels like the first proper sequel in the entirety of the franchise. It may not have had a high bar to leap over, but that doesn’t discount the fact that it’s mostly well done. It relies a bit too much on making plays off our expectations – yes, this goes above and beyond introducing ‘the new Loomis’ – but those moments are typically harmless at worst, and produces nostalgia-fueled grins at best. I think this film would probably be a strong finisher for the series as a whole, but after its financial success at the box office – Halloween (2018) made $253.7 million dollars on an estimated budget of $10-15 million – more are sure to come. We’ll see if that ends up being a mistake within the next couple of years, but as a return to form, you can’t go wrong with this film. Perfect it may not be, but it’s, in my opinion, the best Halloween since the original. 

IT (4K): I have a lot of love for the Tim Curry starring mini-series, but it is, objectively speaking, an extremely mixed bag. The first half is well done, but the entire second half with the adults plays out like a bad soap opera. It also wasn’t a very faithful adaptation. Fortunately, 2017’s IT, which focuses purely on the kids side of things, is much closer to the book and surprisingly good. The young cast have a ‘Stand By Me’ vibe when together on screen, and Bill Skarsgard’s Pennywise is exactly the kind of creepy the story needed.

Blade Runner 2049 (4K): Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time, but while I was excited to see what a sequel would offer, I wasn’t expecting it to be anything special. I don’t hate Ryan Gosling, but having him follow in Harrison Ford’s footsteps felt like a serious mistake. But he was alright, and more than that, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this sequel didn’t just hold its own against the original, but in many respects is actually superior. Ridley Scott thought Denis Villeneauve’s effort was, while solid, a bit long, and I couldn’t disagree more. The director allows this film to breathe so we can feel the impact of every sound and even the silence. The visuals are out of this world and the story is compelling. Blade Runner 2049 is honestly one of my favorite films in recent memory, if not all time.

Night of the Living Dead (Criterion Blu-ray): I’ve already written a review for this , but George A. Romero’s original is truly one of a kind. There’s so much to appreciate about this film, especially after multiple screenings. The camera angles The camera angles often convey that we’re witnessing a real life nightmare. The score dances up your spine like the fingertips of death. The lighting and shadows lend themselves to haunting imagery. For an independent film, it sure did come together like it belonged in the big leagues. The acting, while at times over the top, was also exemplary for its time, especially considering the genre.

The Criterion Blu-ray release is sourced from a 4K master, making this the best Night of the Living Dead has ever looked or sounded!

2001: A Space Odyssey (4K): Stanley Kubrick is debatably one of the best filmmakers that’s ever lived, and if there’s one film I’d pluck out of his catalog to underscore why, it’d be this one. The story is a deliberate slow-burn, but its runtime feels short due to its mesmerizing imagery and edge-of-your seat story beats. Powerfully thought-provoking, 2001 will leave you questioning the human race’s relationship with technology, and where – if we haven’t already hit our peak – we could go from here. I cannot stress enough that if you haven’t seen this, you absolutely need to. If you get bored easily though, then you should probably skip this. But for my money, it’s one of the best films of all time.

Jurassic Park Collection (4K): There were actually two Jurassic Park collections released this past year. The initial one in the spring had the first four films, whereas the one in the fall included Fallen Kingdom.

Look, I’ll be the first to tell you that the franchise overall is spotty. Jurassic Park is, in my opinion, one of the best summer popcorn flicks ever made. The Lost World is decent in many respects but also a slog, and it doesn’t help that its finale was an awful Godzilla-esque take on a dinosaur roaming through an American city. Jurassic Park III wasn’t a very good film, but it didn’t try to be. it’s more akin to an entertaining amusement park ride. Jurassic World (and I know many will disagree with me here) is a solid return to form, but I consider Fallen Kingdom to be the franchise’s low point (more on that in a bit). Still, all in all, you can get all the films at a great price in a single collection, and they look and sound great. for the most part.

Annihilation (4K): Undoubtedly my favorite film of 2018, I’m glad I waited to see this for the first time on 4K Blu-ray. This is another one of those sci-fi movies that wants you to think about what’s going on more than spelling things out, and in that respect it’s very much like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That’s not to say they’re actually similar, but they’re thematically close in an indirect sort of way. Great direction, wonderful acting from Natalie Portman and all her costars, and visually arresting. Annihilation is the kind of film that most aren’t making anymore, and I’m definitely excited to see what this director does next.

Brainscan (Blu-ray): Most of you probably won’t care about this one, and I’ll concede it isn’t a great film or even a very good one. but I like Brainscan. The brief overview is that it’s about a teenage horror fan (played by Edward Furlong) that plays a new video game which puts him in the role of a serial killer. Next thing he knows, he’s seeing his exploits on the local news and a detective is on his tail. A malevolent character known as Trickster loves every minute of this charade, and tells the boy that the only way he can get out of this nightmare is to play the rest of the game. It’s a simple but effective story, and as a gamer and genre fan myself, it hit all the right notes. It almost seemed like it would never see a quality release on home video – the old DVD from the mid 2000’s is pretty much garbage – but Scream Factory swooped in to save the day. I’m very thankful for this Blu-ray, especially since it looks as good as it probably ever will.

Predator – 3 Movie Collection (4K): While I cut my teeth as a wee lad on the same stuff as other boys my age – meaning Godzilla, Ninja Turtles, Ghostbusters and Star Wars – during my formative years I also became infatuated with the Alien and Predator films. As an adult, I’ve been disappointed in how the latter franchise has been treated on home video. The first Blu-ray of Predator had a lot of compression issues, while its subsequent release was slathered with some of the most offensive DNR (digital noise reduction), contrast and color boosting I’ve ever seen. Fox had effectively transformed this classic into an Xbox game, and I doubted we’d ever see it done justice. Well, not only does the new 4K Blu-ray collection gift us with Predator in all its grainy and grungy glory, but Predator2, which is also a fun B movie romp on steroids, also looks great. Now all we need are the Alien films on 4K, and I’ll be set!

Die Hard (4K): Is it a Christmas movie or not? I don’t really care, because I don’t think it’s all that important. What matters is that this is one of the greatest action films of all time, but it’s never looked particularly good on home video. This film was never a looker in the first place though, and its high-def Blu-ray debut came early in the format’s life cycle. But thanks to Fox, 2018’s 4K presentation is a substantial upgrade, ensuring generations to come will be able to enjoy a definitive version of the film that made Bruce Willis a household name and “yippee-kay-yay motherfucker” one of the most quoted lines in the history of cinema.

The Lion King (4K): I bought this on Blu-ray in 2011, 2017, and now I’m buying it again. Why? Well, the first Blu-ray from around 2011 had a substantial error: the clouds rolling back in the sky as Mufasa’s spirit retreated were missing. The Blu-ray from last year corrected the flub, so of course I bought it. Now that they’ve dangled a 4K HDR release of The Lion King in front of my face. well, call me Smeagol and consider this disc my precious. You would think traditional animation wouldn’t be worth the upgrade to 4K, but better compression and smoother animation lines clearly proves that wrong. HDR also helps to provide a bit more vibrancy, and the wider color gamut allows for better color reproduction. For example, Mufasa’s mane now has that dark reddish look to it as it did theatrically, as opposed to the orange-ish look we’ve had on DVD and Blu-ray. Disney will be releasing The Little Mermaid on 4K disc in February, and thanks to this disc, I can’t wait to see how it looks!

The Outer Limits Seasons 1 and 2 (Blu-ray): One of my favorite television shows of all time is The Twilight Zone, and when you’ve had your fill of that program, The Outer Limits is the next best thing. With hour long episodes, each story is given the breadth it needs to tantalize, draw you in and terrify. The series is best known for its ‘monster of the week’ episodes, but everything it presents is interesting. in a weird sort of way of course. The audio and video presentation is excellent, by the way. It’s yet another example of black and white content that very much benefits from the upgrade to 1080p. Next time someone says, “Well that wasn’t ever filmed in high definition, so how it can look better?” You tell them stuff like this had been shot on film, which is higher resolution than Blu-ray, and show them the goods. If they don’t walk away impressed. well, you don’t need friends like that!

Gladiator 4K: Objectively, Gladiator isn’t the best film. Not from a historical fiction standpoint, nor in regards to Ridley Scott’s filmography overall. That said, I still love this movie to pieces. Its basic revenge plot is heightened by great acting, terrific bits of action, and beautiful cinematography. The 4K Blu-ray is an interesting case, as there are a select few shots which actually look a tad better on the Blu-ray, but overall there’s a wonderful uptick in detail, but like many other discs on the format, it’s the HDR and wider color range that make this ultimately worth the upgrade.

I could go on, but I figure a dozen on the list is a good place to stop. Other titles I’ve been super happy with this year include, Saving Private Ryan 4K, Braveheart 4K, Schindler’s List 4K, American Psycho 4K, Evil Dead 4K, Evil Dead 2 4K, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Rick and Morty Season 3, and Black Sails: The Complete Collection.

Biggest Disappointments of the Year:

Creature From the Black Lagoon Collection: I have no idea what Universal’s quality control was doing, but they missed a pretty massive error: The one film in this collection that had the option to be viewed in 3D, would play for many on their 2D screens with each side-by-side ‘eye’ visible, and many had no way to bypass it. The studio announced a replacement disc program and cited a four-to-six week time frame for boned customers to receive them. Well, replacement discs made it out in the wild in six weeks alright. straight to retailer shelves. That’s right, the studio began to sell corrected copies before getting them in the hands of the people who had already purchased the messed up copies at the start. Last but certainly not least, they chose the wrong 2D ‘eye’ to be presented. the one they’ve selected is blurrier and not up to Blu-ray standards. The rest of the monster movie collections that Universal have released over the last couple of years are immaculate, but this was a sad way to end the series.

The Predator: The Predator isn’t a bad movie. but it’s also not very good. I’m a huge fan of the franchise, warts and all, but I was hoping this would have fared better than Predators. Unfortunately, I think this movie spun the lore in a way that didn’t make much sense. Said ideas are clever, in their own ‘hey, this is how we can finally explain the Predators motivation’ sort of way, but they also water down just how badass the Predator is in general. The action is good, bloody fun, but the ‘glue’ that holds it all together is pretty weak.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom: I’m a huge fan of the Jurassic Park/World franchise, but I’m not blind to its missteps along the way. Jurassic World was a fantastic return to form. but this? Fallen Kingdom is a bit of a train wreck. It has a strong opening and solid finale, but everything in-between is cringe inducing. I’m hoping the follow-up film is better, but at this point, I’m not expecting much. As far as I’m concerned, this is where the franchise died.

Return of the Living Dead Part II: This was finally given a Blu-ray release by Scream Factory, and considering Return of the Living Dead is one of my favorite movies to watch around Halloween, I was excited to finally experience the sequel. I expected that it wouldn’t hold a candle to the original, but even though my expectations were already in-check, I was horrified by how bad the follow-up was. It’s a shame, because Return of the Living Dead Part 3, while different, was actually a blast. If the only ‘Return’ flick you’ve ever seen is the original, you should probably keep it that way.

Victor Crowley: If you’re a fan of horror but have never seen any of the Hatchet films, you need to drop what you’re doing and rectify that. like, immediately. The original trilogy is full of that old-school ‘strangers lost in the woods’ massacre-type fun that you’ve grown up with. but with even more gore and over-the-top practical effects. Couple that with the return of Kane Hodder, one of the best Jason Voorhees actors of all time, and you’ve got yourself a winning formula.

The Hatchet films took a break after the original trio had released, but was ultimately revived with Victor Crowley. This film was a disappointment in virtually every respect. The cast aren’t as memorable, the budget was lower in a pretty obvious way, and even the practical effects had toned down a bit. I still want to see if they can bounce back with the next film, but as of right now, the only thing Victor Crowley made me feel was that the franchise should have remained dormant.

Feel free to write me on Twitter @bytesizeimp if you’re ever curious about the quality of any given home video release. I’m on the ball and will always be able to help you make an informed decision!