Older stars lose their youthful veneer but often gain something special in the process.

Examples? Kevin Costner, Jean Smart and Pierce Brosnan have only gotten better with age. Add Hugh Grant to that list.

The befuddled hero from 1994’s “Four Weddings and a Funeral” is showing remarkable range as he enters his 60s. He recently stole 2023’s “Wonka” as the sole Oompa Loompa. Before that, he left us shaken with Max’s “The Undoing” (2020). 

Now, he’s giving two Mormon missionaries the fright of their lives in “Heretic.” The spiritual thriller can’t quite close the deal, but Grant’s deft performance is one for the ages.

And, yes, you won’t find “Heretic” playing at any Mormon gathering or spiritual retreat.

Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton (Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East) are spreading the good word when they knock on the door of a kindly gentleman named Mr. Reed (Grant). Sister Paxton is comically naive about, well, everything. Sister Barnes knows a little more about the secular world.

But not much.

Together, they’re eager to spend time with Mr. Reed, assuming he can coax his wife into the living room. They’re not allowed to speak to a man without a woman present.

Mrs. Reed is busy baking a blueberry pie in the kitchen. That gives her husband enough time to quiz the Sisters on their faith.

Boy, does he have a lot of questions. Some of them make the ladies uncomfortable. Audiences will feel the same way, and that sense of unease is just beginning.

Grant’s Mr. Reed is inquisitive and kind, full of charming contradictions. He’s eager for a robust conversation on faith, but there’s something sinister lurking beneath that genial appearance.

Grant teases it out to perfection. He’s as scary as Freddy, Jason or Michael Myers, eventually .. but maybe not Art the Clown.

Who is, though?

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by A24 (@a24)

Writer/directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (“A Quiet Place,” “Haunt”) have plenty on their minds about faith, consumerism and western culture. Their screenplay evokes board games and musical lawsuits, catching us off guard.

Grant ties them into one, absurdist bow, never letting us forget the darker themes in play.

It’s mostly smart and sobering, and if you suspect the film has something sinister to say about organized religion you’ve seen one too many Hollywood movies. The story still won’t fit into that neat, predictable box. And the journey is so intriguing you may not realize you’re part of a cinematic finger wag.

Impressive.

Like too many horror movies, “Heretic” sets up a beguiling premise but doesn’t quite know how to wrap it up in compelling fashion. The third act feels more like a conventional horror film, complete with head-scratching twists and gore galore.

Beck and Woods are so firmly in command you’ll want to push past the narrative chasms. Some are still too much for any genre fan to swallow. Others are absurd, but the devious production design lets us swallow the silliness whole.

“Heretic” unleashes on organized faith, but it does so in a way that leaves some compelling wiggle room. That’s smart and oddly satisfying, a case of lowered expectations from an industry relentlessly wary of spiritual nods.

Still, it would be better if Mr. Reed’s adversaries brought something extra to the conversation. They’re more or less rhetorical punching bags, but the script empowers them in other ways.

The latter feels convenient, not subversive.

That’s a shame. A more robust third-act confrontation would have elevated “Heretic” above and beyond most genre frights. As is, Grant’s transformative turn is more than enough reason to recommend it.

HiT or Miss: “Heretic” gives star Hugh Grant his latest chance to shine, although you’d happily run away from his latest cinematic portrait.

The post ‘Heretic’ Turns Hugh Grant into a Charming Monster appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

David Lynch’s “The Straight Story” (1999) is his least expected work and one of his best.

Atypically straightforward but rich with expected visual poetry, Lynch directed this from a screenplay by Mary Sweeney and John Roach. The film tells the amazing story of Alvin Straight, an elderly Iowan who drove his tractor 300 miles to visit his ailing brother.

Richard Farnsworth stars as Alvin Straight, a WWII veteran who walks with two canes. His days are quiet, and his reputation is well-established in Laurens, Iowa. Recognizing his ailing health and how a rift between him and his brother (Harry Dean Stanton) has kept them apart for two long, Straight privately and stubbornly plans to make trip to see him.

Bearing in mind his age, Straight decided on a vehicle more fitting for him than a commercial vehicle. This is a true story, in which a 73-year-old, in 1994, drove his lawnmower 300 miles to Wisconsin.

Despite a wave of critical acclaim in the fall of ’99, it has become a little-known gem in Lynch’s body of work. Made in between “Lost Highway” (1997) and “Mulholland Dr.” (2001), this is even more out of character and startling to see in Lynch’s body of work than “Dune” (1984).

It opens with the once-in-a-lifetime sight of the Disney logo, followed by Lynch’s name as director.

The inciting incident is striking, filmed in almost the same way as the legendary opener for “Blue Velvet” (1986). In fact, the establishing shots of Alvin’s hometown evoke the title credits of “Twin Peaks.” For a film that seems so apart from Lynch’s usual output, the director has made the material his own and adapted it into his unique and recognizable cinematic universe.

RELATED: HOW LYNCH’S ‘MULHOLLAND DRIVE’ INVADED OUR DREAMS

Another Lynchian touch is the elevated sound design. When Alvin lights a cigar, the sound of the match hitting the box is akin to the eruption of the bonfire that begins Lynch’s “Wild At Heart” (1990). Lynch creates genuine suspense in the depiction of Alvin’s unpredictable journey.

Farnsworth maintains the familiar twinkle in his eye, but there is a touching honesty, even a raw quality to his performance, which is just about perfect. Farnsworth died at the age of 80 a year after the film was released.

Film historians may look at his work in “The Grey Fox” and “Anne of Green Gables” as more iconic, but what he achieves for Lynch is a true milestone and not the condescending wacky grandpa type of role most actors his age would find themselves in.

Lynch’s film isn’t cute, and neither is Farnsworth’s performance.

Sissy Spacek co-stars as Rose, Alvin’s daughter, who is defined as “a little bit slow.” Spacek is magnificent in this. Yes, I’ve seen “Carrie” and “Coal Miner’s Daughter,” but this is her best performance.

Bruce McGill has a great cameo, as does Stanton in a real beauty of a single scene, but the film belongs to Farnsworth and Spacek.

There’s poetry in the imagery, such as the moving bit where Rose watches a young boy pick up a ball off her lawn and walk off. We initially don’t know at first if it’s really happening, or a flashback or something else.

A later scene, between Alvin and a hitchhiker he meets over a bonfire, is so beautifully written, it could have been a perfect short film by itself. Likewise, the powerful, remarkable scene in which Alvin and another war veteran make a private confession to each other in an empty bar.

Despite the G-rating, this is not a children’s film. The Mouse House vote of confidence in this as a potential breakout hit was ill-advised, as the film never found much of an audience and the studio seemed clueless as to how they should market it.

Yes, as you have guessed, “The Straight Story” is slow and measured like its protagonist. Without Lynch, this could have been a disposable, corny Hallmark made-for-TV movie. In the hands of the creator of “Blue Velvet,” Lynch doesn’t merely make this fittingly eccentric, but seemingly lived in, real and oddly plausible.

John Roach and Mary Sweeney’s screenplay is never condescending and, as usual, Lynch’s vision is enhanced by Angelo Badalamenti’s tender score.

David Lynch behind the scenes of The Straight Story pic.twitter.com/XfOD0xxUwp

— Eyes On Cinema (@RealEOC) February 2, 2021

Despite the acclaim in ‘99, “The Straight Story” has become one of Lynch’s most under-the-radar achievements. Twenty-five years since its release, you rarely hear the film mentioned anymore.

It deserves rediscovery, not merely because of its place in Lynch’s body of work but because his engagement with the material matches his passion for the tortured and moving figures of his best films. Lynch cares about these characters – even at their most eccentric, they are vulnerable, real and moving.

“The Straight Story” remains a work of passion from one of our most consistently surprising filmmakers.

The post How David Lynch Buckled Our Knees with ‘The Straight Story’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Alan Rudolph’s “Breakfast of Champions” (1999) is messy, dated and occasionally brilliant.

Following a high-profile premiere and a negative reaction from the Berlin International Film Festival, Rudolph’s film, a consistently surreal adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut’s hilarious, satirical and far more grounded 1973 novel, was dumped into theaters in 2000.

In fact, I caught it during a one-week run at the now-closed Esquire Theater in Denver, Colo. I didn’t like the film as much as the book and recognized how daft and off-putting the film was but, nevertheless, liked it and defended it in print.

Over the years, it’s become a punching bag for Rudolph and a go-to example of a great Vonnegut novel done dirty on the big screen. Of course, when the top-tier example is still George Roy Hill’s fantastic “Slaughterhouse Five” (1972) and few even remember this barely-released oddity, it’s no wonder Rudolph’s film was not only rejected but, far worse, forgotten.

Now, “Breakfast of Champions” returns in a beautiful, 4K upgrade and is back in theaters for a limited release.

Bruce Willis stars as Dwayne Hoover, a car salesman who is, by far, the most famous person in Midland City. Hoover’s frantic, ubiquitous commercials made him a local celebrity.

Despite Hoover’s leering, energetic presence on TV, he’s miserable and coming apart in real life. His mornings begin with bouts of putting a gun in his mouth and admitting to himself that he has no idea who he really is. His lounge singer son (Lukas Haas) and spacey wife (Barbara Hershey) are disconnected from him.

Hoover’s staff includes a paranoid number two (Nick Nolte), a crazed former prisoner (Omar Epps) who sports a similar name to Hoover’s, and Hoover’s secretary (Glenn Headley), who he’s having an affair with during business hours. Hoover suddenly believes that the arrival in Midland City of author/weirdo Kilgore Trout (Albert Finney) will finally bring some meaning to his life and that Trout may have the answers he seeks.

Less a proper, exacting Vonnegut adaptation than a thematic reaction to it, the smart, focused satire of Vonnegut’s novel has been replaced by broad, Looney Tunes-like satire. Sometimes this works but often the viewer will feel like they’re being pummeled by an overzealous birthday party clown.

The movie is often too much.

RELATED: REFLECTIONS ON BRUCE WILLIS’ FINAL DECADE OF ACTING

Things get off on the right foot, with the titles exploding onscreen, sporting Vonnegut’s hand-drawn art and title font from the book (one of Vonnegut’s funniest illustrations is paired with Rudolph’s name). Accompanied by Mark Isham’s wonderful score, the feeling is akin to being in a car ride that is exhilarating but uneasy, as the driver is going too fast.

The style is immediately brisk, hallucinatory and a lot for some audience members to adapt to.

Hoover is the kind of beloved local celebrity who is expected to smile and entertain the moment he walks into a room. Willis could likely have related to this kind of stress, being a celebrity who first gained adoration on TV.

A scene where Hoover is horrified when his staff surprises him by wearing masks of his mug at work is a perfect embodiment of this level of unease at being so accessible to your fans. Hoover seemingly has it all but feels the walls closing in around him. Willis, in perhaps his most under-estimated performance, is excellent here.

The rest of the impressive ensemble isn’t entirely well matched, as Finney seems miscast. The Trout of the novel (who Vonnegut fans recognize as an alter ego) is witty and elegant. Finney’s take is all bluster, appears off putting and trips over the witty dialogue.

The pathos is there, and Finney seems as nuts as everyone else onscreen, but I missed the novel’s musings on Trout’s fantastic-sounding stories. Finney and Haas’ scenes ramble on too long.

25 years later, one of Bruce Willis’ best movies gets the release it deserves. The 4K restoration of BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS opens in theaters on Friday, November 1. https://t.co/SOOy7nVRjl

— Shout! Studios (@Shout_Studios) October 30, 2024

Nolte’s scenes, involving a “secret” and his spiritualist wife (a standout Vicki Lewis), are the most dated, very 1960s touches here. Epps’ wild turn is unlike anything else he’s ever done (at one point, Hoover understandably asks someone if Epps’ character is really standing there) and Shawnee Smith has a great bit as Hoover’s waitress.

Hershey is strangely wasted in a role that acts as a plot function.

Hoover’s fame is akin to “Crazy Eddie” Antar, the wildly popular 1970s-80s TV pitchman (played by Jerry Carroll) who fronted the East Coast chain of electronic stores, which wound up fronting a massive scam. Danny DeVito has been circling a film version of the “Crazy Eddie” story, though Willis’ take on Hoover suggests Crazy Eddie’s genial madness.

Another film depicting a car salesman as a celebrity and public figure that plays like an even darker version of Rudolph’s film is Larry Cohen’s little-seen, but excellent, shocking “Bone” (1972).

Filmed in Twin Falls, Idaho (coincidentally, a great film sporting that name from Michael and Mark Polish appeared in 1999) but, like many of Rudolph’s prior films, seemingly disconnected from his body of work.

Rudolph became an acclaimed filmmaker for his eclectic mood pieces, like “Choose Me” (1984) and “Trouble in Mind” (1986), but his best films are among his most experimental, like the dream-like “Equinox” (1992), the superb literary world period drama “Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle” (1994) and, his absolute best, the film noir-infused domestic comedy, “The Secret Lives of Dentists” (2003).

Rudolph previously collaborated with Willis on “Mortal Thoughts” (1991), where the star was extraordinary playing a doomed, abusive husband. Cast alongside his then-wife Demi Moore, both Moore and Willis have cited in print that the film represented their best work.

Willis clearly trusted Rudolph, and the director provided him with a great showcase for his comic and dramatic capabilities in his take on Dwayne Hoover.

As a spoof on the American dream going askew and the lost seeking to be redeemed, we see how a Maui vacation becomes the embodiment of salvation for the film’s characters. It was a mistake on Rudolph’s part not to date this: if this is then-contemporary America, the vision is a swirling miasma of anxiety, but if a title card told us this was 1973 or set in the 1970s, we’d recognize the character’s turmoil, living in a Watergate/still-in-Vietnam existence.

Some scenes play like overly caffeinated “SNL” sketches but the best moments, of which there are many, take center, even as much of the film is juiced up on Rudolph’s experimental touches. The excellent parts of “Breakfast of Champions” connect to Vonnegut’s central conflict, of mere mortals trying and failing to grasp the meaning of life.

“This is the first interview I’ve ever done for Breakfast of Champions. When the film came out, no one wanted to talk about it except me.”

Alan Rudolph talks with @ethanves about restoring his Kurt Vonnegut adaptation, Bruce Willis, and Robert Altman: https://t.co/NxGtvxZxOh pic.twitter.com/gFCwntu2tD

— The Film Stage (@TheFilmStage) October 30, 2024

There’s a beautifully acted scene between Willis and Nolte, where the two salesmen share deep confessions but neither is really hearing the other. The climax is emotional and satisfying, in its own peculiar way, but what it all means is highly debatable (I’d say the conclusion of this and “Fight Club” reach the same thematic end).

The film’s all-out rejection in theaters was especially odd when you consider that Willis was coming off “The Sixth Sense.” You’d figure curious filmgoers would at least give it a robust opening weekend. Even lesser vehicles like “The Story of Us” (1999) and “Disney’s The Kid” (2000) were much more successful for Willis.

The stench of failure towards Rudolph’s film lingered for years until it fell to a bottom-of-the-discount-DVD-bin purgatory.

When people tell me they hate Rudolph’s “Breakfast of Champions,” it’s usually because they understandably prefer Vonnegut’s far more focused novel or simply “didn’t get” what Rudolph and his cast were aiming for.

There are flaws in Rudolph’s film, mostly in his tendency to squeeze in too many subplots and characters into an already busy swirl of mania. Yet, given a fresh look (no joke – the 4K upgrade makes the colors richer and the Mad Hatter vision fuller) and taken as a companion piece to Vonnegut’s novel, as well as a forgotten showcase for Willis’ under-appreciated abilities as an actor, the return of “Breakfast of Champions” is an overdue event.

The post Discarded ‘Breakfast of Champions’ Gets a Second Chance appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Don Coscarelli’s “Phantasm” (1979) begins with its title in red letters and nothing more.

We’re off and running, which sums up what the film is like overall. Welcome to Wonderland, Alice, enjoy your free fall into a strange new world.

The setting is a small town that seems to center around Morningside Cemetery, where young Mike (Michael Baldwin) is snooping around. Mike is often tailing his older brother Jody (Bill Thornbury), who seems to be headed for better things in his near future. However, a puzzling mystery is presenting itself to both Mike and the audience.

• Why is Morningside Cemetery and its inner workings so bizarre?
• Why is the undertaker, known as The Tall Man (Angus Scrimm), so gosh darn strange?
• Can he really lift a coffin by himself when no one else appears to be watching?
• Who are the small, hooded creatures who work for The Tall Man?
• Why is the cemetery a go-to place for teen sex in this nutty town?

Coscarelli’s $300,000 indie horror film, shot in one year over many weekends with pals, sometimes feels like they were making it up as they went along. Some stretches reflect that, but the genuine shocks and overall ambition of Coscarelli’s vision (which involves dimension hopping and extraterrestrials) points to a method in his madness.

Actually, the further “Phantasm” digs its heels into sci-fi, the stronger its overall story gets.

“Phantasm” maintains its edge as an atmospheric, off-kilter independent horror film. It’s also very-1970s, far more so than classics like “Don’t Look Now” (1973) or “Halloween” (1978). Few films made during that era capture the big, wavy hairstyles, bell bottoms, groovy vernacular and societal unease of that lost era better than this one.

The fear of death is a frequent source of dread infused in many horror films, though writer/director Coscarelli takes it even further. While it is ostensibly about a boy being chased by a monster through a graveyard (literally, at times), it’s also a coming-of-age fable and a wacko sci-fi/horror hybrid portrayed as a waking nightmare.

The subtext is rich, as this isn’t just about a young man failing to keep up with his older brother, as he’s literally outpacing him and planning to move on. The dynamic between the younger and older brother is poignant – the reason Mike is seemingly always following his brother is that he either senses or knows outright that he will leave him soon.

The obstacles the brothers face represents the grind and disappointments of adult life. In particularly, it could be interpreted that The Tall Man is a stand in for any authority figure, the oppressive nature of cemeteries and death in general.

PHANTASM (1979) Shot and directed by Don Coscarelli pic.twitter.com/drHrKMAAx8

— One Perfect Shot (@OnePerfectShot) November 1, 2016

“Phantasm” is also a glimpse at a post-Watergate youth culture, barely post-Vietnam, living an uneasy existence. The horrors of the story are thrust upon teens with counter-cultural views and attitudes, but they are unable to get ahead of the baffling supernatural occurrences they witness.

This is far from the first genre film to vividly explore not just the subject of death but the sterile confines in a “place of rest.” The pacing is sometimes an issue, as the film finds its footing as it keeps moving along from one seemingly disconnected but compelling sequence to another.

Some of the performances are amateurish but endearing (particularly Reggie Bannister’s). The dialogue is oh-so-70s, such as “I don’t get off on funerals, man, they give me the creeps!”

The story offers nods to Tolkien (note those little monsters in robes, akin to evil Hobbits, already under Gollum’s spell) and Frank Herbert’s “Dune” (the black Pain Box is explicitly referenced early on). The villainous Tall Man has superhuman strength and is omnipresent, like imposing Death in the form of a grim-faced servant.

“Phantasm” has lots of cool moments that don’t connect initially (in fact, the first viewing of the film tends to be the most off putting, even for confessed longtime fans), like a visit with a fortune teller. Then there’s the random front porch jam session, which is irritating as an unwelcome musical interlude, but also as a jarring tonal shift.

As a horror film, the effectiveness is on and off, though there are many jolting moments, such as that great final scene. The memorable theme music by Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrove cleverly plays throughout the film in varying iterations.

#OctoberMovieThon continues! #NowWatching Phantasm (1979) w/ @Whorror_Fiend. Here we go!#phantasm #horror pic.twitter.com/6KplFX0EI0

— Jackie Daytona. Hootie Tootie Disco Cutie (@evil_toast916) October 31, 2024

To Coscarelli’s credit, his film doesn’t peak early and is weird and intriguing enough to keep a hold on skeptical viewers. I was among those who thought this film didn’t work the first time I saw it. Now, the disjointed quality to the screenplay seems like a major asset, as you just can’t get ahead of the story.

When it seems that the narrative has taken a distinct direction, Coscarelli is always trying something wild and new. In fact, he’s literally throwing silver balls at us, which is probably the film’s most unforgettable visual signature.

Yes, the mechanized, very-alive and drill-ready balls are vicious little monsters. So are the glowing-eyed insects that turn up. Willard Green’s Silver Sphere is every bit as iconic as Scrimm’s Tall Man.

Occasionally, the film’s scrappy quality leads to unintentionally funny moments, but sometimes the dialogue is genuinely funny on purpose (like, “This guy’s not gonna leak all over my ice cream, is he?”). As low-budget cult horror films go, “Phantasm” is cornier than “The Evil Dead” (1983) and less polished than “Halloween,” but its best passages are unforgettable.

Bannister, of all things, is to this ongoing franchise what Bruce Campbell is to the “Evil Dead” saga.

In full disclosure, the action-heavy, always-on-its-feet and truly exciting “Phantasm II” (1988) is my favorite of the series. Nevertheless, the first two are meant to watched one after the other. I recommend planning a double feature and seeing why a generation of disco-loving teens were once petrified of a very Tall Man, in search of his “Boooooy!”

The post We Still Can’t Crack ‘Phantasm’ 45 Years Later appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Dominique Othenin-Girard’s “Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers” (1989) immediately grabs us with an opening title sequence riffing on the “pumpkin carving reveal” of prior installments.

It also establishes its most distinct quality. It’s willing to take chances. Not all of them will work, let alone make sense.

We briskly revisit the climax of the prior film, where the masked and seemingly unstoppable serial killer (Don Shanks) is relentlessly pursuing his niece, Jamie (the remarkable Danielle Harris) and her babysitter Rachel (Ellie Cornell).

A car crash, in which Myers is thrown from a vehicle, leads to an odd police shootout and Myers falling down a mine shaft. From there, the movie makes some strange choices, and it doesn’t end there.

Following the “Previously on Halloween” flashback, we watch as the wounded Myers goes into hiding. It’s always interesting to watch Myers outside of the stalk n’ slash story confines.

Jamie now has a clearly defined psychic link between her and Myers, and she hasn’t spoken since Myers’ prior attack on her life. Much worse? The film briefly references the devastating final scene from “Halloween 4,” then discards it, seemingly telling us to just forget about it.

What?! Can you imagine a sequel to “The Sixth Sense” that begins with the reveal that the final twist was just a dream?!

“Halloween 5” survives this early misstep but really, if the filmmakers were unwilling to follow up on the giant whammy the last movie left us in its final reveal, they should have avoided following Jamie as a character.

Thankfully, Harris is so good in this (as she was in the prior installment), that the movie leapfrogs over a bad first-act creative decision.

RELATED: ‘HALLOWEEN 4’ REVIVED SLEEPY SAGA 

Othenin-Girard is clearly a demonstratively stylish filmmaker, though not all of his touches work. The weird inclusion of the supernatural (mentioned in “Halloween II” and overtly portrayed in the wild “Halloween III: Season of the Witch”), some extensive world building (more on that in a bit) and some daring and not always successful creative choices make this one of the most interesting, if not entirely successful, of the “Halloween” sequels.

Shanks is a very good Myers, who sports the thorn tattoo that becomes a major storyline of the equally interesting, often baffling “Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers” (1995). The latter is far more satisfying and battier in its extended, preferred Producer’s Cut.

Myers’ face can be clearly seen from the distance in one shot, in a great, surprising moment where he faces Jamie. There’s also a knockout bit when Jamie falls down a laundry chute, which we see from her perspective. It’s a breathtaking shot.

“Halloween 5” is lively but unpleasant, devoid of heart (they really needed to keep Cornell’s welcome presence in the movie), as well as lacking the hometown feel of the original. Haddonfield is misshapen, clearly a series of locations, sets and odd spots, whereas Carpenter’s original and the earlier sequels made it seem vivid and real.

With or without dialogue, Harris is still excellent in this and acts her heart out. Pleasance’s big acting choices are exactly right – Loomis desperately wants Myers to stop killing but he mostly succeeds in burning bridges with everyone he meets. You could make a comedy out of how Loomis might be the most obnoxious, unlikable and hilariously unhinged “hero” of any movie.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Any fans? pic.twitter.com/Z8j99BBXxL

— Michael Myers (@MichaelMyersIM) October 30, 2024

Both ambitious and underwhelming, this rushed sequel sports plot twists both promising and ill considered. When it goes through the motions, it drags. Placing two small, sweet, screaming children in peril for most of the movie (they’re even chased by a car while they scamper on foot) is a dubious touch, even for this franchise.

The third act is on stalk n’ slash autopilot, except for two scenes: Jamie’s aforementioned escape down a laundry (seriously, that POV shot is amazing and must have been a nightmare to set up) and the final, apocalyptic closing scene.

The cliffhanger finale would take too long to finally resolve, a major reason why the most daring touches in “Halloween 5” didn’t pay off – imagine finding out the final episode of “Lost” and its biggest secrets…this year.

There’s also the unseen Man in Black, with steel-toed shoes and matching Thorn tattoos, is such an intriguing, welcome and strange touch. It’s a shame that the mystery of this character was belatedly resolved, finally, six years later, when “Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers” unveiled the secret in a manner resembling busy work instead of a proper Tah-Dah!

Alan Howarth’s electronic score makes some bad calls – most notoriously providing wacky sound effects whenever we get an appearance from two Mutt n’ Jeff cops. Why the music choice and what are those characters even doing in this movie?

Part 5 isn’t anywhere near as bad as “Halloween: Resurrection” (2002) or the worst parts in the past two Blumhouse Halloween sequels. The franchise was on seriously shaky ground at this point, not gaining proper momentum and a series high of “Halloween: H20” in 1998.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989).
Art by Aaron Fulcher. pic.twitter.com/71wBtxz4ti

— The Retro Reminiscer (@RetroReminiscer) October 23, 2024

“Halloween 5” was a turning point and impresses for taking some wild swings but was also a step down from the Hitchcockian touches of “Halloween 4.”

The filmmakers probably should have waited longer after the success of “Halloween 4” to properly plan and map out this sequel, rather than rush it into theaters with it feeling like an unfinished and quirky cash-in.

If nothing else, “Halloween 5” sports the core problem that plagued subsequent sequels: the premise is best kept simple. John Carpenter knew not to pile on too many subplots or lean into the overtly supernatural…or give us wacky sound effects.

“Halloween 5” wound up underperforming at the box office and not initially impressing longtime fans, hurting the momentum gained by the prior installment. It wouldn’t be the last time the series had to take a hiatus, before coming back strong years later, sporting a new direction.

The finest of these later episodes, “Halloween: H20” (1998) and “Halloween” (2019) discarded the tonal and narrative miscues, though the follow-up sequels piled them on again. Clearly, it was the screenplays, and not a plump pumpkin, that needed some additional craving on Halloween.

The post ‘Halloween 5: Revenge of Michael Myers’ Shows Face of Franchise appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Will CGI wonders never cease?

Last year, Harrison Ford looked like his old self in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” The de-aging effects weren’t perfect, but it still felt like Doc Brown’s DeLorean had taken us back to 1981.

Magical.

“Here,” based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire, takes that visual approach to a new level. However, much like “Dial of Destiny” the film supporting it can’t measure up.

Director Robert Zemeckis reunites “Forrest Gump” alums Tom Hanks and Robin Wright for a cloying drama set in one expansive room.

Really. That’s both a spoiler alert and a warning.

“Here” literally spans millions of years. The story opens with dinosaurs rumbling over a green expanse of land. We fast forward through the centuries until we end up watching that very space taken up by 20th-century Americans.

Yes, Zemeckis and co. are needlessly flexing the production’s CGI budget here for no discernible effect.

We land on several overlapping stories, including the saga of Richard and Margaret (Hanks and Wright). We watch Richard, or Ricky as a boy, grows up before our eyes. The action plays out in the family’s living room, where a long, cozy sofa dominates the room.

Get used to that setup. It’s the only one you’ll see.

F/X gurus de-age both Hanks and Wright to convincingly show them as a young couple, a budding family and, years later, a duo struggling in their empty nest years. It helps that the static shot means few close-up shots.

The milestones come at us fast – life, death, marriage, job woes, health complications and more. It’s corny and lacking nuance, and it’s all shown in that very same living room.

Our leads are more than game, and their combined star power intermittently keeps our attention.

The single setting wears out its welcome early. The claustrophobia is palpable, and there’s still plenty of story left to be told.

Paul Bettany hams it up as Richard’s father, playing a character straight out of Central Casting.

Several other narratives vie for our attention, offering little in the way of humor or insight. An amorous couple dances across the screen while marveling at his furniture inventions. It’s breezy, no doubt, but why do we care again?

Another tale follows a black nuclear family just before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Yes, we get to watch masked-up characters to remind us of that awful period.

This clan gets precious little screen time, save for a scene where the parents instruct their teen son how to respond if a cop pulls him over. Did Black Lives Matter get a screenwriting credit?

Another story, discarded swiftly, involves an airplane owner and his worried spouse. Did we mention appearances by Native Americans and Benjamin Franklin?

“Here” didn’t need its signature gimmick. The story could have followed the main couple while allowing them the space to visually flesh out their evolution. Instead, we feel as cramped as Margaret, who longs to move out of a home she spends far too long in.

Robin Wright joins TODAY to discuss her upcoming film “Here,” and shares details about working with former “Forrest Gump” co-star Tom Hanks and director Robert Zemeckis 30 years later.

“It’s like getting the band back together,” she says. pic.twitter.com/eOd8UTYgUu

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) October 28, 2024

Zemeckis, who co-wrote “Here” with Eric Roth, finds something of consequence in Richard and Margaret’s later years. They seem like the perfect couple, but something gnaws as Margaret that many women of her era can appreciate.

It’s too little, too late.

Zemeckis remains fascinated by Hollywood’s expanding tool kit. He delighted us with “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” broke new ground with “The Polar Express” and left us scratching our heads while watching “Death Becomes Her.”

He’s so enamored with the de-aging possibilities that he embraced a graphic novel’s gimmick without realizing the film medium made no sense for it.

HiT or Miss: “Here” dazzles us with its de-aging effects, but the main storylines are dramatically inert.

The post ‘Here’ Collapses Under Weight of Its Gimmick appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

The border wall Kamala Harris says she’s itching to build gets a workout in “Line in the Sand.”

Journalist-turned-filmmaker James O’Keefe shows parts of the finished wall getting cut in the documentary’s opening moments. It’s just one of many shocking sights in a film made outside the Hollywood ecosystem.

Of course.

The riveting documentary’s blend of O’Keefe’s undercover work and shoe-leather reportage leaves a mark. The takeaway? The U.S./Mexico border is a crisis unfolding in real time. It’s even worse than we imagine.

Greed. Corruption. Government excess. Human trafficking. Drugs. Lost children. O’Keefe’s camera captures it all, with melodramatic asides from our on-screen host.

O’Keefe and a small crew go south of the border to investigate the existing border wall and the parties that feed off immigration chaos.

They interview plenty of migrants, finding some eager to share their stories and destinations. The dangers are immense for the wannabe Americans, from falling off moving trains to knowing children can disappear at any step in the journey. 

Nothing stops them. They keep on coming, hoping for a sliver of the American dream.

The right-leaning O’Keefe has plenty of empathy for the migrants. They’ve been told by Team Biden to come on in. Heck, we’ll pick up the tab, the future president vowed during the 2020 campaign.

You might risk it all, too, for a better life for your family.

O’Keefe is on hand every step of the way, narrating his journey and putting himself in harm’s way to glean information.

“I’m just doing my job,” he hears more than a few times. Buck passing abounds. Moral lines are crossed over and again. And people react poorly when O’Keefe’s camera crew shows up.

The latter proves revealing. It also gives “Sand” some storytelling friction. The subject matter does the rest.

This clip from James O’Keefe’s “Line in the Sand” (you can watch the full documentary on the Tucker Carlson Network) will blow your mind.

An undercover journalist walked into NYC’s Roosevelt Hotel (which, btw was a beautiful, luxury hotel not so long ago) and asks for… pic.twitter.com/22Rq2wOkF3

— Communism Survivor (@communismsurviv) October 22, 2024

Not all of the revelations land as squarely as the film may hope. Sometimes O’Keefe’s sensationalist brand makes an unwanted cameo. He’s still doing the digging that so many journalists won’t, and he uncovers a treasure trove of despair and deceit.

Hidden microphones do some of the heavy lifting. O’Keefe’s one-on-one exchanges gather serious intel.

A few revelations shouldn’t come as a surprise. Venezuelan criminals are flowing into the U.S., something Aurora, Colo. residents have learned the hard way.

As if ANY apartment complexes being commandeered by Tren de Aragua in Aurora is acceptable. There must be ZERO tolerance on this. Incredible mental gymnastics by Martha Raddatz on behalf of Coffman’s weak sauce statement. https://t.co/WIIlulzsqO

— Ryan Schuiling (@RyanSchuiling) October 13, 2024

Other migrants have better intentions, but they arrive knowing the exact towns where they’re headed. How does that happen? And we watch buses taking the illegals to various drop-off points, all on Uncle Sam’s dime.

Some border patrol agents express frustration with doing a job with one hand tied behind their backs. Others simply shrug and get back to “work.” 

BREAKING: Federal Government Whistleblower Exposes $347M Contract for Transporting Unaccompanied Minors – “What You Know, You Cannot Unknow,”

“My line in the sand moment was when I found out that GSA had awarded a contract to a company to transport unaccompanied minors,” shared… pic.twitter.com/FVvMJg7kmK

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 22, 2024

The segments involving children hit the hardest. Trafficking abounds. Parents aren’t automatically reunited with their children, while “sponsors” often take children from the various sponsors. Last year’s sleeper hit  “Sound of Freedom” touched on the issue and got mauled by the press.

That tells you how radioactive the topic remains. Few, if any, media outlets will follow up on what O’Keefe uncovers. Anyone shocked?

Is some of the material in “Sand” distorted or otherwise tweaked to heighten the dramatic stakes? Possibly. Is all of it fake? Impossible.

We’re left with trouble questions. Why is this broken system only getting worse? Why is one party fine with the status quo and the other lacking the political will to bring real change to the border.

“It’s just all about the money. It’s not about people,” O’Keefe says in disbelief at one point in the film. Watch “Line in the Sand,” and you’ll nod in agreement. 

HiT or Miss: “Line in the Sand” is bleak, harrowing and necessary. And it took one of the original citizen journalists to make it possible.

The post ‘Line in the Sand’ Reveals Border Chaos on Steroids appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.