The next film from Ridley Scott is something of a departure from his previous films: Somebody to Watch Over Me is a kin to a potboiler crime thriller, which unlike his films previously reviewed, does not go for vast ambition and imagination but settles on a cop thriller that takes substance entirely out of the equation. Oh sure, his trademark of spotlighting and saxophone cues return here, but merely provides the film with a glossy sheen over something quite predictable. Tom Berenger stars as Detective Mike Keegan who is assigned to protect a socialite named Claire, (played by Mimi Rogers), after she witnesses the murder of an old friend of hers, by a former partner of his, over a trust deal gone awry.

Mike has a loving wife, (played by Lorraine Bracco), and son but during his assignment he can’t help being drawn to her and she to him. They dangerously become too involved. Claire is confronted by the madman and is scared of revealing him to the police at the station. Keegan’s misguided actions set him free and their affair is found out by both his colleagues and his family leaving him in turmoil, but that’s the least of his problems, the murderer goes after his family in revenge and so he must buckle down to save his family and Claire from more danger.

To say this film is formulaic and predictable is certainly true, from describing the plot right at the beginning, you could easily fit the pieces together as to where the film is going, what the characters are going to do next and what tone the film is trying to achieve. The film’s downfalls are more script related; it doesn’t provide a good enough reason why the two should get together, his family loves him and Claire and him are from different backgrounds but it needs to create conflict so getting together it is. Berenger I think, doesn’t create a very interesting or memorable character within the guise of a flawed cop in the way that someone like Michael Douglas would have done, but there are some positives. Mimi Rogers is a hugely underrated actor and does her best with injecting a sympathetic character, along with Lorraine Bracco who is just a fantastic actor and really shines here.

The film is, as you would expect, stylishly shot, giving us cues and lighting that evoke a moody atmosphere and is enough to carry you through a relatively familiar plot. Overall I would like to have seen something more from Ridley Scott that makes the film stand out from this sort of genre but I guess he has decided on something more routine. A stylishly shot film that does have plot holes but brisks along at a decent pace with some interesting performances as well. Pretty solid.

3/5

Although we have had a successful run so far with the beginning of Ridley Scott’s career, we have now reached an unfortunate dud here with the fantasy romp, Legend. Legend is yet another story that seems primed for Scott’s knack for world building; a film set around a mystical world filled with unicorns, goblins, fairies, demons and forests, thus ticking all the boxes of a Brothers Grimm-esque fantasy story. It was good Scott territory and seemed promising on paper so with a heavy heart, the outcome is disappointing.

The story itself, if one can call it that, is set around a princess who is nice and chirpy and loves all that embodies the world whether poor citizens, grass and tress and our central protagonist, a feral youth named Jack, played by Tom Cruise, who both share a love for each that knows no bounds. The lord of darkness, played in full make-up by Tim Curry, begs to disagree with their love and wants himself to marry the princess along with ruling and tarnishing the land – cliched motivation! Apparently two surviving unicorns keep the world intact and after the princess accidentally provokes them, the land gets blanketed in snow, leaving the land in great danger. When she gets captured, Jack teams up with an elf, two dwarfs and a fairy to rescue her and prevent the lord of darkness from killing the last unicorn and leaving the land in desolation.

Scott has, in the past, created stories and settings that have been completely realised, whether it’s the stripped down and terrifying nature of Alien, or the vast, futuristic and profound world and pathos of Blade Runner. In Legend the visuals are there but lack none of what his best work can do. First the world itself feels very artificial, everything looks like a set, almost like a theme park attraction and the script constantly has the characters looking in awe at what’s around them to the point of obnoxiousness, rather than a subtle observation of their environment. Tom Cruise’s performance especially is baffling. We all know that Cruise can make for a charismatic and appealing lead but here he is reduced to wide smiles and doe-eyed expressions that really begs for the surly portrayal of Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard in Blade Runner.

I had to come to that conclusion of the whole plot point about the unicorns and their importance myself, because the characters fail to explain how all it works and are there just to say “oh look, pretty, pretty, pretty”. The film feels like elements drawn from other similar released fantasy films at the time, like Terry Jones’s Labyrinth, The NeverEnding Story and The Company of Wolves and wants to be on par with all those films but unfortunately it falls short. It doesn’t have the iconic David Bowie led performance of Labyrinth, nor the hugely imaginative scope of The NeverEnding Story, nor the darkly, adult nature of The Company of Wolves, it’s a mishmash that falls between those elements.

I will give the film this, there are some nice creature designs that didn’t go unnoticed, along with Tim Curry’s performance as the lord of darkness who repeats his campy performance from The Rocky Picture Show and for that alone he is entertaining but he can’t save it. In the end it feels more like a disappointment, it could have been so much more but instead has an artificial setting, obnoxious performances, tonal inconsistencies and really a pretty silly story that makes it seem like Scott was treading lightly. Not a complete failure but a step down from what we have come to expect from Ridley Scott.

2/5

After the great success that Alien proved to be, Ridley Scott was given the chance to show what he could really do within the Hollywood system, to helm a big project that would make Alien look like a small independent film. Scott was initially approached by Hollywood to adapt Frank Herbert’s heavy Science Fiction novel, Dune, but would ultimately decline the offer due to personal issues – this instead would be adapted by David Lynch in 1984. Scott made the decision instead to adapt a different SCI-FI story, ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ a novel by renowned author Phillip K. Dick, set in the post-apocalyptic “future” of 2019 San Francisco, (changed to Los Angeles in the film), about a bounty hunter named Rick Deckard, tasked with tracking down escaped individuals who are known as ‘replicants’, synthetic humans with a short life span but aided with advanced strength, created by the Tyrell Corporation. The head replicant Roy Batty leads these few rogue replicants to seek answers by way of terror, about who they are and how they can live longer. Rick Deckard, in pursuing them, falls for a replicant named Rachel, the femme fatale of the story, who is designed as a emotional carriage for humans but may or may not harbour a true emotional connection to Deckard as he does to her.

The source material and the screenwriters Michael Hampton and David Webb Peoples, explore the themes of identity and whether an individual who is created genetically can live to be something more human? The making of the film proved to be disastrous. Having to work with an entirely different crew than Scott was previously used to, meant different ideas of shooting, resulting in clashes between them and Scott. Lead actor Harrison Ford did work particularly well with him and when the film finally opened, it received mediocre box-office and damning reviews upon release. Since then Scott has released different versions from the theatrical cut, for VHS and DVD, all of which looked drastically different from the theatrical cut which proved beneficial as the film went on to be re-assessed now as a classic in the genre.

I saw the Final Cut of the film and I strangely call it a flawed masterpiece if such a thing were true. The film is gorgeous, the huge setting of futuristic LA is strikingly beautiful but it does take a step back to the neon- lit streets that Deckard walks through, with rooms constantly shot with spotlights. The story takes a noir direction with the troubled lead investigating dark streets and alleyways, the femme fatale of Sean Young’s Rachel, the electronic synth score from Vangelis backed by sax cues, the mysterious hidden nature of character motivations, all done with great effect. Scott has a great ability to draw the audience in to the world that he has created, while we are following Rick Deckard and Roy Batty in their journeys. Harrison Ford provides a effective noir character portrayal within Deckard, unlikable but interesting enough to follow along with Rutger Hauer who is having a fun time playing the sinister Batty – who gives us one of the most visually spectacular and apparently improvised monologues in the rain, which should rank as one of cinema’s profound film scenes of all time.

The film doesn’t seem to find an equal footing with the focus on the relationship between Deckard and Rachel along with the scenes involving Batty and the replicants and this may be due to the compromising of the various versions of the film. But for me, the film’s unique look, dark subject matter and utterly breath-taking pathos overlooked all that and made it a great narrative story and an enthralling experience film. Even until the eventual sequel released in 2018, the debate about whether Deckard is a replicant or not rages on and for me, the truth on the matter should be left to the viewer to experience and debate that themselves. Amongst its fans, including me, the final cut proved to be the best version and a truly visceral and unique vision, flawed but brilliant.

5/5

“In space no one can hear you scream” – a memorable tagline for one of the greatest and influential films of all time. Successful at the box office and earning rapturous reviews from critics across the board, the film had gone on to influence future filmmakers and set the benchmark high for the modern blend of Science-Fiction and Horror genre. Establishing also upcoming director Ridley Scott as a talent to be reckoned with, along with introducing the world to Sigourney Weaver, who created one of cinemas most beloved and embraced lead heroines with Ellen Ripley. The story of a space crew who uncover an “alien” of hostile intentions, against which all them must fight to survive within their spaceship, has gone on to be replicated in unofficial instalments and spawn several follow-ups and spin-offs in its wake – enduring a long lasting-legacy. The film recently received a 40th anniversary re-release, and having just watched it, has clearly lost none of what made the film great to begin with and remains a clear favourite of mine. The basic premise is that the crew of a cargo spaceship, The Nostromo, all waken from deep sleep by the company they work for to investigate a signal that may uncover new life. Reluctantly they trace the signal and arrive on a desolate and barren planet with only a strangely built spaceship left in the dust. The signal seems to originate from inside its walls, containing chambers of symbolic alien designs. Eggs are found inside by one of the crew members Kane (played by John Hurt), and one suddenly hatches, with the organism inside sprouting and latching on to his face. After the organism detaches off Kane and dies, everything seems hunky dory at first, until a bigger threat emerges. A newly born alien, with acid for blood, grows bigger and attacks the crew one by one and Ripley must lead the remaining crew to survive and confront the hostile creature once and for all. The film truly has the backing of some really talented crew behind Scott’s vision. H.R. Giger, the production designer, really gives the design of the alien and planet its own identity and creatively makes them all look grim and dark, which really evokes an unknown terror about them. But Dan O’Bannon, the scriptwriter, in contrast with the design, writes the cast as likeable and relatable; you really want these people to make it even when the odds maybe against them. The character of Ripley played by Sigourney Weaver gives the role gravitas and projects an effective lead character who is strong, tough and has a no-nonsense attitude – evident when she has to lead an unnerved crew herself against the alien. It’s the chemistry overall of the crew that works and the filmmakers remembers why that is important, to have characters that you can support with their situation and is balanced out with an effective monster – a threat that is memorably frightening. Not just how the cast and design are constructed effectively but also how the alien appears on-screen is brilliantly handled as well, Scott deploys the Spielberg method that he used with the shark in Jaws; by not showing too much of the monster on screen, the fear factor rises and raises the bar in suspension. This approach is used effectively in Alien – the less we see, the more frightened we become. The late John Hurt, in particular, is brilliantly memorable in a scene that I won’t spoil, for those who haven’t seen the film, but is truly shocking and ground-breaking. All these ingredients mark a truly amazing piece of cinema that set the standard for modern horror, and would prompt much analogy and study of undercurrent themes that resonate within the film, even when the basic story structure is essentially a survival genre story. Much loved and seen over and over, Ridley Scott and Co. prove that Science-Fiction films aren’t only effective by just making them about the vast, wide world of space, but that simply using terror and ingenuity within ship decks can work cinematically and create one heck of a damn good scary flick!

5/5

So, to start with, we have Ridley Scott’s first feature with The Duellists. Based on the short story “The Duel” by Joseph Conrad, whom also notably wrote Heart of Darkness and which became loosely adapted by Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now. Released in 1977, I think the best way to describe the film in one way is that it works as a solid template project for Ridley Scott. This debut feature contains elements that would become synonymous with future films we’ve that we’ve come to associate him with and respect him for over the years. Whether it’s the overall look of the film or the performances, there are parts of the film that resonate strongly with much of his other work. The story itself about two French soldiers under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte (played by Keith Carradine & Harvey Keitel), both locked in a sword duel that consumes a good chunk of their lives are often surrounded by striking visual features. The scenery of the film is downbeat and surrounded by fog, with interior scenes that are shot with light reflections that mirror similarly to Kubrick’s shooting of candlelight in his film Barry Lyndon – which can be compared to this film too style wise. The two leads are especially good, with Harvey Keitel effectively playing the hot-headed and obsessive soldier Gabriel Feraud who follows Carradine’s soldier Armand d’Hubert to the ends of the earth to take him down in an elongated fight which began over a command dispute. Keith Carradine successfully portrays d’Hubert as proud, stubborn and bound by honour to continue the fight, even when he has a family and a position in high society at risk, showcasing Ridley Scott’s knack for writing strong but personally flawed characters. The style of the film and portrayal of flawed but strong characters would be heavily evoked in his other work like Blade Runner for one example, but as a first film goes it’s a really good film to stand on its own. The sword choreography is especially well put together, brilliantly heightening the tension, especially when Scott cuts between flashes of confrontation between the characters from other scenes, with one scene that has the two soldiers charging at each other on horseback. The film can have a slow pace when the characters aren’t engaging in sword play, it takes its time to establish other characters and their relationship with the main characters such as with d’Hubert’s newly married, aristocratic wife and the Brigadier-General (played by Robert Stephens), who keeps a stern on eye on d’Hubert and his dispute with Feraud. But this does not make the film drag and instead allows us to experience the inner turmoil and disconnection from everyone else that both d’Hubert and Feraud created over a duel that consumes them over a long period of time. Especially good is a performance from the recently passed Albert Finney playing the Minster of Police, really leaving a lasting impression and reminding us what a talented actor he was. This film is a very good starting point for Ridley Scott and from there would only lead to a long-lasting directing career ahead of him.

4/5

Ridley Scott in a way needs no introduction… but I’m going too anyway.

To begin with he is probably one of the most endearing, prolific and technically efficient directors over more than 40 years and his contribution to cinema has left a landmark not only in Britain, but he is now seen as an ever-turning cog in the mechanics of Hollywood filmmaking even today.

Having cut his teeth, in the UK, making advertisements through his company, “Ridley Scott Associates” he used this as a showcase and to introduce his very visual way of telling stories and in doing so it has subsequently benefitted him in so many different ways over his many years of filmmaking. Other British directors including Alan Parker, Adrian Lyne, Hugh Hudson, and his brother the late Tony Scott have all made adverts with his company at the beginning of their careers and would all soon join him in crossing the sea to Hollywood to introduce what would be construed as a new wave of just how to direct and produce film entertainment.

His talent for incredible other world-building and in-depth, strong character study, (one major aspect in this area attributed to him is his progressive method of using a strong female heroine in his films, as he did with Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley in Alien), being major highlights during his long and esteemed career.

But what is more astounding than anything else is simply how prolific he has become in recent years. It is incredible to note that he has made almost one film per year since the turn of the 21st Century, highlighting that despite his longevity in the business he continues to prove he is not going to slow down anytime soon.

So, for the purpose of this article and for the Film Studies module I’m undertaking, it is my intention to review all of his major films which have been made under his directorial lead since the beginning of his long tenure. Now having directed up to 25 films will mean that there will be films of his that reflect not just the best of what he has to offer but also some which may miss the mark.

Please also note and keep in mind that the reviews on this blog will only detail the films that he alone directed, and I will not be including any of the other myriad films that he has not only helped write or produce but also the many others he has helped out with as well.

Therefore, without further ado I believe it’s now time to review the films of Ridley Scott. I’m looking forward to what I’m sure it will be an interesting journey.

The Shining as a movie has not only become an iconic piece of film making from the legendary director and auteur Stanley Kubrick, but also has over time moulded itself to become a platform of debate, theory, analysis, and discussion from audience members, scholars and critics alike. The Shining provokes a kaleidoscope of opinions that serves itself as one of the most divisive films of all time. Many people credit the film for it’s scary atmosphere and tone, others criticise it for it’s cold demeanour and pace. Many strive to extract various forms of meaning of what the film is about or what its overall effect has on everyone. Loosely based on the novel of the same name by famed horror author Stephen King, the film has enforced it’s status within the horror genre and continues to be an endearing film to watch time and time again.

The movie stars in rip-roaring crazy form, Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance an out of work writer who applies for a job as a caretaker in the Overlook hotel, a site that is built on a ancient Indian burial ground and has seen darker times in it’s history. After being warned of possible cabin fever which had previously been endured by the last caretaker, by the hotel’s owner, Jack reassures them and takes the job. His wife Wendy (played by Shelley Duvall) and son Danny move to the hotel with him, Danny appears to possess a voice in his head warning him about the hotel. After meeting with the Hotel’s cook Dick Hallorann, he advises Danny unbeknownst to his parents that he possesses a psychic gift called ‘The Shining’ which Dick also possesses. Danny inquires about a room 237 which Dick advises to stay out and be aware of what may appear. When the hotel is emptied the family make residence and when things begin to feel strange. Both Danny and Jack see visions that the hotel conjures up, twin girls appear and haunt Danny, Jack begins to hallucinate and slowly descend into madness. Room 237 draws Danny Further and Jack begins to see visions of people that seem to know who he is, a butler from years ago called Grady appears to him and reminds that he has always been part of the hotel. As the hotel begins to change Jack, Danny and Wendy Torrance worry for his sake but also for their lives.

Having been adapted by Stanley Kubrick, the adaptation itself seems like a best fit for him and in many ways that is the case but not with all, Stephen King famously declared his hatred of the adaptation, believing it to be cold and not fully spirited with the book. He had said that by distancing the viewer, Kubrick had stripped any emotional connection in confronting the evil of the story. He also noted that by removing the character Jack Torrance’s backstory as an alcoholic, it removes any personal ties with which King had in himself with the character. Adaptations often or not are fitted to a different medium, primarily cinema as the central medium and in the case of The Shining, the loose adaptation works in it’s favour. Kubrick’s body of work whether it’s 2001 a Space Odyssey or A Clockwork Orange, has long been thought as cold and distant and here it shows.

Establishing shots and images feel planned and calculated, with a burdening slow pace that feels cinematic but crucially keeps the audience away as frightened voyeurs. Danny Lloyd who plays Danny Torrance is fantastic, giving a effective child actor performance that clearly presents the duality between Danny and the Shining persona that warns him of the danger. Another criticism spoken by King is Shelley Duvall’s portrayal of Wendy, deeming her as an ‘idiot’ and ‘weak-willed’ when confronting her husband’s developing insanity. I think the performance works because behind the scenes of this film will show, Kubrick’s constant demand for numerous takes and orders drove Duvall into a state of complete fatigue and worry and so her performance reflects that, becoming more frightened and uncontrolled of the situation and heightening the tension. For Kubrick’s cold approach the fact that this is a horror film makes it all the more effective because it makes us uncertain, who’s there?, who’s to trust? and the unravelling of the hotel’s true nature soon makes it all the more terrifying. What has always been said about Kubrick is each shot or scene that he constructs is done on purpose, in that there is always something with a camera angel, shot or frame which has a meaning behind it. The mention of the Indian Burial ground, Jack throwing around a tennis ball in the lobby or a significant photo in the film have largely provoked ideas and theories that Kubrick meant to relate certain events or imagery to real life stories or themes that have existed before. One instance was the assumption levelled with Kubrick that he faked the moon-landing, which has been a famous conspiracy theory linked to his making of 2001: a Space Odyssey and if you look closely, Danny Torrance is seen wearing an Apollo jumper. Kubrick perhaps toying with the idea in a humorous way? Initially slow at the box-office, the film gained word of mouth and gradually became more successful as it’s run went on. Garnering a mixed response from critics, the film did get further reappraisal as time went on.

This for me is one of the best horror films of all time and remains a favourite of mine for a long time, the fact that this film proves divisive and theorised makes it all the more fascinating every time I see it. If I had one criticism at all it is with Jack Nicholson’s casting as Jack. He does give a chilling performance but it almost feels likes a cheat card, because so much of Jack Nicholson’s familiar ticks, expressions and mannerisms are evoked here, there doesn’t appear to be an arc when Jack Torrance stars off as normal before descending entirely into madness later on. I think a subtler actor could have given it more purpose but it’s a nick pick more than anything. Whether you love or hate it, the film is no doubt a fascinating watch for which you can’t ignore, “Here’s Johnny!”.

4/5

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Producer: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Joe Turkel

Writer: Stanley Kubrick

Transformers started off as a visually impressive but cheesy animated television series, along with a feature animated film in the 80s, it then grew into five franchise films. It’s amazing that we finally get a live-action Transformers film, that’s not only technically efficient but also full of heart and sincerity.

This is after having to suffer through a bloated, dull and disenchanting live-action film franchise over the past eleven years. The prequel Bumblebee helps us to forget about the Michael Bay atrocity franchise that damaged the legacy of the Hasbro Toy line-up. Michael Bay’s approach introduced disappointed audiences to a world of cynicism, female characters that were there only to be on display for the sex appeal, and generally an all-out mean-spirited tone. Bumblebee instead gives us a world of likeable characters, well-orchestrated action set pieces and just an knowing sense of respect for its audience.

The story takes place before the Michael Bay entries during the 1980s, when the Autobot’s home planet Cybertron is under attack by the malicious Decepticons, heir long-lasting rivals. Optimus Prime, the Autobot’s leader sets out a task for our protagonist B-127 to escape to Planet Earth and make base before they arrive there. He does so and whilst crash landing into California he is greeted with hostility by Sector 7 agent Jack Burns who is played by John Cena.

B-127 narrowly escapes but a technical injury causes his memory to escape him and is taken in by the film’s other protagonist Charlie Watson, played by Hailee Steinfeld. Charlie is a troubled youth who initiates an instant bond with B-127 whom she names Bumblebee. Whilst dealing with her troubled home life, she helps Bumblebee to regain his memory and to protect each other from the burdening Decepticons and Earth’s top paranoid agents.

Gone is Michael Bay’s unsubtle directorial hand and incomes director Travis Knight, whose previous credits have been primarily films of stop-motion animation at the Studio Laika. He has given us the absolutely wonderful Kubo and the Two Strings. Here Knight attempts to showcase his love of imaginative storytelling and bring a sense of fun and heart that wasn’t showcased in the previous films.

The creative influences are no exception here as the unusual bond between Steinfeld’s character and Bumblebee feel very reminiscent of the works of Steven Spielberg and noticeably ET. The film also makes great use of its soundtrack deftly worked in and allowing the audience to feel there within the period. It doesn’t feel like a tribute act or an obvious riff of the period but just to simply place us within that time and guide us through.

Hailee Steinfeld is excellent in the role and her character not only manages to be funny but also relatable to younger audiences through a great sense of humility. The action sequences where the robots are fighting each other do not feel mind-numbing and feel the need to take up a huge part of the running time, they are sparse and dare I say it quite thrilling.

If I had any issue with the film at all it would be the characters on John Cena’s side of the story. The human antagonists don’t have much depth and only serve a purpose just to be either ignorant or move the plot forward. But this didn’t hinder my experience hugely with the film. With a great sense of fun and adventure, lovable central characters and without any smear of cynicism or ill-advised seg-ways. The film was a delight and proof that life and fun can be had with the Transformers saga.

“The night he came home” Even after 40 years on, John Carpenter’s horror classic, remains an endearing part of Horror cinema. Not only paving for the way the genre was to change in years to come, but just how marketable and financially successful a film with a minimal budget and fewer resources could be. Originally titled “The Babysitter Murders” the story is that a young boy named Michael Myers, murdered his older sister and so is confined to the care of Doctor Loomis (played by veteran character actor Donald Pleasence) who diagnoses him as pure evil. Michael Myers subsequently escapes his confines of the asylum and arrives at his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night, where babysitter Laurie Strode (played by then discovery Jamie Lee Curtis) has to fight along with Loomis to survive Michael’s killing spree and defeat the monster that is Michael Myers . Earning early-on negative reception by the critics, it overtime became revised as a brilliant piece of film-making and an influence on directors to this day.

As a result of the film’s box office success, several sequels were spawned, to capitalise on the ‘slasher’ craze that emerged during the 1980’s and to keep the boogeyman alive, most of these did not earn the respect of the critics or vast majority of fans of the original. Halloween 2018 is the third attempt to bring out the series from the doldrums  and bring back Laurie Strode, from Halloween H2O in 1998 then Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of the original that was also not warmly embraced by both circles. The story here re-writes everything the sequels and the remake created and carries on exactly 40 years on since the original film’s timeline. Laurie Strode once again played by Jamie Lee Curtis, has become a paranoid mess since the events of the first film, having being estranged from her daughter (played by Judy Greer) whom she has fought to protect and train for what may come and her granddaughter who herself keeps some contact with her. Michael Myers has since been captured and held prisoner at Smith’s Grove Sanitarium where two journalists arrive and confront him with his trademark mask. After a prison transfer involving Michael goes wrong, it enables him to escape once more and go back to the town that made him a legend. After not being believed for some many years, Laurie gets word on his escape and arms herself ready to stop him and prep her family for what she has been preparing them for all their lives, the return of Michael Myers.

This particular sequel to the original is certainly an affectionate one. Director David Gordon Green (Undertow, Stronger) and writer Danny McBride have effectively carved an entry that attempts to evoke the original film’s style and pace. The opening credit sequences and theme alone are made the same and there are nods to the original that are shown in certain scenes that retain a feeling of homage but in a good way. Jamie Lee Curtis is fantastic in reprising her role, exuding a broken down but equally strong persona left scarred after her last encounter with Michael, she is clearly having a ball portraying Laurie Strode as essentially a ‘Sarah Conner’ figure ready to battle her enemy once more. Judy Greer is also very good though not always given enough to do, as much screen time with her is left to the side for Laurie’s granddaughter and her high-school friends, who is ready to party and have a good time as the genre often features in these stories. David Gordon Green also knows how to light and direct Michael Myers as the haunting boogeyman, with scenes where Michael appears in shadow, or where Michael appears in jump scares involving a cupboard, evoking a sense of dread and foreboding. Nick Castle reprises his role as Michael Myers and clearly has lost none of that movement and menace that made the character popular originally.

There are elements where the film falters, such as that,  much of the film places bigger emphasise on teenage characters as a way that seems very marketable but takes away more important plot strands including the relationship between Laurie Strode and her daughter which could have been explored deeper. Some of the pastiche pieces of the film as mentioned earlier in the review, work for me but others may feel that it’s simply retreading ground and reminding of them of something better that came before this. There is also one plot device near the third act involving a central character, that when it was revealed, felt very mind-boggling and almost took me out of the film entirely. Overall Halloween 2018 is certainly a cut above the past sequels, which probably wasn’t that hard seeing as one entry involved Michael Myers facing off against Busta Rhymes (really!). The acting is great particularly from Jamie Lee Curtis, the atmosphere evokes dread and suspense, there is good use of gore presented here and works as a decent follow up to John Carpenter’s bogeyman-fearing masterpiece.

3/5

Cast: Jamie Lee Curtis, Nick Castle, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, Will Patton

Director: David Gordon Green

Producers: Malek Akhad, Jason Blum, Bill Block

Writers: Danny McBride, Jeff Fradley

“Your intellect may confuse you, but your emotions will never lie to you.”

Roger Ebert