DVD Review: ‘Hanna’

Halloween: Curse/H20/Resurrection Reviews
Over in the United States there are going to be releases of three Halloween films for the first time on Blu-Ray format but as always there is no word on the releases here in the United Kingdom and to make things just a little bit more insulting they are trying to fob us off with just another DVD re-release with literally nothing to distinguish them from the ones some of us already possess.
Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

This, the fifth sequel to John Carpenter’s masterpiece Halloween, is named the Curse of Michael Myers because screenwriter Daniel Farrands made a little joke about the so called cursed production of the film and that unfortunately the one aspect that stands out in Curse is the disjointed and troubled nature.
The plot follows on from Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers and answers some of more bizarre questions that were raised, namely the mysterious man (The Man in Black) and the strange marking on Michael’s wrist.
Now, here’s where it gets a little bizarre. The symbol is a rune of Thorn and it’s on Michael’s wrist because he has been cursed by Thorn. The Curse of Thorn is a constellation that could appear during Halloween and to prevent mass death among different tribes, one family was chosen to bear this curse and the curse would require the bearer to sacrificially murder his/her entire family which would prevent drought and plague to the other families, the curse gives the bearer inhuman strength and immunity from death. This is the explanation of why Michael is hellbent on killing his family and why he cannot die, confused?
Well so is everyone who has seen the theatrical version because these things are explained to the degree that they are in the infamous Producer’s Cut, the superior version of the film. In a nutshell this version is terrible and leave’s out so much but unfortunately there have been no official releases of the Producer’s Cut and it is only obtainable via bootleg copies. If you’re a fan of the Halloween franchise then you’ll be angry that this version is getting another re-release but until Disney (who own the rights) decide to release the other version you’ll have to learn to love it or just skip it completely.
When it comes to originality you have to give it kudos because it tries to do some vastly different within the Halloween franchise but not in the Halloween III: Season of the Witch way, it utilises everything fans love about the series and just changes them to make it feel a little more fresh and original than its predecessors. It’s just a shame that this version is so badly put together.
Grade: D+
Check it out if you must but be warned you’ll be left wanting a lot more from it.
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

After the bad reception of Curse it was decided that they needed to reboot whilst taking it back to its boots and that’s exactly what Halloween H20 is, a reboot of theHalloween franchise that ignores Return (4), Revenge (5) and Curse (6) (Season is always ignored in continuity).
It’s continuity is taken directly from the original and the sequel and coming as a sequel to part two more than the first it’s a fantastic sequel. Not the mention Jamie Lee Curtis is as fantastic as ever here in the role that kick-started her career.
The plot focuses on Laurie Strode (Curtis) who has changed her name to Keri Tate and she is in hiding from her previous life after nearly being murdered by her brother Michael Myers, nobody she knows has any idea who she is to protect her and her son (Josh Harnett) but she’s not safe when Michael finds out who and where she is and he seeks out to finish what he started twenty years ago.
There is so much to love in H20 some fans may find that they have been slapped in the face because it fails to acknowledge the prior three instalments but if you learn to put this anger to one side you’ll find not only a lot of fantastically staged suspenseful sequences, you’ll find some great cameos (the nurse from the original is in the opening) and some great in jokes one such example being that Curtis has a conversation with her secretary Norma Watson (Janet Leigh, Curtis’ real life mother and star of Psycho) about motherhood.
One very interesting aspect here is the idea that it’s trying to show the slashers released at this time how it’s done because let’s face it Halloween opened up the slasher film in a lot of ways and it tries to show audiences how a slasher film should be done. Sure there are negative aspects like sometimes it feels a little flat in the script side of things but overall it’s an unrelenting and often brutal sequel that does justice to the overall failed series.
Grade: A-
Brutal and quite terrifying this entry into the series is really something to marvel over especially considering it’s a sixth sequel or third depending on what logic you choose to follow.
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

H20 was a fantastic entry into the Halloween franchise it brought the series back to basics and it was truly frightening as well as being very well put together by the great Steve Miner (Friday the 13th Parts 2 & 3) and of course the return of the always on top form Jamie Lee Curtis.
Resurrection on the other hand is the furthest step back ever for a series to take, think Saw VII: The Final Chapter or Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood.
It directly follows the events of H20 and Michael manages to come back once again (in one of most under thought and lacklustre ways ever I hence to add) and he goes back to Haddonfield after visiting his sister in the hospital for a close family chat that ends in Laurie’s death. We are then led to believe that Michael is dead once more but of course he isn’t not as long as there are greedy producer’s trying to milk something for more than it’s worth.
Skip to a year later where it focuses on two programmers (Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks) who work for a reality television company called DangerTainment (permission to roll your eyes or lose faith in scriptwriters everywhere either would be appropriate) and their next venture is to send a group of thrill seeking teenagers into the Myers house for a night. But of course it’s not that simple because Michael is not dead and wants to kill them for trespassing on his property.
Somehow everything that was bad about the Halloween franchise has been amplified and everything that was good and even great about it has been laid to rest and who is to blame this time around? It’s not wholly the screenwriter’s fault because originally it was going to be thrilling and suspenseful like the others and more importantly like its predecessor but test audiences responded more to the idea of Busta Rhymes’s character using karate moves on the Michael Myers, this time around he is not so much a boogeyman as much as a big joke, much like the film itself. See how much a test audience can change things? But, the screenwriters Larry Brand and Sean Hood (Cube 2 and Psychic Murders, respectively) do have to take a lot of blame for the badly written characters, the laughable dialogue and of course the tragically painful story.
It’s not comprehensible why it’s as bad as it is because by rights they should have been able to replicate the success of H20 but sadly not they fail as miserably here as they did with Revenge and that was pretty shoddy.
Grade: F
Save yourself the bother, Resurrection is terrible and easily the worst of –mostly- bad sequels to John Carpenter’s masterpiece.
| DVD Reviews |
|
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Autobots are at it again, beating up the Decepticons, who are feeling dreadfully sore after their inevitable defeat, two years ago. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is working in a boring job, whining about how dull his life is now he’s not being the hero. Still, at least he’s got a hot new girlfriend who is played by model, Rosie Huntington-Whitely (a.k.a the shamelessly objectified Megan Fox-replacement).
For a start, that girl can’t act for toffee, and if you’re still unsure for whom this messy whirlwind of a film is aimed at, let me give you a hint: the first bit you see of her is her bum. I’m not joking.
I had no sympathy for Sam this time round. He’s no longer the dorky under-dog I previously liked from the first film. He’s a moaning brat, who is so terribly hard-done-by. Oh, and Patrick Dempsey is there too. He’s a villain of sorts, but he is seriously under-played.
The acting in general is shoved very firmly into the background, to make way for the blindingly fast special-effects we have come to expect in these films. And our expectations met – and then some! But, it comes to a point where you may become weary of the whole thing, and the sentence, “Oh, another punch-up?!” actually crossed my mind, when I watched it. How many fights do the Autobots and Decepticons need to have, before the boys/men get tired of it?
Yes, the 3D adds to the awesomeness of it, but where’s the atmosphere? If I wanted that much violence and action, I’ve have bought the video game instead, and even then, I’d probably get bored of it, and end up playing The Sims.
Well, there you go. That’s the problem. This is a dude’s film, and it is certainly not afraid to belt it out at the top of its lungs. Kinda like Gerard Butler, in 300. Girls, avoid it unless your boyfriend wants you to see it with him. Hopefully he’ll buy the tickets.
One thing I was pleased about though, was the soundtrack. The soundtrack for each Transformers film has been a rock fan’s dream, and this was no different. Linkin Park had some input as usual, as do My Chemical Romance and Paramore (their song is called ‘Monster’, and it is well worth a listen).
Rating: 2/5
What not to watch - Troll 2
if you go on Youtube and look up “bad acting” likely you are to find yourself at this films most famous scene. a speccy guys witnesses the girl he had been chasing dissolve into goblin food –
'they're eating her, and then they're gonna eat me – oh my goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood' this scene is bordered by microsecond of inaction and quiet as if to accentuate the film's most poignant moment. This is a film that regularly makes the polls as one of the worst films ever made. So why is this film so bad? First off there is this obnoxious kid, perhaps the most obnoxious in movie history, who is the film's main character. He whines the entire time he's on camera, and in this case no one would mind if the good guy gets eaten in the end. Then there is my favourite, the bad woman whose acting rivals the speccy guy's at the start. She gesticulates all over the place, speaking the dialogue in the hushed tones as if she is speaking Shakespeare rather than verbal diarrhoea. Then you have the goblins who are like eworks with ghoulish faces which don't move in any way. And yes in case you haven't noticed I've been using the term goblin because that's what they use in the film, even the town it's set in is goblin backward – Nilbog. It's a film about goblins called Troll 2. Well take away all the cute finishes and you have a pretty boring film. the bad acting grates after a while. The actors rushing around and looking dynamic to try to kid you into thinking that there's actually action happening, when it's not when the film goes at a zombie pace. It's a film that lets it's low budget get in the way. I was expecting lots of animatronic special effects typical of 80s horror films, but all we get is some green food colouring running down a groaning face, as if that's going to keep you up all night. As a feature film Troll 2 is terrible, but no worse then the tripe you see on cable TV channels, such as Sharkypuss and Megaloden. If you;re interested in bad films or are just curious about them then you may want to watch it, but you should do only once and the burn it afterwards in case it my contaminate you. Just be thankfull they never made it into a trilogy. What to watch - Cursed (2005) DVD Review With the release of Scream 4 it was only natural for companies to re-release some of Craven’s older films for audiences to enjoy once again that being said films like Shocker and Last House on the Left are not the ones to get this treatment it’s one of Craven’s more disappointing films that was released in 2005, Cursed. Cursed focuses on Ellie (Christiana Ricci) and Jimmy (Jesse Eisenberg) who are attacked by a werewolf and thus themselves find themselves in turn turning to werewolves; they find out from a gypsy fortune teller that they must kill the one who started the curse to be rid of it. Cursed is not a good film in any sense of the word, if anything it’s a very poor attempt at making werewolf films “meta”, a trait that has stuck with Craven ever since New Nightmare and is most apparent in his Scream trilogy. In those films it works but here it’s just dull and feels very overdone. It’s a comedy-horror that’s set out right from the go but it’s neither horrific nor comical, not in the sense that it was meant to be anyway most of the jokes are hit and miss and the ratio between the hits and misses is more in favour of the misses more than anything. Overall Craven feels out of his depth, sure he had good intentions but when he actually got to the heart of it there wasn’t much that could be done building upon the thin and strangely enough, quite tragic, script by Williamson. Therein lies the issues of Cursed and when a film is trying to build upon wrecked and shoddy foundations it’s no wonder it fails the way it does. On a positive note there are some saving graces and those are namely the main two performances (Ricci and Eisenberg), they might not exactly be anything special but they make the whole ordeal seem a little less flat and monotonous. Fans of Craven’s work will most likely be shocked and in disbelief that Craven delivered them this pile of absolute trash (and not in the ironic sense) and the responses might sound something along the lines of “What the hell happened?” or “This isn’t the Craven we know and love surely?” It’s bad but there are a lot of enjoyable moments sprinkled lightly throughout and it’s far from unwatchable but it’s certainly not worth the price on the tag. Rent it or wait until the prices goes way down. Grade: D Give it a try if you must but be warned, it won’t exactly please you to known Williamson wrote the script and Craven directed it after being put through the ordeal of watching it. Chatroom (2010) DVD Review Hideo Nakata has always prided himself on being different when it comes to horror films, take for instance Ringu the most well known of his films was a vast departure from what audience’s knew as a horror film it took an idea and added the idea that it could well be an urban myth to it, it fascinated audiences everywhere and it even kick-started Hollywood’s interest in J-Horror, depending on your stance that’s a good or bad thing. Aesthetically and conceptually, Chatroom is unlike the majority of other films out there but it’s not accessible to all and only those who can see the true meaning of the film will truly appreciate it and of course it’s not going to be much of a success after audiences have already seen films like The Social Network and Catfish which both explore similar themes. Chatroom is not dissimilar to the aforementioned but it is different enough to hopefully develop a cult following of sorts. Chatroom focuses on a group of teenagers who encourage each other’s destructive behaviour via an internet chatroom. The internet chatroom in question is presented as both an actual chatroom on a computer and a real life room where people visit, this helps to establish the connections between each and every one of the characters and the idea of psychological manipulation is easily explored. The manipulation runs deep in Chatroom, the idea that it is so easy for people to bully one another on the internet is another observant point to make, the idea that there are some people who purposefully seek out other more weaker people and psychologically twist them to their ideals and in some cases drive them to suicide has quite real and frightening possibilities. Maybe it’s even trying to reinforce the message, trust no-one? Knowing Nakata’s leaning towards the more ironic side of life, it’s a satirical point about the overly protective nature of society when it comes to the internet and its way of instilling fear into each and every one of us when it comes to the “dangers” of the internet. There a lot of aesthetic differences between reality and the internet world one such being the use of colouring, in the real world it is bleak, dark and depressing and in the chatroom it is bright, colourful and everything a person could ever want. But throughout these two different sets of stylistics interchange between to give the audience the feeling of confusion which brings them to the level of confusion the characters are feeling about their real lives and their lives on the internet. It’s a smart and observant point to make that teenagers are so wrapped up in both in internet and reality that they don’t understand where they actually belong and all of the little nuances that Nakata places in the film gives the audience the same feeling and help them connect to the character’s situations, the disjointed nature being one such example. But, this would not actually work were it not for the actors giving each and every character the dimensions they need to make the emotional connections possible. It’s slowly paced as to give the characters time to evolve throughout and without the pacing, the stylistic changes and the actors this film would have been dead in the water. Grade: B Viewed as a drama with psychological elements Chatroom is superb but when viewed as a psychological thriller like it was billed it does fail and audiences aren’t likely to see past this which is a shame because Chatroom is fascinating and at times quite chilling.
|