Halloween: The Evil is Gone, But Not Forgotten

Credit: Compass International Pictures 

By Cameron Smith

Subtlety is something that is arguably missing from most modern day horror, and in cinema in general. It is an element that perhaps few people, in this age of constant consumption of information, appreciate. In that case, they need to see Halloween and see how sometimes what isn't obvious is sometimes what's most frightening. The film centres around a group of teens, particularly Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), during the night of Halloween. This time however they are stalked and killed by Michael Myers who has returned to his hometown Haddonfield after escaping a mental insitute. 

Halloween has a perfect use of cinematography, relying more on objects and people coming in and out of the shot then cutting. A good example is when Laurie  and Anne (Nancy Castle) are walking down the street and in the background you can see the car that Michael Myers drove in. This being shortly after Anne heckled Myers for his driving. Its sets the tension and keeps it there. 

The film cuts only when it is necessary, to establish a certain place or point of view. When, amidst the horror, the camera is fixed on the subjects on screen and doesn't cut away, the feeling of dread the viewer feels is increased, as they know something is about to happen but don't know when and so they're genuinely frightened when it does. 

The music and sound are also fantastic in this film. From the heavy ominous breathing of Myers or the iconic score, it all helps to compliment the cinematography and the feeling of fear that builds up.

One element of the film that is lacking is the acting. Most of the cast give very poor performances that either feel dry or cause some unintentional humor. This criticism is mainly restricted to the supporting cast, however, as the main characters can hold their own. Jamie Lee Curtis does an okay job as protagonist Laurie Strode, yet her delivery is a bit forced and dry at points. In scenes when it counts, however, such as when she is being attacked by Myers, she does shine through. Her relationships with other characters also come across well, and the chemistry between her and the two child actors, Kyle Richards and Brian Andrews, who play Lindsey and Tommy respectively is good. 

Donald Pleasence gives the best performance as Dr. Loomis. His character's fear of Myers and the dialogue he uses to describe him is very effective at making Myers out to be an inhuman being. Tony Moran who played Myers does a very effective job with what the role gives him, which is to be scary and imposing. 

Halloween may not be suited to modern tastes but it is a classic of Horror cinema. Carpenter's use of camera and sound is combined as effectively as it is in his later films such as The Thing, which the original 1951 version was shown on the television during this film which was a nice bit of foreshadowing for Carpenters future projects. And much like The Thing, Halloween will remain under your skin for quite some time.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Written Review:-Needed more time in the incubator

Credit: Universal Pictures

The previous Jurassic World film took the world by storm. Making box office history with an international openning weekend box office intake of $500 million. Smashing the box office intake of Marvels Age of Ultron. And whilst The Force Awakens knocked it off its perch later that year, it was an undeniable truth. A film with dinsoaurs and not superheros can make money. And the film itself was an enjoyable experience, a crowd pleaser. No masterpiece like the first but for what the film was, a fun ride with dinosaurs stomping, biting, killing and fighting, it accomplished what it set out to do.

Fallen Kingdom on the otherhand does not achieve the same level of entertainment. The film firstly seems to lack focus. Unlike Jurassic Park and Jurassic World where the focus was on the dinosaurs (or dinosaur in JW case) escaping and wrecking. This film tries to have twists and turns, which would have been fine if they were not seen from a mile away. The story starts two years after Jurassic Worlds disaster. A volcano is about to erupt and wipe out the dinosaurs a second time. And now Clair Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) are saving the dinosaurs. The issues wth the story arise when it tries to be complex and in the end just ends up just being baffeling and ridiculous. As for the characters they are still two deminensional. The difference here is that in Jurassic World, they were still entertaining, they never did anything that made you seriously question thier motives. Chriss Pratt had cool moments with the dinosaurs and Bryce Dallas Howard had a nice arc from a women who cares about the job and money to caring about the animals and people. It was a simple, cliche but still affective and touching story. Sadly that is not the case in this film. Both ators felt very dry and worse still had no chemisty. As for the new characters. Well the comic relief in the form of Justice Smiths Frank Webb (hes good with computers, geddit?) was not as annoying as he could have been but still the comedy felt oddly timed and delivered poorly. As for Daniella Pineda who plays paleo-vetrenarian Dr Zia Rodriguez, she was fine but her character was incredible obnoxious. They tried to paint her as a go getter but she acted more like an angry activist who thinks shouting is the key to getting what you want. A very obtrusive character to watch. As for the other characters they range from ok to baffling. Toby Jones and Rafe Spall who play Gunnar Eversoll and Eli Miles respectively are such characters. They start off fine then descend into lunacy near the end. Jame Cromwell felt underused as Benjamin Lockwood as if Jeff Goldblum who reprises his role as Ian Malcom. The child actress Isabella Sermon who plays Maisie, the obligatory child in every Jurassic Film, is ok, if a bit dry in the acting catagory but there have been worse child actors. Though her character does have an arc that is one of the afformentioned ridiculous moments. And Ken Wheatly as Ted Levine, the Robert Muldoon or Roland Tembo of this fim. Sadly without the memorable dialogue or perfromance of those characters. Though admittedly he has a very creepy and effective scene with the new hybrid, the Indoraptor. Even if it was brought about by stupidity and lazy writting.

That leads nicely into the good about this film, the dinosuars. This film contains some of the best dinsosaur scenes in any Jurassic films. From a truely fantastic opening involving two of Jurassic Worlds biggest dino-stars. To the inclusion of new dinosaurs such as Allosaurus, Carnotorous, Seinoceratops, Stygimolock and british dino Baryonx (finally a dinosaur not from the Americas of Asia). Which is something Jurassic franchise has always been good at introducing ether dinsouars that are unheard of or dinosaurs that haven't had they're big screen apperance. And the new hybrid The Indoraptor, whilst lacks the presence of the Indominous of the previous film, is still an eery and honestly terryfying addition. As for the films visuals, its a very aesthetically pleasing fim. The use of cinmatograhy and lighting to convey the size and scale of the dinosaurs. From tgetting the scope in the scene of the dinosaurs stampeding to the claustrophoic feeling when the indoraptor is let loose.

This film is very difficult to review. On the one hand it has some of the best cinematography and dinosaur scenes, including a truley heartbreaking one with a series staple, of the entire series yet also the worse characterisation and story the series has scene. Despite a truly epic opening the film just cannot kee the feeling of truimphant joy and fear of previous Jurassic films. (Excluding Jurassic Park 3)