Halloween (**)

HALLOWEEN was being touted as a great film by early reviews - a return to form for a series that has only seen poorly-made sequels to the infamous (and still suspenseful) 1978 classic. How great the anticipation was, and how great was the thud when I realized that this sequel/reboot/thing was just as bad as everything that came before it.

It was a curious but maybe inspired decision to pen this as a direct sequel to the original film. No longer is Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) the estranged sister of Michael Myers. No more nieces and nephews and pagan cults and Tyra Banks and the like. This was a fresh start to continue a story that ended when a masked killer disappeared into the night after killing a slew of horny teens.

Strode has grown up tormented by the terror of that night when 3 of her friends were killed. She has built a life around defense, training, learning how to fire guns, and training her daughter (Judy Greer) and granddaughter to fight as well. Her house is a militarized base on the off chance that Myers returns to Haddonfield. Well what do you know...

The film begins on a sour note when we meet two podcasters journeying to the prison (or asylum) where Michael Myers is held. What might have been a suspenseful scene ala "Silence of the Lambs" as we journey deeper into this prison, we instead have an awkward scene in which the journalist presents Michael with his old mask and then the other prisoners in the vicinity begin to giggle with anticipation. I forgot, is the mask some sort of spiritual item that Michael has lost? Why is this scene filmed with such staccato editing and rousing music? (Or is it just a cheap halloween mask he stole from a store to conceal his identity all those years ago... Answer: it's just a mask.) The whole film begins to feel like that - something more profound than it really is. Even the opening credits recreate the famous pumpkin, only this time with very jarring CGI.

What do you know, Michael is due to be transported to another facility on October 30th, and the bus breaks down (if you are smart you might be able to figure out what happened to the driver). Off goes the killer with a stolen truck to wreak menace once again. His first series of kills are carried out in a long take (about 2-3 minutes maybe) where Myers wanders through trick-or-treaters and sneaks in back doors to violently slash single women at home. Notice how the scene plays out: with the Halloween theme blaring over the images. No longer do we have the quiet stalking of the original film - the director is basically forcing us to understand something: MICHAEL MYERS IS BACK!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out all the flaws in this film's ill-advised script. Not only is the connection between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers explored (the doctor at one point says something along the lines of "what is the bond you two share??"), but the whole motive of Myers is astoundingly backwards. In the first film ("the night HE came home"), we see Myers has camped out in his childhood home, only to begin stalking Laurie once she comes knocking on his door. That's it. Now 40 years later, we are supposed to believe that he still wants to kill the one that got away. Give me a break. Another item of fascination is how random these characters are, and in so many different places, yet Michael Myers always manages to walk his way to the right victims at any given moment (including stumbling upon Laurie Strode's granddaughter no less). What a small town!

While the original film lacked some levity, it made up for with tone - that ominous music, the drawn out pace... The success of John Carpenter's original is in the build up - the victims go about their night, unaware that their every move is being watched from the shadows. It's a stroke of genius for pacing. This sequel seems not to care. Kills are overly-violent, astonishingly frequent, and met with some of the most out of place humor I can think of. One kid (who is indeed funny with several one-liners that made me laugh) walks in on his babysitter being stabbed. Instead of screaming or running away, the little boy all but says "oh Hell no I picked the wrong night to go to bed early" complete with the Three Stooges *womp-womp-womp* sound as he runs off in a trail of smoke. Another egregious sequence shows two police officers discussing sandwiches and brownies. It's clear this scene was included for a laugh. How highly, highly humorous.

I will admit the film's final 30 minutes are what kept the movie afloat with 2 stars. It's a well-constructed sequence in which Laurie Strode hunt for Michael in her own home. As silly as the motives are and as unlikely as the story leading up to this moment, it's still effective in it's absence of music, dark shadows, and mounting tension at every turn. Still if you think about it, this is a similar story to "H20" in which Laurie Strode faces Michael Myers after all these years and becomes empowered to fight back. I'm going to say it - that film had a much better conclusion, too.

I want to keep venting, if only because this film promised so much and left me so thoroughly upset. I want to complain about the doctor, who makes the most unlikely decision midway through the film that nearly ruined it all if not for his sudden departure from the story. I want to complain about the countless teenage characters who have no purpose, no motivation, and no clear contribution to this film. I can't even remember Laurie Strode's granddaughter's name, or her boyfriend, or what her motivation was... No matter. Even John Carpenter's score (how great that the original director, writer, and composer returned to do the music?) feels phoned in and mostly rehash of the 1978 version. The film is meant to conclude on a moment of finality - but how dumb are these characters that they think Michael Myers is dead? He's been shot, burned, blown up, fell down a well, and burned some more... The screenwriter should have taken a couple notes from "Halloween H20"... Watch that film's conclusion to understand why.

A Star Is Born (****)

There's the famous story how Judy Garland was due to give birth to her son on the night of the Academy Awards. Cameras were on standby as it was believed she was the frontrunner by a mile for her rendition of "A Star Is Born." Of course, Grace Kelly beat her out, and the camera crew surreptitiously snuck out to leave Garland in the dirt. There have now been 4 incarnations of the "Star is Born" story, and though Judy's version might be the most acclaimed, here comes an unexpected duo to give her a run for her money.

I remember when this project was first announced, Clint Eastwood would be the director and Beyonce would be the star. How much it has changed, but I can't imagine any cast reaching the success of Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper (who writes and directs as well). The story is essentially the same dating all the way back to the 1937 original with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Our hero, Ally (Gaga) is a poor nobody with barely a dream of becoming a star. By chance, she has a run in with Jackson Maine (Cooper), a country/rock star who fans constantly stop in the streets. Their first encounter is detailed in the first 30 minutes of the film, one long night of talking, drinking, singing, and driving around the quiet LA streets. Jack is a charming drunk, Ally sees him as a man, not a celebrity. The two hit it off.

The movie's most successful sequence comes when Jack calls Ally to fly out to one of his concerts, and despite hesitation, she makes the journey to watch him from the side stage. He calls her to stage to perform an arrangement of a song that she concocted when they first met, and voila, she is instantly a star. It's Gaga's best moment as an actress - her fear of the stage, but her firm belief that all she needs is a break to make it big. As she sings the lyrics, she covers her face, she shies away from Cooper and his charm on the guitar. You forget that this is a woman who has sold out arenas for years. As she's singing this song ("The Shallows," one of many great songs in the movie), you can't help but see this character living and breathing.

If you've even heard a bit about the story, then you know the whole movie. The two fall in love, get married. Jack continues drinking himself to destruction. Of course Ally gets a record deal, and her music is overly-produced and shallow. She sings about how good a guy looks in his jeans, and dances on stage with choreographed backup performers in shiny tight outfits. It's somewhat of a meta-commentary for Gaga herself, though I would argue that her music up to now has been a bit more thoughtful and personal. It reminded me of many recent movies, mostly "La La Land" in the way we see a musician sell out in order to get ahead. At times it's a bit heavy-handed, and rolls easily into the classic melodrama that all the original incarnations embraced. Does the idea of artists selling out still work today? Maybe, but it's definitely not as potent the 4th time around.

As much as the acclaim is going to Lady Gaga for her breakout performance (her first leading role, and it reminds me of when Cher broke away from poop songs to star in "Silkwood" and "Moonstruck," for which she won an Oscar), I really think the star is Bradley Cooper. He's made the transition from comedy to drama, and with 3 Oscar nominations for acting (soon to be 4), it's hard not to see how greatly talented he is. I don't even mean his singing voice, which is very good, but the subtle way he transforms into this southern man on the verge of destruction. He adopts an accent that is meant to mimic his on-screen brother (played by Sam Elliott, who is very good in his few scenes), and he travels from extreme highs to the lowest of lows, oftentimes in the same scene. Could the Oscar go to anyone more deserving?

It's a well-made film that isn't for everyone but I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy. For a first-time director, you can feel Cooper giving it his all. There are certainly pitfalls in the story (the relationship between Bradley Cooper and Sam Elliott certainly feels washed over, barely there) and the long sequences without music made me wish we could cut back to Lady Gaga at the piano that much sooner. For what it is, this is still a showstopper that hits the ground running. The first 45 minutes up until we hear that first duet is magic. I only wish the rest of the film could have kept up the pace. Will Gaga become the critical darling and compete for an Oscar? I don't know. The track record for "A Star Is Born" winning Oscars isn't great, but this feels like one that could change all the rules.

The Nun (1/2 star)

You would be hard-pressed to find a shred of logic in anything that happens in THE NUN, the sequel/prequel/something that falls in line with "The Conjuring Universe." You would also find it difficult to understand any character or their motivation, and that includes the titular demon who sports a habit and old woman makeup to match. I remember watching the original Conjuring movie with general unease and a few moments of scares. What happens in The Nun scarcely qualifies as filmmaking, let alone the scary type.

The movie opens on a couple nuns wandering through the catacombs of their monastery, complete with cardboard crosses and a layer of cold fog on the ground. It's the type of art direction that would do Ed Wood proud. The ladies search for something in order to fend off a demon terrorizing their home, and the scene ends with the one unsettling image in the whole movie: that of a dark floating nun slowly gliding down the hallway at night. Think Nosferatu, only less effective.

Later, we cut to the Vatican ordering Father Burke (Demian Bichir) to investigate the supernatural nunery in the secluded woods of Romania. Along the way, he is tasked with picking up an American postulate/soon-to-be-nun named Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga). She asks the priest why she is assigned to go on this journey with him, especially considering that she has never been to Romania before. Burke ponders whether or not it might become evident later on.... I am here to report right now that there is never an answer as to why she was asked to go. Moving on. In Romania, the two meet the comic relief named Frenchie, a horny Frenchman living in Romania to tend sheep or whatnot. He brings them to the monastery through long winding mountain roads and the cliched "we must walk from here" fork (the horse doesn't want to go any further...) Thus the "story" begins.

It's almost baffling how soon the "horror" begins, and by horror I refer to the jump scares accompanied by loud music and a laugh afterwards. The director makes practically no effort to build atmosphere, or set up the rules, or establish who is who and what is what. The movie feels almost exclusively like a run of deleted scenes. At one moment, Burke wakes up at night and follows a ghost to the cemetery, and then has a vision of himself being buried alive. Dream? Nope - cut to the man actually buried alive in a dark night scene. How did this happen? Immediately after we cut to Sister Irene, awakened by something and wandering the empty castle. She sees the demonic nun in a reflection, and then screams, and then moves on. On and on the film trudges. There is no story here. It's like a haunted house: you walk through and get a little scare in each new room, but there is no central plot you are following.

The film concludes with a baffling scenario in which a vial of the blood of Jesus Christ must be procured in order to drive the demon back to Hell (imagine a character explaining that in all seriousness, now imagine how hard my audience laughed at such a farce). I might have raised a couple of logical questions, such as "how can blood remain blood red and liquid after 2,000 years?" or "if the demon nun came up from Hell, then why is she only haunting this abandoned castle? Why not spread forth upon the earth?" To be honest, the finale of the film is just like the rest of it. It's beyond the point of "so bad it's good." This movie defies all logic, all scares, and comes out on the other side as an example of a visionless movie.

The feeling I had walking out of THE NUN wasn't disappointment. It wasn't boredom. It was almost a feeling of embarrassment - embarrassed at the filmmakers for making something so awful, embarrassed on their behalf for showing audiences something as subpar... We deserved better. I still think that "Hereditary" is the best film of the year so far, and that was a damn good horror movie. I suppose then that the only good thing to come from seeing THE NUN is now I can ask about future horror movies: On a scale of 'Hereditary' to 'The Nun,' how scary was it?

Sorry To Bother You (*****)

Last year a movie was released called "Beatriz at Dinner" in which a masseuse played by Selma Hayek went toe to toe with a big business CEO as they discussed immigration, race, money, politics... I still remember a film critic who declared it "the first great film of the Trump era." Nonsense. Drivel. Look no further than SORRY TO BOTHER YOU, a remarkable debut by director Boots Riley to get a taste of the rebellion that is stirring in this country.

How does one even begin to describe a film so ambitious and full of ideas? It's hard to even begin. Let's talk about the movie's tone and setting, some strange breeding of Charlie Kaufman, David Lynch, and Spike Lee (and Spike Jonze for that matter). There is something so ludicrous here that I really haven't seen since the first time I saw "Being John Malkovich" (Kaufman & Jonze, of course). Here, we follow our hero named Cassius aka "Cash" (Lakeith Stanfield, who you will remember from "Get Out" last year). Desperate for work to support his girlfriend (Tessa Thompson) as they live out of his uncle's garage. Cash lands a job at a call center named RegalView. The job is lousy, commission only, dingy workplace, and shady management. Their sole mantra when it comes to productivity: "Stick to the script."

Cash takes the advice of another caller (Danny Glover) who advises him to take on a white voice when making his calls. No, he doesn't mean simply to put on a more nasal voice, he tells Cash to "act like you're going to drive off in a Mercedes when you finish the call." In one of the film's first jaunts into surrealism, Cash's white voice is none other than David Cross (how fitting a voice, indeed). Soon, Cash is rising through the ranks as a natural seller. As he is promoted, the tired workers of RegalView begin to form a riot as they begin to seek benefits. In an even more grand picture, global protests are beginning over a company called "WorryFree" which offers people lifelong housing and food in exchange for a lifetime of servitude for the company.

With each new scene, Riley creates more and more whimsey, and justly greater steaks. What I just described is basically the plot as seen in the film's trailer, but this covers no more than the first third of the picture. Cash later goes on to meet Armie Hammer (in a ridiculously coked-up role) as WorryFree's CEO. He enlists Cash to work for him after seeing his strong work ethic. Cash has also been promoted to Power Caller on the top floor, where a gold elevator takes the star employees to luxury offices where they telemarket things like guns, war, and human beings. Oh, and the elevator has a voice that encourages these Power Callers to "not jerk off" and to "build up stamina for the day ahead." Charlie Kaufman would certainly be proud.

The satire is blatant, but it feels right for this time. As Cash begins to navigate the growing concern among the everyday man as big corporations and government take over the city, we also get a peek at their television stations. One channel is a gameshow in which players get the shit beaten out of them. Can you guess the title? Another is a reality show about workers eating sludge and sleeping in endless bunkbeds in WorryFree. And the last is the news, which makes light of the most meaningless stories and washes over the dark and sinister plotting going on by Armie Hammer and his company. As the citizens in this farcical world begin to fall in over their heads, here is an outward appearance of smiles and good times.

Some people I talked to were put off by the film's final revelation and climax. I suppose that if you look at the film's first scene and then very last, you would guess that you are watching two very different movies. But as I sat there and watched this story progress, first as a man needing a job and finally open warfare on the streets of Oakland, the logical progression is smart and important. While Boots Riley has crammed in enough here for maybe 4 separate films, nevertheless this is the voice of an artist who is taking big risks with big payoff. Some might compare this to Jordan Peele's "Get Out," but I think here our story is less about race and more about American society as it stands today. Both are high concept, tightrope walks that seem on the verge of crumbling. When you see it done so well, it's hard not to smile. This is certainly one of the year's very best.

McQueen (****)

MCQUEEN follows in the popular documentary trend of dead celebrities. Those especially who met tragic endings. Think "Amy." Or "Whitney." I suppose the Mr Rogers flick partially fits in. I don't think our filmmakers sought to create anything groundbreaking in their chronicle of Alexander McQueen. His fashion and impact on global style was enough to break the mold. This doesn't make "McQueen" anything particularly awful, but I sure felt like there was so much left off the table.

When thinking of high fashion, perhaps no name is as known as McQueen, and yet no physicality is more atypical. The film tracks the man's journey from middle-class Britain to the creative director position at Givenchy and beyond. His appearance was rather shocking: overweight, short hair. Bad teeth. A blue collar twang to his dialect. This is surely not what someone pictures as a designer of women's dresses and couture, but here we are. Alexander (known as Lee to friends) worked hard from apprentice to designer - an endless source of energy and ideas.

Our story is chronicled in several chapters, each bookended with home footage of the man (we have "Amy" to thank for resorting to such crude source material) and interviews of his colleagues and boyfriends. Where the movie lacks insight becomes clear near the mid-section. McQueen is at the top of his game, having won Designer of the Year several times (briefly mentioned) and working his way through more and more dark subjects for his shows. And then a close friend dies. And then he became depressed. And then things got messy. To say that a documentary needs to understand its subject isn't necessarily accurate, but here it felt as though our directors were going through the motions - hitting the chronological beats - but ultimately falling short of what McQueen was actually living through. There is little indication to show why he began to suffer depression, or why his friends did nothing about it. It just sort of... happens. And then the film ends.

Perhaps this was the ultimate goal - to show a life so full of promise cut off so soon. I don't know. For me, I found the ending quite sudden and without a deeper understanding. The footage we have (particularly of his fashion shows) is stunning, and to see the man work on individual pieces behind the scenes is exciting and intimate. I admired the movie for its approach, although the almost cliched use of Philip Glass and Michael Nyman to score a documentary (from "The Thin Blue Line" to "Man On Wire") is already beginning to feel overused. I know many people will love this film. I certainly appreciated it. Just think on this: a documentary should be an accurate representation of its main character - it's only respectful to do so. That doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't imbue that story with some personal gusto. Documentaries can be the most moving of all film genres - why not try to make them great?!