Ranking the "Halloween" Movies: #8 - "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" (1995)

October rages on. As does the casual horror movie viewer at the pitiful level of common sense being displayed.

#8 - Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

This movie wears crotchless panties and barks like a dog

When you talk about movies, you can rarely come up with a movie that was made, sucked major butt, was re-made using half of the existing footage, re-shown, and sucked even worse butt. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is one such example. Curse has the distinction of being made twice, with the released theatrical cut being absolutely shitty, and then having the fabled "Producer's Cut" that's shitty in a whole 'nother ballpark. With reason! You see, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers had a pretty wide cliffhanger ending that ripped a whole in the story so wide, no fathomable resolution was going to tie the ends together, but we'll get to Halloween 5 soon. So, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers had a huge story-hole to make up for. 

Michael Myers in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

The movie opens with Michael's niece Jamie Lloyd, now a teenager, being rushed into a room to give birth. Already, the viewer is totally lost. Jamie gives birth and then the nurses take the infant into a satanic cult room where some sort of ritual is performed on it. Already the user is totally lost. Jamie then breaks free from her captivity, steals back her baby and makes the escape. Michael Myers gives chase, eventually stabbing Jamie and leaving her to die on the floor of a barn. Michael then realizes Jamie hid the baby from him and he can't kill it. Already, the viewer is-- well you get the idea. Elsewhere, an elderly Dr. Sam Loomis, surviving his collapse at the end of 5, hears Jamie call for his help on the radio, so along with his friend Dr. Terence Wynn, he springs his wrinkly ass into action and heads back to Haddonfield once more. You'd think he'd want to stop trying to kill the unkillable Michael Myers, but I digress. The baby is found by Paul Rudd. That's right, Paul Rudd in one of his first major film roles. He plays Tommy Doyle, the little kid from the first Halloween film. You can tell he didn't have the confidence of an actor yet, because each and every piece of speech he gives is monotone and dull. He lives across the street from the Myers house, which again looks nothing like the original OR Halloween 5's, so it's the third different Myers house in the series. Continunity is not their strongsuit. Living in the Myers house? An extension of the Strode family. What a coincidence!

The plot goes that it's the season of Thorn. By that of course I mean it's Halloween. In Haddonfield, Halloween is still celebrated as a joyous holiday for kids even though three major murder sprees have occurred. The Strode family has moved into the Myers house because they have bad luck, and as mentioned, Tommy Doyle lives across the street. Tommy is an eligible bachelor who makes late-night phone calls to Michael Myers hotlines and spies on half-naked women across the street. He is also forever tied with Michael Myers because when he then finds Jamie's baby in the bathroom of a bus station, naming him Stephen and taking him in, he makes himself the target of the vengeful Myers, who wants to kill the baby. Uncomfortable levels are through the roof! What follows is a ham-handed chase that sees Dr. Loomis spew "he's evil" speeches to everyone he meets while Michael slowly kills members of the Strode family, all for nothing more than living in his house. It's like Halloween: Resurrection, except there they were just in his house. Michael doesn't like anybody to be in or near his house. The plot takes them to Smith's Grove where Loomis's chum Terrence Wynn reveals himself as the cult leader and the man-in-black who broke Michael out of prison at the end of 5. So...that's one loose end tied up.

L: Kara Strode, R: Paul Rudd...er, I mean...Tommy Doyle

So let's talk about the two versions, because they result in two very different stories and two very different climaxes. The disastrous "Producer's Cut" was the first finished film submitted for viewing before release. The Producer's Cut was a little longer and played the "Thorn cult" storyline up much more. Michael being the pawn of cult is not as bad of an idea as people make it out to be, but it is pretty dumb when it's played out. Most of the time he's just standing around like a dufus, not really doing anything.

So, you wanna talk about the baby's father? The baby's father is Michael Myers. Yes. He impregnated his own teenage niece. That is really stupid. It's not creative, it's not witty, it's not dark, it's just plain wrong. Having Michael be the father of his niece's child is so demented and weird, and not in a way that would serve the story well. Plus, that's a really lame-ass prophecy by this cult. The cult's prophecy is that a family member afflicted by the Cult of Thorn must kill the other members of his/her family...because. I don't know, it's not explained very well. My point is that if Michael's supposed to appease this apparent "Curse of Thorn" by wiping out his entire family, then why the hell does he have sex with his teenage niece to create a baby just to target him and try to kill him? If you have Jamie, the final member of your living family, alive and served up to you on a silver platter, you stab her and end the curse, not have sex with her you stupid fucking goof.

So not only does the Producer's Cut excel in making Michael out to be an incestuous sex offender, but then it makes him out to be a weak little shit, as by the end of the chase, Tommy is able to stop him by arranging a group of runes on the floor that render Michael motionless. So, yes, Michael Myers is stopped by magic. That's...one way to do it. After Tommy and Kara escape with the baby, Loomis returns to check on Michael. He rips Michael's mask off and finds Wynn. Wynn tells Loomis that Michael's gone and that Wynn's job of protecting Michael is now Loomis's to bear. Then Loomis screams like a fool as the Thorn symbol appears on his wrist to match Michael's. Some kind of twist ending, I suppose, but it's not even that big of a shock. It puzzles me more than anything. If you're gonna give the job of protecting Michael to someone, why don't you pick someone younger? Not fucking Loomis. He's already seventy or older! It makes zero sense.

Donald Pleasence in his final motion picture appearance

Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought so because the Producer's Cut sucked so bad upon viewing the studio vetoed its release. I don't know, I guess they didn't find the idea of a serial killer molesting and impregnating his niece very scary. The crew decided to take the film back into production to correct some of its, shall we say "flaws". However, during the wrap-up of the Producer's Cut, Donald Pleasence unfortunately passed away. So now, they're going back into production on a movie that had Donald Pleasence in it without him to shoot any more scenes. With careful editing, additional scenes and a boatload of studio interference, the crew was able to cobble together a sort-of finished version. In it, the ending is completely changed. Michael goes berserk on the cult and goes to kill the baby in the basement of the Sanitarium, but Tommy defends the Strode family and the baby by injecting Michael with corrosive liquid and beating him with a lead pipe. Michael's survived gunshots and explosions and a lead pipe is how you're going to do him in? Well, I suppose a young man in his prime with a lead pipe is better than an old man with a wooden beam (*cough* Halloween 5 *cough*). How does the movie end now? Loomis still tells the others to go one without him, and then we see a shot of Michael's mask lying on the ground, and we hear Donald Pleasence's scream recycled from the previous cut, only we don't see anything. The fates of both characters are left ambiguous as we cut end credits.

Are there good aspects of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers? Yes. Marianne Hagan, who plays Kara Strode, does a great job in the role she's in. She may be just as mundane as Paul Rudd in some scenes, but for some reason I just rooted for her to make it. Rudd could've gone either way. Donald Pleasence still is great in his fifth and final round as Dr. Loomis. Due to his age and the fact we now know he was near death, his performance comes off a little tired. He just wheezes all of his dialogue and sounds like he barely has any air in his lungs to get the speeches out. Plus, both versions' ending are a detriment to his character. It's just a shame he couldn't come back when production restarted and film a more satisfying send-off to his character; but hey, at least the art-direction is still on par. Halloween films have a certain level of art-decor guidelines that they need to follow. It feels very much like the October season in a Midwestern town. Aesthetically speaking, the movie is a treat because of this.

The Thorn Cult Dungeon, where Halloween goes to die

Some of the death scenes are pretty gruesome. John Strode getting electrocuted to the point that his head explodes is pretty fun to watch. As I said, during the climax of the theatrical cut when Michael goes on a rampage in the nurse's station, slaughtering all of the nurses in the midst of a strobe-ridden atmosphere is a great sequence. It's eerie to just see flashing pictures of nurses getting slaughtered instead of full-motion video. Michael slamming the guys head into the gate wall in his head disintegrates is messy to say the least. The theatrical cut was much more gory in terms of its death scenes, as the Producer's Cut had a lot less Michael in the end. So I guess they knew it was going to be shit and just had to make the death scenes count for something.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is a bland heap of weird while maintaining to be the usual slasher movie garbage. It's definitely a movie that suffered majorly behind the scenes and resulted in a cobbled-together, half-assed piece of shit experience. It's new characters are nothing to remember, its returning characters are either old and boring or misused in a way that undermines them, it's twists aren't creepy and don't really pay off that well. It does something creative with the story that's a spooky development but ultimately ruins it by having Michael go from a mysterious, unstoppable serial killer to the pawn of a cult operating on an external agenda. In my opinion, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is one you should skip, unless you REALLY want to know what happens after 5. Trust me...it ain't worth it.

At least the leader of the cult wasn't a white fucking horse.

Ranking the "Halloween" Movies: #9 - "Halloween: Resurrection"

As Octoberfest continues, so does our Halloween...er...fest.

#9 - Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

"Evil Finds its Way Onto the Internet. Murder For Your Viewing Pleasure."

Moving right along on our list, we get 2002's Halloween: Resurrection in the #9 spot. Halloween Resurrection is a pretty terrible movie, and an even worse Halloween movie. It stars Bianca Kajlich, Tyra Banks, Busta Rhymes, that kid from American Pie, and Jamie Lee Curtis for about fifteen minutes. That's about it. I hope you enjoyed my review. Don't forget to...oh fine, I'll review it the normal way.

Michael Myers 

Alright, so being the eighth freakin' movie in this then-twenty-four-year-old franchise, you gotta think that things were getting pretty stale by this point. How many times can Michael come back? How many times will Jamie Lee Curtis run out of money and agree to do another one of these? Why in the name of hell were Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks invited? The movie certainly was a mixed bag of confusion during development and even now nearly fifteen years after its release, it surely hasn't felt any clearer in terms of what they were going for and what we ultimately got. Basically speaking, the plot is this:

Following the events of Halloween H20, Laurie Strode is locked in an insane asylum because as it turns out, she killed the wrong guy. Yes, the would-be end-all ending that H20 had was ruined by them rehashing the franchise for monetary gain and then realizing they had to come up with some ham-handed way for Michael to survive a beheading. So Michael returns, having posed as a paramedic to escape the previous onslaught, and chases Laurie to the roof of her nut house and kills her. Boom! A near thirty-five year old character is killed within fifteen minutes. I hope you enjoyed her inclusion, because the rest is a cross between an MTV banquet, American Pie, and Halloween.

What kind of summary is that, you ask? Well, the movie is split into two parts that aren't equal in length. In fact I'm pretty sure the whole movie was going to be about Tyra Banks and Busta Rhymes but they shoehorned Jamie Lee Curtis into it for marquee value. Michael returns to kill his sister again (because he just can't get it right). How did he survive? Well, it's explained that Michael woke up from being knocked unconscious in Halloween H20, crushed the larynx of a paramedic so he conveniently couldn't talk, and then changed outfits with him. So the guy Laurie beheaded at the end of H20 was a paramedic, which is why now she's in a mental ward.

Busta Rhymes is the hero. You think about that.

Michael shows up at this mental ward to murder her. There's a brief chase to the roof where Laurie goes to unmask Michael to keep from making the same mistake twice. Question: Laurie has never seen Michael's adult, unmasked face. How is she going to know if it's him or not? But I digress. Michael basically grabs her during this and they go flying off a roof. Laurie gets impaled on Michael's knife and falls to her death. That's the end of her character. I hope you enjoyed it, because the next hour and a half is about teens who were rejected from Date Movie who get stalked by a serial killer who's gotta be in his fifties by now.

The rest of the movie is sort of take on the found-footage genre, with each character wearing a camera that broadcasts over some kind of online reality show where they spend Halloween night inside the childhood home of Michael Myers. So it becomes sort of like Aliens, but without the action. The show is hosted by Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks. That's one of my gripes. These two are so out of place in this movie that is almost hurts. Busta Rhymes can be hilarious at times though, so at least his character's got some redeeming qualities. As a whole, they feel out of place. Busta Rhymes not being afraid of Michael and fucking kung-fu fighting him is ridiculous to say the least. Tyra doesn't even get an on-screen death, at least not in a scene that was kept in the movie. One of my favorite scenes is when he's dressed as Michael Myers and he runs into the real Michael Myers. Instead of freaking out or running away, he thinks Michael's one of his film crew members and berates him, even poking him on the head repeatedly. The best part? Michael doesn't even kill him! Michael just turns around and leaves. Like...what the fuck?

Michael's killing gallery

The kids are nothing to shout about. The only one who's mildly interesting is Sara. The rest are recycled from an MTV game show crowd. Jim and Rudy are okay, but the rest just suck or aren't very interesting. Obviously, I love Thomas Ian Nicholas, so he's excused from any and all trashing. (You're welcome). Katie Sackhoff's character plays the tamest college slut you'd ever meet. It almost becomes the standard "bad horror" movie scenario where you root for Michael because you want to see some of these fuckers get the axe. I feel like I'm forgetting something...Oh, right! Deckard! Deckard is Sara's pen pal and is basically unrelated to any of the core group of characters. Deckard goes to a college party and, I guess because he's kind of a dork, boots up a PC in another room and watches the broadcast of the other college kids in Michael's old house. Throughout the climax of the movie, Deckard keeps IM'ing Sara Michael's location and where to hide. Deckard's the reason any of those people make it out alive. Deckard is the true hero of the film.

The standard themes of the Halloween franchise are somewhat salvaged. In fact, Halloween: Resurrection gets my compliment for reusing the same Myers house as the previous films, and not rebuilding it into a completely different house and breaking continuity like a twig (*cough* Halloween 5 *cough*). Michael's mask, I think, also looks cool. It pays homage to the previous films as well as adds more defining features and makes it its own. The set design is very superb as well, especially in the Myers house itself. I guess you can say that the Myers house itself is a point of pride for the film.

Tyra Banks is stalked by the runner-up of America's Next Top Model

So you want to talk about the end? Good God, this movie's ending. So the final fight takes place in the Myers garage. Michael stalks Sara into the garage where she's hiding, but she finds a chainsaw and revs it up to fight him. After a couple of jabs at Michael, which don't cut him up or anything, the chainsaw dies on her. So then as Michael's getting ready to kill her, in comes fuckin' Busta Rhymes, spouting "trick or treat, motherfucker!" and proceeding to get into a kung-fu style fight with him. Michael does his usual head-tilt and stare, just before Busta goes into several styles of kung-fu fighting, and he wins. Busta Rhymes kicks Michael Myers's ass. Michael stabs Busta and then goes in for the kill, but Busta wakes up at the last possible second, grabs a nearby electrical cable, and jolts Michael Myers in the BALLS. Michael then stumbles backwards, gets tangled up and electrocuted as the garage burns down and Sara and Busta escape. Michael Myers, one of the greatest horror icons of the 70's and 80's, dies by getting kung-fu kicked around and tazed in his nutsack by Busta fucking Rhymes as his house burns down. That is some jaw-dropping shit. He's later brought into the morgue where a doctor prepares to operate on him, but he opens his eyes at the last second and movie ends, setting up a sequel that thankfully never happens.

Halloween: Resurrection, together with its cliche, uninspired title, is cliche and uninspired. It tries to be new age by including the internet broadcast and IM'ing aspects, but ultimately remains stale and recycled with its kills, situations, characters and dialogue. The legendary Laurie Strode character is laughably misused and killed in a time frame utterly insulting to her character. Michael Myers is rendered totally not-frightening or scary when getting kicked around by a rap artist spewing action catchphrases. Being directed by the same guy who directed the original Halloween II in 1981, you wonder where the train went off the tracks. If it weren't for the lousy jump moments, it's really not even a horror film. It's a comedy. It makes you jump if it's not already making you piss your pants as you're laughing your ass off.

Never fear. Halloween II (2009) makes Halloween: Resurrection fucking look like The Godfather.

Ranking the "Halloween" Movies: #10 - "Halloween II" (2009)

Happy October everyone! Season's greetings! May you never trip over an indiscriminate item whilst being chased by a disgruntled homely person looking for love with a butcher knife.

Well, as promised, I'm going to give you my opinion on how the Halloween movies should be ranked. The Halloween movies have been a big part of my life since I started watching horror movies. Obviously as the flagship series of its kind, it started a lot of trends, and we're here to both salute them and mock them. So let's get started.

DISCLAIMER: Obviously, it goes without saying that if you disagree with me, this isn't an official list.

 #10 - Halloween II (2009)

"WHITE HORSE (noun): The inclusion of something vague and mysterious in an attempt to be original when really it comes off boring and stupid and serves no purpose on a movie that was doomed from the beginning."

Halloween II was 2009's sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween that came out in 2007, just short of the franchise's 30th anniversary. It's interesting because Zombie also directed this one, amidst maybe a slight twisting-of-the-arm from the studio powers that be. Because of the pressure to perform, the rushed one-year production schedule and script that was inspired by an acid trip more than a creative spark, Halloween II is a giant mess of nothing. After watching it the first time, I didn't even know what I was watching. I couldn't even comprehend it. It was like each and every scene was made up on the spot and then when it came time to edit the movie, they couldn't figure out what fucking order the scenes went in so they were just tossed in a blender.

Michael Myers

Saying "the story is a mess" would be an insult to the BP oil spill. Instead of one solid flow with intertwining character arcs, we're treated to a series of side-plots that "tie together in the end". By "tie together in the end", I of course mean "confuses you to the point of demanding your money back". Laurie's an emotional wreck because of the events of the first Zombie film. She moves in with the Brackett's because her parents are dead, which Annie can't cope with because "Laurie's weird", which is really something nice to say about your friend who had the same traumatic experience you did. So Annie goes from Laurie's best friend to Laurie's disgruntled roommate who's fed up with her looney tune attitude, all while Sheriff Brackett let the events of the previous film roll of his shoulders like a bad day at work. Meanwhile, Sam Loomis (you know, the lovable doctor from the first films) is rewritten as a dickheaded book salesman who's literally profitting off of the deaths of innocent people. Did you feel that? That was the tremor of Donald Pleasence rolling over in his grave. The only normal character in this movie is Brackett. There's even a dinner scene where he acts like insane Brad Douriff-Chucky and still he seems more normal than either Annie, Laurie, or Loomis.

So yeah, Laurie and Loomis pull the biggest one-eighty as far as how they behave, As I said, they're both traumatized by the events of that Halloween night in Halloween (2007) and both are dealing with it in their own weird, twisted ways. Laurie, for example, went from preppy school girl with post-high school dreams and a bubbly personality to literally being the understudy of Vampira. She wears dark rags, her hair's all greasy, she's clinically insane, she shouts obscenities at her shrink, and when she finds out she's Michael Myers' sister, she goes into a total "I don't care" attitude and starts partying like she wants to die.  Loomis is a giant asshole, on the other hand. After the events of the first film where he was almost killed, he wrote another book discussing the events. The book was released and, in it, Laurie learns that she's the younger sister of Michael Myers, which sends her into her mental downhill slope. Loomis tries to redeem himself at the end of the movie, again trying to reason with Michael before he does something bad, but also trying to keep Laurie from going insane (even though he's a little late to that party).

Laurie Strode takes a dive into the looney bin

The biggest character fuck-up is Michael himself. Michael Myers not only walks around without his mask on most of the time, but also talks (in the unrated edition). What more do you need to hear? They fucked him up. They bent him over a barrel and shoved the folklore right up his ass! Oh, and the white horse bullshit? That's where it comes into play. The movie opens with a young Michael telling his mother that he has a dream during his stay in the looney bin where Deborah, his mother, comes to rescue him from his stay, dressed in all white and leading a white horse down the hallway. For something as simple as a dream, they sure play it up the rest of the way because for the rest of this misadventure, the white horse is referenced...constantly. Older Michael sees visions of his ghostly mother, his younger self, and a white horse everywhere he goes. As far as his iconic mask, it survives the first portion of the movie, in Laurie's dream in the hospital (they're really playing up the dreams, aren't they?), but in the regular world, Michael's mask gets torn up by some stripper he tries to kill, leaving his face half visible. Let me ask; if the point of Michael in this movie was to be groundbreaking and show his face, why did you bother keeping half the mask? If the point was appease the fans by keeping the mask, what was the point of having it get torn up and show part of his face?! You can't have both!

Including Deborah Myers in this movie was a huge mistake. In the first movie, she's a struggling mother dating a horrible, abusive asshole and trying to raise her slutty daughter, her nutcase son, and her soon-to-be crazy newborn. She really had it rough in the movie, and you sympathized with her when her will-to-live took a dive off a cliff, forcing her to kill herself. She was a well-rounded character and done very well. Then when you turn around and include her as a ghostly witch-lady vision of Michael Myers beckoning him to "go home" with her, and "bring Angel with him" (Angel being Laurie's Myers name) and having zero to do with her past-self was shown as nothing more than story cancer and a blatant attempt by Rob to include his wife in this movie. Rob, we get it, you love your wife. She's a sweet woman and beautiful, but even she isn't worth ruining your movies.

The death's are stock and can be over done in the attempt to not look stock. The thing with Rob Zombie is that he likes his gore, which is fine. Gore isn't necessarily the root problem. Let's face it, there's only so many ways you can do gore and have it be fresh and original. Michael slamming the stripper's head into a wall repeatedly? Hilarious! Michael stabbing a nurse repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) even as Laurie's escaping in her dream? Tedious. Looking at gore over and over again gets pretty dull. Having blood everywhere no longer makes it shocking; it makes the humans look like bloated pinatas that puncture easily and spray their innards everywhere if they step on a thumbtack. One thing's for sure, and that's that every single victim in the Rob Zombie-Halloween-verse has an incredibly low platelet count. Their blood sprays like it's shot out of a water gun. They're like the characters in the original Mortal Kombat. Aside from being overly gruesome, many of them are cheesy to boot. As I said, Michael stabs the nurse in the beginning so many times it almost becomes comical. He bangs the stripper's head into the glass again and again and again and it's awesome but not without being comical.

Captain Clegg and the Night Creatures

At least the art direction is on par. Being Rob Zombie, the design of the film is pretty great. The band "Captain Clegg and the Night Creatures" as well as Uncle Coffins have Zombie written all over them. Everything being back lit by the color red or blue. The movie's a treat to look at, for sure. Then the movie starts happening and you want to look away, so I guess look at it while you can get it. Another great aspect is some of the tense scenes. My favorite scene is when Lynda's dad goes to Loomis's book signing and pulls a gun on him, blaming him for Michael's killing of his daughter. Another scene I like is the beginning during the transfer of Michael's body where the two coroners hit the cow that brings Michael back to life. That's another thing, I liked the two coroners. The movie didn't use them enough. Still, Zombie's oh-so-trivial dialogue about having sex with corpses had to fuck that up too, so take them as you get them I guess. Then there's Weird Al...just because I guess the movie needed some levity. Hey, between Laurie's depression, Loomis's capitalist authoring of books, Annie's bitch factor, Brackett's desperation to keep everything together, Michael's psychotic rampage chasing a horse that isn't there, the bloody, disgusting death scenes and the overall tone of the film...I practically lept off my couch and hugged my TV when I saw him.

Indeed, Halloween II is depressing. Even moreso than Batman Returns. The characters you fell in love with do total personality switcheroos and are no longer relatable or fun or...even heroic. At the end, I don't know who I was supposed to root for. Michael to kill Laurie so she'd finally go away, or Laurie to kill Michael so the white-horse shit would finally end. Loomis being a dickhead profiting off of the deaths of others for 95% percent of the movie only now at the end changing his mind and being Loomis again before he gets killed any way sucked. It took characters you loved and ruined them.

I really can't say anything else without repeating myself. Hell, I've repeated myself so many times already, so I might as well call it here. Halloween II started out promising, paying homage to the previous Halloween II from 1981 by having Laurie's dream in a hospital, and also starting the movie on the same night as the previous film. I like movies that pick up where the previous film leaves off. But once the movie stops following the same night, it takes a total one-eighty and starts blowing major ass. I mean major ass. The characters become laughably cheesy, unGodly annoying, ridiculously depressing or just flat-out too damn incompetent to bare. My love for Sam Loomis takes a nose dive into a mountain when he becomes a narcissistic author profiting off of mayhem and slaughter. Laurie's too depressing to look at, listen to, or even enjoy. I hate everything about this Laurie and really didn't care if she lived or died. I was a bit broken up at Annie's death, but Laurie's? The main fucking character? Didn't care. Michael's obsessed with invisible images others can't see and we wish we couldn't see. They built up the white horse as a centerpiece of the whole story which was a joke to begin with. The white horse thing is like when your friends visit you at your mother's house and start telling the story of something stupid you did and you're just wanting them to shut the hell up before they incriminate you. Halloween II isn't fun, enjoyable and it's most definitely the worst horror movie that I've ever seen. Sure, there are worse ones in terms of quality, but they weren't trying to be taken seriously. This one was, and the end result just makes me laugh my ass off at what a brain-dead mess of nothing it truly is. Skip this one like your life depends on it.

I guess you could say Halloween II...is a horse of a different color? Ba-dum-tsssss

If I could sum up this movie for any non-Halloween fan, it'd be: "Young girl sad. Old man mad. Crazy man bad. The rest is a shit heap."

A Preview of "Ranking the Halloween Movies"

It's the Halloween season. Hipsters are rejoicing at the time when their favorite part of the year has finally arrived. Decorating your houses with images of death, despair, pumpkins, skeletons, black cats, trees, sacrifices, demons, cute little ghosts, orange leaves, football, sweatshirts, pumpkin spice anything, iPhones, Starbucks...wait...

Well anyway, Halloween season is underway. We are just over a month away from the big day itself. As we are well aware, or at least as much as we'd like to be aware, this is the time for horror movies. The type of genre that insults the viewer's intelligence more than a Zack Snyder DC Comics movie. Modern horror movies follow certain criteria; dumb girls, big tits, sex, blood, guts, obscene swearing, and an-all-around lack of attention to common sense. No series tried more to reinvent the horror genre only to fall grip to its vices, while simultaneously representing the season itself, than Halloween.

I already talked about Halloween in my post from a couple years ago, back when I didn't blog much. (Which can be found here). The Halloween franchise features every horror cliche as well as any groundbreaking effort on behalf of unknown directors, actors and writers trying to make names for themselves. The mascot of Halloween, Michael Myers, has become a staple decoration of the season. He's up there the big four of overblown scary-movie franchises: Freddy Krueger of A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jason Voorhees of Friday the 13th, Leatherface of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and yes, Michael Myers of Halloween.

The first Halloween in 1978 started the "slasher genre", or at least kicked it into overdrive. It is defined as any horror movie with a body count. It's incredibly tight, independent-level budget gave it a certain charm that could never be replicated by any of the sequels and remakes. It's presentation had complex characters thrust into a simple story which made for an entertaining ninety-minute foray. Michael Myers stalked babysitters Laurie, Annie and Lynda from the shadows and killed them one-by-one, trying to get to Laurie. All while his mental hospital doctor Sam Loomis sort of stalked him in a way, following him around the whole day and attempting to cease Michael's reign of terror.

Halloween II in 1981 continued where the first movie left off on the very same night. Michael survives six gunshot wounds and continues to stalk Laurie as she attempts to survive her injuries in the hospital. Dr. Loomis, haunted by the fact his patient survived six gunshots, continues to hunt Michael throughout the hospital and attempts to protect Laurie, even going so far as to risk his own career to do so...

Then the franchise switched gears in 1982 with Halloween III: Season of the Witch. The Halloween franchise was envisioned as an episodic anthology series that would be completely unrelated to one another, and Halloween III was the first film in the franchise to kick start the idea. Unfortunately, the plot involving mask makers that look to take Halloween back to its sacrificial roots, all while a doctor named Dan Challis goes on the hunt to solve the mystery of the killings done by the mysterious Silver Shamrock.

When the box-office failure of Halloween III failed to please audiences and confused moreso than entertained, producer Moustapha Akkad rebooted the franchise in 1988 with a new sequel in the Michael Myers-verse, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. This stylish and dark entry in the series takes place ten years after the events of Halloween & Halloween II. Michael stalks his niece Jamie while Dr. Loomis, frail and suffering from existing injuries, returns to Haddonfield to protect Jamie from a rejuvenated Michael's wrath.

The immense success of Halloween 4 rushed a sequel into the works. In less than a year, 1989's Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers was out. It featured much of the same plot as 4, and featured Jamie receiving psychic links to Michael that helps Dr. Loomis and the Haddonfield police predict and prevent Michael Myers' crimes. Its cliffhanger ending where Michael is broken out of jail by a mysterious trench-coat wearing gunslinger and Jamie is captured would go unanswered for six years...

In 1995, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers was released. Though the film attempted to wrap up loose ends that 5 left behind, it ultimately didn't meet studio or critical expectations and fell flat. The Halloween franchise, now nearly twenty years old, was falling on blind eyes and deaf ears, and its tactics and cliches were no longer pleasing anyoen.

The series was rebooted once again in 1998, with Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later. Jamie Lee Curtis returned to the franchise as Laurie Strode. The movie ignores the continuity of everything since Halloween II and treats this as Michael's first reappearance in twenty years. Michael returns to the prep school where Laurie teaches and stalks both her and her son. The twist ending left people guessing where the rejuvenated franchise was going to go...

Until 2002 rolled around and Halloween: Resurrection was came out. Halloween Resurrection was an attempt to modernize the series and give it a fresh new perspective by having the Myers house linked up with cameras and having Michael's killing spree broadcast over the internet. While an interesting idea, some of the acting, a lot of the dialogue, and pretty much any situation involving Busta Rhymes is so far over the top its more of a farce than an actual horror movie.

The Halloween franchise would lay dormant over the next five years.  A rumor of a potential Resurrection sequel, Halloween Retribution was rumored, as was Hall9ween. Both were eventually canned in favor of a remake, produced and directed by world-renowned music shockmaster Rob Zombie. Zombie's Halloween in 2007 was not only half a remake of Carpenter's '78 film, but also half of his own thing. It was an interesting mix and it was entertaining to say the least. So much so that unadjusted for inflation, it became the highest grossing Halloween film.

Too bad the same can't be said for Zombie's 2009 sequel, Halloween II. Zombie's Halloween II was so "House of 1000 Corpses" that it really rubbed viewers the wrong way. Involving trippy dream sequences, gothic arthouse imagery, and more of Zombie's music video charm than ever before, Halloween II tried to be similar to Zombie's previous film The Devil's Rejects. It just didn't measure up and really alienated its viewers in all the wrong ways...

With talks of franchise kingpin and founder John Carpenter becoming the executive producer for the next film, tentatively titled Halloween Returns, the possibilities are endless. Carpenter's executive decision over his own creation nearly forty years prior will prove advantageous for sure. In the mean time, prepare yourselves for C-Bass's "Ranking of the Halloween Movies".

COMING EVENTUALLY.

Ranking the Batman Movies: #1 - "Batman" (1989)

Back by long-awaited demand! It's all come down to this!

#1 - Batman (1989)

It's the 1980's. The Superman movies have been derailed by the 'stellar' Superman III, where more emphasis was put on comedy rather than comic book elements, working with even the inclusion of Richard Pryor, much to Christopher Reeve's disapproval. Superman III forced the comic book icon of the past fifty years to share the spotlight one of the best real-life comedians in the world. Really grasp that. Since the downfall of Superman III at the box-office, Christopher Reeve declared himself done with Superman and wanted to focus on more challenging roles. Reeve was brought back with the promise of having story input as well as a sizeable salary and the lead role once again in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Production reshoots, shoestring budgets, and a horrific plot revolving around nuclear weapons and international relations made Superman IV an unmitigated disaster. Bombing at the box-office and further crippling the franchise, Superman IV seemed like the death nail in the coffin for comic book movies. It wasn't, naturally. It just felt like it.

On the other side of the DC Comics world, there was Batman. Batman had a classic run in the late-60's with the Adam West TV series Batman. The campy and cheeseball antics on the show permanently aligned themselves with the character, as the Batman on TV of 1970's and early-80's also ran with the flashy gimmicks as well while the comic stayed similar in tone to what it had always been. Then, in 1986, came Frank Miller's dark story of a fifty-five-year-old Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement and facing a dark, dystopian Gotham City landscape and the "Mutant" gang in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. This four-issue miniseries saw an aged Batman fight and take down the gang of Mutants, kill the Joker, fight the GCPD's new Commissioner who wants him taken into custody, and Superman. Fucking Superman. It's a classic comic-book staple that holds true even to this day, during it's 30th anniversary.

Michael Keaton as Batman

It was no doubt the dark tone and grey scale imagery that inspired newcomer-director Tim Burton to assume the director's chair of the Warner Bros. adaptation of the Batman character. Seeing what he had done in the film Beetlejuice made Warner Bros. confident in their decision. Burton was young, but already had his defining charisma and his notable cinematography. Thus, we got the first big-screen Batman movie in June of 1989, and let me tell you. It still holds up as a timeless classic of motion picture cinema and of comic book cinema.

Michael Keaton was cast as the big-screen's second portrayal of the caped crusader (remember Batman: The Movie), which drew outrage from fans, who felt that Keaton's career as a comedy actor meant that the film would be another attempt at the cheeseball motif the Adam West Batman was notable for. Remember, there was no internet back then, yet fans still petitioned Warner Bros. to rethink their decision. Well, near-thirty years later and our initial interpretation of Keaton's portrayal of Batman was far off. It was about as far off as you can go. Almost as bad as when history repeated itself when Ben Affleck was cast as Batman for Batman v Superman. Keaton's portrayal of Batman was spot-on. I mean he nailed it. He's unassuming and collected as Bruce Wayne to the point where you wouldn't even guess a guy like him would be Batman. The best thing about Keaton's Batman is just how slender and average his physique was. Keaton is man who stands roughly at 5'9 to 5'10 and weights probably a hundred-eighty to a two hundred pounds. Someone of his stature and his quiet, well-reserved mannerisms is the perfect cover up to his alter-ego. Keaton as Batman on the other hand, is just as phenomenal as his Bruce Wayne. As Batman, Keaton is swift and tactical, yet just as quiet and reserved as he is Wayne. His Batman is oddly intimidating, even for a man of shorter stature. He's literally the greatest Batman, in my opinion. Even with all the Batmen that have come since, including the superb rendition that Affleck gave us, Keaton still reigns supreme. There's something about his portrayal that feels so quintessential as Batman. I just remember watching it all those years of my childhood to now, and every time I do I just think "That's how Batman should be done. That's Batman. Ben Affleck does a fantastic Batman impression, but Michael Keaton IS Batman."

Jack Nicholson as the Joker

The yin to Batman's yang. The Joker. For this film, I assumed casting the Joker was no easy task. Turns out it was sort of simple. Burton had secretly always wanted Jack Nicholson to portray the Joker, and Warner Bros. allegedly even used Robin Williams, the famous comedian, as bait to sign Nicholson to the film. Warner Bros. supposedly even signed Williams to the film, and then turned around and told Nicholson that Williams was going to take the role if he didn't, causing Nicholson to sign on. Williams was appalled at being used as bait, resulting in him turning down the opportunity to portray Riddler in Tim Burton's planned Batman 3, which never came to be. Jack Nicholson as the Joker is still a comic-book film highlight and still the standard on which all subsequent Joker's are measured. Even Ledger's, for some reason, which we'll get to in-depth another time. Joker, in this film, starts out as middle-aged gangster Jack Napier, working for crime boss Carl Grissom. When Grissom stages an attempt at espionage at Axis Chemicals and tips off the GCPD in an attempt to kill Napier, Napier falls into a vat of acid and becomes the Joker, a homicidal, theatrical representation of Napier. Joker kills Grissom and assumes control of his operations in Gotham, ultimately staging a mass killing at the Gotham Anniversary Parade, which Batman thwarts. Nicholson's Joker comes off very snarky and intimidating, while also being a goofball lunatic. He's sort of snobby in his persona, always commanding the entire scene whenever he's apart of it, and then doing something completely outlandish and appalling while the focus is entirely on him. It's really a masterful performance. This Joker isn't scary, so much as he is chilling. Nicholson didn't play the Joker up to be a terrorist, so to speak. More so just a very theatrical, mass-murdering Al Capone. Truly unique and a treat.

Tim Burton's Batmobile from Batman and Batman Returns

The supporting cast is very memorable as well. Kim Basinger plays Vicki Vale, who was a common appearance in the comics since her first appearance Batman #49 for Oct/Nov 1948. She's basically a Lois Lane-type who's obsessed with bats, and then later, Bruce Wayne. She finds out through the course of the film (in one of the most controversial scenes) that Bruce is Batman when Alfred takes her into the Batcave. She's later captured by the Joker and saved by Batman in the Cathedral.

Michael Gough and Pat Hingle each star for their first portrayals as Alfred Pennyworth and Commissioner James Gordon. Gordon's character has the most screen-time here. He's the main ringleader in the Gotham City crusade into Axis Chemicals to arrest Jack Napier and he first witnesses Batman. Unlike the comic books however, Gordon and Batman don't form their tight-knit partnership here. It's moreso Gordon knows that what Batman is doing is a form of good and therefore, sort of casually steps out of his way. Batman, in this universe, doesn't share a partnership with solely Gordon. He shares it with the police force as a whole. Michael Gough gives his first of four portrayals as Alfred. Gough's Alfred is the best portrayal of Alfred, in my opinion. He's so warm and caring, and doesn't spew as many long-winded speeches as Michael Caine's Alfred. His speeches are three to five sentences, max. 

The story was written in tribute of Superman: The Movie, in that it doesn't necessarily adapt any story. It more-so adapts the characters created in the general universe. It loosely adapts The Dark Knight Returns, in that it is the second most prominent Batman release with a dark atmosphere. People were used to the Neal Adams representation of the caped crusader throughout the 70s, so things like The Dark Knight Returns and this movie shook stuff up. Basically, the story sort of kicks off like an origin story, beginning with Batman having only been spotted eight times in "just under a month'. Batman shows up amidst a crime boss's stranglehold on the city. However, it's not Batman who overthrows the crime boss, it's in fact the Joker. As the Joker then takes the crime syndicate as his own, Batman rises up from the shadows and does battle with him throughout the streets for Gotham, during the Joker's staged mass execution of the people of Gotham. It's all very well done. It's a great, classic story.

Gotham City skyline, circa 1989

The art-direction goes balls to the wall, as I've probably stated. The gothic, greyscale architecture is truly amazing. The Gotham Cathedral is one of my favorite set pieces, and remains eerie and charming at the same time. The design of the sets, costumes, props and vehicles is stellar, and despite being forever tied to the 1980's, it feels timeless. Burton's Batman's Batmobile is of a timeless design that is often reused or heavily referenced even today. Burton's Batman's Batwing (their take on the Batplane from the comics) is both stylish and intimidating. A giant fighter jet shaped like Bruce Wayne's Bat-emblem shown everywhere; there's even the cheesy scene where it flies in front of the moon for a split second, forming the movie's logo.

Anyway you slice it. Burton's Batman film is a stone-cold classic. It excels in art direction, character development, writing, cinematography, miniatures, acting, the Batman, the Joker; everything. Batman, in my honest opinion, is the greatest single Batman movie released by modern cinema and the measure by which many Batman movies were set to follow. Obviously it seems a little rubbish for me to sit here and be like "Yes, compare all Batman movies to this one that came out nearly thirty years ago, when times were different," but honestly, if it's such a free-standing example on how a Batman movie should be told, then by all means, measure up. Don't replicate, but pay homage. I feel as though Ben Affleck's Batman paid the most homage to Michael Keaton. Obviously, we all know Clooney paid the least, but that's all well and fun. Clooney's a good sport about it.

Well, that was it. I ranked the Batman movies according to my opinion. How will Affleck's solo-Batman flick stand up against those that exist? We will know soon enough. Affleck is the first Batman that gets the right to write and direct his own adventure. No other Batman has had that privilege, so we'll see how it goes. It'll be a fun little experience.

I have no idea what I'm going to do next in my blog. Maybe I'll count down the Batmen? Maybe I'll rank another franchise's movies? Maybe I'll sit here and write my own movie?

A Review of "Ghostbusters" (2016)

So I literally just got back from watching the new Ghostbusters movie, and you can keep your pies, fruits, and other blunt foods/objects in your pocket because...I loved it. That's right, I loved it. Hollywood managed to take the most hated trailer in YouTube history and turn it into a hit comedy, in my eyes at the very least.

The remake-boot-quel Ghostbusters started out in 1991 as Ghostbusters III written by the usual suspects Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, who played Ray Stantz and Egon Spengler in the original two films, respectively. The movie lost traction after Bill Murray lost interest due to the negative reception received for Ghostbusters II. After a few years on the shelf, Aykroyd and Ramis took their concept to a new direction and the script for Ghostbusters in Hell or Ghostbusters: The Next Generation was conceived. It would involve Stantz and Spengler (and possibly Ernie Hudson as Winston) return to teach the new generation of Ghostbusters. Aykroyd stated how the next generation would be played by the next generation of SNL stars, which in the mid-90's were guys like Chris Rock, David Spade, Adam Sandler and Chris Farley. Once that fell through due to lack of studio support, the project lost more traction and went back on the shelf. By the late-2000's as the cast was aging, Ghostbusters III was brought up again to worldwide ridicule. Many memes and videos were made saying that the cast, as they were then, were just too old to jump into the overalls and go Ghostbusting again. Unfortunately, the untimely death of franchise co-creator and Egon himself, Harold Ramis, in 2014 was the final nail in the coffin for any sort of a straight Ghostbusters sequel involving the original characters. The absolute CLOSEST thing we got was Ghostbusters: The Video Game in 2009. It starred the voices of the four Ghostbusters: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson, as well as Annie Potts reprising her role as Janine, the Ghostbusters' receptionist. It involved an original story written by Aykroyd and Ramis and Aykroyd has gone on record saying that the video game is "essentially the third movie".

By early-2015 a Ghostbusters reboot was announced boasting a new cast of characters and a new plot totally deviant from the originally-created universe. Fans were on board and anxious to see which stars were cast to play the new Ghostbusters. Turns out, they were women, but the whole situation didn't become wishy-washy until the first full trailer came out. Holy shit. It was like Rebecca Black released a new song. This YouTube trailer got so much hate that I guarantee for every one "like", there were at least seven "dislikes". So, the buildup was pretty hard-nosed to say the least. It drew a lot of heat, claiming that the backlash was due to the misogyny toward the cast being all women. Aykroyd himself even published an interview in April saying how much he loved it, but people still didn't buy it. However, the Angry Video Game Nerd published a video protesting how he would not watch the film for reasons he explains, for instance based on the title being simply "Ghostbusters", saying that it piggybacks on the success of the original film and robs the new generation of the so-called "mandatory need" to see the original. While I am ALL-FOR forcing the younger generations to watch the 1984 Ghostbusters, that doesn't mean they can't watch this one too.

Well the date finally came on July 15th when the world would find out. Reviews started coming out the few days in advance and they weren't really that harsh. At least not as harsh as everyone was expecting. IGN claimed that it was "okay" and Rotten Tomatoes even gave it a 73% critic review, higher than the 57% of Ghostbusters II even. Hell it even got a better reception than even the most anticipated film of 2016, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (which sucks something awful). But enough about that shit, let's get on to what I thought.

L-R: Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon
as the new generation of Ghostbusters

I loved it. I'm not saying it's high-art or anything, but as far as being a Ghostbusters movie? It is well-deserving of praise. The cast, to me, was brilliant, and why it feels like it's mimicking the first film in its character portrayals, it really does follow a formula that has been proven to work. You had the dry humor in Kristen Wiig (Bill Murray), the comedic mumbo-jumbo spewing duo in Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon (Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis) and the wise-cracking street-smart humor in Leslie Jones (Ernie Hudson). As far as the Ghostbusters themselves go, the casting was stellar. They did however go a different route with the receptionist. Whereas Annie Potts just said normal things, her comedy came from her over-the-top squeaky New York accent. Chris Hemsworth as Kevin on the other hand, went in a totally different route, going for the dumb-blonde type who just speaks in non-sequiturs to remain involved in the topic at hand.

The plot starts off as your typical Ghostbusters movie. Something spooky happens, cut to opening title with music, cut to introducing Ghostbusters, cut to Ghostbusters investigating first paranormal event, and cut to Ghostbusters become the Ghostbusters. The first third does follow your usual Ghostbusters film, but it does change gears and starts to become a thing of its own after they catch the first ghost.

The comedy was on point and there were many laughs and laughable moments. I can understand how dry humor may not cut it anymore, but this movie went back to the roots of the original and included a bunch of dry humor. Dead-pan expressions that caused ruckus laughter in the theater. Anytime Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon had a dialogue, or Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones had to react to something, it was always a treat. These women carried the film on their shoulders and each one of them delivered. I don't get the supposed hate that's being leveled here, so I suppose now is when all who were hating the film for including women back-off and say they were hating it for "being a rip-off of the first movie" or some dumb stuff like that. Do us all a favor, don't go riding that high-horse into town. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the same thing as Star Wars start to finish. This did new things, went new places, tried new things, such as the Ghostbusters' new tools. A proton glove to punch ghosts? Sounded ludicrous when I first heard it, but I loved it.

The ghosts themselves were obviously a step-up visually from the 1984 version, that goes without saying. I'm not just talking  aesthetically, of course, but they were scarier too. I feel like even in the 1984 classic, the ghosts were too cutesty or child-friendly or maybe just didn't intend on scaring anyone because it was a comedy, but I divert that film to the new one. This movie had jump-scares, and it was a comedy. You don't see that too often. There were some expressions or even some overall looks that made me cringe a little bit. I'll admit, I jumped.

...because obviously the movie did have faults. I didn't like Leslie Jones' ghost-grinder thing. Totally eliminated the point of the ghost-capture trap, which is the second-most iconic Ghostbuster tool rather than the proton pack. I did like the Ecto-1 being updated to be a hearse, but I felt like it could've been renamed something else. Seeing as how this film ignores the continuity of the first two films though, Ecto-1 is fitting enough. Also, the new Ghostbusters song sucks. Fall Out Boy hasn't been popular since being a goth-emo-attention-seeker-freak went the way of Napster and Zune, and they of all the other bands in the world get to record the new theme song for Ghostbusters? That's like spending $500,000 on a four-cylinder Nissan shitbox.

VERDICT:
I don't get why the movie was getting crapped on since the beginning. It came out really well. I enjoyed it. It's an excellent addition to the Ghostbusters franchise. The dialogue was entertaining, the actresses nailed each and every one of their parts splendidly, the background characters were enjoyable, the orchestral music did new things whilst paying homage to the old Elmer Bernstein score, and the inclusion of the old Ghostbusters in cameo roles is the cherry on top. It was really a fun adventure. I didn't at all feel like I was watching the first film all over again. I felt like I was watching what I was actually watching; a lovable update for a long-dormant, popular franchise that fans craved and people should enjoy. I'm telling you if you can't enjoy this film, you're either a misogynist (or logically), you're probably just someone who has trouble enjoying things that are fun and quirky.

Besides, you're gonna tell me Ghostbusters II wasn't the exact same plot as the first movie?

Ranking the Batman Movies: #2 - "The Dark Knight" (2008)

Well here it is. The most-anticipated one.

#2 - The Dark Knight (2008)

The final Christopher Nolan entry on our list, and his second Bat-flick. The Dark Knight is a milestone for how comic book movies should be made. When the film was being made during 2007, there was an intense amount of hype that was being stirred all over the internet. The first Joker image that was released sent the internet into a frenzy for how dark and mysterious this take on the character was going to be, and many people were wondering if the movie was even going to top Batman Begins. Little did we know...

Heath Ledger in his Oscar-winning performance as the Joker

Christian Bale is back for his second portrayal of Bruce Wayne / Batman. His performance comes off as very sophisticated and well-aware of Batman's behavior and operation tactics. His Bruce Wayne is still very cunning but in a profound way. His Batman scenes are very action packed, and the fight-choreography is stellar and to-the-point. Much of the fights don't last long, but I think that aids the movie greatly. My only gripe is the voice. Sweet Jesus, his voice. Remember Batman Begins? How the voice was growly, but not that growly> Well, the guy in post-production in charge of dubbing and altering Bale's Batman voice for The Dark Knight needs to be fired. The point of Batman's voice is to: 1) Ensure the vocal difference between himself and Bruce Wayne and 2) to be intimidating and to inspire fear in his interrogations. Here, it got way over the top. This film is responsible for the whole "let's mock Batman's growly voice" YouTube craze of 2008 onward. Before you knew it, every ten-year-old kid who gets a camera for Christmas becomes a popular YouTuber because he uploads a two-minute video of himself snarling lines from the movie. It quite honestly sounds like Batman swallowed a cactus and couldn't quite get it back out of his throat.

...but we've talked about Bale's Batman three times now. I know what you're waiting for. Heath Ledger as the Joker. I referenced his portrayal in a couple previous posts and now we've finally gotten to it. I know I was initially skeptical. When they announced that Heath Ledger was going to portray the Joker, I was like "The guy that made out with Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain?" Well, much to mine and everyone else's surprise, Ledger took the role, ran with it, dunked it down court, inbounded it to the rival team, stole it, drove it back down court, and drained a three-pointer. The amount of charisma and drive that's being displayed on screen is mind-boggling. Ledger invented a whole new Joker by piecing together different characteristics of other Joker's that had been done. He truly made the role and the performance his own. There's no other Joker performance like his. Joker was originally brought in as a homicidal maniac, then by the 70's he had become a bumbling oaf that was played up for laughs, and by the 90's he was a homicidal madman again. This portrayal took the homicidal madman characteristic and jacked it up to eleven. Ledger was all over the board and so unpredictable that you genuinely couldn't take your eyes off of the screen whenever he's doing something. Even if he's doing or saying something really traumatizing, it was still enticing to watch. The scene where he's captured a Batman impersonator and he's interrogating him is so unsettling and unnerving but dozens of people can quote the scene verbatim they love it so. When I said the Batman growly voice inspired countless YouTube parodies, there must be six hundred and seventy-two Joker parody videos for every one Batman parody video. Joker parody videos are everywhere. Everyone wanted their chance to deliver their own Ledger impression. Some are great, some are pretty laughable.

Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent / Two-Face

The side characters are pretty great. Aaron Eckhart portrays Harvey Dent and later Two-Face. He's the district attorney that competes with Bruce for Rachel's heart who gets horribly scarred by the Joker's attack and becomes a vigilante with a literal "split" personality. Rachel got swapped from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal for reasons that are currently unknown to me. Huh, how about that? Heath terrorizes Maggie in The Dark Knight but makes out with Jake in Brokeback Mountain. I would say that's irony, but that's not what irony is. In this movie Rachel is essentially just there for emotional gravity. Without her, there'd barely be any emotion in the story. It'd just be Joker's chaos that Batman would have to fix. Last, but not least, the main three supporting characters are all stellar in their own right. Michael Caine does his usual phenomenal job as Alfred, spewing entire speeches with the last line of the speech supposedly being a piece of advice. Morgan Freeman is excellent as Lucius Fox, subtly delivering jabs at Bruce as well as his tech and his savvy. Gary Oldman gives the outright greatest Commissioner Gordon performance in the history of Bat-Cinema. I'm seriously in shock at how Gary Oldman got shafted for at least an Oscar nomination. I know in the past he's done some weird movies and some box office stinkers, but good God, he is so good in this movie. His determination to aid Batman in ending the Joker, his intense drive to stop all of the chaos. He's so good. As much as I love Pat Hingle's Commissioner Gordon, Oldman's is far superior and this movie was no exception to that.

Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner James Gordon

The story is superb. It really is. David S. Goyer really outdid himself, and his phenomenal story made even better by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's full screenplay really can't be matched. The Dark Knight somehow managed to make the realism of the Nolan Bat-universe and make it still feel like you're reading a comic book. Each and every scene carries over to the next bit of story splendidly. From going to China to get Lao, Wayne's gala that turns into a night of terror for Gotham that sees Commissioner Loeb's death, followed by his funeral that also turns into an assassination attempt by the Joker, that leads to Harvey Dent's first bout of vigilantism before becoming Two-Face. It all just flows so well from one major event to the next that by the time you make it to the end of the movie with the two boats ready to be blown up by the Joker, you're practically worn out. The Joker has emotionally stretched you to your limits. My only gripe relating to the story is the run time. You'd think that since this movie's a sequel that doesn't involve an origin story of any kind, it'd be a little shorter than the two hour, twenty minute Batman Begins, but no! It's actually slightly longer at two hours, thirty-two minutes. I guess that's fine, because it is a beautiful use of the two hours, thirty-two minutes. Still, The Dark Knight Rises got carried away with two hours, forty-five minutes, but I digress...

Any way you slice it, The Dark Knight is a superb Batman movie. You could be a new-age kid that hates the new movies or a retro-phile that just digs the old movies, and yet you still can't hate on The Dark Knight. The cast is perfect with supporting characters that are just as interesting to follow as the main characters. All of the characters make defining arcs and have glorious or tragic payoffs, all of which are welcome. Take that and have it have a realistic setting with definable characteristics in a relatable environment, you have got yourself the perfect Batman movie. A villain to be feared has to be conquered after the hero has to overcome obstacles placed in front of him. The classic formula for an awe-inspiring adventure.