The Creepercast 'Halloween' Retrospective: joel talks about 'Halloween 2' (2009)

When Rob Zombie's 2007 vision of 'Halloween' ended, I really had no second thoughts that he would make a sequel. Instead, I imagined the studio finding a similar gritty film maker to pick up the mantle and begin a new cycle of Michael Myers madness. That's truly the thought that went through my mind. Then I saw interviews with him where he commented that he'd said all he needed to say and was stepping away in favor of other projects. Little did I know, that he did have more to say. Now, there's some debate as to whether the motive was creative or cash driven, but regardless of what your stance is on the whole topic.... Rob made a slasher film that was different from the original and very different from a lot of the sequels we've ever seen or even any other horror films we've ever seen. This time around, he wasn't going to follow the template that was laid out in the subsequent follow ups to Carpenter's first film. Rob Zombie was out to make a Michael Myers film that was truly all his own. Love it or hate it, this film exists now and you can't deny that it didn't leave a hell of a mark.

This film takes place, literally minutes after the first films ending. Just before that, we get a brief glimpse and a little foreshadowing of events to come, as a young Michael (not played by Daeg, as adolescence had made it impossible) hearing about the white horse. Cut to Laurie wondering down the empty streets, bloodied, bruised, broken and barely breathing. Sheriff Brackett finds her and rushes her off to the hospital, where you truly see the kind of havoc that was caused to her body by the night of terror she had just endured. Right off the bat, you know this is going to be something different. Meanwhile, the 'meat wagon' shows up to get Michael's body and transport him to the morgue. Along the way, the two paramedics (one played by the later cast as Doom Head, Richard Brake) share a little gallows humor before hitting a cow head on and crashing the truck. We quickly find out that Michael isn't dead and he's about to pick up right where he left off. We also see the vision of his mother and the aforementioned large, white horse. This is something that has divided fans across the board and was one reason so many of them felt like this film was not the follow up they were hoping for. It creates a backdrop for what's actually going on inside the mind of a killer. It's a bit of high art that isn't typically seen in your run of the mill cut em' up and for that, I give Rob credit. He took a big risk and for me, it proved to be something that makes this film stand apart. We then see Laurie in the hospital, recovering from the massive trauma she's just sustained, but her respite is short lived as soon Michael shows up and starts murdering everyone in his path back to Laurie. She makes it out of the hospital (note to the reader: the theatrical and unrated version differ pretty largely during this sequence) and to a guard outside. He attempts to calm her down and get her back to her hospital room. What happens next is one of my favorite visual scenes in the film, which is Michael in the rain. He kills, Buddy the guard, and then proceeds to kill Ms. Strode.... or does he?

She wakes up screaming and we come to find out that this was all a nightmare or at least parts of it. It's never clearly defined what actually happened, other than Michael showing up to dispatch her. Now, this is where the film really starts to shine. One of the two main reasons I will defend this film and consider it to be a worthy successor to his first outing is the portrayal of Sheriff Brackett, by Brad Douriff and with the way that we see the true repercussions of a killer on a rampage. We rarely see the collateral damage or what happens to the victim, post attack. About 95% of the time, the 'final girl' becomes a raging bad ass who will take on the killer, head on, in an act of vengeance and anger. While I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the empowerment of women in these scenarios, the reality would truly be something entirely different. Instead, we see a young woman who is fragile and traumatized by the events that transpired. She's not out to take on all the evil of the world, she's just trying to get her life back together. Just that alone deserves some credit. Instead, most of the viewers seemed to see this film as a confusing piece of cinema that didn't ring true for them. Why do we always have to follow the same formula? Horror doesn't have to be a cut and paste mad lib that just adds slightly different elements to create the same final product. If you do this too often, you become stagnant and the genre turns into something that people don't take seriously. Along her journey, we see Laurie in counseling and struggling with PTSD. We see her having difficulty having normal human interactions and trying to move past something that her small town society won't let her do. This is the reality that isn't normally shown. Again, for that, I give Rob all the credit. It's not pretty or what's expected, but it's more of what might be true to life in this horrific situation. Another point of deviation from the original is how Dr. Loomis goes from a loving and caring professional to a straight up media whore. As I said in my previous piece, he, in his own way, becomes a monster. Casing in on the tragedy of those around him for the sake of the almighty dollar. While I know that the initial take on the character from the original films was more of counterpoint to Michaels' mayhem, I like Malcolm McDowell's spin on him and his character arc.

During a scene where Mr. Myers is still roaming the countryside on his way to Haddonfield, we get the sense that perhaps he and Laurie are more than just linked by blood. When he decides to eat a dog that was caged with the three owners of the land he was trespassing on that he dispatches rather abruptly. As he's eating, so is Laurie. It's established that she's a vegetarian and while she's having her meat free pizza, she becomes violently ill, as if what Michael is eating is effecting her. It's never explicitly said, but rather implied throughout the film. After all of this, Michael sets up shop at the Rabbit In red, where his mom used to dance. Brutally slaying the owner, bouncer and dancer in one of the most vicious killings in both films. The murders in and of themselves aren't as gory, but the methods are just insane. I think because in a lot of ways, Michael is taking it out even harder on them because it's personal. They're not just random people. The next morning, Dr. Loomis releases his latest book that reveals that Laurie is in fact, Michael's little sister. This spins her out and while trying to drink away her problems, she spends the evening at a Halloween party with her two best friends. Once again, Michael picks them off one by one, until he ends up at the Brackett's, where he finally finishes what he started with Annie. Once again, there is an implication of more violent acts than what we're shown. It's one big point of contention I do have with this film. If what Rob is implying is what actually happened, it was unnecessary and completely out of character for Michael. I'll leave that up to your own interpretation. Things at this point go into overdrive as all of the world's come crashing together at a small shed where Michael has taken Laurie to be a family again. The standoff comes to an end with Sheriff Brackett, Dr. Loomis and an large fleet of police officers are looking for a chance to take him out. While it's interesting to watch, it doesn't end up holding the same weight as the end of the first installment. That brings us to the last shot of the film and the way the Rob ends it with almost no way for Michael to continue on and with Laurie set to take up the mantle. It's a bold choice and one that doesn't totally feel out of character, based on the events that led up to it's conclusion. In my personal opinion, it bookends nicely with the original film and always leaves me feeling like it was a complete story. With all the other original films, I always felt like there was one more movie yet to come and with the newest chapter being released this year with 'Halloween' (2018), I was right.

Love them or hate them, Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' films are two stand alone pieces in an alternate reality to the one we grew up with. I found them to be gritty masterpieces of modern horror. Telling an entire lifetime of story in a mere (roughly) four hour window of time. There is a beginning, middle and ending that tie up any lose ends and leave me feeling satisfied. His choice of music, set design, actors, costuming, color pallet, right down to the best version of the mask we've seen since the original.... he puts his passion on a plate. I know that I'm in the minority with my feelings on these films and I'm okay with that. As I said at the beginning of my two part retrospective, I'm a Rob Zombie fan, no two ways about it. However, that's not the only reason that I love these films. I love them for what they are. The original films were a tale of a modern day boogeyman that started out with a two part bang, but quickly faded into a rather wimpy shadow of what he once was. These films brought him back to life for a new generation and made him terrifying again. I think we can all agree that John Carpenter's original 1978 film is a masterpiece of horror that did something that was new and unique. I feel that these were a love letter to those first few films, but bravely paved a new path to set itself apart of it's predecessors. That's the legacy that these film will leave behind..... or maybe it's just me?



We continue to look back in retrospect at the Halloween franchise films that we have loved, or at least found entertaining, before they cease to exist with the release of the new Halloween II on October 19th.

The Creepercast 'Halloween' Retrospective: joel talks about 'Halloween' (2007)

This film and it's sequel, have created some of the most bombastic arguments I've ever seen. You'd think that someone had taken religion and politics, threw them in a blender, and then made each person drink their worst nightmare. You've got the lovers and the haters and not much in between. When Jeff approached us with the idea of taking two of the 'Halloween' franchise films and writing a retrospective type piece on them, it was a no brainer as to which two I would choose. Kind of like there's no secret that I love Rob Zombie and his body of work. When remakes began to become a buzz word in the Hollywood lexicon, I was not on board with the idea. However, this was not a new thing. Hollywood and every other creative format, had been using some form of remake or reboot or whatever you choose to call it, for decades. For some reason though, this time it felt different and everyone kind of lost their collective minds. Over the years I've come to change my thoughts on the subject. While I still feel that shot for shot remakes don't really offer much to the movie going public, the ones that do something a little different or make it their own, I've come to enjoy. So by the time I heard that Rob Zombie was taking on the original John Carpenter classic, 'Halloween', I was on board. I was very curious to see what he would bring to the table and how he would twist this tale into his own terrifying take. What that all boils down to is that I was there, in the theater, to see this one unfold on the big screen as soon as it came out. It made the character scary again. It also made me feel pretty dirty to watch, as this was not the clean cut, no blood story that we originally got. This was a no holds barred cage match to the death and when I left, I was exhausted.

Now, let's back things up a bit, to a time where Mr. Zombie was on the same page as me. He spoke out very loudly about how remakes were terrible and he would never do one. Over time, he softened on the topic. He and I began to line up in our ways of looking at them. Kind of like a popular song that gets remade over and over, there's no reason that you can't apply that same approach to film making, right? Not too mention, I can only imagine that when he got the offer to take this one on, he couldn't pass up the chance. I mean, he even went so far as to get John Carpenter's blessing first. If that doesn't make you feel like you're safe to rewrite history, I don't know what would? Besides, Rob wanted to turn this into a version that only he could create. He also wanted to 'fix' some things about the original that always had plagued him as a youth. Not saying that he didn't love 'Halloween', just that it wouldn't be the same as the one we grew up with. That brings us to the film itself. A nearly two hour symphony in two acts. The first, telling us about a young Michael and his journey into madness and the second, showing us where his madness would end up. It put a face inside the mask, but didn't make the character of Michael Myers any less terrifying in my opinion, despite what many people have gone on to say. While he may not be 'The Shape' anymore, he's still a boogeyman for the modern day. In fact, no matter how much story was divulged in the beginning, it didn't really elude to a true motive. It seemed as though he was damaged from day one. It's just that he was waiting for the right moment to snap. He had a rather heartless father figure, a broken mother who loved him, a big sister who couldn't care less and a baby sister he adored. While he lived in a lower class environment, it wasn't like he was surrounded by violent role models or actions. He came to those conclusions on his own. One of my favorite scenes before he starts his killing spree, is where he's standing by the window in his Halloween costume and watching the kids outside Trick or Treating. It's like he's either disconnected from the joy they're experiencing or that he's kind of witnessing the end of his youth. Aside from that moment, there's never really a section you can pinpoint that shows where he snaps, only that he just makes a decision that it's time to begin. End of story.... or the beginning.

Once he's completed his night's work, we begin his treatment at the hands of Dr. Samuel Loomis (played by the iconic Malcolm McDowell). The audience is still shown that Micheal is a child that may not fully understand what's he's doing and goes so far as to point out that he has no memory of it. Almost as though he's possessed or taken over by the evil inside him. I don't think that was Rob's intention, but none the less, it almost plays out that way. Now Dr. Loomis is another point of contention for people. He has a rather sharp character arc, unlike Donald Pleasance's take on the role. He goes from loving caretaker and almost guardian, to becoming a hardened man to all he's seen. Deciding to cash in on his life's work and thus eventually turning him into a different kind of monster. He eventually realizes that Michael can't be helped and decides to move on with his life. This seems to almost be a motivation for Michael to want to break out and begin again. Once out of the sanitarium, he goes back to Haddonfield and begins a killing spree. While it's never explained why he singles out Laurie, all of his victims center around her and her family. Rob still uses the angle that they're related, but since Michael was locked up this entire time, he had no way of knowing who or where she was. It's never really explained, but we'll chalk that one up to movie logic. Before long, he's killed everyone in her immediate radius and then comes after her. It's a showdown until one of them finally brings an end to his reign of terror.

I somehow got off on a bit of a tangent there about retelling the plot. Of all of Rob Zombie's films, this is actually one of my favorites. I've seen it so many times, that I can quote it as I watch. Actually, on Halloween night, I always watch this and its sequel as a double billing. This may make some of you think I'm crazy, but there's just something about these versions of the film that hit all my high points. So much so, that I own multiple versions/copies. For the first film, I own seven copies and for the second, I own 5 copies. These include DVD, Blu-ray, theatrical, unrated, multi disc special editions and even a work print copy. Why so many? Well, each version of the film is just a little different or has different things attached to it. For example, the theatrical and unrated versions of the film, while very little is changed, are drastically different. The same with the work print version. I much prefer the theatrical ones, as we don't hear Michael speak ever and there's the deletion of the scene with Lew Temple getting a bit too handsy with one of the inmates at Smiths Grove. Along with the copies of the film, I had a plush Michael Myers from part 2 and I have an action figure from the original film. It's just a piece of horror cinema that fascinates me. Some of the things that were drastically changed for this take on the tale were the incredible increase in the amount of blood. In the original film (but not its sequels) there is basically no blood at all. This is what I was referring to earlier, when I called the movie 'clean cut'. Rob also makes excellent use of the shaky cam technique of cinematography. It's used as a way to indicate the fear, uneasiness, power and just plain chaos that takes place in some of the more intense sequences. While this particular technique seems to almost be overused these days, in this world it makes sense. It was also nice to see some of the familiar faces of Mr. Zombie's cavalcade of stars. At some points in the film, he pays homage to the original, as well as some other classics of the genre. Such as when Michael grabs Annie and drags her into the house and slams the door. It feels very similar to the scene in the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Finally, the ending. I cannot say enough good things about how he wrapped up the first film. It's become one of, if not, my favorite ending in a horror film of all time. There's just something about when Laurie is on top of Michael trying desperately to shoot him, but there seem to be no bullets left. He finally grabs her arm and she pulls the trigger one final time, thus shooting him in the face with the last remaining bullet. As she's covered in blood, she screams a blood curdling scream that gives me chills. Every. Single. Time. I. See. It.

Final thoughts, I think this film gets a bad rap. I fully understand that not everyone likes remakes or thinks that they're valid forms of film making. I also get those who completely love the original and feel that this is some kind of sacrilege. You are welcome to your opinions. However, just looking at this from a film making standpoint and as a stand alone horror film, it's above average. We live in a world of a lot of carbon copy, cookie cutter movies that are being put out. This felt like something different, as all of his films do. They exist in a world he created and I like that world. I also felt that his decision to cast Tyler Mane as Michael was inspired. It actually put fear back into me, with the character. He's so incredibly large and menacing, that you can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed. Just think about it from Laurie's perspective. You essentially have a giant shark coming after you, with one goal in mind. He's stronger than you are. He's got no morals or boundaries. Not too mention that he won't stop until he gets you. It's a horrifying thought. Just my two cents and at the end of the day, horror is subjective. We're not all going to love the same things and that's the beauty of our genre. There is always going to be something for everyone. Just please try and be kind and respectful of the things you dislike. We're already in a minority, as horror fans, we need to stick together. Blood is thicker than water, kids.



We continue to look back in retrospect at the Halloween franchise films that we have loved, or at least found entertaining, before they cease to exist with the release of the new Halloween II on October 19th.

my thoughts on.... 'Day of the Dead: Bloodlines'

As with all of my reviews of films for The Creepercast, I fully recommend that you check each and every one of them out. I am one man and this is my opinion. I've seen plenty of movies that received reviews that were the complete opposite of how I saw the film. These writers, directors, producers and actors all put a lot of time and love into these projects. They deserve to be seen and appreciated for what they are. Everyone has a dream and I fully support the people that take the time to make theirs a reality. With that being said....

What can you say about George A. Romero's 'Day of the Dead' (1985) that hasn't already been said. It's a film that wasn't nearly the scale and scope that he wanted. He had to tone down his blockbuster story, to match his ever shrinking non-blockbuster budget. The result was still a far superior zombie tale to many of those still being made today. Then, there was 'Day of the Dead' (2008). Steve Miner's attempt to play off of the success of Zack Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' remake in (2004). While I found the film to be quite fun and an interesting take on the original story, it didn't quite have the same staying power. Although, I'll admit that he made the story his own and created a fairly fun little popcorn zombie film. Now, lest you think I've forgotten about 'Day of the Dead 2: Contagium' (2005), I haven't. I just haven't been able to bring myself to watch it, after all of the horrible things I've seen and read about it, I've stayed far away from it. So that brings us to Hèctor Hernández Vicens brand new take on the tale, 'Day of the Dead: Bloodlines' (2018). Now, this isn't a part 2 or a continuation of the original story. This is truly another remake. As it's been well documented, I'm a fan of remakes. I have no issues with them, as long as the creators are doing something different. Making the story their own and bringing something new to the table. Sadly, no one has attempted George A. Romero's original script yet, but maybe someday in the future it'll see the light of day on the big screen. In this version, it sticks pretty close to the original film from 1985. There are a few deviations, but overall, it's the same story with some different characters or ones that have been combined into one person. But before we dig into the finer points of the film, let's break down the plot.

The film begins with a scene of mass hysteria, as the zombie have already begun to overrun the human population. There are people screaming and running for their lives, as everyone around them is either being ripped apart or being turned into the undead themselves. At this point, we meet Zoe. She's trying to grasp what's happening, while trying to find safety and shelter. Now, we rewind to earlier before the outbreak has occurred. We learn that Zoe is a med student and she's got a creeper stalker named Max. As the other med students are having a big party, Zoe is being victimized by Max. Soon, patient zero returns from the dead and begins spreading the zombie virus at an alarming rate. Zoe escapes and we fast forward to the present. Some time has passed and she's found her way into a military stronghold, where she's the only practicing doctor, who's surviving alongside military personal and civilians just hoping to not become part of the world of the undead. When they learn that a little girl has a strain of pneumonia that will potentially infect everyone in the bunker, Zoe leads a team back to the medical school to get much needed medical supplies. When they return, they have an unknown hitchhiker, a very zombie Max. Once they realize he's there, they also realize that he may be the cure to the virus. Not a way to turn everyone back to humans, but the way to keep anyone else from being turned into the walking dead. Before long, things go sideways and Zoe has to do everything she can to save Max, in order to make a cure, but not kill off everyone else in the process.

What's interesting about this take on the original story, is that it's almost like an even more toned down version of what was already toned down. The budget is obviously less than the 1985 and the 2008 versions of the film. While elements of them both still remain, you can clearly see that they were doing the best with what they have. The only real name in the film is Johnathon Schaech, who most of you may recognize from his role as Jimmy in 'That Thing You Do!'. He's taking on the role of Max, the analog for the original and remakes lovable learning zombie, Bub. In this go around, he's not so lovable. They have also gone so far as to explain why he's smarter than your average zombie. Why he retains some of the things that make us human, including logic and reason. He's still a creeper, but we learn very quickly that he's capable of rational thought as he literally hunts down Zoe and keeps himself hidden in the bunker. This doesn't really feel very logical and really hurts the story, in my opinion. Not the fact that he can react to things in a more human way, but that he uses it for the purpose of continuing to be a creeper. He's anything but likable in this film. In this version of the story, Zoe is a composite of both Sarah and Dr. Logan. One of the few female leads and the only doctor on site. We lose the characters of John and Bill, which provided some relief from all the military personal in the original. In this re-telling, it's all military, Zoe and some civilians, probably due to budget, but it gives the viewer less characters to really latch onto. Which in any film where the overall plot is fairly dark, you need some spots of daylight to keep you interested and to give you people to root for. Here, we end up not really having anyone we care about or that we want to see live. Even the zombie, Bub, that we all fell in love with, is turned into something to loathe and despise. It's a brave decision, but the wrong one to make. With a run time of about an hour and 30 minutes, it feels like a 50 minute race to the ending. I never found myself rooting for anyone and it all felt like we were going through the motions. At least in the 2008 film, we still had characters that were fun to watch and even the undead helped to move the story along. One last big change from the original, was the running zombies vs the slow, shambling ones. While this is a stylistic choice, in this film it's not utilized very well. The same can be said for how quickly the infected turn. We even get an explanation that, depending on where you've been bitten, will dictate how quickly you become a 'rotter'. Scientifically, it makes sense, I guess? But this is like the difference between the rate in which you get high taking a Vicodin vs mainlining heroin. Not too mention the blood splatter bursts. That only works in anime, guys.

At the end of a very bloody day, 'Day of the Dead: Bloodlines' kind of fails at what it's trying to do. While I can respect Hèctor Hernández Vicens' vision and what he was trying to do, I think he was hamstrung by a shoddy script and a minuscule budget. The actors seemed to be straight out of film school and there was never really any drama, danger or a real plot to speak of. Imagine taking your favorite story and removing all of the things you really loved about it and replacing it with excerpts from the phone book. That's kind of what we ended up with here and it's a shame. While the original isn't crying out for a remake, after what 'Dawn of the Dead' (2004) did for upping the remake game, there's a potential there to create something amazing. Only time will tell if we'll ever get a version of this story that will stand alongside the original and don't get me wrong, it wasn't a perfect film. However, it's stood the test of time and has still managed to set the tone for generations of zombie films that followed it. It's quotable and has one of the most horrific scenes of undead violence ever committed to the screen. If you don't know what I'm referring too, just think back to when Rhodes finally got his comeuppance. I'm giving this film 1 out of 5 stars. Sadly, it just fell far too short of the mark. Little budget or not, I've seen films on a tiny budget, pull off really big things. So that's not an excuse. Somewhere right now, Bub is rolling over in his empty grave. Also, what was up with Johnathon Schaech's mouth?!?!



If you want to see where this all began, check out: 'Day of the Dead' (1985), 'Day of the Dead' (2008) and while you're at it, check out 'The Battery' a film that was made on a shoestring budget that is still one of the best zombie films of the past 10 years

Remakes, reboots and film distribution: A Message from the Writer Director of Circus of the Dead

My 2 cents for what it's worth... "Remakes, reboots and film distribution"...

As a writer/director I find my self in another world within this very one as my attention drifts from this reality to random things that catch my attention. Now for the record I sold lots of BluRays/DVDs at the event and am not bitter in the least bit. But I saw a trend that distribution companies by Sunday were selling brand new BluRays for 5 for $15 and eventually $2 a pop. Now most of you may not be a filmmaker so I'll set up how this works a little bit for you. The filmmaker sells their film to a distributor and then that film is made available on VOD platforms and retail venues or online stores. The filmmaker usually will get 75-80% on the back end of what their movie makes. Now I just bought 1000 BluRays and shopped around and ended up getting them manufactured for around $3 each. Now the costs of the disc manufacturing come out of the "costs" and that costs has to be paid for before a filmmaker gets any of their percentage. So if a distributor is selling $2 BluRays is it fair to say that the filmmaker is (in a way) paying someone to watch their movie?

A lot of people are angry about the announcement of the Hell Boy reboot. I get it, I've seen 80% of all my favorite films done this way. Now maybe I'm wrong but I'd assume this happens because "Hollywood" sees an opportunity to make cash on a proven golden goose from yesterday. It's always said that Hollywood is outta ideas? I think it's more like they want almost guaranteed money. Now here's what I noticed yesterday. This isn't for a lot of horror fans but I did witness at least half do this. They'd walk by, look up at the Circus of the Dead banners and keep on walking. Now these fans were wearing the usual classic horror movie apparel, costumes, blah blah blah... Someone walked by in a TCM '74 shirt and I stopped them and told them cool shirt. They commenced to tell me that TCM is their fave film and they're sick of Hollywood screwing up the remakes. I asked him why he walked on by after seeing my banners and he said he never heard of it. I told him that I was a Texas filmmaker and that TCM was my favorite horror film too and I think I captured that same big balled independent freedom of the original TCM in my film and persuaded the gentleman to purchase it and threw in a free copy of Doll Boy just because I'm cool that way. Now fast forward to today and I get a message saying how much he loved the film and he can't believe he's never heard of this before. Moral to the story is... stop by these tables and talk to filmmakers and see what they're selling, you just might stumble upon your new favorite movie. The "classics" aren't all great, most are just sentimental to us. Great stuff is being made now, just open your eyes and look for it. Then rent it, buy it and promote it! That's the ONLY way to guarantee we're not living in a reboot remake recycled world!!!! Billy "Bloody Bill" Pon

A Terror Time Out featuring 'Dawn of the Dead' (2004)

One of the first, of the new batch of remakes, that proved that remakes are a legitimate art form.
5 out of 5 stars

my thoughts on.... 'Knock Knock' (an original Creepercast site review)

“Why can't people in Hollywood come up with an original idea anymore?”
That's the question many people seem to be asking recently. Why, you ask? Because remakes are everywhere these days. No matter what your opinion on them, you can't ignore their existence or look at them as lesser films because they're a re-telling of someone's elses original story. Perhaps there are more of them now, than in the past, but remakes have always existed. What's ironic about them is that, when it's a film, it's not okay, but when it's a song or a cartoon, it's accepted and even applauded. Really, what's the difference? Take the music of Mozart, for example, how many times and how many orchestras have redone his various pieces of music? Why doesn't this logic apply to films too? Case in point, Eli Roth's 'Knock Knock', a modern take on Peter Traynor's 1977 film 'Death Game'. Times have changed pretty drastically, since the 70's. Now with the era of cell phones, social media and a new mentality for the modern youth culture, you take something that was dated and make it relevant again. Not unlike swapping out one conductor for another, to re-shape the music and make it something new again. Granted, it may be the same basic story as before, but it feels entirely different and becomes something you can fall in love with all over again. It doesn't happen all the time. There are some directors and studios who are in it for the cash grab. The ones who just want a quick and easy way to make a buck. Those are few and far between, as sequels are the better option for the ones who only worship the almighty dollar. I truly feel that most of the directors who take on the remake or re-imaging, have a genuine desire to pay homage to the original and want to put their own stamp on it. To give it something unique that maybe share something they felt that was missing or that would enhance the original story line. Rob Zombie, Alexandre Aja, and many other well respected directors, have taken something old and made it new again. Now, you can add Eli Roth to that ever growing list.

It's been a big year, so far, for Mr. Roth. As a matter of fact, I already shared my thoughts on his cannibalistic tour de force, 'The Green Inferno'. It took two years for that one to hit the theaters and in the meantime, he hopped back into the director's chair to helm 2015's 'Knock Knock'. He'd taken quite a hiatus, prior to these films, and I was beginning to wonder if he'd ever come back to his roots. He's a man that helmed the next generation of horror masters and brought gore back to the mainstream, where it'd gone missing ever since the self aware 90's. He's someone that never stops moving and always seems to have something going on creatively. Whether it's hosting 'Shark Week' on the Discovery channel or acting in the underrated film 'Aftershock'. (Which he also co-wrote, with Nicholas Lopez.) Eli Roth is a man of many hats. He was born to entertain and never misses the opportunity to do just that. Say what you will about the quality of his work or the method in which he brings it to life, the man's films are never dull. I'm a fan, so I may be a little biased. However, he must be doing something right, as he's worked with some of the biggest and brightest in Hollywood and hasn't stopped working since 'Cabin Fever' was released in 2002. (That film garnered two sequels, both of which had a certain charm on their own, but without him in the director's chair.) 'Knock Knock' stands out among his body of work as a bit of an anomaly. It has all of the earmarks of an Eli Roth joint, but with some restraint in the gore category. You can feel the same tension and not so subtle allegory that he's working to show you, it's just told in a bit more slick and streamlined fashion. Nothing wrong with an artist showing growth in their work. The minute you stop growing and changing, is the moment you hang up your hat and move on to reality television.
The film begins with a tranquil scene of family life. A man, his wife, their 2 kids and Monkey, the French bulldog all waking up to quiet, suburban life. However, you can quickly see the cracks in the foundation, as we're introduced to the fact that things aren't quite what they seem. It's subtle, but still painfully obvious that Evan Webber (played by Keanu Reeves) and Karen Alvarado (played by Ignacia Allamand) are having issues in their marriage. It's even suggested that it wasn't the first time things have been a problem. Soon, his wife and kids are off and he's left alone for the weekend. Then comes the dark and stormy night, not unlike the beginning of oh so many horror stories, when 2 lost girls come knocking on the door. It starts out innocently enough. A man, doing the right thing and helping them to dry off and call them a car to come and pick them up. However, during the 45 minute wait for their ride, there's a shift in the conversation. From innocent to not so innocent to flat out dirty. Evan is flirty, at first, but in a way that most people would react when attention from the opposite sex is shown. Flattered and feeling vital for the first time in a while, he encourages the attention. When they push things past the point where he feels comfortable, he tries to calm things down. He does everything he can, but they refuse to take no for an answer. In a role reversal to most films in this genre, the girls become the predator and the man becomes the prey and once things have gone past the point of no return.... all bets are off. The next morning, Evan finds that they're not in bed anymore. He wanders into the kitchen where they've all but destroyed it while making breakfast. Things turn from bad to worse, as the girls won't leave. After doing everything he can to end this night of terror, they agree to leave. He drops them off and thinks it's over. He ends up being wrong and that's where the real horror begins. What happens from that point forward, has to be seen to be believed. I won't spoil it for you, as part of the fun is the ride itself. If you can call it fun? It's truly a terrifying thing, to know that no matter what you do and how you try and handle a situation, if it's out of your control.... there is nothing you can do. Nothing.

At it's core, 'Knock Knock' is a home invasion film. It also shares a lot of similarities to all of the other films of Eli Roth. From it's slow opening set up, complete with beautiful music playing and very pretty bits of scenery all around. Something to establish what beauty is, before the ugly sets in. Beautiful women and beautiful foreign women, Eli can't get enough of them. All of the tension that illuminates every one of his other films, is ratcheted up in this one, mainly because of the antagonists. You're not quite sure how far they'll go and you also don't know if they are underage or just young looking. It causes you to feel very conflicted and mentally ties your hands as to what you can do to get rid of them, if you were in his shoes? Where things start to separate themselves from his earlier work, is in the gore department. 'Knock Knock' is light on the blood, guts, gore and icky stuff. However, it still feels every bit like an Eli Roth creation. As the story progresses, the film ends up being less of a horror film and more of a psychological thriller, with some horror on the side. It's as if he saw this as an opportunity to turn exploitation films upside down. Make the women the villains and the man the victim. It's very effective, but could be taken as a negative by some. It leaves you wondering if the women are serial killers, girls on some kind of a mission or perhaps just flat out sicko's. It causes Keanu's character to have a weird fit of spastic rage, that is one of the few weak spots in the film. Keanu isn't designed for that kind of outburst, in my opinion. Also, the ending feels right for a film made in the 70's, but sticks out like a sore thumb in a modern film. Is it all a joke or just a game or will this continue to go on for as long as they don't get caught? At the end of a long day of kidnapping, 'Knock Knock' falls into the 3 out of 5 star range. There are far too many plot holes, missing motivations and a script that needed a modern punching up to make this a 4 star film. It doesn't make it a bad film, just less than I expect from a man who's built a solid reputation and is a reason I love horror like I do. Watch it and judge for yourself, just don't let any stranded girls in from the rain, unless your Dieter Laser.... but that's another film.

If you like this, check out some other, intense, home invasion films: 'The Strangers', 'Ils' aka 'Them' or 'Funny Games' (1997 or 2008)