As the October EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest continues, we revisit the fourth movie in a franchise that brings meta filmmaking to a new level. Scream 4 features Neve Campbell as the ultimate victim-turned-bad ass Sidney Prescott, and directed by horror icon Wes Craven.

Murder is the name of the game in Woodsboro once again as super survivor Sidney (Neve Campbell) returned to face off again with the next version of Ghostface. This time, Ghostface is targeting Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her friends, in order to film his murders.

The basic pattern of the film follows the original Scream, which is actually a piece of the plot of the film. Our favorite characters Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) are married now, but that does not prevent them from being blade deep in this story.

We meet a bunch of new high school students, some of which are obsessed with movies and others who are there as red herrings to make the audience wonder if they might be the returning Ghostface. There must be something in the water at Woodsboro High to keep cranking out these weirdos.

I could understand someone saying that this movie is nothing more than repetitive, but I feel that the film uses that as a hook to the franchise. There is so much meta story telling going on in the Scream franchise that, with the inclusion of Stab, the movie-within-a-movie, it works.

You would think that, after all this time, Sidney might get herself a permit to carry a gun. Seems to me she could absolutely find an argument for why she needed one.

With the news of a fifth film coming from this franchise, you would have to argue that Scream is one of, if not the, best horror franchises of all time. While none of the sequels reach the campy goodness of the original, all three sequels are fun and entertaining, with lots of positives with them. Even the much maligned Scream 3 contains lots of positives and enjoyment to be had.

Scream has avoided the problem of being repetitive, actually turning that into a strength of the story, and we have recurring characters that we cheer for and want to see again.

Continuing with the October EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest, last night I watched the original Candyman, from the mind of Clive Barker, directed by Bernard Rose.

I had never seen Candyman and, honestly, knew very little about it going in. With that, I really enjoyed this horror film and found it to be original and very creepy.

Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) was a student who was preparing a college thesis on the urban legend of the Candyman, a creature who was said to arrive and murder people when the person would speak his name five times into a mirror. Helen was a true skeptic and was more interested in the psychology behind the phenomenon than the actual killer.

When it seemed as if she had proven her thesis, she made the mistake of summoning the Candyman and she found her life in a downward spiral.

The way Candyman attacked her was ingenious and very entertaining. Tony Todd brought a frightening ambiance to the character of the Candyman and the very reverence that the creature had among the neighborhood created the specific charisma of the character. The voice fit beautifully into the lexicon of the character.

Virginia Madsen is top notch as Helen, showing her growing fear and uncertainty of what is happening around her and how she just simply is never sure of what she can do.

There is a lot of blood and gore in the film but it is not done as an excuse. It has a reason for its inclusion in the story and, because of that, works well.

The music of the film helped increase the anxiety and tension that the movie was trying to build.

The ending of the movie was strong too, although the fire scene was a little confusing. I did enjoy the ironic resolution to Helen’s story.

I liked this one a lot. I am not sure why I had never seen it, or even knew much about it. One of the better horror films from the 1990s.

When I was watching Creepshow this morning, I saw the name of this movie listed on the screen and I decided that this would be a good film to continue the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest with a film that I have not seen in a long time: The Dead Zone.

After an auto accident, Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken) wound up in a coma for five years, altering his life forever. When he awoke, he discovered that he had an ability to see the future.

Christopher Walken is tremendous in The Dead Zone. His performance carried the plot and made the strangeness of the story reasonable. The Dead Zone could have been way over-the-top, but it was grounded and realistic. Walken was a major part of that.

Martin Sheen’s work as the cruel political candidate for Senator was exceptional. It did not take long for me to hate this character, and Sheen embraced that.

The story had several parts to it, which felt almost like an anthology of adventures for Johnny Smith. He was involved with Tom Skerritt as a sheriff trying to stop a killer. He was a tutor to a young kid (Simon Craig) who was having trouble interacting with the world. He was involved in the Martin Sheen story. These all blended together into the story that would become The Dead Zone.

The ending of the Dead Zone hit me hard when I first saw this years ago at a sleep over at a friend’s house. I did not like it at the time because I wanted a happier ending than what was here. At this point, I found the ending extremely satisfying.

I think this is one of the better Stephen King adaptations around.

After watching the 1990 version of Lord of the Flies, I decided that the next film for the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest would be the original version from 1963,

The 1963 version was directed by Peter Brook and was shown in black and white. The use of the black and white always creates a more interesting dynamic of the film, and this is not the exception.

However, I was surprised how consistent the two versions were, with the 1990 version being larger in shots but not much different besides that.

One difference was that in the 1990 film, the kids were all from a military academy whereas this version had them separate. The group introduced with Jack (Tom Chapin) were from a military school, but Ralph (James Aubrey) and Piggy (Hugh Edwards) were British school boys. That difference between them make the eventual turn more effective.

There also seemed to be that the start of the movie had the world involved in a nuclear war, leaving everything up in the air about what might be around in society outside of the island.

Those were all basically character moments that altered the manner in which the characters would react, but the basic structure of the plot was fairly close to the 1990 movie.

The child actors here do a fine job as well, though we still only really get development among the three main characters, Ralph, Jack and Piggy.

This feels as if the innocent lost theme is stronger than in the 1990 version. I would be interested in reading the original novel and seeing where they fall after that.

The next film in the October EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest is an adaptation of William Golding’s iconic novel, Lord of the Flies.

This is the most recent adaptation of the novel that tells the story of a group of kids stranded on a deserted island and how they descended into chaos and savagery without the rules of the adult world.

I remembered liking this movie a lot when it originally came out despite middling reviews. This time through, it was still a good watch, but I will admit to not feeling the same power as I did the first time.

I have not read William Golding’s novel, so I cannot comment on the adaptation. I am planning on watching the 1963 film version soon to make a comparison. I have heard that the 1990 adaptation is not on the level of the 1963 one and that it changes a lot of what make the book special. This is not uncommon among movie adaptations, but you would hope that any changes were made because of proper reasons and not just to make changes.

The most powerful moment in this movie for me back when I first saw it was the death of Piggy (Danuel Pipoly). I had a hard time accepting the manner in which it happened and how these kids could just go along with it. This time through I was expecting it and it did not make as large of an impact on me.

The rivalry between Ralph (Balthazar Getty) and Jack (Chris Furrh) is at the center of the film, but it feels pushed here. I would have liked to see more between the boys. There was an early movie scene of them play fighting on the beach which was nice, but there was not enough of that to really drive home the power of Jack’s eventual betrayal.

I am not sure that the movie ever sufficiently dealt with the storyline of the “monster.” It was obvious who the monster was but I did not see it handled. Maybe I missed it.

The ending of the movie came very quickly too. It lacked a flow that made it feel as if it just came out of nowhere.

Having said all of these negatives, these young boys did a good job with their roles. Unlike the Children of the Corn, these boys brought emotion and skill to their parts, even those that were small and not deeply developed.

The shots on the island were done well and the music added to the tone of each shot. The look of the movie was top notch and helped balance out some of the other parts that may not have been as solid.

This did take a step back from where I saw it back in the early 1990s, but it was still a good effort and the positives do stand out.

The next film in the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest is the 1984 cult classic, Children of the Corn, from Stephen King. Like many other films that reach cult film classic level, this film is not very good. However, I have to say that I enjoyed watching it this morning despite its many (many) flaws. I just do not think that I enjoyed this in the manner that they had intended.

Newly minted doctor Burt (Peter Horton) and his girlfriend Vicky (Linda Hamilton) are driving to their new lives when a young boy appeared in the road before them. The boy is struck by the car and dies, but Dr. Burt discovered that the boy’s throat had already been slit.

The couple drives into the small town of Gatlin to try to call for help, only to discover that the adults of the town were missing and that the town had been overtaken by a crazed religious cult of the children, lead by the weird sounding Isaac (John Franklin).

The cult was beginning their latest sacrifice to their lord and they wanted to add the “Outlanders” to the bill.

Though the beginning of the film started out well, the last half or so really stretched credibility and descended into silliness and campy behavior. Honestly, I am not sure what was happening at the end as monsters began appearing, despite very little groundwork being laid for this result. Characters and their choices felt inconsistent and seemed to change whenever the plot needed it to.

The acting was, at best, poor. The problem with having such a large cast of children involved is that you risk the danger of bringing wooden performances and, sadly, that is what happened here. I don’t fault them, because they are clearly trying their best, but there are not any standout future stars among the child actors here.

Linda Hamilton is here, bringing her own reputation to the film, but her character is not much more than a female stereotype of the time. She was a woman in need of rescue and even the young kid Job (Robby Kiger, who would play Patrick in the Monster Squad) got to be more heroic. It was a definite sign of the times.

There were some interesting ideas that were barely touched upon, such as Job’s sister Sarah (Anne Marie McEvoy) and her ability to see the future by drawing it. This power was just touched upon and was not important in the finale at all.

Still, I was entertained by the silliness. It feels like a B movie that is not to be taken seriously and in that vein, this works. If you are really looking for good character work or a comprehensive and understandable story, this does not work.

The next film in the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest is a film that I just found out about today. After watching Charlie Plummer in Spontaneous, I found this one on his IMDB page and it sounded fascinating. I have always had an interest in serial killers, and yes, I know that sounds weird. Yet, they intrigue me and the synopsis of this movie fell right into place. Tyler Burnside (Charlie Plummer) is a normal teen whose life seems too perfect. He is a Boy Scout and his father Don (Dylan McDermott) is the Scoutmaster. In order to impress his girlfriend, Tyler “borrowed” his dad’s new truck, but, when his girlfriend discovered a weird bondage pic in the truck, Tyler gained a reputation as the pervert. Tyler did not understand how that picture got in the truck, so he did a little investigating on his own. During this time, he uncovered evidence that suggested that his father was the infamous Cloverhitch Killer, a serial killer from years ago that was inactive. Tyler teamed up with another girl, Kassi (Madisen Beaty), who had been known to be looking into the Clovehitch case. The tension in this movie is high level and it builds slowly as the film progresses. You think you know what is happening, but there is always a kernel of doubt in your mind. What if Tyler is wrong and he is misinterpreting the evidence? The film does a solid job of keeping the audience on its toes as the suspense builds. Dylan McDermott and Charlie Plummer are fantastic in these roles that take a truly challenging subject and place these characters square in the center. This relationship needed to work for this story to be effective and the connection between father and son is clear here. The imagery of the film is done well and creates an unsettling mood that carries through the movie.  There are some claustrophobic feelings here as the truth begins to come to the surface. The third act changes the format some as we flashback to see Tyler and Kassi’s movements over a time period that we had already seen.  This technique has been used very effectively over the years, and this works here too.  The conclusion of the film is controversial and I can see where some viewers may not have enjoyed it.  I do not want to spoil it, but the conclusion could be divisive.  It did seem to be out of character and made me worry for the future of said character. This is a quiet little movie that deals with some strong character work with some talented actors.  The film does a great job in unnerving the audience and keeps you just uncertain enough to make you question what you know.

3.9 stars   

The EYG Horror Halloween Bingefest resumed this week with a horror/comedy anthology movie called Creepshow, directed by George A. Romero and written by Stephen King.

Creepshow is a compilation of five short stories brought together with the framing technique of stories from a horror comic owned by a young boy (Joe King) that had been thrown out by his loud and obnoxious father (Tom Atkins).

From there we move around to the different stories that feature a plethora of big time stars. The cast included Hal Holbrook, Leslie Nielson, Ted Danson, Ed Harris, Adrienne Barbeau, Stephen King, E.G. Marshall, Fritz Weaver, Don Keefer among others.

The movie was a serious slice of 1980s. There is no doubt which decade this film was created in. Watching it now gave me a huge feeling of nostalgia and that helped the presentation of the stories. The dark humor was funny as well, with a lot of irony cutting through the darkness.

My personal favorites of the anthology were “Something to Tide You Over” with Leslie Nielson looking to exact some revenge on Ted Danson, and “The Crate” where a certain monstrous creature arrives in a crate and goes about killing several people. Both of these were a hoot to watch.

The film was uneven, as some of the moments of Creepshow were not up to par as some others, but it was a lot of fun to watch. I especially enjoyed the comic book motif that was scattered throughout the film.

Certainly a horror/comedy classic and you may never look at a cockroach the same way again.

The next film in the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest is one of the early comic book movies that helped start the current trend in Blade, starring Westley Snipes as the Daywalker.

I have to say, there were more than a few moments of this movie that I was not a fan of on this viewing. While I still enjoyed Blade a lot, I did not love this as much as I did when I first saw it back in 1998.

Born of an infected mother, Blade (Westley Snipes) is the mixed blood between vampires and humans and he is out to kill all of the blood suckers. Working with weapon-maker Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), Blade has been searching for Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff), whose plan to bring back the Blood God threatens everyone.

Westley Snipes is a great Blade. He made this role his own and it became iconic because of his portrayal. There were a time or two where I did not like choices that were made by the actor which did not feel like it was Blade, but that is a minor problem. He was much better than not as the Daywalker.

Stephen Dorff is excellent as the villainous Frost. He is slimy and as evil as they come. He is the best villain in the Blade franchise by a mile. There is also the great Donal Logue (Gotham’s Harvey Bullock) is here too as henchman Quinn.

Unfortunately, Kris Kristofferson feels fairly wasted here as Whistler, the cliched older father figure who you knew was destined to die. This archetype is overused in this type of movie.

The action in the movie is tremendous and takes this film to another level. The story or the performances were fine, but it is an action movie and, in that area, Blade really comes through in a stylish and dramatic fashion.

While it may not be as great of a movie as I once thought it was, Blade nails a lot of the genre of vampires and gives us an original, black hero to cheer for and Wesley Snipes is the perfect casting as Blade. I am anxious to see how Mahershala Ali fills the shoes when Blade debuts in the MCU.

Next in line for the EYG Halloween Horror Bingefest is a film that has inspired several sequels but one that I have never seen. It is director Christophe Gans’ Silent Hill.

Silent Hill is based on a video game, and, after seeing the film, that does not surprise me because the story here is as one dimensional as most video game stories.

Unable to accept that her daughter is dying, Rose (Radha Mitchell) takes her away to a faith healer, looking for answers. However, after passing through a portal in reality, they wind up in a mysterious town called Silent Hill, where the daughter immediately disappears.

From here we get dark, hate-filled characters and ugliness galore, albeit visually impressive. Very little makes any sense and the dialogue is video game level, at best.

I found this to be a total bog to trudge through and I have very little if anything to say positive about this. I found Silent Hill to be an extremely unwelcomed experience and it certainly did not inspire me to watch any of the list of sequels that followed it.