Parks

I've never understood the criticism of John Badham's "Dracula". This was the film that killed his career, post "Saturday Night Fever". It was his "1941" or "Heaven's Gate", and he wouldn't return until "WarGames" a few years later.

Most of the criticism seems to be that the film is unfaithful to the novel which is entirely unfair given that every other single version is as well. And yes, that does include the cheekily titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from 1992, which was nothing of the sort.

More reasonable criticisms would be that the film has a washed-out, bleached aesthetic. That Trevor Eve is a bland Harker and that Olivier's outrageous accent wouldn't be out of place in "Young Frankenstein".

But this shouldn't stop you enjoying this version of the tale. This version makes the best use of the Yorkshire setting of any other adaptation. It's splendidly "Wuthering Heights" and Gothic. The Yorkshire folk are also hilariously grim and miserable and as a dour Yorkshireman myself I appreciate this.

Frank Langella is hypnotic and sinister as Dracula and even now the film features a number of spooky, macabre scenes - such as Dracula clawing at a window, Dracula scaling walls like a spider or the encounter with Mina in the catacombs. The final confrontation with Dracula is also exciting and thrilling.

Why did this fail at the time? I think audiences still had Christopher Lee very much in mind when this movie came out. They couldn't imagine a Dracula with no fangs, no dripping blood and a romantic, brooding presence.

In the modern post-Twilight era, we are now more used to the idea. Dated or not, "Dracula" 1979 does feel like a film that might be more appreciated now than it was then.

"Unfaithful" indeed! Bah!

I am one of those horror fans who LOVES the original movie. Not just like - utterly loved it. I'm aware it's not for everyone, but it is for me.

Obviously I've followed the franchise through its sequels and remakes. And while there have been some highlights there have been many, MANY more disappointments.

The half-hearted "Halloween II" from 1981 - which Carpenter didn't want to write and it shows. The decent "Halloween IV" followed by the inane "Halloween V" that bottled out on the ending set up by IV. The enjoyable H20 followed by the absolute disaster that was "Halloween: Resurrection". The interesting Rob Zombie remake followed by the WTF Zombie sequel.

Halloween fans are used to having our hopes raised, then dashed, is what I'm trying to say.

And now we have the conclusion to the new trilogy. Sadly, it's a familiar sinking feeling we're left with. After the superior 2018 movie, my hopes were high indeed that THIS time we'd get good, coherent sequels to finally finish out the story.

And despite the spotty and inconsistent "Halloween Kills" I still held on to hope. It was a middle part after all. David Gordon Green and Danny McBride could still bring it home for "Ends".

But.

Sadly.

Not.

I've read DGG's comments that the plot of "Ends" was always intended. Maybe it was. But it's a sad reflection on the story that ends up being told here, that it FEELS like the writers were fired after "Kills" and replaced by someone told to do a complete 180 on what had come before.

The complete change in character on the parts of Laurie and Allyson is the most jarring problem with "Ends". Laurie goes from guarded survivalist to unguarded optimist. The reason, we are told, is that she has learned to move past fear.

I mean. That's lovely for Laurie. But hard to swallow when it happens offscreen in between a movie which ended in tragedy and slaughter and this one.

Allyson is even worse. From an intelligent, open-minded young woman who wants to understand her grandmother's trauma, she has now regressed into a whiny, irritant who refuses to listen to her grandmother's (understandable and reasonable) warnings.

There is seemingly no reason for their character overhaul other than the story needs them to be different people than the ones we met in earlier films.

I didn't have so much of a problem with Corey and at least his character journey did make some sort of sense. All the same, it did muddy this movie's intended (I think) message about letting go of fear. Actually it contradicts that message entirely.

It's not all bad news. There are some parts of "Ends" that I enjoyed. But that's the frustrating part. I can't like the film as a whole. I can enjoy it only sporadically.

And there it is; the story of the whole franchise. Hugely enjoyable in parts, massively frustrating at others. It is no wonder that we Halloween fans constantly come up with new ways to watch these films - (Halloween 78, Halloween II 81, H20) or (Halloween 78, Halloween 2018) - and pretending those other movies just never happened.

I'm afraid that "Ends" ends up in that same bin - and along with it, the middle part "Kills" as well. They can be filed alongside Busta Rhymes's kung fu, Rob Zombie's white horses and Silver Shamrock's masks.

To be honest, that whole "pain is pleasure" thing that powers the original movie never really worked for me, and I never made it past the first sequel, "Hellbound".

But I was intrigued enough by the trailer to try this new movie.

I have to give it credit for at least attempting to give some additional explanation to the original story of the Lament Configuration.

But unfortunately that weighs the whole thing down with a new set of rules which make very little sense even within the confines of this story.

For example, Cenobites are fast-moving and all-powerful - except when the story needs them to be slow and a bit dumb. Nothing can stop the Cenobites, except when the movie needs to hit "pause". Victims are relentlessly taken straight away, except when we need a character to stop and think about their choices.

The underlying tale of accepting pain in actual life is not bad, but bludgeoned home by moralising monsters clad in leather at the end of the movie. The Cenobites aren't so much monsters in this film as they are flawed philosophers, turning up every now and again to chunter some trite nonsense about choices and desires.

Also they actually kill people in this movie. Which is not nearly as terrifying as the original concept that they were carrying off their victims for eternal torment. How prosaic.

And at the end, it remains flat. Unscary. Unfunny. Uninteresting. Like another installment in a particularly bloody soap opera.

And please spare me the "deep" dialogue if this reboot does get a sequel.