THE GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN

It's officially Halloween, that's not just the time of fright, partying, and candy, but is also the time of nostalgia. Remembering the costumes we wore, the people we trick-or-treated or partied with, the old decorations that we never see again, the amount of scares that we remember having, and the Halloween and horror movies that we grew up watching around this time. So considering the nostalgia factor of the holiday, I'm going to revisit a haunted house film that I saw when I was very young.

I've shared a few stories of me roaming around "Blockbuster" during my time of innocence. I would spend most of my time as a kid at the kids section or video game section because of my age and interests, but my favorite section that I loved in the entire store was the horror section. I remember that the first time that I have ever walked down aisle, I was completely mesmerized by it. I admired seeing the amount of horror movies that the store had as I gazed at all the box covers surrounding me that ranged from having classic monsters to monsters looking so grotesque and frightening that I was scared but amazed by it at the same time. I wanted to see and rent every movie in the aisle, and when I told my Mom about my discovery, that was when I learned that there were movies that are forbidden for my age. She didn't tell me why, she just simply told me that they were too scary for young kids by containing lots of blood, which disappointed me big time, but I was still able to rent the classic horror movie "Dracula".

One day I went browsing through the store figuring out what film I should rent as I was with my babysitter (who was easily the worst one I had), and then I saw a horror movie that caught my eye titled...

Seeing that this was a haunted house movie that looked cool, I asked my babysitter to rent it for me. Obviously not knowing that this was a comedy or who Don Knotts is, she forbid me from renting it by telling me that it was rated R. Now being a kid who couldn't fully read yet, and never ever hearing or knowing what an R rating was, I assumed that was the name of the movie, and when I wasn't allowed to see this movie without knowing what lurks inside the spooky old house, I started to angrily cry and yell as I was stomping my feet hard to the ground "I WANT TO WATCH RATED R"! I was forced to leave the store, but I wasn't going to give up. I tried to tell my Mom that I wanted to see rated R, who unknowing to the fact that I thought it was the title, told me that I'm not allowed to watch those kinds of movies, hence leading to me learning about the rating system. Later on that year, I went back with my Grandmother, showed her the film and she allowed me to see it (probably because she knew it was harmless). Being beyond excited to see it, I quickly popped the film in my VCR, sat down, watched the film from beginning to end and I loved it despite being slightly disappointed that the entire film didn't take place inside the haunted house. I loved its atmosphere, I loved the music, I loved the surprises inside the house, and above all I loved watching Don Knotts in it which led to me to become a big fan of his works after watching this film countless times (thanks to my Father for purchasing a copy for me). This was a movie that I'd always love to tell people about as a kid, where I'd write little comics based on it, fast-forward and rewind it back just to listen to the music, and mimic Don Knotts for people (Half of the time my Mom would ask me to do it in front of her friends, which I'd timidly do so). Like a lot of movies that I watched growing up, this became one of the many films that I haven't sat down and watched from start to finish for years, and being the spirit Halloween and remembering what a huge mark that it left on me during childhood, I'm going to review it to see how well it holds up.

Don Knotts plays Luther Heggs, a nervous typesetter for the local newspaper in the small town of “Rachel” who hopes to one day be a reporter for the paper. As an attempt to increase paper sales, Luther is given the chance to do a report by spending the night alone at an old mansion on the night of the 20th anniversary of the murder/suicide that took place there. A shaky Luther takes the job, and goes from scaring himself silly to witnessing paranormal activity happening inside. His report becomes a major success, where he's suddenly praised by his town as a hero for his bravery. The celebration is cut short, when a descendant of the deceased owner of the house threatens to sue the paper for slandering his family name through a tall-tale that has prevented him from bulldozing down the house because of its popularity.

Everybody knew Don Knotts as the nervous cop Barney Fife on "The Andy Griffith Show" before this film, but aside from a few cameos that he's made in a couple of films, he never had the chance to play-up his famous shtick as a leading character. The only leading role he was given was "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" which he was good at playing up the innocent nerdy qualities of the character but he wasn't acting as animated as he usually is, even when he actually is animated. On the positive side though, the film did prove that Don Knotts can carry a full length movie in the lead role, which led to him being casted in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" only this time he'd be allowed to do what he'd normally do, that in some respects seemed like a risk, because whenever he plays out for comedy he's always casted as a supporting character. Having him use his comedic talent that he's already recognized for in an hour and a half film could get old and annoying very fast. But he succeeded and would go on to star in a handful of comedies distributed by Universal and Disney, and yet when people bring up his film career most people would speak fondly of him in this film.

 

I suppose the reason why is because that's either how they were introduced to him, or that this was the movie that launched his film career. But I think the real reason why people remember him in this movie so much more is for the set-up. What's the best way of giving Don Knotts an excuse to act so wild and shaky, have him go inside a haunted house where we know just as much of what's behind every corner as he does, as we find ourselves laughing at him from his interaction inside the house, and frightened with him for the anticipation of what lurks inside and what we do see that's not his mind playing tricks on him. I swear that this film was specifically written for him for how perfectly he fits the coward personality of Luther Heggs, nor can I picture any other actor at the time that can top his energy and wide eyed facial expressions when encountering the spooky stuff. Everything he does in this film is just comedic gold for how he flawlessly fits the crazy scenarios, as he's still able to pull off being charming for how helplessly sweet he is who just wants to prove to everyone that he's not as weak as they give him credit for. You feel attached to his character for how likable and relatable he is as you're rooting for him all the way, but you're not hesitant to laugh at him either for when he gets into trouble. His most hilarious scenes are when he reports a murder at a police station, tries to make a speech, and whenever he visits the haunted house.

The stuff involving the haunted house also plays a major role of why the film is so fondly remembered. The comedy involving Don Knotts is great, but it's the atmosphere that makes these scenes stand-tall. The film is distributed by Universal Studios, and if you know their history of horror movies, they're usually pros when creating a haunting atmosphere, and this film is no exception! The exterior shots of the house look very foreboding for how old and creepy looks as it’s surrounded by darkness and trees blowing in the eerie wind, where the only light we see of it at night is the bright flash of lightning reflecting on it. The interior shots of the house don't disappoint either because it looks just as chilling by being consumed with shadows, cobwebs, and dusty antiques, as we hear the thunder crashing outside. It's as classic of a haunted house as it can get with a couple of surprises that are either funny, scary, or mysterious. And though that the film is a comedy, the scenes involving Luther roaming around the house move at a slow pace to let the atmosphere sync-in and build tension, that's on many occasions quiet.

When these scenes aren't quiet, they'd be accompanied by Vic Mizzy's score, which is another important ingredient of what makes the film stand-out in Knotts' film career. Mizzy is no stranger to composing music for a horror comedy because he's already composed the immortal finger snapping theme music for "The Addams Family" that had a fun spooky vibe to it. The music that he composed for this inspite of it not being nearly as remembered as "The Addams Family" theme song, is still one of his best works. The theme music that plays throughout the film carries the same amount of jazz and rhythm while establishing its playfully creepy vibe as his most well-known piece of music, that's just as catchy. Mizzy however doesn't always jazz-up the music to fit the film's comedic nature, because he does go for complete chills for whenever we hear the sound of the organ playing in the film, that still to this day manages to give me goosebumps every time I hear it. These two pieces are the kind of music that you'd hear on the classic Disney ride "The Haunted Mansion" with the film's main theme being the "Grim Grinning Ghost" of the movie, as the creepy organ music is the music you immediately hear when entering the mansion. The rest of the score isn't bad either. It has a lighthearted and sentimental feel when we see Luther walking around in this sunny small town and try to talk the girl he likes, that's drenched in the 60s, but is still welcoming for how nostalgic it is. Some of the underrated bits of music that I don't hear many fans of the film talk about is the clarinet that's played for when Luther feels down and out that's sad but as tuneful as the film's theme; and the background music for when Luther rushes to the rescue sounding comically triumphant.

Don Knotts is clearly the funniest actor in the entire movie, but the rest of the cast manages to be entertaining and stand-out for how perfectly casted each and every one of them are. Characters like the sweet and charming Alma (Joan Stanley in a wig); Luther's bully of a rival in the newspaper business who's everything that he wants to be Ollie (Skip Homeier, who I swear that if the film were made in the 90s he'd be played by Christopher McDonald); the head of the newspaper that Luther works for George Beckett (Dick Sargent); the creepy yet humble janitor who used to work at the old house Mr. Kelsey (Liam Redmond); and the nasty and cold heir to the house Nicholas Simmons (Philip Ober), are all memorable for how the actors pull-off their distinctive personalities without resorting to being as exaggerated as Knotts is, that way when we see Knotts work-off his shtick with the actors opposite of him, the relationship that he has with them feels believable for how naturally they fit their roles and interact with each other, while still leaving plenty of room for comedy to fit the scenario and Luther's status among the people he talks too. There are indeed some comical characters as well, but most them are only present for a short amount of time and don't appear as much as the supporting characters that I just mentioned. Some of the funniest ones include Hal Smith as the drunk seen at the beginning; Hope Summers as the hysterical neighbor who witnesses a murder; Jim Begg as the screaming cop Herkie; Eddie Quillan as the elevator operator; James Millhollin as the bumbling nervous banker Mr. Maxwell, and Reta Shaw as his stubborn wife who embraces the supernatural; and an-off-screen citizen who is always heard yelling "Attaboy!" voiced by the film's scriptwriter Everett Greenbaum. There are even some funny ones who are in one scene or two small scenes that say little and do little and yet they too are unforgettable and have their funny moments that are subtle, like Herbie Faye as the patron in the restaurant, and Burt Mustin as one of the borders living with Luther. The list goes on when describing the supporting characters. There are so many other characters and performances that I feel deserve a mention (like the rest of the boarders, and the people we meet inside the courtroom), but I feel that meeting and watching these characters is part of the same unpredictable fun that the film offers for the haunted house scenes. It's indeed one of those films where I don't find any of the characters no matter how small to be forgettable or boring.

 

I can't pretend that this film is a comedy masterpiece because with the exception of Don Knotts, it's not all that funny. Sure all the characters are memorable as some of them provide a few funny lines or a subtle joke that fits the person they're playing, it's just that it's not aiming for as many big laughs as you expect it would. Plenty of that has to do with the atmosphere. The only time when the film feels like a movie is when we're at the haunted house, while the rest of the film plays out more like a sitcom from its low-budget quality when capturing the small town of "Rachel" to having the majority of actors (including the lead) being TV actors with most of the jokes being character based jokes that are dialogue heavy. It's not bad but for a film with Don Knotts inside a haunted house, there's less haunted house action and more of the characters interacting with each other in their community in a fashion similar to "The Andy Griffith Show". Half of the time I keep expecting to hear a laugh track play to make these mildly funny scenes of the characters talking to be funnier since that's how most of it feels directed. The reason why a huge chunk of the film feels this way is because the film is directed by Alan Rafkin who's best known for directing episodes for many popular sitcoms at the time (including "The Andy Griffith Show"), who doesn't exactly fail as a filmmaker movie, but clearly he's more at home with directing TV shows. Apart from its sitcom style that takes up at least 80% of the film, and containing a great amount of dialogue jokes that range from okay to annoyingly repetitive (the reason why fans remember the quotes from this movie is most likely because that most of them are repeated more than twice); the love story that Luther has with Alma is cute and all, but it only exists so that Luther can have some kind of trophy from being a zero to a hero. There are also a few plot holes that I still find myself questioning about all these years that take place in the first scene of the movie, and the climax (both mainly having to do with the presence and absences for most of the characters).

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The best way to describe this film as a whole is to picture an episode of "Scooby Doo" with an atmosphere that's part "Andy Griffith" and part Disney's "Haunted Mansion" (THE RIDE, mind you). It's not going to have you laughing all the way through, or offer as many spooky surprises as you'd hope to see, but it's still a highly enjoyable innocent film that has plenty of entertainment and atmosphere. Don Knotts is a riot; everything involving the haunted house is awesome (easily being the best parts of the movie); Vic Mizzy's score is one of his greats that helps give the films its identity; it has a striking large cast of charming and colorful characters; and despite being a family friendly comedy, I like that it has a bit of an edge to make it feel scary and adult at times. Sure it has a sitcom vibe that's drenched in its time period, but that's part of its wholesome charm that makes the film feel quite inviting. Its hands-down Don Knotts' best film, for not just how funny he is, but that there's more substance to the film itself than just Don Knotts alone. If you do decide to see the film, I strongly urge you to avoid the trailer at all costs because literally all the surprises inside the house are given away!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN EVERYONE!!!!

SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE

Years ago I reviewed the "Kino" cut of the famous silent horror movie "Nosferatu". A film that still manages to bring great chills to this very day for its Gothic atmosphere, slow-pacing, Hans Erdmann's score, and above all Max Schreck as the primary villain Count Orlok underneath vampire make-up that looks so realistic and fit Schreck's style of acting so well, that you can almost swear that he actually is a vampire himself! Because of Schreck's iconic image and natural performance that started an urban legend that he was one, a film based on this idea was released in 2000 titled...



I heard about the movie from James Rolfe's "Monster Madness" review of the original silent classic, and gave it a watch out of pure excitement for how much I loved the concept of the film being shot with a real-life vampire. When the film was over, I was left baffled unsure if I thought if it was a good movie or not. It had some great performances, and cool visuals, but throughout my experience I found most of it to be dull and confusing that all led up to an insane finale that just suddenly ends the film abruptly right after it’s over. I didn't know what to make of this film for how weird and crazy it was that somehow felt lifeless in the long run. In spirit of the season, I've decided to give this film another look with more of a critical eye than I did before to see if it gets any better upon a second viewing.

Again (like in my review of "Last Action Hero" and both adaptations of "Horton Hears a Who") I already described the film's overall plot when talking about my first experience with the film, so I'm skipping my synopsis of the film.



The whole idea of shooting an iconic vampire film with an actual one sounded fascinating enough, but what really made me crave to see this film was that this famous rat-like vampire was being played by Willem Dafoe, who I thought was a perfect casting choice since he can play odd and deranged villainous characters so well, that even if he wasn't scary he'd still be as entertaining to watch as say Tim Curry playing a villain. When I casually watched his performance upon my first viewing, I was in love with it for how he became as subtly creepy as how Max Schreck played the vampire in the original, except now we can hear this famous character talk. And truthfully even though I do at times get the sense that Dafoe is putting on a thick Hungarian accent over his distinctive voice, his soft-spoken tone and eerie accent is how I most likely would expect the character of Count Orlok to sound-like based on his body language and background. Dafoe doesn't go as over the top as one would expect him too when playing the role, he legitimately gives his character a lot of dignity as if he was performing in a tragedy written by William Shakespeare. That's primarily because Max Schreck is a tragic character, that I have not picked-up on during my first viewing of the film for how subtle it is. Schreck understands the value of human life, but the problem is he's a vampire and must live by the rules of the dead otherwise he'll starve and die, and the more he's kept away from feeding on humans the more he has trouble controlling himself which will result to him acting animalistic by only thinking with his vampire instincts since it's in the nature of the beast. Because of Dafoe's phenomenally chilling performance, he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting actor, and was hired to play the Green Goblin in "Spider-Man" after the producers saw him in this film (it just sucks that they had to give him such a silly mask that hides his terrifying face for the majority of the picture).



Increasing my appreciation for the film during my second viewing was the fact that Schreck isn't the film's only tragic monster. The portrayal of silent filmmaker F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) is like watching Tim Burton's version of Edward D. Wood Jr. as if he was a madman! Murnau is a passionate filmmaker who wants to have his vision fully realized no matter what it takes. If he can't do an adaptation to "Dracula", he'll just simply change the names of the characters hoping that he won't get sued. If filming scenes on location is too expensive, he'll just do it anyway not caring how much money he spends. Every time Malkovich is on-screen he greatly expresses a burning passion of a determined artist for how he gleefully films his scenes as he narrates them to give the actor's a perfect description of what he envisions. But since his mind is always focused on his desires, he thinks more selfishly and jumps for the opportunity of casting a real-life vampire in his film without thinking rationally. He really doesn't need to cast the vampire since he's still required to act, and is only making things harder on himself and the people working with him considering that he has to keep Schreck from eating people while meeting his demands and playing up a charade that he's a method actor. But since the idea of casting a real-life vampire is guaranteed to bring chills to anyone who sees his movie for being 100% authentic than having an actor play the role, he's willing to put up with this extra set of problems that no filmmaker has ever had to deal with, even if it means sacrificing one of his stars as payment. And as the tensions with him working with Schreck increases he himself gradually grows insane to the point where it tears him apart leading him to feel that nobody else matters (including his star and his own-life) but the camera. Like Schreck, he puts people's life on the line to achieve what he desires, making him just as monstrous, and probably the film's true monster because he's not doing this for his health.



As I found more to appreciate from the two main stars, I began to find the supporting characters more appealing when originally I didn't find any of them to stand-out. None of them are as fascinating as the two characters that are always at each others throats, but there's still plenty of fun to be had with them for them to be memorable. Udo Kier does an entertaining job playing the tough and constantly stressed producer of the film Albin Grau who is always trying to reason with Murnau; Catherine McCormack as the leading lady of the film "Nosferatu" Greta Schroeder, captures the innocence of the role of Ellen Hutter when performing in-front of the camera, when off-camera she's a total diva who'd rather be performing on stage in-front of an audience than in front-of a camera; and Eddie Izzard as the actor portraying Hutter in the film does a perfect impersonation of mimicking Gustav von Wangenheim when being filmed. The supporting actor who steals the show and doesn't appear till the near end of the second act is Cary Elwes as Murnau's replacement photographer. Much like Murnau, he is very passionate about the art of film-making and uses a few unusual methods to get a shot or scene right not caring how strange his method and overall enthusiastic personality is, except that he's saner than his boss because he never goes too far when filming a scene his own special way. In some ways you could interpret his character as the filmmaker that Murnau thinks he is, when in reality Schreck reflects who Murnau truly is, just for how much he shares in common with these two.



The film may have a dark and twisted nature with plenty of deep thought given to its protagonist and antagonist, but it doesn't distance itself away too far from its dark comedy. That's the true beauty of this movie because no matter how dramatic and insane a scene is, there's still that touch of comedy that's not always being played-out directly at you. I mean let's be honest as ingeniously fascinating as the film's premise is, how could it not be a little funny? Just imagine all of the strange and crazy possibilities of working with a vampire who's posing himself as a method actor played on a comedic level. It's practically made to be written as a comedy. Two of the best scenes involving the film's dark sense of humor is when Schreck breaks-down and tries to feed on one of the crew members after seeing a sight of blood; and the monologue that Schreck gives to a drunk Albin and Henrik the screenwriter (Aden Gillett) about how he feels about the character of Dracula in the novel just simply because he has to prepare a meal for a mortal, that's then followed by him eating a bat in-front of them causing them to praise what a brilliant actor he is. These scenes are funny because of the interaction that the unsuspecting mortals share with Schreck that's backed by clever writing, and still comes off as both scary and tragic for how Dafoe plays this tormented blood-thirsty vampire. I heavily admire when comedies are able to fit the humor within' the emotions where it seems funny to us, but in their world it's serious business. The beauty of the film is even if you missed the jokes for how serious these moments play-out you'll still find one or two funny ones, whether it being from one of the supporting characters or a visual gag (like when they find a bottle of blood inside a picnic basket). And if you are in on the humor, you'll find it even funnier if you've seen the actual film (like how Izzard subtly makes fun of Hutter's over the top and flamboyant expressions), or studied and researched about the actual lives of the people being represented in film for how far-fetched that they are being portrayed. This may offend people who know the history feeling that it's giving people a false impression of how they act in real-life and that the deaths to some of the characters and Schreck being an actual vampire may indicate that they in reality didn't have a long term film career after this (which they most certainly did), but given that the film is making itself clear that it's a complete work of fiction with different layers of comedy attached to it despite being based loosely on real people and an existing film, I don't see no real harm in it. Though wouldn't it be interesting to see a biographical film about the real Murnau or Max Schreck given that "Nosferatu" is their only iconic work. I'd love to see a film exploring any one of those two careers with the second or final act focusing on working on the film that made them big.



The real fun of this movie (especially for fans of "Nosferatu") is watching the recreation of classic scenes that are nearly identical to the scenes from the original film from its shots, style of acting, and set design. I particularly love how most of the scenes that they film play part in the film's narrative rather than only being present as fan service for those who just want to see the classic scenes being remade. For example, when they shoot the scene of Hutter meeting Count Orlok, this is literally the first time when the characters (with the exception of Murnau) and we the audience are introduced to him, that plays as a loving homage to the original, and perfectly fitting his reveal within the fictional behind the scenes look of the making of the film. Later on when they film the scene of Hutter accidentally cutting himself when slicing a loaf of bread that reveals Orlok's lust for blood, Murnau intentionally causes the actor to cut himself while filming which results with Schreck having his first break-down, horrifically exposing the true monster that lie within' inside both characters with a chilling scene from a classic film being its basis. The film goes as far to be as long as the original film that's only longer by one minute and a few seconds, as well as having certain scenes take place around the same time frame where scenes in the original film did (we meet Schreck 5 or so minutes before the film reaches its half hour mark, like in the original), as well as providing occasional title cards to either provide background for the characters or move the story to the next scene, and transitioning from color to classic black-and-white for when Murnau starts filming. The film does a highly remarkable job of paying homage to the film from a visual and story-telling stand-point, but there are indeed a few noticeable alterations when visually depicting these scenes that prevent them from looking identical to the original. The most noticeable example is Schreck's design. Now I'm not saying that the make-up doesn't look scary on Dafoe's dastardly face, nor does it not resemble how Orlok appeared in the actual film, its just the changes are clearly obvious to anyone who has watched the original that it’s based on. He has buck teeth instead of fangs, and long sharp claws when Orlok simply had pointy nails, but those are minor when compared to his eyes. Orlok had eyes that were very rat-like that didn't seem human at all, the make-up team however doesn't try to darken Dafoe’s eyes to make them look like the creature of the night that he's supposed to be, so whenever we look into his eyes though frightening it's still clear that we're still looking at Dafoe's eyes. Orlok's design in "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" looked closer to the original Orlok, than Dafoe's design here. Still considering the amount of liberties that the film has already taken with the historical side of the characters, I don't see why this film can't do the same when recreating the imagery from "Nosferatu".

OVERALL THOUGHTS

I suppose I wasn’t in the right frame of mind when watching the film originally, because after giving it a second chance I discovered how masterful it truly was. The characterization of Murnau and Schreck and the relationship that they have is deeply fascinating that's carried by stellar performances from both actors. The film's black comedy extraordinarily fits the film's premise for how subtle and fun it is, as all the actors do an excellent job of playing with the humor while still taking their roles seriously. And the visuals serve the film's story perfectly well as it mostly captures the style and visual appeal of the film that this film is paying tribute to. It's a very rich and underrated vampire movie that's worth seeing for fans of classic horror. As for those who ever decide to rewatch "Nosferatu" and haven't already seen this film yet, I'd recommend seeing this first as a prologue before watching the film again. And if you're looking for an epilogue, "The Tale of the Midnight Madness" from "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" is not at all a bad way to go.

ERNEST SCARED STUPID

The first review that I did this year was "Ernest Goes to Jail", and being that it's still the month of Halloween, it's now time that I review the next film that would follow in the Ernest film series...

Out of all the Ernest covers I remember seeing at Blockbuster when I was a kid, the particular one that interested me the most was the cover to "Ernest Scared Stupid". Just the image of Ernest popping out of a giant Jack-a-lantern in front of a spooky looking graveyard with the last two words of the title being written in green-ooze, looked like a film that seemed up my alley being that I'm a Halloween junkie. But I never got around to seeing it since my young mind and limited visits to "Blockbuster" was only on films that I've either been dying to see, or wanted to eagerly rent again. Now after finally seeing it already knowing the stupidity of these Ernest films, is it the fun kind of stupid, or the boring kind of stupid? ON WITH THE REVIEW!!!

Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) works as a garbage man for a friendly small town, and helps a couple of the local kids build a tree house. But of all the trees that Ernest picks, he chooses the scariest looking tree in the darkest part of the woods. After constructing the house, Ernest discovers from a weird and creepy old lady (Eartha Kitt) that inside tree contains an imprisoned troll who can only be freed on Hallows-eve by a Worrell who lays their hand on the tree and says a few magic words that will summon the evil creature. And for no rhyme or reason at all, this crazy know-it all lady who fears the dangers that may unfold, tells Ernest the exact words to use to unleash the troll, and Ernest foolishly does so (choosing between Ernest and Kitt's character, I'm still trying incredibly hard at deciding who the real idiot of this film is). With the fiendish troll now unleashed from his prison who plans to create an army of trolls to help him take over the town as he goes after the kids who live in it, it is up to Ernest with the help of the old lady and a couple of the town’s kids to set things right.

In the previous two Ernest films, I was disappointed in the absence of the qualities that I found to be emotionally intriguing about the Ernest character that originated from "Ernest Goes to Camp". And while this film does give him three scenes of his character being sad and disappointed, they come off as rather cheesy for how exaggerated his reactions are, as opposed to being as subtle and downbeat as he was in his first film. But just like in his other films that followed after "Ernest Goes to Camp", he's still entertaining to watch through his energetic performance and likable personality. And just like in the previous film that he was in, he's showered with just as many jokes and visual gags. As you would expect, most of them aren't funny, in fact some of them are on the same level of forced and obviously staged slapstick as "Ernest Goes to Camp" had, such as Ernest accidentally hitting himself with a nunchaku, or Ernest's delayed reaction after crushing his hand with the lid of a dumpster. But then you'd get the same kind of surreal type of humor as "Ernest Goes to Jail" had, where it's odd, questionable, and makes no sense (perhaps even less sense than the gags in the other film), but still enjoyable to watch, fun to look at, and even at times funny. How Ernest constantly jumps back and forth to dressing up as different characters when either giving a kid advice or when in battle with the trolls for example, is strange for how pointless and out of the blue it is, but I still found it impressive how Varney can play these multiple characters, where I did get a bit of a chuckle here and there. The funniest bit of the movie that's so stupid but yet so funny for how absurd it is, is when Ernest mistakes the troll’s weakness for something else. Ernest and Eartha Kitt's character look up what can kill a troll in an ancient book, and discover that their weakness is Milk (yes, you read it right). However, the L is missing which causes Ernest to mistake their weakness for a Bulgarian product called Miak. The reason why I find it so funny is the fact that Ernest mistakes such an easy to figure out answer that even a three year old can instantly answer correctly, for something that clearly doesn't exist. And in a few scenes later when Ernest comes face to face with a troll, he manages to find some Miak that's imported from Bulgaria and hard to find since it’s seasonal. What is Miak you may ask? I'm not exactly sure what it is? It looks like some kind of beverage or sauce. But whatever it is, I'm curious to know more about this product, and how someone who can't figure out the obvious can get a hold of such an obscure item. And keep in mind, Miss Know-it-all Eartha Kitt was in the room with him when he made this assumption, how come she didn't know it? Starting to see what I mean of why I wonder who the film's real idiot is?

The film not only carries nearly the same amount of surreal humor as "Ernest Goes to Jail" had, but it also has the same kind of wacky sets that helped make the environment in that film so visually interesting, only here its set to a Halloween environment, which makes it even cooler. There are 80s and 90s vintage holiday decorations, as well as dozens of handcraft decorations made by kids that makes the early 90s nostalgia of being a kid pleasant; the design for Eartha Kitt's trash filled lair looks spooky and ancient that has a tiny bit of a steam punk vibe to it; we get one of the coolest and yet strangest tree houses to have ever been built in a kids film; and to top it all off, a dark and foggy forest full of rotting trees that homages the classic black and white Universal monster movies. And speaking of classic black-and-white monster movies, the film's opening credits is drenched with them, which is personally my favorite part of the movie. Just watching Ernest hop around and react scared to images of public domain black and white horror movies as a few unsuspected gags would pop-up (including a one second cameo of the film's casting director) is the exact kind of unusual spooky fun that I was hoping to see in a film like this. It's almost as if the film's director (John Cherry) decided to combine the vintage look that the opening credits for "Ernest Saves Christmas" had with the same bizarre and energetic style that made the opening credits for "Ernest Goes to Jail" so much fun. If I had any nitpicks with the visual style for this movie, I will say that I wish to see more stuff going on in these surroundings. I hoped to see this treehouse have the same kind of wacky surprises as Ernest's house had in the last film; or to see more Halloween costumes and decorations (I swear that in two different locations the film reuses the same exact scarecrow). We aren't even given a graveyard as what the cover for the film promised us, which ticks me off for how misleading it is. I'm not at all implying that none of it is not fun to look at, or that the Halloween atmosphere doesn't capture the spirit of the holiday, I just wish that the film went a little more out with its Halloween visuals and gave us a few more surprises for these cartoony locations.

I feel like the reason why the film couldn't do more with its Halloween visuals and visual gags is because that most of their money went to the effects for the trolls, and it shows. These effects are actually quite impressive for a film starring Ernest, especially for the head troll. They legitimately look scary and gross as each of them are given their own distinctive design that just adds to the levels of creativity. Even the trolls that look cheesy, or are obviously re-used costumes of the clowns from "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" just now made to resemble trolls, are still fun and creepy to look at. These trolls in my opinion also outrank all the other villains from the Ernest series mainly because they're pretty much what make this film so dark. And yes, you read it right, as stupid as the film is, this film has some pretty dark qualities that you wouldn't expect in an Ernest film. To an adult crowd it's hardly ever scary, for how predictable the scares are, and that you know for a fact that everything will turn out alright in the end. But for its target audience, it has some pretty intense stuff. The image of watching hideous trolls pop-out of nowhere to turn kids into little wooden dolls, as they would try to kill Ernest in violent ways as all of it takes place in a foreboding environment is just nightmare inducing for a child. Some of the things that Ernest foolishly gets himself into are also quite disturbing as well, such as nearly being crushed inside a garbage truck, or being sliced off-screen by a gigantic bear trap. There is a touch of comedy added to these scenes to prevent them from coming off as brutal, but it's still harsh to see Ernest go through this kind of abuse. Ernest himself was even nearly going to squish a duo of bullies dressed up as trolls inside his garbage truck, as a police man is preparing to open fire on them; not since his first highly mean spirited TV Special "Hey Vern, It's My Family Album" have I seen this kind of abuse to kids in something Ernest related. I'm not going to pretend that the film's scares and environment are on the same level of disturbing as say "Return to OZ", "The Brave Little Toaster", or "Gremlins", since the film is still extremely goofy. The trolls themselves are also given a few silly moment that don't have that right balance between laughs and scares as “Gremlins” had.  And let’s not forget how incredibly ludicrous the troll’s weakness is as they get taken out in a climax that mashes "Monster Squad" with the climax to "Ernest Goes to Camp" that's silly but still highly entertaining, and on one occasion gruesome since we see a troll's bloody remains. But with all that said, I still have to give this film credit for taking a darker turn when compared to the other Ernest films that's not usually common. And beyond that, this is the scariest depiction of trolls that I've seen in a horror film of any kind, which isn't really saying much.

A cast member who yucks up their performance just as much as Varney does is Eartha Kitt, who I swear that whenever the two are on-screen together they're trying to out mug each other. She's not funny, but her mannerisms, energy, and personality is more than enough to make her performance be bouncing off the walls entertaining. It's a shame that she didn't appear in other Ernest films after this because I would've loved to see her and Varney as the Ernest character work-off each other again. In Ernest last misadventure for the big screen, he had a dog named Rimshot who would pretty much do nothing but look cute. But here, they decided to have him do more things for his master such as assist him, motivate him, and even somehow drive (how is this small dog able to reach the gas pedal). It's nice to see this dog aiding him master, and giving them more time to interact with another unlike before. Another set of characters returning for this Ernest film, are the fat and skinny guy who are usually annoying but proved to be enjoyable for when we last saw them. But much like how the young skinny actor in the first Ernest film got replaced by a skinny frail old man in the second film; the fat guy who appeared in all the previous Ernest films is now replaced by another fat actor, and with the exception of the scene for when they're selling Ernest weapons, these set of characters are back to being as obnoxiously unfunny as they were when we were first introduced to them.

As for the rest of the characters, such as the kids and the town’s people, they're all as dull and bland as the no nonsense characters in "Ernest Goes to Camp" and "Ernest Goes to Jail". Only this time, the acting from all these characters is very hokey. This is really the worst piece of acting that I've seen by far in an Ernest film. At least the acting from the supporting cast who aren't supposed to be as silly as Ernest in the other films were trying. Here, it seems like that John Cherry is no longer trying to give his cast good direction, as he just seems to be focusing more on the visuals and Varney and Kitt's mugging thinking that everything else is unimportant. And if that's really the case, I'm sorry but I don't care how boring these characters are, you still have to put the same kind of effort to these kind of characters as you did before, because if he doesn't care than why should we? Plus it's not like all the serious characters in these films were boring, remember how charming and lovable most of the characters in "Ernest Saves Christmas" were, despite being so clichéd? Just by the shot of a supposedly scared girl who's shown to be giggling at an off-screen troll in the first scene that happens after the opening credits, or the scene when Kitt learns about unconditional love from a very awkwardly acted and paced moment between a Mother and a daughter, just exposes the carelessness of direction for these characters and scenes without Ernest or the trolls on-screen presence.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

There does seem to be a bit of a lack passion to making this film given for how poorly acted the majority of the supporting cast in the film are, but I don't think it lacks being as entertaining and enjoyable as the previous Ernest films. It's just as stupid as all the other films starring Ernest, and I don’t recommend it to an adult crowd unless if they enjoyed the previous Ernest films and haven’t seen this one yet. But for the audience that the film is intended for, though there are indeed much better Halloween films to show them, it's still harmless, and carries enough gags, crazy visuals, and scares to keep them entertained as they experience it with such a fun and likable lead along with an equally eccentric Eartha Kitt.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if I can find anything else on MIAK!

GOOSEBUMPS: OVERALL THOUGHTS

After being unsure if I was going to give my overall thoughts on the "Goosebumps" TV series or not this year, I've decided to do it in spirit of the holiday! So here are...

My Overall thoughts on...



I remember this show really hyping itself up as being scary for kids through its promos, and would seem to deliver by having episodes that would get me and my brothers terrified. I did notice the show's cheese here and there as a kid, but nothing that I didn't find to be lacking of scares and suspense, which I suppose that's because I only watched the VHS's that were released since I never really watched much of “Fox Kids” growing up. The only criticisms that I ever heard kids talk about the show when I was young is how the books are better, which didn't seem to bother me because that always sounded like the typical answer when comparing a book to a film/TV adaptation. Now that I've seen and reviewed every episode past the age that the show is targeted for and still judging them on their own merits, I'll admit that it's not as scary as it was built up to be for how campy and cheesy it is!

That's not to say that there aren't episodes or moments that don't have legitimate scares and thrills to frighten its target audience. Episodes such as "The Haunted Mask", its sequel, "Stay Out of The Basement", "A Night In Terror Tower", "Welcome to Dead House", and "The Werewolf of Fever Swamp" are great at creating terror and suspense while still managing to entertain. And unlike how its competition "Are You Afraid Of The Dark" would usually have whimsical happy endings as the main character would learn a lesson, most of the endings to this show would usually offer something either dark, twisted, or have a cliffhanger that would be left unresolved. Still while having some scary episodes, the majority of episodes on the show are pretty over the top. The hokey acting, the one note characters, the cheesy effects, the goofy monsters, and the constant corny jokes, give this series more of a colorful B movie quality. Even in the episodes that I did praise and found to be chilling still have a piece of the show's camp to prevent them from being too intense for kids! And I'm not saying that the show doesn't have good effects, actors good enough to give their characters charm, and frightening monsters, it's just that the show as a whole does it so rarely, or in the very least is barely often that you would witness the show getting every single element right in one episode.

However, it's kind of hard for me to really fault the lack of actual scares as a whole, but not because it’s a kids show, but because the show isn't really treating itself as seriously as many were lead to believe as kids. If anything, it practically embraces its camp. It's not trying to be "The Twilight Zone" for kids, but more as the "Tales from the Crypt" for kids by being more just spooky fun than it is trying to make kids scream out of their pants. I mean come on, are we really supposed to be afraid of Lawn Gnomes, a killer sponge, a mud monster, and worms? It's pretty silly. The signs of the show exploiting its comical nature were always there right in front of us the whole time, including the promos and opening credits that made us believe that this was actually going to be the scariest show to ever be made for kids for how cheesy and gimmicky it was, kind of like how kids who watched the 60s Batman took it seriously when it was really making fun of itself.

So if the show is meant to be as fun as riding in a cheap haunted house attraction at a local carnival, does that make the episodes I faulted in the past forgivable, definitely not! The show maybe campy, but it doesn't automatically mean that all the episodes I criticized get a free pass for being intentionally funny. There are still a handful episodes that may not be scary to an adult but still successfully surpasses the goofy and low-budget nature that the show is usually known for thanks to its creativity in terms of story and effects, and containing some good scares without the entire episode getting too scary or silly, which makes the entire tone and quality of the show as a whole inconstant, since you can sense when they are trying and when they are not. I mean try comparing the quality of the "The Haunted Mask" to "Go Eat Worms", where one episode has a story to tell with a unique concept, good effects, and relatable characters through a tone that adds humor and terror at the right moments without going too far; while the other is just flat out ridiculous, has lousy effects, a character who is blandly strange and terribly acted, and the overall tone being more gross and obnoxious than it is scary and fun. It’s common for a good show to have a few bad episodes, or reach a point where the show loses its touch, but this show doesn't have that. Ever since the first season, it's had episodes that constantly varied in quality from being creepy in tone with some fun added to it, and episodes being excessively goofy that don't try as hard to thrill or surprise its viewers. And this roller-coaster of changes in tone and quality would continue on until the very end of the series.

But what I find worse than the show not being sure how much it wants to scare or make us laugh, are its cliches that get old and tedious during its course. Almost every character that you encounter when you get to the third season are cardboard cutouts to characters that you've met before. You start to become more aware of where and when each important event will take place for how predictable it is after getting familiar with the show's formula. We may be given different monsters and scenarios, but you're mostly not given different characters or a lay-out that breaks the formula that the show usually follows. And what makes it even more degrading is you begin to see monsters that appeared in other episodes being lazily passed off as new ones, where it seems that the people behind the show are not given enough money or time to create new monster effects.

I don't want to make it seem like that I think that this is a bad show because it isn't, it's just very hit and miss! When the show works, it gives us some of the best episodes that show why the show is still fondly remembered. And when the show fails, though there are indeed many episodes that aren't worth a second viewing, they are still mostly entertaining that would even offer some of the show's strengths to make them worth a watch. Furthermore, I found my viewing of this show to be both interesting and nostalgic, to not only see how well it holds up, but to see how drenched in the 90s that this show is, as well as getting a chance to see some of the young actors who would later make it big in their careers either as serious actors who starred in famous films and TV shows, or provide the voices of cartoon characters that many kids back in the 90s and 2000s grew-up with. I don't recommend this show at all to an adult crowd, but for kids I most certainly would. It may not be all that scary, but in the very least its enough to get them invested in the thrills as it gives them a strong sense of fun entertainment that has plenty of zany visuals (scary or not) to get them hooked, with occasional likable characters. 

GOOSEBUMPS: THE FINAL EPISODE

Last year, I reviewed all episodes of season 4 of the show...

 

except for one. The reason for that is that it's the last episode to the entire series where I felt that it deserves its own separate review. Does it end the series on the perfect note? Let's take a look at the show's series finale episode...

DEEP TROUBLE

 

Billy and Sheena are visiting their Uncle Harold in the Caribbean, but find their stay to be quite boring as their Uncle spends more time working on experiments in his basement than he does with his niece and nephew (why does that sound sooo familiar?). The kids discover a few weird things on the Island and in their Uncle's lab, and eventually find themselves marooned on an uninhibited Island with their Uncle to fend themselves against giant creatures, and a mysterious monstrous cult. I've heard many fans complain about how this episode strays from the book, but as I've stated in my review on "Teacher's Pet" in the show's third season, I am only judging these episodes on their own merits. However, from my research it turns out that this episode is an adaptation to "Deep Trouble 2", and though I feel like the first story should get an adaptation, at least the episode is not trying to confuse audiences who haven't read the books like they did with "Night of the Living Dummy 2" or "Return of the Mummy". But then again, it definitely hasn't pleased the people who read the books.

The setting for the story isn't bad, I do like the idea of having clues in the first part, and having the second part of them trying to escape from monsters, but the execution while not awful, is not as good as it sounds. The characters are nothing new at all. You have one kid who's adventurous and obnoxious, as the other one is reluctant; the scientist family/relative who's responsible (or at least partly responsible) for the weird things that happen; and your predictable twist villain, who doesn't seem normal when he tries to act it. And none of these performances bring anything special or charming to their characters to make to overlook how cliched they are. The only real interesting about any of them is some of the people they casted that appeared in previous installments to the series.

The effects for the monsters are mostly miss, but I will start talking about the few that are pretty impressive. The puppetry for the Giant blow-fish that attacks the kids for instance does look cool, and has a great monstrous design. And some of the make-up and designs for the monsters on the island look as inventive as the make-up design for the Horrors in "One Day at Horrorland". But then we see the characters come across Godzilla sized monsters like Spiders, Crabs, and Lizards, that don't look like that they are actually there at all for how obviously added in they are where you can see the blurs around them. It's some of the cheesiest effects that the show was ever used, where the suspense is so lacking that it doesn't help save the lameness of it.

But it gets worse. We know the show loves to leave some hidden Easter Eggs that reference to other episodes and even re-use a few of their monsters for them to make a small cameo. But here, they make it way too obvious by having monsters from "Shocker on Shock Street" and "Awesome Ants" be right in front of you, rather than being hidden in the background or showing little of them when they appear. I know I praised Sabre's cameo in "One Day at Horrorland", but the reason why that worked was because there was tension and dread surrounding the monster that even led to dark places that the show doesn't usually tackle on that made you overlook that it's a monster we've encountered before; where with these recycled monsters on the other hand, there's nothing that new or dark about them in terms of writing or atmosphere where in the end it comes off as a lazy way to save money. And really, did they have to re-use one of those cheesy looking ants from "Awesome Ants". Well in the very least, at least that monster seems more threatening when compared to the other giant monsters that the characters find on the island since they're really front of the actors.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This episode is easily the weakest one in this season for it's recycled characters and monsters; dull performances; and some really bad effects. But it's still watchable when compared to the many others in the series. The story does keep your attention, and there are some really neat and inventive effects and designs. It's just a shame that this is the very last episode to close the show with for how mediocre it is when any one of the other episodes from this season (especially "The Ghost Next Door") would've been a better choice to cap the series.

OVERALL THOUGHTS ON THE SHOW'S 4TH SEASON

Going into this season, I expected this to be terrible since none of the episodes are hardly ever talked about as the ones in the past 3 seasons, but I was gradually surprised that there wasn't any episode that I found to be unwatchable or horrible. The last episode was mediocre but it's not as boring or horrific as episodes like "You Can't Scare Me", "Go Eat Worms", and "Don't Go to Sleep". Every episode in this season did offer at least something good and impressive. But though the series worst episodes come from all the other season's, I still do consider this season to be the series' weakest. And why you may wonder since I had something good to say about all of them, well aside from "The Ghost Next Door", all the other episodes are forgettable for how average they are. There's hardly anything about them that makes them stand-out as anything special, since they share nearly the same amount of pros and cons. At least with the other seasons they for the majority had plenty of episodes that were more memorable when compared to this one. You remember the great ones for how scary and inventive they were, but you also remembered the awful ones for how ridiculous and beyond cheesy they were too. So while this season isn't bad, I'm still at the end of the day going to remember most of the episodes from the other seasons than I will with the ones from this one.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER

To end my trilogy of Friday the 13th sequels for this October, let's take a look at the supposed finale to the series...

Okay well actually this wasn't the first time when the series was going to end. Originally it was going to be the third film to close the series out in hopes for it to be a trilogy. But since there was no real indication to suggest that it was supposed to be the last time that audiences would be watching the troubled sadistic lives of the Voorhees, the fourth film was made and marketed to let fans at the time know that this was Jason's last outing. Despite that the film was being harshly panned by critics (especially from Roger Ebert who hates the film with a burning passion), it’s usually regarded by fans to be one of the best in the series. Is the film better than any of the previous films? And on top of it, is it (at least for the time of its release) a satisfying farewell to this famous and emotionally disturbed killer? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Following a day after the events of the 3rd film (making me question why this film is titled "Friday the 13th" as much as I questioned the purpose of the title in the previous film), Jason survives getting an ax to the face and returns to "Camp Crystal Lake" after his visit to the morgue to kill off teenagers who are staying at a house there for the weekend (apparently being too stupid to not realize or care that a series of murders involving teenagers had been taken place within' the past couple of days), as well as the Jarvis family who live right across the house where the teenagers are staying at. As Jason slowly stalks and kills his prey, a hunter named Rob (Erich Anderson) camps out at "Camp Crystal Lake" to search and kill Jason to avenge the murder of his sister Sandra (the girl who got impaled by Jason while having sex with her boyfriend Jeff in the second film).

There appears to be more variety of people for Jason to slaughter than just the usual group of teenagers, but there's still barely a difference with its plot and structure. We get a recap of the previous events; the next ten minutes or so involves Jason killing his first few victims; we watch a bunch of a teenagers horse around as few of them gets killed by a needlessly hidden Jason; the body count begins to rise at night fall; there's a chase and a fight between Jason and the remaining survivors; and we get ANOTHER ending of somebody waking up after seeing something shocking once Jason has fallen. It's as predictably redundant as you can imagine it to be. You can even easily predict half of the time when somebody is going to die, and when they won't. And unlike how the previous film had a piece of music that didn't sound like "Psycho" (as out of place it was), the score has nothing in it that doesn't sound like that it’s stealing from better slasher movies. Now as tired out as the formula is, the atmosphere though still not as heavy as it was in the first movie and lacks good suspense, does come across as darker than the other sequels. The film in regards to its tone and feel is less campy and gimmicky and a little more serious and fierce. It's drenched in darkness, the deaths are less cartoony, there's more nudity, and we get a couple of different kinds of victims to show different perspectives of people viewing Jason. Above all, this is the least of the films by far where there's less tedious padding of teens doing random stuff for a long period of time, or the suspense feeling like that it’s going on forever. It felt more engaging to watch for how much boring filler is cut-out. That doesn't mean however that the film doesn't get weird and campy, or contains scenes that aren't pointless, because it does, but it doesn't consume the film as much as the other films before it did.

An aspect that I enjoy by far from these movies is that as they progress we see the character of Jason slowly evolve into the iconic slasher villain that everyone thinks of when we hear his name. In the first film we learned about his harsh and tragic life as a mortal little boy; we see him begin to kill people in the 2nd film; he gets his trademark hockey mask towards the end of the third installment; and here he's near unstoppable. A complaint that I always had with Jason from his previous appearances is how weak he is at fighting against the lone survivor after proven to be a smart and insane killer. There was never much of a sense that Jason was close to winning at the end since he appears to get more abuse than the actual person he's chasing, as he himself would at times trip and back away, resulting with him feeling just as vulnerable as his prey except that it’s carried out on a bit of slap-sticky level which drains out his dignity. Jason here (with the exception of that laughable moment of him getting hit in the head with a TV), doesn’t hold-back or lets the damage that he takes put him down so easily. You slash him in his hand, he'll just look at it and be ready to slice off your arm before cutting your face. You knock-him out, he’s more than likely pretending to be unconscious so that he can catch you by surprise. He's no longer taking any of this crap! And what helps make his presence be so intimidating is the body language that stuntman actor Ted White's brings to his character. The amount fury that Jason contains has hugely increased up to 100% explaining why he doesn't take as much abuse as he did prior to this film! But while being full of anger, the film gives him one scene showing his vulnerable side that feels just as touching as it was shown in the 2nd film, despite the reason for it making as much sense as it was done before this film. However, as big of an improvement he is here, there are still a few major downsides! His motivation for the killings is still not as fleshed-out as the killings that his Mother committed in the first film, and the revenge that he took on Alice for killing the only person that loved him, where I guess since the third film all-purpose has been officially sunken to the very bottom of "Crystal Lake". The make-up and design that Jason was given for his deformed face in the last film was a major improvement over making his face originally resemble a hillbilly Quasimodo, and though his design in this film is great, the make-up effect isn't for how rubbery his face appears.

Jason has fully transformed into the slasher icon that he's known best as, and the deaths don't disappoint either. After the first films, though the scenes of people getting killed would have their moments for being shockingly gruesome or enjoyably cheesy, they were mostly standard to what many other slasher films were doing, as the hardcore violence and gore would usually be censored. Fortunately Tom Savini who did the gore effects in the first film has returned and does just as fantastic of a job as he did before. These deaths are seriously up-to par with the kills that Jason's Mother committed for how bloody, brutal, and sick the imagery is. Some of the highlights include a person getting killed by a Hacksaw; a woman being gutted like a fish; a girl falling out of a window in slow-motion; a guy being killed by a harpoon gun (that's more horrific than the last time Jason used one); and a death that takes place in the kitchen as Jason uses more than one murder weapon. There are even some cases where people would be killed in the shadows or off-screen, so it isn't all blood and guts which gives these moments some more variety. There really isn't a single death in the film that I can't say wasn't either interesting or grotesque, it’s honestly some of the series best! Is it comical at times, undoubtedly. It amazes me that some of the victims don't scream or cry for help as they are suffering; and at one point there's a character narrating his own death which for me is the funniest death in the entire movie. I'll also admit that as great as these death scenes are, it is slightly disappointing that Jason is not using his trademark machete. Still these criticisms are simply just nitpicks because I can't find much too really fault these scenes for.

The new group of teenagers that are waiting to be killed off are truthfully the least memorable bunch when compared to the previous movies. That's mainly because that there's also time given to the Jarvis family and the guy hunting Jason, who seem a little more fascinating than the group of characters that we've been seeing countless times from these movies. These set of characters in reality only exist in this movie to provide the viewers some eye-candy nudity and sex, and to be killed off by Jason because that's why people are here to see these movies. There are a few that stand-out like the unfunny comic relief Ted (Lawrence Monoson) and the twin girls that they meet on their trip, but none of them are entertaining or fun to be around. However, there is one character in the group who's legitimately likable and interesting and that's Crispin Glover as Jimmy. A year before he played George McFly in "Back to the Future", he's already played a weak and socially awkward teenager who's seeking for love. As much as I loved Shelly in "Part III", Jimmy is by comparison more relatable for how down to earth he is. He's crushed by his break-up with his girlfriend, and tries to move on by finding someone new but every time he tries he always fails for how nervous and awkward he is when trying to talk to a girl or impress one causing him to think less of himself. He's a character who I was constantly feeling sorry for for how emotionally vulnerable he is, when with Shelly though sympathetic too was way too comical and extreme for us to really feel connect to him. The only scene that Glover ever does in the movie that's strange and hilarious is when he tries to dance with a girl. His dance moves has to be the most unnatural kind of dancing that I've ever seen on film. It's just very out of the norm, and in yet every time I look at this moment it never fails to make me burst out laughing or put a smile on my face.

Then we have the Jarvis'. Already I find the addition of adding a family into the mix to be an interesting new angle for the type of characters that Jason murders. We've seen teenagers and people who behave like jerks at his mercy dozens of times before, and it’s been getting stale very quickly. So the idea of having Jason go after an entirely different group of people who are less repulsive and more innocent is an intriguing change of direction. The family themselves are pleasant characters and well performed. Joan Freeman (in her last film role) is sweet and authoritative as the Mother; Kimberly Beck as the daughter Trish is kind and tough; but the most amusing character out of the whole family is Trish's little brother Tommy played by rising child-star Corey Feldman (who would later become popular as Mouth in "The Goonies", Teddy in "Stand By Me", and Donatello in the 1990 "Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles" movie). Part of what makes him stand-out from the other members in his family is mainly due to the fact that we're seeing Jason go after a kid who is helplessly innocent which hasn't been done in any of these films, therefore raising the stakes higher than they were before as Feldman sells out the fear that he has towards him (most likely because that White hated Feldman for his bratty attitude so much that he was trying to find ways to catch him off-guard during film, and successfully managed to get one legitimate scream out of him for when he crashed through the window at a delayed time). There aren't many scenes of Jason chasing after Tommy, most of his time towards the Jarvis' is him trying to get Trish, but it's still none the less a shocking change of pace that gets more messed up when we get to the ending. Another reason why Tommy stands-out is also because he's a weird pre-teen boy who spends most of his time making horror related props and masks that are so well detailed that he could start his own business of creating movie props for Hollywood (he's that unbelievably good). The stuff that this kid creates are very cool to see, and it becomes even more fascinating when he uses this talent to get Jason. It's like the characteristics of what made Shelly such a pleasing character were sliced apart as the pieces of it formed into two separate characters reflecting two different parts of his personality. His shyness and seeking for romance is given to Jimmy, while his love for creating props and fooling around with them is given to Tommy, resulting with both of them to be the best characters in the movie for how charming, different, and relatable they are.

The most disappointing character in the entire film is the guy who spent an implausible short amount of time preparing himself to kill Jason for revenge, Rob. I love the concept of his character, and Anderson does look tough enough to give Jason a taste of his own medicine, but he's not given as much attention as the teenagers and the Jarvis', if anything he's the film's third wheel. We don't get to explore the character's anger towards Jason and the sadness that he's feeling from the loss of his sister, so his revenge doesn't feel personal for how distant we are from him. And when he finally has his showdown with Jason it's an anti-climactic joke. I find that immature ass working in the morgue (and watching an erotic looking work-out video) and the Hitchhiker who instantly dies to be more interesting and fleshed-out than him. Perhaps if we didn't focus so much on the teens, and just had the film be focused on him and the Jarvis' when Jason's not present, he could've been a great character. But instead he's just as his disposable as the teens are in this movie (with the exception of Jimmy).

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The film is no masterpiece regarding the slasher films, and I can't bring myself to say that it's a good movie either. It's too predictable, the thrills are lacking, the music is unoriginal, half of the characters are forgettable or underdeveloped, and it does have its hokey and out there moments. But as far as these films go when comparing it to the ones that I reviewed, it's the best one by far. Being the "final" end to the series, the film does everything that it can to be a harsh and extreme conclusion with a few new twists to make it more captivating while still trying to entertain, and that's exactly what it does. The atmosphere though not as heavy as the first film does feel darker than the previous two; Jason when comparing him to how he was in 2 and 3 is at his best here who has now fully evolved; the death scenes and effects done by Tom Savini are as admirable and brutal as they were in the first film; the addition of having a family being hunted by Jason is a riveting change of pace; Jimmy and Tommy are great enough to be up there with characters like Ginny and Shelly; and the film doesn't feel as consumed with much padding as the films before it were. If this was really the "Final Chapter" I'd say that it makes for a great shocking conclusion...well at least for Jason, because there is an indication that Jason's legacy will be carried on. There's still plenty of more sequels for me to cover in the future, and though I'll be going in with an open mind (regardless of how stupid they get) I'm not sure how any of them are going to be able to surpass this one.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III

It's now time for me to revisit the only "Friday the 13th" film that I've seen before I began to review the series...



As I mentioned in my review of the first film, I've only seen the third film once way back during my late Middle School years, with a very vague memory of the film. I was happily entertained despite being confused with the character of Jason; I just didn't get much out of it when it was over. How did I find it to be so forgettable? Is the film really that bland and uneventful despite using the 3-D gimmick to make it interesting; or was I just so confused about Jason's character that I couldn't get sucked into its 80s horror cheese as much as I'd like too? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Taking place a day after the events of the second film (which would mean that the title is highly misleading since it doesn't take place on "Friday the 13th", but on "Saturday the 14th". And yeah, I'm aware the title is apart of the films identity, and I guess has "Part 3" attached to it as its only loop hole to prevent the studio from changing the overall title to something unrecognizable. But they could've called the film "Jason Returns" or to be more specific considering that Jason still wasn't iconic yet "The Return of Jason Voorhees" that I'm pretty sure will attract audiences who saw the first two films), a young woman named Chris (Dana Kimmell) and her friends go up to "Camp Crystal Lake" to spend a weekend at her old home where Jason waits to slaughter them. And…that's it! That's pretty much the plot of this movie! There's really nothing in terms of story and formula that's all that new and different from the last two films. The young adults go to the middle of the woods to behave like jackasses and have sex, get axed off one by one leaving the last survivor to take on Jason, and the film ends exactly the same way as the other two films ended when the bloodshed is over. Nothing's changed, except that we have new victims for Jason to kill at a slightly different location for him to roam around. Originally this installment was going to rip-off "Halloween II" by having Ginny from the previous film, be committed into a mental hospital where Jason would visit to seek out his revenge as he kills the staff and patients, but the story was abandon because the actress playing Ginny was occupied with other projects at the time. The original plot may not be that original (though to be fair to a certain degree, neither was the original "Friday the 13th" film apart from its setting) but at least it would've been a nice change of pace rather than rehashing everything a second time.

And since everything is once again very predictable, from its plot, formula, shots, use of music etc, etc, it surfers from the same exact criticisms that I had with the second film in terms of atmosphere and suspense. The scenes of suspense drag-on and aren't shocking for how easy it is to tell when and where Jason is going to pop-up and attack for how familiar we are with the tricks used in these films; the red-herrings are used way too often in the first half that makes you wish that Jason really was there; and the environment of where the film is taking place offers little variety in location for how similar it is to the previous films, except for being smaller and taking place more at daytime (the 2nd film at least had Jason's mysterious shack). That's not to say that we don't get a few neat and fun things out of the film's environment. As boringly average as the location is, the old cabin although may not seem much at day, or all that scary at night, in the night scenes when the eerie wild wind full of leaves is blowing the door and windows open as Jason lurks around the house to kill his next victim, it does successfully manage to create a classic spooky and suspenseful atmosphere, even if it only happens in two scenes. And the music while still sounding like a rip-off to the music "Psycho" that fails to create tension for how generic it is, it does give us something original in the opening and closing credits and that's the theme to this movie, that sounds nothing like the music that you'd hear throughout the film, for how bouncy it is. It sounds like the kind of music that you'd find yourself dancing to at a Halloween party for its upbeat techno sound that's drenched in complete 80s pop cheese! It's not scary in the slightest. But to be fair, perhaps that was the film's intention. To let the audience know from the very start that it's not supposed to be taken too seriously and just wants you to just have a spooky fun time. If that were the case, while refreshing to know that the film is aware for it to be just simple bloody entertainment, it still doesn't excuse how tedious the scenes building suspense and the lifeless atmosphere surrounding the film as it lazily reuses half of the techniques that we've seen before in the other films.



The only real new technique that the film does differently when compared to the others is that it's reusing most of the series old tricks and plot threads in three-dimension. Considering that audiences may find the formula tiresome at this point, the studio felt that a 3-D gimmick will be enough to have audiences go along with it. Does the 3-D distract from how tiring the films have gotten with being too predictable, not at all. Just because everything is shot in 3-D that doesn't automatically make the things that are stale suddenly look new and impressive. It's still just as boring in Three-Dimension as it is in Two-Dimension. The 3-D features for the film itself is just as primitive as you'd expect it to be before the late 2000s can perfect on them. It's made at the time where all that 3-D was supposed to do is to have shots of people unnaturally holding or poking a prop towards the camera as it's filmed to make it appear to be leaping off the screen, when it's obvious that it isn't since they were using a double image with the red and blue coloring for whenever the trick is used that makes the scares predictable as you're still seeing double. It was unimpressive back then, and it’s still unimpressive now. However, whether or not your watching it in crappy 3-D or viewing it in 2-D with these odd shots, it does make the experience of viewing the film as semi-fun to watch as "JAWS 3-D". The film isn't consumed with these effects as much as you'd think it would, but whenever they use it, it either adds to the thrill or coolness to when someone is about to die as Jason pokes his sharp weapon of choice at the screen, or laughable for how pointless and uncalled for it is, which there are just too many examples of that to cover (such as the yo-yo scene; the characters pointlessly juggling; and the kids playing baseball). For me the funniest moments is how the 3-D shows how fake the props leaping off the screen can be, by showing the wires attached to a fake snake, or a crazy Ralph knock-off holding a fake eye in front of our faces long after everyone flees from him. Also let's not forget that no horror 3-D film would be complete without having cheesy 3-D credits for when the film opens. You know the more I think about it, the more I realize that even in the past 2 films there were a few bits that looked like they were shot in 3-D, such as how the title for the first film crashes into the screen and shatters glass, or the shot of Ginny in the second film holding a pitchfork. It's almost as if these films were destined to become a 3-D film at one point during the franchise, and now we have it, in its uncanny glory!



So the story and structure is unimaginably the same except that it’s just shot in crappy 3-D that doesn't help overlook how boringly identical most of it is. Is there anything that stands-out about Jason, the new characters we meet, and the deaths that befall upon them to make the film more interesting than the little things that we're given? "JAWS 3-D" may have had an inventive set-up as it has fun exploiting its tacky 3-D effects, but we're still given for the majority of the film a dry experience for how unamusing the characters, shark, and lack of creativity (and body count) to their deaths were. Well if you remember my reaction to Jason in the second movie, I found myself disappointed in his presence for how silly he looked with and without that ridiculous sack on his head, and for coming across as a weakling. In this film, Jason's appearance has been upgraded to the Jason that we're all familiar with. He trades in his colorful baggy hillbilly clothes for gray pants and a green button-down shirt, and ditches that lame potato sack for a badass Hockey mask; appears to be taller and having a different body weight to make him seem stronger than he was in the past (this time being played by English stuntman Richard Brooker replacing Steve Daskewisz/Warrington Gillette); and is bald and given a more grotesque make-up design that make him appear to be just as monstrous as he is with the mask on, exactly what I expected him to look like at the end of the second film instead of giving us a design that's not remotely horrifying for how silly, tamed, and phony it looks. There are also some subtle and hinted clues that Jason is more than just a killer who stabs people. During a newscast reporting of the killings at “Camp Crystal Lake”, if you listen very carefully when the scene isn't focused on the TV set, you can hear that Jason maybe responsible for cannibalism. There's also a flashback scene involving Chris encountering Jason and being unconscious during the struggle where some have speculated and debated that Jason may have had taken advantage of her, that's evidenced for how Jason comes after her and how she refuses to be in a relationship with her ex after the events. It's not clearly stated whether or not if Jason did it, but the imagination and ambiguity of what Jason did to Chris after she blacked out makes him more deranged than what we know and see. Jason himself even appears to have a bit more personality than being an insane killer, because we have moments in the final act where he destroys stuff out of frustration from finding one of his victims, and goes as far as to taunt Chris by taking off his mask and smiling at her as soon as she recognizes him.



Jason's appearance in this film is undoubtedly a legendary improvement to the character than the first time he became a killer in the previous film, but that doesn't mean that there still aren't numerous problems regarding the character. The most obvious problem is the continuity to how he looked in the last movie. When we last saw Jason he wasn't near as big and tall as he is now, and wasn't bald either. The continuity to his alterations gets even more asinine as it was with how they established Jason after the first movie,when we find out in the flashback before the events in the 2nd film that Jason looked the same as he does currently, which I guess means that the 3rd installment is once again thoughtlessly trying to rewrite history, only just in terms of Jason's appearance. As for those reading this trying to figure out why he's killing these people, it's as well as establish as why Jason previously went after Ginny and her friends, only you can you make the argument that his motivation in that film made a little more sense than it does here. He has no real purpose killing them, it only happens because we're strictly here to see Jason slaughter people and nothing more. Now as much as I praise his new look regardless of how contradicting it is to how he appeared previously, he does have just the same amount of slap-sticky moments of being just as weak as he was before, that is shamelessly shown during the climax. I know a killer has to have his downfalls when fighting against the victim, you have to in order to make the final battle feel rewarding for our lead. It's just with the tension being so lacking, and with Jason doing very little to attack the girl making him feel that he's not in control of the situation unlike what most climaxes do, he spends most of his time chasing the girl, getting beat-up, and (I kid you not) backing away! I really couldn't think of a single scene or moments where I felt that our last remaining character is close to facing death at the hands of Jason at such a heart-pounding rate. Jason may look tough, but he has to act it too! I swear that if you'd replace half of the sound effects of Jason getting beat up with stock cartoon sound-effects it wouldn't be that different. The most ridiculous abuse he takes that I can't believe puts him down for a bit is when Chris knocks over a bookshelf. And no, it's not something plausible like say the shelf falling on him, or having something cartoony as a swarm of books falling on him, its only a few books that hit him and it for some reason puts him down. And to top off all the negatives when covering Jason is that as mad and full of body language as his personality is in this movie, the film tragically removes his sympathetic side. In the last film, the character Ginny thought about Jason's psyche where it brought us a great insight to his tragic roots, and when she dressed up as his Mother to fool him (I'm still wondering about the logic behind it) you felt a softer and gentler childlike innocence to the character that's expressed through his movements and how we see his eye through the sack gaze at her in despair. This film never and I mean never tackles on Jason's psyche or attempts to make him sympathetic in anyway, he's just a crazy killer and that's it (and the film showing 7 minutes of footage from the last film does not count). I may not have been a fan of Jason's previous appearance, but I did like that the film made him as emotionally disturbed as his Mother was from their constant abuse from self-centered teenagers, which I find to be the true reason of why these characters are so fascinating (and for me personally in some ways relatable just minus being a psychotic killer).



Jason is hit and miss in the film, but has a little more hits here than what he had when we saw him last. How about his kills, especially when being shot in 3-D. Compared to the last film that was a little too afraid to show its gore, there is a little more use of blood here. That's not to say it's as impressive as Tom Savini's work for the gore effects, or that the film isn't as timid to show it, it's very standard but we do get some very intense and inventive deaths and shots that do look nearly as gruesome. The first time we ever see Jason kill someone while wearing his trademark hockey mask is by shooting a girl in the eye with a speargun in 3-D, which is an excellent way of introducing him in his iconic design, from the shots, bloody image of the spear hitting the girl's eye, and a 3-D effect that is honestly less cheesy and gimmicky when compared to the others, since I can picture that shot being done in the previous films. And then there's that shot of a guy being split in the middle from Jason's machete as he is randomly walking on his hands for no real reason. Half of the other deaths that we witness are standard, but some of the shots made for 3-D of how Jason holds his weapon at them, though not feeling like it's leaping at you, does kind of put you in the point of view of the victims giving you a perfect idea of how painful and sharp Jason's murder weapon of choice is. However when half of these average deaths don't play on the 3-D gimmick they seem less amusing. Is there anything laughable, or over the top during any of these kills, given the film's cheesy nature, most definitely. Earlier in the film a character who has no relevance in the film's story what's so ever gets killed by Jason in a very staged way where it's obvious that the blade isn't penetrating into the character's skin, and yet later on in the film he's somehow alive and ready to kick Jason's ass only for him to suddenly have his arm cut-off and be killed. That appearance was so out of left and pointless that I just couldn't help but laugh at the fact that the writers had one of their victims survive and then be killed after returning from a very long absence, almost as if the film was trolling us into thinking that we're going to see this character help Chris and really rumble with Jason. And this isn't the only time that the film feels like its trolling the viewer. Midway before the climax, one of the girls takes a shower with a shot that's very similar to "Psycho" where Jason is out killing her boyfriend. You think that the film is going to rip-off "Psycho" for how its building up this kill, until you see the girl walk out of the shower and down the hallway giving us nothing that we'd hope to see. We do get a death, and without going into detail let's say the build-up is to the film ripping-off an iconic death in the first film, rather than an iconic death that gave "slasher films" a future. The film's attempts to troll its audience is quite amusing and in some ways a bit ahead of its time. The most laughable death that I couldn't believe I witnessed was when Jason grabs one of the characters by firmly placing his hands on his head, and in the very next shot we see the actor playing the victim suddenly be turned into a life-sized Ken doll as Jason squishes the head causing its eye that's attached to a wire pop-out at the audience. It's easily by far the cheesiest and silliest death and effect that I've seen in these films that I just had to burst-out laughing at the very moment it happened as I was in disbelief at how incredibly fake it looks.



As Jason has a large group of innocents to kill off, the film decides to needlessly give him more people to tare apart outside of Chris' group. He kills off a married couple after the opening credits as he searches their place for new clothes; and easily goes up against three local punks who bully the visitors of "Camp Crystal Lake". These characters do have colorful stereotypical personalities for how exaggerated they are, especially the married couple with the sloppy husband and the nagging wife, but they have no purpose to be in the film except for padding it out. And the scenes of Jason going after them are the real offenders for the build-up to their doom dragging on for an unnecessarily large amount of time. If I had to pick what I'd rather see these films do for filler in order to pad out its run-time I'd have it be focused on Jason's kills than the teenagers just messing around, since that's why people watch these films. But that doesn't mean that those scenes can't be just as tediously annoying as the pointless scenes with the characters because they're just as uneventful when not being given the proper use and time of suspense. Still at least half of their deaths and how the film later on trolls us by bringing one of them alive make them a bit worth awhile. The only pointless character that the film throws at us who doesn't get axed-off and is just simply there to fill in the shoes for another character while presenting an awful effect in 3-D is Crazy Ralph's stand-in Abel since Ralph was killed-off in the last movie. This character is so awkwardly shoehorned in as he shoves the fake eye-ball to the camera, that he leaves not much of an impact for how he only shows up in a very short scene, and how similar he is to the character he's replacing with nothing really that new or fascinating about him.



One of the advantages that the previous film had over the original was that it had characters who were likable, worked off each other in a believable way (at least for the most part), and gave us a strong and smart leading girl. They aren't the greatest set of characters, but they had a little more to them than the characters in the first film. The characters in this film however, are mainly the same bland and one-dimensional characters that you'd see in the first film. They only stand-out either because of the one trait that their given, or background that they have that's never mentioned again. There's a hippie couple who are stoners and that's pretty it; there's a girl who's very stubborn and that's it; one of the girl's on the trip is pregnant, and we never hear about it again; Chris has a boyfriend who's pretty much no different to the boyfriend's that the other lead girls had; do you see what I'm talking about here? The lead character Chris is the only one in the film who has a bit of an arc from her terrible past encounter with Jason, but it isn't as amusing or played out strongly as it should because Kimmell is a lousy actress. Actually pretty much all the actors in this film are bad. There are times when they'd either appear to be laughing or smiling at the tragedies going around them as they try so hard to play up their character's distress. And a good half of the time when they're not trying to phone it in, they'd have casual and bored reactions to the deaths and people missing as if they're annoyed by it than they are disturbed or worried about what’s happening. The most priceless reaction to ever come out of these characters is definitely when one of the stoners throws a temper tantrum as Oscar worthy as Tommy Wiseau's breakdown at the end of "The Room".



The only character who I found to be more interesting, likable, relatable, as well as better acted than everyone else in the movie is Shelly (Larry Zener). When Shelly first appears in the movie, I was expecting him to be the typical obnoxious prankster who just does these things to be an ass and nothing more like the pranksters in the other movies. However, as I spent more time with the character as the film went on, I was surprised to learn that the reason why he's doing this is because he wanted to seek attention for being the socially awkward misfit of the group. His blind date doesn't like him, he's self-conscious about his unattractive looks, and is a bit of a coward. The the only way he knows how to get their attention is by using his horror props since that's what he loves playing with and collecting. Understandably people turn against him every time he pranks them, labeling him to be a "jerk" causing him to respond that "being a jerk is better than being a nothing". What he does is excessive and an awful way of getting attention, but given how much he feels distant from the other people he does the only thing he knows to get noticed even if he knows it won't help him, making feel where this guy is coming from. At one point in the film when he doesn't prank people at the camp, he eventually goes up against the bikers who've been harassing him and his date, showing that he's feeling a little more brave and confident in himself. After having more depth than the other characters, and appearing to be that this guy has a story-arc in the making, as much as I knew he was going to end up dead by Jason where his story is nothing more than your typical "Boy who cried wolf" scenario, I wished that he was the final person who faces Jason at the end. He'd go from being a weak and odd misfit who does stupid and bizarre things, to finally growing-up and doing the right thing by killing Jason to avenge his friends and possibly protect the girl that he likes. And since Jason takes his mask and props to kill people and hide his face, think about the tragic irony that Shelly's pranks are also part of the reason to why the people around him are getting killed, therefore giving him more of a motivation to kill Jason for his guilt of letting his childish incompetence get the better of him who must now do something right. I would certainly love to see the misfit get his sweet revenge than the beautiful girl with no personality who just has a past with Jason and doesn't seem to grow and develop after the events.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

In a nutshell, this film is just the same as the other movies, except that it's shot in 3-D. The majority of techniques and plot-threads used from the previous films are lazily reused again, that makes everything unexcitingly predictable; Jason is still a weakling with his tragic past being completely absent; the characters are a serious down-grade to the characters that we had from the second film; the location is nothing special; and the 3-D is terrible. The only reason why the film exists (retrospectively speaking) is that Jason gets his signature hockey mask, otherwise it's an entirely pointless sequel. But that's not to say that it isn't a fun watch. Jason looks awesome in his new design (with and without the mask) as he's given a little more expression; Shelly is one of the best characters from the franchise; the deaths as standard as some of them are, do have enough to come across as impressively gruesome, or incredibly silly; the out of place theme music to this movie is tons of fun; and as terrible as the 3-D effects are, the 3-D shots does add to its cheesy charm, if not saving how boring the film can be at times. If you're expecting to watch a sequel that doesn't constantly call-back to the original, and tries to give you something new and compelling when it comes to story, character, and environment, you're not going to get any of that here. But if you're a horror fan who is looking to be entertained without caring about how similar it is to the other films, and just want to watch idiots get slaughtered with a good slice of 80s cheese, you'll find yourself having a good time. Just like the past two films, this film is full of hits and misses, but the hits though not technically making it at all a good movie, are enough to watch it for pure entertainment purposes.