Unnecessary Sequels: Caravan of Courage

The season is upon us once again, so let's kick the tires and light the fires! Here's a little something out of left field to start you off...



So the last couple entries in this series, have focused on bad or unneeded horror movie sequels.  This time around, I thought I would mix it up, and throw you all a curveball. This particular curveball comes in cute and cuddly form of giant, wild teddy-bear folk. Brace yourselves!

This is what an 80s Childhood looked like.

Film: Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure (originally called "The Ewok Adventure")
Year: 1984
Director: John Korty
Unnecessary Sequels: Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)

As a little kid growing up in the 80s, Star Wars was naturally a huge part of my world. At some early age, I saw the movies on TV, as well as these TV movies, and the cartoons. I was a fan of all of it, and it probably even had at least some small part in shaping who I was as I grew up. When this TV movie originally debuted, near my birthday in fact, on November 25th 1984, if I saw it when it first debuted, I was too young to probably really get much out of it or remember it. Thankfully, they replayed it on TV as I got a bit older, and it became something I loved.

In full disclosure, unlike apparently so many other Star Wars fans, The Empire Strikes Back has never at any point in my life been my favorite. As a kid, my original favorite Star Wars film was Return of the Jedi. When I grew into adulthood, it eventually became the original film, though I still love Jedi. I like Empire, it's a good movie and a great middle part to the original trilogy. It's simply never been my favorite. As a child, there was nothing NOT to love about Jedi though. It had Jaba's Palace, it had speeder bikes, walkers, a gigantic space battle the likes of which nobody had seen at the time, an epic fight between father and son, and of course...Ewoks.

And as a kid, lemme tell ya, I fuckin' loved Ewoks. I loved this TV movie, and while I probably saw and liked the Droids cartoon, I definitely liked and remembered the Ewoks one more. Wicket was the man, and just in general, how could a kid NOT love what were basically giant teddy bears?

Salty Star Wars fans.

Now I'm fully aware of the fact that along with the infamous "hatred" many fans have for the "Prequel Trilogy", that among perhaps older fans back then especially, there were some who also didn't like the existence of adorable and funny Ewoks in THEIR serious Star Wars film. Those people probably didn't like this TV movie either. And while people can like or feel however they wish, I would gently suggest that people who have a problem with a "cute" or funny element being in something they love, might want to grow up ever so slightly.

To me, even as a teen and adult, continued loving the Ewoks. Not as much as I did as a child, surely. But I still like the characters, and like the idea of the race. It's absurd, on it's face, that a race of tiny, cute-as-hell creatures could also be warriors and help turn the tide of battle against a fearsome, nigh unstoppable Galactic Empire. But that's also why it worked so well, and precisely why, in story, they DID help turn the tide. Because no fearsome, unstoppable Empire is going to pay the slightest notice to a "primitive" bunch of teddy bears. Much less think that such harmless creatures could ever pose any kind of meaningful threat to their operations. And it was that arrogance, and the dichotomy of these simplistic, naturalistic little beings with their crude tools and means, against this big hi-tech force, that literally got the logs rolling. In the end, while they did take out some Imperial forces, what the Ewoks accomplished was basically helping to serve as a distraction, while the Rebels destroyed the base and shut down the Death Star's shield generator. But the part they played in taking down the Empire was ultimately huge, because without them providing that distraction, the Rebels would have lost.

Fierce as hell.

So now that I'm done sharing my love for and defense of Ewoks as a thing, let's dig into the actual movie itself! The basic premise, is that these adventures take place between the events of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, this movie is canon, salty fans and Disney be damned. The story starts with a couple, Catarine and Jeremitt Towani (played by Irish actress Fionnula Flanagan and actor Guy Boyd), near the wreckage of their crashed starship, looking for their missing children who have wandered off. As they search, a humanoid giant comes stomping out of the forest towards them, probably attracted by the crashing of their ship, and grabs them both, taking them away. The children, Mace and Cindel (played by TV actors Eric Walker and first-time actress Aubree Miller), must eventually have made their way back to the wreckage, as the next morning, a group of Ewoks, Deej and his sons Weechee and Widdle (Wicket's father and older brothers) search the wreck, and find Cindel hiding. After Mace tries to attack them thinking them animals attacking his sister, the Ewoks subdue him and take both human children back to their village.

To make a long story short, once the Ewoks manage to cure Cindel who has become sick, they go to the shaman Logray (featured prominently in Return of the Jedi), who uses a "sight spinner" to see a vision of their parents being held by the great monster that took them: the Gorax. The Gorax lives in a mountain fortress far from the Ewok village, and so Deej and his sons decide to set out with the children to help them find rescue their parents. Before they leave, Logray gives each member of this "Caravan of Courage" a special totem to help them on their way, including two extra that were to be given to new members of the party who must be convinced to join, or else the mission would fail.

Along their perilous journey, they find Chukha-Trok, an unusually large and strong Ewok woodsman, who is eventually convinced to go after bonding over some axe-throwing with the human boy Mace. And later still they find the solitary priestess Kaink, whose magic they desperately need, who is convinced to go after little Cindel impresses her. Thus the titular "Caravan of Courage" was complete!

The awesome stop-motion Boar-Wolf.

Ultimately, this Ewok Adventure is definitely a lighter, more "family" oriented fare. And I'm sure some fans have complained over time that it is too heavily "fairy tale" and "fantasy" oriented. To that, I would say first that Star Wars has always been a marriage of sci-fi action and "fairy tale fantasy", which is part of what makes it so great. And second, that the heavy emphasis on magic in the story fits right in line with how the Ewoks are presented in Jedi, as a very animistic people who are also highly spiritual, using rituals and magic as a regular part of their culture. Besides that, the magic in use, if you really want to bother breaking it down and thinking about it, is at it's core just manifestations of "The Force".

But I would say overall, that Caravan of Courage is a good film. Yes, I am not only nostalgic about it, but I would say that it is, all things considered, especially for a made-for-TV affair from the 80s, a solid family-oriented fantasy film that stands up today. A decent production, a large budget for a TV movie back then, and great effects-work by Industrial Light and Magic. Plus, it's just a fun story. It helps flesh out the Ewoks and their world more, and it doubles as a cool adventure, complete with curses ponds, fearsome beasts, mischievous fairies, giant spiders, and one mean mother of a Gorax. In other words it has everything one could possibly want from a movie.

A portrait of a typical Ewok hater.

So, to lead into the Unnecessary Sequel, it is somewhat necessary for me to first provide some spoilers, for context. The film ends, as seen above, with an epic showdown between the heroes, and that giant Gorax jerk. They manage to free the parents, and the powerful Chukha-Trok buys them some time by trying to trying to fight the monster by himself. In a sad moment for the story, Chukha-Trok is mortally wounded during the encounter, with his new human friend Mace holding him as he dies. He even gives Mace his prized axe.

Afterwards, the fathers are able to use some spider-thread to trip the giant as he rushes down the stairs after them, sending him sailing into the great chasm at the bottom, presumably to his doom. After everyone safely swings across the pit, the movie gives you one last "GOTCHA" moment, as the giant managed to crawl back up the side of the pit, trying to grab at them, but Mace uses Chukha-Trok's axe to deal him a final blow, sending him back down the chasm for good. The group make their way back to the Ewok village, and the family decides to stay while they repair their wrecked spacecraft. And with that, you get a nice, wrapped-up, self-contained, happy ending.

This is canon.

This isn't, Brimley or not.

The success of the TV movie, helped lead into the spin-off Ewoks cartoon series, which debuted along with the aforementioned Droids cartoon in 1985. But that wasn't enough. The network wanted another TV movie, since the first had done so well for them. And here's the thing, I don't have a problem at all with them making a second Ewok film. They and their world are interesting, especially to children, and there were certainly more stories that could be told in that world. My problem lies in the fact that they decided to make the second TV movie a direct sequel to the first. As I've already illustrated, the first movie was a cute, fun and heart-warming, and most importantly self-contained story. It had a happy ending, and we honestly never needed to see the Towani family again, left instead to hope and assume that they fixed their ship, and got off-world, avoiding the dangers of the Galactic Empire. Unfortunately, Lucas and Co had other ideas.

I've read that George Lucas, shortly before sitting down to plan this sequel, had just recently watched the old 1937 Heidi film (starring Shirley Temple), and really liked the idea of incorporating that kind of set-up within this next Ewok story. Which, again, is fine on it's face. Except that they decided to go ahead and do that with the Towani family. Instead of letting them have their "happily ever after", The Battle For Endor begins, especially if you were a kid like me at the time, with the Ewok village being attacked by "Marauders" just as the Towani family are preparing to take their ship and leave. The girl Cindel manages to run away, but her family are gunned down. Talk about completely shattering and shitting on the previous film's ending. That's about on par with the equally fatalistic and crappy opening to Alien 3, in my book (RIP Newt).

Wilford Brimley, being Wilford Brimley.

Cindel and Wicket run into a small, wacky creature called Teek, who takes them to the home of a grumpy old human man who also just so happens to live on Endor, Noa Briqualon (played by Wilford Brimley, in prime Brimley fashion). Enter the Heidi influence, as Noa is at first presented as a Grumpy Gus, who hates kids and just wants to be left alone, immediately telling Cindel and Wicket to leave. But then when they don't go that far away, he secretly gives food to Teek to give to them, showing that he isn't such a bastard after all. And again, all of this, Teek, Noa, the Heidi influence, I'm FINE with that. But they should have left Cindel out of it. Her family should have escaped in their ship BEFORE the raid on Wicket's village, and if you're going to have a human girl, make it an all new one, I say.

This guy...

So the main villain of the story is the dork you see pictured above: Terak. He, along with his shape-shifting sorceress Charal and his army of goons, have apparently also become crash-landed and stranded on Endor (the moon must be bad luck), and apart from attacking and enslaving Ewoks, they want to find parts to get their grouchy asses back out into space, where they can do mean things, even though the REAL bad guys (The Empire) would kick their shit open in a New York Minute.

To do this, they stole the power cell to the Towani family ship, but seem to be morons and don't know how to use it. So they want to get their hands on the 4-year old girl, who they somehow think will be able to teach them how. Meanwhile, it turns out that old Noa, crafty guy that he is, ALSO crash-landed on this planet years ago, and has been fixing up his own starship, which now only (conveniently) needs a new power cell.

"Go-Motion" monsters.

The story itself isn't horrible, and if it had focused more on the Ewoks, and not on a tragic Heidi story that required Cindel's family to be murdered, thus making their valiant rescue and happy reunion from the first movie pointless and obsolete, it would have been ok. Not as good as the first TV movie, but ok. Acceptable. But as is, with the shitty family death setting a bleak and absurd tone, as a kid and now, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes the movie hard to enjoy.

Like with most Unnecessary Sequels, the movie isn't as good as it's predecessor, and contains elements that actually detract from, and even somewhat "ruin" the original movie, if you choose to not do as I do, and just ignore that this exists. The Ewoks eventually beat Terak, they get the power cell, Noa and Cindel say their goodbyes and he takes her wherever out in the universe, presumably becoming her foster father. But that isn't a terribly happy ending, in contrast to what it cost Cindel, and the erasure of the ACTUALLY happy ending of the first film that it represents. Life doesn't always have happy endings, true. But fairy tales often do, and Caravan of Courage did, and thus it should have remained.

Teek is cool in my book, he gets a pass.

There are some who would argue neither of the TV films ever should have been made, I'm sure. But to me, the first was a really good part of my childhood, something that, along with the theatrical trilogy, I became very attached to. So you can also imagine how 80s me was not only upset, but also a bit traumatized, by this sequel's direction. If it had been it's own separate thing, I likely would have still loved it. But as it is, ill-conceived as I feel it was, it is something I have strongly disliked since I first saw it. There are certainly worse Unnecessary Sequels I have seen (lots). But in some ways, given my attachment to the original TV movie, my dislike of this one is a bit more personal.

And with that, I'll leave it alone. Stay Tuned for more spooky content as we countdown to Halloween!

Unnecessary Sequels: Poltergeist

Moving right along, there are so many great, classic horror films. And unfortunately, an awful lot of them also have very unnecessary, often very bad sequels.


It's become an accidental tradition, over the last couple years, to do entries of this "Unnecessary Sequels" series around Halloween. I've already covered classics (and their not-so-classic sequels), such as Fright Night, and Halloween. Going after Halloween was  tad "controversial", simply because it is such a famous, and to some fans even beloved series. But I stand by the fact that the original never needed a sequel, and in fact has a more powerful, chilling ending if taken as a stand-alone film. So now I'm back, this time to cover a film that is a truly great work, probably my top runner up for "Best Modern Horror Film", behind John Carpenter's The Thing.  And that film would be, Poltergeist...

They're Here...

Film: Poltergeist
Year: 1982
Director: Tobe Hooper (and arguably Steven Spielberg)
Unnecessary Sequels: Poltergeist II (1986), and Poltergeist III (1988)

Back in 1982, Steven Spielberg ruled the summer, as within one week of each other that June, you had the release of both Poltergeist and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. E.T., of course, is a celebrated classic, both as a science fiction film, and a great family film. Even as great slice of the 80s. But Poltergeist is also considered a classic, especially in horror film circles, and was a hit in it's own right. Directed by Tobe Hooper, known horror creator of such films as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Salem's Lot, and Lifeforce, he certainly sat in the chair, and got the official credit.

But to those who know and love Spielberg's works, this film just screams Spielberg, and does not, in all honesty and due apologies to Mr. Hooper, really bear much of his mark or style at all. Spielberg was not allowed to direct two films at once due to studio contracts, so even though he only "produced" Poltergeist, he was on set almost every day, and he had a very firm hand in crafting the film and it's entire creative and post-production process. Much the same as George Lucas did not take official director's credit for the second and third Star Wars films, but in much the same way, he was arguably still the director. Either way, most people consider this to be a "Spielberg Film", regardless of the details, because it just FEELS like one.

This House...is Clean?

The film stars Craig T. Nelson of TV show Coach fame, and JoBeth Williams, as Steven and Diane Freeling, a typical white suburban American family, with three children, a nice new home, a dog, a pool being installed in the back yard, the works. Steven works for a real estate agency, and in fact is personally involved in the development and promotion of the new suburban neighborhood that his family now lives in, "Cuesta Verde". Problem is, something's not quite right in the neighborhood, more specifically, with the Freeling's house.

Little by little, the family starts experiencing strange, inexplicable, possibly paranormal phenomenon, like furniture moving on its own, or their youngest daughter, Carol Anne, staring at a TV set that comes on all by itself. The instances get worse, and more powerful, to the point that Carol Anne is seemingly sucked into a void that exists in the children's closet. So the family, against Steven's initial feelings, calls in paranormal experts to observe the house. The experts definitely track strong paranormal activity, to the point that it starts effecting them, and they themselves have to call in bigger fish to deal with it. In this case, a "spiritualist", by the name of Tangina Barrons, played by the excellent Zelda Rubenstein.

Why, Hello There!

The thing that is remarkable, at least to me, about Poltergeist, and probably it's greatest strength, is the fact that while it IS most definitely a scary film (especially if you're seeing it for the first time), it does something that few modern horror films attempt, certainly in the 80s. That being the fact that it does not, with the exception of a particular ectoplasmic goo scene, feature any real blood or gore, it doesn't rely on cheap "gotcha" jump scares. And while I don't want to spoil things for you, absolutely no one dies. It proves that you can make a scary movie, WITHOUT a huge kill count (or any, for that matter), and you can also do it while focusing on the human characters, and making the audience CARE about those characters, in this case a good, endearing, innocent family.

One of the most fucked up scenes an actor has ever been put through.

The film's strength is it's heart, and the fact that, like most Spielberg movies, it builds a foundation on the main characters, and gets you, the viewer, invested in not only the story, but them as people. Much like another Spielberg produced 80s horror film, Gremlins, it manages to be what I call "family horror", more old school, classic Hollywood styled scary films, that manage to be fun AND creepy, heartwarming AND terrifying. The film also, unfortunately, has a bizarre production history and rumored "curse" that follows it, that I'm not going to bother getting into here. If you're curious and unfamiliar, ask Google.

The movie is deserving of it's classic status, and it was also a well-earned blockbuster hit of 1982 (though, obviously, not nearly to the extent that E.T. was). Sadly, if it didn't also have shitty sequels to talk about, then this would be a very different kind of article.

Just talkin' on my Dream Phone...

Without getting too spoiler-y, the ending of the original film is very powerful, and very self-containing. Meaning it's a GOOD, solid ending that, while it certainly leaves you with questions, as all good horror movies should, it also feels "wrapped up", and does not need "the continuing adventures" to be created. But Hollywood is Hollywood, and money is money. So in 1986, Poltergeist II was born, not directed by Hooper, nor with much (if really any) involvement by Spielberg.

Now, in the interest of fairness, Poltergeist II is not a BAD film. It's okay, in it's own way, and has at least a couple elements of merit to it. Namely, the new characters of "Reverend Kane", and Taylor, a Native American shaman and friend of Tangina. The Freeling family has moved, and their old home location has become the site of a paranormal archeological excavation. Everything seems hunky dory at first, but naturally, there wouldn't be much of a movie if things didn't go awry.

And where things go awry, is this film, this unnecessary sequel's, biggest problem. As far as I'm concerned, this movie commits a cardinal sin, and does the one thing that, at the very least supernatural-based horror films, should never do. And that is tell you too much, reveal too much, flesh out the ghost, or the monster, or the bad guy, too much. Poltergeist II does that, and if you take it as canon to the first film (I don't), as far as I'm concerned, it really kinda de-mystifies the first film quite a bit.

Admittedly, very creepy.

According to this sequel's canon, Reverend Henry Kane is the source of the paranormal occurrences, that the Freeling family encountered in the first film. In the first film, again while trying to avoid giving TOO much away, you are never given any clear story or details at all, about just WHAT is haunting them, and just WHAT kind of ethereal monster is after Carol Anne. And it's better that way, the story plays better, and it makes the whole deal spookier, when you really don't know WHAT is going on. You are just as in the dark as the terrified family, and that's part of the fun: you, the audience, are along for the ride. But in P2, they try to say that "Well, it was actually just a crazy old preacher's soul that's after the girl". Much, MUCH less scary, and honestly kind of lame.

The actor himself, Julian Beck, to his credit, does a phenomenal job, and is appropriately sinister and creepy. But the fact remains that the original film never needed nor ASKED for greater explanation, any more than it did for an ill-advised sequel that tries to provide that. Zelda Rubenstein also makes a reappearance, once again helping the family fight the forces of Darkness, along with her friend Taylor. And all of that is nice, well done enough, but just incredibly un-needed. But for all of this film's flaws, it is nowhere NEAR as bad as what followed...

Yeah...

So in 1988, MGM decided to poop out yet another sequel. And this time, whether it was due to them "wanting to shake things up", or more likely, them wanting to make a cheaper film, they didn't bring most of the cast back. In fact, the only two returning actors, are Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne), and Zelda Rubenstein. They concocted some half-baked story about how Carol Anne's parents decided to, because reasons, send her away to Chicago to live with her aunt and uncle. Because the family, the parents, that fought so very hard in the FIRST two films, to protect this girl they loved so much, would totally just decide to send her away afterwards.

So here she is, living with strange people in a sky scraper in Chicago, and wouldn't you know it, the spirit of that dastardly old Rev. Kane, STILL won't shut the fuck up! He's back again, just like The Joker in an old episode of Batman, and the psychic Tangina, naturally sensing that he's back, rushes across country herself to conveniently be there to help out, once again. Because some Hollywood scripts, are written very, very well.

In full blunt honesty, while the second film at least deserved to be talked about a bit, this film really does not. It is on Jaws: The Revenge type levels of crap. And the worst part is? The poor little girl, Heather, at the tender age of 12 years old, died just months before the film was even done in post-production, due to really shitty and very sad medical malpractice. So the kid doesn't even get to finish growing up, let alone living her life, but the studio has it's bottom line to think about, so they put this garbage film out anyway. Though to their empty credit, they DO dedicate the film "in her memory".



In 2015, they (of course) even made a remake, simply titled Poltergeist once more. And I really couldn't say if it was well made or not. I've seen enough crappy, pointless remakes and reboots in my time, that I simply was not interested and don't really have any intention of seeing it. The original film is an absolute classic, that if you haven't seen, I would say it's one of those films, unless ghosts really scare you, or you just can't do spooky movies in general, that you really must see. It's worth it, and it really does tell a good, interesting story. The sequels, however? If you were asking for my advice, I'd say don't even bother. The original stands on it's own just fine, and I think that's how it should stay.

RIP to Dominique Dunne and Heather O'Rourke

Unnecessary Sequels: Halloween

Back again for another Halloween edition of this series, and this time, I attack the big fish......


Last year, I decided to do a Halloween entry into this "Unnecessary Sequels" series, because there certainly are a ton of horror/scary type movies that have gotten far too many shit-tacular sequels. But last time, I tackled something a bit more obscure, in the form of 80s cult hit Fright Night. This year, however, I thought I'd go for the jugular, and set myself up for some potential controversy, by attacking one of the biggest horror franchises in movie history, and one appropriately named to this time of year: Halloween. But what's that? How could I possibly say that the Halloween series is made up of a bunch of absolutely unnecessary sequels? Well....just wait and find out.

Still an iconic poster.

Film: Halloween
Year: 1978
Director: John Carpenter
Unnecessary Sequels: Halloween II (1981), Halloween 4 (1988), Halloween 5 (1989), Halloween 6 (1995), Halloween H20 (1998), Halloween: Resurrection (2002)


So I should start off by stating that I am not, as I may have mentioned in the past, a big fan of so-called "slasher" films. I like some modern horror, even (depending on the context) gorier films. A perfect example, is another film from this same director that I'll get around to talking about one day, in 1982's The Thing, which especially for its time was super gory. However, the gore wasn't really the selling point of the film, and it was within a context that the monster of the movie was a gross, shape-shifting alien, so even though it easily could have been distracting and unnecessary, it fit the context of the story the movie was trying to tell. And the movie itself was otherwise excellent, with an incredibly tangible sense of dread and tension that builds throughout the film. In point of fact, I might call John Carpenter's The Thing my favorite modern horror film (meaning not classic, circa 20s-60s era). Either that or Poltergeist.

It also just so happens that John Carpenter himself is one of my top favorite directors of all time, as I like not ALL, but most of his films. A couple of his movies, such as Escape From New York, The Thing, and most especially Big Trouble in Little China, are some of my favorites, easily being in the Top 50 (Big Trouble itself making into my personal Top 5). But while I do not love "slasher" films, and it's most certainly not one of my favorite Carpenter works, his 1978 classic Halloween is a movie that I own, and appreciate. In fact, while there were many "killer on the loose with a knife" style films dating back decades in Hollywood, the argument can absolutely be made that Halloween was the movie that really kicked off (for better or for worse) the modern "slasher" genre, as almost all such films that followed it emulated it heavily.

An actress that Carpenter helped make a star, Jamie Lee Curtis.

 

Before his 1978 breakthrough, John Carpenter had only modest success with his first couple of films, still basically struggling and trying to make it in Hollywood. But with Halloween, which was independently produced on the paltry budget of around $300,000, not only did he accidentally help innovate an entire sub-genre of movies, but he also made both his own career, and the careers of several of the people involved in the movie, such as actress Jamie Lee Curtis, co-writer and producer Debra Hill, and the original man behind the mask, Nick Castle, who himself went on to have a successful career as a screenwriter and director. What Halloween accomplished, was managing to take that paltry budget, and limited promotion (though they did try to sell the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis was the daughter of Janet Leigh, who herself starred in Alfred Hitchcock's famous thriller Psycho), was nothing short of going on to be recognized for decades to come as the most financially successful independent film ever made.

How it accomplished such a feat, in part, is what also sets it apart from other "slasher" films that would follow in its footsteps. That being, it was very minimalist, and light on gore. Granted, that certainly had at least something to do with the very limited budget of the film. But it was also a stylistic choice by Carpenter that he employed on most of his early films (until The Thing, in fact), where "less was more" and he typically pushed concepts and building tension over "showing too much". With Halloween, the antagonist, the deranged killer Michael Myers, who was originally only credited as "The Shape", is barely seen, and there are many POV (Point of View) shots that show the audience nothing more than the limited view from inside Michael's own creepy mask-holes. The film is built on a similar foundation to The Thing, in that the entire film succeeds in building this ever-mounting sense of dread and tension. Because you see the "monster" of the film only sparingly until the end, it adds to and enhances both the sense of terror, but also of mystery. In the original film, you not only see very little of Myers, but you also learn very little of him, giving him an incredible mystique.

The iconic visage.

 

The original film's ending is one of the most memorable and creepy in horror film history, as Dr. Loomis (portrayed by veteran actor Donald Pleasance), Michael's psychiatrist from the asylum, shows up in the nick of time to stop him. He shoots him six times, and Michael falls out of the second story balcony, presumably to his death. But when the audience gets to see over the balcony to the street below, there is no sign of Michael anywhere, he's just gone. And that is how the movie ends. If you ask me, it was one of the single most chilling and effective horror endings of all time, BECAUSE of how mysterious and open-ended it was. And if you ask me, it should have remained that way...

Far less cool looking.

 

So, I'm going to go in a slightly different direction with this than I do in all of my other "Unnecessary Sequel" entries. The main concept of this series has always been movies that were great stand-alone films, that got sequels that were unneeded and unwarranted, only done as Hollywood cash-ins, and are generally terrible and would have been better off never having happened. In some cases the needless sequels are so bad that they actually manage to somewhat tarnish or taint the original films. With Halloween, on the other hand, while the argument can totally be made that the original film was effective as it was, and shouldn't have had any sequels at all, I'm here this time to make a different argument.

When the first film was a run-away smash hit, Hollywood does what it often does in such cases. They like money, they see something that made a lot of money, and they want more of that to happen, because they want more money. So Hollywood pushed for there to be a sequel to Halloween, and though John Carpenter refused to direct it himself, because he didn't want to do the same thing over again, he did unfortunately agree to co-write and produce it once again with Debra Hill. I say unfortunately, because they made what I consider to be the key mistake of deciding to continue the same story of the first film.

Donald Pleasance was a badass as Dr. Loomis.

 

Not wanting to direct, Carpenter picked Rick Rosenthal to take the reigns, and he ambitiously set about to try and set the film as taking place in the very same night, directly after the events of the first movie. While a novel and ambitious concept, one that they pulled off decently well from a filmmaking standpoint, especially when you stop to consider that the sequel was made three years after the original, I still think that it was a mistake to make a second film focusing on Michael Myers, for multiple reasons.

For one thing, it somewhat helps destroy the mystique of the first film and its ending. In Halloween II, you literally see the events that directly follow that vague and creepy ending, instead of leaving it entirely up to the viewer's imagination, effectively robbing that ending, in some respects, of its power. On the one hand, we get to see more of Donald Pleasance in his awesome performance as Dr. Loomis, a role in which he shined (you can honestly argue that he stole the show in every one of these movies that he was in). You also get the big reveal that Laurie Strode (Curtis) is actually Michael Myers' younger sister (him having been said to murder his older sister as a child in the first film). The thing is, while it does help make a bit more sense as to why he would come back to his hometown after escaping the asylum in the first movie, and why he would specifically be stalking and eventually trying to kill Laurie, it also caused them to have to ret-con a bit from the first movie. And ultimately, while it's a "neat" reveal, it also didn't really enhance or add that much to the original, as again, part of that film's power, IS its vagueness and mystery. This sequel helps de-mystify a lot of that.

The bastard child of the series...

 

The other reason that making the first sequel about Michael Myers again was a mistake, is because it caused fans to come to expect Myers to be the villain again and again in any future installments, just the same as other similar 80s "slasher" series such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th. The fact is, when Carpenter and Hill agreed to do a sequel in the first place, their original concept for it going forward, was that it should be an anthology series, akin to television shows like The Twilight Zone and Night Gallery. The only tying factor across the series, would be that while each movie would have a totally different setting, cast of characters and story to tell, they would always occur on Halloween, hence the series title. Not only would that have made more sense, but it would have, at least in my opinion, made the series far more interesting, and given it far more potential longevity.

HEY! That's not Michael Myers!!

 

This problem proved itself true when it surfaced with the third film. In 1982, Carpenter and Hill produced a third sequel, subtitled "Season of the Witch", and it wound up being a very very different film. It was, as they had originally envisioned, a completely different story, in a completely different setting, with the only tying theme being that the events occurred on Halloween night. This film instead, focused on a very esoteric plot having to do with corporate corruption and science fiction and Celtic mythology elements. It all centers around these creepy novelty Halloween costume masks, typically worn by children, and an evil corporation that makes them.

The plot itself is somewhat silly, but that's beyond the point. It's different, it's fairly interesting, and it's not just Mike running around stabbing people again. The problem they encountered, is that while it certainly wasn't a bad film, it bombed in theaters specifically because fans had come to expect Myers to be in the film, and when he wasn't anywhere to be found, many were disappointed or even angered. And as I said before, the filmmakers set themselves up for this failure when they made the second film about Myers in the first place. If they had gone with the "Season of the Witch" plot for the second film, and perhaps made a point to have a big media campaign that EXPLAINED that what they were going for with this series, was to establish a Twilight Zone type of anthology series in movie form, I'm willing to bet that may well have done a lot better, and been better received by audiences. And who knows, perhaps with success they could have come up with better and more interesting stories for future films.

Those goddamn masks.

 

Now Halloween III: Season of the Witch was not a great movie by any means, but it was unique, and at the very least interesting. Plus it starred Tom Adkins (who also starred in Fred Dekker's Night of the Creeps) in a solid role as Dr. Challis. Its biggest problem, I truly believe, is not that it was a bad movie, because it isn't. But that it lacked Michael Myers, and that's what fans had come to expect and want out of the series. If Carpenter and Co. had pushed for the anthology format immediately with Halloween II, I think it could have accomplished two positives. For one, it would have left the first film, and the story of Michael Myers and Laurie Strode, as a much more mysterious and powerfully chilling tale. And of course secondly, if the second film had featured a new "monster" and a whole new story, it would have established the series right off the bat as being an anthology, and fans would have expected each new film to tell a totally different story. Thus, it could have potentially been the catalyst for what may well have been a long running and really cool horror movie series, that actually had a lot more value and substance, placing it above and beyond the other "same old shit every film" horror series that spawned from it.

As it is, Halloween III sadly bombed, and the series was dropped as Carpenter and Hill were busy with other projects. The franchise would be resurrected (literally) in 1988, without John Carpenter's involvement at all, and of course they brought back Myers in multiple sequels, that did financially well and fans ate up, because that is what they had been trained to want by then: "the same old shit, in every single film". These sequels had such sterling titles as "The Return of Michael Myers", "The Revenge of Michael Myers", "The Curse of Michael Myers", "The Dance Recital of Michael Myers", and of course everyone's favorite "Michael Myers Stops by Subway to Grab a Footlong". Those last couple of titles were jokes, of course...but they might as well have literally been movies that had gotten made.

Great actors, but also status quo.

 

The only positive thing about any of these sequels, is that Donald Pleasance got to reprise his role as Dr. Samuel Loomis. In fact Halloween VI was his last major film role, as he died months before its release in 1995. Everything else just kind of goes the same way all of these over-long horror series go: increasingly ridiculous and crappy plots, acting, etc. They even make up that Laurie Strode had a daughter, but then dies in a car crash, so when Mike inevitably comes back from the dead again, he goes after a little kid. Yup. Later still, in 1998 they made the amazing Halloween H20, and later a 2002 sequel Halloween: Resurrection, in which they completely ret-con (retroactive continuity) those previous three films, and make it so that Laurie was in fact alive, and instead has a son. And just like most of those drawn out franchises, it just got dumber and more pointless.

Now I am well aware that there happen to be some folks out there who are huge fans of the Halloween series as a whole, and even like those later films (or at least some of them). Hence my stating that I was courting "controversy" with this article. But just the same, I will stick to my guns in my claim that this series would have been far better, and far better off, if it had been an anthology. If the first film had been the only one to feature Michael Myers, the series could have had a decent run as a theatrical take on that Twilight Zone type of concept. It wouldn't have lasted forever, nor should it have. But at the least, they would have had the potential to never really run out of story ideas, and NOT just feature the "same old shit every single film".

As my final comment, I suppose I would say that any fan of horror should, of course, see the original Carpenter-directed classic, if they haven't already, as it is very well done for it's time and budget, and it's influence on the genre is undeniable. I would also say to check out Halloween III, because if nothing else it is a very odd and unique curiosity, and also a glimpse at what possibly could have been.

Unnecessary Sequels: Romancing the Stone

Well, it's a brand new year again, 2015, and while there are many things "cooking" for future articles, I figured I'd bust out another of these fancy little deals. The 80s really did seem to be a great decade for films, as it was chock full of great ones in so many different genres (something to be touched upon in a later piece, for sure). One of those great movies, and one of my personal favorite "action/adventure" films, happened to be director Robert Zemeckis' first big hit, before he went on to "Back to the Future" fame, and that was "Romancing the Stone". And while it may be hard to believe, considering what kind of article this is, yes, the sad truth is even a great little movie like this had itself a shitty little sequel.

Movies just don't seem to have great posters anymore. Just silly cast shots.

Film: Romancing the Stone
Year: 1984
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Unnecessary Sequel: The Jewel of the Nile (1985)

So for those unfamiliar, "Romancing" centers around the characters of Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner), author of cheesy romance novels, who must travel to Colombia to save her kidnapped sister, and Jack T. Colton (Michael Douglas), a fortune hunter she runs across by pure chance out in the Colombian jungles. Seems that Joan's sister Elaine's deceased husband ran afoul of some local military types down in Colombia, and now Joan has to bring a map that was mailed to her address for safe keeping back to Colombia, to the kidnappers, in exchange for her sister. Nice setup, and of course you get the drama and comedy of the fairly clueless social shut-in traveling around such a hostile place all by her lonesome.

Michael Douglas, in arguably his best role. At least to me.

So, the bad guy, Colonel Zolo, tricks her into getting on the wrong bus from the airport, hoping to catch her alone out in the jungle and take the map from her. Lucky for her though, she accidentally causes the bus to crash into someone's jeep on the road, and wouldn't you know it, it belonged to good ol' Jack T. Colton, who happens upon her and the fiendish Zolo. He agrees to escort her back to some kind of civilization so she can use a phone, through promise of money of course. Meanwhile, the kidnapper's cousin, Ralph (played excellently as always by Danny DiVito), is on the road trying to find Joan Wilder, as he was supposed to meet her at the airport before she got on the wrong bus.

Let's be honest, DiVito is great in just about every role he plays.

Long story short, the map she was mailed in New York, turns out to be an old treasure map of sorts, providing (naturally) vague directions to a mysterious treasure known as El Corazon ("The Heart"), which ultimately turns out to be the enormous emerald that you can see Ralph holding in the picture above. All sorts of madcap adventure movie fun ensues, as chasing and shooting and all sorts of comedy and budding romance happens. All around, it's a great film, with a lot going for it, and it really is one of those "something for everybody" type of movies. If I were to make a "Top 20 movies of the 80s" list, there is a very strong chance "Romancing the Stone" would be on it, because I like it that much. And that's rough, trust me, because the 80s had some GREAT fuckin' movies. However.....

This was sadly not one of them.

As seems to be a naturally recurring theme in these articles, the totally unneeded, unwanted, unnecessary sequel that 20th Century Fox pooped out just wasn't....very good. For one thing, it was rushed, coming out just over a year and a half after the first. For another, none of the principle actors REALLY wanted to do a sequel, and rightly so, as "Romancing" stands by itself, like all the movies in these articles, as perfectly good, self-contained stories. The fact that they didn't want to do it shows, as there's just something "off" throughout the film, and Kathleen Turner even tried to refuse doing the sequel, only to come back and do it after being being legally threatened over contract by the studio. Not a great recipe for anything good, really.

To top it all off, Zemeckis didn't direct, for one because he probably didn't want to, and for another because he was far too busy making the AWESOME "Back to the Future". Instead, Lewis Teague, who had just come fresh off of success with two back to back Stephen King adaptations, "Cujo" and "Cat's Eye", was hired to direct. Not that it was Lewis' fault, but it was just another detracting element. All in all, the whole film just comes off as rather uninspired, and (duh) unnecessary. It doesn't even have the kind of entertainment value and "what are these characters up to now?" value that, say, "Gremlins 2" had. Yes, you do get to see what Jack and Joan are up to now, it's just that their portrayal in this is less that great, and often comes off as a bunch of annoying "couples drama", whereas the first film left us (happily) with a more romantic "ride off together into the blue" type of feeling. Then of course Ralph, DiVito's character, randomly finds himself in Egypt, so that he can have an excuse to take part in the plot, just to be comedic relief. All in all, the plot itself isn't even really that interesting enough to get into, and if you really care, there's always Wikipedia.

Bottom line, just another wasted, pointless sequel that was rushed into production to cash in on success, trying to make more money. Every ONCE in awhile, even though they still shouldn't happen, those kind of sequels work somehow, and wind up being okay. But I find that more often than not, they really don't. And this was no different. So if you've never seen "Romancing the Stone", I'd highly suggest watching it. It's grand entertainment, and has all the greatest markings of that "80s flair". But you are better off not bothering with "Jewel"....because you're not going to be missing anything, and it might actually even detract from your enjoyment of the first. Cheers.

Unnecessary Sequels: Fright Night

Here comes Round 3, and boy is it a doozy...........hold onto your butts........



So, usually, I would take a movie that I like, that is somewhat obscure, like the one I'm about to talk about, and put it in the "Silver Screen Stories" series, because it really is a great little film that more people need to know about. However, I am unfortunately compelled to place it in this series instead, because it also suffered the wretched fate of Hollywood trying to unnecessarily cash in on it's modest success, with a super-craptacular sequel that in many ways almost ruins the first film. And with that, let's dive right in!

Film: Fright Night
Year: 1985
Director: Tom Holland
Unnecessary Sequel: Fright Night II (1988)


Fright Night was one of many films from the 80s that can absolutely be labeled as an "80s film", because not only did it come from the 80s, but it embodies the 80s and belongs to the 80s. It wasn't quite as successful nor quite as famous as it's "teen vampire movie" counterpart, Joel Schumacher's 1987 hit "The Lost Boys", but it certainly was a success in it's own right. And I must say, in several ways I would venture to state that it's a better film, though Lost Boys was certainly a good movie. I'll say right away, that like many other things, the 80s knew how to do "teen vampire movies" right, as Night and Boys were both filled with clever dialogue, tight writing, and human characters you actually cared about. Unlike, basically, Twilight, or pretty much any other modern take on vampire nonsense.

In the 80s, vampires wore awesome Cosby sweaters.

The set-up of the film, is that young teen geek Charley Brewster, is a huge fan of classic horror movies, especially the "gothic horror" vampire films starring his favorite actor, Peter Vincent (played by the amazing Roddy McDowall). In fact, the movie gets it's name from Charley's favorite TV show, "Fright Night", which is hosted by Mr. Vincent (who himself is send up to both Vincent Price and long-time Hammer Films horror star Peter Cushing). So one night, while getting friendly with his high school sweetheart, Amy, he notices that a neighbor has moved in next door, and he spies some people carrying what looks like a coffin into the basement of the house. Being the horror geek that he is, he automatically assumes something is up, and sets about spying on his neighbor over the course of the next couple days, eventually discovering to his horror that, not only is his neighbor a real live (metaphorically speaking) vampire, but he's also responsible for the murders that have been plaguing his town recently. Left with no other recourse (so he feels) after his neighbor Jerry Dandridge discovers that his secret is known, and the vampire makes it clear that Charley is on his shit list very soon, he decides to go and seek help from the only man he believes can solve his little problem.

There's no mistake, this man makes the movie.

So now we get down to it. Peter Vincent, the character who, played so brilliantly by the tragically under-recognized and under-appreciated Mr. McDowall, completely makes this movie on his own. Don't get me wrong, if his role had been played by someone else, it might have still been decent, and this film on it's own would have still been a fun, interesting slice of the 80s. But WITH McDowall, the movie becomes, at least in my mind, a classic. Not only is he great in this role, but I also love this movie for the fact that it is one solid (and sadly rare) instance I can point to and say to people who have no idea who Roddy is, "There, THAT guy!". See, the thing is, most people do know about Mr. McDowall's work, he's just one of those guys where they aren't totally aware of it. He was/is fairly infamous in the role of Dr. Cornelius in the "Planet of the Apes" movies, though he is behind make-up and ape-mask. Fans of the widely known 90s cartoon "Batman: The Animated Series" would also recognize him as the voice behind the brilliantly played "Mad Hatter" villain. But in both cases of course, he's known more for his voice, not his face. But this was one role in a fairly successful film where his face IS shown, and he's really allowed to shine.

To make a long story short, Charley confronts Mr. Vincent as he's leaving his film studio where the "Fright Night" show is shot, and he tries to convince him that his neighbor is a vampire, and that he needs his "expert" help, as a long-time slayer of film vampires, in killing the fiend, before he kills Charley instead. Peter of course thinks the kid is bonkers, and gets out of there as fast as he can. Later on, after Charley has announced his fate to his girl Amy, and his kinda-sorta-pal "Evil" Ed, that he is going to try and kill Jerry Dandrige all by himself, if he can, they approach Mr. Vincent themselves. Fearing for Charley's sanity (not to mention his future jail-time), they convince him (with money) to come with them and "prove" that the nice neighbor isn't really a vampire at all. Problem is, after the faux test of proof to show Charley that Mr. Dandridge is just a normal dude, Peter Vincent accidentally sees no reflection when looking at Jerry in a mirror. He realizes then and there that vampires are real.

She's a hell of a wicked kissah.

So without giving too much away, after a further series of events, Mr. Vincent finally becomes convinced to attempt to play the role of "vampire killer" in real life, and he and Charley team up to take on the vile menace and his disgusting disciples. All in all, like I said before, it's really a great little film. In fact, while Tom Holland would go on to direct other well known horror films like the original "Child's Play" and a 90s adaptation of the Stephen King story "Thinner", I think his first movie (this one), was his best.

Even the poster sucks.

To me personally at least, the wholly uncalled for, unasked for, and unnecessary sequel that Fright Night received, is easily one of the very worst examples I can think of. Yes, it's even up there with the Jaws and Neverending Story sequels. It's that bad. The short version goes, the film was directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, who had previously done another unnecessary sequel in the form of "Halloween III: Season of the Witch". So that's already a bad start. But while the movie does retain it's top two stars from before, Roddy McDowall and William Ragsdale (Charley), the entire thing just screams "Why did you make this?" from beginning to end. Much like the many other films I've already brought to your attention in this little series of mine, the original Fright Night, had a rather well put together ending, and it was a very nice, self-contained story. This film undoes just about all of that, either directly, or indirectly. For one thing, it pulls the frequent Hollywood trick of "we couldn't get that actor back so we wrote her out and gave him a new girlfriend". That's exactly what happens, as Charley is now in college and no longer with his cute high-school sweetheart, instead now with a new girl, for convenience's sake. Not only that, but the writing and dialogue aren't snappy and memorable as in the first film, the plot and characters are no longer interesting, and the new villain, a shitty, "euro-trash" type vampire (a prototype for the modern era maybe?), named Regine, and her trashy, hipster, "New York party scene" reject crew, are incredibly uncompelling and lame.

The movie sucks to a degree that not even the Peter Vincent character can save it. Everything that was cool about the first movie, pretty much sucks in the second. The plot is incoherent and uninteresting, the pace of the film (unlike the original), is plodding and honestly boring for much of the film, etc. It really is just one of the worst examples you could ask for in a sequel that just never should have happened, as it tarnishes (to some degree) the legacy of the original film. But if that weren't bad enough, it isn't just that Fright Night got fucked by a shitty sequel. Nay, more recently (2011 to be precise), it got fucked even further, with a brand spanking new remake/reboot treatment. The only thing in film that is honestly worse than an unnecessary sequel to a great or even just decent film, is an even more unnecessary remake. And, not surprisingly, like most modern horror (or sci fi, or fantasy) remakes, from what I understand, the new film, starring none other than Colin Ferrel as the vampire, really sucked. In fact it sucked so bad that it got a direct-to-video sequel that totally ignores it and re-remakes the original with an all-new cast. Yup.

Funny thing, Colin Ferrel, while a good actor, who has played a few pretty strong roles in his time, also around the same time-frame starred in yet another unnecessary (and from what I understand, shitty) remake, this time of Total Recall. But you know, as this series of mine points out, among other things, Hollywood just never seems to learn. They figure that if something made money in the past, it might make money again now, and hell, that's a lot more secure of a proposal than taking a risk (like Hollywood used to do all the time decades ago), on totally NEW properties. But especially with movies like this one, the problem with remaking something like Fright Night, is that, as I stated at the beginning of this article, it was a product of the 80s. It embodies the 80s, it is every bit an "80s movie", and that is part of what makes it so great.

Remaking Fright Night? That would be about as dumb as, I don't know, trying to remake Gremlins. Oh..................wait....................


Till next time, keep your windows locked, and don't invite any neighbors in the house. 

Unnecessary Sequels: Mortal Kombat

Back once more with another installment of the shitty film sequel chronicles! Today we're going to look at a film that is near and dear to my heart, along with it's unnecessary sequel, which was the first experience I ever had as a movie-goer where I was crushingly disappointed not just after the film was over, but during the entire thing. For a bit a of background, I may have mentioned previously that growing up, my grandmother was of a firm mind that seeing movies in theater was a "waste of time", and thus I had to miss out on experiencing a lot of awesome movies on the big screen that other kids my age got to. As such, I didn't get to really start seeing movies in the theater (except for a couple from my very early childhood that I barely remember, such as E.T.), until I was actually 13 years old, when we finally moved to a bigger town right before she passed away. 

I can't clearly remember what the first movie I did see was, there were many during that summer of 1995, such as my first exposure to Jackie Chan in "Rumble in the Bronx", which to me at that time was mind-blowing (as I had never seen Jackie and his antics before). I'm going to propose, however, that the first one I probably saw was "Might Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie", as both it and "Batman Forever" were out around the same time in June '95, and it was a toss-up between those two among my two friends and I. My friend Harold (the one who loves M.C. Kids), was the tie breaking vote to go see Power Rangers, to my chagrin, so we did. I wound up enjoying it to some extent, and we eventually also went to see Batman (which I liked at the time, now...not quite as much).

But no, the movie I'm about to talk about came out in August, and while I had certainly wanted to see Batman (being a big fan of the animated series), this movie, was the first movie I actually got to see in theaters that I remember being hyped to see, and to me at least, it totally lived up to the hype. It was my first "wow" experience going to the movies, and it holds a special place in my movie-loving heart to this day.

Film: Mortal Kombat
Year: 1995
Director: Paul Anderson
Unnecessary Sequel: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

 The movie in question, as you can see, was "Mortal Kombat", based on the at the time red-hot arcade game. Funnily enough, when Mortal Kombat originally came out in 1992, and for some time after that, I was a Street Fighter obsessee, and naturally among kids (just like with Nintendo vs. Sega) there was a Street Fighter II vs. Mortal Kombat divide, with different factions arguing which game was better. To me, SFII was unquestionably better, and I also initially didn't like the (what I considered at the time, at age 10 or 11) excessive blood and violence of the game. I think it was actually after Mortal Kombat 2 came out in 1993, that I actually came around to liking it more. MKII had a bit of a deeper sense of story than the first game did, and it also had the (attractive to this monster nut) unique setting of "Outworld", and all of that started to turn me around on the subject. I was officially a fan by the time MK3 came out in early 1995, so as I said I was genuinely hyped to see the film. And as I said, it didn't disappoint.

Great cast.

 

Ironically, the film was directed by Paul Anderson, who really should be commended for doing a great job with it, though he would go on to be derided by yours truly in future years for a long string of substanceless crap such as the "Resident Evil" films, "Death Race", etc. I'd like to think that part of the reason this movie turned out so well, is because the creators of the game were deeply involved in its production, and so perhaps they reigned in whatever nonsensical bullshit he might have wanted to do with it. Then again, maybe he just had one great (to me) movie in him, and then gave in to an overwhelming urge to progressively become one of the worst directors in Hollywood? But I digress.


To me, everything about "Mortal Kombat" the movie was pretty much perfect, from  great casting, to great cinematography, to (for the time) fantastic special effects, amazing sets and ambiance, a killer soundtrack, great fighting action, you name it. In fact, the set-builders did such a good job with their "Outworld" set they created out in a California desert, that it actually scared commercial pilots flying over it by night. The casting really couldn't have been much better. Christopher Lambert almost steals the show as Raiden, god of thunder and lightning. Linden Ashby was perfect in the role of cocky martial arts film star Johnny Cage (especially considering he had no prior training, he looked great in his fight scenes). Bridgette Wilson had a strong and evocative turn as conflicted special-forces operative Sonya Blade. Cary Tagawa was both chilling and awesome as villain sorcerer Shang Tsung. And of course the star of the show, Robin Shou was practically born for the role of shaolin warrior Liu Kang.

Mortal enemies, ninja assassin Sub-Zero and undead spectre Scorpion.

As for the film itself, from beginning to end, it just really pops. If you're a Mortal Kombat fan, it has everything you could want. If you're just a fan of martial arts/action films, it still has plenty to keep you entertained. And honestly, even if you're not usually a fan of that kind of movie, it's still a quality flick worth seeing, in my humble opinion. What they managed to do in this film for a (by today's standards) paltry $18 million budget, is really surprising. A lot of care and attention to detail was put into everything. And while certainly, not everything is 100% accurate to the games, with several things added or embellished, none of it detracts from the film or makes it feel "off" at all. In fact some of the addition to detail, such as many facets of Shang Tsung's private island (obviously inspired by the great Bruce Lee epic "Enter the Dragon"), and the created-for-the-film character of martial-artist Art Lean, was exceptionally well done.

Prince Goro, ruler of the Shokan race, and reigning Mortal Kombat Champion.

 

As seen above, they pulled off the boss character from MK1, Goro, with a combination of a live actor in a suit, and animatronics. And as you can see, it came out pretty good, easily as good as that of, say, the TMNT movies or the "Dinosaurs" TV show. It really holds up well, even today, and while CGI might arguably have helped make him look "better", I find that often times practical effects make things more organic and realistic than computer effects. Goro was voiced by legendary voice actor Frank Welker, who also did various other voices in the film, such as that of the creature/warrior Reptile, and a cameo appearance at the end of (SPOILERS) "Outworld" ruler Shao Khan.

All in all, the film, at least in my opinion, is just very well done. Great fight scenes include: Liu Kang vs. Sub-Zero, Johnny Cage vs. Scorpion, and Liu Kang vs. Shang Tsung + souls of vanquished warriors near the end of the film (ALSO SPOILERS). Someone I knew had the soundtrack to the movie, and I listened to it quite a bit, even for a couple of years after the movie had come out. Mortal Kombat was a phenomenon in the 90s, and this movie was/is a perfect preservation of that. I honestly could continue to go on about it at length, but that wouldn't leave time for the bad news. And the bad news is, that unfortunately, this film's sequel, which I was ALSO super-hyped for, wound up being a complete shitter.

"Destroy All Expectations"....it certainly did.

 

Trust me when I tell you there was a LOT of hype surrounding this movie. Not only had the first film been a huge blockbuster success, but Mortal Kombat 3 and even to a lesser extent Mortal Kombat 4 had gone on in the following years to grow the popularity of the franchise. There was major hype surrounding the fact that it was revealed ahead of time that arch-enemies Scorpion and Sub-Zero, would actually fight in this film (in the first they had merely been pawns of Shang Tsung). That alone was enough reason to get fans salivating over the possibilities. But as fate would have it, it was not meant to be. This is one of the very few films I've ever seen, let alone in theaters, that I shit you not, within the first few moments of the film, I already knew it was going to be a crap-fest. 

Literally, in the abrupt opening scenes of the film, what is supposed to be a giant portal from Outworld appears in the sky, as Shao Khan has cheated the gods' tournament system (the winner of ten straight would rule the Earth realm, but Liu Kang won the 10th tournament saving Earth), and his armies are invading. Just in that opening scene, that portal and the effects of the Outworld warriors teleporting to the ground....it all just looked so damn cheesy that I physically groaned. Then Johnny Cage, played by another actor because Linden Ashby either wasn't available or didn't want to be in the picture just to get offed in a short, crappy scene, gets unceremoniously killed. No big, dramatic, touching warriors' death, fitting of a beloved character. Nope. Just a quick neck-break or something of that type.

In fact, the only returning actors from the first movie were Robin Shou, and Talisa Soto who played Princess Kitana, Shao Khan's adopted daughter and rightful heir to Outworld (or Edenia, as it's actually called). The rest of the new cast was, for the most part, fairly forgettable. Actress Sandra Hess was cast as Sonya, with Lynn Williams playing her over-the-top partner Jax. James Remar, honestly a really good actor in most roles, was re-cast as Lord Raiden, and although he tried, it just wasn't the same without Lambert, who made that role. The villains this time around, were Bryan Thompson (Sir Brock from Dragonheart) as Shao Khan, and Musetta Vander as his "bride" Queen Sindel, Kitana's once-deceased mother. They themselves weren't exactly horrible, but the acting and everything else in general in this film, were really just sub-par and very "meh".

This picture honestly sums up all I really need to say.

 

The amazing thing, is that they took over two years to make this film, on a budget nearly twice as much as the first. They had all the time in the world to get it right, and while they had a new director (John Leonetti), that hardly should have mattered. All they had to do was follow the blueprint they already established with the first, and with a bigger budget, they absolutely should have made at least a competent film. But they didn't even accomplish that. The final product honestly resembles something made for TV or direct to video, not a $30 million dollar (which was big for the time) theatrical sequel to a blockbuster hit. Where the first film was, beginning to end, an enjoyable ride through an otherworldly story of mortal men and women fighting to defend Earth, the sequel is, beginning to end, a monotonous and sometimes painful exercise in just about everything you shouldn't do when making a film like this. The effects were somehow far cheaper on a bigger budget, the fight scenes shorter and shittier, even though Robin Shou himself handled the stunt choreography. The much-vaunted fight between Sub-Zero and Scorpion lasted (seemingly) less than a minute total, and wound up actually being a rather throw-away scene in a film chock-full of rather throw-away, pointless, nonsensical scenes.

They threw in several Mortal Kombat 2 and 3 characters, such as mutant assassin Baraka, Kitana's clone "sister" Milena, ninja warriors Rain, Smoke and Ermac (even a "not really" cameo by shadow ninja Noob Saibot), and as seen above, Shokan warrior (and former wife of Prince Goro) Sheeva, and leader of their rival centaur tribe, Motaro. But none of those inclusions, or others, wound up even mattering, because they were almost to a single one pulled off horribly. Kitana's mysterious ally Jade was also in the film, a green ninja woman, but her part was pointless. The cybernetic ninja character Cyrax makes an appearance, but is quickly destroyed. The Native American warrior Nightwolf (played by good actor Litefoot), also makes a very brief cameo, in which they actually have him break the fourth wall and talk about Liu Kang learning to use his "Animality" (a type of finishing move from MK3). The end of the film is a clusterfuck of bad, with the final nail being the writers deciding to tell the audience that Raiden and Shao Khan are actually brothers, and that the fallen Elder God Shinnock is their father. That's about as bad (and just as horribly incorrect) as the "Wolverine" film trying to tell us that Logan and Sabertooth are brothers (which they are not, nor have they ANY blood relation).



 

So the final verdict, is that this is one case where the sequel wasn't fundamentally "unnecessary", in fact if done right it would have been greatly warranted. The first film is a great stand-alone picture, but given the source material there was certainly room to do a sequel covering Shao Khan's invasion of Earth. BUT, while not unnecessary, it is a (sadly) perfect case of a sequel that obviously still SHOULDN'T have been made, because it wound up being, in this man's opinion, one of the worst films ever made. And yes, I'm fully aware that that is really saying something.

So if you've never seen it, do yourself a solid and watch the original Mortal Kombat film some night. But unless you enjoy watching painfully bad films, I'd highly advise completely ignoring the sequel. Cheers!