“The Grinch” Movie Review

    The original Christmas special of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” is among one of my favorite holiday specials ever.  So when I saw the preview for the new version of the Grinch from Illumination, I was on board to see it in theaters as soon as it came out.  I mean, ‘‘tis the season to watch Christmas movies!
    When it comes to remakes/reboots, I try my best to view it as an original thing without comparing it to the previous films but I also know it’s impossible to separate the remake from the source material so if studios are going to cash in on name value, I feel it’s only fair to put each installment up against the best film baring that franchise’s name.  So when I feel like it calls for it, I will compare it to the original classic.  Luckily, this adaptation of the Dr. Seuss' book isn’t a carbon copy of the original.  Yes, all the story beats play the same but the film adds enough to separate it from the other versions of the story.
    I really enjoyed the animation style of the film.  Between the animation and the humor, it really felt like an Illumination film.  The humor was charming and felt crafted so that both children and adults could enjoy it.  The filmmakers also made sure to include some heart and emotion to the story.
    The voice cast was stellar, Benedict Cumberbatch brings a mischievous charm to the role.  Musician Pharrell Williams however, doesn’t live up to the amazing narration of Boris Karloff in the original animated special.  Pharrell Williams delivers his lines in an overly relaxed and care free fashion.  He doesn’t convey how despicable the Grinch’s actions are.
    To me, the highlight of this adaptation are the animals.  The Grinch’s dog, Max, is given a beefier role in this version and he is as cute and sweet as you might expect.  The addition of Fred the Reindeer was also an adorably genius move.  Both these animals had many moments to shine with adorably sweet parts that made me laugh out loud.
    The film does have a few problems.  It has some pacing issues.  The ending feels a bit rushed compared to the rest of the film.  A quick ending works better in a twenty minute special than in a feature length film.  I also wasn’t a big fan of the new version of the classic theme.  It isn’t a big issue, but in a song that iconic, it’s best not to screw it up.

    The film ultimately turned out better than expected and is destined to be a new Christmas classic among many households.  The hard part will be choosing between which version of the Grinch to watch.

Grade: B+

“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” Movie Review

    I don’t think I am the only person to have been extremely excited for seeing “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”.  We were all excited to see a “Man of Steel” sequel, a new Batman film, an adaptation of Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns”, and a prelude film to “Justice League” all rolled into one film and it actually looked liked it would work.  Then the final trailer was released and it became clear that “The Death of Superman” storyline was also going to be included.  That seemed like it might be too much.  It turns out, it was too much.  Which isn’t to say the movie was terrible.  In fact, it was better than it had any right to be.  It is just sad that after watching the movie, you knew there was a masterpiece in there somewhere with a few tweaks and changes.

    “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” starts off extremely strong, showing the destruction of Metropolis during the events of “Man of Steel” from Bruce Wayne’s point of view.  It is extremely effective showing how helpless a regular person would feel watching two super humans slog it out.  It showed the human cost of the destruction which was a complaint a lot of people had in regards to “Man of Steel”.  Nothing that follows this scene is quite as effective as that opening scene.

    Director Zack Snyder made many interesting casting choices for the film and I believe for the most part, they paid off.  Returning star Henry Cavill fits the Superman suit perfectly although he doesn’t completely fill the boots left by the great Christopher Reeve.  I would actually make the argument that Brandon Routh brought a little more of the spirit of his comic book counterpart in "Superman Returns" than Cavill brings to the role in this film.  That being said, Henry Cavill does seem to be growing into the role and he seems more comfortable and confident than he did in "Man of Steel" (which fits the character development of the films perfectly).  Most importantly, Cavill looks like Superman, which is extremely important to such an iconic character.  Amy Adams also returns but isn't given a lot to do which is a shame because she is a very gifted performer.

    Among the many new additions to the cast is Ben Affleck, who shines as the DCEU's new caped crusader, Batman.  Ben Affleck had some big boots to fill himself.  Christian Bale had just come off the highly popular Dark Knight trilogy and it was hard to picture someone else in the role.  Affleck was the perfect choice and played off of Cavill well.  Part of what makes Affleck's performance so great is the fact that he plays both Bruce Wayne and Batman so well.  It's not easier basically playing two different characters yet he pulled it off.  Also joining the cast to great success was Gal Gadot.  Though she wasn't in the film long, her performance as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman was a highlight and made me excited to see her in "Wonder Woman" and "Justice League".
    Now, I will discuss a casting choice which didn't completely work, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.  Let me start by saying I did not hate his portrayal but I also felt like a different interpretation of the character would have fit the film better.  For the tone of that film, I pictured someone more like the "Superman: The Animated Series" Lex Luthor.  I didn't hate the casting choice but I think another actor would have brought something more interesting to the role.
    I can't talk about the film without going into it's script.  The DCEU decided to go in a darker and more adult direction with this film.  I didn't mind this vision but a lot of fans feel like the character of Superman should be in a lighter film because the character is a beacon of hope.   I don't think the character has to be in a lighter film for him to work but a lot of people disagree and it is important to note that for this review.  I am just one person with one opinion.  The main problem with the script is that it was stuffed way too full.  I love the characters of Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, and Doomsday; but they are a lot to cram into a film which is basically acting as "Man of Steel 2".  It just made an already full film overly complex and hard to follow the villain's motivations.
    On a final note, I can't talk about the film without ignoring the "Martha" scene which is now a popular meme and was laughed at when the film was released.  I am in the minority here but I actually liked the concept of the scene.  I like the idea of Superman and Batman boding over something as simple as their shared love of their mother.  That being said, the idea should not have been explored as a way to end a fight scene.  I think that was the main problem with the idea.  If someone is ready to kill you and ignores a ton of other good reasons to spare you, a shared mother's name likely isn't going to do the trick.  I did like the idea of the scene though and I wish it was explored differently.
    I guess it depends on how you want to look at films in general.  There is plenty to love with this film and it is easy to gloss over the negative aspects.  It is also easy to nitpick all the things wrong with the movie and let it sour your overall experience.  I am not one of the people and I very much enjoyed the film even being aware of it's failings.  I just hope it is remembered in a more positive light in the future.  Only time, or possibly someone with x-ray vision, will tell.

Grade: B

“Bohemian Rhapsody” Movie Review

    Queen was and remains one of the most iconic rock and roll groups of all time.  So much of their music has influenced popular culture.  Their music has been popular fixtures on the radio and on films.  Queen is a legendary group which explains why it took so look for a film adaptation to become reality, no one wanted to mess it up.  That being said, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was finally released this week to mixed reactions.  It seemed liked critics hated it or loved it.  Well, I don’t know what movie the critics who hated it saw because I loved this film.
    As stated above, “Bohemian Rhapsody” tells the story of the formation of Queen but it’s primary focus is on lead vocalist Freddy Mercury.  The story of Freddy Mercury is both uplifting and tragic.  The story has been criticized for taking historical liberties with dates and events.  I can understand wanting the most historically accutate movie possible, but films also have to be entertaining so creative license must be allowed, even for a subject as well known as the band Queen.  I do understand why some critics would be upset but almost every historic epics take liberties with facts, a great deal of them take far more drastic liberties than this movie did.
    I suspect a great deal of the critism the film is facing is due to Bryan Singer and the controversy he is currently facing.  Bryan Singer has long been accused of sexual harassment involving minions among others.  This does not make the accusations true, but many Hollywood insiders maintain that these accounts are valid.  Bryan Singer is a very gifted director regardless of  the accusations he faces.  If what he did is true, he is a terrible person but that doesn’t change his films from being well made.  Now, Bryan Singer was fired from the movie after completing 75% of the film for being difficult to work with.  Dexter Fletcher (who is set to helm “Rocket Man”) took over the remaining directing duties and polished the rest of the film.
    The cast was one of the best aspects of the film.  Rami Malek was sensational as Freddy Mercury.  He took the role after Sacha Baron Cohen decided to pass on the film.  Malek channels the confidence and inner turmoil Mercury faced throughout his life.  The supporting cast were great and made you feel like you were really watching the band Queen.  Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, and Joseph Mazzello portray Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon.  The chemistry with the cast felt as real as the chemistry of the group.  Mike Myers plays a record executive named Ray Foster.  I thought he might be distracting but I liked his small part in the film.  The film gave a humorous nod to his “Wayne’s World” role as well.
    The love story focused on his relationship with Mary Austin, depicting her as perhaps the true love of his life despite his homosexuality.  This is a very tragic relationship in the movie.  The film doesn’t shy away from his homosexuality despite what some critics are saying.  The film tried to represent love as something deeper and independent of sexuality.  It was really well done and emotional in my opinion and seemed to really want the audience to think about what love truly represents.
    The film was funny and charming.  Seeing the poor reviews showcased for the song “Bohemian Rhapsody” was humorous considering it’s a classic.  The conversations about the song “I’m In Love With My Car” provided a humorous on going joke in the movie.  There were aspects about Freddy Mercury and Queen I wasn’t aware of and found interesting.  I also liked how they focused on each band members contributions to the music and showing how collaborative they all were together.  The concert footage was also beyond fantastic.  The cinematography for those scenes made you feel like you were there.  There were literally people in the theater waving their arms in the air as the music played.

    I wish they covered certain events like scoring “Flash Gordon” and “Highlander” (although “Who Wants to Live Forever” was featured in the movie and used effectively).  My guess is they couldn’t depict that over rights issues.  That was the only thing I can complain about, the movie left me wanting more.  Ultimately “Bohemian Rhapsody” turned out to be one of the best movies and best experiences I have seen in awhile.

Grade: A+

"Superman III" Movie Review

    I think it's safe to assume no one was expecting a property like Superman to become a big budget comedy film after the first two movies proved so successful.  I honestly am not sure what Warner Bros. or the producers of "Superman III" were thinking when they decided to cast Richard Pryor as the film's main lead opposite Christopher Reeve.  Now, I enjoy Richard Pryor and know he was one of the most gifted comedic minds ever while he was alive, but he wasn't a good fit for a Superman movie, at least not in the role he was given.

    It is probably not going to shock you to read that "Superman III" was a disappointment to many fans, including myself.  The film essentially had an A and B story, as if the movie started off as two different projects that were merged into one.  Story A revolved around a bumbling Richard Proyer getting in over his head trying to make a fortune.  Story B revolved around Clark Kent visiting his old stomping grounds in Smallville and going to a  high school reunion.  While the film is set in Smallville, it’s enjoyable and well paced.  The Proyer parts are all over the place however.  Supposedly Richard Proyer had mentioned wanting to be in a Superman film during a late night show interview and the studio caught wind of that and decided to pursue Proyer to star in this film.

    There are good things about the movie.  The Clark Kent vs Evil Superman fight is one of the strongest action pieces in the franchise.  It really makes you wish they went full Bizarro in this movie.  To this day, I still love this scene. The Smallvile scenes are also sweet and sentimental.  There are things that work beautifully in this movie, it’s just a shame that the things that don’t work are so epically bad.

    The film’s attempts at comedy fall flat even with a comedy genius like Proyer spearheading them.  It just doesn’t work in a superhero movie.  I feel this fault largely lands with Richard Lester.  Lester added many comedic elements to “Superman II” and for the most part they worked, but that was also a movie already fleshed out by a previous director.  Richard Lester had limits and a pretty solid blueprint.  Richard Lester, given free range, went nuts.

    Richard Lester was given plenty of chances to tap into the source material for this film and instead delivered a largely original story.  The film was set up perfectly for a classic villain like Brainiac to appear (the final villain is even in the vain of Brainiac).  As stated above, Bizarro was even given a perfect possible introduction but the filmmakers decided to ignore the source material completely.

    Christopher Reeve is still incredible as Clark Kent/Superman but I don’t think he could be bad in that role.  Annette O’Toole is also a more than welcomed edition as Lana Lang, Clark’s high school crush and new romantic interest.  Margot Kidder makes an extended cameo but you can tell she checked out of the franchise after the second part.  Richard Proyer was basically just Richard Proyer, nothing more to say about him.  Proyer was a capable actor and could have fit the role of a villain such as the Toyman and perhaps brought something fresh to the character and role.  It’s just a shame the producers chose to use his talents as a cash grab instead of using him as a creative force.

    “Superman III” was a movie made on bizzare decisions.  The film isn’t a complete waste but it also doesn’t completely work.  With a little more self restraint, the film could have been something truly special and a worthy follow up to the first two movies.  Instead we got a movie which could be easily skipped.

Grade: C-

"Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" Movie Review

    Since the inception of DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-rays, and 4K Blu-rays, the general public has gotten pretty used to the idea of film's being released with director's cuts.  Most of the time these editions include a few minutes of added blood, gore, or nudity the director had to cut to secure a lower rating.  Basically, in 90% of the cases, the director's cut doesn't add much to the film.  In fact, there have been director's cuts which have trimmed film off the running time.  Oliver Stone's flop "Alexander" comes to mind as a director's cut shorter than the theatrical release.  "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" is basically a different beast all together and in my opinion, serves as a completely different film and as an alternative sequel.  Most of the basic story elements remain the same between both the Donner and Richard Lester cuts of the film.  What is interesting is to see how their approaches would have differed.

    "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" opens slightly differently than the theatrical cut of "Superman II".  Instead, it opens with what the original ending of "Superman: The Movie" was supposed to be, a cliffhanger featuring the Kryptonian criminals of General Zod, Ursa, and Non escaping from the Phantom Zone above Earth due to the explosion of a missile Lex Luthor launched in the first movie.  Superman is unaware that his heroic act unleashed the criminals and they head towards Earth as the film begins.  From there until the end, the film plays out basically the same as "Superman II" but with a few changes.  Lois Lane still discovers that Clark Kent is actually Superman but does so in a more confident and clever way.  This version makes Lois Lane seem more intelligent and more of an equal to Superman.  Once Clark Kent admits to Lois Lane that he is Superman, they decide to spend a romantic night together.  Clark Kent decides to show his love for Lois Lane by becoming a mortal human, a condition he is warned can not be undone, but he decides to go ahead and do so in order to marry and have children with Lois one day.  This part is very different than the Lester version as it features Marlon Brando as Jor-El as opposed to the Lester version which featured Superman's Kryptonian mother Lara.  Brando had sued the production at the time so his footage couldn't be used.  Clark wasn't aware that General Zod and his lieutenants were on Earth when he agreed to become mortal and realizes Superman is the only person who could protect the world.  Despite Jor-El's warning that condition was irreversible, Clark sets off to see if he can somehow regain his powers.  This part also fills in a large plot hole from the theatrical release.  In the Lester version, how Clark regains his powers is ambiguous.  In the Richard Donner cut, he learn that Jor-El knew his son might need to regain his powers one day so he created a way to obtain his powers again.  This gift comes with a price, in order to regain his powers, he must absorb the remaining "life force" of his father, meaning he will forever lose the little part of his father and his homeworld he had left.  This sacrifice adds a lot to the story and the character of Superman.  Becoming Superman once more, Clark manages to fight and defeat General Zod.  Seeing all the damage caused from these events causes Superman to turn back time by spinning the world backwards.  This ending ended up being used for "Superman: The Movie" but was intended for this film.

    For every pro I have in regards to this cut over the Lester version, I also have a con.  While I love the scenes between Superman and Jor-El and feel like they add a lot to the movie, I also very much miss some of the humor the Lester version brought.  I also prefer the theatrical endings of both movies over the Donner endings.  I am so conflicted about which version of the film I prefer.  Both versions are fun and allow Superman to showcase his powers over an equal.  Ultimately I feel like the bulk of both films remain Richard Donner films as a whole anyway.

    The cast was great, just like the theatrical release.  Many of the scenes featuring Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are the same from alternate takes and angles.  I would argue that the chemistry between Reeve and Kidder is stronger in this version of the film.  Gene Hackman's scenes are exactly the same since he didn't return for reshots but he is still a great slimy jerk in both versions as a result.  Terence Stamp shines as the villainous General Zod.  Lastly, it is a treat to see Marlon Brando once again as Jor-El.  His interaction with Superman is defiantly the highlight of this cut.

    "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" gives us a rare glimpse into a lost film which actually managed to get completed in part thanks to fan support and Bryan Singer.  Most film projects like this leave more questions than answers, it's refreshing to see a complete vision for a change.

Grade: B

"Superman II" Movie Review

    There are not many examples of sequels being as good or better than their predecessors, especially when the first movie is widely considered a masterpiece.  I can't imagine how anyone could have pictured a movie surpassing the brilliance that was Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" upon it's release.  "Superman II" may not be the game changer that the first movie was but it might just be more fun.  When you are talking about summer popcorn films, fun is a very important factor.
    "Superman II" takes place right after the first film and sees the Kryptonian criminals General Zod, Ursa, and Non released from the Phantom Zone and coming to Earth.  Superman is doing his usual big blue boy scout good deeds when Lois Lane figures out that he and Clark Kent are in fact one in the same.  Clark Kent/Superman admits to Lois the truth and the two spend a romantic afternoon in the Fortress of Solitude.  Clark is unaware that General Zod has arrived on Earth as he sacrifices his powers to be with Lois Lane.  General Zod teams up with Lex Luthor in a plot to take over the world as a now mortal Clark Kent realizes he now has to make a choice.  Clark Kent can stay human and let General Zod take control of the world or risk his newly mortal life in an effort to try and restore his powers in an attempt to stop General Zod and his lieutenants.
    The project was unusual as it was originally partly filmed by Richard Donner.  Donner started filming "Superman II" while he filmed "Superman: The Movie" making it one of the first productions to be ambitious enough to film more than one movie back to back.  Richard Donner had filmed roughly 75% of the film when he got into heated arguments with the producers.  Donner agreed to stop the remaining work on the sequel and instead completely focus on finishing the first film.  After the first film was finished and released, Donner was fired from the sequel by the producers and did not get a chance to finish work on his film until his version of the film was released in conjunction with "Superman Returns".  Richard Lester was hired to finish the film but Donner's firing caused problems with the already troubled production.  To receive sole directing billing, Lester had to refilm a majority of scenes already filmed by Donner and had to reshape the beginning and ending of the movie.  Adding to the problems, actors such as Gene Hackman refused to return for reshots upon hearing of Richard Donner's departure so stand ins had to be used for a few scenes.
    Despite all the problems the film faced, it actually somehow turned out okay.  One could argue that most of the spirit of Richard Donner's original take on the sequel remained since he provided a blueprint for Lester and many of Donner's scene still remained in the film.  Basically Richard Lester was brought in to finish and polish an already solid sequel.  Now, I may seem critical of Lester but he did contribute a lot to the film's lighter tone and humor.  While it got a little hammy in a few parts, the humor worked for the most part in the film.
    It was also nice to see a movie in which Superman could cut loose and showcase his powers.  This film gave Superman an equal in General Zod and allowed him to throw a punch and fight.  While seeing a man fly was a marvel in itself, seeing a man have to handle someone with the same powers was pure ecstasy.
    The cast once again was at top form.  Christopher Reeve once again embodied Superman with a purity rarely conveyed by most actors.  The chemistry he shared with Margot Kidder was rewarded with tender moments in this film.  Both Kidder and Reeve shine as a couple and only serve to enhance each other as performers.  Gene Hackman was at his slimy best as Lex Luthor as Lex tried negotiating for land with General Zod.  Lastly, Terence Stamp absolutely shined as the evil General Zod.  Who could ever forget Stamp's delivery of "Kneel before Zod"?
    "Superman II" is the rare film that shouldn't have worked yet somehow did.  It remains one of the best comic book movies ever made and despite some of the more outlandish fashion showcased in the film, still stands the test of time.  What more could you ask for in a superhero film?

Grade: A-

“Superman: The Movie” Movie Review

    It is hard to imagine what cinema today would be like if it wasn’t for the 1978 classic, “Superman: The Movie”. The film changed the way people thought of comic book movies and it changed the way films were made on a whole.  Full disclosure, “Superman: The Movie” is one of my favorite movies of all time so it is my job to tell you why I feel so strongly about it.

    Believe it or not, I never grew up being a big comic book fan.  I had watched old episodes of “Wonder Woman”, “Batman”, “The Incredible Hulk”, and “The Adventures of Superman” from time to time on tv but I never really read the comic books or kept up with the characters.  I couldn’t tell you the difference between DC or Marvel if I had to.  Then the great animated tv shows of the 90s hit airwaves.  I was hooked on comic books after that.  I became a nerd, and I loved the nerdy discoveries I was making.  One of those discoveries was “Superman: The Movie”.

    “Superman: The Movie” was so unique and revolutionary that it still captivated audiences forty years after it release and it’s easy to see why.  I love the opening monologue of the film.  The curtains peel back and we see a vintage Superman comic book being read outloud by a child and already you have goosebumps!  The. The camera zooms into the Daily Planet and the movie transports you there right before the epic title cards zoom out at you.  From the first few minutes, the movie feels like something totally different.  It makes you feel like an actual comic book coming to life.

    The story is a basic adaptation of the origins of Superman.  Mario Puzo of “The Godfather” fame wrote the first draft of the script and you can feel his influence.  Puzo understands complex family dynamics and Superman has some of the most complex dynamics someone could ask for.  The film was also famous for being one of the first movies to shot a sequel back to back with it.  Richard Donner, hot off of “The Omen”, took on the ambitious task of filming not one, but two, massive blockbusters together.  The task didn’t work out too well for him but he did deliver an amazing film (and most of the sequel).  Filming the movies together did help make a perfect setup for “Superman II”.
    The film had the perfect blend of action, romance, comedy, and drama.  It literally had something for everyone.  The film had a great mix of different fashions from different eras and an Art Deco city design to give the film a timeless feel.  This is all set to one of the best scores ever.  John Williams once again created an instantly iconic score right after his work on “Star Wars”.
    Of course the film’s main positive aspect is it’s cast.  Rarely has a film with such iconic characters been cast so perfectly.  Of course, Christopher Reeve ‘was’ Superman both on screen and off.  The man became an inspiration and his screen presence was undeniable.  Reeve remains the best Superman to date.  Margot Kidder portrayed a smart and independent Lois Lane whose chemistry with Reeve was the highlight of the film.  There was a sweet and innocent quality to their romance.  Gene Hackman shines as Lex Luthor.  His scenes with Ned Beatty are humorous and menacing all at once.  Lastly, Marlon Brando lends his screen presence to the role of Jor-El in one of his more tender screen roles.
    It’s really easy now for people to write this film off as old or dated because it’s forty years old, but this film only gets more charming with age.  The tag line for the film read “You will believe a man can fly” because no one believed it could be done convincingly on screen.  Well, the filmmakers managed to pull it off and if you watch this movie, you will believe a man can fly as well.

Grade: A+

New Releases Coming from Mill Creek Entertainment this January

    I just received a press release from the good folks at Mill Creek Entertainment with news of some exciting titles they will be releasing soon!  These titles should be out during the month of January 2018.

    Mill Creek Entertainment always offers great and reasonably priced collections and their January offerings are no different.  Among the collections coming to DVD include interesting titles such as “WWII-The War That Shook The World”(a five part series), “Trail of Tears” (a collection of 36 documentaries), and “The Secret Stories of Hitler” (which includes the controversial documentary “Swastika”).  History buffs will want to pick these up.
    Also hitting DVD from Mill Creek is “The Laurel and Hardy Comedy Collection” (the collection comes with 24 shorts and feature films).  Fans of classic comedy will no doubt appreciate how the comedy duo changed comedy...when they aren’t laughing at the pair’s hijinks.
    Just in time for the new big budget Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx “Robin Hood” film from Lionsgate comes the announcement of the DVD of “Robin Hood Origins” which includes five classic Robin Hood films.
    Being a huge dog person myself (I have two huskies), I am really personally looking forward to “Dogs on the Job”, a DVD set featuring 7 episodes of the documentary series.  It looks tail wagging good.  Okay, enough with the dog puns.  I promise!

    Lastly I am most looking forward to the blu-ray release of “The Karate Kid Part III” & “The Next Karate Kid” together.  I love the series and I am looking to complete the film series on Blu-ray.

“Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween” Movie Review

    With a slew of new movies hitting theaters this October, it’s easy to see how a movie can get lost in the shuffle.  What is a little harder to believe is that a sequel to a relatively fun family movie would get overlooked but that is exactly what happened with “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween”.  The first movie was an entertaining Halloween offering for the family, much like this sequel, setting it apart from films like “Halloween” and “The Nun”.  Plus there is the nostalgia factor, what 30ish year old didn’t read at least one “Goosebumps” book growing up?  Was the movie just not up to snuff?  Is it because the target age bracket doesn’t have as much dispensable income?  Or perhaps was the marketing campaign poor?
    First, let’s look at the movie at hand and it’s premise.  The movie starts out with a couple of odd ball friends who start a trash pickup service.  The two friends open a book at the old house they are cleaning and accidentally unleash Slappy the Dummy.  The book happened to be R.L. Stein’s first unfinished “Goosebumps” book and like in the first film, the subject of the book comes to life.  Slappy decides the world needs to experience a true “Goosebumps” haunted Halloween and brings many creatures and monsters to life.
    Okay, so did this film give me goosebumps?  Well, I liked the movie overall.  Was it perfect?  Of course not.  Was it as good as the first movie?  I don’t think it was personally.  That being said, it was fun and the whole family could enjoy it, which is becoming less common lately.
    The movie had some pacing issues.  Towards the middle of the film and even the beginning, the movie drug some.  Once Slappy started his rampage, the film’s pace picked up quickly, but it took some time.  I did really enjoy the monster rampage though.
    The film starred Jeremy Ray Taylor and Caleel Harris as the two friends trying to survive school and unleash Slappy.  Taylor seems the more natural of the two child actors but neither were bad.  Madison Iseman plays Taylor’s sister in the film.  “Reno 911” and “The Goldbergs” vet Wendi McLendon-Convey plays their mother.  Chris Parnell plays the cashier with a crush on McLendon-Convey’s character.  They have a fun and funny chemistry while flirting in the film.  Most notably, Jack Black returns in an extended cameo as R.L. Stein.  Black is great and even though his role is very small, he is the highlight of the film.  Also of note is Ken Jeong as a “Goosebumps” and Halloween fanboy.  He was extremely humorous in the film.
    Of the stuff I liked, the “It” reference had me laughing out loud especially considering Jeremy Ray Taylor co-starred in the recent remake.  I also liked the cliffhanger ending which reminded me of the book series.  I also really enjoyed the character of Slappy the Dummy.  His cartoonish scheme and cackle had me laughing (although I am not sure it was always supposed to make me laugh, I did regardless).
    “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween” wasn’t a game changer or the most entertaining film I ever watched.  It was worth the ticket price though which you can’t say about every movie these days.  Most importantly, like the book series, it’s a fun few years to waste.

Grade: B-