La nuit d'Halloween

This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.

And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)

And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!

There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.

The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.

I don't know why I saw this movie, but I think the cover looked cool. And that's all the audience can expect when watching this nonsense. It simply tries to copy films like "Scream" etc., but it fails!!!! And how!!! More than 90 minutes no gore, nothing, and I expect that this was the r-rated version with all violence cut out. That this crap has been rated 18 in Germany shows that in this country censorship and ignorance rules by the FSK (comparable to MPAA or BBFC). Admittedly, gore and violence do no make a good horror movie, but even the dialogues are so dull and senseless that I had to pull the forward button as often as I could. My advice: save you money!!!!

It's a strange phenomenon when obscure films are released and somehow they end up getting sequels. How dothese kinds of events happen in the time of the 1990s? When The Fear (1995) came out, it wasn't a smash hit nor did it even gain marginally favorable reviews. It was a horror film that had a unique concept but lacked any kind of vision to help make it feel largely different from that of others in the same genre. The one aspect to the film that still remains a highlight was the antagonist named Morty; the wooden mannequin. Somehow, somewhere, someone found this movie to be groundbreaking and demanded a sequel be made. Not sure how this was accomplished with the absence of social media and internet reviews. But whatever. It's not like it was worth it. This followup is by no means any improvement to the original.

As like the original, the plot is very similar. A group of adults venture into a house for a weekend getaway during the Halloween season. The leader of the group, Mike (Gordon Currie) is seeking to rid himself of post traumatic stress. When he was young, he witnessed his mother's death after his father (Garvin Cross) axed her and kidnapped him. Now he's taking his soon to be wife Peg (Stacy Grant), her brother Chris (MYC Agnew), Mitch (Phillip Rhys), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), LisaAnne (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendan Beiser) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) all to his grandma Mams (Betsy Palmer). There, they plan on all facing their fears with the help of Crow (Byron Chief-Moon) and his friend Morty (John Paul Fedele). Written by Kevin Richards, the script doesn't try anything new with this plot.

There is barely a drive in this plot. The execution by Chris Angel as director has the same setup to that of the first film. All the characters come together for a ceremony to embrace their fears only to have Morty let loose on them. The fears the group have don't even vary from that of its predecessor. What is the point in rehashing the same material? Richard's script doesn't make sense from the beginning either. Mike's father kills his mother and yet when it's displayed on screen, it looks as though Mike's mother stumbled across a stranger who killed her. What was Mike's father doing out in the wilderness? How did Mike escape his rampaging father? None of that is explored or explained. Not even an exposition dump as some people say. What's even worse is how oblivious some characters are.

An example of this is when Crow explicitly says that a certain mystical item needs to be around Morty for it to keep the evil inside it at bay. However when the object is removed without him knowing, he doesn't realize until much later. Really? We can't be this neglectful. Yet even with these problems, there are a couple of noteworthy things. For 1999 and from what the film looked like it had budget wise, the physical and special effects don't look too bad. The Morty prop and suit worn by Fedele is about the same in visual texture as was the old suit from the first film. Although it's a tad redder in color. Sometimes it even looks like when the prop is still, someone is actually sitting in makeup. The special effects for this film are used more for Morty's physical transformations. Whether that be morphing his hands or entire body.

The cinematography to this picture though was rather unimpressive. Taking place in a similar setting to that of the original, nothing feels different about it. Shot by Brian Pearson, the camerawork is okay but just isn't enough to truly make the experience engaging. Mike, the protagonist also suffers from dizzy spells, where the screen will become wavy but that's about the only added feature. Pearson also worked on projects like Final Destination 5 (2011) and Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015). Then there's Robert O. Ragland who composed the score to this franchise (I can't believe I typed that) once more. And it's alright for what it's worth. It's has some deep thumping bass notes at points and can add some suspense to certain scenes. After all he did work on the original movie and Grizzly (1976).

Music and visual effects are really the only highlights. Why not see Morty do cool things right? However, the actors, the characters they play, the script itself and the camerawork are bland and more or less copies of what the original film had already done. It's just an updated rehash of the original.

...it deserves to be watched for the only reason that you can see what a bad horror movie is. The plot was good, the acting wasn't that sucky, and this movie had a great beginning. Don't get me wrong, this movie had a good potential, and it had Betsy Palmer and hot girls, but turned out to be a mess in the end. Low budget, a lame score, off-screen deaths, and a killer that is to laugh for, make "FEAR : THE RESURRECTION" a bad horror film. What is a slasher film without on-screen deaths?

Anyways, check it out and think : more budget, and more wishes to make a good movie would make this a good one.

Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.

Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?

A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.