#michael 'afterthought' myers

[pumpkinstabs-moving]

#halloween ends spoilers in tags #i'm still angry that michael was nerfed so badly in this movie #i love corey. love him so much. i dont have a single problem w corey #all my problems are with how michael was treated #michael 'afterthought' myers #my baby boy killed about twenty firemen in halloween kills #he was an absolute TANK in kills; literally the most terrifying he's ever been. #and like... four years later. boy is weak as hell. #gets pinned by a FRIDGE???????????? #HUH #ur gonna tell me michael would just lay there when both his hands got stabbed to the countertop........ #2018 and kills michael would have ripped his hand off the knife and thrown the fridge at laurie HNFHBEFBHEF #and also i was talking to a coworker about michael's death and how he gets #fuckin crowd surfed #LITERALLY PE.TER PARKER WITH EVERYONE LIKE BE CAREFUL HE'S A HERO #so fucKING FUNNY FNBEHFBEHBFEBFHBEFBHEF #tbh i guess him being weak is just like........ his body shutting down from all the untreated wounds he suffered in kills

[violetlens]

ghoulette halloween costumes babey

sunshine is mater tenebrarum from argento's three mother's trilogy!! youngest and meanest member of the coven. let her be batshit crazy without tossing her in as an afterthought to the other short crazy ghoul. she's gonna have her curls out wearing a fun little nurse outfit and staring just a bit too hard at everybody. chefs kiss

cumulus!!!! mater lachrymarum. prettiest and the most powerful + the tears element of the title is just SO cumulus to me i can't explain it. furthering my aurora/cumulus pack princesses agenda. cumulus will find a little cat somewhere to carry around and pet while staring really hard at everyone. also her in a cunty black dress

cirrus will be dressed as mater suspiriorum. whether that means she's going as a fucked up grotesque almost-rotting centuries old woman or a dance student will be up to your interpretation! i can not shut up about this series and halloween finally gave me an excuse to yell about it. one of the oldest ghoulettes for one of the oldest witches

mist and lume are matching! let's see what they're dressed up as

mist will keep her hair curly and put on a cute little 80s-y getup. rennie from friday the 13th, i'll explain in lume's part but! girlfriends who stalk each other girlfriends who stalk each other girlfriends who stalk each other. ifrit helped do her hair :)

lume will have her usual dress and veil with a flannel and a hockey mask for laughs! this costume is self explanatory but i love the marine/forest stuff that happens in those movies. meant for these two ghoulettes

aurora will have the most adorable jester outfit ever, complete with a nose that honks when squeezed (tested by swiss and mountain) and a bloody knife. whether this is her dressing as michael myers or her wanting to scare papa is up for debate

eden and the other cellist ghoulettes are gonna be yellowjackets characters! i still haven't seen any discussion of said other cellist ghoulettes yet so. eden as the antler queen! wilderness-associated and a bit of cannibalism thrown in as a treat :) also gay girl cult imagery. perfect for the nameless ghoulettes

#the band ghost #nameless ghoulettes #nameless ghouls #dewdrop ghoul #swiss ghoul #rain ghoul #phantom ghoul #mountain ghoul #aether ghoul #cirrus ghoulette #aurora ghoulette #sunshine ghoulette #cumulus ghoulette #mist ghoulette #eden ghoulette #lume ghoulette #happy halloween!

[hopeful-esperanza]

The thing that personally bothered me the most of Halloween Ends is that I had no expectations.

I did not see any of the trailers or interviews. The only thing I did was rewatch the original Halloween, Halloween (2018), and Halloween Kills, so if I had any expectations it was from what the previous movies where setting up to.

When the credits rolled I wanted to cry in disappointment.

Halloween Ends made a drastic change in tone and pacing. It felt like a continuous first act since the movie decided to introduce a new character that was meant to take center stage. So a lot of the movie was dedicated to this new guy and how a monster is made. The movie failed in forming and presenting this idea, and many of the scenes felt disjointed and the intersection of familiar characters made the plot seem more unpolished. In many moments it felt like I walked into the wrong movie. The characters we have been following felt like an afterthought in their own story that this movie was meant to conclude.

Overall, the story of Halloween Ends, with all its melodrama, felt designed for another movie that got a last minute paint job in order to featured Laurie, Allyson, and Michael Myers. So for that reason and more, I could not enjoy the final "showdown" between Laurie and Michael Myers because it did not feel earned.

I could say more but I honestly want to forget this disappointment.

Watch the movie to form your own opinion, but I can not recommend it so pirate it or skip it.

0.8/10

#halloween ends #halloween #halloween 2018 #halloween kills #michael myers #laurie strode #horror movie review #my two cents #my thoughts

[watching-pictures-move]

Put On Your Raincoats | Buttman's Ultimate Workout (Stagliano, 1990)

The opening scene plays like an inverse of slasher movie dynamics. Our hero, Buttman, played by the director John Stagliano, is out admiring the night sky (and favourably compares the moon to a pair of buttcheeks). Like many a slasher movie villain, he sees a couple having sex (in an alley, outside in the middle of the night). Yet while a slasher movie villain would proceed to stalk and kill, Buttman is detected and fearfully retreats to a gym, ducking around corners and underneath furniture to evade detection. And where a slasher movie villain might be hopelessly compelled to kill, Buttman is hopelessly compelled to point his camera at every shapely, finely toned pair of buttocks in sight. In a way, they're both tragic figures. There's a similar dynamic here as in the beginning of Rick Rosenthal's Halloween II. Michael Myers flees from the cops while continuing his murderous rampage, while Buttman flees while zooming in on every ass he sees. In a way, they're both tragic figures.

As the title suggests, Buttman's Ultimate Workout is defined by its gym setting, the drab, utilitarian interiors providing a sharp contrast with the hideous day-glo colours of the characters' spandex workout clothes, and the gym equipment being incorporated into the sexual choreography. (There are times when the creaking of the equipment is loud enough to inspire fear for the performers' safety, providing an additional element of tension to the proceedings.) Like The Adventures of Buttman, the only other installment of the franchise I've seen (...all the way through...judge not that ye not be judged...), the film takes an episodic structure. In that opening scene, the hero is eventually caught by some meatheads, one of whom (Randy Spears, returning from the other movie) recognizes him, compliments his work and asks him to return later for another gig. The rest of the movie has the hero tagging along to film situations that evolve into sex scenes, some more naturally than others.

To the extent there's a narrative throughline, it's in Buttman's valiant efforts to act as a wingman for Zara Whites, helping her woo an allegedly dashing movie star played by Rocco Siffredi by relaying videotaped messages between them. Their interactions provide the most severe tonal whiplash in the movie, going from the hottest moment in the movie, Whites angrily tearing off her clothes after being informed of Siffredi's initial disinterest, to the funniest, Siffredi's concerned reaction: "This girl is crazy John, I'm afraid of this girl, I don't care how pretty she is, I don't need that in my life, okay." On a side note, if you're mostly familiar with Siffredi's more recent efforts, it can be jarring to see him this young, coming off like a less expressive Francois Papillon, before he became a porno Klaus Kinski. (I am not really a fan but I found him fairly palatable here, if not actually "good".)

Based on the claim on the DVD cover, this is supposed to be the most commercially successful entry in the series. I don't care to dig up the receipts to verify, but I would guess that success would have been driven by rising familiarity with the franchise than any particular secret sauce in this installment. On the whole, this is less formally confrontational than the earlier movie, repeating some of the same tropes but not really pushing them further or even as forcefully. The hero's presence is almost an afterthought in some of the scenes, which might as well be from traditional non-gonzo productions. There's less conscious bridging of the gap between the stars, the director and the viewer, although Spears in one scene spells out the appeal of these movies ("You wish this was you?"). But elsewhere you can see the movie codifying some of these tropes, like when the hero announces he'll go for his "patented low angle shot", and a pick-up scene with a fratboyish Tom Byron which provides an even flimsier con than the one in the original. (Byron once again leads his partner to the hero's "studio", which is obviously his bedroom. This time we can glimpse his record collection; Buster Poindexter's eponymous album figures prominently in several frames.) Whatever rawness and spontaneity that On the Prowl hoped to introduce into the genre is pretty much nonexistent here, as all the scenarios are quite contrived. I will give the movie some credit for trying to vary the atmosphere across its different sex scenes, although the attempts to class up the scenes with Whites with tinkly piano music comes up hilariously short in light of the relentless ass closeups. (The rest of the score sounds like a braindead assemblage of Casio presets.)

All that being said, once again I must concede that there's a certain potency in the movie's directness, and that the movie is quite effective on its exact terms. I think most people pick out these things on the basis of the performers, and in that sense I quite enjoyed the presence of Madison and the aforementioned Whites. The former I'd enjoyed quite a bit in Party Doll A Go-Go! and Evil Toons. In both of those, she sank her teeth into the goofy dialogue, running them through her pleasing twang and complementing them with all manner of goofy facial expressions. This role is less demanding of her acting talents, but she does get to bring some of that Madison magic as her and her friend test the patience of their fitness instructor when the neglect his suggestions in favour of posing for the hero's camera. ("Hey, you guys take your fuck-off pills today?") And Whites sells her side of the relationship between her and Siffredi (the passion is entirely one-sided, as is the charisma) and plays magnificently to the camera. I don't intend to watch too many more of this series' entries, but these two actresses made this one a worthwhile viewing.

#film #put on your raincoats #movie review #buttman's ultimate workout #john stagliano

[mrbigbrother]

The scariest thing about Michael Myers that Ends was too scared to say.

I was underwhelmed by the ads for Halloween Ends, but i didn't know why until after seeing it and then taking about a week to think on it: It was false advertisement.

The previous films in James Gordon Green's H40 trilogy, promised a returning Laurie Strode, a terrifying Michael Myers (who does feels like the very same character from the original.) and a great score from a returning John Carpenter and his son. And the films delivered these things for most part. I liked the 2018 film. Halloween Kills had problems, but I liked it too. And I liked how both films took place in the same night, despite being years apart in development. Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with Halloween Ends: the set up. It should have took place that very same night as the others had. Kills had a deleted ending suggesting that that was the original plan before Blumhouse suddenly changed direction. That was a mistake. Setting things 4 years later muddys the story up. The film attempts to establishs a new lead to focus on, Corey Cunningham. Some of the ideas around him work for awhile. That "I'm the psycho, and you're the freakshow." line shows that with more time, and a movie of his own, Corey might have been a better character. But his story slowly falls apart and becomes nonsensical before being axed altogether in the end. The idea that Michael Myers and Corey are kindred spirits... i'm not against exploring that actually. Infact, I wish that Green had explored that relationship more than the poorly written and unconvincing relationship between Corey and Alison. 

Michael is an afterthought in a film about his final demise. That has historically been proven to be a mistake the series has made before. Halloween 6: curse of michael myers, committed the same exact sin of complicating the story with a Satanic cult and trying to explain away Michael's supernatural abilities, while hardly using him in the plot, because they really thought it would be more interesting to try and develop another psychopathic character in his place. Almost the exact same thing happens in Ends, with both films now considered all time lows for the franchise.

The original Halloween takes its time before unleashing Michael on his victims. In the meantime, the characters are stalked, really almost haunted by him. The genius of Michael Myers, is that he doesn't have to be on screen for his presence to be felt. If you pay attention to the background, you will notice the Shape here and there. John Carpenter wisely spent most of that film's runtime creating atmosphere, while James Gordon Green spends the runtime of this film desperately trying to develop a character, who is just not interesting. 

The final battle that the trailer promised is reluctantly delivered, as if the filmmakers didn't want to even do that much. It lasts maybe 10 minutes, including the grinder scene and the epilogue. Laurie has no real purpose in the film either, and having her be blamed by the town and by her own grand daughter made no sense at all. Karen is sorely missed here, and killing her off in Kills proved to be a mistake. Alison doesn't seem to have learned much of anything from the previous films, so her character is rendered useless, and utterly wasted too. There are some unforgivable uses of cliches where, I kid you not, Alison mistakes Laurie for having killed Corey, and storms off! They actually pulled the 'misunderstanding' story bit from Shrek! Just to stall the plot for maybe 5 minutes, and add on to the runtime...Come on guys.

I like the idea of showing a nearly dead and desolate Haddonfield in the midst of a severe depression after the Michael Myers rampage. I like the idea that Michael can actually be just a homeless man, going by unnoticed as the monster he once was/is. There are definitely interesting ideas, and sadly none of them are really fleshed out or made interesting. 

The climax could have worked if it had felt more earned. Just imaginr this damaged broken town coming together to purge it's demons once and for all. Just a somber and quiet moment. No one screaming "Evil dies tonight!" because in the end, these people are in utter defeat. Their neighbors and loved ones are still dead, and survivors are left irreparably impaired. They may have killed Michael Myers, but they'll never be able to forget him. In other words:

"You can't kill the Boogeyman."

Worse yet, (rather the filmmakers intended on it or not) the town will never know why the killings even happened in the first place. The film doesn't try to answer that question either; it accepts that there is no right answer. In the 78' film, Dr Loomis diagnosed him as being simply and purely evil, because to a psychiatrist, a person, let alone a child reaching such depths of emotionless ambivalence, was clinically inhuman. And thats what frightened Loomis so. Green and company almost said something utterly true about Michael Myers, that would have been a very scary thing to consider, but it was obscured by the film's problems. So I'll just say it here: It doesn't matter why any of it happened. 

We can't understand what kind of evil Michael was, or understand why he did what he did, because in the end, neither did Michael.

"Evil never dies, it changes Shape."

In a better film, that line would have been bloody chilling.

[darling-i-read-it]

Hi, can I request headcanon, how would Michael, Jason and Sinclair brothers propose their s/o? Thank you ♥

bestie how does it feel to have immaculate taste

(also I’ve never written for Vincent or Lester before so I gave it my best shot ✌🏻)

Michael Myers

- Michael wanted to propose to you simply for possessive reasons

- sure he thought it might make you happy but that was just a plus

- still, he wanted to do it right

- he stole a ring from the store (and a couple other things just for fun)

- he actually stole a bunch of rings and then picked the one he thought you might like the best

- he gave you the ring when he got back home (along with the bag of other things which became an afterthought in the moment)

- you were shocked

- you didn’t think he’d ever wanna get married

- he put the ring on your finger before you could properly respond but you did end up stuttering a ‘yes I will marry you’ after the shock subsided

- he liked to see you wear it doing mundane things

- his

Jason Voorhees

- when Jason realized he was in love you he knew he wanted to spend his life with you

- his mother had pushed marriage ideals onto him at a young age, the whole sex before marriage sin and such

- but he had broken some of the basic rules

- still, he wanted to get married like actual proper people

- if he could give you anything normal he should give you a relationship with him that at least sorta sounded normal

- Jason had no idea where to get a ring so he quite literally tried to make one out of tree branches

- it did not work

- but he ended up finding one on the ground in the camp and he took that as a sign

- he took you out to the dock and got down on one knee

- when you said yes he was shaking putting the ring on

- so much so that he almost dropped the ring through the dock cracks

- his spouse!! his!!

- literally he couldn’t stop smiling

Bo Sinclair

- Bo Sinclair? Getting married? Who would’ve thought

- definitely not his brothers

- but genuinely he wanted to spend the rest of his life with you

- sure it was a little bit because he didn’t wanna anyone else to get their grabby hands on you but also because he loves you

- he took a ring right of a victims finger and thought it looked flashy enough for you

- Bo was sitting in bed with you when he popped the question quite literally out of nowhere

- you thought he was joking until he pulled out the ring

- eyes wide, you accepted

- man at the sight of you with that pretty ring on your finger...you were his

- he counted himself lucky in that moment and he even told you that, a rare moment of him not being small macho

- you called him a softy and he had to kiss you to shut you up

Vincent Sinclair

- the boy wanted to propose because he thought you would love it

- he was so precious about it before he even did it

- he had found a ring years ago that he liked and was going to save for a wax figure but he just ended up keeping it in his pocket

- one day he was looking at it and realized he had to give it to you. he felt like it was already yours

- he picked some wildflowers (he made Lester take him outside of town to find ones you didn’t see everyday and you know how hard it is for him to leave)

- he handed them to you one afternoon while you were cooking literally out of no where

- oh my gosh you were so surprised but said yes so quick

- the e x c i t e m e n t

- he really does love you so so much and you knew it

- now you had the ring he gave you to prove it

Lester Sinclair

- Lester is a very simplistic man but he does want you to understand that you’re special

- he’s never felt this way about anyone else so if he’s gonna be with you, he’s gonna do it fuckin right

- so he decided he should propose to you

- he managed, miraculously, find a ring around town somewhere when he was bringing in a new group of people

- was it from a victim? yes. did he pretend he didn’t know? yes.

- one night, just before the two of you were falling asleep, he told you you should go for a walk

- you were skeptical but did it anyway

- at the edge of town he proposed

- his words were jumbled and crude and slightly rushed (he hadn’t been expecting the nerves) but you got the gist

- never have you seen him so relived as when you said yes

- he showed bo the next day (who gave no general reaction other than ‘who gives a shit’) and then got to introduce you as his fiancé to all the new people he brought in which brought him such an unsurmountable amount of joy

#Michael Myers x reader #Jason Voorhees x reader #bo Sinclair x reader #Vincent Sinclair x reader #Lester Sinclair x reader

[cinemasnob412]

Two “4′s” And A “7″ Beat Two “5′s” And An “8″ - The Battle Of Horror Heavyweights At The End Of A Decade.

1988 and 1989 were interesting years for horror fans as the decade of excess came to a close. Heading into the 1990′s, the final seven-hundred plus days of the 1980′s saw the emergence of new blood into the genre with the likes of “Chucky” from 1988′s CHILD’S PLAY as well as “Pinhead” getting a jump start on his own franchise with the release of that same year’s HELLBOUND: HELLRAISER II. Originality is always welcome, but let’s not forget who the decade really belonged to: Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. With a combined box office pull from the seventeen films released between 1980 and 1989 nearly amassing half a billion dollars worldwide, the slasher genre spearheaded by the gruesome trio was as popular and as profitable as ever. Critics be damned, the films were huge draws and favorites of fanboys and fangirls the world over.

What makes the final two calendar years of the decade worthwhile of putting under the microscope? 1988 and 1989 were the only two years where an entry from all three series were released theatrically, with FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD dropping first on May 13th, 1988, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER hitting screens on August 19th, 1988, and HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS closing out the year with its October 21st, 1988 bow. 1989 saw FRIDAY THE 13TH again take the lead with FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN being released on July 28th, 1989, followed by A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 5: THE DREAM CHILD arriving only two weeks later on August 11th, 1989 and lastly, HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS seeing the light of day on October 13th, 1989. Over the course of eighteen months, six films were released, each achieving varying degrees of financial and critical success. How did everything shake down? Which film, or film series won the battle of the sequel onslaught?

As mentioned before, the first film of the bunch to see its release was 1988′s FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD. Paramount Pictures had long ignored these films when it came to proper advertising campaigns and wide-release strategies. Whereas New Line Cinema fully embraced their A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series, Paramount seemed to take an embarrassed, closeted approach to their release strategy for their FRIDAY THE 13TH films. Short of a trailer, some television spots and some coverage in genre magazines such as Fangoria and Gorezone, not much ever really found its way out of the Paramount marketing department for the seventh entry in the series. There was a People Magazine piece that featured all three horror icons, along with a Leatherface from THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE films appearance, but that was close to everything when it came to promoting FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD.

Next up came the fourth entry in the A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series when on August 19th, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER hit the big screen. Unlike Paramount, New Line Cinema went all out for Freddy’s return. From promotional pieces on MTV, a movie tie-in novel, toys to licensed memorabilia and  Halloween costumes, the Freddy Krueger machine was in full force by the time the fourth film found itself in front of audiences. The film’s box office returns showed the effort put in paid off as THE DREAM MASTER was the highest grossing A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET film to date, eclipsed only by 2003′s FREDDY VS. JASON.

Rounding out 1988 was the release of the fourth HALLOWEEN film, HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS. As the film’s subtitle promised, masked maniac Michael Myers made his triumphant return after skipping out on the (at the time) ill received, Michael Myers-less HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH. Nearly seven years had passed since Myers was last seen in 1981′s HALLOWEEN II and fans were pumped to have him back. Producer Moustapha Akkad’s insistence on returning the series to its roots paid off, as audiences flocked to see the William Shatner (or at least a loose interpterion of it) mask donned once again as bodies piled up at the feet of Michael Myers. 

The numbers don’t lie. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER was the undisputed box office champ, pulling in more than both the seventh FRIDAY THE 13TH and fourth HALLOWEEN combined. While New Line Cinema may have won the box office, it was the horror fans that really made out, having all three of their favorites, in three of the better entries in all of the series hitting theaters within weeks of each other.

Then came 1989.

Just over a year after FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD’s release, Paramount rolled out the deceptively titled FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN on July 28th, 1989. Paramount did little more for this entry’s marketing than it did for the previous film, going slightly out of their way to at least promote the film on their own, Viacom owned ARSENIO HALL SHOW. Kane Hodder, returning as Jason Voorhees for the second time appeared on the talk show as Jason himself, in a rather amusing bit to promote the eighth film. Again, less the trailer, some television spots and a recalled clever teaser poster, there wasn’t much in the way of a promotional push going on for what would become Jason’s last hurrah under the Paramount Pictures banner. The indifference by the executives showed as FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTEN would go on to become the lowest grossing film in the entire franchise.

By 1989, even Freddy fatigue seemed to be setting in. New Line Cinema’s quick turnaround on A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 5: THE DREAM CHILD, after the hugely successful A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER may have proved a costly mistake, as just like the eighth FRIDAY THE 13TH sank at the box office, so to did the fifth Freddy film, becoming the lowest grossing film in the series up until 1994′s WES CRAVEN’S NEW NIGHTMARE saw its silver screen debut. Even New Line Cinema’s gigantic marketing push for the fourth film seemed to be watered down for the 1989 entry. Gone were the television tie-ins and merchandise heavy promos, all that was left was a soundtrack and score release, a novel adaptation and little else. Freddy seemed destined to head into the 1990′s as an afterthought for the House That Freddy Built.

If the behind the scenes executive choices seemed to go off the rails for both the A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and FRIDAY THE 13TH franchises as they hit the end of the decade, it was the on-screen shenanigans that took the HALLOWEEN series into strange, unforeseen territories. What started out as a simple stalk and slash set of films took a odd turn (that continued through at least one more sequel) when a Celtic Cult subplot was introduced into the fifth Michael Myers film. In all fairness, not much is exposed in HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS about this unnecessary addition, but enough is touched upon to give the audience the second WTF moment of the franchise (I’m eluding to the fact that upon its initial release, HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH garnered that same reaction). If the seventh and eighth FRIDAY THE 13TH films suffered from a lack of good marketing, HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS did itself no favors with its own campaign, bearing too much of a resemblance to the fourth film’s promotional material, most notably the film’s subtitle, THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS which was all too similar to 1988′s THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS.

If a winner had to be declared it would be hard to argue that 1988′s efforts shouldn’t come out on top. The three films released that year were the better of the overall six, and the hype leading up to the fourth A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET film, as well as audiences getting their Michael Myers back in the fourth HALLOWEEN was enough to call it as a hands down victory for the 1988 entries. 

[brundleflyforawhiteguy]

Brackett or Meeker? And why?

Honestly, I love Brackett but Meeker is a much better sheriff. He’s way more prepared, he’s taking everything seriously (something it takes Brackett a long time to do, and as soon as he does he just blames Loomis) and he’s out to take Michael down no matter what. Although, to be fair, Meeker sees how serious the situation is way more quickly. And even though it should be impossible that Michael is up and moving around after his coma, Meeker smartly takes it seriously as soon as he meets Loomis, just because of everything that happened before. 

But Meeker doesn’t just lose his daughter like Brackett did, he loses his entire police department and it just makes him that much more intent on taking Myers down. I just wish he’d gotten way more to do in Halloween 5, where he was kind of an afterthought. 

[tastelevelfailtacular]

Road to the Runway

Project Runway Season 16

Last Thursday we got to meet the sixteen designers that will compete on the 16th season of Project Runway, which starts this week! In case you missed it, here’s a re-cap along with our first impressions of each designer. Plus, just for fun, we’re going to rate everyone to get a favorites ranking right out of the gate!

Batani Khalfani

Age: 32, Home: Inglewood, California Tondy: This lady is not only beautiful, I love her African-inspired designs! The prints are gorgeous, and the styles are really interesting. I particularly loved what she had on, and the long dark-grey dress with the split in the front! Score: 4.0

Bolo: Batani had some really lovely looks, and it looks to me like she’s very talented with mixing colors, prints, textures, and various design elements to create unique but wearable designs. Can’t wait to see more! Score: 4.5

Amy Bond 

Age: 46, Home: Los Angeles, California

Tondy: I liked her designs a lot, but I wish they weren’t all the same dark grey and black! She seems to really excel in draping, but I do want to see more color. Score: 3.5

Bolo: Very clean, professional-but-fashionable looks with a masculine edge. Lots of dark fabrics, though, but draping skills are a nice bonus. Score: 3.5

Ayana Ife 

Age: 27, Home: Salt Lake City, Utah

Tondy: My favorite design was the long flowy pants with the spaghetti straps in the back.  I also liked the versatility of the boyfriend shirt. Score: 3.5

Bolo: Ayana had some really cute looks and I absolutely loved her color palette. I even love the colors she’s wearing in this picture, even if whichever one of the judges that was (Mondo?) didn’t like the color of her hijab. I love it! Score: 4.5

Margarita Alvarez

Age: 30, Home: San Juan, Puerto Rico Tondy: I adored the purple and pink skirt that she showed first. I didn’t think that anything she showed was in the least matronly! (One of judges thought it might be) Score: 3.75

Bolo: Margarita had some gorgeous Dior-inspired looks, and I didn’t think they were matronly at all. At one point she was wearing this cute short-sleeved tunic dress with a plantain print, and it was adorable! Score: 4.25

Samantha Rei

Age: 36, Home: Minneapolis, Minnesota Tondy: I like what she said about not having to apologize for the size you are! There was a black dress in one of her photos with a little black top hat that may be the cutest dress I have ever seen!  I also thought the purple print dress she was wearing was adorable!! I think she will do well. Score: 3.75

Bolo: Samantha’s looks are vibrant and fun, some looks on the lolita spectrum and others that had that had an anime quality to them. Some a bit costumey but still very lovely. Excited to see her challenge work. Score: 4.25

Deyonte Weather 

Age: 36, Home: Chicago, Illinois

Tondy: I loved the dress on the model and the first print dress was beautiful  I would buy whatever that was that he was pinning pleats on on the mannequin because it is going to turn out gorgeous! Score: 3.5

Bolo: I really liked the architectural quality to some of his looks. Since he’s a fan of architecture, it’ll be interesting to see how that influences his looks. The cityscape dress was nice and different from others I’ve seen. Score: 3.5

Kenya Freeman

Age: 37, Home: Atlanta, Georgia

Tondy: She is too cute for words. I think she will keep things lively and fun on the show! I love peplums, and she had a pic of an adorable black dress that I think could be a best-seller! Score: 3.75

Bolo: I wish I could remember what she said, but it was something about designing for a working class girl or something along those lines. I liked that idea of cute, fashionable clothes for an everyday girl. Score: 4.0

Shawn Buitendorp

Age: 27, Home: Grand Ledge, Michigan Tondy: Shawn makes amazing leather jackets. I can see rock stars wearing these. The lion one and the one that looked like mosaics were particularly awesome! Score: 3.5

Bolo: Shawn’s cobra mosaic jacket was unbelievable. I hope she’ll be able to show off more of that mosaic work and the jacket designing skills. Score: 3.75

Claire Buitendorp

Age: 27, Home: Grand Ledge, Michigan

Tondy: Claire’s designs are not quite as edgy as Shawn’s. I like her first little black dress a lot, and I liked her aesthetic of making classic silhouettes embellished into a statement piece. Score: 3.5

Bolo: She had a black lolita dress that I thought was really nice, and she had some mosaic work and nice jackets as well. She also seems to like incorporating words into her looks, which I’m on the fence about. Score: 3.5

Aaron Myers

 Age 23. Home: Ridgewood, New York

Tondy: Hmm... I’m not sure how I feel about these clothes if they are for men. That said, I thought some of them were really cute and would look good on women too. I worry a little bit that he is trying too hard to be different! Score: 3.0

Bolo: This guy had some unique ideas. In my notes are the actual words “wank pocket” and “penis but not...” I think he said something about gender neutral, but I really got more of a “dresses for guys” vibe out of him. Could be very interesting or not so much. Score: 3.0

Brandon Kee

Age: 24, Home: San Francisco, California

Tondy: I love his fabrics and that jacket with the laces was amazing! I’m with the judges as I want to see more of his designs as well. I hope we get to see him make the fabric! Score: 3.5

Bolo: Brandon’s looks were a lot of oversize/baggy menswear in neutral colors. Some of the textiles he showed looked nice. Score: 3.25

Michael Brambila

Age: 25, Home: Oakland, California

Tondy: His clothes are different, but I liked the orange blouse. I would have liked to see more of the iridescent jacket that was hanging on the rack. It’s going to be exciting to see what he comes up with. Score: 3.25

Bolo: Michael was into what he called “fetish undertones,” which were things that tie up, rings, straps, etc. He likes to play with gender identity and looks with feminine undertones. Strikes me as more art than fashion. Score: 3.25

Sentell McDonald

Age: 33, Home: New York, New York

Tondy: He had such a sad story. I hope he does well on the show. His clothes are quite different, but I sure could see a lot of them showing up on the Red Carpet at the Grammys! Score: 3.25

Bolo: LOVED this guy! I think he said something about “global warming inspired,” and I can totally see that. There’s a very futuristic quality to his work. Lots of straight lines, metallic and shiny fabrics, zippers, etc. Score: 4.75

Kentaro Kameyama

Age: 38, Home: Lost Angeles, California Tondy: These designs were just gorgeous. The orange and black dress he had was amazing! I also loved the simplicity of the white dress with the black ribbons. Score: 3.75

Bolo: Kentaro is very inspired by music and likes to turn “sad things into beautiful things.” His angel dress, which was a tribute to a friend who passed away, was really lovely. I also loved that orange and black dress. Score: 4.0

Kudzanai Karidza 

Age: 32, Home: Atlanta, Georgia

Tondy: I liked him and I liked his dog, but sadly his designs did not impress me. I see where he is coming from, but I just didn’t get it. Score: 3.0

Bolo: Kudzanai uses a lot of color, texture, and African-inspired style. Some of his looks had a shabby chic/post-apocalyptic look to them, and others were more tribal avant-garde. Score: 3.75

Vincent “ChaCha” Yu

Age: 24, Home: Taipei, Taiwan

Tondy: Well, these designs were just a little too childish or costumey for me, and I am surprised that he got through, honestly.  He is as cute as a button, but maybe he would be better off doing children’s wear? Score: 3.0

Bolo: TBH, I didn’t think this guy was for real, so I was shocked as hell that he’s an actual contestant. I am using not a drop of hyperbole when I say all of his designs looked like unconventional challenge looks. Unusual fabric choices; strange mixes of colors, textures, and prints; odd embellishments--I’ve never seen anything like it. That good be good or really really bad. Score: 3.25

{ The Results }

The Five Designers We’re Most Excited About:

Batani Ayana Margarita Sentell Samantha

The Five Designers We’re Least Excited About:

Brandon   Kudzanai  Michael   ChaCha   Aaron  

{ Afterthoughts }

Tondy: Well, Bolo, the roller-coaster ride begins next week and I am beyond excited!!!!

Bolo: Me too, Tondy! It’s going to be a fantastic season!

Until next week,

#project runway #fashion #fashion design #tim gunn #lifetimetv

[sweetlifetownsville]

Reef grant to foundation 'unthinkable, mind-blowing': ex-board member

Updated August 09, 2018 13:30:39

Photo: Malcolm Turnbull has defended the GBRF grant after being accused of making a controversial "captain's call". (AAP: Michael Chambers) A member of the Myer family dynasty who played a key role in establishing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) has condemned a $444 million federal grant to the body as "shocking and almost mind-blowing". The latest comments increase pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for making what critics branded a "captain's call" in allocating the funding. Michael Myer was a financial supporter of the GBRF and a member of its board for two years until 2002, when he quit in part over concerns about its "corporate" direction and the growing involvement of figures from the fossil fuels industry. Yesterday, it was revealed governance experts and lawyers from Environmental Justice Australia believed the grant contravened the Federal Government's own guidelines.

Photo: Michael Myer said the federal grant showed really poor judgment. (ABC News) Mr Myer told the ABC it was "unthinkable" for the Government to award the largest ever non-profit grant to an organisation with six staff members "without due diligence, without a proper tender process, without a request". But the Federal Environment Department told the Senate the deal complies with all Government rules for grants and former deputy secretary of the Finance Department Stephen Bartos described it as "unusual but ....entirely legal". "The notion of an organisation with six staff members suddenly having to manage $440 million, from a not-for-profit and philanthropic point of view is unheard of," Mr Myer said. "It actually is quite shocking and almost mind-blowing. I think the Government's judgment is really poor." Mr Myer said the Government was "greenwashing" by using GBRF "to be seen to be doing something for the reef" but via an organisation that would not be "unduly politicising it around climate change". "If you read the fine print, they also say they don't want to rock the boat on the issue, they don't want to be politicising it, they don't want to be connecting the dots because it'll step on a lot of toes politically." The federal funding agreement states that GBRF will "seek to address the highest priority threats to the reef", but does not mention climate change, only specifying "poor water quality and crown of thorns starfish outbreaks". Risk management 'an afterthought' Both GBRF and the Government have been at pains to defend the massive grant. Mr Turnbull and Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg told the GBRF chairman about the grant in April, 11 days after Cabinet's expenditure review committee voted to seek a "commercial partner" for a reef conservation plan. Labor has called on GBRF to hand the money back, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten declaring it "an ongoing scandal [and] a very good example of why we need a national integrity commission". Mr Myer, who emerged from a three-year bankruptcy in 2015, has publicly supported the Greens and opposes the Adani mine. He said his scathing views on the grant were informed by almost 40 years' involvement in the Myer Foundation, one of Australia's leading philanthropic organisations. He said it was extraordinary that the grant agreement set aside $22 million for "scaling up activities" such as risk management plans to ensure proper governance, which should be done before money is handed over. "In a normal tender process, if you were tendering for the grant, you would have done that work upfront," he said. "You would have worked with your prudential authorities, you would have done your risk management, you would have shown how you were going to manage that money. "But to be doing it as an afterthought, after the money has been given and it's in the bank account, again is quite extraordinary. "I would suggest it's not a wise use of funds."

Photo: A spokesman for Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg declined to comment. (ABC News: Nicholas Haggarty) Mr Myer said he was involved with GBRF "pretty much at the get go", joining its board in 2000. He said the original intent of the foundation was to help scientists collaborate with reef research funding from business and philanthropists. "[But] I felt that it was going to become a more corporate type of board, whereas I really wanted to see a more activist type of board in terms of developing policies around the reef and having an influence on policy," he said. "I don't think it had a deliberate intention to 'greenwash'." But he said the GBRF board and its supporters came to feature "a lot of players" from fossil fuel-oriented industries, which raised "big questions" about climate change impacts on the reef. "There is a cognitive dissonance on the one hand saying the reef is really precious to us, it's an icon, we must protect it, but on the other hand actively pursuing policies that have the opposite effect," he said. "For mine, that is happening in a big way here." 'We need to match global action with local projects' The Great Barrier Reef Foundation is a small environmental charity with a board comprised of representatives of Australian business, science and philanthropy. It is supported by companies including BHP, Qantas, Rio Tinto, Google and Orica. A spokeswoman for GBRF said Mr Myer had "not been involved with the foundation for 14 years so it's not surprising that he may not be familiar with our work and processes to protect the reef". She said GBRF funded projects chosen by an expert science advisory committee including from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and CSIRO and that corporate partners had no role in this.

Photo: Mr Myer described the large grant to GBRF for reef protection as "unthinkable". (Supplied: Zack Rago) "The foundation is clear that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef and we need to match global action on progress towards the Paris Agreement with local projects that can protect and restore the reef," she said. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation's newly appointed chief scientist, UQ Professor Peter Mumby, said he hoped the political debate would not detract from efforts to protect the reef. "It's very clear from the science that local management has a very big role to play climate change is the other big part of that story," he said. Professor Mumby said the foundation had "no fear of tackling the tough projects". "In the five years I've been involved with them as a funded researcher I've seen them focus very heavily on solutions to climate change so I'm very comfortable with the way things are moving. I just hope we can keep on course. "From my point of view the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is in a good position to utilise these resources." Professor Mumby said the foundation was "a very appropriate manager of these funds". "They have the opportunity to leverage greater money into that pot and they have a very open process to ensure that the right people get the funds to do what needs to be done," he said. A spokesman for Mr Frydenberg declined to comment. The Government has previously said the grant was awarded transparently because it had published its partnership agreement. The agreement indicates GBRF has months of administrative work before it can channel funds into projects to improve reef health. It states that when awarding contracts, GBRF will adhere to principles of "open, transparent and effective competition" principles the Government's critics have said it ignored. GBRF's partnership management committee includes marine scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, former Queensland chief scientist Geoff Garrett and former University of Queensland vice-chancellor Paul Greenfield. Topics:great-barrier-reef,federal---state-issues,activism-and-lobbying,climate-change,government-and-politics,liberal-national-party-queensland,turnbull-malcolm,brisbane-4000,townsville-4810,rockhampton-4700,australia,mackay-4740,cairns-4870,qld First posted August 09, 2018 05:38:59 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-09/barrier-reef-foundation-grant-shocking-myer-former-board-member/10090780

[fathersonholygore]

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. 2006. Directed by Scott Glosserman. Screenplay by Glosserman & David J. Stieve. Starring Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethals, Robert Englund, Scott Wilson, Zelda Rubinstein, Bridgett Newton, Kate Miner, Ben Pace, Britain Spellings, Hart Turner, Krissy Carlson, Travis Zariwny, Teo Gomez, Matt Bolt, & Jenafer Brown. Glen Echo Entertainment/ Code Entertainment Rated R. 92 minutes. Comedy/Horror/Thriller

★★★★1/2 Since Scream there have been a slew of horror movies, especially in the slasher sub-genre, which tried their hand at being self-referential, dissecting slasher horror in a smart, sly way. None really captured the magic Wes Craven did in that contemporary classic. At least, until Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon arrived and made it clear that copying Craven wasn’t the only option. What director Scott Glosserman does so well with this film is it deconstructs the slasher sub-genre in a way much different from Craven, in that it isn’t wholly based on being self-referential and namedropping the genre, playing with a few tropes. This goes beyond that, explaining all those nagging questions we’ve always had about these types of killers. All the while crafting a new legend. Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel) is a serial killer, one whose myth has spread around his hometown. He’s preparing to come back for a spree. This has led a documentary film crew, headed by Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals), to interview him, in order to gain an up close, personal perspective on the sorts of people who commit these crimes. In the process, we discover so much of Leslie, as well as by proxy about Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and all the rest.

“You have no idea how much more cardio I have to do. It‘s ridiculous.”

Not only is the story and its plot self-referential, it is also self-deprecating at times. Knowing exactly when to take itself seriously, and likewise when to throw that out the window, letting loose. It’s a film which knows how to laugh, and when to dig deeper, darker. It’s also working on an intertextual level with the slasher sub-genre as a whole and horror films in general, filled with various references to horror films such as Hellraiser, A Nightmare on Elm Street, just to mention a couple. The best aspect is how we discover all of those things that are surely on horror fans minds. We’re show the methods of a slasher to gain the uncanny abilities they all have, giving them the power to chase down victims, disappear into thin air, reappear. This involves a strict physical fitness regimen, practising sleight of hand magic, spending time in a sensory deprivation chamber to hone the senses and slow the heartbeat. All those lingering genre questions are answered: How does a slasher walk faster than their running prey? How does a slasher appear exactly where you assume they won’t, or slip out of someplace after it seems they’re dead? Leslie helps us understand, all of it. Additionally, there are a few outlying themes. Such as the consideration of media – to be specific, ethics, and what sort of role it plays in the infamy of killers. Do they get the story, by any means necessary? Or drop the camera to help people? It’s often mutually exclusive, at least in that the story won’t be as deeply cutting, hard hitting and profound without the up close horror and sensationalism. The media’s role, both in art and in the world of journalism, involves popularising killers, something we see constantly today with mass shooters, plastered across social media and TV when the victims are but an afterthought. Jammed in there is also the intrinsic misogyny, phallic symbolism, and sexually oriented imagery/themes of the sub-genre, those long prevalent pieces of the slasher we all know well, even those who aren’t exactly fans. The whole virginal final girl is taken on, as is the idea of the phallic weapon used to kill the villain in so many of these sub-genre pieces out there. It isn’t explored hugely in the film, but it is most certainly there.

“The girl‘s the key, yes, but, she‘s gotta have a supporting cast.”

There are so many good references here not to note. Casual horror fans likely won’t catch most of these. The horror hounds will bark in delight at all the Easter eggs planted throughout Behind the Mask. So, let’s begin! Right off the bat, we start in front of a place that’s actually called the Red Rabbit Pub – a reference to the original Halloween, the Red Rabbit matchbook. Later we see the Lament Configuration (Hellraiser) at the home of fellow serial killer, now retired, Eugene (Scott Wilson); another bit of info, his character is intended as, though never explicitly stated to be, the grown up version of Billy from Black Christmas. There are a couple nods to Craven: a trio of girls playing jump rope; Kane Hodder plays a man living at 1428 Elm Street, the same house in which Nancy lived (A Nightmare on Elm Street). Hodder also plays the guy in the morgue at the end, during the credits. Doc Halloran is played by Freddy Krueger himself, and his whole aesthetic is very reminiscent of Pleasence’s Dr. Loomis from Carpenter’s Halloween. My favourite aspect here is the name Doc Halloran – a bit of Dick Halloran and his nickname for Danny Torrance, Doc, from The Shining. So much metafictional interplay going on between this film and many of the greats over the years. I love that it isn’t all just Friday the 13th, Halloween, Freddy Krueger, but you also get Kubrick/Stephen King references there, Clive Barker, one of my favourites ever Black Christmas, and within the dialogue itself there are more.

“For good to be pitted against evil, you have to have evil, don‘t you?”

On top of everything else, there’s a fascinating switch from the documentary-style filming to a traditionally shot horror, right after the media ethics come to a head and the film crew decide their conscience has kicked in. The whole thing is genius, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon deserves every bit of credit and praise heaped upon it, truly. There are overrated films out there, despite what the constantly positive critics (sort of an oxymoron, that; cancels itself out to not be neutral) out there want to insist. But this is nowhere near being one of them. Nearing Halloween, there are some horror films more fitting than others. I’d put this on every Halloween list that’s been written since this came out, as of this writing, near 12 years behind us. It’s actually been a couple years between my latest re-watch several days ago and the last one prior. However, each time I watch this horror gem I’m reminded exactly why it’s so wonderful, why it deserves a sequel one of these days, as well as why deconstructing a genre you love isn’t always necessarily a negative. You can actually learn how to love it even more.

Meta-Horror in BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. 2006. Directed by Scott Glosserman. Screenplay by Glosserman & David J.

#Deconstructionist #Homage #Kane Hodder #Lament Configuration #Media #Misogyny #Red Rabbit Pub #slasher #Sub-genre #Tropes

[trentteti]

The Logical Rose-ning Section: Your Recap of The Bachelorette, Episode 6

Rachel Lindsay is a practicing attorney who once took the LSAT. And you, dear reader, are an aspiring attorney who will soon take the LSAT. Rachel Lindsay is also an aspiring married person, serving as the Bachelorette on this season of The Bachelorette, the love story these depraved times deserve. And you, dear reader, may also be an aspiring married person? Either way, you definitely have at least a few things in common with Rachel. So every Tuesday, we’re going to be tracking Rachel’s romantic journey on The Bachelorette, and see what we can learn about love, loss, and the LSAT. Welcome back to the Logical Rose-ning Section.

Last time: We had a fourteen-hour Bachelorette marathon that ended with Rachel in a Michael Myers mask and eliminating huge swaths of also-rans like Jack Stone, Anthony, and Josiah. They were also in Scandinavia, so they did classic Nordic activities like repelling, competitive handballing, and playing Vikings. We were left with the final six—Bryan, Peter (heretofore referred to as Piggo, due to a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen), Dean, Eric, Matt, and Adam. Four of these guys have been given an emotional arc and back story and evidence of a romantic connection with Rachel this season. The other two have dressed up like a penguin one time and brought a creepy depression era-looking doll, and haven’t done much since. Wonder which of the four Rachel will choose for hometowns next week!

Open to: sweeping vistas of the Alps, quaint towns, dairy farms, churches, financial sectors used by the wealthy to shelter assets, and a not very subtle foreshadowing to what these guys are thinking about now that they’re on the precipice of fantasy suites.

That’s right. We’re in Geneva, Switzerland. Land of watches, fondue, and international diplomacy, the last of which is oddly unremarked upon on this network television show about a woman who dates thirty men simultaneously.

One-on-One with Bryan

Big stakes this week, as Rachel wonders which guy should take her home next week for hometown dates. So Rachel enters their hotel room in virginal white to remind these guys that’s it’s not fantasy suite time yet. She announces that this week we’re getting three one-on-one dates, and then a group date with the three remaining dudes. Obviously, Rachel will use two of these one-on-one dates to see if she has any chemistry with Adam and Matt, two dudes who are inexplicably here and haven’t had any meaningful time alone with Rachel. Or so thought Adam and Matt! Instead, Bryan gets the tête-à-tête in Geneva. There’s no date card, so we’re robbed of any sweet Switzerland-related wordplay, but we can imagine what it would have said:

“In Geneva, your love is anything but Conventional—Rachel XOXO”

“I’m not feeling very neutral ‘bout you—Rachel XOXO”

“Let’s learn the fondues and fon-don’ts of wartime protocol by studying Article II of the Conventions—Rachel XOXO.”

Anyway, Bryan and Rachel’s date is brought to us by Bentley, as the luxury sedan gets shot like we’re watching an actual car commercial and not just overt product placement.

Advertisement in chintzy reality shows seems like it would be beneath a high-end brand like Bentley, but I think mentions of the vehicle have dropped off precipitously since its zenith in late 90s rap, so it’s got to make up market share somehow.

Bryan and Rachel drive their rented Bentley straight to a watch store, where we enter another commercial, this time for the luxury watch brand Breitling, whose models start around $4500. How much disposable income do these companies think the average Bachelorette viewer has?

Rachel balls out the lot and buys his and hers matching watches, and then makes out with Bryan in the showroom. They then get chartered on a private boat across Lake Geneva, while drinking champagne. Not even Gucci Mane at his peak could have thought of a more extravagant ode to conspicuous consumption than what we just witnessed. Also, more foreshadowing:

In the rest of the date, Rachel tries to get past Bryan’s smooth talking ways and develop a deeper connection with him. In an empty but extravagant concert hall, she asks questions about his family upbringing. In just two conversational steps, Bryan is able to shift that serious conversation into a flirty discussion of the school girl uniform Rachel wore in high school. Also, I learned that Bryan—who doesn’t have a wrinkle on his face or a gray hair on head—is somehow the oldest guy left at 37 years of age.

Meanwhile, Adam, back at their Swiss hotel, is in a tailspin, who says, “How is she going to pick Bryan again? I don’t know why she would want to pick a guy like that. It doesn’t make sense to me.” Well, Adam, Bryan is 37-going-on-23 and a sweet talk Jedi. Adam, on the other hand, looks like a crane operator.

Byran, unsurprisingly, gets the date rose and is the first guy guaranteed a spot for hometown week. Then a string quartet emerges in the balconies to play for Rach and Bryan. Was the string quartet lying in wait up there the entire time? Did they hear Rachel and Bryan’s intimate conversations? Did they at least have snacks?

One-on-One with Dean

Bryan got a ride in a Bentley, a watch worth a chiropractor’s monthly salary, and private concert on his date. What does Dean get for his one-on-one? He gets to go to church, where the mass will be held in a language he does not understand. Tough break, kid.

At least Dean—who, never forget, made the instantly regrettable statement that he’s ready to “go black” and “not go back” by dating Rachel—shows admirable restraint by not calling Rachel his “hot chocolate Swiss Miss” at any point during the date.

During the entire date, Rachel tries to get past Dean’s giggly façade and learn more about the 26 year old she’s considering marrying. When she prompts Dean to get real, he asks her questions like “Do you believe in the tooth fairy?” and “What’s your favorite dinosaur?” She scoffs at this, but I mean, this is salient information. What if she, an adult woman with a law degree, did believe in the tooth fairy? That a magical sprite delivers U.S. currency to kids who lose their teeth? What if her favorite dinosaur was a stegosaurus? A dinosaur that had such a low brain-to-body mass ratio (it weighed two metric tons, but had the same size brain as a house cat) that people used to think it had a second brain in its stomach to control its tail. If your girl’s favorite dinosaur has a literal butt brain, that’s a deal breaker, my mans.

Dean finally accedes to Rachel’s demand that he gets real with her, and he admits that he’s nervous about Rachel meeting his family, considering his strained relationship with his father. Rachel tells him that she is not a monster, and won’t judge him based on his family, and gives him the date rose. Dean accepts her offer, potential trash dinosaur opinions notwithstanding.

One-on-One with Piggo

Rachel and Piggo take a helicopter to the Swiss Alps, where they go dog sledding. Piggo mentions how he feels a little insecure about Rachel dating a bunch of other men while he develops a connection with her. But what about Cooper, Rachel’s dog? Ever since Rachel’s been on this show, she’s been palling around with other dogs like those at the dog festival she and Piggo went to in Palm Springs and now with these fit, athletic, suave, European dogs? Rachel has some explaining to do.

If Rachel’s dates with Bryan and Dean were all about trying to pry and find something real beneath their facades, her date with Piggo is all about taking him at face value. Which is understandable—I mean, look at this face:

He gives some weird explanation of the last girl he dated, where he said their break up didn’t involve “any harm done” but then proceeds to describe leaving her and seeing her cry and acknowledging that he “abandoned” and “truly hurt her.” Piggo, that doesn’t make a damn lick of sense. We know Rachel, from her dealings with DeMario and Lee, is whip smart and a beast on cross-examination. She just takes Piggo at his word. She’s clearly smitten. You heard it hear first: Piggo’s got this in the bag.

Piggo gets the date rose, and will be our third hometown host.

Group Date

We’re left with the afterthoughts for the end of the episode. Eric, Matt, and Adam compete for the remaining rose. For this group date, this foursome will get to do the best thing you can do in Switzerland: go to France. “Switzerland: It’s next to France.” Brought to you by the Tourism Board of Switzerland.

On the date, Adam talks about how the date card discussed Rachel’s “difficult” decision ahead of her. Adam takes issue with the word difficult, noting that he doesn’t believe that anything is “difficult”—that some things may be “challenging,” sure, but that nothing is “difficult.” Well, Adam, when you look up “difficult”: in the thesaurus, the fourth word that follows is literally “challenging.” Those words mean the same thing dude. And nothing is “difficult”? That’s insane bruh. Running a mile in 4 minutes. That’s difficult. Eating 37 chicken wings. That’s difficult. Scoring above a 170 on the LSAT while drunk on expired Four Loko. That’s difficult. Getting past this group date. That’s gonna be difficult for you fam.

Eric has a much more realistic take on life, acknowledging that Rachel’s process here is hard; but also that life is hard, but worth it.

Rachel cuts Matt first. When cutting Matt, Rachel is in tears, noting that Matt was the contestant that reminded her most of herself. The producers must have left evidence of this connection on the cutting room floor. During this, Matt actually comes across as a chill, mature guy, and now I feel bad for making jokes at his expense over the course of this blog.

We then get the face-off between Eric and Adam. These gladiators are brought to the battle pit where they will face off in figurative fisticuffs.

Look, some stuff happens. Things are said, concerns are raised, kisses given, doubts addressed. We know where this is going though right? Eric gets the date rose, and we finally have what has felt for the last few weeks like our inevitable final four.

Getting through these last few episodes has been a little tough, but I am going to Swiss this show when it’s gone.

The Logical Rose-ning Section: Your Recap of The Bachelorette, Episode 6 was originally published on LSAT Blog

#LSAT #The Bachelorette #The Logical Rose-ning Section #trent teti #lsat

[brundleflyforawhiteguy]

Name one good thing and one bad thing about the following remakes: Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween and, Texas Chainsaw Massacre

A Nightmare on Elm StreetGOOD: Tried to do a really inventive thing by tricking us into thinking that Freddy, the most evil of all of the major slasher villains, was actually innocent. That’s pulling the wool over our eyes in a pretty smart way, almost as if Freddy himself is toying with & manipulating the audience.BAD: Couldn’t commit. Had interesting ideas but was too nervous to fully commit to any of them, so it tries to tell a new and kind of interesting story while aggressively shoe-horning in moments from the original that don’t fit at all. And some lines from the sequels that just feel hollow coming out of a totally new Freddy. Should’ve been less afraid to be its own thing.

Friday the 13thGOOD: The back-to-basics approach/ the idea that it’s not technically much of a remake at all. Honestly a breath of fresh air to go back to the campground for the ritualistic slaying of a bunch of horny idiots after several years traveling amongst the stars, Hell, Manhattan and the wilds of Ohio.BAD: Pacing. Holy shit, I really like this movie but as much fun as it was seeing in theaters with a packed crowd, everyone was verbally confused when the title came up 20 minutes into the movie. It’s got some definite issues with character set-up. 

HalloweenGOOD: The entire cast. Rob Zombie pretty much walked into a horror convention and said “I’ll take the lot ‘o ya’s.” But I never thought I’d see such an iconic cast of horror all-stars in a Halloween movie, let alone the remake. Dee Wallace? Brad Dourif? Udo Kier? Clint Howard? These were all people I never knew I needed in a Halloween film until I got them. BAD: Oy, there’s been a lot of talk of this one in the past few days, so I’ll go with the dialogue. There are characters in here that are typical Rob Zombie characters and they sound fine because those are the kinds of characters he knows how to write and likes to write. But then there are people like Dr. Loomis and Laurie’s parents and the things they say sound a little off because those aren’t the kinds of characters Zombie would ever really write about on his own. 

The Texas Chainsaw MassacreGOOD: The cinematography. Daniel Pearl, who shot the original Chain Saw, comes back to shoot the remake and he does it completely differently. It’s still raw, but the documentary feel is gone and replaced with a stylized look and feel that honestly really works. There are some shots in here that are just gorgeous. And, alternatively, some that are really gross. The shot pulling out through the back of the hitch-hiking girl’s head is one of the most memorable single shots of any horror film of the 2000s. BAD: Too much Leatherface backstory & info. That’s right. We’ve all been giving opinions back and forth on the remake Michael Myers backstory, but I take a bit of issue with the Leatherface backstory here as well and it doesn’t get brought up nearly as often. I’m not sure if we need to know about his skin condition, but we definitely don’t need to see his mask come off. That scene completely takes me out of the movie in that moment, because it’s so casual. This is the first time we’re ever seeing his actual face and it’s barely even addressed. And yes, I say this as someone actually looking forward to the new prequel film, but at least that one seems to actually be about the backstory. Here, it all just feels tacked on and kind of an afterthought.