|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 28, 2018 5:51:18 GMT
I really liked the final showdown between Laurie and Michael, but I'll be honest, I wanted more too. And I always had my own thoughts and vision of how it would go down. It would be similar to the showdown between the two is similar to final fight between Tommy Lee Jones and Benecio del Toro in The Hunted (2003).
I don't mind that Laurie trapped Michael in that cellar to burn him. It was a clever twist to Laurie's house, but it relied heavily on the convenience of Dr. Sartain transporting Michael to the location, which I didn't like much. With the sibling arc gone, there's no real guarantee that Michael intended on trying to kill her again. Sure if he came across her, he probably, but even then, he would have had no idea how to get to her place and would have just kept killing other random people. There was a line that was cut out when the podcasters were provoking Michael with the mask they asked Michael if he remembers Laurie Strode. It was in one of the trailers and had they kept it in, it would really be the only indication that Michael wanted revenge, but without it, the story does rely on Sartain to get the two back together. Personally, though, I thought the showdown should have been more up close and personal, and they had that in the film until Michael threw her out the window. It was all brutal and awesome to watch. But again, it left me wanting more, and I just imagine something akin to The Hunted. Laurie chasing Michael down in the woods, who is maybe hunting down Allyson and Karen. Michael got his kitchen knife and Laurie has that hunting knife she kept at her waist. And I wouldn't expect it to be super choreographed like Michael is a trained assassin with his knife, but Karen mentioned Laurie taught her to fight, so no doubt Laurie taught herself, with weapons as well, guns and knives. And I just imagine this brutal knife fight between the both of them as the police are closing in, stabbing and slashing each other, Laurie using survival and wit while Michael uses, well, his pure will and strength. I don't know, it's just the way I would have had the final showdown between them.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 28, 2018 16:09:19 GMT
Saw it opening night. My expectations were a bit too high due to Carpenter's involvement and I hoping that this movie would feel more like a Carpenter film despite him not directing like Halloween II and Halloween III:Season of the witch felt like a Carpenter film. However, his score was great and yes, I think it's the best sequel thus far in the franchise. As for any upcoming sequels, I hope they wait a few years to do the next one and not rush into things and repeat the same mistakes that H5 did. As for things I would have done differently, if the movie wanted to have a sheriff that's obsessed with killing Michael Myers, they should have brought back Sheriff Bracket. Also the grave yard scene should have been Laurie visiting Annie or Lynda or both. Also they should have left the off screen bus crash to our imagination instead revealing that the crazy new Doctor guy caused the accident that released Michael As for the climax, having Laurie be the stalker and the Shape be the prey sorta loses the suspense a little but it was still an interesting concept. Overall I enjoyed it and might check it out again sometime next week. Was just thinking this same thing even before the film came out. Of all the people who'd have it out for Michael, it would definitely be Brackett for killing his daughter. But I think they wanted to focus on Laurie's story.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Oct 28, 2018 18:40:45 GMT
I would've liked to have seen Brackett return too, but I'm guessing he didn't because the character would be too old. I'm sure as a character he would be pushing 90 now.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Oct 28, 2018 18:47:11 GMT
Saw it opening night. My expectations were a bit too high due to Carpenter's involvement and I hoping that this movie would feel more like a Carpenter film despite him not directing like Halloween II and Halloween III:Season of the witch felt like a Carpenter film. However, his score was great and yes, I think it's the best sequel thus far in the franchise. As for any upcoming sequels, I hope they wait a few years to do the next one and not rush into things and repeat the same mistakes that H5 did. As for things I would have done differently, if the movie wanted to have a sheriff that's obsessed with killing Michael Myers, they should have brought back Sheriff Bracket. Also the grave yard scene should have been Laurie visiting Annie or Lynda or both. Also they should have left the off screen bus crash to our imagination instead revealing that the crazy new Doctor guy caused the accident that released Michael As for the climax, having Laurie be the stalker and the Shape be the prey sorta loses the suspense a little but it was still an interesting concept. Overall I enjoyed it and might check it out again sometime next week. Was just thinking this same thing even before the film came out. Of all the people who'd have it out for Michael, it would definitely be Brackett for killing his daughter. But I think they wanted to focus on Laurie's story. They still could have brought him back in a supporting role as an ally towards Laurie's cause with out taking the focus off Laurie. I felt it was a missed opportunity even if he was to get killed off. Perhaps in the next sequel.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Oct 28, 2018 18:57:19 GMT
I would've liked to have seen Brackett return too, but I'm guessing he didn't because the character would be too old. I'm sure as a character he would be pushing 90 now. Charles Cyphers just turned 78 this year. Although he's too old run and jump around in front of the screen, I'm sure he can still rock a double barrel rifle while holding a 40 year grudge:
cscottrollins.blogspot.com/2013/07/charles-cyphers-of-halloween-john.html#!/2013/07/charles-cyphers-of-halloween-john.html
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Oct 28, 2018 19:00:50 GMT
I would've liked to have seen Brackett return too, but I'm guessing he didn't because the character would be too old. I'm sure as a character he would be pushing 90 now. Charles Cyphers just turned 78 this year. Although he's too old run and jump around in front of the screen, I'm sure he can still rock a double barrel rifle while holding a 40 year grudge:
cscottrollins.blogspot.com/2013/07/charles-cyphers-of-halloween-john.html#!/2013/07/charles-cyphers-of-halloween-john.html
Wow, he was only 38 during the filming of Halloween? I would have guessed he was 10 years older by looking at him. He probably could have returned then in some capacity.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 28, 2018 19:05:43 GMT
Wow, he was only 38 during the filming of Halloween? I would have guessed he was 10 years older by looking at him. He probably could have returned then in some capacity. Well, it looks like a sequel is confirmed, so they can always bring him back in the next one.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Oct 28, 2018 19:13:51 GMT
I would've liked to have seen Brackett return too, but I'm guessing he didn't because the character would be too old. I'm sure as a character he would be pushing 90 now. If Donald Pleasance was still alive today, he'd be 99 years old.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Oct 28, 2018 19:21:31 GMT
Wow, he was only 38 during the filming of Halloween? I would have guessed he was 10 years older by looking at him. He probably could have returned then in some capacity. Yes, he's only 12 years older than Nancy Loomis. Just like Sean Connery was only 13 years older than Harrison Ford when he played Indy's dad. That's the magic of movie making.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Oct 28, 2018 19:33:39 GMT
Wow, he was only 38 during the filming of Halloween? I would have guessed he was 10 years older by looking at him. He probably could have returned then in some capacity. Well, it looks like a sequel is confirmed, so they can always bring him back in the next one. I would expect JLC to agree to only a smaller role in the sequel and if that's the case, they could keep the nostalgic factor going by bringing back not only Bracket... but Lyndsay ( the actress that played her in the original is still acting and looks good) as well as Tommy Doyle ( although I don't think the original actor can pull it off but they could always bring back Paul Rudd) as well un seen characters from the original such as Annie's boyfriend, Paul and Lynda's younger brother and maybe Ben Tramer. Re-imagine the Halloween 4 premise of Michael's return and this time, the town is prepared and ready.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 13:56:38 GMT
Yep, you guessed it. To be fair though, it was a bit... creative? Creative?! Horror movie cliche imo.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 13:59:56 GMT
6/10 for me oveall, but maybe lower since they retcon sequels, bad idea
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 14:01:06 GMT
I had a good time. Sure there were a bit too many offscreen kills, some of the story doesn’t make sense considering how Michael is an ordinary person yet can still withstand all that crap, and the ending did feel a bit rushed, but I was pleased enough. There were a lot of twists I didn’t see coming, the kills that are seen are pretty strong, and Curtis was excellent. I even liked Michael Myers himself; he’s like a cross between Nick Castle (who plays him in this one) and the Rob Zombie version - brutal and carnivorous, but still mysterious and creepy. The mask is great, too. I give it an 8/10. Seems a bit generous for a rating that high for all its flaws and nitpicks, but I’ve been waiting for this to come. Maybe I’ll rewatch it to see if I have a true justifiable opinion. He's obviously not.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 14:13:15 GMT
I have to say I was largely disappointed with this. There was so little suspense and the whole thing went right down the road of Myers versus Laurie as though she was somehow his chief focus despite killing indiscriminately before this - seemingly without even the most vague pathology. Somewhere amongst all this, Judith Myers seems completely forgotten and the whole concept of Myers reliving her murder by seeking out, then strategically stalking victims that somehow represent her, are replaced with a Super-bowl-type showdown with Laurie that we are building towards even before he escapes. For me, this means throwing out the sister/brother angle was a waste of time because for all that, it was still all about Myers coming after Laurie.........only this time for reasons unknown. They might as well have left the sibling angle in because they still killed off the concept of him killing Judith over and over by targeting teenage girls of her type. This was the only insight we had into the character from the original story but it was enough to make him terrifying yet keep him unfathomable. If they had stuck to this and had Laurie make it her business to step in to try and thwart him (rather than be his star focus), that would have been consistent with the Myers character and been a believable extension of Laurie Strode. As it is, Strode and her descendants are again painted as the passion of Myers' bloodlust - something we've seen all before several times over. Laurie's doomsday pad had me gasping in disbelief that the story had so centred on her again being the object of Myers' psychotic desire........a motive far removed from his urges in the original. Judith gets merely an obligatory mention from the villainous and utterly pointless Dr character, who is synthetically injected into the plot to provide an absurd twist by himself turning homicidal - presumably out of obsession with Myers - only to end up the next victim himself mere moments later! It hardly seemed worth including the character and I thought was daft to present us with a character that has presumably spent years in his specialised profession........ only to wait around for Myers escape (an event that may never have occurred) and then act out some hitherto subdued homicidal urge of his own. This I thought was desperation on the part of the writers to give the movie an extra shot in the arm, perhaps to make up for substance they suspected was lacking. I also thought - given how many deaths there were at the crash scene and then the gas station - the low key police presence on the streets of Haddonfield for the longest stretch of the evening seemed fairly absurd. Only when yet more bodies turned up, did there seem to be any real kind of manhunt. Even HALLOWEEN II presented a more realistic law enforcement reaction around Haddonfield to the crimes that had been only then just discovered. I wished there had been more daytime scenes and patient buildup to the night terrors that lay in wait. There was little structured pacing here. This was HALLOWEEN for the Millennium. A brief set-up, then straight in with the brutality and barely 5 minutes without Myers onscreen in case audience attention spans begin to wane and people start checking their SnapChats. Myers' spent so long in the original film (often offscreen) observing people and dogging their steps before choosing his moments to strike. Think of him watching Annie from a few feet away on several occasions at the Wallace house. Or standing in a doorway watching Bob and Lynda - both downstairs and upstairs - before toying with them and luring them to their deaths. Here he just nonchalantly walks into houses straight off the cuff and kills without any pre-selection or stalking. The victims seemingly have no tie to his pathology around reliving Judith's murder - while at the same time also have no connection to his now-updated mission to target Laurie Strode and her kin. He spent a whole day in the original patiently observing and planning his movements around Haddonfield without strolling into peoples houses and slaughtering whoever was unlucky enough to live there. Maybe I'm too wrapped up in the original.......maybe I can't move with the times! But even dismissing Carpenter's film, for me this was a badly paced, generic slasher with little suspense, almost no scares and plot deviations that are often pointless and occasionally absurd. A lot of the kills are pointless and brutal, very much out of sync with how Myers operated previously and worst of all - were more reminiscent of some of what I saw in Rob Zombie's celluloid catastrophes. Then after all Laurie's convictions to "end this", she walks from a fiery inferno - without the certainty of his death - when she had him trapped in a basement where she could just fill him with holes from any of the plentiful firearms she's been stockpiling for 40 years.........I audibly groaned at this point. I really wish I had got more out of this and hope others manage to enjoy it but for me the film was light years short of the simple, yet powerfully effective concept that a low budget independent movie from 1978 presented to us..........and which I fell in love with on first viewing. I think I'm just getting old and grumpy!!! Why would she get anything more than a brief mention? She died 40 years ago. What a bizarre criticism.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 14:13:46 GMT
What was the bit with the teeth? I didn't get that at all. I feel like a missed a scene.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 1, 2018 14:40:13 GMT
I had a good time. Sure there were a bit too many offscreen kills, some of the story doesn’t make sense considering how Michael is an ordinary person yet can still withstand all that crap, and the ending did feel a bit rushed, but I was pleased enough. There were a lot of twists I didn’t see coming, the kills that are seen are pretty strong, and Curtis was excellent. I even liked Michael Myers himself; he’s like a cross between Nick Castle (who plays him in this one) and the Rob Zombie version - brutal and carnivorous, but still mysterious and creepy. The mask is great, too. I give it an 8/10. Seems a bit generous for a rating that high for all its flaws and nitpicks, but I’ve been waiting for this to come. Maybe I’ll rewatch it to see if I have a true justifiable opinion. He's obviously not. I meant that we’re to presume he’s an ordinary person seeing how it’s meant to be more real.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 1, 2018 14:40:45 GMT
What was the bit with the teeth? I didn't get that at all. I feel like a missed a scene. They were from the cashier. You kinda see his jaw dislocated when you see his body.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 1, 2018 14:42:23 GMT
What was the bit with the teeth? I didn't get that at all. I feel like a missed a scene. He killed one of the store clerks, and his mouth was left bloody toothless (literally).
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Nov 1, 2018 15:07:55 GMT
Yep, you guessed it. To be fair though, it was a bit... creative? Creative?! Horror movie cliche imo. Sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 15:33:20 GMT
What was the bit with the teeth? I didn't get that at all. I feel like a missed a scene. They were from the cashier. You kinda see his jaw dislocated when you see his body. Okay, I vaguely remember that shot. I was just a little confused as to why show the woman in the bathroom the teeth. It's not like she knew that he killed the clerk. I really didn't see much of a point to that part.
|
|