|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 15:41:23 GMT
I meant that we’re to presume he’s an ordinary person seeing how it’s meant to be more real. He's more real than say Jason Voorhees, but he's in no way shape or form an ordinary person. He gets shot six times in the original and survives. I'm pretty sure Laurie popped him once when she and the cops were shooting at him and that was long before he even got to her house. Then once at her house she stabbed him multiple times, shot him at close range with a shotgun – which took off part of his hand – and was later shot in the face by her daughter. It's a better portrayal than Jason because it looks and feels more realistic, but he's clearly some kind of supernatural being. He's pure evil, remember?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 1, 2018 15:54:00 GMT
I meant that we’re to presume he’s an ordinary person seeing how it’s meant to be more real. He's more real than say Jason Voorhees, but he's in no way shape or form an ordinary person. He gets shot six times in the original and survives. I'm pretty sure Laurie popped him once when she and the cops were shooting at him and that was long before he even got to her house. Then once at her house she stabbed him multiple times, shot him at close range with a shotgun – which took off part of his hand – and was later shot in the face by her daughter. It's a better portrayal than Jason because it looks and feels more realistic, but he's clearly some kind of supernatural being. He's pure evil, remember? Was it the face he got shot in? I thought it was it shoulder/neck region he was shot in, because you don't see any bullet holes on the face/mask? And he's obviously more durable than an ordinary human, but it's portrayed in a somewhat realistic way. Not to say anyone can survive six shots to the chest, but it's not unheard of completely. There are people who can survive a shotgun blast to the chest point-blank range, or even in the face. But considering he was recaptured that night, it does show that the wounds do have an effect and he was unable to get away. And you do kinda hear him grunt when his fingers are shot off. Part of his character is just extreme willpower to keep moving despite the wounds and pain.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 16:00:08 GMT
I really enjoyed it. I agree with the heavy metal fan that was both in line with the original and added some new stuff. I'm so glad that I caught it in the theater. Aside from a very cliche and frankly bizarre part of the plot with the doctor, I thought this was a VERY GOOD sequel. It captured all the tension and terror of the original, but upped the ante in the action and horror departments without being tacky or excessive; like the Rob Zombie remakes. Michael has been sitting and festering for 40 years. He's been healing, growing stronger, and waiting for his opportunity to kill again. Time has only made him stronger and hungrier. I liked that. I liked that a lot. I would have to watch the original from start-to-finish again (always catch it in bits on #TV) for a proper comparison, but I would love to see how it stacks up against this movie. It's easily the best sequel. It might even be on-par with the original.
I also like that we still know pretty much nothing about what goes on in Michael's head. Mystery is a good thing. Very rarely does a sequel satisfy when it delves into something in more detail. It's very unlikely you're going to come up with an answer that is not just acceptable, but good. Dr. Loomis's "he's pure evil" is good enough for me.
I would have liked to have seen people at least mention that he seemingly can't die. Like people don't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Nov 1, 2018 16:22:42 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). Poor clerk. Rumor has it, he wasn't even supposed to be here today!
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 1, 2018 16:53:01 GMT
He's more real than say Jason Voorhees, but he's in no way shape or form an ordinary person. He gets shot six times in the original and survives. I'm pretty sure Laurie popped him once when she and the cops were shooting at him and that was long before he even got to her house. Then once at her house she stabbed him multiple times, shot him at close range with a shotgun – which took off part of his hand – and was later shot in the face by her daughter. It's a better portrayal than Jason because it looks and feels more realistic, but he's clearly some kind of supernatural being. He's pure evil, remember? Was it the face he got shot in? I thought it was it shoulder/neck region he was shot in, because you don't see any bullet holes on the face/mask? And he's obviously more durable than an ordinary human, but it's portrayed in a somewhat realistic way. Not to say anyone can survive six shots to the chest, but it's not unheard of completely. There are people who can survive a shotgun blast to the chest point-blank range, or even in the face. But considering he was recaptured that night, it does show that the wounds do have an effect and he was unable to get away. And you do kinda hear him grunt when his fingers are shot off. Part of his character is just extreme willpower to keep moving despite the wounds and pain. Yeah, I think you're right. It was the shoulder or neck. He's the Boogeyman, that's how he does it all - and lives.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 1, 2018 17:17:57 GMT
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. Michael has been known to toy with his victims. Locking the car door so Annie couldn't get in the car and then unlocking it when she came back with the keys. Using the ghost sheet and Bob's glasses when going to confront Lynda. The teeth could be more of the same. Or maybe he did it because he is an extremely disturbed individual.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 1, 2018 17:45:40 GMT
I meant that we’re to presume he’s an ordinary person seeing how it’s meant to be more real. He's more real than say Jason Voorhees, but he's in no way shape or form an ordinary person. He gets shot six times in the original and survives. I'm pretty sure Laurie popped him once when she and the cops were shooting at him and that was long before he even got to her house. Then once at her house she stabbed him multiple times, shot him at close range with a shotgun – which took off part of his hand – and was later shot in the face by her daughter. It's a better portrayal than Jason because it looks and feels more realistic, but he's clearly some kind of supernatural being. He's pure evil, remember? Fair point. I just find the idea of a normal being haunting you to be even more disturbing than a supernatural force, since it can happen for real.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Nov 1, 2018 23:45:17 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. I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 2, 2018 0:56:34 GMT
Why would she get anything more than a brief mention? She died 40 years ago. What a bizarre criticism. I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him. The guy bolds two lines of your original post, then asks their meaning while ignoring the NINE PARAGRAPHS you spent explaining them. My lord.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 2, 2018 2:56:47 GMT
Why would she get anything more than a brief mention? She died 40 years ago. What a bizarre criticism. I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him. To be fair, they never did that in any of the other sequels. But also, you kinda just answered your own question. You mentioned that recreating Judith's murder was his sole function. Well... that's the problem, you're giving him a motive now. But he's just pure evil and kills for no reason other than that he's evil. He never really had a motive or why when choosing his victims. With setting up Annie with Judith's gravestone, I think that was more of just a taunt to the police and the people of Haddonfield like "I'm back and I'm going to kill anyone." I do wish there was more slow burn stalking of his victims, I do think that's an essential characteristic to him.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 2, 2018 4:20:37 GMT
Why would she get anything more than a brief mention? She died 40 years ago. What a bizarre criticism. I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him. I think the reason I liked him going door to door and offing people left and right is because it reminded me of the conversation that Brackett and Loomis had where Brackett said, "Haddonfield is families, houses lined up in rows. So what you're telling me is that they're lined up for a slaughterhouse." That's probably why it really didn't bother me that he wasn't stalking one victim like he did Laurie in the original. As far as the showdown with Laurie, I really don't think she was all that important to him. I think that whole thing was more important to her as if she was exercising her demons. I do think one of the problems with the movie is that Michael's doctor thought Myers' motivation was to seek out Laurie, even though he hadn't done so, and drove him out to her house. I think it would have been better off if she persued him a la Loomis along with the policeman character throughout Haddonfield as he continued his spree and their showdown took place in the streets of Haddonfield rather than her compound.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 2, 2018 13:07:18 GMT
I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him. I think the reason I liked him going door to door and offing people left and right is because it reminded me of the conversation that Brackett and Loomis had where Brackett said, "Haddonfield is families, houses lined up in rows. So what you're telling me is that they're lined up for a slaughterhouse." That's probably why it really didn't bother me that he wasn't stalking one victim like he did Laurie in the original. As far as the showdown with Laurie, I really don't think she was all that important to him. I think that whole thing was more important to her as if she was exercising her demons. I do think one of the problems with the movie is that Michael's doctor thought Myers' motivation was to seek out Laurie, even though he hadn't done so, and drove him out to her house. I think it would have been better off if she persued him a la Loomis along with the policeman character throughout Haddonfield as he continued his spree and their showdown took place in the streets of Haddonfield rather than her compound. Also, he went door to door and killed victims, but it seemed he was in search of his weapon. It may not have been totally at random, he may have had the goal in mind of obtaining the knife. That might beg the question of why he'd go after that babysitter though. In other cases it was the people who he's taking something from (i.e. the knife, the jumpsuit, the car), or those who were in his way. The asshole boyfriend's asshole friend was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the babysitter girl and her boyfriend were sought out. But not from earlier on. He didn't fixate on them like he did in the original. He just went in, hid for a while, offed them both, and then moved on. It was a strong sequence, but it didn't really fit to me. I also thought Laurie was going to be pursuing him more through the town. The one moment in the trailer where she shoots the mirror through the window suggested, I thought, that she would be going after him as opposed to most of that action taking place at her house. Another thought I had when I saw the trailer, which I really wish they'd used, was that Laurie would have bought and been living in the Meyers' house knowing that if he ever got out he would 'come home.' It would have given a good reason for him to pursue her, and would make sense with her plan. Unfortunately, the beginning of the movie confirmed that was not the case since you saw that she lived out in the middle of nowhere very early on. In general, I found it odd that there was no mention of the Meyers' house at all, as it was such a focal point of the original film, and it could be read, essentially, as the reason he went after Laurie in the first movie. That seemed like a missed opportunity.
|
|
northernlad
Sophomore
@northernlad
Posts: 898
Likes: 620
|
Post by northernlad on Nov 2, 2018 13:09:19 GMT
He killed one of the store clerks, and his mouth was left bloody toothless (literally). Poor clerk. Rumor has it, he wasn't even supposed to be here today! That just made my morning. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 2, 2018 15:42:26 GMT
Why would she get anything more than a brief mention? She died 40 years ago. What a bizarre criticism. I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him.Don't you get it? Laurie is the one who got away. She survived. Everyone else that he tried to kill is dead. She "holds a special place" in his heart. That's his motivation – for killing her at least.
As far as what started it all? We have no idea. We never have. We don't know anything about him and we probably never will; because the sequels which attempted to explain it came up with some lame cult theory. He's the bogeyman. He does it because he likes it.
Did his sister play a role? Possibly. Or was she simply there? Your putting waaaaay too much emphasis on Judith. There's been 40 years of unsuccessful tests and studies on the guy. Aside from the fact that he did actually kill her, nobody is going to mention much about her. There's really no reason to.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 2, 2018 16:18:11 GMT
Am I imagining things, or did they actually mention Judith Meyers and show her headstone?
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 2, 2018 18:39:52 GMT
Am I imagining things, or did they actually mention Judith Meyers and show her headstone? The podcasters visited her grave and talked about her murder. They showed the footage from the original movie in the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Nov 2, 2018 19:00:41 GMT
Loved it. Was against the whole idea of this, but they were right to make it. Some chilling moments throughout.
If Laurie is no longer Michael's sister, why does Michael care about killing her so much? Just because she was the one who got away?
That doctor had to have been cast based on his Pleasenceness, his voice at times sounded a lot like ole Doc Loomis.
Also, if someone dropped bloody human teeth over the top of my bathroom stall, I would be FREAKED OUT...which was obviously Michael's intent.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 2, 2018 20:01:29 GMT
Am I imagining things, or did they actually mention Judith Meyers and show her headstone? The podcasters visited her grave and talked about her murder. They showed the footage from the original movie in the scene. K, I thought so. Seemed like an odd thing to complain about not being in the film, especially when it was.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Nov 2, 2018 20:38:23 GMT
I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) b ut instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him.Don't you get it? Laurie is the one who got away. She survived. Everyone else that he tried to kill is dead. She "holds a special place" in his heart. That's his motivation – for killing her at least. As far as what started it all? We have no idea. We never have. We don't know anything about him and we probably never will; because the sequels which attempted to explain it came up with some lame cult theory. He's the bogeyman. He does it because he likes it.
Did his sister play a role? Possibly. Or was she simply there? Your putting waaaaay too much emphasis on Judith. There's been 40 years of unsuccessful tests and studies on the guy. Aside from the fact that he did actually kill her, nobody is going to mention much about her. There's really no reason to.
Yes I think I get it. It's each to their own theory of course but I disagree that Laurie should hold "a special place in his heart" in this movie. That was indeed how the subsequent movies presented her. This movie purports to disregard those sequels yet very much adopts their mentality and approach by making Laurie seem like his holy grail. For all the talk about picking up from the original, this film still eschews much of that movie's fundamental principals. Just because she got away in the original, doesn't mean she should occupy any added significance. I agree we don't know what started it all and do not claim otherwise. The little we did know however, was that he was back in Haddonfield, again wearing a mask, armed with a knife and stalking teenage girls that were perfect surrogates for Judith, while before all this he had taken great pains to steal and stash away a large headstone to later complete his master 're-enactment of her death. Laurie now being a grey haired, middle-aged woman no longer occupies the profile of those the first movie showed him target. This pathology doesn't "explain" him.......it merely describes him. The incident with Judith is something "frozen in his mind" that he must act out over and over - this according to co-writer Debra Hill. I'm not sure I'm placing waaaaay too much emphasis on Judith. This was simply the formula of the original movie.......whose roots this follow up claimed to be moving back to.......but really doesn't. With all due respect, I'd say you - and this movie - place way too much emphasis on Laurie. Again though, it's each to their own theory. I just feel this movie was far more influenced in style, substance and execution by the very films it claimed to ignore and less by the one it was supposed to endorse.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Nov 2, 2018 21:32:26 GMT
I mention it because this is a direct sequel to the original. And just about the only thing we knew about him in the original was that he was back in Haddonfield 15 years later to relive and recreate Judith's murder. Right down to the difficult task of stealing her headstone and meticulously arranging it in a bedroom above another young female victim just like her. This was seemingly his sole function, motive and purpose. In this latest movie, this pathology is not even touched upon and he's offing people left, right and centre, simply racking up a body count without rhyme or reason.......moving not toward a recreation of his 1963 birth into murder (as in 1978) but instead a predictable - yet quite out of character - showdown with Laurie - who really has no grounds to be that important to him. I think the reason I liked him going door to door and offing people left and right is because it reminded me of the conversation that Brackett and Loomis had where Brackett said, "Haddonfield is families, houses lined up in rows. So what you're telling me is that they're lined up for a slaughterhouse." That's probably why it really didn't bother me that he wasn't stalking one victim like he did Laurie in the original. As far as the showdown with Laurie, I really don't think she was all that important to him. I think that whole thing was more important to her as if she was exercising her demons. I do think one of the problems with the movie is that Michael's doctor thought Myers' motivation was to seek out Laurie, even though he hadn't done so, and drove him out to her house. I think it would have been better off if she persued him a la Loomis along with the policeman character throughout Haddonfield as he continued his spree and their showdown took place in the streets of Haddonfield rather than her compound. Brackett of course is also shown to be the sceptic in the original that isn't entirely convinced of Loomis' concerns. That he should be right about Myers is a little of a stretch. It's just such a jarring shift that Myers' homicidal activity was so polarized around a small group over a long stretch of hours in the original......dogging their footsteps before school, after, tailing them in a car, patiently stalking them for an eternity outside the Doyle and Wallace houses - and all the while not harming anyone else, while in this movie he's like a loose cannon on the streets whacking people left and right and brazenly marching into houses at will. You have a fair point though about the Myers/Laurie showdown probably being something that's more in her head than his. The problem for me though is that it also seemed to be in the movie's head. The story itself seemed to very forcibly push us along to that climactic confrontation that somehow felt terribly familiar and woefully telegraphed.
|
|