|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 12, 2019 13:04:27 GMT
HALLOWEEN II for me also. Seems to be a popular choice. Can't say I'm surprised, though my own opinion of this movie has diminished greatly over the years. These days, I tend to think Carpenter's 1978 original works best as a standalone. I kind of agree. There are certainly some things I like in Halloween II but I didn't see it until much later and it doesn't feel like the seamless continuation to me that it evidently does to so many other people. I don't care for the new approach to the score, I hate the way the mask looks on this clearly different person playing Michael, I don't love the ratcheting up of the gore or lessening of the suspense angle, and most of the focal characters just annoy me. Laurie is hardly in it. I kinda like everything that happens when they get to the hospital less than the first scenes. Showing some of the stalking from Michael's perspective was pretty cool, and some of the side moments like the kid with the razor in his mouth and the poor guy who's just walking down the street mistaken for Meyers are pretty effective. But overall I think it's an enormous step down. It's about on the same level as 4 to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Mar 12, 2019 20:35:11 GMT
I have that poster framed. It promises so much more than it actually delivers. I like the movie quite a bit, but you have a point about the poster giving great build up, then no being able to deliver. It's an excellent poster for the kind of movie that it is. Very atmospheric and so ominous and with some really fine detail, the first time I noticed that the entire scene of fear and doom was caught within the frame of the killer's physical image, I got a big chill! So that part is very, very well-done. And then the movie itself is itself is nowhere near as intense or inventive as the poster. As far as scary movies go, "Friday, the 13th" is just so-so, but I love it, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Mar 12, 2019 21:55:34 GMT
Seems to be a popular choice. Can't say I'm surprised, though my own opinion of this movie has diminished greatly over the years. These days, I tend to think Carpenter's 1978 original works best as a standalone. I kind of agree. There are certainly some things I like in Halloween II but I didn't see it until much later and it doesn't feel like the seamless continuation to me that it evidently does to so many other people. I don't care for the new approach to the score, I hate the way the mask looks on this clearly different person playing Michael, I don't love the ratcheting up of the gore or lessening of the suspense angle, and most of the focal characters just annoy me. Laurie is hardly in it. I kinda like everything that happens when they get to the hospital less than the first scenes. Showing some of the stalking from Michael's perspective was pretty cool, and some of the side moments like the kid with the razor in his mouth and the poor guy who's just walking down the street mistaken for Meyers are pretty effective. But overall I think it's an enormous step down. It's about on the same level as 4 to me. Good overview. I'm not actually that keen on the majority of the Halloween sequels. I may marginally favour 4 over this one, but they're all pretty average IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Mar 12, 2019 22:01:58 GMT
I couldn't finish it. I tried, but I just couldn't. Just saw this post. Thanks for the answer. I'm too lazy to go back and try and have my post/question deleted. But, anyway, what was it about "Tenebre" that you could not get into? The narrative is convoluted, but that's the case with every single one of Dario Argento's movies. Truth be told, I've never warmed to Argento's movies. The convoluted narrative has always been a major turn-off for me. Deep Red was another one I couldn't force myself to finish. Suspira was the only one I enjoyed. I'm a big fan of that one. I liked the underlining concept and loved the soundtrack and the visuals. Regarding Tenebrae specifically, I would say my dislike stemmed from a combination of the confusing storyline mixed in with the almost pornographic violence. Not that I've anything against nude ladies (far from it), but the whole thing felt unpleasantly gratuitous. I had been hoping for something akin to the aforementioned Suspiria, but alas it was not to be so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Mar 13, 2019 1:55:49 GMT
I like the movie quite a bit, but you have a point about the poster giving great build up, then no being able to deliver. It's an excellent poster for the kind of movie that it is. Very atmospheric and so ominous and with some really fine detail, the first time I noticed that the entire scene of fear and doom was caught within the frame of the killer's physical image, I got a big chill! So that part is very, very well-done. And then the movie itself is itself is nowhere near as intense or inventive as the poster. As far as scary movies go, "Friday, the 13th" is just so-so, but I love it, anyway. What the image represents, is everything appealing to me about psycho horror film. The detail of the woods in moonlight, which represents a setting of beauty, which is underscored by ominous doom that is foreshadowed over the characters depicted. The film didn't quite get the atmosphere right. It used soft focus lenses and flat lighting for the most part. Part 2 looked better and Parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 did look better. Part 3 was quite brightly lit too, but that was for the 3D effects. I wonder if they used Betsy Palmer's hands for the faceless killer viewpoint shots? Those were some big man hands!
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Mar 14, 2019 2:24:28 GMT
I wonder if they used Betsy Palmer's hands for the faceless killer viewpoint shots? Those were some big man hands! I doubt it. It wasn't Palmer for Bacon's death scene:
That was interesting information. But I wasn't really thinking of that scene when I posted about using Betsy Palmer's hands. Atcually there is a scene, pre-carnage, when the killer (who is supposed to be female) is hiding in the woods from across the lake, spying on her soon to be bloodied up prey. And she touches a branch or something and you see her hands and they are huge! That one got pointed out to me by a friend many, many years ago. He said, with a greatly timed chuckle, "So, are those supposed to be Betsy Palmer's hands?" And at any rate, even if those aren't actually BP's hands (or any woman's hands, for that matter), they were necessarily supposed to be a woman's hands because as we find out later, the killer is a woman. I wouldn't think the filmmakers would not have thought that one all the way through. And I have seen a few females who had glove mitts for hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 14, 2019 22:36:41 GMT
That was interesting information. But I wasn't really thinking of that scene when I posted about using Betsy Palmer's hands. Atcually there is a scene, pre-carnage, when the killer (who is supposed to be female) is hiding in the woods from across the lake, spying on her soon to be bloodied up prey. And she touches a branch or something and you see her hands and they are huge! That one got pointed out to me by a friend many, many years ago. He said, with a greatly timed chuckle, "So, are those supposed to be Betsy Palmer's hands?" And at any rate, even if those aren't actually BP's hands (or any woman's hands, for that matter), they were necessarily supposed to be a woman's hands because as we find out later, the killer is a woman. I wouldn't think the filmmakers would not have thought that one all the way through. And I have seen a few females who had glove mitts for hands. I couldn't find any other information about the killer pov shots Mr. Dirty and even when the girl is picked up in the jeep at the start, is that Palmer? It may have been more convenient to use a crew member. Remember, the reveal of the killer was supposed to be a shock\surprise and those not in the know, during the proceedings of the film, would have automatically assumed\anticipated the killer was male. By not showing girly hands before the reveal, that could have very well been intentional on the film-makers part. Also Betsy Palmer was really maybe the only established actor on that set. I'm sure she was there for only a few days and that the device of the using the killer's POV and whodunit approach was partly so that they would only have to show up for a short time. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Mar 17, 2019 6:45:38 GMT
I was going to pick ‘He Knows You’re Alone’, but decided to go with ‘Just Before Dawn’.  A very creepy, and menacing backwoods slasher with stunning picturesque locations and unsettling Brad Fiedel score. George Kennedy pops up too. I love that poster. Cool poster, indeed. Reminds me of the poster for The Keep. A slasher I’m so-so on, but it’s definitely one my favourite posters; Curtains (1983). 
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Mar 20, 2019 2:59:33 GMT
Cool poster, indeed. Reminds me of the poster for The Keep. A slasher I’m so-so on, but it’s definitely one my favourite posters; Curtains (1983). There's a certain artistry behind those old 80s posters that one sometimes misses nowadays.
|
|
