Saw Halloween (1978) for the first time tonight.

Saw Halloween (1978) for the first time tonight. Feb 23, 2017 14:32:39 GMT

Quote

Post by naterdawg on Feb 23, 2017 14:32:39 GMT

Feb 23, 2017 14:12:53 GMT Reynard said:

Feb 23, 2017 9:11:39 GMT Ashy Billiams said:

At that point in the franchise he was referred to merely "The Shape." It was much better before they gave an depth back story for the character.

What do you mean? Michael's name is mentioned many times in the movie.

I agree that Halloween didn't need any sequels. Michael Myers was "an absence of character" to quote John Carpenter himself. That's what made him scary.

I like how subtle the original classic is, very 70s in style. Most horror films, slashers especially, are much more blatant and mechanical in their approach to horror. Carpenter does with long takes, framing and use of silence what most directors try to do with flash cutting and loud noises. Carpenter's style gets under you skin and you probably don't even know how he's doing it.

Haven't seen Zombie's remake since even the premise is all wrong. I don't share his obsession with "white trash" characters to put it mildly.

Michael was referred to as "The Shape" in publicity material for the movie. He was never actually called that in the film, I don't believe.

As for Zombie's film, it's newer, and that's all it has going for it. The beauty of the original is that we never quite know why Michael is a homicidal maniac. Certainly, he looks "normal" enough. His background is white bread American, he has two sisters, and he started murdering in a time period (1963) before JFK's assassination, when everything was like "Leave it to Beaver." Zombie's Michael comes from a severely dysfunctional white trash family. His sister's a stripper, his stepdad's a drug dealer. Who wouldn't be homicidal, given such a situation? No big surprises there.

Carpenter's version is superior to the remake in every way.