|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 16, 2021 12:50:46 GMT
The last movie had se weird non sequitur dialogue about Bahn mi sandwiches and dance classes that felt out of place. This one has none of that, and favors very on-the-nose dialogue. One thing I did sort of appreciate though is seeing pieces of him setting up his Tableaus. There's not much of that, but seeing him move a body after he's killed someone, or what he does to a body after he's killed someone rather than just seeing the result is actually novel for this series, somehow. That was kind of interesting. There's a whole aspect that deals with a commentary on mass violence and mob mentality and rioting that is a little unfocused. On hand the mob does something truly awful, on the other hand they had the right intentions and Laurie is also essentially a vigilante, and they don't stop after they've committed an awful atrocity. They just regroup and refocus on the correct thing afterwards. It certainly feels a little prescient now knowing that this movie was made before all of the riots and ultimately the attack on the capital, but in the wake of that it also feels like it doesn't have as much to say about that. It may be hard to blame them since this movie has been finished for over a year now, but it feels a little slight while not being totally mishandled. And Loomis really doesn't look bad. The voice sticks out, but I was really looking to be bothered by his face, and it’s fine. I think if people didn't know this series they wouldn't realize that that was a digitally recreated face. Green wisely doesn't give him much screentime and avoids more than one or two closeups. If you're looking for it (and I was) and if that sort of thing bothers you (and it does bother me) you're bound to find something wrong with it, but I think it works better than anyone could expect... whether or not Loomis needed to be shown at all is a fair question, but from a technical stand point it's handled well... although perhaps he looks a little more like Loomis circa Halloween 4 than 1 (minus the poor burn prosthetics).. Though it still had its fair share of weird, out of place humor. The entire gay couple sequence, with them calling each other "Big John" and "Little John", then "Big" John stripping down to a wife beater to hunt Michael with the tiniest knife in the world...odd. Yeah, the bit with Michael going ham on the corpse like a curious little kid stood out. It's another brief moment where Michael feels like Michael. The vigilante part of the movie seems the most divisive. I will say, even Laurie doesn't come out looking too good. They say over and over that her trap failed, along with reinforcing the fact that her obsession with Michael is entirely one sided. Her behavior encourages Alison, putting Alison and later Karen in danger. The mob do eventually go after the "right" person, but...yeah. I think it firmly takes a stance, at least until Ends comes out. I thought Loomis looked a little too smooth and doughey. Like I said, the 1978 segment is my favorite part of the movie, so it didn't detract TOO much, but it definitely didn't need to be there. Yes, the gay couple and their pet names was a little odd, but it's a very small part of the movie and they were really the only part like that... and really their nicknames and his weird dancing to old records was kinda the only thing like that. Otherwise, they were sorta part of the story more than the weird dialoguing characters in the last one. But yes, that did sorta stick out. I get what they're trying to do with those moments, where they are trying to establish the characters as real people before they're knocked off, but it doesn't really work when they make it too weird. It works very well on the flashback though. It's not random dialogue, the actor is that guy from those movies, and it's more on topic. His mention of how his mom made him hang out with Michael when they were kids and how he stared out the window and whatever else he said was a really nice touch. I liked that moment a lot. Laurie, I don't think, impacts this movie much one way or they other... which is a shame. I liked that Judy Greer had more to do, but Laurie's trap probably was good enough had she not been fucked over by the fire department and/or just shot him to pieces when he was trapped down there (although, considering the beating he takes in this one, I guess nothing was gonna stop him), and she doesn't have much of anything to do with the mob even as she briefly tries tries stop them. That's what I meant about Loomis looking more like he looked in Halloween 4. He was clearly heavier, but not as aged. But whereas I usually get weirded out by these fake faces on real bodies, like with Peter Cushing in that Star Wars movie, but this looked a lot more natural to me and was used sparingly. But in general I don't think out opinions on the movie are very far apart.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 16, 2021 20:12:32 GMT
Just watched...spoilers ahead...
I loved how brutal Michael was in this. Yea its not classic Michael...its less of a stalker suspense film and more like watching a nature documentary about a shark in a tank full of fish and they just keep chumming the waters. He felt relentless here and I quite literally lost count of the dead bodies. I enjoyed that. His kills were also pretty unique and memorable across the board. Even a few of his straight up stabs incorporate a lot of cat and mouse beforehand to make them memorable. His subtle mannerisms were amazing too. He had at least a few moments where he'd look at characters who were fighting back as if he didn't understand what they were trying to do and it came across wonderfully. I enjoyed a lot of the minor characters...the 2 cops at the beginning in the flashback were good, the elderly couple were great, the prankster kids were even enjoyable, Big John and Little John were meh to me...i had seen them mentioned beforehand and was curious what their characters were and i honestly found them kind of dull compared to the other minor characters...but even so, as minor characters they did great. Major characters on the other hand...im not so sure. Mostly because they really didn't have any. It was spread out so much between Tommy, Laurie, Karen, Allyson...Lonnie to some extent...the doctor couple even felt fairly main early on. It wasn't even that there were different storylines to follow...they were all kind of in the same boat of 'lynch mob' and it started off good imo...but around the time they all got to the hospital it treaded water. The whole thing with the other mental patient went on for way too long and didn't amount to anything. Nobody learns their lesson after that as 20 minutes later theyre beating down Michael in the street with baseball bats. I just don't know why we spent so much time on it. The pace up until then was solid imo jumping between the after effects of the first film and Michael wreaking havoc. All in all i think the story is a bit light...it all just seems to be meat for the grinder, you know. But i absolutely had a blast watching Michael tear through the town. I doubt im the only one that bit into Michaels 'hero' shots in the beginning and really just never looked back. No Haddonfield resident made me like them as much as Michael slaughtering those pesky firemen.
I don't know if Halloween Ends will satisfy on a storyline level but im looking forward to watching this version of Michael butcher some more suburbanites.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Oct 16, 2021 21:56:39 GMT
I gave this one a fair chance but just like the last one, got very little out of it. All the subtlety of a JCB here both in the script and direction. Many stupid moments throughout with characters actually behaving just as dumb as you'd see in an early Friday the 13th and an ending that rivaled the absurdity of the 2018 movie's climax.
I won't grind out a long moan about this because I'm sure I'd be a drag to listen to (or read)!
If I'm to focus instead on a few positives, it was nice to see some early cast members back and the sequence with Kyle Richards escaping and hiding from Myers was easily my favourite. The reason I say this is because it was the closest the film ever got to achieving some level of suspense.........and guess what - it did so without any blood, guts or gratuitous brutality. Just a wonderful old school exercise in building tension.......a protracted moment of a terrified woman cowering alone in the shadows, barely able to breath with death standing a few feet away and her life in the balance. For me, there was nothing else in the movie that came close to this again.
The 1978 sequence was a welcome novelty but still merely a novelty. I very much liked how it looked and wanted us to stay there instead of getting pulled back to 2018. I still had a hard time watching Michael escape from an armed police officer by simply walking away before his capture outside the Myers house moments later. The CGI Loomis was also quite jarring but I'll give some credit for a ballsy decision to include him. Nice as it was, this 1978 recreation left me wanting to watch HALLOWEEN II (1981) to kind of set the record straight!
The obligatory mention of a new John Carpenter score always being welcome should of course, go without saying.......but I'll say it anyway, even if his modern cues lack the eerie menace that invested his classic scores earlier in the series. The music was still fitting and effective nonetheless.
All in all, for me this was as poor as the last one - which I guess was inevitable since that one set the mood and tempo that this one simply feeds off. And despite ignoring all other sequels and connecting to the original, these two have far more in common with those generic sequels than Carpenter's exercise in suspense.
As I said three years ago however, I'm glad others are enjoying this more than I could.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 17, 2021 1:41:26 GMT
Just watched...spoilers ahead... I loved how brutal Michael was in this. Yea its not classic Michael...its less of a stalker suspense film and more like watching a nature documentary about a shark in a tank full of fish and they just keep chumming the waters. He felt relentless here and I quite literally lost count of the dead bodies. I enjoyed that. His kills were also pretty unique and memorable across the board. Even a few of his straight up stabs incorporate a lot of cat and mouse beforehand to make them memorable. His subtle mannerisms were amazing too. He had at least a few moments where he'd look at characters who were fighting back as if he didn't understand what they were trying to do and it came across wonderfully. I enjoyed a lot of the minor characters...the 2 cops at the beginning in the flashback were good, the elderly couple were great, the prankster kids were even enjoyable, Big John and Little John were meh to me...i had seen them mentioned beforehand and was curious what their characters were and i honestly found them kind of dull compared to the other minor characters...but even so, as minor characters they did great. Major characters on the other hand...im not so sure. Mostly because they really didn't have any. It was spread out so much between Tommy, Laurie, Karen, Allyson...Lonnie to some extent...the doctor couple even felt fairly main early on. It wasn't even that there were different storylines to follow...they were all kind of in the same boat of 'lynch mob' and it started off good imo...but around the time they all got to the hospital it treaded water. The whole thing with the other mental patient went on for way too long and didn't amount to anything. Nobody learns their lesson after that as 20 minutes later theyre beating down Michael in the street with baseball bats. I just don't know why we spent so much time on it. The pace up until then was solid imo jumping between the after effects of the first film and Michael wreaking havoc. All in all i think the story is a bit light...it all just seems to be meat for the grinder, you know. But i absolutely had a blast watching Michael tear through the town. I doubt im the only one that bit into Michaels 'hero' shots in the beginning and really just never looked back. No Haddonfield resident made me like them as much as Michael slaughtering those pesky firemen. I don't know if Halloween Ends will satisfy on a storyline level but im looking forward to watching this version of Michael butcher some more suburbanites. Well said all around, and pretty much sums up my feelings more succinctly than I did. From what they've said Halloween Ends will be smaller in scale and more about narrative and characters, and it'll jump to the present (2022 at that point). At least that's what they've said about it so far.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Oct 17, 2021 3:23:52 GMT
it was ok , none of these movies are good enough to retcon the originals. Why did Tommy have so much screentime , he was awful.
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Oct 21, 2021 23:11:28 GMT
No spoilers follow.
I was a big fan of Halloween '18 for it's nuance, dramatic element, and just overall grit it brought to the Halloween franchise. It wasn't that it was just a great Halloween sequel or a great slasher movie, but it was also a great David Gordon Green movie. It felt like any of these characters (sans Michael) could've shown up in movies like Snow Angels, or All The Real Girls and fit right in.
Halloween Kills takes things in a completely different direction and I was with it all the way and am so on board with this setting the template for horror movies to come. I hear a lot of criticism calling it cheesy, messy, overly convenient, unbelievable, but that's literally what made me love horror films to begin with, whether its Halloween '78 with its hammy Loomis lines, or PJ Soles "totally", whether it's Jason's over the top kills and indestructibility, or the slapstick of watching Ash fight his own hand, Roddy Piper fighting Keith David in an alleyway, Chucky, Pinhead, Leatherface in drag, Bride of Frankenstein, zombies getting pied in the face, etc etc etc. This is the genre that was built on a foundation of going big and going for the laugh and the scream. "Elevated Horror", and more dark and serious horror films have their place, but why on earth would anyone reject the ones doing what the genre was meant to do?
We can debate whether this trilogy stacks up against the original and its first sequel once its completed, but Halloween Kills is just a truly great slasher movie. This is a movie that opens with an extended flashback from the events of the 1978 film, then rockets back at a lightning fast speed. This is a movie that moves very quickly, it may even take place in real time with the action of the story happening within an hour of Laurie arriving at the hospital. The kills are amazing, my personal favorite involves a car door. There are a lot of characters in this movie and I think they're handled very well. There are characters who literally have no other plot function but to be viciously murdered and I think even they are given enough time that we care about them. I love the films ambition, I love its cleverness, I think James Jude Courtney has really taken over this role in the way Kane Hodder took over Jason. He's still taking his cues from Nick Castle's The Shape, but he does these movements that I find so interesting. There's a scene where he's "testing out knives", and he's swiveling his body back and forth in the oddest way. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Anthony Hall and Will Patton all do a real good job, but I'd like to give a special shout out to Judy Greer, the actress who is consistently wasted in everything, but she's given some really great scenes in this movie and really turns in a good performance. Lastly I'll talk about the ending, and there are no spoilers here. I didn't think Kills would be able to top the finale at the Strode compound, thats a set piece with a lot going on, but with how big Halloween Kills already feels, they are able to go a little smaller with the ending and it works better. Not that I'm saying nothing happens, a lot happens, but its not this big unfolding set piece in the finale and it's ultimately character driven what happens. It's kinda beautiful actually, and equally badass. Speaking of badass, I think this is a movie that's equally trying to be bad ass as it is scary. There are scary kill scenes and there are kill scenes that have the feel of an action scene.
I have this movie at a enthusiastic B+ and I currently have it ranked at a tie for second with Halloween '18 right after Halloween '78.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2021 9:26:18 GMT
HALLOWEEN 1978 8/10 The original was a great movie, but the ending was too abrupt. It's OK for a horror movie to reveal that the antagonist is alive right before the end credits roll, but you need an epilogue where the hero(es) think that everything is OK. That movie felt like it was still in the middle of the climax (when a serial killer named Michael Myers a.k.a. The Shape a.k.a. The Boogeyman tried to murder a teenager named Laurie Strode, he was shot and he fell off a balcony, but he vanished before anyone could catch him) and then it just stopped. With any other franchise, I would be disappointed if a sequel felt like an extension of its predecessor's third act rather than a continuation, but because of what I said before, HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 is an exception. In fact, Laurie's screen time is so short that I feel like it would be very easy to make a fan edit where some of her scenes here are placed at the end of the original. What's not answered is Michael's survival. Does he have something underneath his coveralls? It wouldn't be illogical, since he always walks slowly. There was a scene where Leigh Brackett (the sheriff) said "A man wouldn't do that" and Samuel Loomis (Michael's psychiatrist) replied "This isn't a man." And he kept saying ominous things like that throughout the movie. However, I thought he was referring to how evil Michael was. Did he literally mean that Michael is a supernatural being? Well, I'm sure the makers will make up their minds about this, as well as Michael's personality, his backstory and whether viewers are supposed to sympathize with him, right? Hey, where did all those black clouds come from? Now, John Carpenter and Debra Hill's script has pacing issues. Sure, the original was relatively slow too, but that's because it was important to see what everyday life in the town of Haddonfield was like. Of course that a killing spree is dramatic enough, but it's more impactful if you can convey how happy and quiet the setting used to be. This movie takes place mostly inside a hospital and it only shows a couple of people working there. It's rare for a horror sequel to capture the atmosphere of the original when the director gets replaced. However, Rick Rosenthal uses a lot of the same techniques Carpenter did. The revelation that Michael and Laurie are long-lost siblings made me I roll my eyes! It's so forced and preposterous! Once the movie ended, I was angry, because I realized that this plot twist is also pointless. Laurie never finds about it (on screen), so what does it add to the story? If you remove it, does it affect the outcome? 6/10 HALLOWEEN PART III: SEASON OF THE WITCH was meant to start a new format, where each sequel would tell a stand-alone story. That's not a bad idea (I can't think of many anthology film series), so I would've accepted it had this been the first sequel... but once you've made 2 movies with the same setting and characters, you've established what the franchise is about. At least have it take place in the same continuity. Another idea that I like is satirizing commercials for children that contain annoying jingles. That's what the villain(s) of this movie use. Aside from pumpkins, the commercials also show clovers. You know, the symbol is associated with St. Patrick's Day, an entirely different holiday. It's not a plot hole or anything like that, but an aesthetic mistake. Iconography might not be the most important filmmaking element, but it's not meaningless either. A man named Harry Grimbridge is killed. Daniel Challis (a doctor) can't save him, so he has to announce the bad news to Ellie (Harry's daughter). He tries to make her feel better and they decide to investigate the murder together. Eventually, they start an affair (Challis is married). You're probably thinking that the grief has given Ellie daddy issues, right? Well, Challis is about the same age as Harry, so it checks out. They kiss at the 30-minute mark, which is unusually early for a screenplay with this structure. I was curious as to what would happen next. And... their relationship isn't really developed beyond that. They meet a family named Kupfer. Between the lines they have to say and the acting style, it feels like they came from an entirely different movie. 4/10 The pacing of HALLOWEEN PART 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS (what, no Roman numerals anymore?) is all over the place! The first act is similar to the original, because the title character stands around his next victim and walks slowly towards them. Too bad that it's not the same atmosphere. The blocking and Curtiss Clayton's editing are a lot faster. By the way, we see that Dr. Loomis is alive and the only permanent wound from the explosion at the hospital is a scar on the side of his face. I'm sorry, who's the supernatural being? The second act builds up an epic showdown. I don't think that's what this universe needed, but it's still a good storytelling technique. Also, it would've been so easy to write Ben Meeker (the new sheriff) as that person who spends most of the running time not believing what the heroes say. While he has doubts about Dr. Loomis's warnings, it only lasts about a minute. He decides to check if his story is true and he becomes a helpful ally throughout the plot. What a relief! Now, the movie as a whole isn't very interesting, but it's not truly boring either... except for the part where the characters hide at Meeker's house. It's only 10-15 minutes, yet it's executed in a way that feels like an eternity! The third act incorporates action film elements into the scary sequences (that was the norm for slasher flicks at the time). It's not bad filmmaking, but again, it makes everything feel inconsistent. When we meet Jamie Lloyd (Laurie's daughter), she's talking to Rachel Carruthers (her foster sister). Jamie says "Do you love me? Like a sister?" and Rachel replies "I'm not your sister, but that doesn't mean I don't love you." That's a weird way to answer the question. I mean, the question wasn't "I am your sister?" When Jamie and other children go trick-or-treating, Rachel accompanies them. They arrive at Meeker's house and Kelly (his daughter) answers the door. Rachel sees Brady (her boyfriend) and storms off. About a minute later, there's a full shot of Kelly, which reveals that she's wearing a shirt but no pants. Wouldn't it have been better to show that immediately? It would've added to the awkwardness of the situation, since children were standing in front of her. Also, hiding it changes the context of the scene. It makes it look like Brady is simply hanging out with a girl and Rachel shouldn't assume that he's cheating on her. Well, Brady doesn't even try to lie (he just tries to justify it), so I guess it's a moot point. 4/10 HALLOWEEN PART 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS (why isn't the subtitle shown on screen?) is the worst installment. Every moment is either dull or unintentionally hilarious. Plus, a great opportunity was wasted. You see, the best scene of the entire franchise is hands down the ending of PART 4, where Jamie killed her foster mom. Not just because it was unexpected, but also because of Dr. Loomis' reaction as he realized that this would be a never-ending cycle. It was that rare cinematic moment where your heart breaks and you get goosebumps simultaneously. I also liked the touch of ambiguity, because the cause wasn't. revealed. Did Michael possess Jamie? Or was she still in control of her body yet she had been "infected" by the evilness. It would've been a powerful conclusion. Not only does the saga continue, but the idea that Jamie is the new antagonist is discarded. She's a traumatized person who has episodes once in a while. Oh, so she kills people involuntarily and the other heroes have to find a way to stop it without hurting? That could be an interesting conflict, but she never even tries to murder again. She gets seizures and Danielle Harris never makes it look convincing. However, it's clearly a sign of bad directing. In fact, her performance during the rest of the movie is just as good as it was in her first outing... if not better. There's a scene where Michael gets angry and starts throwing things around. Yes, that's what I want to see a slasher horror icon do: Throw a tantrum. 1/10 HALLOWEEN PART 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (the number appears on screen, so why was it omitted from the poster and from every website?) is just more of the same, but it's less boring than its predecessor. Paul Rudd's performance is weak and Donald Pleasance has unfortunately gotten more over-the-top with each installment. It makes sense to incorporate a cult into the lore of a franchise titled after a holiday like this, but you can't do it so late in the game. Actually, if we tweak certain details, the plot of the original could've taken place at any time of year. The title doesn't reflect what the overarching story is really about. It's just more marketable that way. When asked about why he doesn't have a scar anymore, Dr. Loomis says "I had plastic surgery. I don't frighten people anymore." Hey, Sammy, guess what? It wasn't the scar. Your monologues about impending danger caused that. Your foreboding attitude became so aggressive over the time that, by PART 5, you had entered "homeless person who yells about the apocalypse" territory. I'm pretty sure this was a way to save money on makeup effects, but at least it's a plausible in-universe explanation. And I welcome it, knowing that the timeline would become a mess from here on now. Not a lot of mainstream movies in the 1980s showed children in peril, especially if there weren't any (non-evil) adults around, so I thought about giving these last couple of sequels credit for that. However, when I saw Jamie falling down a laundry chute, I started to wonder if the makers enjoyed seeing her suffer. And this movie seems to confirm that. The beginning reveals that she was kidnapped, kept as a prisoner for many years and impregnated by her uncle against her will. She had a beacon hope when she managed to escape, but Michael found her not long after that. Now it's a good time to clarify that I saw the producer's cut (I read that it's the "true" version). Unlike the theatrical cut where she dies instantly, she's found barely holding on. She's taken to a hospital, but then she's shot in her sleep. So her suffering was prolonged. I'm sorry, how is this an improvement? The point is that, looking at the big picture, Jamie has one of the saddest life stories I've seen in a long time. Imagine if a concept like that was used today, i.e. the era of slow-burning psychological horror. Don't get me wrong. Not every movie has to be complex. The original wasn't (at least not from that point of view) and it's a classic... but if you're not going to handle a fictional tragedy the way it deserves, delete it from your draft. 3/10 HALLOWEEN H20: 20 YEARS LATER 3/10 HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION is the kind of horror movie that only tries to create a scary atmosphere when the script says so, as opposed to maintaining it throughout. That's why the lighting, shot composition and song selection in a lot of scenes would have you believe that you're watching a comedy. Not a horror comedy; just a comedy. This is the only installment where the main conflict doesn't involve the characters from the original and/or their relatives. Maybe I wouldn't mind it so much if the new characters weren't so annoying. They're contestants on a reality show and I'm afraid that the satire isn't very clever. It's time to address the elephant in the room: Busta Rhymes. Admittedly, his performance isn't terrible. He has screen presence and I'm sure he could shine if he were given a script that played to his strengths, but here, he's given more material than what his lack of range can stand. In fact, I felt a pandering attitude that I didn't feel when watching H20. I guess that's because LL Cool J has more acting talent and because his role wasn't that big, while Busta is being pushed down our throats like some kind of product placement. "Hey, audience! We have a rapper! How hip are we?!" His character is the only one that can put up a fight with Michael. He's the one who gets to say the cool and funny one-liners (well, that's what they're supposed to be). And the cherry on the cake: He gets top billing! The opening credits roll, we see his name, and we immediately realize that we won't be able to take the movie seriously. I know that Bianca Kajlich (the lead) isn't a big star, but what about Sean Patrick Thomas (he was famous enough to be credited as a "special appearance")? Even Tyra Banks would've been a better choice. While she's mainly known as a model, she had already acted in other movies. The worst part is the opening scene, but not for the mere fact that Laurie dies. I'm not against that idea, but it needed better execution. You see, previous installment's badass climax (which by the way didn't compensate for the dull prelude) culminated in Laurie beheading Michael with an axe. Now, it's revealed that it was a paramedic. Michael had crushed his larynx, so he couldn't speak, and had put his clothes and mask on him. Every time that Michael switches places with someone (yes, it's a recurring plot point) it feels less believable. He's always been portrayed as someone who takes his time, presumably because he knows he's unstoppable. He walks slowly from place to place. He stares at his victims for longer than necessary before killing them. And despite all that, I'm supposed to buy that he's fast enough to pull off a stunt like this? Honestly, if you can't justify a new installment without undoing the ending of the previous one, why not go all the way? We know that he's a supernatural being, so just reveal that he magically grew another head? It would make the subtitle more honest. Anyway, the guilt drove Laurie insane, which is why she's been committed to an asylum. She knew that Michael would eventually show up, so she set a trap for him. He falls for it (how did she know that he would stand in that exact spot?) and gets ready to kill him, but she's afraid that she might kill the wrong person again. Yes, Laurie, I'm sure that the guy who has been chasing you with a knife is another innocent who wants your help. She tries to grab Michael's mask, but he stabs her. She kisses him on the lips and--Whoa, what?! Why?! Yes, I know it's not a real kiss since he's wearing the mask, but where is this coming from?! She says "I'll see in you in Hell" (yes, that's definitely where you're going for trying to commit incest!) before falling to her death. Michael goes to hand the knife to one of the patients and walks away. However, this is supposedly shot from Michael's point of view. So... Is he walking in reverse?! 1/10 HALLOWEEN 2007 4/10 HALLOWEEN PART II 2009 1/10 HALLOWEEN 2018 5/10 HALLOWEEN KILLS was designed to be the second-to-last movie, so it theoretically should be filler. The fact that it's mildly entertaining is already a big achievement! A significant portion of the running time takes place at a hospital, just like HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 and PART II 2009, but it doesn't feel like repetition. Judy Greer and Anthony Michael Hall are the stand-outs. HUNTER'S MOON by Ghost is a great song on its own, but I'm not sure if it fits as the theme. Due to all the retcons, we're now on the 5th continuity. Part of me knows that, in the future, someone might make a new sequel that erases the current ones, so it's hard for me to get invested. If there's something that needs to be fixed, come up with a solution and incorporate it into the story. Even if it's a far-fetched explanation, it's still better than pretending certain events didn't happen at all. One of my issues with its predecessor was that some of the characters were too irritating. It wasn't the same amount as RESURRECTION and nowhere near the same amount as Rob Zombie's duology, but it was enough to leave a negative impression. Here, the comedic characters are more hit than miss and Karen Nelson (Laurie's daughter) and Cameron Elam (Laurie's granddaughter's boyfriend) feel like completely different people. She's no longer a stick-in-the-mud whose bad decisions indirectly make things easier for Michael. Hell, she shows compassion when no one else does. And he's no longer the typical teenager who tries too hard to be cool and ends up coming off as a douchebag. Keep in mind that I felt that way about him before he cheated on his girlfriend and then ruined her phone. No, he's not forgiven for doing that (at least on screen), but by showing that he's willing to help every chance he gets, he gains enough sympathy from the other characters (and me) when he dies. Now, slasher flicks are about an individual who hides a lot and attacks people whenever they have the opportunity. Viewers know that the deaths could be prevented if larges groups gathered in the same place, ready to stop the killer. That's why it's always a good idea when a sequel shows a crowd fighting back and then failing. It highlights how big the threat really is. PART 4 introduced the idea with the Haddonfield residents. This movie, rather than copying it, expands on it. It also adds a layer of depth by exploring how rallying up a mob can backfire. What confuses me is that Laurie says "Michael is responsible for this chaos. He's trying to divide us." Hey, that character is a lot of things, but an evil mastermind isn't one of them. No, people behave primitively under certain circumstances. That's it. 6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Nov 1, 2021 19:33:39 GMT
HALLOWEEN 1978 8/10 The original was a great movie, but the ending was too abrupt. It's OK for a horror movie to reveal that the antagonist is alive right before the end credits roll, but you need an epilogue where the hero(es) think that everything is OK. That movie felt like it was still in the middle of the climax (when a serial killer named Michael Myers a.k.a. The Shape a.k.a. The Boogeyman tried to murder a teenager named Laurie Strode, he was shot and he fell off a balcony, but he vanished before anyone could catch him) and then it just stopped. With any other franchise, I would be disappointed if a sequel felt like an extension of its predecessor's third act rather than a continuation, but because of what I said before, HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 is an exception. In fact, Laurie's screen time is so short that I feel like it would be very easy to make a fan edit where some of her scenes here are placed at the end of the original. What's not answered is Michael's survival. Does he have something underneath his coveralls? It wouldn't be illogical, since he always walks slowly. There was a scene where Leigh Brackett (the sheriff) said "A man wouldn't do that" and Samuel Loomis (Michael's psychiatrist) replied "This isn't a man." And he kept saying ominous things like that throughout the movie. However, I thought he was referring to how evil Michael was. Did he literally mean that Michael is a supernatural being? Well, I'm sure the makers will make up their minds about this, as well as Michael's personality, his backstory and whether viewers are supposed to sympathize with him, right? Hey, where did all those black clouds come from? Now, John Carpenter and Debra Hill's script has pacing issues. Sure, the original was relatively slow too, but that's because it was important to see what everyday life in the town of Haddonfield was like. Of course that a killing spree is dramatic enough, but it's more impactful if you can convey how happy and quiet the setting used to be. This movie takes place mostly inside a hospital and it only shows a couple of people working there. It's rare for a horror sequel to capture the atmosphere of the original when the director gets replaced. However, Rick Rosenthal uses a lot of the same techniques Carpenter did. The revelation that Michael and Laurie are long-lost siblings made me I roll my eyes! It's so forced and preposterous! Once the movie ended, I was angry, because I realized that this plot twist is also pointless. Laurie never finds about it (on screen), so what does it add to the story? If you remove it, does it affect the outcome? 6/10 HALLOWEEN PART III: SEASON OF THE WITCH was meant to start a new format, where each sequel would tell a stand-alone story. That's not a bad idea (I can't think of many anthology film series), so I would've accepted it had this been the first sequel... but once you've made 2 movies with the same setting and characters, you've established what the franchise is about. At least have it take place in the same continuity. Another idea that I like is satirizing commercials for children that contain annoying jingles. That's what the villain(s) of this movie use. Aside from pumpkins, the commercials also show clovers. You know, the symbol is associated with St. Patrick's Day, an entirely different holiday. It's not a plot hole or anything like that, but an aesthetic mistake. Iconography might not be the most important filmmaking element, but it's not meaningless either. A man named Harry Grimbridge is killed. Daniel Challis (a doctor) can't save him, so he has to announce the bad news to Ellie (Harry's daughter). He tries to make her feel better and they decide to investigate the murder together. Eventually, they start an affair (Challis is married). You're probably thinking that the grief has given Ellie daddy issues, right? Well, Challis is about the same age as Harry, so it checks out. They kiss at the 30-minute mark, which is unusually early for a screenplay with this structure. I was curious as to what would happen next. And... their relationship isn't really developed beyond that. They meet a family named Kupfer. Between the lines they have to say and the acting style, it feels like they came from an entirely different movie. 4/10 The pacing of HALLOWEEN PART 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS (what, no Roman numerals anymore?) is all over the place! The first act is similar to the original, because the title character stands around his next victim and walks slowly towards them. Too bad that it's not the same atmosphere. The blocking and Curtiss Clayton's editing are a lot faster. By the way, we see that Dr. Loomis is alive and the only permanent wound from the explosion at the hospital is a scar on the side of his face. I'm sorry, who's the supernatural being? The second act builds up an epic showdown. I don't think that's what this universe needed, but it's still a good storytelling technique. Also, it would've been so easy to write Ben Meeker (the new sheriff) as that person who spends most of the running time not believing what the heroes say. While he has doubts about Dr. Loomis's warnings, it only lasts about a minute. He decides to check if his story is true and he becomes a helpful ally throughout the plot. What a relief! Now, the movie as a whole isn't very interesting, but it's not truly boring either... except for the part where the characters hide at Meeker's house. It's only 10-15 minutes, yet it's executed in a way that feels like an eternity! The third act incorporates action film elements into the scary sequences (that was the norm for slasher flicks at the time). It's not bad filmmaking, but again, it makes everything feel inconsistent. When we meet Jamie Lloyd (Laurie's daughter), she's talking to Rachel Carruthers (her foster sister). Jamie says "Do you love me? Like a sister?" and Rachel replies "I'm not your sister, but that doesn't mean I don't love you." That's a weird way to answer the question. I mean, the question wasn't "I am your sister?" When Jamie and other children go trick-or-treating, Rachel accompanies them. They arrive at Meeker's house and Kelly (his daughter) answers the door. Rachel sees Brady (her boyfriend) and storms off. About a minute later, there's a full shot of Kelly, which reveals that she's wearing a shirt but no pants. Wouldn't it have been better to show that immediately? It would've added to the awkwardness of the situation, since children were standing in front of her. Also, hiding it changes the context of the scene. It makes it look like Brady is simply hanging out with a girl and Rachel shouldn't assume that he's cheating on her. Well, Brady doesn't even try to lie (he just tries to justify it), so I guess it's a moot point. 4/10 HALLOWEEN PART 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS (why isn't the subtitle shown on screen?) is the worst installment. Every moment is either dull or unintentionally hilarious. Plus, a great opportunity was wasted. You see, the best scene of the entire franchise is hands down the ending of PART 4, where Jamie killed her foster mom. Not just because it was unexpected, but also because of Dr. Loomis' reaction as he realized that this would be a never-ending cycle. It was that rare cinematic moment where your heart breaks and you get goosebumps simultaneously. I also liked the touch of ambiguity, because the cause wasn't. revealed. Did Michael possess Jamie? Or was she still in control of her body yet she had been "infected" by the evilness. It would've been a powerful conclusion. Not only does the saga continue, but the idea that Jamie is the new antagonist is discarded. She's a traumatized person who has episodes once in a while. Oh, so she kills people involuntarily and the other heroes have to find a way to stop it without hurting? That could be an interesting conflict, but she never even tries to murder again. She gets seizures and Danielle Harris never makes it look convincing. However, it's clearly a sign of bad directing. In fact, her performance during the rest of the movie is just as good as it was in her first outing... if not better. There's a scene where Michael gets angry and starts throwing things around. Yes, that's what I want to see a slasher horror icon do: Throw a tantrum. 1/10 HALLOWEEN PART 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (the number appears on screen, so why was it omitted from the poster and from every website?) is just more of the same, but it's less boring than its predecessor. Paul Rudd's performance is weak and Donald Pleasance has unfortunately gotten more over-the-top with each installment. It makes sense to incorporate a cult into the lore of a franchise titled after a holiday like this, but you can't do it so late in the game. Actually, if we tweak certain details, the plot of the original could've taken place at any time of year. The title doesn't reflect what the overarching story is really about. It's just more marketable that way. When asked about why he doesn't have a scar anymore, Dr. Loomis says "I had plastic surgery. I don't frighten people anymore." Hey, Sammy, guess what? It wasn't the scar. Your monologues about impending danger caused that. Your foreboding attitude became so aggressive over the time that, by PART 5, you had entered "homeless person who yells about the apocalypse" territory. I'm pretty sure this was a way to save money on makeup effects, but at least it's a plausible in-universe explanation. And I welcome it, knowing that the timeline would become a mess from here on now. Not a lot of mainstream movies in the 1980s showed children in peril, especially if there weren't any (non-evil) adults around, so I thought about giving these last couple of sequels credit for that. However, when I saw Jamie falling down a laundry chute, I started to wonder if the makers enjoyed seeing her suffer. And this movie seems to confirm that. The beginning reveals that she was kidnapped, kept as a prisoner for many years and impregnated by her uncle against her will. She had a beacon hope when she managed to escape, but Michael found her not long after that. Now it's a good time to clarify that I saw the producer's cut (I read that it's the "true" version). Unlike the theatrical cut where she dies instantly, she's found barely holding on. She's taken to a hospital, but then she's shot in her sleep. So her suffering was prolonged. I'm sorry, how is this an improvement? The point is that, looking at the big picture, Jamie has one of the saddest life stories I've seen in a long time. Imagine if a concept like that was used today, i.e. the era of slow-burning psychological horror. Don't get me wrong. Not every movie has to be complex. The original wasn't (at least not from that point of view) and it's a classic... but if you're not going to handle a fictional tragedy the way it deserves, delete it from your draft. 3/10 HALLOWEEN H20: 20 YEARS LATER 3/10 HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION is the kind of horror movie that only tries to create a scary atmosphere when the script says so, as opposed to maintaining it throughout. That's why the lighting, shot composition and song selection in a lot of scenes would have you believe that you're watching a comedy. Not a horror comedy; just a comedy. This is the only installment where the main conflict doesn't involve the characters from the original and/or their relatives. Maybe I wouldn't mind it so much if the new characters weren't so annoying. They're contestants on a reality show and I'm afraid that the satire isn't very clever. It's time to address the elephant in the room: Busta Rhymes. Admittedly, his performance isn't terrible. He has screen presence and I'm sure he could shine if he were given a script that played to his strengths, but here, he's given more material than what his lack of range can stand. In fact, I felt a pandering attitude that I didn't feel when watching H20. I guess that's because LL Cool J has more acting talent and because his role wasn't that big, while Busta is being pushed down our throats like some kind of product placement. "Hey, audience! We have a rapper! How hip are we?!" His character is the only one that can put up a fight with Michael. He's the one who gets to say the cool and funny one-liners (well, that's what they're supposed to be). And the cherry on the cake: He gets top billing! The opening credits roll, we see his name, and we immediately realize that we won't be able to take the movie seriously. I know that Bianca Kajlich (the lead) isn't a big star, but what about Sean Patrick Thomas (he was famous enough to be credited as a "special appearance")? Even Tyra Banks would've been a better choice. While she's mainly known as a model, she had already acted in other movies. The worst part is the opening scene, but not for the mere fact that Laurie dies. I'm not against that idea, but it needed better execution. You see, previous installment's badass climax (which by the way didn't compensate for the dull prelude) culminated in Laurie beheading Michael with an axe. Now, it's revealed that it was a paramedic. Michael had crushed his larynx, so he couldn't speak, and had put his clothes and mask on him. Every time that Michael switches places with someone (yes, it's a recurring plot point) it feels less believable. He's always been portrayed as someone who takes his time, presumably because he knows he's unstoppable. He walks slowly from place to place. He stares at his victims for longer than necessary before killing them. And despite all that, I'm supposed to buy that he's fast enough to pull off a stunt like this? Honestly, if you can't justify a new installment without undoing the ending of the previous one, why not go all the way? We know that he's a supernatural being, so just reveal that he magically grew another head? It would make the subtitle more honest. Anyway, the guilt drove Laurie insane, which is why she's been committed to an asylum. She knew that Michael would eventually show up, so she set a trap for him. He falls for it (how did she know that he would stand in that exact spot?) and gets ready to kill him, but she's afraid that she might kill the wrong person again. Yes, Laurie, I'm sure that the guy who has been chasing you with a knife is another innocent who wants your help. She tries to grab Michael's mask, but he stabs her. She kisses him on the lips and--Whoa, what?! Why?! Yes, I know it's not a real kiss since he's wearing the mask, but where is this coming from?! She says "I'll see in you in Hell" (yes, that's definitely where you're going for trying to commit incest!) before falling to her death. Michael goes to hand the knife to one of the patients and walks away. However, this is supposedly shot from Michael's point of view. So... Is he walking in reverse?! 1/10 HALLOWEEN 2007 4/10 HALLOWEEN PART II 2009 1/10 HALLOWEEN 2018 5/10 HALLOWEEN KILLS was designed to be the second-to-last movie, so it theoretically should be filler. The fact that it's mildly entertaining is already a big achievement! A significant portion of the running time takes place at a hospital, just like HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 and PART II 2009, but it doesn't feel like repetition. Judy Greer and Anthony Michael Hall are the stand-outs. HUNTER'S MOON by Ghost is a great song on its own, but I'm not sure if it fits as the theme. Due to all the retcons, we're now on the 5th continuity. Part of me knows that, in the future, someone might make a new sequel that erases the current ones, so it's hard for me to get invested. If there's something that needs to be fixed, come up with a solution and incorporate it into the story. Even if it's a far-fetched explanation, it's still better than pretending certain events didn't happen at all. One of my issues with its predecessor was that some of the characters were too irritating. It wasn't the same amount as RESURRECTION and nowhere near the same amount as Rob Zombie's duology, but it was enough to leave a negative impression. Here, the comedic characters are more hit than miss and Karen Nelson (Laurie's daughter) and Cameron Elam (Laurie's granddaughter's boyfriend) feel like completely different people. She's no longer a stick-in-the-mud whose bad decisions indirectly make things easier for Michael. Hell, she shows compassion when no one else does. And he's no longer the typical teenager who tries too hard to be cool and ends up coming off as a douchebag. Keep in mind that I felt that way about him before he cheated on his girlfriend and then ruined her phone. No, he's not forgiven for doing that (at least on screen), but by showing that he's willing to help every chance he gets, he gains enough sympathy from the other characters (and me) when he dies. Now, slasher flicks are about an individual who hides a lot and attacks people whenever they have the opportunity. Viewers know that the deaths could be prevented if larges groups gathered in the same place, ready to stop the killer. That's why it's always a good idea when a sequel shows a crowd fighting back and then failing. It highlights how big the threat really is. PART 4 introduced the idea with the Haddonfield residents. This movie, rather than copying it, expands on it. It also adds a layer of depth by exploring how rallying up a mob can backfire. What confuses me is that Laurie says "Michael is responsible for this chaos. He's trying to divide us." Hey, that character is a lot of things, but an evil mastermind isn't one of them. No, people behave primitively under certain circumstances. That's it. 6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.Some interesting points. I have very little interest in the movies after the first three, apart from HALLOWEEN H20 which I thought was a respectable effort. Challis however, isn't married in HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2021 19:39:27 GMT
Challis however, isn't married in HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH. I just checked and you're right. He got a divorce.
|
|
|
Post by nicktatler76 on Nov 20, 2021 16:16:36 GMT
I'm currently binge watching the entire series (and remakes) in readiness for Kills and I noticed a line in the first film that's a bit concerning.
Bob (the guy with glasses who gets killed in the kitchen) says something to Linda about ripping his clothes off 'and then I'll rip Lyndsey's clothes off'. Isn't Lyndsey the 8 year old they're babysitting?
Some other random observations (I watched II, IV and V last night):
Does Smith's Grove Asylum teach all of it's patients to drive as therapy? You'd think someone who was driving for the first time- after 15 years of being drugged to the eyeballs to boot- would be swerving all over the place.
Part 4- some serious Deus Ex Machina here. After 10 years in one asylum, they suddenly decide to move Michael just before Halloween? Why not mid July?
Part 5- so that hermit dude just let Michael lie in a coma in his hut for a FULL YEAR? How did he feed him, by drip? Why not call an ambulance? Not like they could have shared a bottle of liquor and shot the breeze together. You'd assume Jamie would have had nightmares all year round, but no, it happens to be Halloween when the psychic link starts up. Perhaps these things take a year to kick in? Good old Deus Ex again. Plus what was with the comedy music with those two bumbling cops? This one felt like one of the poorer Friday the 13th entries.
Oh well, onto Part 6 and the cult tonight- at least they tried to do something different with this one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 20, 2021 18:36:10 GMT
I'm currently binge watching the entire series (and remakes) in readiness for Kills and I noticed a line in the first film that's a bit concerning. Bob (the guy with glasses who gets killed in the kitchen) says something to Linda about ripping his clothes off 'and then I'll rip Lyndsey's clothes off'. Isn't Lyndsey the 8 year old they're babysitting? Some other random observations (I watched II, IV and V last night): Does Smith's Grove Asylum teach all of it's patients to drive as therapy? You'd think someone who was driving for the first time- after 15 years of being drugged to the eyeballs to boot- would be swerving all over the place. Part 4- some serious Deus Ex Machina here. After 10 years in one asylum, they suddenly decide to move Michael just before Halloween? Why not mid July? Part 5- so that hermit dude just let Michael lie in a coma in his hut for a FULL YEAR? How did he feed him, by drip? Why not call an ambulance? Not like they could have shared a bottle of liquor and shot the breeze together. You'd assume Jamie would have had nightmares all year round, but no, it happens to be Halloween when the psychic link starts up. Perhaps these things take a year to kick in? Good old Deus Ex again. Plus what was with the comedy music with those two bumbling cops? This one felt like one of the poorer Friday the 13th entries. Oh well, onto Part 6 and the cult tonight- at least they tried to do something different with this one. The Lindsay line is oft scrutinized. I think it's safe to say Bob was just making a dumb joke. The fact that people have such a problem with Michael driving was always interesting to me. We've been conditioned to see slasher villains lifting grown men off the ground with one hand and shrugging off six bullet wounds to the chest as normal, but few of Michael's imitators cruise around in a station wagon. The openings of 4 and 5 are definitely contrived. To 5's credit, the hermit switch was a last minute change. Originally Michael was held by an occultist who resurrected him. They decided that was stupid so they reshot it with the hermit.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Nov 22, 2021 17:41:34 GMT
The Lindsay line was debated endlessly on HALLOWEEN's IMDB page back in the day.
For me the upshot was the irony that some people found a joke in poor taste more "concerning" than 5 people (and 2 dogs) murdered by a maniac!
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 23, 2021 6:57:51 GMT
The Lindsay line was debated endlessly on HALLOWEEN's IMDB page back in the day. For me the upshot was the irony that some people found a joke in poor taste more "concerning" than 5 people (and 2 dogs) murdered by a maniac! Memories!
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 23, 2021 8:04:41 GMT
The Lindsay line was debated endlessly on HALLOWEEN's IMDB page back in the day. For me the upshot was the irony that some people found a joke in poor taste more "concerning" than 5 people (and 2 dogs) murdered by a maniac! Memories! Harold, you want mayonnaise on your sandwich?
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 23, 2021 19:05:39 GMT
Harold, you want mayonnaise on your sandwich? Didn't that thread go on forever until a certain someone kept reporting it?
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Dec 4, 2021 20:49:41 GMT
Harold, you want mayonnaise on your sandwich? Didn't that thread go on forever until a certain someone kept reporting it? That's how it played out as best I recall. Now, what was that certain someone's name............................?!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 6, 2021 14:25:14 GMT
Didn't that thread go on forever until a certain someone kept reporting it? That's how it played out as best I recall. Now, what was that certain someone's name............................?!!!!! I wasn't there and I won't know who it is, but I still feel like I need to this name.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Dec 6, 2021 23:09:02 GMT
That's how it played out as best I recall. Now, what was that certain someone's name............................?!!!!! I wasn't there and I won't know who it is, but I still feel like I need to this name. It was the indefatigable cj - full name cjh8504. An "expert" on the Halloween movies..........or so he thought!
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Dec 8, 2021 16:31:27 GMT
I wasn't there and I won't know who it is, but I still feel like I need to this name. It was the indefatigable cj - full name cjh8504. An "expert" on the Halloween movies..........or so he thought! I thought he was more of an expert on Halloween II. I seem to recall he said he would watch it every night at one point. Guy was clearly sick in the head, and lonely. I wasn't surprised that the board reacted to him the way they did, but it always gave me a slightly uneasy feeling just the same. The more time goes on, the more I'm glad (or at least perfectly fine) that the original IMDB boards are dead.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Dec 8, 2021 19:24:10 GMT
It was the indefatigable cj - full name cjh8504. An "expert" on the Halloween movies..........or so he thought! I thought he was more of an expert on Halloween II. I seem to recall he said he would watch it every night at one point. Guy was clearly sick in the head, and lonely. I wasn't surprised that the board reacted to him the way they did, but it always gave me a slightly uneasy feeling just the same. The more time goes on, the more I'm glad (or at least perfectly fine) that the original IMDB boards are dead. He wasn't much of an expert on anything as it happened but yes, HALLOWEEN II (1981) was his favourite movie in the series and woe betide anyone who spoke ill of that movie! He still very much considered himself an authority on both of the first two movies though, not just the second one. Personally, I miss the boards. Although they came with a certain amount of baggage and personality clashes, they were still a fabulous community for movie-lovers to interact, learn and share their love of film together. I picked up so many great recommendations there, shared my insights and learned much from the insights of others. I had some wonderful discussions with many different users. Since they vanished, there has been nothing that remotely compares to them as a meeting place to discuss and share thoughts on all things celluloid.
|
|