|
|
Post by ck100 on Feb 23, 2017 8:51:53 GMT
So tonight I saw Halloween (1978) for the first time ever. Pretty good film. Effectively made. I like the little reveals of Michael Myers and the build-up to the scares in the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 23, 2017 9:03:00 GMT
Honestly, i think Halloween (2007) is better. but i will say the 2007 movie fizzles out some later into the movie which is mostly when it turns into a slasher as i like how it focused around em as a kid and when he was older and locked away etc but not long after he escapes it's mostly just a slasher movie then and loses steam because of it. -Halloween (1978) - 5/10 (Thumbs Down) -Halloween (2007) - 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up) i realize i am in the minority though it seems. p.s. but in general... it makes me wonder if some people praise the first movies of random movies like Halloween etc etc purely because it's the first movie as i think some people automatically dis remakes no matter how good they are, especially if they sorta grew up with the first one. i think True Grit (2010) is a pretty good example of this as the 2010 remake is clearly all around better than the 1969 movie (for me it's 2010 = 8/10(within my Top 62 movies), 1969 = 4/10(below average)), at least in my mind, as it's got a overall better cast and more visual flair etc but some people are probably huge John Wayne fans or something and maybe that's enough for them to swing in the 1969 movies favor but to me that movie is pretty dull/empty as it's missing something that the 2010 movie has which i just tend to get strong emotions from it. just some thoughts  |
|
Ashy Billiams
Freshman
I do some of this, some more of that, don't worry some
@ash
Posts: 75
 
|
Post by Ashy Billiams on Feb 23, 2017 9:11:39 GMT
So tonight I saw Halloween (1978) for the first time ever. Pretty good film. Effectively made. I like the little reveals of Michael Myers and the build-up to the scares in the film. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Feb 23, 2017 10:20:55 GMT
The first Halloween movie wasn't great but it's a great example of a effective horror movie. Donald Pleasence is a great actor in a B horror flick. The score is really good. The music is instantly recognizable. There's a little bit of nudity. Myers' mask is spooky. It's a well made low budget film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Feb 23, 2017 14:12:53 GMT
So tonight I saw Halloween (1978) for the first time ever. Pretty good film. Effectively made. I like the little reveals of Michael Myers and the build-up to the scares in the film. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 23, 2017 14:32:39 GMT
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. |
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 23, 2017 14:35:33 GMT
Honestly, i think Halloween (2007) is better. but i will say the 2007 movie fizzles out some later into the movie which is mostly when it turns into a slasher as i like how it focused around em as a kid and when he was older and locked away etc but not long after he escapes it's mostly just a slasher movie then and loses steam because of it. -Halloween (1978) - 5/10 (Thumbs Down) -Halloween (2007) - 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up) i realize i am in the minority though it seems. p.s. but in general... it makes me wonder if some people praise the first movies of random movies like Halloween etc etc purely because it's the first movie as i think some people automatically dis remakes no matter how good they are, especially if they sorta grew up with the first one. i think True Grit (2010) is a pretty good example of this as the 2010 remake is clearly all around better than the 1969 movie (for me it's 2010 = 8/10(within my Top 62 movies), 1969 = 4/10(below average)), at least in my mind, as it's got a overall better cast and more visual flair etc but some people are probably huge John Wayne fans or something and maybe that's enough for them to swing in the 1969 movies favor but to me that movie is pretty dull/empty as it's missing something that the 2010 movie has which i just tend to get strong emotions from it. just some thoughts I'm glad you realize you're in the minority. When I saw Halloween, I was 26 years old, so it wasn't my first time at the horror rodeo. While I didn't find it particularly horrifying, I did think Carpenter presented a logical story with just enough twist to make it interesting. And having the action take place on Halloween was a stroke of genius. Why the holiday hadn't been exploited before is a question for the Ages. Horror + Halloween. Seems a no-brainer, for me! |
|
Ashy Billiams
Freshman
I do some of this, some more of that, don't worry some
@ash
Posts: 75
|
Post by Ashy Billiams on Feb 23, 2017 19:12:36 GMT
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. To be honest I was drunk on fireball whiskey, so can't say what I meant. I probably was referring to the credits for some reason. One thing I've always loved about the original Halloween as a slasher was the almost complete absence of blood. |
|
