|
|
Post by theshape25 on Oct 29, 2017 18:50:59 GMT
I don't quite get what you mean by unneeded. HIII, was NOT a Myers outing, it wasn't promoted as such, and it was just a Halloween themed film from Carpenter, who gave us a suspenseful, intriguing and even original little horror opus. If anything was unneeded, it was H4. It was old hat by the time it arrived, it was routine with boring kills, and it made no sense that Myers and Loomis were still alive. It also contained none of the essence or horror aesthetic that made the first 2 Halloweens work so well. And more importantly, it wasn't very scary, or even that creepy. The first Halloween worked due to style and atmosphere, and there was very minimal blood and gore. The second one worked, due to the clever construct of continuing on the same night as the first, and still had a gritty style and a creepy atmosphere and setting about it. It also gave us a decent body count. It had more blood than the first and had more interesting kills. H2, contained sharp, pointed and mean-spirited violence, and while there have been more gory slashers before and since, to me, it also has a more potent squeamish factor about it than most. I cringe at the little boy with razor blades stuck in his mouth, at the blood being drawn from Laurie by the doctors, at the scalpels and needles that slash and pierce, and at the hot water that scalds into blisters, not to mention the arbitrary and accidental killing of a poor teenaged kid, as the fire whips and crackles around his body to decimate it. What did H4 have that matched anything that H 1, 2 or even 3 did with it's scares, suspense and violence? I can totally understand your opinions. Though H4 had some damn good deaths in it. Remember Michael stabbing that girl with the shotgun? Or when he ripped that guy's throat out in the truck? This one was creepy in its atmosphere too, like the first two, just with a tiny bit of cheesy elements here and there. What matters is how you enjoy the movies for what they are. And I know that II (which I also really like) might be a technically better Halloween movie than 4, due to how it still had that same eerieness as the original, but it was a bit boring at times and Laurie basically did nothing but sit in a bed throughout the movie, despite being the one to shoot Mikey in the eyes (classic moment). As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. Carpenter wanted nothing to do with Halloween II. He was forced to write Halloween II to avoid legal problems. Here is a thread on Michael Myers.net that explains what happened. www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=96536 |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 29, 2017 21:30:42 GMT
I can totally understand your opinions. Though H4 had some damn good deaths in it. Remember Michael stabbing that girl with the shotgun? Or when he ripped that guy's throat out in the truck? This one was creepy in its atmosphere too, like the first two, just with a tiny bit of cheesy elements here and there. What matters is how you enjoy the movies for what they are. And I know that II (which I also really like) might be a technically better Halloween movie than 4, due to how it still had that same eerieness as the original, but it was a bit boring at times and Laurie basically did nothing but sit in a bed throughout the movie, despite being the one to shoot Mikey in the eyes (classic moment). As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. Carpenter wanted nothing to do with Halloween II. He was forced to write Halloween II to avoid legal problems. Here is a thread on Michael Myers.net that explains what happened. www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=96536Oh okay I get it now. I just wonder now why III turned out the way it was in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by simest on Oct 29, 2017 23:29:08 GMT
Hey Simest, how have you been? Glad to see you posting. Have you been to tmdb lately? Hi theshape25, really good to hear from you. I've been ok thanks - hope all's well with you. I'm overdue a visit to tmdb as not browsed the boards in a while - hopefully we can catch up a little between here and there! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 5:14:26 GMT
'Halloween 4 and 5' are by far my favourite movies in the 'Halloween' series and while some might disagree with me I think both of them and 'Halloween H20' were the best movies in the series. I loved Jamie and Rachel and I hated how 'Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers' killed off Jamie at the start of the movie and would prefer another movie with Danielle Harris over the movie they are doing now since it has long been rumoured it wasn't really Jamie that was killed at the start of 6 and the real one was in hiding. 
|
|
|
|
Post by theshape25 on Oct 30, 2017 8:05:51 GMT
Hey Simest, how have you been? Glad to see you posting. Have you been to tmdb lately? Hi theshape25, really good to hear from you. I've been ok thanks - hope all's well with you. I'm overdue a visit to tmdb as not browsed the boards in a while - hopefully we can catch up a little between here and there! Everything is fine on this end. I've been bouncing back and forth between here and tmdb, but the activity over there has all but grinded to a halt. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 30, 2017 12:30:34 GMT
I can totally understand your opinions. Though H4 had some damn good deaths in it. Remember Michael stabbing that girl with the shotgun? Or when he ripped that guy's throat out in the truck? This one was creepy in its atmosphere too, like the first two, just with a tiny bit of cheesy elements here and there. What matters is how you enjoy the movies for what they are. And I know that II (which I also really like) might be a technically better Halloween movie than 4, due to how it still had that same eerieness as the original, but it was a bit boring at times and Laurie basically did nothing but sit in a bed throughout the movie, despite being the one to shoot Mikey in the eyes (classic moment).As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. I don't feel H4's kills have the same impact, as opposed to II. For violence to be effective on screen, it takes a fair amount skill and even inventiveness to portray the violence for what it is, ugly and terrifying and even the build up has to be edgy when telegraphed. The violence in 4 was cheesy and didn't have the same squeamish factor. It came across as more routine, almost action orientated and not even presented in a scary way. I also didn't really care for any of the characters in 4, except for maybe Jamie and Rachel and even then I didn't feel that invested in the proceedings. It was all pretty much ho-hum for me.
When watching II for the first time at the cinema—which is not without it's flaws, but these are negligible for a slasher\horror—it was like I could smell Myers, as though he would have had a hot sweaty and even metallic odor about himself. I couldn't understand why the girl he was attempting to drown and scalded in the hot tub, couldn't sense\feel or smell that it wasn't her bf sooner; she even sucked his fingers. The beauty of this scene, was that she was doomed, so there was never going to be a way out for her regardless. They just drew the scene out very effectively. There is not much I find boring about II. Even the first Halloween is slower and more plodding, but the devil is more in the details with this one.
After reading that link about why Carpenter made II, he still had creative control over the production being the producer and he still had plenty of creative input into it. I'm pleased he made it, even if he didn't want to go down that track and it is one my favorite slashers. Since it is the first one I ever saw as well and I found it impressive, it set a benchmark for me. As for HIII, it was probably a mistake to use the numeral as I have mentioned before, and since HII was still quite successful as well, Carpenter had an opportunity to create something different and original. Myers was dead, Carpenter killed him off and that is what he wanted, since he didn't want to do another Myers to begin with. He would have seen another cash cow with HIII. Money talks before anything else, and while HIII was still profitable, it didn't quite match the takings of II. HIII had many virtues about it and I had no issue with it at all. It was a good quality, suspenseful low budget horror film, skillfully made and well cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 30, 2017 12:32:50 GMT
'Halloween 4 and 5' are by far my favourite movies in the 'Halloween' series and while some might disagree with me I think both of them and 'Halloween H20' were the best movies in the series. I loved Jamie and Rachel and I hated how 'Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers' killed off Jamie at the start of the movie and would prefer another movie with Danielle Harris over the movie they are doing now since it has long been rumoured it wasn't really Jamie that was killed at the start of 6 and the real one was in hiding. Too many nonsensical contrivances, when Myers should have been laid to rest with the terrific II, with the exception of H20, which isn't really Myers anyway. Rob Zombie did a misguided reboot, and then a terrific sequel to his turgid misfire of a first movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 30, 2017 14:00:09 GMT
I don't quite get what you mean by unneeded. HIII, was NOT a Myers outing, it wasn't promoted as such, and it was just a Halloween themed film from Carpenter, who gave us a suspenseful, intriguing and even original little horror opus. If anything was unneeded, it was H4. It was old hat by the time it arrived, it was routine with boring kills, and it made no sense that Myers and Loomis were still alive. It also contained none of the essence or horror aesthetic that made the first 2 Halloweens work so well. And more importantly, it wasn't very scary, or even that creepy. The first Halloween worked due to style and atmosphere, and there was very minimal blood and gore. The second one worked, due to the clever construct of continuing on the same night as the first, and still had a gritty style and a creepy atmosphere and setting about it. It also gave us a decent body count. It had more blood than the first and had more interesting kills. H2, contained sharp, pointed and mean-spirited violence, and while there have been more gory slashers before and since, to me, it also has a more potent squeamish factor about it than most. I cringe at the little boy with razor blades stuck in his mouth, at the blood being drawn from Laurie by the doctors, at the scalpels and needles that slash and pierce, and at the hot water that scalds into blisters, not to mention the arbitrary and accidental killing of a poor teenaged kid, as the fire whips and crackles around his body to decimate it. What did H4 have that matched anything that H 1, 2 or even 3 did with it's scares, suspense and violence? The needle in the eye was pretty brutal as well as the nurse that bled out. Those had to be horrible ways to go. Simple but very effective death scenes, that weren't showcasing any overt graphic make-up effects, but made the deaths appear realistic and terrifying. There were in fact 2 needle in the eye scenes, the doctor found killed off-screen with the syringe stuck in his eye and the nurse with the needle stuck in her temple. Seeing the ghoulish fate of the dead doctor, and then she herself pretty much suffers in the same manner, was well conceived. HII, portrayed is violence as vile and disturbing, without over-the-top gore. I was absolutely devastated when Nurse Jill copped a scalpel in the back and then was raised of the ground until she dead. She was my favorite character. |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 30, 2017 18:47:35 GMT
As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. Carpenter wasn't the one to make decisions. Money talks and bullshit walks, in this case meaning that producers rejected Carpenter's idea of Halloween-themed but otherwise unconnected sequels, thinking that having Myers return in part 2 would be a safe bet. Well, the sequel was successful but nowhere near the first one's huge box office. Since part 3 with Myers was likely to make less than Halloween II (law of diminishing returns...), producers gave in to Carpenter original concept with Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Shame that HIII got the poor reception it did. What I don't understand however is why Halloween 4 was made during 1987-88 when slashers had already lost most of their popularity. Everyone knows that Paramount was already losing their interest in Friday the 13th franchise around that time for example. Didn't seem like a good time to revive the series, especially with Michael Myers storyline. Anyone knows if Moustapha Akkad ever explained his reasoning in interviews? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 30, 2017 21:12:54 GMT
As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. Carpenter wasn't the one to make decisions. Money talks and bullshit walks, in this case meaning that producers rejected Carpenter's idea of Halloween-themed but otherwise unconnected sequels, thinking that having Myers return in part 2 would be a safe bet. Well, the sequel was successful but nowhere near the first one's huge box office. Since part 3 with Myers was likely to make less than Halloween II (law of diminishing returns...), producers gave in to Carpenter original concept with Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Shame that HIII got the poor reception it did. What I don't understand however is why Halloween 4 was made during 1987-88 when slashers had already lost most of their popularity. Everyone knows that Paramount was already losing their interest in Friday the 13th franchise around that time for example. Didn't seem like a good time to revive the series, especially with Michael Myers storyline. Anyone knows if Moustapha Akkad ever explained his reasoning in interviews? There were still franchises going on at that time like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, plus other movies were introduced like Hellraiser (technically not slasher but somewhat fits in the category) and Child's Play (though only the original was from the 80s). And yes I am aware of Carpenter not wanting to do a sequel in the first place, now. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 30, 2017 21:17:50 GMT
I can totally understand your opinions. Though H4 had some damn good deaths in it. Remember Michael stabbing that girl with the shotgun? Or when he ripped that guy's throat out in the truck? This one was creepy in its atmosphere too, like the first two, just with a tiny bit of cheesy elements here and there. What matters is how you enjoy the movies for what they are. And I know that II (which I also really like) might be a technically better Halloween movie than 4, due to how it still had that same eerieness as the original, but it was a bit boring at times and Laurie basically did nothing but sit in a bed throughout the movie, despite being the one to shoot Mikey in the eyes (classic moment).As for HIII, I meant that if John Carpenter wanted the 2nd movie to be a different story, why did they make it a sequel anyway? If so, having two movies connected with each other, and then creating a 3rd film having nothing to do with the previous ones makes no sense. Not hating on the movie at all, just saying. I don't feel H4's kills have the same impact, as opposed to II. For violence to be effective on screen, it takes a fair amount skill and even inventiveness to portray the violence for what it is, ugly and terrifying and even the build up has to be edgy when telegraphed. The violence in 4 was cheesy and didn't have the same squeamish factor. It came across as more routine, almost action orientated and not even presented in a scary way. I also didn't really care for any of the characters in 4, except for maybe Jamie and Rachel and even then I didn't feel that invested in the proceedings. It was all pretty much ho-hum for me.
When watching II for the first time at the cinema—which is not without it's flaws, but these are negligible for a slasher\horror—it was like I could smell Myers, as though he would have had a hot sweaty and even metallic odor about himself. I couldn't understand why the girl he was attempting to drown and scalded in the hot tub, couldn't sense\feel or smell that it wasn't her bf sooner; she even sucked his fingers. The beauty of this scene, was that she was doomed, so there was never going to be a way out for her regardless. They just drew the scene out very effectively. There is not much I find boring about II. Even the first Halloween is slower and more plodding, but the devil is more in the details with this one.
After reading that link about why Carpenter made II, he still had creative control over the production being the producer and he still had plenty of creative input into it. I'm pleased he made it, even if he didn't want to go down that track and it is one my favorite slashers. Since it is the first one I ever saw as well and I found it impressive, it set a benchmark for me. As for HIII, it was probably a mistake to use the numeral as I have mentioned before, and since HII was still quite successful as well, Carpenter had an opportunity to create something different and original. Myers was dead, Carpenter killed him off and that is what he wanted, since he didn't want to do another Myers to begin with. He would have seen another cash cow with HIII. Money talks before anything else, and while HIII was still profitable, it didn't quite match the takings of II. HIII had many virtues about it and I had no issue with it at all. It was a good quality, suspenseful low budget horror film, skillfully made and well cast.
Yeah Halloween II was definitely creepier, especially with the death scenes (or just with Michael in general). Lots of messed up situations. I just have more of a soft spot for 4. It was the first Halloween movie I've ever seen. I won't disagree that part 2 is better, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 30, 2017 21:40:52 GMT
I skipped 4 and 5. At the time I figured bringing Loomis back was stretching things too thin--but I like Pleasence and given the good word of mouth. I wasn't fond of H20.
Will have to check them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 30, 2017 22:17:32 GMT
I skipped 4 and 5. At the time I figured bringing Loomis back was stretching things too thin--but I like Pleasence and given the good word of mouth. I wasn't fond of H20. Will have to check them out. Halloween 4 is the last one worth watching, though it's not more than ok. Dwight H. Little has never been a good director. Maybe not bad either, just very uninspired and workmanlike. They did quite good job capturing some of that Halloween evening / night atmosphere that everyone knows and loves from Carpenter's original and that was sometimes missing, because of hospital setting, from Halloween II. Something that bothers me a lot is that they didn't shoot this in scope. 1.85 only adds to Little's mediocre and often tv-like directing style. Halloween 5 is well worth skipping, as is The Curse of Michael Myers. Didn't care about H20 either. Too much of a post-Scream / new generation kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 30, 2017 23:43:33 GMT
I heard the workprint of Halloween 5 is almost a completely different movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 31, 2017 0:06:57 GMT
I heard the workprint of Halloween 5 is almost a completely different movie. Can you tell more about this? All I know that some violence was cut for R rating but nothing else. I have Halloween 666: The Producer's Cut and Halloween: Homecoming workprint somewhere but never even heard of Halloween 5 workprint. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 31, 2017 0:07:19 GMT
Yeah Halloween II was definitely creepier, especially with the death scenes (or just with Michael in general). Lots of messed up situations. I just have more of a soft spot for 4. It was the first Halloween movie I've ever seen. I won't disagree that part 2 is better, though. It all comes down to nostalgia and the experiences we have at any phase in our lifetimes. That is why I feel so much of what is conditioned onto to us, affects how we view and perceive something, be whatever. The look and feel of 4 is quite different to 2, and the early 80's was the pinnacle of slasher horror and arguably the era when the best and more original ones were made. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 31, 2017 0:15:05 GMT
Can you tell more about this? All I know that some violence was cut for R rating but nothing else. I have Halloween 666: The Producer's Cut and Halloween: Homecoming workprint somewhere but never even heard of Halloween 5 workprint. Sorry! I meant Producer's Cut (I was looking at another movie listing and they used the term "workprint" so it was stuck in my mind). |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 31, 2017 0:17:24 GMT
Can you tell more about this? All I know that some violence was cut for R rating but nothing else. I have Halloween 666: The Producer's Cut and Halloween: Homecoming workprint somewhere but never even heard of Halloween 5 workprint. Sorry! I meant Producer's Cut (I was looking at another movie listing and they used the term "workprint" so it was stuck in my mind). So you were talking about Halloween 6 Producer's Cut, right? Not Halloween 5? |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 31, 2017 0:25:34 GMT
So you were talking about Halloween 6 Producer's Cut, right? Not Halloween 5? Yeah Halloween 3 has me confused. I mean Halloween: the Curse of Michael Myers producer's Cut |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 31, 2017 0:39:11 GMT
Halloween 4 is the last one worth watching, though it's not more than ok. Dwight H. Little has never been a good director. Maybe not bad either, just very uninspired and workmanlike. They did quite good job capturing some of that Halloween evening / night atmosphere that everyone knows and loves from Carpenter's original and that was sometimes missing, because of hospital setting, from Halloween II.Something that bothers me a lot is that they didn't shoot this in scope. 1.85 only adds to Little's mediocre and often tv-like directing style. Halloween 5 is well worth skipping, as is The Curse of Michael Myers. Didn't care about H20 either. Too much of a post-Scream / new generation kind of thing. I don't think they did that great a job with the first's Halloween setting, during the day scenes. It is way too obvious that it wasn't fall. 4 did attempt to make this more realistic looking, but as for the rest, I agree, it was average at best. H2, was all night, so apart from some characters dressed up in costumes and a few little Halloween decorations and motifs spread around the set, all we needed to know was that is still Halloween evening. The first part of the movie made us aware of this and then they made full use of the creepy night hospital setting. It was more subtle and they did have a black cat jump out at Mr. Garrett. The ghoulishness of Halloween, was more portrayed in the violence here and quite skillfully so. This is when the style of the film reflects the substance and works to it's benefit. Carpenter's early regular cinematographer Dean Cundey was on board again and he added greatly to the look of II. I recall seeing 4 for the first time at the cinema and was aghast when it started and it was projected flat 1:85. Even the film's poster had the Panavision® trademark, that usually indicated it was a scope film. It was filmed using panavision camera's and lenses only, and for me, this was it's first deceit. I felt prepared to walk out. Carpenter and Cundey made full use of the scope image and this was also part of the reason for the film's success, it's look\ratio. Didn't Little even care enough about this. I found this quite contemptuous of him and towards his audience, especially those that were a little more tech savvy regarding filming techniques. |
|
