|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 31, 2017 0:41:21 GMT
I didn't care much about The Producer's Cut, though it's definitely more interesting than the theatrical version. Last fourth or so is completely different and much better. There are small changes throughout and a lot of re-editing. The problem with Halloween 6 has always been that it tries to tie Halloween III into Michael Myers storyline, which I don't think was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 31, 2017 1:20:34 GMT
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've always felt that the exterior scenes are the best parts of Halloween II. Hospital scenes have some creepy atmospheres but many of them feel like generic slasher stuff, and I'm not that crazy about gimmicky murder scenes. That kind of stuff works well in other slashers but Halloween should be Halloween - far more classy and subtle than your average slasher. I'd like to see Rosenthal's original cut. Interesting though that Cundey was involved - in all honesty I've never noticed that before. Also, after buying Halloween II on Blu-ray I immediately noticed that my old DVD is contrast boosted to hell and back, which is why the hospital scenes had a sort of cheap, flat soap opera look to them. I need to watch this from Blu since proper, more restrained colors / contrast definitely seem to makes those scenes work better. 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. Yeah, scope is a huge part of Carpenter's style. It's weird how people don't usually talk about aspect ratios or cinematography since they matter so much. I'd guess that the decision to film Halloween 4 in 1.85 was because by that time video rentals were already a big thing. I'm not really a fan on 80s visual style in general and open matte / 1.85 is a big part of that. With lesser directors using open matte you'll always end up with this rather uninteresting tv-like look. I watched Little's action thriller Rapid Fire few days ago and it didn't have anything visually interesting either. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 31, 2017 13:08:54 GMT
I've always felt that the exterior scenes are the best parts of Halloween II. Hospital scenes have some creepy atmospheres but many of them feel like generic slasher stuff, and I'm not that crazy about gimmicky murder scenes. That kind of stuff works well in other slashers but Halloween should be Halloween - far more classy and subtle than your average slasher. I'd like to see Rosenthal's original cut. Interesting though that Cundey was involved - in all honesty I've never noticed that before. Also, after buying Halloween II on Blu-ray I immediately noticed that my old DVD is contrast boosted to hell and back, which is why the hospital scenes had a sort of cheap, flat soap opera look to them. I need to watch this from Blu since proper, more restrained colors / contrast definitely seem to makes those scenes work better. Yeah, scope is a huge part of Carpenter's style. It's weird how people don't usually talk about aspect ratios or cinematography since they matter so much. I'd guess that the decision to film Halloween 4 in 1.85 was because by that time video rentals were already a big thing. I'm not really a fan on 80s visual style in general and open matte / 1.85 is a big part of that. With lesser directors using open matte you'll always end up with this rather uninteresting tv-like look. I watched Little's action thriller Rapid Fire few days ago and it didn't have anything visually interesting either. Aren't gimmicky murders more or less the pièce de résistance of most slashers? Halloween 2, was still in a sense a generic slasher compared to the first, but it still used it murders to enhance the style and feel of the film, and they were also simply executed kills compared to many others, unlike like say , Happy Birthday To Me, which used bizarre and even contrived ways to off it's characters. Not to diss out on the film, and I thoroughly enjoy it, I still don't feel the kills are as potent as H2 in comparison. I need to get H2 on blu ray. I have on standard dvd and I know what you mean about the contrast. Cundey is skilled with light, dark and shadows and it needs to be seen as it was intended. Yes, the ratios can be an important aspect of a film and in the trivia I read on H4, it was filmed in 1:85 for budget reasons. I think though that as you have commented, it was more to suit the transfer to open matte tv ratio at the time. I guess 16x9 tv's weren't even considered at the time. Even Kubrick didn't venture into this thought, that is why he filmed most of his movies in open matte. Still, as a cinema experience, Halloween 1,2 and 3 were scope framed and the imagery compensated for this ratio, and Carpenter's preferred ratio for good reason. Why Little was chosen to direct H4 is baffling. Carpenter is a genuine auter, understands the language and aesthetic of cinema, and he is also a master of shot composition— hence the use of scope framing—and knows how to direct his actors. In other words, he tells them how he wants it done and performed. Not all of his films are winners, but they are usually always interesting, even the average ones. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 31, 2017 21:30:52 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. That is true. Early 80s were definitely better for slashers. |
|
