|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Nov 26, 2017 16:59:33 GMT
I couldn't understand what I was watching.
|
|
|
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 26, 2017 18:04:04 GMT
I always said that movie theaters should have handed everyone LSD as they walked into to see that one.
I liked that it made Myers brutal and disturbing, but it was one strange movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 18:21:29 GMT
Hmm....maybe I should get around to seeing this... Not a fan of RZ's movies, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by theshape25 on Nov 26, 2017 18:32:18 GMT
Hmm....maybe I should get around to seeing this... Not a fan of RZ's movies, though. I won't give too much away. I'll just say that the first 15 minutes or so is very good. After that it has some bizarre stuff go down. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Nov 26, 2017 20:09:35 GMT
If social media was big back in 2009, the movie could have been big. Anyway the Loomis segments were lame as his role was just about going around promoting his book. Laurie was funny though with her f bombs. And Myers was turning in to a mma fighter. Seeing him without his mask just didn't feel right.
And what was the ending about anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 27, 2017 8:37:04 GMT
It's Halloween II, not Halloween 2009.
This was a terrific horror sequel to Zombie's remake misfire of Carpernter's 1978 classic. It was Zombie's own film, it was full of atmosphere, was dark and violent, had decent performances and showed his command and mastery of cinematic technique. For some reason, I just don't think most people got his art here and perhaps they couldn't acknowledge or even believe what they were seeing. They then dismiss it as a pos.
I really dislike Zombie's version of Halloween and entered into this remake with much trepidation. I was knocked for a six. It is my favorite Zombie film and the only minor mistake I feel he made, was changing the ending on the director's cut version. The director's cut is the best version, however, it would have been better with the theatrical cut ending. It's all subjective anyway, and while I don't get the backlash Zombie received for H2, I at least appreciate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 9:09:27 GMT
Both are good flicks IMO.
Could have been tremendous - if not for how Zombie wrote the character of Laurie Strode.
Possibly the most annoying acting portrayal of a classic iconic character in cinema history.
He pooped all over the Jamie Lee Curtis character.
Other than that - I thought they were great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Nov 27, 2017 15:46:52 GMT
Zombies second Halloween film was a disaster imo. Everything about the story sucked. The characters were terrible, except the sheriff and his daughter. But the two mains of Laurie and Loomis were just awful. The weirdness added nothing for me. I hated it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Nov 27, 2017 16:06:49 GMT
It's Halloween II, not Halloween 2009. This was a terrific horror sequel to Zombie's remake misfire of Carpernter's 1978 classic. It was Zombie's own film, it was full of atmosphere, was dark and violent, had decent performances and showed his command and mastery of cinematic technique. For some reason, I just don't think most people got his art here and perhaps they couldn't acknowledge or even believe what they were seeing. They then dismiss it as a pos. I really dislike Zombie's version of Halloween and entered into this remake with much trepidation. I was knocked for a six. It is my favorite Zombie film and the only minor mistake I feel he made, was changing the ending on the director's cut version. The director's cut is the best version, however, it would have been better with the theatrical cut ending. It's all subjective anyway, and while I don't get the backlash Zombie received for H2, I at least appreciate it. But the Myers character backstory and build up in the 2007 film was required. This served the basis for the sequel. Remember when Myers went to that strip club for revenge? |
|
|
|
Post by Raimo47 on Nov 27, 2017 16:23:44 GMT
Laurie was funny though with her f bombs. I hated Laurie, I hated the excessive swearing and I hated all that weird stuff. 2/10. A lousy movie with some good scenes that save it from being 1/10. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 17:59:22 GMT
Laurie was funny though with her f bombs. I hated Laurie, I hated the excessive swearing and I hated all that weird stuff. 2/10. A lousy movie with some good scenes that save it from being 1/10. if it wasn't for Laurie, this movie would have been phenomenal |
|
|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Nov 27, 2017 20:38:45 GMT
I'm not saying that Scout Taylor was neither bad or good playing Laurie. I think they just attempted to update her role and make her a more modern, can I say teenager?
Was she supposed to be identical to Jamie Lee? Or maybe another actress would have been more suitable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 21:04:50 GMT
I'm not saying that Scout Taylor was neither bad or good playing Laurie. I think they just attempted to update her role and make her a more modern, can I say teenager? Was she supposed to be identical to Jamie Lee? Or maybe another actress would have been more suitable? the character was horribly written. you were actually rooting for Michael to kill her. completely over the top annoying. it's ashame because i own both films and give them a watch once a year or so and there are some very decent qualities to them - she just kills both films |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 27, 2017 23:14:32 GMT
But the Myers character backstory and build up in the 2007 film was required. This served the basis for the sequel. Remember when Myers went to that strip club for revenge? I am not quite sure what you mean. The sequel– as was Rick Rosenthal's Halloween II-81'—started as a direct continuation of the same night. Myers was supposedly dead, wasn't, and was roaming the countryside to reunite himself with Laurie due to his psychotic visions of his mother. It was a simple premise, but visually strong, and in the best horror films style reflects the substance. Zombie excelled here I feel. The imagery, while dark, negative and even surreal in parts, was potent. I don't care for the first installment, so much of anything that it had on offer that could have been tied in with the second— and whatever it is is negligible to my mind—wasn't necessary. All we needed to know, is that Laurie was traumatized by her experience and Scout Taylor-Compton played her part with hysterical relish. I didn't like, or care for her or Annie that much in the first, but not so in this follow up for some reason. It's all subjective, but for me it all works beautifully. Zombie's redemption, from his turgid remake. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 27, 2017 23:17:43 GMT
I'm not saying that Scout Taylor was neither bad or good playing Laurie. I think they just attempted to update her role and make her a more modern, can I say teenager? Was she supposed to be identical to Jamie Lee? Or maybe another actress would have been more suitable? the character was horribly written. you were actually rooting for Michael to kill her.
completely over the top annoying. it's ashame because i own both films and give them a watch once a year or so and there are some very decent qualities to them - she just kills both films  I thought moreso in the first. I liked her more in the second and Annie as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 23:24:37 GMT
the character was horribly written. you were actually rooting for Michael to kill her.
completely over the top annoying. it's ashame because i own both films and give them a watch once a year or so and there are some very decent qualities to them - she just kills both films I thought moreso in the first. I liked her more in the second and Annie as well. it's amazing - never were a pair of movies such an enigma to me. love/hate relationship - if they just cast the character like the original Jamie Lee Curtis character - they would have been tremendous. i thought the 1st half of '1' was great - loved Zombie's take on Michael's upbringing. huge fan of '2' and it's got some great scenes like Michael trekking through the cornfields and backpacking to make it home. i didn't mind the White Horse aspect of it - numerous others bash it stating it's too similar to F13th how he was killing to please his mother - i enjoyed the spin on it. it was just Laurie who ruined it for me. i still give them a watch but find myself fast forwarding through her scenes so my ears don't bleed....... |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 27, 2017 23:38:23 GMT
I thought moreso in the first. I liked her more in the second and Annie as well. it's amazing - never were a pair of movies such an enigma to me. love/hate relationship - if they just cast the character like the original Jamie Lee Curtis character - they would have been tremendous. i thought the 1st half of '1' was great - loved Zombie's take on Michael's upbringing. huge fan of '2' and it's got some great scenes like Michael trekking through the cornfields and backpacking to make it home. i didn't mind the White Horse aspect of it - numerous others bash it stating it's too similar to F13th how he was killing to please his mother - i enjoyed the spin on it. it was just Laurie who ruined it for me.
i still give them a watch but find myself fast forwarding through her scenes so my ears don't bleed....... I agree she was very shrill. I'm not so sure about making Laurie like the Jamie Lee Curtis character. That was a different time and place, and these were different films, ala Zombie style. I like the second part of Zombie's Halloween more than the first, but just barely. I really didn't go for the trailer trash take thing. It was too over-the-top and gaudy and didn't ring true or sincere. It was showcasing too much and was almost a parody. Keeping Sheri Moon Zombie— who can also be an annoying actress, because she can't really act—to just psychotic visions of Myers in the sequel, was a better utilization of her. Myers character worked in Carpenter's original because he was just an enigma. It didn't really matter what made him evil, he just was. Zombie's Halloween II made him more in this mould without the backstory his first gave us and I feel it worked more to it's benefit. The evil was still alive stalking the countryside and wanted to find Laurie. That's all we needed to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 9, 2017 9:21:54 GMT
I recall some surreal scenes but mostly the movie was wiped from my memory. I think they were both badly handled and felt rushed for time. Maybe the H1 reboot should have been entirely set before the Laurie plot/ leading up to it idk. Halloween 5 was my first movie which I caught on tv so I've always been biased to that particular version of the Myers story. I have my own fanfic for the whole cult aspect which I later changed to my OCs. Zombie's first Halloween, was around 110mins and 120mins for the director's cut. H2, was also edging out past the 1hr 45min mark and almost 2hrs for the director's cut. I don't think either of Zombie's Halloweens were rushed for time and the average slasher movie is usually only around the 90min mark or shorter. As for the handling, it was I suppose experimental for Zombie and personal opinion only, I feel he did a better job with the second installment, over his bombastic remake. |
|
I agree she was very shrill.