Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Evil has a destiny Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language.
…Before I say anything else, I’ll tell you guys that I’ve searched around these boards and, despite the fact that the release date is here for said movie, I’ve seen not one thread made regarding Rob Zombie’s Halloween remake, a remake of the 1978 John Carpenter/Debra Hill movie where the infamous Michael Myers strolled around the town of Haddonfield on a kitchen knife kill spree. It was not a movie for everyone, as some would consider it ‘boring’, but it’s psychological moments, darkness, filming techniques, and music made it a very influential film.
Okay, a thread *was* up on these boards…six months ago, and only a few people posted their opinions on the matter. But in six months, opinions can and sometimes do change…
Personally, as a fan of the movie franchise (of which I find the sequels tolerable…seen all but 6 and even then I’ve seen parts of both versions), I had mixed feelings regarding news last year that not only was a remake being made, but that Rob Zombie was behind the direction. In the realm of horror fans, the original Michael Myers’ integrity is sometimes said to have been soiled through sequels that have made him gravitate from a silent killer to an angry, hulking, brutal creature ala Jason Voorhees as he was depicted from Friday the 13th Part VI and onward. The trailer seemed to have potential, but it did not seem to bring much new to the table…
On a related note, Rob’s work, from what I can see on previews, not only shows a grittiness to it, but he has also cast someone who is an alarming 6’8’’ or more to act as ‘The Boogeyman’, also giving both the child and adult Michael long hair…now he reminds me of The Undertaker from the WWE. As a child, Michael even looks like a girl, as many have pointed out. Zombie’s style, deviating from Carpenter’s direction, will likely leave a lot of fans of the original not pleased. …At least the new mask looks okay.
If this were a sequel (it would have been #9), then this look would have been a complete mess of the already wavering continuity…but since it’s a re-imagining, and since the second trailer that has been playing on TV lately looks much better, I think it’s actually an interesting way to go. However, the tagline “Evil has a destiny” is just bland to me. It’s always “evil does this”, “evil does that”, “t3h 3v\l lolz”, etc…. but then again it’s only a tagline. Should have paid homage to "The night HE came home", though... And concerning how Halloween: Resurrection ended, it’s a surprise that Zombie thought that the series was ‘over’ (as I’ve read on the web once), which is part of why he made this movie.
The re-imagined Dr. Loomis, played by Malcolm McDowell, looks balanced enough in terms of bringing back memory of old actor Donald Pleasance and being revamped and fresh…to me at least. Actress Danielle Harris (who played the role of Jamie Lloyd, Michael’s niece, in H4 and 5) and actor Brad Douriff (the ‘Chucky guy’ who also appeared in Alien: Resurrection and a couple of the Lord of the Rings movies) should make for decent performances. As far as the actress they got to play Laurie Strode, well, I can tell that she won’t reflect the character the way Jamie Lee Curtis did, but as far as her performance overall goes, it could waver either way, but doesn’t look like it’ll be that good or that bad.
Conclusively, the remake looks like it won’t have the impact that the original did, but it looks like it should be a somewhat fun ride (at least for slasher fans), and since it’s a retelling, any otherwise questionable tricks that Zombie decides to pull should make this movie that much more interesting. I don’t know if I’ll go to theaters to see it, but I’ll catch it one way or another. Not that I’m saying that it is good or bad, because I’ve already seen a scathing review that makes the film look questionable already, on the IMDB site. In fact, it's been taking a beating from RottenTomatoes' reviews so far (0% on the tomatometer, although the scores sometimes rate it as mediocre)... Still, the fact that it’s a re-imagining and not a sequel, again, gives it a bit of leeway.
Anyway, some links…
Official site IMDB site Wikipedia site Trailer The TV spots are also on YouTube, but watch out for comments that may spoil the movie. I almost stumbled into one myself…
There’s also a flash site about the Halloween movies out there. It’s a comprehensive website regarding all of the films – includes sound clips, visual body counts, goofs from each film, and a lot more. It also HAD interesting reviews for each movie as well as some cool/funny flash animations, but both have been gone without a trace for some time…however, I did save copies of the reviews and can post them on this thread… **NOTE – I won’t post the site’s official address because very few of the site’s clips contain frontal nudity from the films. I guess you can PM me if you want the link. Otherwise, it’s not that inappropriate.**
Really seems like I’m making a really big deal of this movie, I know… but those are all of my thoughts before seeing it… Well, let the discussion on thoughts of this movie begin. On the other hand, talk about all of the other movies, as well as the Michael Myers character himself (ie: his mythos, actors, etc.), and even a bit of Rob Zombie’s other movies/music should also fit well in this topic, what with the day of Halloween itself two months away.
I think this movie is going to be bad *** because Rob Zombie could give a **** less what critics think about his style of filmmaking. I enjoyed House of 1000 Corpses AND The Devil's Rejects and am a fan of Rob Zombie's musical Endeavors ( White Zombie, Rob Zombie solo artist) and think this is going to rejuvenate the Halloween franchise after increasingly crappy sequels.
I'm pretty sure I'll see this movie and enjoy it very much.
I'm a big fan of the original Halloween, but I will not be seeing this.
IGN Movies gave this movie 0/5 stars. They say that all it is is blood and gore, with no character development or suspense. I need a good horror movie to come out. Not another Saw or Hostel.
I'm a big fan of the original Halloween, but I will not be seeing this.
IGN Movies gave this movie 0/5 stars. They say that all it is is blood and gore, with no character development or suspense. I need a good horror movie to come out. Not another Saw or Hostel.
That's proof that IGN doesn't know **** about ****. The first half of this movie is an analysis of what causes a seemingly innocent kid to become a psychotic killer. Yes there is blood and gore, but it's a movie about a ****ing serial killer.
Malcolm McDowell was great, as was the girl who played Lori. Sherri Moon Zombie was pretty good as Michael's mother. I was legitimately scared at parts of the movie both from the psychological aspects and the "pop-up" in your face aspects. Pretty shocking the direction he took in
killing both Loomis and Michael/spoiler], but I liked it.
That's proof that IGN doesn't know **** about ****. The first half of this movie is an analysis of what causes a seemingly innocent kid to become a psychotic killer. Yes there is blood and gore, but it's a movie about a ****ing serial killer.
Malcolm McDowell was great, as was the girl who played Lori. Sherri Moon Zombie was pretty good as Michael's mother. I was legitimately scared at parts of the movie both from the psychological aspects and the "pop-up" in your face aspects. Pretty shocking the direction he took in
killing both Loomis and Michael/spoiler], but I liked it.
IGN gave Zodiac a good review. This proves they don't know anything.
If you search up Halloween on rottentomatoes (which averages all the reviews for a movie), you'll get a score of 20%.
Now, do the same thing with 300, and you'll get a score of 61%
Finally, we look up Paprika (a terrible anime film with horrible characters and a repetitive plot), and you'll get a score of 81%.
Case in point, half the time movie reviewers have no idea what they're talking. Don't let a review stop you from seeing a movie. Just see the darn thing anyway.
The first half of Zodiac WAS good. The second half was just the first one one with a new character.
And I'll say it now: 300 was VASTLY overrated garbage. Everyone seems to think it's the best movie ever made and it was mediocre at best. Overuse of slow-time does not make a movie good.
The first half of Zodiac WAS good. The second half was just the first one one with a new character.
And I'll say it now: 300 was VASTLY overrated garbage. Everyone seems to think it's the best movie ever made and it was mediocre at best. Overuse of slow-time does not make a movie good.
That seems to be a popular stereotype with the sequels, that each one gets worse and worse. I find the following quote rather interesting…
“What I wanna know is why was it okay to number the first five but not after that, like they’re embarrassed they made so many. Not to mention each one just sucks harder and harder. If anything, the more ****in’ sequels there are, the more necessary it would be to just ****in’ number ‘em.”
-James “Angry Video Game Nerd” Rolfe in his Chronologically Confused about Movie and Video Game Sequels video rant (which is still on YouTube and was written without the remake mentioned)
I’ll agree with the “embarrassed they made so many” remark, but despite the fact that people say the Halloween sequels get worse and worse, I’d say that’s a bit of a stereotype.
Since discussion of the other Halloween movies can fit in this topic, I’ll give my own reviews on each film, having seen most of them in their entirety. Also, remember that flash website I mentioned in the first post, and how it used to have reviews for each film? I’ve got copies of those reviews (which I did not edit in any way save for spoiler tags), and they’re rather interesting, and usually coincide with my own opinions of the movies. So without further ado, to spice this thread up a little (though the thread’s still *mainly* for the remake, this should fit), here are some reviews, rather in-depth from two perspectives.
I’ll cover 1-4 now, and then 5-8 in the next post I make. Please note that these two posts will be huge, in case that concerns anyone. Basically, I’m going to consider everything that’s good and bad about each of the sequels…
HALLOWEEN (1978) The Night HE Came Home
FLASH SITE REVIEW HALLOWEEN is as timeless as the holiday it's named after. It's a horror classic. For over twenty six years HALLOWEEN has been entertaining audiences across the globe. It was the film that started the slasher genre and (each year) continues to grow in popularity while introducing new fans to the ultimate horror icon.
The idea was conceived by Irwin Yablans and brought to life by an unknown director (John Carpenter) and an ambitious young producer (Debra Hill). It was a simple formula and the basis for what defined horror in the 70's & 80's.
Carpenter's directing style was one that defined the time. Instead of cheap scares and excessive gore, Carpenter relied on dark lighting, eerie music and low camera angles to tell his stories. He left most of the horror to the audiences imagination and believed that what you didn't see was far more scarier then what you did.
HALLOWEEN is hands down the best of the franchise. It stands alone in a series that has seen less deserving sequels. It's the one.....The only.....The classic!
My review
Well, I have to say that I agree with everything that this guy says about this movie. For the reasons he listed, Halloween, the original, is one of those films every person who wants to check out horror movies should see, because starting out with one of the best horror flicks and watching the sequels is a good way to go...at least in my book. This movie might be too dark and maybe even boring for some, and it does have a few slippery moments, but those flaws are few and far between. The direction, acting, etc were all well done. The suspense is there, and as we follow Dr. Loomis as Michael Myers remains one step ahead of him, the Boogeyman himself, doing what he does for no real reason, is already an interesting character. So, along with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jaws, and Alien, Halloween was proof that 1970s horror inspired pretty much everything you’d get from the 80s. Props to this film for not sinking into any gore trend, but then again, that’s why the second movie is sometimes looked down upon.
This one gets an easy 4/5 Stars from me, maybe even 4.5/5.
HALLOWEEN II (1981) More of the Night HE Came Home
FLASH SITE REVIEW HALLOWEEN II is by far the best sequel in the whole franchise. All of the key cast members returned and the mask (a little worse for the wear) was the same one from the first film. Continuity is the key when making a sequel. Gone was the piano themed style of music, in was a more dirtier, eerie pipe organ version of Carpenters most notable score.
Unfortunately, this is where the comparables end. After the success of HALLOWEEN, film studios jumped on the bandwagon and numerous slasher flicks started to surface. Blood and gore became the norm and this film attempted to fit in to the genre instead of redefining it like the original did.
Carpenter admits to cashing in on the success of HALLOWEEN and felt there was nothing more to tell. He had moved on to bigger and better things. Yet, with a big paycheck in hand he agreed to write and produce it, (along with Debra Hill), but did not want to direct it. He wanted long time friend Tommy Lee Wallace to helm the sequel but he turned it down, so Rick Rosenthal (Halloween Resurrection) was hired instead. Even with Dean Cundey returning to shoot the film, HALLOWEEN II doesn't have the same vibe the original had.
Wallace had an idea that the sequel should pick up with Laurie Strode in college and Myers would track her down, similar to HALLOWEEN H20. Looking back now, that's a much better idea then what was actually filmed. The original film was a masterpiece at building tension and suspense and climaxed perfectly at the end. The sequel doesn't pick up that feeling. Instead it starts over from square one, with Myers stalking the hospital staff (instead of Laurie's friends) and the final confrontation in the end with Dr. Loomis saving the day.
It was basically the same plotline as the original film except this time Carpenter wanted to make sure there would be no sequels by
blowing up the killer and his doctor
in the end. Boy was he wrong. The main character is comatose most of the film and we learn that Myers had a secret motive for wanting to kill her. She was his sister. Carpenter had no idea where he was going with this sequel and (after many six packs of beer) came up with the idea that Laurie Strode was Michael's long lost sister. This single plotline has plagued the entire franchise and the basis for every sequel.
HALLOWEEN II has its good and bad moments and in the end is a solid, yet inferior sequel. It's not a bad film, it's just not great or scary like the original was.
My review:
Yes, 'moar' of the night he came home. After the first Halloween came Friday the 13th, two years later. While some people praise that movie as a classic, others see through it and define it as nothing more than a crass, mindless, bloody imitation of Carpenter’s classic. Some (such as Ken Begg, who has comprehensive B-movie reviews on Jabootu.com) even call the original Ft13th the equivelent of garbage. I thought it was okay. Still, it spawned both sequels and imitators, and, lo and behold, the first Halloween sequel already started to show signs of imitating the very films that imitated the first Halloween.
In fact, one of the kills in both this movie and in Friday the 13th Part 2 involves
a scene in which a cop/security guard stumbles into the killer’s presence and gets killed with a hammer claw to the head.
Who might have ripped off of whom, we’ll never know (unless it was revealed somewhere), because the similarity is just too vast to be a coincidence.
So as that guy said in his review, the blood and gore was toned up quite a few notches, with some shock-effect scenes in the mix. I don’t mind it that much, but it was unfortunate that they stooped down like that. In fact, nudity was shown for a different reason than in the first film, I’m assuming. As with Jaws, a naked teenager being victimized was done to showcase vulnerability… T’was not the case in this movie. Also, I find some of the errors in the hospital scenes to be somewhat funny, such as how they keep a hot tub running,
with the possiblility to crank it up to dangerous temperatures (!)
with the rest of the area in a blackout.
The ‘sister’ thing isn’t so bad because Laurie’s supposedly adopted…but it’s still iffy to this day, even after chances of a true sequel are nearly in a shallow grave. The body count is, of course, upped quite a bit, with less suspense and more inventiveness. That creates a problem, however, since some people feel that Michael grabbing a variety of weapons makes him imitate his imitators, and others wonder, how many times can he choke and stab victims and still have it interesting? For that, the first movie, to some, should have been the last, but these sequels still exist.
Most of the scenes have some eeriness to them, but they come across as pretentious ways to cheaply scare people. Some even drag on for so long that they get boring. However, the original’s style is still in there somewhere, and Donald Pleasence as Loomis has interesting dialogue and scenes. The kills, while somewhat pretentiously done, are interesting, for what it’s worth. So while Halloween II]/I] breaks a lot of rules, it still hangs in there, but isn’t quite as true to the original as some would like you to believe. At least the music, while remixed, has a new kind of eeriness to it. Plus, the original mask is used again here, although it is a little worse for wear.
3/5 Stars, though it’s being a bit generous. Some fans of the franchise already consider this one to be garbage. Also, the DVD cover for this film looks like it was inspired by the cover for Scarface with the half-black, half-white thing.
HALLOWEEN III: Season of the Witch (1982) The Night Nobody Comes Home
FLASH SITE REVIEW If you’re not a fan of HALLOWEEN III, than chances are you won’t ever be. At the time Carpenter and Hill came up with an idea that each year or so they would release new Halloween films featuring totally different plots and characters. Each film would tell a different story and all would revolve around Halloween.
Looking back, this was a great idea. It was much like an episode of the ‘Twilight Zone’ or ‘Outer Limits’. There was only one problem. HALLOWEEN meant Michael Myers. Even though the title was ‘Season of the Witch’ it was still billed as HALLOWEEN III.
Most people went to see this film wondering how Michael Myers was coming back to terrorize Haddonfield after being
blown up and burned to death
at the end of the last film. Needless to say it didn’t take long for people realize that Myers was not there. Neither was the box office returns. HALLOWEEN III is (to-date) the lowest grossing film of the entire franchise. But is it a bad film?
Hell no! At first I didn’t care for it much either, but with no sign of any new Halloween sequels coming I gave it a second chance and I’m glad I did.
Tom Atkins was the man back then, especially in John Carpenter movies. With a six pack of beer in one hand and a hot chick in the other, Atkins always managed to save the day. Dan O’Herlihy plays the Evil head of Silver Shamrock Novelties, Colonel Cochran, whose performance is chilling and very convincing. This film would not have worked with out him.
Dean Cundey returns to set the visual tone for first time director Tommy Lee Wallace and this film vibes HALLOWEEN all the way. They even shot in some of the same locations from HALLOWEEN II. Alan Howarth’s synth score is right in line with his other work from that period and fits this film perfectly.
They even pay homage to ‘HALLOWEEN’ by advertising it along with the ‘Giveaway’. So Michael Myers is in this film, just not the way we would have expected.
When given a chance, this film stands on its own. It was a brave attempt at trying something new that failed miserably. Had this film not been billed as the 3rd installment of the HALLOWEEN series maybe it would have been better received.
My review
So what is this movie about? Oh, yes, a company that creates masks that they sell to kids and use as part of a plan to cause evil. One of those masks is a witch mask, hence the title. The movie involves some nasty kills, but they’re memorable mostly because they’re nasty…fair enough. However, I must say that the little “X more days ‘till Halloween, Halloween” jingle is both kind of creepy and a thoughtful way to pester someone, or even remind yourself of how far you are from Oct. 31st. Still, regarding rules that horror series set for themselves, someone (in either a movie or a film review, I forgot which) said something along the lines of the following quote and this series followed it well – “the first one makes 'em, the second one breaks 'em, and the third one goes all over the place.”
I did not like this movie as a whole. While it had some worthwhile scenes, and eerie music, as well as a creepy premise, in many ways it comes across as goofy. Much of the film is actually pretty boring, and when you get a good look at the terror, most of it is just goofy. In some ways, the film plays like a 1970s Godzilla movie…involving a somewhat dark, blurry setting and people who really aren’t people but are either cyborgs, apes, cockroaches, what have you, causing evil with a couple of goofy guys trying to save the day. Only differences, without giant monsters bashing each other senseless, this type of movie, which struggles already, REALLY struggles.
Don’t get me wrong, the premise is creepy, as is the ending, and it still has vibes from the first two movies, but this movie should not have been marketed as ‘Halloween’. The guy in the above review says it perfectly “HALLOWEEN meant Michael Myers”, especially since they made the second movie. Had Carpenter and Hill left the second movie out and had the first movie with its unsolved ending be left up in the air, then they would have completed one Halloween story in a much better and more eerie way and could have more smoothly moved on to new stories.
Had Michael Myers returned here, the movie would have most likely been a 3-D effort. So, props for not following that trend, but this movie is just iffy and rather lackluster in long stretches. Maybe my opinion will change if I see it again, but for now, I’ll only rate it 2.5/5 Stars.
HALLOWEEN 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) Ten years ago he changed the face of evil…and now he’s back!
FLASH SITE REVIEW After being absent from the horror scene for six years, Michael made his return to the big screen and, at that time, didn’t disappoint fans and audiences across the globe. In 1988, Friday the 13th had reached sequel number 7 and Nightmare on Elm Street had reached sequel number 4, so people were ready for a new fresh approach from an old favorite in the horror genre.
The director (Dwight H. Little) attempted to create the same vibe from the first film. Using low & wide camera angles he was able to achieve a ‘HALLOWEEN’ vibe without ripping off the original film. Alan Howarth (Halloween II) was back to compose the soundtrack and once again John Carpenter’s theme was back in business.
But after almost 17 years, does this film stand the test of time like the original ‘HALLOWEEN’ does?
Well, sort of. Young Danielle Harris did an excellent job conveying the fear and terror from a child’s point of view. Donald Pleasence returns to deliver a solid performance as a man obsessed with his fight to stop evil. The other cast members do a very good job to bring together the story and for the most part, there was a story to tell.
This time around the Akkads had to come up with a new idea, it had to be fresh and unfortunately it had to continue Carpenter’s idea of the ‘sister theory’.
SISTER THEORY = MYERS MUST KILL HIS FAMILY.
THIS THEORY HAS PLAGUED THE HALLOWEEN SERIES AND IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HORRID SEQUELS THAT FOLLOW.
It also needed to explain how Michael & Loomis survived what Carpenter felt was an inescapable death. They managed to pull that off, barely. Too bad the rest of the story felt rushed and finishes with a whimper instead of a bang. You’re bringing back Michael ‘****ing’ Myers, make it good. You only had Six years to think of a better story then being
shot down a well
and left for dead!
In the first film no one believed Dr. Loomis. Everyone thought he was crazy for thinking that Michael would come home. Needless to say he was proven right. So, why in the hell would anyone doubt his intentions even after 10 years? If Loomis is in your town, so is Michael Myers.
Plus the mask in this film is just BAD!!!!!!! It was a poorly converted William Shatner mask and inspires comedy more then terror. This only goes to prove that the producers of Halloween 4 did not have a clue about what made the first film so scary.
Halloween 4 is still one of the best post Halloween III sequels made, next to H20, and was a fresh approach at the same story. It was also the reason why we have so many bad sequels that do nothing except make money. D**n you Akkads, for letting him out again!!!!!!!
My review
Introducing that Laurie Strode went missing, had a child named Jamie (whom Myers must kill, apparently), and died, Halloween 4 was yet another messed up chapter in this franchise. You know why? It’s because not only does it start a trilogy of sequels that have an increasingly iffy plot premise (thanks to Movie 2), but also because Michael Myers changed from silent killer with relatively normal strength and his own sneaking identity to a hulking Frankenstein-type monster.
You see, in 1984, a, pseudo-horror movie at best, The Terminator came out, and that guy was really physically powerful, and perhaps a bit of an inspiration for the film-makers to make Jason Voorhees “THAT STRONG!” in the sixth Friday the 13th movie when he rose from the dead. Then, I’m guessing that, as well as popularity with mind-power boogiemen like Freddy Krueger, was a huge inspiration for the film-makers to make Myers another powerhouse. In the Jason movie I mentioned, a third of his kills involve abnormal strength. In this movie, Myers hardly ever uses his kitchen knife, and not only uses physical brutality on way more than a 3rd of his kills, but gets almost as many kills as Jason does in his latest outings. Therefore, Michael lost a little of his identity here, but was as formidable and unforgiving as ever.
On those terms, the Return is a somewhat pretentious one. Also, Michael’s mask, while a new one after what happened on his last outing, is excusable just for that. Sorry to anyone who likes this mask, but the facial features and the mask as a whole look like a cross between a marshmallow, George Clooney and a bullfrog to me – but I’ll give props for having the mask have black eyes that show no light behind them.
Still, Michael is an interesting force here, and the film does have a lot of action and some suspense, even it only a few of the scenes look eerie. Some of the filler scenes are interesting, too. As far as the acting went Donald Pleasence carried the film well, and Jamie’s actress did an okay job. The rest of the acting is not great but it is believable, and the ‘final girl’ of the film is a down-to-earth type, instead of the bumblers from most of Jason’s movies up until now. The movie has enough interesting scenes to keep it going, and unlike the other guy, I don’t think that it went out with a whimper…the ending was done well enough. Quite a few of the shots mimic what was done in the first film, but it was done out of respect, so props again.
3.5/5. Some people think that this film is bad, but it at least tries to get some things right and stands over the next two. Then again, it’s also *responsible* for the next two movies. Uh-oh…
******
So far, the sequels went down in quality from 1-3 (though which is worse between 2 and 3 is debatable), but I don’t think that Movie 4 is worse than 3 or even 2…but that’s not to say that 3 or 2 never entertained someone over 4. Next post from me will cover my thoughts on #s 5-8.
Let's look at the negatives first, since there are a lot of them. One, the script is terrible. All the conversations are corny and pointless. It's not even bad in a funny way. It's just bad. Rob Zombie should never be allowed to write a script...ever.
This goes directly into characterization. A good film would have provided us with a pretty interesting villain, one we care for but at the same time despise. This is not a good film. At the end of the movie, you don't feel anything for Myers, except maybe nausea. This goes for the rest of the characters too. I didn't care if any of them died. The only one I did care about was
the main chic. Not because I cared about her, but I wanted to see just how terrible this movie would be. Her living or dying would have been the final statement. She does live, by the way.
The only credible feature of this movie is Zombie's directing, which is actually quite good towards the end. It's terrible in the beginning though. I'll put it this way. If you see someone who you think is going to die, there going to die. That's not a spoiler. A spoiler ruins a surprise. This movie has no surprises.
In short, a few well directed scenes is all this movie has going for it. Don't see it, don't rent it, don't even illegally download it. Your time is better spent elsewhere.
Pie, you seem confused about what "directing" is. You say the film was terrible, and cite bad acting, a total lack of surprise, lack of suspense... et cetera.
THOSE are the things that a director influences... where he puts the camera decides what the editor has to work with, and editors work under a director's thumb (assuming the director didn't DO the editing). As such, camera placement and editing work are the result of a director, and if a horror film neither creates tension nor surprise for you, it has failed.
Actors are guided on how to create their roles by the director. Always. Even between veteran actors and green directors -- watch any Donald Pleasence interview about Halloween, and he talks about John talking to him for great length on how to do things, how to get in Loomis's head. These interviews usually cut to John Carpenter talking about how Pleasence scared him ****less, as he didn't feel worthy of correcting him... but he still did. So people can't say a bad performance by a good actor isn't the director's fault, especially if the writing was done by the director as well.
So all that is directing, and you say all of that is bad. Well then, how is the directing good? The visual look?
My friend, that is CINEMATORAPHY. A director says what he wants something to look like and how the camera should do its thang, the cinematographer makes it happen.
By the way, I haven't seen the movie yet and have no pre-judgments. Just pointing that out.
Also, Zodiac was a great film. You can't call a movie bad and then cite, essentially "It wasn't my cup of tea" as your reason.
I say "directing" as a general term, but you are right. Cinematography is what I was talking about. The "atmosphere" in the last scenes of the movie was very good.
As for Zodiac, I don't want to get off topic, but I'll just post my quick take on it.
The movie was incredibly boring. At the two hour mark, I couldn't care less if they caught this guy or not. Maybe that was their intention, maybe it wasn't. All that matters is that it wasn't very interesting.
I'm trying to find specific moments in my head that I can point out, but I just can't think of any. This movie left no impression in my mind. Also, I plain just don't want to remember it.
But hey, a lot of people liked it, so props to you. I just didn't think it was very good.
People say I have "weird' tastes in movies. That's why I'm one of the few people who liked Spiderman 3.
Okay, here’s part 2 of 2 of the sequels analysis. On the other hand, I’m hearing that the remake has a ‘white trash’ aspect to it that quite a few reviewers have disliked. Indeed, having Michael wear shirts with band names on them while young seemed pretty iffy ever since I saw a picture of that...
HALLOWEEN 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) Michael lives, and this time they’re ready!
FLASH SITE REVIEW
The Akkads tried to cash in yet again with another HALLOWEEN sequel. Since the last movie made money it only made sense to make this piece of ****, right? Again, HALLOWEEN 5 is proof that the storyline of Michael Myers is tired and played out. Time to move on to something new.
The characters were typical, the story was laughable and Donald Pleasence’s performance was forgettable. Speaking of Loomis, his character has always been written well and intelligently. You could sense this mans obsession with Myers and stopping the evil with-in him. In this film he stumbles around and makes little to no sense and his accounting for 1978 is almost pathetic.
DR. LOOMIS: "SEE THIS SCARRED HAND"
SHERIFF MEEKER: "YES"
DR. LOOMIS: "OK THEN”
What was the deal with the story? After narrowly escaping the
explosion in the mineshaft
, Michael drifts down the river to an old fisherman’s home, then passes out for one year on his bed. ONE ****ING YEAR! That is the stupidest, most unbelievable, asinine part of this or any film series out there. Leave it to some French ***hole to direct HALLOWEEN straight to video. Well Almost. HALLOWEEN 5 is the lowest grossing film of the series.
Anyway, with the ‘Sister Theory’ in place, why does Michael stalk Rachel and all of her friends? In HALLOWEEN 4 Dr. Loomis clearly says that Michael is ‘here to kill that little girl and anybody who gets in his way’. Yet, none of these people were in his way. They were doing their own thing.
Since the previous mask was trashed during filming, the Akkads had K.N.B FX create an original sculpt which is the second worst looking mask of the series. HALLOWEEN 4 is still the King of bad masks. It also quite amusing how after ONE ****ING YEAR of lying comatose, Michael is noticeably bigger then he ever was. A concept that was taken from the Friday the 13th Series. Bigger Myers = scarier Myers. But the best part of this film is the end. Seeing Michael WITH THE MASK STILL ON
sitting in his cell
was hilarious. This movie should have been marketed as a comedy.
IT WAS GREAT TO SEE the pumpkin get carved to hell in the opening credits. That was the coolest part of this entire film. Besides the death of the most annoying character in any horror film, Tina!
HALLOWEEN 5 ranks right up there with Friday the 13th Part 5 and a Nightmare on Elm 2 as the worst horror film of all time. This one is a stinker.
My review
Man, do most people hate this film with a passion. It was one of the first that I saw, and I did not expect much, but then again, I didn’t know how it was messing with the rules set in the first film. Oh, and the guy referred to as ‘some French ***hole’ in that the flash site guy’s review is the movie’s director Dominique Othenin-Girard. Supposedly, tension existed between him and the film’s cast. Can’t confirm that, but wow.
First off, the ending of H4 had
Jamie touch Michael’s hand, become infected with his evil, kill her foster mother, and then become the next carrier of Michael’s evil
, but that plotline was watered down a whole lot. Wow. Well, it’s not such a surprise that they couldn’t carry it, but if they did and still managed to bring Michael back, the story would have been better. As for him being ‘bigger than ever’, well, they got a new actor, but he was about the size that the guy in H4 (George Wilbur) was…but the hair on Michael’s mask somehow got longer, and the facial features changed. I guess that hermit had to do with the transition of Michael’s mask, but it’s still haphazard and this mask is rather goofy in most shots…though it has a rare eerie moment. Still, that comatose-for-a-year plotline was laughable, and proof that the film-makers rushed this out before it could be thought out better.
So Jamie, still played by Danielle Harris, is unable to speak much of the time like Laurie was in H2, but she still acts decently. However, the same can’t be said for the rest of the cast, consisting of some bumbling buffoons in both cops and horny teenagers. The final girl of the last movie, Rachel, was dumbed down a lot, and since she was not bound to last long, her replacement came and…wow, was she annoying. Holy cow. Anyone out there thought that the Tina from Friday the 13th Part Vii: The New Blood was kind of annoying, take a gander at this one. Not to make fun of the actress, but in an interview I saw on YouTube, it looked like she barely had a clue of what was going on.
On another note, Michael stalks teens here, in the same style as the older Jason movies, most notably in a barn, with a pitchfork (and a scythe…and even a ‘wee pitchfork’). Michael also seems to be missing the exact level of strength he had in the last one, and even takes less damage before he falls. At the end of Movie 4, it took
many shotgun rounds
to knock Michael down, while in this movie, Michael falls down after a mere (and I doubt he was trying to fool someone, for some reason)
two handgun bullets to the shoulders, which is where they hit, as I looked closely
. So now they went and made Michael act like Jason before Part VI. And as far as the teenagers go, the entire cast of teens seems almost clueless to last Halloween’s events, and even Donald’s acting, while still credible, was watered down, with what that reviewer from the flash site said in mind.
Pleasance himself really didn’t like this movie. He was reported as saying that what went on was ‘a bit stupid’ and shot all his scenes as quickly as possible before getting straight out of dodge and letting Danielle Harris have his trailer, which she found exciting. Can’t say I blame him, but is this film as abysmal as everyone says it is?
Not to me, really. The fact of the matter is, as ratty as it looks and as persistent as the problems I mentioned are, it has enough interesting scenes to keep it going. Even if the interesting scenes have their dumb sides too, some of them contain rather unpredictable moments of suspense where you’re left guessing what will happen next. Too bad the ending is pretty dumb. And too, TOO bad that they made an abomination of Michael’s house. What was once a creepily simple abode inexplicably became a Gothic mansion as a rather lame attempt to stir up scares. That’s the worst part of the film, IMO. But still, FAR worse horror flicks are out there than this movie…
3/5 Stars, because some unexpected, interesting things happen.
HALLOWEEN: The Curse of Michael Myers/HALLOWEEN 6: The Producer’s Cut (1995) Six times the terror…six times the fear…six times the thrills…
FLASH SITE REVIEW
After the release of the worst HALLOWEEN sequel ever (HALLOWEEN 5), the Akkads decided to take a break from making HALLOWEEN films. Thank God, it was over. Dignity can be brought back to a once proud & respected name in horror. Not yet or at the very least not now!
HALLOWEEN 6 manages to do one thing brilliantly - confuse the **** out of anyone who watches it. The original cut or ‘Producers cut’, as it has come to be known, was considered to be too dark by test audiences. So the geniuses in charge decided to tweak the script and in the process delete more than half of Donald’s scenes & re-shoot the entire ending while totally ****ing up the plot.
During an interview Pleasence had commented on how he was very proud of his work in this latest sequel. He said it was ‘darker’ & ‘scarier’ and very much in line with the original HALLOWEEN. It was in-line alright, it ripped it off. When will people get it? You can't re-make the same film over and over again and expect it to be good or different. That is the definition of insanity!
The best part if this film is the mask. Magical Media Industries really did a good job with it. It wasn’t perfect, but it was way better then HALLOWEEN 4 & 5. It looked more like Bill Murray then William Shatner but when you squinted your eyes it was closes enough.
This would be the last time Donald Pleasence would reprise his role of Loomis and Alan Howarth would score a HALLOWEEN film. Personally, after hearing the HALLOWEEN theme played ‘Fat Albert’ style I for one was not upset to see him go. To his defense the P-Cut soundtrack is much better but, it’s still John’s songs and not his. I used to like this movie, but after seeing the Producer’s Cut it is almost unbearable to watch.
It’s funny, the Akkads always say that they are ‘all about the fans, yet when we ask for the Producer’s cut of HALLOWEEN 6 they pretend like we don’t exist.
My review:
Oh, there’s a curse of Michael, alright. He’s got a slew of sequels and almost everyone hates them. This movie has two versions, and I’ll say that one version is much better than the other, but which? I haven’t seen either in their entirety, but I have seen prolonged scenes from the movie.
I’m one who believes that The Producer’s Cut is better. Don’t get me wrong, now they’re patching together the unsolved mysteries from H5 and are trying to say that this ‘Thorn’ rune and its cult made Michael what he is. Sorry, but Michael’s nature is best left unexplained, like what happened in Hitchcock’s The Birds. To say that they tried to infect him and make him their attack dog, however, would have been better, though I can’t tell which plot (in terms of Thorn’s involvement with Michael) that they tried to sell.
The P-Cut is mostly filler. Michael does kill people, but does not really get into a fight with anyone, for the most part. As characters wonder where he is, he seems to have been put aside to make way for the plot. Thankfully, the filler scenes, kills, and ending are actually pretty interesting, and although Donald Pleasance doesn’t look or sound up to it (he reminds me of Dumbledore from the first two Harry Potter films) most of the time, he still manages to show that passion that film-goers have come to know and love in some scenes. They decided to get a new actress for the 15-year-old (ahem) Jamie Lloyd because they wouldn’t pay the original actress the $5000 she wanted…oh well.
But then we get to the theatrical release, and it’s notably down on quality. Pleasance’s scenes are taken out, the haunting, original music is replaced with less interesting fare (an electric guitar version of the main theme? Wha?), and the plot was messed with. Though they got George ‘Part 4’ Wilbur to play Michael’s role again, they had to get someone else to reshoot new scenes. And are those scenes weird. Most of them are done to make the film more ‘EXTREEEEME’ as Buzz Bunny would put it, giving the kills more gore and giving Michael more power ala Jason fi- I mean Halloween 4, going right back to the pretentious way of doing things.
As far as the mask goes, it looks goofy. Sometimes it looks cool, but in most shots, it looks funny and reminds me of the face of Don Vito from Viva La Bam. Not to mention that Michael Myers was 21 on the first/second movie, and, 17 years later here, is 38, close in age to Homer Simpson is on his show. Indeed, this Michael Myers reminds me a little of Homer, especially in the re-shoots where his actor has a bit of a gut. And seeing Michael, when stalking someone in one scene, swinging his arms like Stone Cold Steve Austin did when heading down a ramp to a WWF/E ring was awkward. Speaking of mannerisms, this version of the film plays on H5’s idea of Michael having ‘rage’. Rage? He was never supposed to be angry, just psychotic…
Plus, those rather annoying jumps in music that they put here aren’t scary, and neither are those flashback scenes with quick cuts. And they even tried to advertise this movie as the last one (“If you thought how it started was scary, just wait to see how it ends” is along the lines of what thy say) but the only potential end in site was these movies being shown in theaters.
What we have here is a mess. It plays like one of those Leprechaun movies released around this time, with talk of magic/cults/what have you, bizarre kills, and all real effort to beat the snot out of the boogeyman focused at the end, creating a movie that, overall, can entertain someone, but is sloppy and shoddy in many parts. Indeed, some re-shoot scenes are memorable (albeit done for the wrong reasons), and it would have been nicer had they mixed in a few of them while mostly re-touching the original film’s screen quality. Oh well. Most people don’t remember much about this one, let alone that it was made in 1995, three years before the next one.
Based on what I see so far (and I’ve seen a lot), the P-Cut gets, barely, 3.5/5 Stars… it's surely not for everyone but it did an okay job of digging over the holes left from Part 5.
The theatrical release gets 2.5/5. Sloppy and still somewhat entertaining, and even worse than Part 5, although most people do acknowledge that.
HALLOWEEN H20 (1998) Twenty Years Later
FLASH SITE REVIEW
HALLOWEEN H20 is a very good film and demonstrates how much the Akkads have no clue about what the fans want. This film was Jamie Lee Curtis’s idea and (with the collaboration of Steve Miner), they managed to turn out something the Akkads could not do on their own. Make a blockbuster HALLOWEEN film. To date, HALLOWEEN H20 is the highest grossing film in this series.
Carpenter respectively bowed out of this sequel, despite Jamie’s pleading, so veteran horror film director Steve Miner (Friday the 13th 2 & 3D) was hired to handle the task of reuniting Laurie Strode & Michael Myers. Miner didn’t try to re-shoot Carpenter’s original film frame for frame like the others before him, but instead brought his own style and look to the franchise.
Gone were Alan Howarth and the original piano version of the HALLOWEEN theme, in was a fully orchestrated version. The new HALLOWEEN theme was refreshing to hear and I would have liked to hear the other classic Carpenter HALLOWEEN scores updated as well, instead of the ‘Scream’-type music that was used instead.
In fact, this movie felt more like "Scream" then it does Halloween. "Scream" rejuvenated the slasher genre when it was released and paid homage to the original Halloween in the process.
This was first time that the character of Sam Loomis was not present in a HALLOWEEN movie featuring Michael Myers and this absence is noticeable. Donald’s untimely passing (complications from heart valve replacement surgery) prevented what could have been a better more complete film.
The Akkads, (as usual), missed an opportunity to make the 20th Anniversary of Carpenter’s Classic a more meaningful event. Instead they used it as a launching pad for more of their ****ty sequel ideas. Even though they disregarded Halloween's 4-6 from this storyline, it still doesn't change the fact that this film is the 7th installment of a tired franchise.
My review:
This is probably the most famous sequel in the franchise, perhaps because of its obscure title. The guys on Mystery Science Theater 3000 called it ‘Halloween Water’ in their review of 1998 movie trailers, but H20 probably just means ‘Halloween 20’. Still, some people think that this film is great merely because it was better than the other sequels, but other think it’s a bad one. Indeed, it’s not exactly golden, but manages to get some things right.
Dr. Loomis’ absence due to Pleasence’s death years earlier gives the returning Laurie Strode an interesting predicament – survive Michael Myers without his help. 4-6 have pretty much been ignored, and so, Laurie has a new child, a son who is, interestingly, 17, just like she was when Michael went after her on 1978. Well, without Donald Pleasance, this movie’s theme changed a lot, and it became a set-up for one last sequel…but before that…
The bad things about this movie, according to most, are the low kill count, the false alarm scares, and the Scream and Dawson’s Creek vibes that never go away. In fact, you’ll be surprised by how many people dislike this one. It seems to be tedious in some parts, with filler that few people will really remember. Plus, the area that Michael attacks somewhat resembles Rancho Relaxo from The Simpsons. The hair Michael’s mask even reminds me of Sideshow Bob, in a quite sublte but noticible way!
However, when the action comes it’s actually fun to watch, and the acting is adequate, but not great. I have not much to say about this movie…it can be over-hyped sometimes, but it does well enough. Beneath the surface of 199os-film vibes, it actually pays a good deal of respect to the original. I guess I’d give it 3.5/5. There's hardly any way it's worse than the train-wreck that was the theatrical version of the last movie.
HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION (2002) Evil Finds its Way Home
FLASH SITE REVIEW
HALLOWEEN RESURRECTION was another attempt to move the franchise into another direction. This is not a bad film. Technically it’s the best of the bunch. It just doesn’t feel like a HALLOWEEN film anymore, especially when it gets released in the middle of summer.
There is allot of good things that can be said of this film. The acting was very good (except Rhymes), the set was amazing (Myers house), and the mask was the best since HALLOWEEN II.
Now the bad, Busta Rhymes. He has acted before in other recent films, but his performance in this film was way over-the-top and ultimately ruins the whole thing. I felt like I was watching the ‘Blair Witch Project’, given the amount of times Rhymes uses the F word in every sentence.
The explanation regarding the paramedic/Myers switch was weak and predictable. The ‘It wasn’t him’ theory is older then I am. It was Michael at the end of H20 and for the second time in HALLOWEEN history Myers has died for good and comes back. Like I have said for years, the only way to stop Michael Myers for good is to stop paying for this ****.
My review:
Well, you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who favors this movie over H20. Indeed, it’s basically watered down from that movie in terms of quality. The opening parts of the movie are done pretty well, with some things that come out of left field as great surprises. I was pleased by that, but yes, the idea of Michael not being the one at the end of H20 was as absurd as H5’s idea of continuing the series. So if he lived, how would he ‘resurrect’? The title is stocked and cliché enough, but makes little sense.
Beyond the interesting introduction, the movie turns downward, with characters that are interesting only on a stereotypical level. I can’t really say that the acting was ‘very good’ like that guy did. Busta Rhymes was probably only in the movie because fellow rapper L.L. Cool J got a small, mind you, SMALL part in H20, and I don’t even know what Tyra Banks is doing in here. The plot is, Michael went out far to attack Laurie Strode, and then went back to his house, hence the tagline, only to find kids marauding in there, filming a documentary, a plot device no doubt done to nod to all of those irritating reality TV shows. Speaking of the tagline, isn’t it funny how they made the words crawl up Michael’s mask on the cover? Reminds me of a Dr. Suess book.
Busta Rhymes actually adds an interesting element to the movie, because one scene that he has with Michael involving him wearing the Boogeyman’s getup was done for comedy – and this movie series almost NEVER has a prolonged scene with comedic humor, and I commend the series for that. The scene I’m talking about was okay, but it’s always leads to a bit of humor for me when other Michael masks appear in the movies (although the ‘humor’ scene in Part 5 was the kind of thing you, if at all, laugh AT, not WITH). So what we have here is a few interesting kills, and decent action, but filler that goes nowhere. Even the opening has some dumb moments, like when Laurie wonders if she should attack Michael or not because it may or may not be him, despite the fact that this person is apparently trying to kill her anyway.
The movie hardly feels like Halloween because it was released in the summer, and even if it’s Michael’s house, what’s in there makes it look hardly like what the original movie set up. Michael’s mask even makes him look a little like Busta Rhymes does (IMO), which is a bit creepy in a way. Even 'creepier' is that the H20 mask made him look a little like Jamie Lee Curtis did then...weird. Anyway, the mask in this movie is not that bad and looks good in some shots. The movie’s ending, however, could also be seen from a mile away. However, for a money-grubbing movie, it wasn’t too bad. It does make the sequels end on a bit of a downer, but it has enough interesting scenes to make it decent.
3/5, though I’m being rather generous, again.
--
And that’s that. So, if it weren’t for 4 and H20 being better efforts, the sequels would really seem to be on a downward spiral, but I wouldn’t really consider any of the films to be worthless, although none of the sequels can touch the first one.
I saw Balls of Fury before this, and it made BoF seem so much better. Halloween is rated 14A in Canada, which is ridiculous because it should be 18A without a doubt. It was just terrible. Male deaths were instant, while female deaths were dragged on with them being exposed. Ugh, I work at the movie theatre so I pretty much watch everything.
I thought the first 45 minutes of the movie creeped me out a lot. Just watching this 10 year old kid kill 4 people, including a couple of the kills, they were just unthinkable. The rest of the movie I could relate to, although a few parts were different and some additions. I'd give it 2.5 out of 5 however.
I think Rob Zombie has talent. really this man knows how to make a scary movie. The characters in all of his films make me believe they are afraid, and defeated.
However, I have a low tolerance level of these movies, and by that i mean too much gore, even though I knwo in my head none of its real, makes me sick. literally. A date asked me to take her to see this. I was reluctant, because this is a horrible movie to take a date to anyways, but I knew I was gonna hate having to sit there through all of the killings and pretend it did not bother me. Luckily for me, she had never seen a rob zombie film before, did not know what to expect, and wanted to leave at some point towards the end of the film. I got my monies worth, and i didnt look like a *****.
bottom line: Good movie. but i still hate blood and gore. House of 1000 corpses was some sick ****.
