Quoting D_Davis (view post)
I'm with meg - H2 tried something interesting, but it was too little too late.
I'm with meg - H2 tried something interesting, but it was too little too late.
Last edited by Grouchy; 09-23-2017 at 01:38 PM.
We are really splitting hairs here. None of the Halloween films are all that good to begin with.
Yeah, the original is pretty overrated. I appreciate it for its time and all that, but ehh.
I disagree. I think the problem is that its influence is so vast that you only get to watch it after you already know the imitations by heart. And that's like watching The Shining after the Simpsons parody.
But it's a brilliant movie.
In the sense that it started the slasher phenomenon. Sure. It's a brilliant movie in the same vein that A Trip to the Moon is a brilliant movie.
Nah, it's also an example of masterful direction and cinematography. And the score is iconic.
Not that A Trip to the Moon isn't also very good, but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1902.
I can see how a 40 year old movie can have a lesser impact in today's cinematic climate, especially one that has been imitated as much as Halloween (and to be fair, Halloween borrowed from other sources and just presented them in an original way). However, most films are a time capsule that represent the era in which they were made. Certainly films like Bonnie and Clyde and Jaws have had their concepts expanded upon, mainly due to technological advances, but they represent a tonal shift in cinematic ideals and style. Halloween is also one of these films that changed the way movies were made. Much of the reason for that is the craftsmanship involved in its creation. 1931's Frankenstein is like that too. It is doubtful that anyone today would be scared by it, but viewing it with the understanding of the sensibilities of the time it was made brings a true appreciation for what it accomplished.
Still feels like it still stands out so well even after all its influence (Friday the 13th is just almost as influential, but still dated can be surpassed by many with its template). Whereas most slashers consisted of several jump scares, Halloween to me feels as if it's one long, building, continuous jump scare that is so elegant in its execution and use of widescreen composition, which makes it really unlike those that followed.
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
This lack of love for the original Halloween is excuse my French a bunch of goshdamn nonsense.
Halloween III is a lot of fun.
The Zombie movies, however... I can see what he was trying to do by providing Mike Myers with backstory. I just don't think it worked.
Grouchy I don't disagree with anything you've said...but I still don't feel the need to watch it more than once every ten years maybe.
Hahah ok it's not like I watch it every month or every year. I was just trying to defend it against the "overrated" charge.
I have to admit the two movies I've watched the most in my life are probably Die Hard and The Big Lebowski. When I was a kid it was Batman Returns and The Untouchables.
Fair enough. I'm not sure on timeline, but wasn't Italy already pumping out slashers like crazy by the time Halloween came out?
Die Hard is up there for most rewatches for me too. So would be Back to the Future and Army of Darkness. Ghostbusters too.
Yeah, Carpenter was definitively watching giallo films when he conceived of Halloween. But the two genres aren't exactly the same - for one thing, unmasking the killer (who is usually one amongst a group of suspects) is an unavoidable part of giallo plots. Most slashers don't make a big mystery of the killer's identity - the killer just represents an evil, almost supernatural force which is something that appears in Donald Pleasance's dialogue in Halloween.
Wikipedia says the first giallo film is The Girl Who Knew Too Much from 1963. I watched it years ago but I remember it being pretty great.
That's part of what makes Halloween Halloween. It's part giallo, part Psycho, part golem film.
I found the original's Everyman version of Myers much more frightening than Zombie's Incredible-Hulk-with-a-mask.
That was goofy.
"All right, that's too hot. Anything we can do about that heat?"
"Rick...it's a flamethrower."
Please... In the original, he picked someone up by his throat and stapled him to the wall with a butcher knife.
Oh and then after doing that, he dresses up and pretends to be a ghost... now THAT is goofy.
Nah, both of those moments were pretty chilling.
"All right, that's too hot. Anything we can do about that heat?"
"Rick...it's a flamethrower."
Your definition of goofy is goofy.
"No! Mikey! I was good to you! I was good to you Mikey! Mikey!"
THAT was goofy.
"All right, that's too hot. Anything we can do about that heat?"
"Rick...it's a flamethrower."
My issue with the Zombie films is not really his interpretation of the Michael Myers character, but with the total execution of story and style. It just doesn't work for me, and just seems to be an exercise in grim, distasteful excess. I'm not a fan of Zombie's directing style at all. The only movie of his that I've seen which I have any admiration for is The Devil's Rejects, and even then I can't say I liked the movie, only that I recognized that there was some thought and ingenuity involved. I think Zombie is capable of making a really good film. I just haven't seen it yet.
As for the idea that Carpenter's Myers is less threatening than Zombie's, I am in total disagreement. Zombie presented Myers as a hulking brute who announced himself with loud, aggressive overtures. Carpenter presents Myers a phantom (further indicated by him being listed in the credits as "The Shape") who is able to make himself practically invisible and only presents himself quickly and silently when he attacks. He also has a dark sense of humor. His stealing of his sister's tombstone and positioning it as he does. Dressing in the sheet as part of his terror tactic. In the original film Myers seems just as intent to invoke fear and terror as he is to kill. Zombie's Myers is more interested in the kill and how brutal he can be.
I will say I've only seen Zombie's version once, when it first came out, so I may only be remembering it the way I interpreted it then. But I have no interest in revisiting it.
Totally agreed, specially with your assessment of Zombie. He really should have explored further the moral ambiguity of Devil's Rejects instead of the messy style of 1000 Corpses.
Great analysis of the two interpretations, Devlin.
Put into words beautifully why I find Carpenter's version of Myers so much more frightening.
Zombie's is like Michael Myers as seen through the mid-2000's torture porn lens - no thought put into making it frightening, simply an exercise in brutality and making the audience squirm.
I get that that type of thing has its audience. I'm just not a part of it.
Last edited by megladon8; 09-24-2017 at 05:28 PM.
"All right, that's too hot. Anything we can do about that heat?"
"Rick...it's a flamethrower."
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote