I saw it. It was decent. The backstory was kind of unnecessary (And the tranisition between young and adult Myers had much to be desired), but once we get to the second Halloween night (In other words, the original movie), it was a back to basics, very brutal slasher. It brought the slasher pick out of the cheesiness that has been plaguing the slasher genre for awhile now and brought it back to brutal terror.
So, it's going to depend on what your looking for, really. A masterpiece this is not. Zombie's opus still remains the Devil's Rejects. But, it's still much better than 1000 Corpses.
Also, I have to ask- is Myers an unstoppable death machine in this, or is he actually human? Because if what I've been hearing about how much time is spent on the backstory is true, to have him suddenly turn into an unstoppable death machine halfway through the movie would kinda suck.
Either way, this is a definite rental for me. The original was a classic, and one of the greatest horror movies ever. I don't think that this could ever even touch it.
Also, I have to ask- is Myers an unstoppable death machine in this, or is he actually human? Because if what I've been hearing about how much time is spent on the backstory is true, to have him suddenly turn into an unstoppable death machine halfway through the movie would kinda suck.
Either way, this is a definite rental for me. The original was a classic, and one of the greatest horror movies ever. I don't think that this could ever even touch it.
To answer your question, yes, in the original incarnation of Michael Myers, in both this and the original, he is only just a man. A psychotic man, but just a man. Not a zombie (Jason) or "ghost" (Freddie) or a demon (Pinhead). He's more like Leatherface in that aspect.
I really liked it, there was only one part that left me a like "meh"
Michael's trying to bond with Laurie with the photo
This is very true to Carpenter's vision. I agree with everyone else tho, Devil's Rejects is a MUCH more superior film.
Let me preface this by saying I love horror movies and as far as I'm concerned the genre is circling the drain. Between the bad remakes of Japanese horrors and idiotic gorefests like Saw and Hostel, I've become sick of wasting my money.
But I really liked this movie. Nothing cheesy or stupid. Michael does still have trouble with actually dying, but nothing too ridiculous. Some of the death scenes were great
the instant death of Laurie's adoptive father especially caught me by suprise
and even better than that was that
one of the girls that gives it up actually lives!
That never frickin' happens. The camerawork was excellent, the acting was above average for a horror movie,
They have to. The Carpenter Score is iconic. It'd be like dropping the Bat-symbol.
And I like the Saw movies. They have a good balance between plot and gore, with a nice level of tension added in. Especially 2, it was great.
Hostel does indeed blow. I refuse to watch anything by Eli Roth. At least until Cell comes out. Its a zombie movie and I have previous contractual obligation to see all Zombie movies.
That's funny because that's the only part of the movie I didn't like. And it wasn't because it was bad. Actually, it was quite good. I just felt that it didn't line up with the second half of the movie.
Seriously, no such thing. I can't respect gratuitous and pointless T&A on an artistic level, but from a purely testosterone-fueled point of view, there's no such thing as too many topless chicks. I love me some tiggle-bitties.
Seriously? I'm of the total opposite opinion. Zombie's dialogue seemed like it was written by an angry 12-year old, not for one in the case of the young Michael character. Sherri Moon's acting was tough to watch...she should've stuck with dancing. I also think Zombie spent FAR too much time (half the frickin' movie) on the young Michael backstory. In my opinion, all it did was demystify the character and make him somewhat sympathetic, at least more so than in the original movie. Part of what made Michael such a scary guy was the first we see of him in the original movie, he's killing his sister and her boyfriend, then greets his parents as they come home, holding the knife he killed them with. He never says a word...EVER. By making Myers more relatable, it makes him less terrifying. Its harder to be scared of things you understand, you know?
Anyway, I will say its better than most of the horror movies that are pumped out on a regular basis, and was genuinely surprised when
both Loomis and Michael were supposedly killed
. I thought for sure a more open ending would've been required, as any studio would want to sequelize a successful property (as is usually done). I really liked the fact it ended how it did, though in a way in pangs me to know that at the end of this one, Michael didn't just disappear as in the end of the original.
That's funny because that's the only part of the movie I didn't like. And it wasn't because it was bad. Actually, it was quite good. I just felt that it didn't line up with the second half of the movie.
Of course the second half, the part you apparently preferred (as did I), was a complete rehash of the original. I liked it merely because it was a sylized, modern version of the original (the second half, anyway).
Plus Danielle Harris' boobs were a major plus. I've had a crush on her since I was like 8 years old and first saw Halloween 4 and 5.
I can understand that. But the first half was nothing more than a cliched psychological explanation for why Michael turned out why he did. Which honestly could've accomplished the same in about half the time it did take.
I kind of liked that it was faithful to the original, which at the time WAS something new; but now, not at all. I still thought the representation of the adult Michael was pretty well done.
I can understand that. But the first half was nothing more than a cliched psychological explanation for why Michael turned out why he did. Which honestly could've accomplished the same in about half the time it did take.
I kind of liked that it was faithful to the original, which at the time WAS something new; but now, not at all. I still thought the representation of the adult Michael was pretty well done.
Why? He killed animals in the original series of movies. If I remember correctly, he killed a dog in Halloween 2 and 4. In fact, I think he even ate one of them. Its been awhile since I've seen them, so I could be wrong.
But in any event, thats how the sociopathic, killing mind works. Most serial killers start by killing small wild animals, then move up to larger domestic animals (dogs, cats), and finally people. It fits as far as I'm concerned.
It starts in the 70's (can't be later than '73, cuz that's the year KISS forms), and then jumps forward fifteen years. so... late eighties or early nineties?
It starts in the 70's (can't be later than '73, cuz that's the year KISS forms), and then jumps forward fifteen years. so... late eighties or early nineties?
