|
Post by GL on Dec 22, 2007 11:15:46 GMT -5
Still, even if you're expecting one thing, what's the movie bringing to the table on it's own merits is what you base a movie on. Expectations or not, it's what you eventually see that's important. I've gone into films outright expecting to hate them (just about every single remake ever done in the last four years) but with the exception of maybe one or two, I've thoroughly enjoyed them as the films, looked at their own right, were fun and enjoyable.
You said that even without Michael, it's still trash. How about something to back that up? Maybe that will help the conversation. It'll go a lot easier if you provide reasoning for your claims.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 22, 2007 13:44:36 GMT -5
Personally, I agree with MAtt. Except for the first this is my favorite HAlloween. I personally think that it is way better tahn Parts 4 on, and for my money I'd watch it over PArt II.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 23, 2007 11:16:40 GMT -5
I personally think all the others are better, but they're incredibly good so this one has to be on the low end of the totem pole by default, but I do put it over Part 5 even though that one is a lot better than I expected it to be. Not terrible, mind you, but still better than I thought it would be.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 28, 2007 19:09:46 GMT -5
Most of all, I really wish that Carpenter's original vision of a different Halloween themed film every year took off. If it did, not only would we have gotten tons of sweet Carpenter films rather than his complete disinterest in continuing the franchse while Moustapha Akkad raped the memory of the original, but there might have been less incentive for F13, NOES and other slasher series to continue rehashing derrivative and repetetive nonsense rather than introducing new and vital ideas
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Dec 28, 2007 19:34:54 GMT -5
Most of all, I really wish that Carpenter's original vision of a different Halloween themed film every year took off. If it did, not only would we have gotten tons of sweet Carpenter films rather than his complete disinterest in continuing the franchse while Moustapha Akkad raped the memory of the original, but there might have been less incentive for F13, NOES and other slasher series to continue rehashing derrivative and repetetive nonsense rather than introducing new and vital ideas Don't hold back now, HNT, tell us how you really feel...... I agree by the way, again, I do enjoy several of the sequels, but would have loved to see the films Carpenter and company would have made following along with that idea (which was a very good one). The ending of the original Halloween was perfect in my opinion, the other films were not necessary at all.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 29, 2007 12:30:02 GMT -5
The idea does intrigue me to a big degree, but as I already love the other sequels to a great degree, it's fine that they went that way. Seeing it would've been fun, but I'm happy with the way it went.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Dec 31, 2007 5:37:48 GMT -5
Most of all, I really wish that Carpenter's original vision of a different Halloween themed film every year took off. If it did, not only would we have gotten tons of sweet Carpenter films rather than his complete disinterest in continuing the franchse while Moustapha Akkad raped the memory of the original, but there might have been less incentive for F13, NOES and other slasher series to continue rehashing derrivative and repetetive nonsense rather than introducing new and vital ideas I totally see and agree with what youre saying here HNT but i guess we need to take in to account that fact that by 1988,when part 4 was released, F13 was already up to part 7 and NOES also up to part four, so i in fact think that it was the other way around because of the sucess of the other series, Akkad could not see past the POV camera that was pointed straight at the $. It is such a shame when when the imitated becomes the imitator, but unfortunately it wasn't the last time it happened in this series. and this i believe is why J.C washed his hands of it, sure he's made some misteps over the years,but i'd sooner watch Prince of Darkness ,In The Mouth of Madness or even Village of the Damned over any of the more recent "Halloween" movies. and even after the unfortunate fate of Akkad, succumbing to the real horror that the world faces.... what did we get .............an even bigger rapist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 31, 2007 11:30:04 GMT -5
Excellent point, as the time when the series came back the scene was crawling with all sorts of sequels to all the films that it had spawned to begin with, using the simple formula of blood + boobs = horror. While the original had those elements in small spades (especially the first one) the films took those elements to task and used them as the basis for their films. The Halloween ones were always the classy films of the genre, never really becoming exploitative fare like the others until the revival, which was brought on by the sequels to the films it had spawned.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jan 4, 2008 21:36:41 GMT -5
That is a fair point, Matt. I thik that you are definitely onto something with the originator becoming the imitator. Very good point. And, yes I agree that what Zombie tried to give us was far worse than the wost of the unnecessary Halloween sequels.
That said, I also agree that I would take any Carpenter film that I can think of over Halloween 4 on.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 6, 2008 11:28:50 GMT -5
Really? You'd take Starman over Halloween 4? That's saying something, man.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jan 7, 2008 17:48:34 GMT -5
I would take Starman without skipping a beat. It is clearly not a horror film, but I think that it is quite a nice little sci-fi romance thing. I enjoy it. If I were looking for bad Carpenter I would go with Escape From LA or Vampires. And, yes, I would take them over Halloween 4 as well. The only sequel beyond the forst three taht I have any use for is H20 and I certainly won't say that I love it
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 8, 2008 11:28:11 GMT -5
Wow, Vampires is bad Carpenter? L.A. is cheesy action goodness, but Vampires? It's the only vampire film from the last thirty years that's any good. Outside of the 60s/70s gothic horror from Europe, it's my favorite and really the only one, beyond the others in the series, that I watch.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Jan 8, 2008 16:12:57 GMT -5
I'm with HNT on this one. Vampires is contrived and boring the way I see it. Seems to me as if Carpenter had a contract to fulfill with that one.
As for Halloween III - I can dig it. Its got that variety of camp value that you just can't get out of many films, plus. . . Tom Atkins.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jan 8, 2008 16:23:43 GMT -5
Quite right about the camp value seventhseal. And GL, though this might be a bit off topic, I would highly recommend GAR's MArtin. Now that I think about it, it is just about 30 yers old so you may have seen it. It is most definitely good, however. For my money, it is the best vampire film outside of the Universal and Hammer Dracula films. As for JC's Vampires, I will rate it slightly higher than Vampire in Brooklyn with Eddie Murphy. Not much higher, though
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Jan 8, 2008 17:21:08 GMT -5
Martin is great - it avoids the self-parody that so many of Romero's films fall into (the Dead trilogy aside).
Also, fuck January.
|
|