|
Post by 7 on Feb 5, 2008 8:40:20 GMT -5
I don't know, I rather enjoyed H20. The other ones in the series just seem a meaningless digression and completely superflouous. When I watch what I term "The Halloween Series" - its always Halloween, Halloween 2, and Halloween H20.
But hey, that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 5, 2008 11:15:54 GMT -5
It's fun, and I enjoy it when it's on, but frankly, I've found a lot more entertainment in the others when I go for the marathon. It's on the lower end, as the others are a lot better, more graphic and don't feel so safe as this one does, although I still happen to enjoy it.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 6, 2008 8:24:36 GMT -5
Add to those criticisms LL Cool J's terrible "performance" and that pretty much sums up why i think this film is nowhere near as good as H4 The reason I seem so critical of Halloween H20 is because it is a much more sophisticated, smarter film than the other sequels. Even with these flaws, it has more potential, and is a better film than any of the other sequels. It's just a shame that it's not quite perfect. The main reason I think so many people dislike it is purely because the Scream trend was annoying. It was done to death like all trends were. But in the end, it is not a worse trend than the one that was responsible for Halloween 4, 5, and 6. And these films reflect that. Which is why, coupled with the fact that I think the H20 filmmakers tried harder to make a better movie, H20 is a better movie. Though stylistically it's just a different kind of horror movie and some people will always nostalgically attach themselves to part 4, in terms of the most important details, H20 delivers a bit more. And LL Cool J is no true grievance of H20. His performance was subdued. The whole point in a way is to know what his public persona was before you came to see the movie. In this movie he's married to a nagging wife, struggling to do something more with his life, and is in a rather menial job. Not like his rap / music video persona at all. Where he's the "lover man" type with "honies" falling at his feet and he always seems to have everything a typical guy could want. Yeah, it's mugging for pop culture, and that will date it. But I don't actually think it hurts the film. Especially again, since you brought up his performance. His performance was earnest and sincere. And that's what's important. That's what the character was.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 6, 2008 11:14:33 GMT -5
H20 is a safe horror film, regardless of where it came up in the course of the genre. It doesn't really take chances and use the intriguing storyline it has to come up with anything really dangerous. It could've done something with the girlfriend that becomes a Laurie substitute from the first one, which the classroom/window scene seemed to suggest they were heading. It was safe, jokey, and was never as brutal or graphic with it's killings (even going so far as to make Michael steal the woman's keys rather than kill her for them which in every single other entry he would've done) and that lowers the film considerably compared to the others.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 7, 2008 5:15:42 GMT -5
H20 is a safe horror film, regardless of where it came up in the course of the genre. It doesn't really take chances and use the intriguing storyline it has to come up with anything really dangerous. So? Nothing wrong with that at all. I'd rather have good than "dangerous" any day. Plus, there are already enough gratuitous, over the top, vicious horror films. This was a very nice change of pace. Though I think it sure could have used a little more blood or gore. But that's nothing more than an added luxury. It could've done something with the girlfriend that becomes a Laurie substitute from the first one I have to say... I don't follow you. What do you mean? and was never as brutal or graphic with it's killings (even going so far as to make Michael steal the woman's keys rather than kill her for them which in every single other entry he would've done) and that lowers the film considerably compared to the others. "Lowers the film"? Nonsense. Only in the opinion of someone who may care about special effects too much. As for the bathroom scene, having him kill her (and the kid? Did you forget there was a kid in that scene?) wouldn't have made the scene better. And in fact, I think what he did in this movie is exactly what he would do. He is fairly single-minded in his purpose. He wanted the car, so all he took was the keys. This "bloodlust" thing you're thinking about- that was invented by the sequels. In the original film, he only killed people he set his sights on. Not just anyone that happened to be in the same room as him (remember? The boy in the scene with Tommy Doyle at school? Dr. Loomis and the Nurse at the beginning? Lindsay Wallace in the house when Annie was on the phone? About 7 trick or treaters walking past him? Tommy when he saw him through the window and started screaming?) And if you're suggesting this film should have been more like parts 4, 5, and 6, which were infinitely weaker compared to the approach of the first film, I'm offended (but I'll probably get over it ).
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 7, 2008 11:19:01 GMT -5
The girlfriend part I'll explain:
They were obviously setting her up to like Laurie from Part 1, coming from the scene at school where she sees him out the window exactly like Laurie from Part 1, and she also gives an answer in the class similar to what Laurie made after being in the same situation (caught staring out the window when called upon for an answer) like she was. Had it turned the character into a Laurie substitute, making Michael see her as the Laurie he could never kill when he was younger and make him stalk her because of that, putting her and her friends in more danger rather than making simply going after Laurie from the start and the students simply being around her from the beginning and needing to be knocked off, then there really could've been more fun with this. That would've been a fun angle to play up, and the remnants of it presented here would've made it more fun.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 7, 2008 13:24:58 GMT -5
Okay... I get it now. I guess nobody remembers her (character's) name.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 8, 2008 11:14:28 GMT -5
Right. Now, wouldn't you agree that would've made for a more fun ending to it?
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 8, 2008 13:07:44 GMT -5
(Spoiler below : )
Well, you see- the students all left to go on that camping trip. There were only 4 left. He stalked all of them. Presumably for the same reason he stalked Linda and Annie in the first movie. And technically, Laurie didn't come face to face with Michael until Laurie's son and the girlfriend came running to their (Laurie and her boyfriend's) part of the campus.
The ending of the film was actually, as soon as Laurie goes to drive the van away from the campus to the end credits, perfect the way it was. She should have confronted Michael, attacked him, and chopped his head off. Just the way it happened here.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 9, 2008 11:39:28 GMT -5
Right, but now the focus is on them, and it makes the film about their own fear confronting him like she did. A couple of mirror sequences done to show that they're going in that direction, it would've made the second half a lot more tense. The same things still could've happened, in roughly the same order, but instead of Laurie being the focus, it's on the children.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 10, 2008 15:05:08 GMT -5
Right, but now the focus is on them, and it makes the film about their own fear confronting him like she did. A couple of mirror sequences done to show that they're going in that direction, it would've made the second half a lot more tense. Well, how tense was the original film? I think the original was not exactly claustrophic. I think it was more open wide and atmospheric. This one doesn't exactly deliver the original's sense of atmosphere, but in terms of pacing and all that, it's just trying to bring the series back to what was done in the original. I think, knowing what they're trying to do, it works. There's less emphasis on blood and gore, though we do see some. But in terms of making the school look empty and creating scares and fear based on this... they were very successful. I have to say- I don't exactly see your problem. I think I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. How you think the stalking scenes at the school should have been different. Though I think the day scenes were better than the night scenes. Especially the scene where they introduce the dumbwaiter (that elevator booth). The same things still could've happened, in roughly the same order, but instead of Laurie being the focus, it's on the children. I thought you were saying that you thought the girlfriend (Laurie's son's girlfriend - whatever her name was) should be the new Laurie. In a way, she was... Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Feb 11, 2008 3:31:05 GMT -5
As for the bathroom scene, having him kill her (and the kid? Did you forget there was a kid in that scene?) wouldn't have made the scene better. And in fact, I think what he did in this movie is exactly what he would do. He is fairly single-minded in his purpose. He wanted the car, so all he took was the keys. This "bloodlust" thing you're thinking about- that was invented by the sequels. In the original film, he only killed people he set his sights on. Not just anyone that happened to be in the same room as him (remember? The boy in the scene with Tommy Doyle at school? Dr. Loomis and the Nurse at the beginning? Lindsay Wallace in the house when Annie was on the phone? About 7 trick or treaters walking past him? Tommy when he saw him through the window and started screaming?) Spot on Laz, one of the reasons why i think that this movie is better than most of the other sequels, he was playing games again, stalking, not just showing up for the money shot(so to speak).At it's core that's what this movie was trying to achieve but unfortunately was hampered by the fact that it was a Scream cash-in(illustrated by stupid lines like "drive down to the Becker's",Casey Becker was Drew Barrymore's character in Scream ,get my point? and the casting of Michelle Williams as 'Molly" )I only wish this idea had been done at an earlier or even later time,but i guess Jamie lee Curtis was as guilty of playing catch up as anyone...it was her idea after all.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 7:40:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I would say most of the key scenes in the film were flawed in that one way. But still it brought back perhaps the most important element to the film that the sequels took for granted. The music in the film was also a damn sight better than the "Jamie" Halloween sequels, too.
As for 'which is scarier- H20 or Return' , maybe Return wins. But I think it wins by showing Michael as a brutal, kill anyone in his way guy. When that's just not who he was. This film still manages to be very scary, by going back to the original and making the movie less dark, and more coolly ambient. Each room and location at the school was sort of lit to have its' own special darkness about it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 11, 2008 11:27:42 GMT -5
I always thought it was hampered by it being so desensitized towards the violence, but that's something else entirely.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 15:17:22 GMT -5
Something else I would be very interested to hear about.
|
|