|
Post by CT on Oct 5, 2009 10:10:59 GMT -5
What H2 twist are you guys referring to?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 6, 2009 9:52:27 GMT -5
Jaime is Michael's sister.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 13, 2009 11:55:43 GMT -5
I thought it was pretty good. part of the perfect trilogy, Halloween, Halloween II and this one, the rest are crap (not counting 3 which I love).
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 15, 2009 10:49:44 GMT -5
Easily one of the better 'Scream' style films which came out at the time, and that does wrap up the original storyline quite well indeed.
|
|
|
Post by FireStar on Dec 15, 2009 14:34:31 GMT -5
Yeah the only thing I can complain about is how it makes the Halloween series into 2 completely different storylines. One revolving around Laurie and one revolving around her daughter Jamie. That said this is my 3rd fave in the series behind the first two. They tried to go back and capture some of the feel of the original and it came off very well IMO. Also I love when Janet Leigh says Happy Halloween to her daughter Jamie(one scream queen to another) and is standing beside the same make of car she drove in Psycho, pretty cool nod if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 16, 2009 10:45:56 GMT -5
That's the kind of stuff there that I just don't really understand. Paying a ton of attention to a three-second sequence that has nothing to do with the storyline more than anything else which happens in the course of the film. It's just not a big deal to me, as mostly stuff like that just goes over my head until I hear about it elsewhere, but when items like that are used as one of the main selling points for a film, it kinda bugs me. There's nothing else worthwhile about a film you can use to sell me on seeing it that a mere three-second homage is the best thing about it?
|
|
|
Post by FireStar on Dec 16, 2009 15:03:26 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood my point in mentioning that I didn't mean to imply that that moment was the best thing about the movie. The overall theme and feel of it and how it goes back to the more original feel is what I like best about this movie. The interaction between the two of them is just a bonus in my mind something I liked seeing.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Dec 16, 2009 20:34:15 GMT -5
I like this one and I agree Firestar, that's a good scene.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 17, 2009 10:43:28 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood my point in mentioning that I didn't mean to imply that that moment was the best thing about the movie. The overall theme and feel of it and how it goes back to the more original feel is what I like best about this movie. The interaction between the two of them is just a bonus in my mind something I liked seeing. No, I didn't misunderstand anything at all, I knew what you said before and I was only commenting on the fact that you mentioned that one scene and I replied with the post I gave. It's just one of those little quirks of mine that I thought you should know, being new here and all that might be helpful to know since you're going to be around for a while. So simply consider that more of a character-piece about me rather than thoughts toward the film as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Dec 17, 2009 13:11:18 GMT -5
Yeah the only thing I can complain about is how it makes the Halloween series into 2 completely different storylines. One revolving around Laurie and one revolving around her daughter Jamie. That said this is my 3rd fave in the series behind the first two. They tried to go back and capture some of the feel of the original and it came off very well IMO. Also I love when Janet Leigh says Happy Halloween to her daughter Jamie(one scream queen to another) and is standing beside the same make of car she drove in Psycho, pretty cool nod if you ask me. I have a problem with the continuity, because I actually really enjoy part 4. It would have been so easy for the writers to pay attention to some of the details in a way that it wouldn't have been bugging me quite so much. At the same time, I could have looked past that, but I honestly don't think this film is anything special except for the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis is back. The rest of the cast and the film is completely bland. It is just so generic and forgettable in my opinion. But I do think my hate has lessened since I first rated it.....lol. But that really was a cool moment.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Dec 17, 2009 15:55:34 GMT -5
4 is my favorite of the sequels so the storyline issue always bothered me as well.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 18, 2009 5:43:42 GMT -5
I didn't know there was an issue, I thought the whole idea of H20 was to skip over all the crap that ruined the series on the first place, its suppose to be Halloween then H20, as far as the storyline goes and thats it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 18, 2009 10:43:56 GMT -5
I, honestly, have no problem with them skipping over the films (personally, I view films based on their individual merits only) but when you have fans of certain films, like I am with the 4-6 sequels since I think they're better than the original, having another film later on down the line which flat-out ignores them so it can go back to another storyline, then it's a very big risk since you're only appealing to a certain market audience rather than making the best film you possibly can. That could be an issue of contention with some out there.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 18, 2009 10:48:27 GMT -5
Whoa Nelly! You think the sequels are better than the original?! On what basis? And how could they possibly have just randomly thrown all of that Thorne Cult horseshit into the film without completely ruining it?
To some degree, the basics of the original were still there in the unecessary sequels, but it was ruined. The original was a perfect piece of cake that was just delicious. The sequels (4-6) all just kinda said "yeah we have this cake, but what if I just put a little bit more fancy icing and decoration on it. " By the time they were done, they took a delicious and classy piece of cake and covered it with cheap sugary supermarket icing. Who would want to eat it at that point?
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Dec 18, 2009 12:44:25 GMT -5
The sequels (4-6) all just kinda said "yeah we have this cake, but what if I just put a little bit more fancy icing and decoration on it. " By the time they were done, they took a delicious and classy piece of cake and covered it with cheap sugary supermarket icing. Even though I personally enjoy a couple of the sequels (which I mainly like because I find Dr. Loomis by far the most interesting character in the series), I pretty much agree with this, but I think it applies to ALL of them. Including part 2. The first film was perfect as it was. The next one was just more of the same, just not as good. You could say that it wrapped up the storyline, but that's not true because they continued on despite the fact that certain characters should have been dead and buried. The fact is, those films exist, and whether anyone else likes them or not, they are part of the canon. Ignoring them risks alienating fans that actually are fans of the whole series. Ignoring the Thorne Cult storyline isn't that big of a deal really, but ignoring the fact that Laurie had a daughter is a pretty big thing to ignore while making this film and is outright disrespectful to fans of the series. When it is just MORE of the same. They didn't do anything all that great here. In my opinion, this one was just another attempt to bank off yet another inferior, unnecessary sequel. Which makes it no better, it just depends on what you prefer.
|
|