|
Post by CT on Dec 18, 2009 12:59:47 GMT -5
Part of the problem is that in 4 through 6, Laurie is assumed dead. We find out in H20 that she faked her death to go into the witness protection program. Buthis causes a problem, as you wouldn't fake your death and LEAVE your child! She would have faked Jamies death too and brought her with her. And if Laurie wanted in the Witness Protection Program she must have feared Michael was still alive. And in 2 she learns Michael is after her because they are blood relatives. Why would she leave her own daughter, also a blood relative of Michael, behind to be discovered.
I don't have a problem with them leaving out much of 5 and 6 but as a fan of 4 it seeks like they should have at least said Laurie had a daughter who disappeared. But tha leads back to the problem I mentioned in my first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 18, 2009 14:23:23 GMT -5
Jen but I cant help it someone wants to be a fan of a series that was ruined and now sucks (IMO), whatever floats their boat. I see it the other way round, the whole point is they weren't making the best movies they could, the sequels were trying to appeal to the masses just as much as some say H20 was, the difference is that the original was the best and compared to it, the sequels sucked. If anything was an insult to the fans it was everything after the first. Ignoring the films between 1 and H20 fixes everything. Some day Id like to take all the movies after part 2, edit out all the crap that doesn't fit in with the original movie and make my own version of the series. Only then will the travesties that were the sequels be watchable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Dec 18, 2009 22:29:04 GMT -5
To me, H20 was obvious and contrived, it was trying so hard to be hip, glossy and stylish (like so much of '90s horror) that it didn't do the first film any more justice than any of the other sequels did. But again, at least they had Donald Pleasence who always gave it his best, and who, in my opinion at least, made them watchable (though I still think 4 is a pretty decent slasher flick, and it will always be my favorite of the sequels). If they ignored the events of most of the previous films and made a movie that I actually enjoyed, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but they ignored those events and then proceeded to make a film that was just like almost every other horror movie out at the time. And while I enjoyed the Scream films, I wasn't always that crazy about the influence it had on the genre in general. But again, it really just comes down to personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 21, 2009 12:24:31 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? Yes, we've been down this road numerous times already. I don't think the original is all that good of a film, it's survived by it's reputation more than anything to do with it's actual content. That, to me, doesn't mean anything, as while I do acknowledge that part of the film, it has nothing to do with the entertainment factor with which I view them, and in which case it falls down to the middle of the pack, leaving 6, 4 and 2 up at the top of the list above it.
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on May 31, 2011 14:35:28 GMT -5
Gave it a 3 because it was whatever to me. Don't care for it much but I don't hate it. It's just one of those movies I seem to fall asleep while watching.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 1, 2011 9:59:02 GMT -5
Yeah, it does have some problems but it's still not a complete waste at all.
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 1, 2011 13:53:39 GMT -5
When it first came out and I was like 9, this movie was the shit. I remember someone had a copy of it on VHS and it just got passed around the neighborhood until all the kids saw it. It's still fun to watch but on occasions just gets a bit dull to me for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 2, 2011 10:16:55 GMT -5
I pulled it out a while ago when my cousins wanted a horror marathon for Halloween and they said it was too dry (no nudity, no gore) and they were about ten or eleven so I thought that was kinda surprising, and potentially the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 27, 2011 13:02:55 GMT -5
That's pretty fuckin' funny.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 28, 2011 10:00:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm proud of them. They want to come over and watch the stuff I've got, and they're not put off by it at all. I just showed Burial Ground to my 11-year-old cousin and she loved the hell out of it.
|
|