|
Post by GL on Apr 4, 2007 10:46:47 GMT -5
Well, I think its fair to say that I don't feel any of the sequels measured up to the original; that's my point. I absolutely loved the ending to the first one, it was an almost perfect film to me and it was a chilling ending. None of the sequels measured up, the logic flaws and the continuity flaws became absurd after awhile. And like with Freddy, Micheal Myers just isn't scary anymore. That decline started at the end of part two, he became just another movie monster. I do believe that the other films take away from the punch of the original a bit. So I personally would have preferred to see something different rather than them beating a dead horse so to speak; yes, I enjoy a few of them, but they aren't as good as they could have been. If they had been genuinely GOOD films that measured up in my opinion, since this is all based on individual opinions, then there wouldn't be the criticism. So I can still wish that they had taken a different approach. And every time I watch one of the sequels, that's how I feel. I am not judging it based on the fact it was not done the way Carpenter at first intended, but judging it because it isn't that strong of a film, just like most of the sequels are just not very strong films. Fun, and has its moments (and better than H20 and Resurrection in my opinion) but didn't even come close to touching the greatness of the original. And because of that it makes me wonder what could have been. Right, I get that, but it originally felt like you were complaining about it for not being what Carpenter originally wanted, and to me, that's not a viable reason. I know it's not, but that's what it read to me, that it was being dismissed because you wanted the different movies on Halloween night series of films rather than the slashers. I'm not going to stand anywhere and say that this one is better made than the original, I just get more entertainment out of it and am more likely to return to it, as the original is pretty blase for me now, while this one keeps me entertained. But when it comes to be better made, the original will be counted every single time.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 4, 2007 11:54:33 GMT -5
No, my issue is always with directors and writers not trying anything new, and putting more and more of the same out there. And this WAS more of the same, and continues in a way that made it all kind of silly. My complaint lies not with the fact that they are slasher films, or that they even feature Micheal Myers, but that they aren't that good in my opinion, and the people involved KNEW that, instead of using some creativity and putting something else out there, they do the same thing over and over again. Which is the way I feel about most of these series, A Nightmare On Elm Street especially. Love the original, and feel they should focus more on doing more to do justice to the originals. My point is, and will always be, try to bring some creativity and originality back. Besides the fact, remember I did give it a three, which is far from dismissing this film. I actually think it is one of the better ones featuring Myers, after 2 and 4.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 5, 2007 10:43:50 GMT -5
Well, that part is true. Managing to change a few incidental items here and there that no one really cares if it's changed anyway never really doesn't classify a film to say that it's a different kind of film.
But the fact still remains that it has to be good at what it does. H6 is great at what it is, as being a slasher film, it needs a respectable body count, stalking scenes, and inventive kills which this provides in spades in all three areas. That's why I'm a little more partial to it: it does the rules of the slasher genre expertly, and as it has a plot that can at least handle 70 minutes of screentime, it's far more overlookable offenses are washed out.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Aug 18, 2007 4:15:14 GMT -5
After reading the article on the Halloween fan films in the latest Rue Morgue mag- i decided to do some you-tube surfin' to check em out- and i came across the much bally-hooed alternate scenes that i'd only ever read about before. And I must say i would have loved this moved so much more had it not been hacked to pieces and draped and displayed for all to see ala Annie from the original Halloween. To think this film was dedicated to Donald Pleasence after most of his scenes had been pillaged. Dimension didn't (and still doesn't) have a clue!
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 18, 2007 10:26:11 GMT -5
I still haven't seen the Producer's Cut of this one, where did you say you saw the footage?
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Aug 18, 2007 21:27:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 19, 2007 10:50:23 GMT -5
Cheers for that. I'll give them a look.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 26, 2008 11:01:21 GMT -5
I gave it a 1.
It is stylish and has great sound effects. But that's par for the course with all of Dimension's shockingly professional-direct to video horror films. I'd say the same thing about the Hellraiser and Children of the Corn sequels.
Everything else about it is pure trash. Every thing. But in order to avoid the usual Question and Answer period - I'll list my greviances with the movie:
1. The Abusive Father 2. The re-creations of the original Halloween theme(s) 3. The "Beavis & Butthead" Brother character 4. How many times are we going to see the same rickety, tired old performance from Donald Pleasence? Give the man a break. 5. The horrible Radio D.J. character (a poor imitation of Howard Stern and the actor is an even poorer Harry Anderson clone) 6. The over-the-top performances from everyone else (although, Ms. Blankenship was okay) 7. The unbelievably tired and played-out "Boy's/Kid's in Danger!" cliche (when will it ever end?) 8. The Druid mythology stuff is just lame 9. Many of the "kill" scenes weren't good (they even sort of ripped off Bud's death in Part 2) 10. The phone call the mother gets when she's leaving the house diminshes the fear factor of the "killer in the house" tension 11. Yet another "Baby" in a horror movie. These things just never go over well. Nobody learned anything from Nightmare on Elm Street 5 - did they? 12. If Michael Myers is the only person killing people ... why in addition to the cult, do they have the son, Danny, acting weird? Already been done (about 50 times)
There are more, but my head is spinning just from the ones listed here.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 26, 2008 11:23:30 GMT -5
Hmm, not one that I can easily pick apart. I'll just say:
A fast-paced, hyper-violent affair with a great spread of kills, an imposing Michael and mask, with tons of tension and suspense. At times, it's my favorite in the series, others it's number 2.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 26, 2008 13:15:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I may have used too many words.
"Crap" seems to be the most appropriate thing I can say about it.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Jan 26, 2008 13:47:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not a fan. But I always feel that the makers of any film, no matter how bad - deserve credit for at least finishing a film. That is an accomplishment unto itself.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 17:28:02 GMT -5
Well, you know what I think. I have always thought the most important thing in horror is to get the movie finished. We can never have too many horror movies. Quantity is where it's at.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 12, 2008 11:20:43 GMT -5
True. I watch just about everything, no matter how bad. It makes me annoyed with films at times, but it's harmless fun at times.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 13, 2009 11:53:02 GMT -5
Never seen it
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on May 31, 2011 14:33:28 GMT -5
Just when I thought I was safe from Paul Rudd again......he shows up in this god damn movie! I give it a 1. My least favorite in the series.
|
|