|
Post by The Walking Dude on Feb 5, 2008 4:36:14 GMT -5
I agree H20 certainly had its moments and was definately the best one after this, but i found it to have some aspects i really didnt like(which i will discuss in its thread).
But what i particularly like about this one was that Michael was still very much the Boogeyman, before the contrived explanations set in.His attack on the Power Station shows a matured sort of logic, not content to disable the power at one simple loction, he obviously realises that he can operate much better if the whole town is covered in darkness,he then follows this up with an (offscreen) massacre at the police station, ultimately leaving the townsfolk nearly defenseless.
and that's where the lynch-mob subplot comes in adding an extra threat but also illustrating the collective mental scarring that Michael had inflicted on the town.
overall i would probably rate this a high 3 - Carpenter's presence is sorely lacking as is Dean Cundey's cinematography- it doesnt come close to the first 3 Halloweens.
and Lindsey Wallace's appearance is so token it really irritates, if she was gonna be in it i would have preferred her have a much larger role in the proceedings, much like Tommy Doyle in 6( one of that films only redeeming aspects)
|
|
|
Post by GP on Feb 5, 2008 5:09:03 GMT -5
All I can really remember of H20 is wanting to leave the cinema. It was glossier than the other lower budget sequels but for me it just didn't hit the mark and felt like any other sterile big studio teen slasher movie.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 5, 2008 11:11:30 GMT -5
4 is really high on my list in the series, mainly because, as Mat says, Michael plays an on-the-loose psycho here perfectly. He really has that knack of attacking the town and targeting everyone he possibly can with equal amounts of vengeance really well, resulting in a great deal of enjoyment and excitement in the latter half.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 6, 2008 8:57:44 GMT -5
what I particularly like about this one was that Michael was still very much the Boogeyman, before the contrived explanations set in. His attack on the Power Station shows a matured sort of logic, not content to disable the power at one simple loction, he obviously realises that he can operate much better if the whole town is covered in darkness, he then follows this up with an (offscreen) massacre at the police station, ultimately leaving the townsfolk nearly defenseless. That is an excellent point. I actually manage to forget about the scene at the police station every time. The first several times I watched it (as my 12/13 year old self), I couldn't figure it out, and it bothered me as well as disappointed me. But the scene at the power station always stuck with me as one of the only scenes of the film I thought really worked (along with the scene in the store of Jaime trying to pick out a mask, and the scene of her running alone in the school at night). However, you bring up a very good point. And with that in mind, my next viewing of this film may indeed be a scarier one for that insight. and that's where the lynch-mob subplot comes in adding an extra threat but also illustrating the collective mental scarring that Michael had inflicted on the town. I was never willing to buy into that. A) everyone pretty much knows they don't stand a chance against Michael. So the point of having this mob of people is simply to have a higher body count when Michael starts killing people off in groups (which we know will happen because of the high body count in part 2). B) what is something we know always happens with angry mobs of people with guns? They always kill / shoot / get someone. So, since we know it won't be Michael, we know they are going to kill an innocent person. And that happens. Predictably. Can see it coming from a mile away. So, now what's the point? We could go with your suggestion. But I don't buy it. Even when considering it, there is still the element of certain things always get a reaction. Mobs are the same as they were in Frankenstein: angry, unreasonable, maybe even a little paranoid, don't know what they're dealing with. So, that sort of overturns the movie's logic. Even if what you're saying is true of intention. overall i would probably rate this a high 3 - Carpenter's presence is sorely lacking as is Dean Cundey's cinematography- it doesnt come close to the first 3 Halloweens. That's probably one of the reasons why I rated Halloween 2 as high as I did. Not very high, but, that cinematography is priceless. Can't put a tag on it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 6, 2008 11:06:35 GMT -5
I was never willing to buy into that. A) everyone pretty much knows they don't stand a chance against Michael. So the point of having this mob of people is simply to have a higher body count when Michael starts killing people off in groups (which we know will happen because of the high body count in part 2). That's exactly why it works. You're adding more bodies to be hacked up, and you can never have enough of them.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 7, 2008 5:37:29 GMT -5
That's exactly why it works. You're adding more bodies to be hacked up, and you can never have enough of them. "Can never have enough"? Body-count is not the point of the movie, nor is it the point of putting the mob into the movie. So, no, that's not why it works. And I still contend that it doesn't work. But serves to drag the story down even more.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 7, 2008 11:11:26 GMT -5
To me, 90% of what makes a slasher work is the body count and the ways they're hacked up. Throwing in a storyline like that specifically for that purpose is what will add enjoyment for me.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 7, 2008 13:33:37 GMT -5
Well, let me tell you what is funny about that. Please.
The slasher subgenre, like all others in horror, are marked by their greatest achievements often being Rule Breakers. And the "body count" films get a lot of disrespect. For the very reason you mentioned. I can't say that's completely a bad thing.
With any trend, there's a lot of crud. Your "requirements" are more than anything else a recipe for failure. Making a film stupid and unambitious. We'll always get crud, don't worry. But you don't seem to be happy with a fair amount. You seem to want it all to be scum.
That's kind of sad.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 8, 2008 11:10:37 GMT -5
I watch a slasher for the "slash"-ing. That's the main thing that will appeal to me with these films. And most of the ones that try to buck that trend end up disappointing me. Give me these body count films over anything else any day.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 8, 2008 13:17:23 GMT -5
I watch a slasher for the "slash"-ing. Well there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I enjoy seeing that sort of thing myself. And I used to be more like you, with your main-objective being closer to my own. When I was younger, that is (and I'm only 25 now). It's just that, if you're not more open minded with a movie, you're going to miss out on a lot more ambitious filmmaking. That and, I hate people telling me there are rules. I usually try to break down rules whenever I see them. So, I think I'm fair in my saying, let's judge movies more based on Percentages. In any movie, you're not libel to get more slashing than anything else. The slashing often accounts for 5% maximum of the movie. I just try to say- let the slashing look good if nothing else in the movie delivers. That's my only rule. But I'm just open minded enough to enjoy things other than the slashing.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 9, 2008 11:35:31 GMT -5
I'm not much younger (I'm only 23) but I'm guessing that in years of being an active horror fan, I'm the youngest one on the board. That would make me 8, so I don't have as many years of watching them as many of the others around here do. I just have simple tastes for a slasher: give me a decent sized body count and off them in, creative, or more importantly violent ways. If it adds in points to increase that other than the set-up, fantastic.
I use the rules mainly to judge where they go compared to others. I'll notice and keep track, but it isn't to strike the film down with. It's to compare them to others afterward so I can figure out which ones from the genre I enjoy to pass onto others if they're interested in certain ones.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 7:45:55 GMT -5
Now, to hammer one last point in. And hope you understand:
Anyone can make a body count film. There's nothing special about that. And that's why there are more bad "body count" slasher films than slasher films that tried to be smarter, better, more ambitious, or say something / have some kind of message.
In fact, that's why horror has such a stigma against it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 11, 2008 11:25:20 GMT -5
I understand. I know what you mean, but for me, those are great films, and I'm sorry you're not able to enjoy them.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 17:22:43 GMT -5
Oh, I like them just fine. You know me: I say I think liking only death scenes hurts the genre. But it's a ballfaced ly. What I really mean is: we should pretend these movies suck in front of other people. But when we're alone, Dead Teenager Party! It'll be so freak an gnarly. I'll be Linda!
Who you gonna be?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 12, 2008 11:18:37 GMT -5
I'm leaning towards Annie, but that's not who I would be in real life.
|
|