HNT
 Grizzled HMaM Vet 
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Aug 9, 2006 21:59:17 GMT -5
Halloween 2 is exactly what you'd expect. Nothing more and nothing less. It holds up pretty well for an extremely derivative sequel, but it never really transcends being a derivative sequel to become anything more substantial than that
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 4, 2006 12:05:21 GMT -5
Having finally gotten around to seeing it:
“Halloween III: Season of the Witch” is a very wrongly maligned movie, and is actually pretty decent on it’s own.
**SPOILERS**
A community in Northern California is rocked by a series of deaths, and Dr. Dan Challis, (Tom Atkins) decides to investigate with Ellie Grimbridge, (Stacey Nelkin) the daughter of one of the dead men. The search leads to the small town of Santa Mira, where the big business is Conal Cochran, (Dan O’Herlihy) and his company, Silver Shamrock, which makes Halloween masks for children. When they suspect something not quite right about the whole set-up, and the true nature of the masks and their purpose is fully revealed. Dan and Ellie race against time to stop the nefarious plot before it’s put into action.
The Good News: There is potential here, really. The story, while not great by any means, is still clever enough to work. It’s a new idea that has the potential for some wonderful moments spread throughout, and this does exactly that. The build-up is engaging, the differences presented to the townspeople throughout are enough to give a sense of the unknown, and the plot twist at the end is a real eye-opener. The same can be said for the gore effects as well. There are heads ripped off, eyeballs gouged out, skulls turned into bugs and snakes, robots smashed apart and one is pinned to a bed by a laser beam through their mouth. There’s plenty of blood splatter on display as well, making this a pretty bloody affair. When it does showcase some action, it’s not that bad at all. The opening, where an android walks into a hospital and kills a victim, then setting itself on fire, is as great an opening half as there could’ve been, working in some great action and mystery in there as it transpires with no explanation given, and is thoroughly creepy. A fight with an android which continues on even after its decapitated is the supreme highlight, mixing an aura of suspense and dread with high action that works wonders. Overall, this is a wrongfully maligned film of the highest order.
The Bad News: Yes, there is no Michael Myers in here, but that shouldn’t be the soul reason to cast off this film. There are a few other areas in need of fixing as well. The pace of the film is the biggest culprit. It moves along at a very, very slow pace, and pretty much blows off many important sequences since they’re mostly played off as being there mainly to slow the film down. It really drags itself out needlessly, and could stand to do with some editing down, especially in the second half when the plot swings a little more upbeat. The motives for the villain is pretty ridiculous and don’t really make a whole lot of sense at all. Take the jingle whichever side you want to, but it doesn’t really make a difference in the rating.
The Final Verdict: Despite the fact that Michael Myers is nowhere to be seen in here doesn’t make it a maligned movie. It’s decent enough on it’s own to warrant a viewing from the less discriminating crowd, but if you’re not able to get over that, then just bypass it all together.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, and Brief Nudity
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonx on Nov 13, 2006 8:09:06 GMT -5
I refuse point-blank to vote for this movie because it STINKS. Even thinking about this movie makes me want to slit my wrists and gouge my eyes out. If I ever meet the person who thought that this movie wasn't shit, here is what I'd do to him. |
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 13, 2006 11:12:15 GMT -5
Well, bring it on, as I enjoyed the hell out of this one. So it doesn't have Michael, big deal. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by razors on Jun 12, 2007 18:31:04 GMT -5
I had to right to type that review because I've never even seen the movie. I was a bit of a butthole last year. lol
Sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 13, 2007 10:36:23 GMT -5
Well, as long as you're willing to move on, no problem.
Just don't think of it as a Halloween movie. Watch it as a horror film set around that time, you might end up liking it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Jun 14, 2007 5:47:58 GMT -5
Just don't think of it as a Halloween movie. Watch it as a horror film set around that time, you might end up liking it. I gotta disagree there it is a Halloween movie-just not a Michael Myers movie. Stylistically it has more in common with parts 1+2 than any of the other sequels especially the opening sequence where on first viewing you almost believe that it is Michael chasing the victim. I totally love what Carpenter was trying to do here and wished he'd succeeded |
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 14, 2007 10:05:18 GMT -5
I meant it as:
Don't watch it as a Halloween movie, watch it as a movie that takes place on Halloween.
While there are several stylish choices (Why couldn't Dick Warlock's character have been Michael?) I don't view this as a Halloween film at all. There's no connecting storylines beyond the cameo's, which are kayfabe connections and not characterization ones, there's no stalker at all despite the rest of the series being about stalker/slashings, and there's really only the fact that it takes place on the same day that they have in common.
|
|
|
|
Post by razors on Jun 18, 2007 18:17:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll probably have it taped next time it's on tv. Don't read this |
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jun 19, 2007 10:39:44 GMT -5
I think your DVD version is uncut, I'm not sure. That'll be a little easier, as I don't know about your TV system, but it's only on at Halloween here in the states.
|
|
|
|
Post by slasher on Dec 20, 2007 21:18:58 GMT -5
i gave it a 1, i hate this movie.
i don't even count it as part of the series...
it never happened, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 21, 2007 11:07:41 GMT -5
Ah, another one of those "No Michael, not a Halloween entry" ones out there. I'd feel a little better if you're problems with it were based on something other than that, as it's pure BS to have a problem with the film based solely on that. You look past it and still have problems, fine, that I can handle, but to decry the film merely for the lack of Michael is one of the most irritating parts of being a horror fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Dec 21, 2007 12:22:59 GMT -5
I agree that's probably the wrong reason to dislike this film. I mean, I understand why, you expect one thing and get something different.....its disappointing. My husband felt the same way, though I think he honestly doesn't like the film (I think he still finds it a bit irritating...LOL). When he first watched it though, he was a kid, had loved the first two movies and he was expecting a Micheal Myers film.
But you have to look past that, and in my opinion actually respect that they were trying to do something a little different. And in my opinion, that is a very good thing, and is a huge plus in its favor. The movie itself is flawed, sure, but not fatally though, I find it enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Dec 21, 2007 12:47:13 GMT -5
personally i prefer watching this more than any of the past 5 Michael movies
|
|
|
|
Post by slasher on Dec 21, 2007 19:43:23 GMT -5
ya i was expectin Michael...
but still, by itself without the series name, its trash, just my opinion...
if it was even decent, i would include it in the series
|
|
HMaM Global Mod
Our FB Admin
HMaM Global Mod
