|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Yeah. Like I said, I'm not a fan of H20, but Halloween II had a couple pretty cool set-pieces, and my favorite ever use of the song 'Mister Sandman' (which Rob Zombie used in his remake). I personally hated Halloween 2 (original). Too much of that movie was pointlessly gratuitous (razor blade in mouth), plain stupid (masked guy getting hit by police car mid street, ramming into a truck, and blowing up, annoying (dazed Laurie throughout the movie), or wtf (a hospital with a staff of 4 on Halloween). It was essentially them trying to ride on the Jason bandwagon, unfortunately. 4 had a lot of dumb, but it FELT like Myers to me. 7 was just acted and shot better than any of the other sequels; it lacked in kills, set pieces.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
4 was ruined by that stupid mask. How do you go from this scary menacing mask  to something that just looks stupid 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
He looks surprised. Like he was just caught somewhere he shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
Beaver Patrol posted:He looks surprised. Like he was just caught somewhere he shouldn't be. "Michael! What were you doing in my underwear drawer?" I've heard some pretty disappointing things about Final Destination 4. While the previous ones aren't exactly high cinema, the deaths were a great mix of "this could actually happen" accidents, creative elaborate deathtraps, or something between the two and executed almost humorously. Apparently, there's absolutely none of that this time around, and most of them are really uninspired and the results of the characters doing stupid things and more or less offing themselves because of it. And it's apparently only 80 minutes long (with credits) and more a vehicle for 3D "things are flying at you ALL THE TIME" technology than anything remotely interesting happening in the actual movie. Such a shame. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
So, the forum is in consensus that Halloween, Halloween 4, and Halloween: H20 are the best in the original series? After seeing H2 (2009) I've been in a mood for more ever since.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
Doctor Claw posted:So, the forum is in consensus that Halloween, Halloween 4, and Halloween: H20 are the best in the original series? After seeing H2 (2009) I've been in a mood for more ever since. I'd definitely rate Halloween 4 as the best sequel. It has its flaws, like that dumb as poo poo Michael mask, but its well shot, has a few great moments, and perhaps Donald Pleasance's best performance as Loomis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 05:21
|
|
|
So, when do we get Supermechgodzilla's analysis/review of the film? I'm honestly really looking forward to that. I guess I sort of liked it, but I felt it seemed too rushed in what it was doing, like it could have easily filled a 2 hour movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 06:01
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:The movie is out already? Shouldn't it come out on Halloween? The Silver Shamrock song's based on 'London Bridge is falling down',
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 06:19
|
|
|
Final Destination 4 was a complete piece of poo poo. I saw it for free and want reparations. One and two were good because they had a plot outside of just mindless death scenes. Three and four don't even pretend to try. I'm kinda bummed I didn't see Halloween II but I kinda hated the first one so v  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
Yeah, The Final Destination was kinda fun for the 3-D gimmick but it really was a terrible movie. In the previous films, death has worked its magic through accidents; in this one, death exerts too much control, twisting bolts, adjusting vacuum pressure, opening a sunroof, etc. Plus it has like ten thousand fake endings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 06:56
|
|
|
I loved Final Destination 4 until the end. Everything after the second preminition was pretty terrible. Other then that awesome. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 09:27
|
|
|
Sorry if some discussion has already occurred, but as someone with moderate horror experience in general, is it too much to ask, 'why slashers?'
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 10:14
|
|
|
Doctor Claw posted:So, the forum is in consensus that Halloween, Halloween 4, and Halloween: H20 are the best in the original series? After seeing H2 (2009) I've been in a mood for more ever since. Honestly there 's never been a fully satisfying Halloween sequel, but that's about the cream of the crop right there. You might also want to check out the original Halloween II since it it atleast captures the look and feel of the first one even if the story sucks. I'm not much of a fan of Halloween 4 but some fans swear by it so I guess it couldn't hurt to check it out. H2O is actually kind of dull in parts and feels like a Scream clone at times, but Jamie Lee Curtis and the ending make it worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 11:17
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Yeah, The Final Destination was kinda fun for the 3-D gimmick but it really was a terrible movie. In the previous films, death has worked its magic through accidents; in this one, death exerts too much control, twisting bolts, adjusting vacuum pressure, opening a sunroof, etc. Death only really cheated to turn a bolt early on. The rest was caused by "chance"; stuff hitting stuff that hit other stuff that rolled here, etc. This one had one of the best deaths that was later retconned out, and one of the funniest scenes (guy attempting suicide), but overall, it didn't feel as inspired as 3, even, and relied too much on 3D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 13:30
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:Sorry if some discussion has already occurred, but as someone with moderate horror experience in general, is it too much to ask, 'why slashers?' This question is pretty vague. It'd be like if I went into the fighting games thread and asked 'why fighting games?'
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:This question is pretty vague. It'd be like if I went into the fighting games thread and asked 'why fighting games?' As a slasher fan, if I had to explain what I liked about them, I'd have to paraphrase Scream and say it's a very simple formula: the setup, often featuring an opening murder, introduce the killer, introduce the victims, slowly pick 'em off, and then the 'final girl' sequence; and somehow, you've gotta pad that out to feature length. The enjoyment I get out of watching slasher films is seeing how the writer and director approach this formula, where they deviate from it and where they stick to the basics. Also, since slasher movies are so cheap and easy to make, you get a lot of first-time or otherwise inexperienced writers and directors. At times the results are terrible, and at other times these factors push them to do something really creative (Nightmare on Elm Street is still one of the most interesting variations on the slasher movie to me, not the least of which is the fact that, after that movie, every slasher started cramming supernatural elements into the plot).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
What year did H2 take place in? I thought it was the early 80's based off of all the old technology and such (analog radios, house phones, music choices, cars)...but I noticed a few mistakes. In the bookstore scene, the first guy who's book he signs talks about how Myers is better than Dahmer...and Loomis's assistant had a PDA. Am I wrong here? Also, H2 was pretty weird but I enjoyed it regardless of the weirdness....and Final Destination was ridiculous. Why would you go in a car wash when you just had an issue with your sunroof on your way to car wash
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:What year did H2 take place in? It takes place around "present time" or at least in the 2000s anyways. Zombie just like to overuse a 70/80s style in his films and insert stuff he thinks is cool from that time period. His first Halloween was the same, I was pretty certain for most of the film that it took place in the late 70s/early 80s due to cars/clothes/music until someone took out a fairly modern mobile phone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
I just want to say that The Final Destination was a pretty terrible movie. The 3D was decent but there is literally no plot at all. It's pretty much a film full of death scenes and many of those aren't particularly creative. Not even that girls amazing tits could save the movie from being horrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
FD4 was pretty fun. The 3D definitely adds to it, but I went to see it for grisly, creative deaths and that's what I got. If you were expecting some kind of deep plot after the first 3, I don't know what to tell you. It has the same plot as the other ones. It had a pretty badass credits sequence too; not really spoilery to say this, but it's a montage of X-ray versions of several of the deaths from the first three films. A lot of nice callbacks to the first three too; the only thing missing was Tony Todd. Darko posted:Death only really cheated to turn a bolt early on. \/\/\/There were two, and they pretty specifically showed that it was the force from the cars turning it. Bonk fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Aug 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:49
|
|
|
Bonk posted:The bolts were loose, and further rattled out by the vibration of the passing race cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:It takes place around "present time" or at least in the 2000s anyways. Zombie just like to overuse a 70/80s style in his films and insert stuff he thinks is cool from that time period. But IMDB places the movie in 1981. I don't know why he would have black and white televisions, rotary phones or things along that nature in the future. Are you sure he didn't just gently caress up the continuity?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:But IMDB places the movie in 1981. I don't know why he would have black and white televisions, rotary phones or things along that nature in the future. Are you sure he didn't just gently caress up the continuity? I doubt he hosed it up, I would imagine he just doesn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:But IMDB places the movie in 1981. I don't know why he would have black and white televisions, rotary phones or things along that nature in the future. Are you sure he didn't just gently caress up the continuity? Weird al in 1981? wtf, was he even famous then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:05
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:But IMDB places the movie in 1981. I don't know why he would have black and white televisions, rotary phones or things along that nature in the future. Are you sure he didn't just gently caress up the continuity? There's definitely mobiles and current technology in the films, Zombie just loves laying on his style extra thick. He does it in the Devils Rejects too (that's the only other of his films that I've seen.) Waterhaul fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Aug 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
Final Destination was really fun, you guys are sour pusses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:14
|
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:Final Destination was really fun, you guys are sour pusses. Not when its compared to the first 3. The first one was terrifying and the final scene in 3 scared the crap out of me. This one made me laugh. They ignored 4 people who shouldn't have been ignored on the death list. It was too short.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:Final Destination was really fun, you guys are sour pusses. Sorry, I need something in between ridiculous effects shots. Plus some of the kills were somehow too over the top for me. I think II had the perfect ridiculousness of kills matched with tense plot while one was a legit scary horror flick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
2 was the most enjoyable, yes. Great balance of funny and grim, and the gore was creative (barbed wire fence in particular). I wasn't a big fan of 3, and liked this one better. I'd put it 2-1-4-3, but I've had fun watching all 4. I was entertained and that's pretty much all I wanted out of it. And come on, diamond chunks through a fence was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
I remember when I saw My Bloody Valentine 3D and saw there was a lot of cool background depth stuff in addition to a few IT'S COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN RIGHT OUT YOU stuff. I thought, "Hey, maybe 3D will be tastefully this time around and won't be such a gimmick." Then I saw Final Destination 3D. It's probably the worst of the 4, but it still had some pretty good deaths. The guy getting his intestines sucked out by the pool pump and the girl getting eaten by the escalator. The pacing felt really rushed. I mean the other 3 didn't have great stories, but they at least let you get familiar with the characters a bit. I thought the end had a really interesting concept that they really didn't do anything with. What if someone figured out that they could beat death by saving people who were supposed to die and adding more and more names to the list, so death would have to kill them before the main character. Anyway, not worth the $15 to see it in theaters. I'd just wait for it on Bluray and watch it in non-3D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 05:30
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:As a slasher fan, if I had to explain what I liked about them... Thanks for answering. I'm not a stranger to slasher films, but as a subset of horror in general, I'm still not sure what drives people like slasherfan or my old roomates to enjoy them so thoroughly. Tons of gore and neat-o deaths really only make up so many movies before it get old, you know? I'd ask the same of action movies, but that's been done. I'm paraphrasing badly here, but usually a slasher movie is really just an action movie where most of the characters die horribly and the music and lighting is spookier. Essentially, I see them as just cheering on blood for the sake of blood (unless you're Wes Craven, I guess), and once the movie's over, there's really no reason to watch it again, since none of the characters matter, all the plot twists are done, and most of them have no lasting message.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 06:09
|
|
|
Saw Halloween 2 today and have to say it was interesting. The deaths were brutal and actually had me cringing at points. The editing I feel is terrible and it can be chalked up to time/budget constraints or the fact that Zombie doesn't give a gently caress and just wants to do his T-rex movie. The timeframe of the movie is off as it was mentioned above. What loving year is it actually? How can Halloween be a trigger for her when it has only been one year? The way the therapist described was as if it was an existing problem. Hobo looking Michael is menacing and the tore up mask looks cool. His big loving beard is pretty sweet too. I have to say I still enjoyed the Friday the 13th remake more but Zombie did a better job with this than his Halloween reboot. Worth a see in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 07:10
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:Thanks for answering. I'm not a stranger to slasher films, but as a subset of horror in general, I'm still not sure what drives people like slasherfan or my old roomates to enjoy them so thoroughly. I don't really like "fun" slasher films. I like grueling, gritty, nihilistic slasher films. The tone doesn't matter to me as much in any other subgenre of horror, but the slasher film is as close to reality as any horror genre gets and I don't think they should be "entertaining." Hence, I like to be scared or disturbed by slasher films because it's an adrenaline rush and, when the house lights go on, I can be thankful that I'm not a victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 10:31
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:An alternative perspective:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 11:33
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Slasher flicks have lost that effect on me, so I've gladly taken the new wave of fun slashers, although I managed to find Feast boring for some reason
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 11:38
|
|
|
I think the formula has gotten tiresome, that's why I've come to find horror experiences in other genres, but at least they were able to approach it in a new way although t&a only goes so far...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 15:18
|
|
|
I should probably add that a large part of my love for slasher films specifically is nostalgia. I grew up on the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and as a kid I was always seeking out new slasher movies I'd never seen before. Watching a slasher movie I've never seen, especially one from the '80s, always takes me back. Here's a few good random slashers that are less well-known but do something cool with the formula: Terror Train My Bloody Valentine (original) A Bay of Blood (also known as Twitch of the Death Nerve) Black Christmas April Fool's Day The Prowler The Burning Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (not scary at all, but funny as hell) Maniac Also, if you're looking for a recent slasher flick that's genuinely scary, I thought Wolf Creek was criminally underrated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:I remember when I saw My Bloody Valentine 3D and saw there was a lot of cool background depth stuff in addition to a few IT'S COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN RIGHT OUT YOU stuff. I thought, "Hey, maybe 3D will be tastefully this time around and won't be such a gimmick." Then I saw Final Destination 3D. By this stage, everyone knows the formula, so the filmmakers really were just going "We know what you want, so here it is!" I mean, some of the main victims were actually named in the credits as 'Racist' and 'MILF'. Not a sign of anything remotely socially redeeming, but it was trashy fun that made me laugh more than some comedies I've seen recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
I quite liked Zombie's Halloween 2 and it was an improvement over the original. It's nowhere near the delta that separated HO1KC and The Devil's Rejects and it isn't as accomplished as the latter film, but it's still quite strong with some good choices (and some fair faults). The number one best choice in my opinion was remolding Myers as a hillbilly hobo. I know there is some friction about Zombie's hillbilly obsession but it is as least a comprehensive perspective and somewhat unique. The first thing that I think that remaking him almost in his own image was that it gave him a unique and imposing silhouette. I don't think Zombie's first remake really nailed an iconic image of the stalking horror but in this one I felt like he really captured that special something that made it his own. It wasn't just an aged mask but it was a whole package and played well into the level of violence he was after. Seeing him crossing fields and standing in profile it was unmistakable and wallpaper-worthy. Building the movie around post traumatic characters was also strong, especially if this is essentially a closed two-movie experiment. The film is a little incongruous at the beginning (I didn't buy Dourif as having just left his brutalized daughter's side and I don't even know what's up with the Loomis retconn) but his previous two-movie set was also a bit disjointed and this one settled in eventually. The intro sequence, essentially a self contained remake of Carpenter's sequel, is really good in my opinion from start to finish. He sets the expectations squarely where the rest of the film follows and makes it clear that it's about violence and not just varied kill sequences. The sequel's Myers is stabbing the ground beneath the people and their bones and hearts are just in the way. It's very effective in my opinion. For the most part, I think he worked out of his system whatever was driving the repeated sequence of women crawling away prostrate from Myers. Here it's just anger with the exception of one where he gets a little cruel repeating the past. The cast is okay, Dourif is a goddamn B-movie star and is much better used in this film than the last. Compton is given a lot to work with as a damaged Laurie and I think she was solid. Even Sheri Moon Zombie has moments reimagined as a virgin queen in the bizarre geometrical shape formed by old Myers, young Myers, Laurie, and herself. Loomis is given a bold remake as a glory hound and is probably too cartoonish for the film around him and doesn't earn his turn of perspective at the end. It's got problems. There's essentially no story and basically nothing stringing together who gets killed despite all of them being connected to Laurie in one way or another. Myers just knows where to go to kill someone close to Laurie with the exception of some random violence to keep the pace going. The final shot would have been something if it had a story and more development building toward it (like Halloween 4) but it's more an afterthought than it should have been. I think if he'd invested more into building a corruption of Laurie and transformed the final conflict area (which was actually an interesting scenario, where only the key players are trapped and surrounded but essentially cut off) into something that just focused on Laurie it would have been excellent. Instead, Loomis gets dragged in to the finale in a silly way, and then things go out in such a mundane way. Just imagining a finale that was staged like that twisted Lewis Carroll pumpkin headed feast makes me a little sad at how they ended things. I will say, there are similarities between this and his previous two films. In both cases, his first films had sequences that I thought were absolute genius and almost make me buy the DVD just for them (the entire Captain Spaulding section being a masterpiece of barely masked menace and grimy humor and the amazing climax of the first remake with the focus on Laurie as she finishes the nightmare). And the sequels seem to be lacking in those elements to the degree that I'd like to find a way to shoehorn the scenes in. All in all, I'm thinking this one is a 4/5 owing its recommended status due to the reimagined Myers and the step up in violence giving it the kind of unique feel that good remakes should have but hamstrung by a weak conclusion and essential plotlessness. On that note, I saw the 3D Final Destination. It's got a weak original catastrophe (possibly nothing will beat FD2's amazing intro), the lead actor has a perma-grin that ruins everything, it's got an incredibly douchey fratboy brah, and they don't even try and toss in a story or evolve the mythos. But death's revenge kills are pretty varied and gory and I appreciated that and the 3D isn't bad. Don't see it 2D because I don't think it stands up to even #3 on its own two feet (needs three feet). 3/5 prob 2/5 if you see it in 2D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I'm not trying to troll or be a dick or anything but are you loving kidding me? I went into this expecting a mediocre slasher with decent gore and the whole Rob Zombie twisted-grimy-seventies-redneck motif and - keep in mind that I got pretty much what I expected - I was entirely disappointed. The white horse thing was objectively bad. Like, "this is so bad it is literally impossible to have another opinion about it" bad. I saw Zombie on some show talking about how he was going to humanize Michael Myers and I knew it was going to be some retarded poo poo, but following his mother and a loving white horse around from victim to victim? And Myers sharing some kind of psychic link with Laurie that apparently allows her to see it too? I also took strong issue with the fact that Michael was able to bounce from victim to victim knowing pretty much exactly where Laurie was at all times. I mean, how in the gently caress did he manage to track one of Laurie's friends down at the party, then all of a sudden end up at the sheriff's house? gently caress, how did he even live after being shot point-blank in the head about six times in the first one? I'm totally willing to suspend disbelief with a movie like this but some scrap of an explanation - something, anything - would have been better than what we had. Those two minor points on top of about a billion other things that make up the reservoir of poo poo that was that movie. Zombie pretty clearly peaked at Devil's Rejects (a movie I love dearly and still take time to watch once a month or so). I would rather piss live scorpions than ever sit through that poo poo again. I'd rather watch Eddie Curry take a sensual bath with Whoopi Goldberg. gently caress that stupid piece of poo poo and gently caress Rob Zombie if he could seriously watch more than 20 minutes of that without realizing how abysmally loving bad it was. I pray to god he's just using it as a moneymaker to finance some of his own IP for his fifth movie, because god-loving-drat. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 03:34
|
|