|
Blast Fantasto posted:That was one of my favorite parts about H40, is that it very much leaves it open as to whether or not Michael gives a poo poo about Laurie at all. I think it would have been pretty interesting if Laurie had to recon with the fact that she ultimately meant nothing to Michael. Considering how she spent her whole life waiting for him, that would have been a pretty effective gut punch. As it is, she gets to believe that he really did come for her, whether that was the truth or not.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
The "lore" is pretty effective though, because while I was watching the movie I kept thinking "he's totally going after Allyson because she's Laurie's granddaughter!" despite the fact that Michael has no idea who she is, and wouldn't care even if he did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I think it would have been pretty interesting if Laurie had to recon with the fact that she ultimately meant nothing to Michael. Considering how she spent her whole life waiting for him, that would have been a pretty effective gut punch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Halloween: It's Not About You
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Laurie is basically Captain Ahab, if Captain Ahab defeated the whale and saved his crew in the end and said, “finally I’ve killed this whale that took my leg and was, in fact, after me all these years”
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
What I really love about this movie is how they take time to flesh out everyone, even if they’re only on screen for a few minutes. There are no disposable characters, they all have personality and and when they get butchered suddenly it hits harder. This version of Michael Myers is a great return to form as the ur-slasher. No backstory, no motives or ghosts , just pure malice; insensible and human.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
I liked how nothing actually contradicted Haloween II except for the body count, which can be sort-of hand waved away if the hospital deaths weren't connected to Myers (and instead attributed to the fire.) There were even a few suggestions that the events "happened," like the stress on having "read everything in her file, everything" and the urban legend about Myers being Laurie's sister. It was cool to leave it somewhat compatible if you squint at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Late to the thread but I really liked it. I was very pleased with how pretty much every one of Michael's victims where given at least a little scene or two to make us give a poo poo when they where killed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Laurie is basically Captain Ahab, if Captain Ahab defeated the whale and saved his crew in the end and said, “finally I’ve killed this whale that took my leg and was, in fact, after me all these years” Yeah he was so bent on killing her that he spent forty years not trying to escape from prison
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Yeah he was so bent on killing her that he spent forty years not trying to escape from prison
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
TheLoneStar posted:And even after he got out, he gave zero shits about her (even when she shot at him) until he was literally delivered to her doorstep. Kind of contradicts his stalking of her in the very first movie, unless he did that to multiple people and Luarie was the only one to notice, but I doubt it. 1978 is the urban legend version of the story, not a literal retelling of events
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
TheLoneStar posted:Kind of contradicts his stalking of her in the very first movie, unless he did that to multiple people and Luarie was the only one to notice, but I doubt it. This is exactly what happens though? The whole point of the sequence where Annie wipes the windshield before attempting to drive off in the original movie is that Michael has been stalking her as well and she was too dense to notice. We also see him stalking Tommy from the pov shot during the daytime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
talktapes posted:This is exactly what happens though? The whole point of the sequence where Annie wipes the windshield before attempting to drive off in the original movie is that Michael has been stalking her as well and she was too dense to notice. We also see him stalking Tommy from the pov shot during the daytime. I don't think Michael was stalking Tommy in 1978, he just happened to be there. He was definitely stalking the three babysitters, though. BENGHAZI 2: Loomis says outright in the first movie that Michael spent 15 years waiting for some signal that only he could see before he broke out of the asylum. That signal never came again, so Michael never started again until the vlogger set him off. And when he does, he slips back straight into the same pattern he was in 40 years before. In fact, it's not reaching too much to say that the reason Michael doesn't stalk Laurie in 2018 is because he's looking for her in 1978.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
I recently rewatched it but I kind of agree that Michael would have just kept going door to door murdering people if there wasn't any interference. He stalks multiple people in the first one. If Laurie didn't go out after him he'd have just continued to do that. He wasn't looking for Laurie. I think it had more to say about victims and their abusers where sometimes confrontation can help but other times you have to find some other way past that trauma. " Got you" is top tier horror moment. Michael is a killer of opportunity and I thought that really showed it well. Until she had convinced him she was weak and unable he wasn't gonna barge right in. He's not like a mindless killing machine which I think makes him so distinct. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but what I liked about H40 is that it recemented Michael as a serial killer, rather than an amorphous slasher antagonist. He’s a human, albeit with peak strength, and the second he gets free he just goes on a Ted-Bundy-at-a-sorority-house berserker streak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I don't think Michael was stalking Tommy in 1978, he just happened to be there. He was definitely stalking the three babysitters, though.g The signal was obviously the appearance of the Constellation of Thorn. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I don't think Michael was stalking Tommy in 1978, he just happened to be there. He was definitely stalking the three babysitters, though. Yeah nah it's the thing I said Also it had nothing to do with the blogger and everything to do with his crazy doctor busting him out
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Yeah he was so bent on killing her that he spent forty years not trying to escape from prison But Laurie never happens to recon with the fact that she never really meant anything to her, and in her own mind gets to be vindicated when he shows up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
talktapes posted:This is exactly what happens though? The whole point of the sequence where Annie wipes the windshield before attempting to drive off in the original movie is that Michael has been stalking her as well and she was too dense to notice. We also see him stalking Tommy from the pov shot during the daytime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
General Dog posted:But Laurie never happens to recon with the fact that she never really meant anything to her, and in her own mind gets to be vindicated when he shows up. Gosh if only this movie was about how Laurie was incredibly traumatized by the events of 78 and isn't thinking about it rationally
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:1978 is the urban legend version of the story, not a literal retelling of events To me the first Halloween happened as shown in the movie. When she sees him across the street during class everyone remembers that part, but she's hardly the only person he stalks. Plus she does drop off the key at the Meyers residence which Michael notices. So Michael taking notice of her a little more (and of course trying to kill her in particular when she tries to find out what's going on) isn't beyond the pale. There's a difference between that and having a long running vendetta to kill one specific person like the later movies went into. But I also liked the idea of how every sequel "happened" too but as urban legends. It's much more realistic to acknowledge them in that way and comparable to say all the stuff written about Ed Gein that was taken as fact for years or how far the story of boy that was claimed to be possessed that inspired The Exorcist was from reality. Fart City posted:I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but what I liked about H40 is that it recemented Michael as a serial killer, rather than an amorphous slasher antagonist. He’s a human, albeit with peak strength, and the second he gets free he just goes on a Ted-Bundy-at-a-sorority-house berserker streak. I loved this so much, they had their cake and ate it too by managing to have him be so imposing and force-of-nature-esque, but still keeping him relatively grounded without any explanation of occult rituals or whatever other nonsense. I also liked that as others have said, without any interference he would have just rolled up and down the blocks of that suburb killing anyone that was alone. Like the boogeyman is something we bring upon ourselves, and Laurie gets vindicated and proven right. But it's also irrelevant to her whether this boogeyman was stalking her intentionally, or stalking at her house at the end because several characters around her went out of their way to set up this confrontation. I liked how the movie equates the vloggers and the crazy doctor, and how even if their motives are different, they're both pretty hosed up for wanting to engineer some kind of grand final confrontation. It was interesting to me because it was like they both have the "Hey, uh, have you ever just tried NOT being depressed?" approach to psychological treatment, the vlogger's to Laurie's trauma, and the doctor to Michael. Not that the doc thought he could cure Michael, but you can tell he thought he would gain like, supreme knowledge if he tried to mimic how Michael rolled - before the twist even happened they did a great job making him appear Renfield-esque with smart use of his wound dressings the extra jacket to give a strait-jacket imagery. Michael is immortal not because the guy is more than human, but because no one with the ability to do so (besides Laurie) actually wants him to go away. So Laurie is vindicated and correct, but she's not vindicated and correct to think that Michael was coming for her, she was vindicated and correct to think that everyone who completely failed to help her over the years would be the death of her via Michael if she didn't stay prepared and in wait. The ending is dark in that respect even if it's abrupt - three generations of women who were hosed over by this survive together, but also Laurie's worldview of folks if proven right. I love that the granddaughter picks up the knife at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Gosh if only this movie was about how Laurie was incredibly traumatized by the events of 78 and isn't thinking about it rationally I mean, I guess an arc might have been nice? Like if she could go from point A to point B as a character, as opposed to never really having her worldview challenged. All that said, I'm talking about the movie I wanted to see, this movie had different ideas and that's fine. It's a fine movie. General Dog fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
The ending is bittersweet because Laurie just passed down that trauma she experienced to her Grand daughter. If the doctor wasn't involved and it was just chance Myers escaped then Myers just would of have kept on with the neighborhood killing spree maybe the cops would have stopped him or a manhunt maybe. It was really only the doctors and Laurie's insistence to have a confrontation that led to the ending. The doctor was driven insane by wanting to know the motives of Myers which is just like trying to figure out the motives of a hurricane or why bad things happen. I kind of feel this was the issue with Zombies Halloween as well he had to give a origin. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
It's out on video now, guys, so if you missed it in theaters or want to add it to your Home Video Library now you can. I just saw it the other day, and I'll have to admit my initial reaction could be summarized as What the gently caress? Because despite feeling like I'd read up quite a bit on the movie and had a pretty good handle on what it was going for, it was really not the movie I was expecting, to the point I felt put off and alienated. Giving it some some time and thought, what threw me for a loop was that I went in expecting "direct sequel to Halloween" and to me this was not a direct sequel to Halloween in anything but the most literal plot sense. The movie has this exaggerated and intensified aesthetic, even feeling like a bit of a cartoon at times: the characters are all really goofy and play toward archetypes, there are frequent extended comic sequences, incredibly ostentatious death scenes (Myers stomps a guy's head and mashes it like a watermelon!), there's this pervasive contrived cynicism to the story and while the first Halloween was definitely not a Hallmark Channel movie, this feels like everything and everyone has been deliberately placed where they are in order to show how lovely most people are and the world in general is. Laurie's portrayal (who actually isn't even in the movie all that much, something I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone bring up) is frankly kind of ridiculous, which fits right in with the rest of this particular movie but again just feels so darn goofy to me in a way that feels at odds with the original film which I had presumed this movie was going to bend over backwards to evoke. Truth be told, I think this Halloween feels much closer in spirit to Halloween 4 & 5 than the first, which was shocking to me. All of this is me projecting my expectations on the film, because I realized that if this were called Halloween 11 I don't think any of these observations would have bothered me at all. It was a misunderstanding on my part - this movie does not "ignore" all the other Halloween sequels at all and in fact does just the opposite: it's actually a kind of greatest hits pastiche of all the Halloween movies. It turns out it's appropriate that it's called Halloween and not Halloween II, because spiritually it's not a sequel, it's something of a remake - of the entire series. I think it'll be a while before I can fully get the bitter taste of that first viewing out of my mouth, but I can appreciate this Halloween for what it is (and this movie definitely had its share of moments that I liked) even if I'm still disappointed by what it isn't - honestly it'll probably always baffle me that after pulling such an incredibly audacious move as completely junking all continuity with the rest of the sequels, these filmmakers had the opportunity to attempt "THE" sequel to Halloween and they didn't even go for it. I actually kind of wonder what exactly made John Carpenter give his blessing to this sequel when he didn't for any of the others - this still has the feel of a "trashy" slasher sequel, even if it's more competent than usual. Maybe he just thought, "Eh, gently caress it, I'm not getting any younger and it's the anniversary and who knows if they'll ever get Jamie Lee back again, maybe I'll be a good sport and give 'em this one."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
i thought it was a pretty good sequel
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
It was a fantastic sequel
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
nah, it was bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
nah, it was good
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
It's actually REALLY good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I think it'll be a while before I can fully get the bitter taste of that first viewing out of my mouth, but I can appreciate this Halloween for what it is (and this movie definitely had its share of moments that I liked) even if I'm still disappointed by what it isn't - honestly it'll probably always baffle me that after pulling such an incredibly audacious move as completely junking all continuity with the rest of the sequels, these filmmakers had the opportunity to attempt "THE" sequel to Halloween and they didn't even go for it. I think when you give it some time and then rewatch it, you'll probably appreciate the technical aspects of the movie a lot more. It really is a very well shot, excellently lit, stylish movie. So in that sense for me it lived up to the expectations set by the original. Throw in an absolutely fantastic new score by Carpenter and I dunno, I think some of your points are still valid but the overall experience for me totally worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Michael must have hit a serious late-teens growth spurt. But seriously, it didn't ruin the movie or anything for me, but it did kind of bother me how tall Michael was (although the actor's performance was good). Maybe the best things about Michael in the original was how unremarkable he was in appearance- both his stature and what we see of him when he's unmasked. General Dog fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Well, I mean...it's the same guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, I mean...it's the same guy. I think the original guy is in like one shot, somebody new plays The Shape for the rest of the movie. The new guy (James Jude Courtney) is 6'3" according to Google. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9kYwd90i9E
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Wait what??
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Yea they brought Castle back for that one shot where Michael is in the window, I guess they could do that because the difference in height could be hidden that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Michael must have hit a serious late-teens growth spurt. I liked that he had male pattern baldness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I liked that he had male pattern baldness. He had a Tom Noonan vibe which was very creepy. I loved the gray hair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think when you give it some time and then rewatch it, you'll probably appreciate the technical aspects of the movie a lot more. It really is a very well shot, excellently lit, stylish movie. So in that sense for me it lived up to the expectations set by the original. Throw in an absolutely fantastic new score by Carpenter and I dunno, I think some of your points are still valid but the overall experience for me totally worked. I get this for sure; I find it irritating myself when I see others judge movies (and everyday things in general) almost entirely by how well they do justice to some specific idealized form, so I try to compartmentalize my feelings and opinions even if it's hard sometimes. Honestly, H40ween could've been Citizen Kane-tier and it probably wouldn't have effected my initial feelings all that much. I just really took for granted that this movie's concept carried this intrinsic promise (which apparently I was WAY off about): that for 2 hours we're essentially entering an alternate universe where there never were any Halloween sequels or reboots before, that there were no precedents established that could tempt this movie to partake in the type of compromises, indulgences, and insecurities that shaped how the series had turned out, and it didn't even have to self-consciously try to avoid doing anything a prior sequel had already done; the original film would be the sole reference point, an attempt at a "pure" Halloween sequel that never actually existed. Of course this is what the movie was, I thought, why would they even do this otherwise? So I was staring at the screen with my mouth literally agape at points when the movie actually leaned in - purposefully, hard - on the various aesthetic tangents the established series had taken as well as its own crazy directions. It was sort of like seeing Batman Begins for the first time and then five minutes in having Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze dropping in. "Chill out, Batman!" The real irony, though, is that when I first heard about the plans for this Halloween I actually found it crass and cynical because I thought it was arrogantly disowning the series. Turns out it actually wears its affection for the series (warts and all) on its sleeve and ends up perturbing me even more. Go figure! lizardman fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
The part where Laurie says “I guess you’re the new Loomis” was basically fourth wall breaking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
lizardman posted:I get this for sure; I find it irritating myself when I see others judge movies (and everyday things in general) almost entirely by how well they do justice to some specific idealized form, so I try to compartmentalize my feelings and opinions even if it's hard sometimes. Can you give examples? I have very little experience with the sequels outside of the original sequel so I have no idea what you’re talking about or what is so egregious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:41
|
|
