Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Slashers' started by fceurich39, Jun 16, 2004.
Resurrection is the worst, H6 is a close second. H20 is leaps and bounds ahead of those.
You'll never hear any disagreement from me about Resurrection being the nadir of the series. I consider it one of the worst films of all time. Conversely, I'm not going to yell too loudly about H6; despite it's awfulness you can count on the fact that I'll watch it, like, eight times a year.
Can't agree with your assessment of H20 or the Zombie flicks, though. Whatever your opinion of the final product they at least had a legit purpose for being. H20 brought JLC back to the series to wrap up Laurie Strode's tale and celebrate the 20th anniversary of the original. Zombie's remake reset the continuity clusterfuck the series had become and H2 was a valid continuation of his first film. H6, on the other hand, tried to de-mystify the mystique of the series by explaining things that required no explanation. In doing so, painted the series into a corner. A strobey, druidic corner.
Definitely agreed here. H6 tries too hard to tie everything together and explain everything that it really doesn't leave any time for an actual story.
I agree 100%. I don't think pure evil needs motivation. But if we're going to have motivation forced on us, I'll take the Druids and Thorn over white horses and the parenting skills of William Forsythe and Sherry Moon Zombie--all week long and twice on Sunday. At least Thorn comes with a Donald Pleasence chaser.
And any man who watches H6 eight times a year is good with me. Ha.
Hardly the same things, though. Michael's motivation in the Zombie films is that he's batshit insane and wants to kill (he's not being controlled by his mom, contrary to what some want to believe), which is hardly any different than the original in that regard.
And technically speaking, H6 Michael doesn't have a motivation, at least not until the end of the film (either cut counts here). He's basically a puppet for the cult until they lose control at the end. Then his motivation is to get the baby and kill anyone in his way.
Your mileage obviously varies. I strongly disagree. The Zombie films portray Myers as a generic serial/spree killer. His background couldn't be more stereotypical if he showed him lighting fires and wetting his bed (in addition to the strong focus on animal torture, the third leg of the "holy trinity" in the evolution of serial murderers). Zombie's Myers isn't born. He's made. He even continues to evolve after incarceration at Smiths Grove.
That's not the case with Carpenter's Michael. In the original, there's no indication that Michael is anything but a normal kid in a typical All-American family. Then he suddenly snaps without warning. And he never comes back. He never speaks again and he remains pure evil.
Carpenter's point is that the the illusion of safety in suburbia is just that--and that true evil can be lurking inside apparently normal and innocuous people in familiar, safe locations. He even reinforces that with the cemetery caretaker's story--again about someone who suddenly and inexplicably becomes murderous.
That's my main objection to the Zombie films. He completely changes the fundamental nature of Michael. And even though Zombie's Myers is a foot taller and more physically intimidating, I find him a lot less frightening.
i never liked H20 to me it felt way too much like a scream movie i know i am gonna shit but i prefer resurrection over H20
Eh, to each their own. I like Zombie's down-to-earth portrayal of Michael. We have boogeyman Michael and real life Michael, and I like both for their own reasons.
Resurrection is way more Scream like in my opinion. There's certainly a level of Scream-ishness in H20 (mainly because Kevin Williamson had a hand in writing the script, and because H20 uses a lot of music from Scream), but I think Resurrection just takes it to a whole new level. It's also horribly dated with the whole webcam idea.
i definitely agree with that. zombie's remake takes all the fear out of myers.
To make it short, I agree.
Zombie's Michael is spookier than most of the other Michaels in my opinion. The scene in the remake where Michael appears from behind the door in the house and starts pushing around Paul's corpse as it hangs there is just creepy, and creepy in a DIFFERENT way than most of the other films.
I appreciate Zombie's take on Michael Myers. Obviously no explanation leads to theatre of the mind, which will always be more frightening. But I find myself going back to the Zombie films just the same. I loved the twist in the first film and the second film really showcases Scout Compton as an actress. Looking forward to a possible third.