Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Jul 3, 2011.
Sex in the City 2. :lol:
You wouldn't happen to be a hard core Republican, would you? :eek2:
That's uncalled for. Shape22 has been a terrific contributor to these boards for years. He is a big fan of the Halloween films, hence the photo.
Ha. I take it this means you don't want to further pursue rational discussion about this topic?
No one here is out to persecute you Jim. But you can't expect us to find validity in vague, unsupported criticisms about a landmark film. For instance, you say the camera work and directing in Halloween is nothing great. I would argue that the opening Panaglide sequence alone is a fairly remarkable technical achievement. The bulk of it was achieved with just 2 shots--which required tremendous dexterity from the Panaglide operator, a lot of carefully choreographed scrambling by the lighting crew just out of frame, and some nifty editing that makes the splice virtually undetectable. And that sequence is just one example of the wizardry on display in Halloween.
No one is trying to censor you. And it's not off-limits to dislike Halloween or voice your criticisms. But you can't just say, "huh huh, it sucks" like Beavis without some questions or push back.
And yeah, some Halloween fans occasionally dress up as Myers ON HALLOWEEN--or even use a picture from such an occasion as an avatar here. I appreciate your concern. But so far it hasn't prevented me from paying taxes, sustaining a marriage, or approximating a productive member of society.
Buck, thanks for the kind words.
no man, that's not true. honestly, you can pretty much say anything you want around here. you may get people disagreeing with you, even vocally at times, but that doesn't mean you can't say it. take a look at this thread:
At first JimSmith reminded me of a young DeathDealer (luv u, d00d) but then I started to get glimpses of MoonGirl84. This should be interesting...
can't we get along.
I never said halloween sucks I just don't see why people obsess over this movie so much. When this movie first came out no one was going to see it and it was getting bad reviews. If it's such a masterpiece then why wasn't it getting good reviews? Why weren't people going to see it? I'll take The Fog anyday over halloween. Now THAT film has some great and masterful shots in it! It also has a great story and excellent atmosphere! And it also doesn't have to rely on it's musical score either.
You do realize that when it came out Halloween was the highest grossing independent film of all time (so people were going to see it) and it got a lot of great reviews (Ebert's 4 star review comparing it to Psycho comes to mind). It's ok if you don't like the movie, but don't throw out false facts.
Please don't qualify the quality of a film over it's reviews. Halloween started the slasher film. As far as The Fog not relying on it's score, watch it again. The score is just as instrumental.
Wow, that's awesome. I never knew that photo was of you. All this time I thought it was a shot from the movie haha. Great job with the lighting!
I'm not going to comment on the origianl Halloween blasphemy talk and instead will comment on the titled thread discussion.
I picked part 3, even though I really do enjoy part 2.
No, I don't think part 3 is better then the original classic but as crazy as it is, it is one of my favourite horror films of all time, probably even in my top ten.
When I was younger I never gave it a chance and probably like most on here turned it off halfway though when I came to the realization that Michael Myers wasn't going to show up. I just didn't get it, or understand how they could be so ballsy to remove their main character from the third film after the first two were such a success. Now of course I totally appreciate this and wish they had went stuck through with their plans with a different story every Halloween. Totally!
Over the years though I gave it another chance, and after a few watches I have grown to love the film. Actually it has become an October staple in ym house and with every viewing it gets better and better.
The film just oozes with atmosphere due to the great cinematography and excellent electronic score, and personally I think this picture does a better job then the other Halloween sequels displaying the Halloween season. There are few films that just make it feel more like Halloween for that matter (Although Trick r Treat is a great recent example), especially when that catchy Silver Shamrock jingle hits on screen with the three dancing masks.
It also made me appreciate and idolize the man, the myth, the Atkins. He's such a badass and I can't help but laugh when he manages to bed the young woman, which he also manages to do with Jamie Lee Curtis in The Fog. His long white 'stach must have been hypnotizing in those days.
Yes, the effects aren't the best, but personally I think they work well with the film and actually add to its charm. The whole movie and it's story feels like an 80s rendition of a long lost Twilight Zone episode or some other 60 anthology series. It doesn't need lots of kills and gore, although a few of the deaths are kind of gross thanks to the copious amounts of insects draining out of the masks. They are done in a fun way though, where you turn your head away and laugh. They aren't offensive or sickening like deaths try to be in films now.
All of this is of course held together by Director Tommy Lee Wallace. He should not be overlooked as it's his Direction that makes this all work. This easily could have been a very bad film, but somehow a flick about robots, killer masks, and Stonehenge works, and very well I might add! Actually I used to think Carpenter Directed this because some shots have his style, that and of course he helped with the music. He delivers a tension and mood that is lacking in a lot of films that instead rely on gore and shock scares.
Anyways, I love this film and am not embarrassed to admit it, although I probably don't even need to write that as this is a film that over the years many have come to appreciate. It's no longer a film that you have to be ashamed to admit to liking. I can understand why others don't enjoy it though. If you are expecting and waiting for Myers to show up like I did many years ago, it's easy to come away disappointed if not angry. Or if you are expecting something really serious and scary, or a slasher film like the previous films of the series instead of the slow burning atmospheric ride with lots of fun and charm that it is.
Great post Spawningblue, your feelings match mine when concerning H3, though unlike a lot of people, the lack of Myers never bothered me the first time I saw it back in the late 80s.
To me, H3 is one of those movies that everyone should watch around Halloween (the holiday) each year.
Nice post Spawningblue. You summed up the strengths of H3 very nicely. Even though I'm obviously a Myers fanatic I'm a big fan of Season of the Witch.
I love a "good bad movie." And for me, H3 is the perfect example. It has glaring flaws that are easy to mock and criticize. But they just add to its charm.
Unfortunately only diehard genre fans seem able to get past the plot holes, lousy supporting turns, or outrageous dialogue in H3. But I'll gladly take all of that for all the fun this film offers. Who doesn't laugh at Atkins pawing the 60-something nurse at the hospital? Or Starker the drunken bum ill-advisedly screaming "Hey Cochran, F YOU!" Or Cochran's hilarious cop-out answer about how he arranged to transport a certain iconic seemingly immovable object? And if anyone can find a better line delivery of "who cares?" than what Atkins delivers here they deserve a prize.
Yeah, there are lots of more competent horror films that are "better" on an objective scale. But lots of them tread such familiar territory that they're boring as hell. That's never an issue with H3. Parts are silly and maybe even ludicrous. But there's always something funny or interesting going on. And I'll take a flawed fun movie over a competent dull one every time.
Sure there are a lot of warts here. But a lot of the elements that seemed to put off mainstream reviewers are obviously more tongue-in-cheek than outright inept. Doesn't it seem like most of the actors are practically winking at the camera? And the film isn't bad across the board. It really does drip with Halloween atmosphere. And the score and Dean Cundey's graceful mastery behind the camera make it look and sound a lot better than other low-budget films from this era.
Speaking of Cundey, I've always thought that he made H3 look more like a Carpenter film than JC's own work with other DPs. I think it's clear that Cundey deserves at least as much credit as Carpenter for what what we now think of as "the early Carpenter look."
Spawningblue, it's funny that you bring up that picture. When we were shopping for houses and we came to the one we ended up buying, my wife was looking at all the typical things. But all I could think was "holy shit. Look at that closet!" I knew that was going to come in handy around Halloween.
I can't believe PART 2 is coming out on Blu!! I will be FIRST in line to pick it up. How can Halloween fans bash it? I'm a little shocked really. I loved it as a kid. JLC is in it, a great pair of naked boobs (greatest boobs I had ever seen at the time), Myers back and cutting up people (gorier than the first although I love the first movie and it is my fav), the great razor blade in mouth scene (always had heard those rumors as a kid and nice to see it on screen finally), great score, Donald Pleasance (funnier than ever) and that hospital setting (I thought it owrked really well).
I actually do like Part 3 as well but it doesn't even come close to Part 2 and can't really be called a Halloween sequel (no Myers). The acting is awful (but lots of fun) and the story a little far fetched but it's still a movie that I want to own on Blu-Ray (love that creepy music!!). Release them all as far as I'm concerned!
Long live the Halloween franchise and all others too
I agree - I love Halloween 2 - Halloween 3 to me is not a "Halloween" (as in the franchise not the holiday) movie but is good on its own. I look forward to having both on blu. Just personally I do enjoy Halloween 2 more than Halloween 3
Those aren't "false facts" they're right straight from John Carpenter's mouth. He says in a featurette for The Fog DVD that no one was going to see halloween at first and it was getting lousy reviews and then it kind of caught on. Just look at the wikipedia page for the movie!
How does hating the first halloween movie make me a hardcore republican maybrick?!
When a movie is hailed as a masterpiece I will!
There was infinitely better camera work done on The Evil Dead! Come on now! Admit it!
What Carpenter said isn't untrue. But it's extremely misleading. You may not be aware of this. But at the time of Halloween's release it wasn't standard practice to launch low-budget films nationwide. A film like Halloween would open in a few select towns. If it did well enough, it would then open in a few more. And although the release would be announced by a small ad in the movies section of the local paper, that was the extent of advertising for a low-profile film like Halloween. All of this pretty easily explains why the film didn't come out of the gate like a rocket.
Today the same film would open with a national advertising blitz that would guarantee an audience. But in the case of Halloween, word of mouth had to do the heavy lifting. That's why glowing reviews from The Village Voice and other high-profile newspapers were so important to the film's ultimate success. These days reviews are largely irrelevant to box office results--as a list of the current top-grossing films will confirm. But in the 1970s bad word of mouth would kill a small film like Halloween. Reviews in the local paper were all people had to go on.
As far as the camera work in The Evil Dead (another of my favorite films), no, I don't think it's on par with Cundey's work in Halloween. Yes, it's flashier. And it's totally appropriate to the film that Raimi was trying to make. But despite a lot of extremely inventive shots, the overall cinematography is a lot more amateurish than anything Cundey has done. It's no accident that Cundey went on to work on some of the most high-profile films of his era. You might want to compare Tim Philo's resume to Cundey's. But the important thing here is that both films have appropriate visual styles. Just as the hyper-kinetic camera work in The Evil Dead defines the threat in the woods, Cundey's gliding perspective shots mirror the graceful movements of Nick Castle's shape.
First-person perspective shots were used in horror films before, most memorably in Black Christmas. But the use of the Panaglide camera suggested a more omnipotent killer--more a force of nature than a man. And the midnight blue lighting scheme that Cundey employed quickly became a slasher film cliche. So while Cundey's work is more subtle, it's not any less impressive. Hollywood certainly noticed.
It's obvious no one is going to change your mind about this topic. And I've definitely said more than enough at this point. I'll get off my soapbox now.