PDA

View Full Version : Halloween "Resurrection"


Loced Out Demon
07-13-2002, 05:44 AM
I just got back from the theater, this movie turned out to be better than i thought it would be, but not anything 2 special, it explains alot about michaels past, and has some kool killing scenes, real good muzik, it has its cheesy moments, but it had to have those to appeal to the teen crowd. the ending is pretty good. id say this one is almost as good as h20, and is better than part 6. I wouldnt plan on seeing busta rhymes win an award for this 1, but he did a good job. jamie lee curtis did a real good job. like my opinion on the jason x movie... its not easy to come up with fresh ideas for sequels this far down the road. good movie though I recommend checking it out if your a FAN of the series. otherwise u might wanna save your $.

my ratings for the entire series=

pt 1= A
pt 2= A-
pt 3= F
pt 4= B
Pt 5= B-
Pt 6= C-
H20= B
Resurrection= C

ever since these movies havent had dr loomis they havent been the same and i think most will agree. peace

Loced Out Demon
07-13-2002, 08:24 AM
dave made a topic bout this rite after i did, yall can delete this if u want

KillerCannabis
07-13-2002, 12:47 PM
I'll only reply so I can give my grades of the series also:

Halloween: A (The original classic, one of my favorites of all time)

Halloween 2: A (One of the best sequels to an original I can think of)

Haloween 3: B (I dont consider this a Halloween movie, but rather as John Carpenter's Season of the Witch. Its not as bad as people say it is.)

Halloween 4: B- (Not a great flick, but decent enough, good atmosphere)

Halloween 5: C (Bad idea, and fuck that "man in black" bullshit)

Halloween 6: C+ (Not as bad as I thought it would have been, but still FAR, far from good.)

H20: B+ (Pleasant surprise entry in the series, no doubt due to Miner's direction.)

Halloween: Resurrection: D+ (A piece of shit, DOA as far as I'm concerned.)

mcchrist
07-13-2002, 10:30 PM
Halloween 3 was the last true sequel. John had this idea to have a series of films that would take place on Halloween night (since he saw it was going to be sequeled anyway) so Season of the Witch was born. He was even planning on directing a few entries in the anthology, but NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Some people can't believe that other things can happen on Halloween night than some dork with a mask and a kitchen knife... At least that's what I understand....

J.H. "Two weeks without a cigarette..." McChrist

Loced Out Demon
07-14-2002, 12:38 AM
im suprised u actualy like pt 3, it was decent at best, i was dozing off during it, it was real repetive and not very scary at all... if i would have bought it i would have been VERY disapointed, im glad i was warned and i rented it instead. i reccomend that everyone rent pt 3 b4 the go head and buy it. BE WARNED, i have respect for your opinion tho mcchrist everyone has a different taste.

Fistfuck
07-14-2002, 12:56 AM
I can agree with everybody who voted for Howling: New Moon Rising and Zombie Lake, but there are two out there that haven't been posted about yet.

One is called Stagefright, not to be confused with Michael Soavi's giallo. I have no fucking clue what this movie was about. It attempted to be a mystery but seemed to forget that it revealed the murderer in the first couple minutes.

The WORST movie I ever saw is a film by the name of Blood Lake. I have only seen this movie at one Blockbuster, and I don't know how it got there. Despite being a horror movie, it featured 15 minutes.. yes 15 consecutive minutes.. of WATERSKIING. This movie was either shot on video or on 8mm and is by far the worst thing ever committed to celluloid.

Fistfuck
07-14-2002, 12:57 AM
WTF!? Somehow I posted this in the wrong area. SORRY GUYS! :o

betterdan
07-14-2002, 01:00 AM
Nothing like a fistfuck in the wrong place hehe

Fistfuck
07-14-2002, 01:22 AM
To state it simply, I was surprised and delighted with Halloween: Resurrection. I was going in expecting worse than H20, which I despise, and came out ranking it among the middle of the series.

I'll get the problems out of the way first. The main problem I had was WAY too many in-jokes and cultural references. I assume it would be fairly hard to make a movie about a reality-show without referencing reality TV-shows, but I feel the dialogue relied too heavily on those jokes rather than coming up with relevant exposition. It was interesting to see Laurie clutching the doll that laid on her bed in the original, but the inclusion of the red Firebird that Annie drove and a character (played by director Rick Rosenthal) named Dr. Mixter, among others, was a little too tongue-in-cheek.

Another problem I had was that Michael wasn't beat up enough. It's true that the unstoppable killing machine cliche is no longer (was it ever) a clever twist, but it's always fun to watch the badguy get his ass beaten in. And the Halloween series in particular has always enjoyed giving Michael what's coming to him. Remember Dr. Loomis going to town in H5? and the lead-pipe beating in H6 always raises my heartrate. Nobody really expected to see Michael still hanging from the wire when Busta jumpkicked him out the window, but he didn't receive enough punishment after that, IMHO.

The last problem is more of a disagreement in choice. Upon seeing the preview of H8, I figured Laurie Strode would return to final bring Michael down, whether she fell with him or not was to be seen. I didn't expect, which is a good thing, for Laurie to be knocked off in the first 15 minutes. As a filmmaker, I wouldn't have chosen that direction myself, but then again I'm only a sophomore at Temple and have yet to touch a piece of film.

Now, on with the goodies. Nudity, gore, and Busta. I hope that with the release of H8 and Jason X, the industry takes the hint that we want blood back in horror movies. Post-Scream horror films have shyed away from the use of blood for whatever goddamn reason, probably isn't PC enough, and horror fans have been slow to accept the fact that violence is no longer cool enough for movies. Halloween was never a very gory or graphic movie. It was, however, what I consider violent, and a bit more brutal. It doesn't let the victims get off easy by simply slicing their heads off or throwing them off buildings. Starting with Annie's death in the original, they've let the victims suffer awhile, taking time to make them feel pain before the final blow.

Also, nudity has not been a trapping of recent horror movies. I'm a 19 year old male and I've seen naked women before, and onscreen nudity does little to excite me, but it's the meaning behind the nudity that I enjoy, that the filmmaker's don't care about offending anyone and will give the fans what they really want.

Among everyone else, I was wary about going to see a Halloween movie starring Busta Rhymes. To anybody holding back because of this fact: Don't sweat it. Busta is a walking site gag, a combination between Jar Jar Binks and Private Hudson. The scene in which he berates Michael for attempting to "run the show" is laugh out loud hilarious, and, along with the 300 people in the audience with me, I found myself shouting "Trick or treat, mother fucka!" at the screen when it was the proper time. Have fun with this movie guys. If you're a horror movie fan then you have to realize that already your standards are lowered a little. Don't be such a harsh critic.

This was a fun movie. I was so excited this entire past week, and I'm still excited now. Tonight, my family is going to watch Halloween 4 over a bottle of Arbor Mist in celebration. You should celebrate too, at least by viewing this movie. Have fun, shed your inhibitions and your pretentions, and enjoy the show.

betterdan
07-14-2002, 11:31 AM
Fistfuck ummm you just sealed it completely. I won't be seeing this for sure not even on dvd. I don't want to see a "fun" halloween movie where you can laugh at a goofy looking rapper doing jump kicks on a killer and yell with the audience 'trick or treat motherfucker". Sounds very very lame as Dave said. Also what do you mean by "If you're a horror movie fan then you have to realize that already your standards are lowered a little." I don't think liking horror movies means your standards are lower if anything liking a movie with a guy that's a "combination between Jar Jar Binks and Private Hudson" in it now THAT'S hitting rock bottom with standards. Nope I'll just stick with the old truly scary horror movies. Ahhhh the screamyboppers

rhett
07-14-2002, 09:06 PM
Here are my ratings:

Halloween: A+ (Undoubtedly one of the great horror classics)

Halloween II: A- (Strong follow up, nice direction by Rosenthal)

Halloween III: B+ (A cheese classic, "Silver Shamrock")

Halloween 4: B (Cool direction, Pleasence delightfully hams it up. Some slowdown in the middle, but nice climax and a great ending)

Halloween 5: B- (A nicer visual look than H4, but the inclusion of the man in black really hurts the film. Without him this would score a B+)

Halloween 6: D (Ugh...)

Halloween H20: B+ (JLC is great, and the pacing is quick and involving)

Halloween Resurrection: B+ (Opening is awesome, some inspired moments throughout the rest, Busta drops the rating a notch though)

mcchrist
07-15-2002, 12:19 AM
Fistfuck ummm you just sealed it completely. I won't be seeing this for sure not even on dvd. I don't want to see a "fun" halloween movie where you can laugh at a goofy looking rapper doing jump kicks on a killer and yell with the audience 'trick or treat motherfucker". Sounds very very lame as Dave said. Also what do you mean by "If you're a horror movie fan then you have to realize that already your standards are lowered a little." I don't think liking horror movies means your standards are lower if anything liking a movie with a guy that's a "combination between Jar Jar Binks and Private Hudson" in it now THAT'S hitting rock bottom with standards. Nope I'll just stick with the old truly scary horror movies. Ahhhh the screamyboppers

I couldn't agree more with betterdan. "If you're a horror movie fan then you have to realize that already your standards are lowered a little." Fistfuck... That is completely insulting, who says that horror is lesser art than anything else? If you think that, then why the heck are you here in the first place? Ugh... I won't say anymore.

Screamy Boppers indeed!

betterdan
07-15-2002, 02:01 AM
hehe tell em mcchrist...

Jason25
07-15-2002, 02:03 AM
Here's how I rate the series:

Halloween : A+ (one of the best horror films ever)

Halloween 2: B (Solid outing, some nice gore, worked for the most part)

Halloween 3: A (Tom Atkins rocks, enough said)

Halloween 4: B+ (Thought this was very well made, nice tension)

Halloween 5: C+ (Could have been better, but not too bad)

Halloween 6: (Theatrical Cut = D, Producers Cut = B) Amazing how a film can be changed.

H20: B (Not nearly as bad as people say)

Halloween Resurection: B (Opening sequence is amazing)

Cujo108
07-15-2002, 03:34 AM
I might as well post my rankings too:

HALLOWEEN: A (A classic, but not the best slasher film.)

HALLOWEEN 2: D- (A dull piece of trash, and the shitty sister idea came from this entry.)

HALLOWEEN 3: A+ (A superb classic despite all the naysayers. This is my preferred film of the series.)

HALLOWEEN 4: B+ (Really good sequel that works very well.)

HALLOWEEN 5: D (A pretty wretched film.)

HALLOWEEN 6: B (Sorry, but this was a decent sequel.)

HALLOWEEN H20: F (Simply awful as hell and painful to sit through!)

HALLOWEEN RESURRECTION: B- (I liked this one quite a bit.)

Fistfuck
07-15-2002, 04:09 AM
My apologies if you found parts of my post insulting. It wasn't meant to be. I was simply stating that there are people out there, and if you read the user reviews at imdb you know exactly what kind of people I'm talking about, who try and compare the nth sequel of a horror series to Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind. You simply can't. There are two seperate sets of standards to rate these films. A horror movie is not going to be concerned with emotional depth and social relevance, etc. that a "high art" film would. Therefore, the standards with which we view horror films are "lowered." Most of us could care less about A-list name actors and metaphors, and more about direction, lighting, gore, and scares. So I'm sorry if you were offended, but you must understand where I was aiming with that remark.

Secondly, I resent being known as a screamy bopper. Yes, that's what it says in the little box under my name. But just because I am new to the board does not mean I'm any less of a horror fan than you are. I would have thought by my lengthy review of H8 that you'd see me as a person who cares greatly about this genre.

Third, by fun movie I meant I had fun at it. Do you watch movies to depress yourself? I simply meant that there was a lot of energy in the audience, they were really into the movie, and it made the viewing experience much more enjoyable.

mcchrist
07-15-2002, 05:14 AM
A horror movie is not going to be concerned with emotional depth and social relevance, etc. that a "high art" film would. Therefore, the standards with which we view horror films are "lowered."

I think is the exact opposite. The horror film is a representation of what society does not want to confront, and in turn act as a reminder of our own fallibility. Dawn of the Dead represented our dependence on materialism and trivialities, instead of the things that really matter to survival. Nosferatu represented the frustration and anger felt after Germany lost the first world war. Modern art criticism stems from Kracour's thesis on the expressionist (most of them horror related) films of the time. I've stated that the slasher movie is the product of the irrational fear felt during the cold war. A horror movie, as with any other genre (even comedy) bears some significance, and are all on an equal playing field in regards to art. As is Welles, as is Warhol, as is Waters. Son't give me any of that lower form of art crap. Where you are aiming, facetious or not, I take this damn seriously and the problem with the world is that too many don't.

Fistfuck
07-15-2002, 07:41 PM
Mccrhist, you're right, anomalies like Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and, pardon me for never seeing it, Nosferatu do tackle social problems. As do many Clive Barker novels and films. But that's not how I judge horror movies. If a film adds an element of social commentary, then that adds a lot of depth to the film and takes it to a whole other level. In fact, I plan on using theories, more philosophical than social however, in my own films. But to me horror is more an extension of the imagination and soul than a word on the society in which we live. Therefore, elements like originality and mythology play a much more important role. I take horror seriously as well, and it angers me that others don't. I usually have to fight to be taken seriously when I recommend viewing a horror movie.

BTW, this is interesting about H8. For the past couple days, in Allentown and Hazleton, PA, H8 has been sold out almost every show.

Jog
07-15-2002, 09:23 PM
The theater up my way (near Scranton) was loaded on a Sunday night!

Also, Mr. Fuck (no offense indended, of course), the reason why so little gore is put into horror films these days (at least IMHO) is because horror movies have been pegged as "teen" stuff, and the MPAA is a little tougher handing out the "R" ratings these days, as they don't want to come under fire for corrupting the morals of our youths. There were guards checking IDs at my theatre...

SPOILERS!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Did you (or anyone else) get the feeling that H8 was trying to set up a "technology vs. human darkness" theme? There is early lip service paid to Mike being an extension of the human capacity for darkness and fear, and he is defeated with the help of fun gadgets (ie human scientific progress). Hell, he's taken out in the end by being literally crucified by computer cables!!! I think the movie would have been better off persuing THAT idea rather than the super-fresh "media exploitation" angle...

rhett
07-15-2002, 10:23 PM
That is an interesting angle Jog, I never thought of the film on that level. Certainly adds more to the film though. I think there is more to H8 than people are giving it credit for. Like I said in my review in the other thread, I think there is a definite underlying comparison between the aged Laurie Strode and Michael Myers in this film, and with this new darkness versus technology angle, there may just be more than meets the eye.

DefJeff
07-15-2002, 10:50 PM
it seems like people are coming up with all these angles to this movie to make excuses for a lame flick

"you mighta thought it was crap the first time!! there is more then meets the eye, trust me-- michael is really a robot, you just gotta watch it 2 more times and you will see that from a technological point of view it makes sense!"

rhett
07-15-2002, 11:57 PM
It is funny, in the same thread we get one polar side of people complaining that people are dismissing horror as simplistic and without its social undertones and qualities. While there are others who are arguing that people are looking too much into the thematic elements of the film and giving the films more credit than they deserve. A diverse bunch, indeed. ;)

Andrew
07-16-2002, 02:57 AM
This isn't specific to this film (I haven't even seen it yet), but I hate, HATE, HATE when people read too much into things. It says more about the individual than the film. They're looking for a way to be clever, whereas the film (or whatever) was just out to entertain. I love when they get caught though, for example a movie critic when he spotted some "influential films" of Raimi's after viewing EVIL DEAD. Funny, he had never seen them...

betterdan
07-16-2002, 05:16 AM
Damn mcchrist that was an excellent way of describing things. You sound very well educated. Wish I could express myself in words like that seriously. Also fistfuck sorry if I offended you by saying screamy bopper. I just don't really care for any of the new horror that's coming out except maybe House of 1000 Corpses but if you enjoyed H8 then that's ok with me. I just won't be seeing it, but to each his own. Again no hard feelings as long as you recognize 70's and early 80's horror movies are THE best. :D

Fistfuck
07-16-2002, 05:24 AM
ARGH! I'm not saying that horror films are simplistic or without any social relevance! I'm simply saying that they are to be judged by different standards than other movies. You can't compare a classical album to a death metal album!

Jog, which theater did you go to? The one we went to, at the Lehigh Mall, was PACKED on Friday. Not sold out, but there was very little sitting room. I am aware that there is little gore in recent horror movies because they are being dubbed teen flicks, but it's not without blame. We can point it back to Scream, which IMHO is a fantastic movie, and it's influence. If Scream was a bit more hardcore, than teens might have been turned off, or been unable to view it. But unfortunately at that time the horror genre was nonexistent, and Scream is probably the reason Jason X and Resurrection were made. Regarding your statement about the MPAA worried about children watching gore, I once read that the board had such a good time with Jason X that the allowed to keep most of the gore intact and hoped that its release will prompt the return of violent horror films.

Rhett, unfortunately I didn't see that theme. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, I just didn't pick up on it. Unless it's overly blatant, I usually pick up on theme in repeated viewing. But it is an interesting idea. You might also be able to see the struggle between Laurie and Michael as not only does evil never die, it also never ages.

AndrewBBD, you're correct in saying that reading into a film, or any medium of art for that matter, says more about the individual than the piece. A person views and contemplates based on the sum of his prior experiences. You can see anything you want to in a film or book or painting, and it may or may not be there. It may or may not be a positive thing. But this is the basis of art. You're supposed to draw into a piece your views and your experiences and exit with a clearer sense of your own ideas. I always knew that greed was bad. But watching American Psycho showed me, through metaphor, the destructive nature of greed and saw that it was tantamount to murder. Now this is all the author and director's opinion, and you're not to take everything they say as Word of God, but through meditating on the film or book, it enhanced my own moral standings and beliefs, as art should do.

rhett
07-16-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Fistfuck
AndrewBBD, you're correct in saying that reading into a film, or any medium of art for that matter, says more about the individual than the piece. A person views and contemplates based on the sum of his prior experiences. You can see anything you want to in a film or book or painting, and it may or may not be there. It may or may not be a positive thing. But this is the basis of art. You're supposed to draw into a piece your views and your experiences and exit with a clearer sense of your own ideas. I always knew that greed was bad. But watching American Psycho showed me, through metaphor, the destructive nature of greed and saw that it was tantamount to murder. Now this is all the author and director's opinion, and you're not to take everything they say as Word of God, but through meditating on the film or book, it enhanced my own moral standings and beliefs, as art should do.
I completely agree with you here Fist. I think that is the beauty of cinema and all art in general. Watching a movie or reading a book is a different experience for each person taking part in the viewing process. With math or science or whatnot, there is usually a concrete explination for everything, but with art, the interpretations are limitless, and still all valid and acceptable.

If film was the same for everyone there would really be no point in these forums, as we would just be reiterating the same points over and over. That is why I think people's interpretations of possible themes and questions are all valid contributions. True Andy, there are times when people reach for some extrordinary meaning that just doesn't really suit the film, but I think such questioning is admirable. Because it shows they care about the film and they want to perhaps examine it on another level. I'd rather someone say "I think this movie was going for a commentary on society, blah blah" than just simply put "this film sux". ;)

For me personally, I enjoy reading all opinions, because I think they give a better scope to the film's meaning. I am starting to bore myself though, so I will stop, but I just wanted to throw my $.02 in on another interesting topic. :)

novaguy2000
07-16-2002, 11:18 PM
Am I going crazy, or did Tyra Banks disappear in this movie until we see her dead body? In the commercials on TV, there's a scene with her looking scared outside the house, and many publications (print and online) show a still from the film with her sitting down, with Michael coming up behind her. I don't remember any of this from the movie. Did I sneeze or somthing, or was this all cut? (C'mon, DVD extras!!!)

Jog
07-16-2002, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Fistfuck

Jog, which theater did you go to? The one we went to, at the Lehigh Mall, was PACKED on Friday. Not sold out, but there was very little sitting room. I am aware that there is little gore in recent horror movies because they are being dubbed teen flicks, but it's not without blame. We can point it back to Scream, which IMHO is a fantastic movie, and it's influence. If Scream was a bit more hardcore, than teens might have been turned off, or been unable to view it. But unfortunately at that time the horror genre was nonexistent, and Scream is probably the reason Jason X and Resurrection were made. Regarding your statement about the MPAA worried about children watching gore, I once read that the board had such a good time with Jason X that the allowed to keep most of the gore intact and hoped that its release will prompt the return of violent horror films.


I went to a Cinemark in Moosic. There are other theaters around, but everyone usually goes to that one, as it is far and away the best in terms of size and AV equipment. Many seats filled!

As for Jason X, it's nice to see that the MPAA enjoyed it. But I've seen too many earlier gore films. Jason X had that neato head smashing scene, but (wide release) movies today never have anything as insane as say... Maniac or Sleepaway Camp. Then again, the definition of "wide release" was very different then... maybe the market itself is to blame (not wanting to offend/disgust too many people to maximize profits)...

And as for theme... hmmm... I dunno guys. Considering there is a huge speech made on human darkness by the psychology professor near the beginning, which is then propped up in the various character introductions, and added to the fact that Michael is ONLY beaten by technology, I frankly don't think I'm stretching too much. And I'm pretty sure I said that the theme was only attempted... I openly admit there's not enough support given in the movie to fully realize such feelings. They went for the easy-ass "OH MY GOSH THE MEDIA IS MANIPULATING US AND THEY'RE VULTURES DOOD!!!" route.

And if I may be philosophical, I'd rather err on the side of reading too deep, than taking in art too shallowly. Not that I want to insult anyone here... and hell, I get pissed when people go too far with this too (have you HEARD some of the theories about the "meaning" of Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes"? WOW)...

Jog
07-16-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by novaguy2000
Am I going crazy, or did Tyra Banks disappear in this movie until we see her dead body? In the commercials on TV, there's a scene with her looking scared outside the house, and many publications (print and online) show a still from the film with her sitting down, with Michael coming up behind her. I don't remember any of this from the movie. Did I sneeze or somthing, or was this all cut? (C'mon, DVD extras!!!)

Didn't the movie go through some serious post-production fiddling? Buster giving Michael the location of Tyra really suggests that there was a death scene for her... maybe it was cut? Some of Buster's dialogue seems to have been re-dubbed too...

kiddvideo
07-17-2002, 05:13 AM
Speaking of deleted scenes the Myers Museum has 2 deleted scenes that you can download. An alternate opening and an alternate ending.

http://www.magicmasi.com/myersmuseum/lobbyinside.html

just go to the what`s new section and follow the appropriate links.

mcchrist
07-19-2002, 12:14 AM
betterdan wrote:

Damn mcchrist that was an excellent way of describing things. You sound very well educated. Wish I could express myself in words like that seriously.

I appreciate it, honestly. Just doing my job.

In regards to the following statement:

FistFuck intoned:

I'm not saying that horror films are simplistic or without any social relevance! I'm simply saying that they are to be judged by different standards than other movies. You can't compare a classical album to a death metal album!

This is where I disagree with you Fist, because as with film and art in general, film is film. The only difference between one and the other is the overall vision. You cannot pidgeon-hole a film just because its horror, or a drama, or a comedy the same way you can't pidgeon-hole people for their ideals or views or race or whatever.

You can compare cross-genres through editing, lighting, etc. That's easy. You can also compare them through directors, actors, that's also easy. It is challenging, however, to note similarities across the board, but in all honesty you can. For instance, in this thread Jog mentioned a theme of "human darkness vs. technology" in Halloween 8. Why not write a comparison with 2001, which also has a similar theme? Or let's abandon the "human darkness vs. technology approach" and let's compare Halloween 8 to Citizen Kane, I wouldn't compare the technical merits between the two, because Halloween 8 is just not going to cut it (no pun intended). But there is a budding character analysis:

Michael Myers has felt disillusioned with his family, in particular his sister, at childhood. Perhaps through jealousy, perhaps through lust, or according to part 6 an evil cult drove him to madness.

Kane cries out for "Rosebud" in his dying words. This man has been driven into pain and emptyness through materialism. Rosebud represents his longing to have his childhood returned.

There are always similarities and contrasts, you sometimes have to think abstractedly about it. Remember, there are even similarities between a refrigerator and a cat.

I could write an overblown thesis using the exact same methodology.

Think of criticism in terms of mathmatics, according to the first rules of calculus, look at the wall closest to you, in my case that would be about four feet away. Look at a stray object near to you, I will use an empty coke bottle for example. According to the first rules, if you were to throw the bottle, it would never hit the wall. the reason behind this is that first the bottle would have to travel half that distance, then with the remaining distance it would have to travel half that distance again, and with the remainder we have another half. It would be a curve, the bottle would never hit the wall. Not the later rules of calculus would explain how the bottle can hit the wall. "Fuzzy logic." In some instances, 2+2=5. Nothing can ever be absolute, Fist.

But what really struck me, however were your comments on classical music and death metal. I hate to tell you, but there are more similarities between metal and classical music, than any other form. In classical music, there is a split in categories, such as: waltz, symphony, concerto, fuge etc. etc. You then have, power metal, heavy metal, NWOBHM, doom metal, metal core, black metal, death metal. You could begin from there. You could also compare expression, you can even compare technical merit and skill, try Wagner and Edge of Sanity:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000001H20.01._PE_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

vs.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005LZVY.01._PE_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

You will find more similarities between the two than you wouldn't. There are similarities between style, tone, delivery, emotion, attitude, and even story content.

I understand your point, but you gave a bad example, classical and metal are easily cousins. I think it would have been more appropriate to say classical vs. gangsta rap, but even then you could do it if you chewed it over long enough.

Anything possible, anything permissible.

Five tons of flax.

Fistfuck
07-19-2002, 04:03 AM
mcchirst, of course you can compare anything based on any set of standards, but that's from a technical standpoint. I'm speaking through an intentional standpoint. The director of a horror movie and the director of a timepiece are going to have two seperate sets of goals in making their respective movies.

mcchrist
07-19-2002, 04:45 AM
Fistfuck spake:

mcchirst, of course you can compare anything based on any set of standards, but that's from a technical standpoint. I'm speaking through an intentional standpoint. The director of a horror movie and the director of a timepiece are going to have two seperate sets of goals in making their respective movies.

As with everything else, agreed. But what determines a horror film and what determines a "timepiece"? The individual, as as you are saying that most horror films are mediocre and sophmoric, compared to say something like Chinatown or Dr. Strangelove. I will disagree with you because you cannot hold the standards of one genre by the whole of its tripe. Horror is abused, it seems the intentions are the cheap thrill and the laugh and the good time. I support horror because it seems it is very rare for something fantastic to come are way (coincidentally, I hold the same for drama and comedy and science fiction as well, I'm not buying the weepy flowing John Williams soundtrack and the lead actor busting into tears routine. An "oscar quality" drama is a dime a dozen, and critic and money driven, and in turn becomes more shallow and meaningless than horror.) Horror directors, the good ones, are more dedicated to the material than some manufactured Tom Hanks epic. The horror director creates films that they themselves would like to see, not the masses. To jump on the oscar band wagon, in my opinion, is in your words "lowering your standards" because its all contrived. And that's the tragedy of horror is that there's too much tripe to deal with before you find a quality cut, I would much rather see Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (a much better Vietnam movie than anything Oliver Stone could vomit forth.) anyday instead of A Beautiful Mind.

Any 3 year old can work at the corporate think tanks and come up with a "timepiece". And even then it becomes ephemeral in nature.

Good horror takes skill.

Its bullshit to think that lowered standards have anything to do with horror. Its only because the industry is diluted with bad sequels, and fake-ass sellouts who's only background in directing have been Gap commercials and Britney Spears videos.

thrashard76
07-19-2002, 06:04 AM
Edge Of Sanity's Crimson album totally rocks mcchrist. ;) One track 40 minutes long and all story...a great masterpeace indeed.

Andrew
07-19-2002, 07:56 AM
Shit, sorry for this, but I need to just sneak something in. I haven't read this whole post, so I could've missed something, but if you'll allow me to backtrack a bit...

Mr. Fuck (like Jog said, no offense, just like the name :) ), Rhett, I in no way meant that films mean nothing more than the obvious on screen. Hell, I'm the last person who would, which you could find out from my various posts and several reviews. Everything has a deeper layer, and no matter what, I feel any good film tries to hide something from the audience (whether it be obvious or not, it's there). I simply find it amusing when people make connections when there simply aren't any (like the Raimi thing). Maybe it wasn't the best thing to say, I just knew it was something that bothered me so I mentioned it. I suppose it didn't come out too well. But I completely agree, watching films as carefully as we all do, it'd be pretty hard to not look beyond the obvious limitations of what we see on the screen. If we don't think about it, what's the point? :D

P.S. - Anyone else think it's hilarious that a post about HALLOWEEN 8 starring Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks has generated three pages worth of verbose posts delving deep into the underlying means of how horror films are judged based on other art? Hehe...:D.

KillerCannabis
07-19-2002, 10:43 AM
Yea, this ongoing thread really should have its own post. The fact that all this intellectual conversing is on a thread for H8 almost makes it sound like the movie actually had underlying themes. Well, maybe the running theme that it absolutely sucks.

Mikass
07-19-2002, 10:21 PM
What i think they should of done is either two things:

1. Have the internet shit thing at the beginning of the film and the ending should of been with Michael killing Laurie and handing the knife off and walking away then credits roll...

or...

2. Have the entire film based in the mental hospital and have Michael stalking Laurie ala halloween 2..this would of had lots of suspense seeing how it was Rick who directed the second and he would know what too be doing...i know it may of seemed like a rip-off of 2 but still would been better then this internet shit...plus instead of michael being killed at the end it would end the same as before, him killing her and handing the knife off and retiring..

Fistfuck
07-20-2002, 12:01 AM
Is it just me or did this last post seem totally out of place? hehehe..

mcchrist, I feel that the majority of horror is sophomoric and even less than mediocre. Horror is my favorite genre, but I feel that very few films go beyond the norm of what most horror movies are. I feel that horror movies can be just as contrived and economically-motivated as an Oscar picture can be, which is why many people from my film school want to start out by making horror films (though I can tell that they're not really fans). Horror is often times the springboard for a director to jump into the mainstream. Look at Raimi. He created Evil Dead, and now he's making 3 really lame blockbusters back-to-back.

If a film does manage to go beyond the norm enough to really engage me, I believe this is what true horror is about. Hellraiser and In the Mouth of Madness made you think and made you wonder. It created worlds within worlds and shared the horrors and fantasies of its creators. It "moved" horror forward. The majority of horror is drivel that repeats the same formula because it was successful before. That was the sole reason behind the creation of the Friday the 13th series, inarguably one of my favorites. I read an article in Fangoria where Sean Cunningham stated that they attempted to repeat the Halloween formula in hopes for similar success. Now guaranteed every horror director is not like Sean Cunningham, but then again not every horror director is like Dario Argento or Clive Barker.

mcchrist
07-20-2002, 01:26 AM
AndrewBBD scribbled:

[b]P.S. - Anyone else think it's hilarious that a post about HALLOWEEN 8 starring Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks has generated three pages worth of verbose posts delving deep into the underlying means of how horror films are judged based on other art? Hehe...[b]

***McChrist intent on his purpose, laughs maniacally, his hands gleefully playing across the keyboard...***

heheheheheheheheMUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Indeed... :p

and then Mr. Fuck threw his $.02 in:

[b]If a film does manage to go beyond the norm enough to really engage me, I believe this is what true horror is about. Hellraiser and In the Mouth of Madness made you think and made you wonder. It created worlds within worlds and shared the horrors and fantasies of its creators. It "moved" horror forward. The majority of horror is drivel that repeats the same formula because it was successful before. That was the sole reason behind the creation of the Friday the 13th series, inarguably one of my favorites. I read an article in Fangoria where Sean Cunningham stated that they attempted to repeat the Halloween formula in hopes for similar success. Now guaranteed every horror director is not like Sean Cunningham, but then again not every horror director is like Dario Argento or Clive Barker.[b]

Agreed! I'm retiring from this thread, but my whole point is that the very statement you made above does not apply strictly to horror. (There are more fantastic horror films out there than you think...) In fact, the above statement doesn't apply strictly to anything. And that's why things are fucked up.

But alas, I must bid you all a fondue...

:D

Hail Eris!

J.H. "Did you know that they put Menudo on DVD?" McChrist

Mikass
07-20-2002, 02:30 AM
Sorry i was just posting in the topic that was Halloween Resurrection didn't read the last few pages..hehe...:)