Horror Digital Forum  

Go Back   Horror Digital Forum > All Things Horror > General > Site Polls

View Poll Results: Best 5th Film in a Horror Franchise?
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 5: The Dream Child 5 5.26%
Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror 0 0%
Diary of the Dead 3 3.16%
Final Destination 5 11 11.58%
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed 12 12.63%
Friday the 13th, Part V: A New Beginning 30 31.58%
Halloween 5 11 11.58%
Hellraiser: Inferno 2 2.11%
Howling V: The Rebirth 2 2.11%
Leprechaun in the Hood 0 0%
Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones 1 1.05%
Resident Evil: Retribution 3 3.16%
Return to Sleepaway Camp 1 1.05%
Saw V 2 2.11%
Seed of Chucky 4 4.21%
Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker 1 1.05%
Taste the Blood of Dracula 4 4.21%
Texas Chainsaw 3D 1 1.05%
The Amityville Curse 1 1.05%
The Mummy's Curse 1 1.05%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2014, 09:33 PM   #61
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
AAAHHH! GET THAT AWAY FROM ME!!!

Most people judge movies for what they like to see. But not me. If I did, I couldn't objectively decide Don't Look Now is a great film- even though it personally bores me to tears. Someone told me I'm too stupid to dress myself today because I had no interest in ever seeing Game of Thrones. It's not what I'm into. Just like I'm not surprised people like Burial Ground, Halloween 5, etc. I'm not crazy, I thought Burial Ground was better than Cheerleader Camp. And I'd rather watch it twice in a row than Cabin in the Woods. And for all the bitching I've done about Halloween 5, it's still Vastly Superior to Night of the Demons.

I could sit through Halloween 5, totally numb to everything going on in the story and with the characters, and say I almost enjoyed it. (Well, gun to my head, I think I could do everything there. Except for the last part, I know I could do that without coercion.) But as a slasher film, it really isn't fun. It's barely stylish and then the actors are just bad, so they kill the rest of it. The cast of 4 weren't winning awards anytime soon but Donald Pleasence tried. He had something going on in his head, his performance wasn't dictated by screeching, wailing, and over-the-top, hysterical mannerisms. In every single scene.

Halloween 5 is a legitimate artistic failure. Both in ambition and in terms of the routine elements.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 10:02 PM   #62
Body Boy
HackMaster
 
Body Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
But not me. If I did, I couldn't objectively decide Don't Look Now is a great film- even though it personally bores me to tears.
[...]
Halloween 5 is a legitimate artistic failure. Both in ambition and in terms of the routine elements.

I love Don't Look Now, but no film is objectively good. Objectively accomplished, true, as to what the director and producers' intentions are. But it really is in the eye of the beholder.

Halloween 5 doesn't work as a Halloween film, I don't think. But as its own Girard production, I think it succeeds to its fullest.

As for the Donald, I can't stand his sleepwalking through Return. In Revenge he has to go after his patient a third time, so I get why he's batshit crazy.

Also:



"I'm never sensible if I can help it!"

Bop ba bah, bop ba bah. BOP BA BAAHH!
Body Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 10:13 PM   #63
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Boy View Post
I love Don't Look Now, but no film is objectively good.
No, you're talking about subjectively. Okay, you're not saying "no film is subjectively good," but you're saying that a person's subjective issues will brand a good film not good or bad film not bad. Films can be judged by objective terms. What you're saying is that some people will bring up their own subjective issues to counter the objective ones. Those being, in your words, "what the director and producers' intentions are," as well as some things they didn't consciously (necessarily) try for.

Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. But the beholder chooses to be subjective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Boy View Post
Halloween 5 doesn't work as a Halloween film, I don't think. But as its own Girard production, I think it succeeds to its fullest.

As for the Donald, I can't stand his sleepwalking through Return. In Revenge he has to go after his patient a third time, so I get why he's batshit crazy.
Now, you see, I was willing to give you points for taking the 5th film out of the franchise. But, not for your entirely incorrect statement about Pleasence's performance in the 4th film. What you clearly don't understand is: he needed to be weary, that was what was created for the character in that film. He spent an entire scene talking to a frickin' preacher about evil and 2 films before that trying to stop An Unstoppable Force. But, no, tell me all about how he should have been a bundle of energy. How people who have been through traumatic situations can channel the same liveliness and degree of fear they had before They Changed as People.

Psychology, my friend. What do you have against it?
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 10:16 PM   #64
MisterTwister
HackMaster
 
MisterTwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,417
I can understand someone liking Halloween 5. Hell I enjoy it for what it is (a big fat dumb slasher sequel) but it's not in the same league as Halloween 4. Halloween 4 is leaps and bounds better than Halloween 5 in a shit load of ways.

Oh and Tina is probably one of the worst characters to exist in a slasher film.
__________________
+6 trader.
MisterTwister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 10:36 PM   #65
Body Boy
HackMaster
 
Body Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
No, you're talking about subjectively. Okay, you're not saying "no film is subjectively good," but you're saying that a person's subjective issues will brand a good film not good or bad film not bad. Films can be judged by objective terms. What you're saying is that some people will bring up their own subjective issues to counter the objective ones. Those being, in your words, "what the director and producers' intentions are," as well as some things they didn't consciously (necessarily) try for.

Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder. But the beholder chooses to be subjective.
There are objective terms for films. Which film had more comical moments? Which film had more static shots? etc, these are objective facts about a film. But what make the film "good" is completely subjective. I believe that Halloween '78 is a better film than Halloween: Resurrection, as do most people, but it will NEVER be objective fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
Now, you see, I was willing to give you points for taking the 5th film out of the franchise. But, not for your entirely incorrect statement about Pleasence's performance in the 4th film. What you clearly don't understand is: he needed to be weary, that was what was created for the character in that film. He spent an entire scene talking to a frickin' preacher about evil and 2 films before that trying to stop An Unstoppable Force. But, no, tell me all about how he should have been a bundle of energy. How people who have been through traumatic situations can channel the same liveliness and degree of fear they had before They Changed as People.

Psychology, my friend. What do you have against it?
It's not entirely incorrect. Neither you nor I know what Loomis was going through in between Parts II and IV. I see his character as troublesome in 4, you see it as troublesome in 5. That's it. You're not right. It's just your view. And I have mine. Neither of us can be incorrect without the fine details.

It's one perspective of a psychological being. Not everyone will react the same way Loomis did. It's not universal. It didn't work for me. It worked for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTwister View Post
Oh and Tina is probably one of the BEST characters to exist in a slasher film.
Agreed!
Body Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 11:29 PM   #66
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTwister View Post
I can understand someone liking Halloween 5. Hell I enjoy it for what it is (a big fat dumb slasher sequel) but it's not in the same league as Halloween 4. Halloween 4 is leaps and bounds better than Halloween 5 in a shit load of ways.
Exactly.

But, of the many problems in the film, I forgive Tina.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Boy View Post
There are objective terms for films. Which film had more comical moments? Which film had more static shots? etc, these are objective facts about a film. But what make the film "good" is completely subjective. I believe that Halloween '78 is a better film than Halloween: Resurrection, as do most people, but it will NEVER be objective fact.
Yes it will be. Because objective is subjective in the area of recognizing film quality. See? You can't judge objectively without taking the filmmakers' intentions into consideration, which you already admitted. The flaws in their ability to realize those intentions versus another film's success in doing the same is objective fact.

More than half of all films are objectively good or bad. Fact. Whether we recognize this or not is subjective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Boy View Post
It's not entirely incorrect. Neither you nor I know what Loomis was going through in between Parts II and IV. I see his character as troublesome in 4, you see it as troublesome in 5. That's it. You're not right. It's just your view. And I have mine. Neither of us can be incorrect without the fine details.
No, I'm right. I spent my hours analyzing the 4th film, then the 5th in relation to the 4th, judging it objectively. And, you'll remember I gave you a boatload of very on-point details here: http://www.horrordvds.com/vb3forum/s...t=24450&page=2. Your reply was a typical fanboy's "I didn't care." You just disregarded my arguments one after another rather than countering them. If that's as good as you have to argue, you can't really argue this at all. I know you like it, that doesn't bother me. But you can't use "I like it" to contradict my very valid points within a debate/discussion.

I think you've proven that you want to disregard the 4th film. You didn't want Loomis to be the character the 4th film designed him to be, the one Donald Pleasence agreed was Loomis after the events of the first 2 films. But you didn't like that film, so you look at the 5th film as something self-contained. You did: you just admitted it in your very last reply before this. There is no trouble with the character in the 4th film. In fact, the entire film is laidback in tone- so, it makes sense for you to say he sleepwalked through it. You probably think the whole film was like sleepwalking. If so, you picked up on one of the things that was so effective about it. See, if Michael Myers is brutal in the film (resorting to using so much more physical force than in the previous films, almost none of the murders committed with his trademark knife), why wouldn't the film feel like a dead end? Loomis literally goes to that diner and nowhere around him does it feel like the town is alive. Feels like a dead end. That is interesting. It mirrors his own personal weariness and how hopeless he knows it is to get help from anyone. He makes every move like it's inevitable. In a way, it could almost be argued that part of the first movie was replaying in this portion of the film. "Fate caught up with several lives here."

I see him as troublesome in the 5th film because the 5th film is nothing less than An Explosive, Unmitigated Disaster of Epic Proportions when it comes to bringing back established characters. Feel free to disagree all you want, but most fans really do still think the 5th film is rather bad. Because it's a huge spit in the face to anyone who paid attention to the 4th. Actually, why hold back- it utterly pissed right on Loomis, Rachel, and Sheriff Meeker. For all the reasons I outlined in the thread above and several more that weren't large problems for me but were for other fans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Boy View Post
It's one perspective of a psychological being. Not everyone will react the same way Loomis did. It's not universal. It didn't work for me. It worked for you.
Nice try, no sale.

Last edited by DVD-fanatic-9; 04-10-2014 at 11:35 PM.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:31 AM   #67
Body Boy
HackMaster
 
Body Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
Yes it will be. Because objective is subjective in the area of recognizing film quality. See? You can't judge objectively without taking the filmmakers' intentions into consideration, which you already admitted. The flaws in their ability to realize those intentions versus another film's success in doing the same is objective fact.

More than half of all films are objectively good or bad. Fact. Whether we recognize this or not is subjective.



No, I'm right. I spent my hours analyzing the 4th film, then the 5th in relation to the 4th, judging it objectively. And, you'll remember I gave you a boatload of very on-point details here: http://www.horrordvds.com/vb3forum/s...t=24450&page=2. Your reply was a typical fanboy's "I didn't care." You just disregarded my arguments one after another rather than countering them. If that's as good as you have to argue, you can't really argue this at all. I know you like it, that doesn't bother me. But you can't use "I like it" to contradict my very valid points within a debate/discussion.

I think you've proven that you want to disregard the 4th film. You didn't want Loomis to be the character the 4th film designed him to be, the one Donald Pleasence agreed was Loomis after the events of the first 2 films. But you didn't like that film, so you look at the 5th film as something self-contained. You did: you just admitted it in your very last reply before this. There is no trouble with the character in the 4th film. In fact, the entire film is laidback in tone- so, it makes sense for you to say he sleepwalked through it. You probably think the whole film was like sleepwalking. If so, you picked up on one of the things that was so effective about it. See, if Michael Myers is brutal in the film (resorting to using so much more physical force than in the previous films, almost none of the murders committed with his trademark knife), why wouldn't the film feel like a dead end? Loomis literally goes to that diner and nowhere around him does it feel like the town is alive. Feels like a dead end. That is interesting. It mirrors his own personal weariness and how hopeless he knows it is to get help from anyone. He makes every move like it's inevitable. In a way, it could almost be argued that part of the first movie was replaying in this portion of the film. "Fate caught up with several lives here."

I see him as troublesome in the 5th film because the 5th film is nothing less than An Explosive, Unmitigated Disaster of Epic Proportions when it comes to bringing back established characters. Feel free to disagree all you want, but most fans really do still think the 5th film is rather bad. Because it's a huge spit in the face to anyone who paid attention to the 4th. Actually, why hold back- it utterly pissed right on Loomis, Rachel, and Sheriff Meeker. For all the reasons I outlined in the thread above and several more that weren't large problems for me but were for other fans.



Nice try, no sale.
"You can't judge objectively without taking the filmmakers' intentions into consideration, which you already admitted."

If the intention of The Godfather was to make a screwball comedy, would you say that The Godfather is objectively bad.
If Manos' intention was to be what it is, would you say that it is objectively good?

Just because a film fails at trying to be something doesn't mean it doesn't succeed at being something else. "Film" has no strict definition for what constitutes it being good. We can say The Godfather is a bad comedy film, sure, because we are adding a goal of that film to meet. But to say something is an objectively bad film or good film... 'film'... doesn't mean anything. Film can be whatever. So nothing can be an objectively good film.

I really can't tell if you're trolling now.

"Your reply was a typical fanboy's "I didn't care." You just disregarded my arguments one after another rather than countering them. If that's as good as you have to argue, you can't really argue this at all. I know you like it, that doesn't bother me. But you can't use "I like it" to contradict my very valid points within a debate/discussion."

Typical fanboy. The irony is thick. Are you kidding me right now? ... You don't address the objectiveness of a film. You simply put your reading. Wonderful! Yay interpretations. That hasn't been proven to mean shit. I'm not saying "I like it" to disprove your opinion on something being good for you... but being OBJECTIVELY GOOD, which is the whole topic of discussion, is not something you have entered.

"But you didn't like that film, so you look at the 5th film as something self-contained. You did: you just admitted it in your very last reply before this. There is no trouble with the character in the 4th film." Yeah, I admitted it. Am I supposed to feel pinned down? How is that accusatory? I think Halloween 5 works as a film on its own. I don't think Halloween 4 works on its own or as a part of the series. I see troubles with the bland (imo) characters of 4. If the intention is to sleepwalk, fantastic, but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to think it's objectively good just because the director did what he wanted to.


"Nice try, no sale."

Now who is ignoring who?
I'm not convinced you understand that way your posts come across to... well, seemingly everybody on this board. Debates are awesome, fun and informative, but acting as the end all be all authority of what is good when you simply offer opinionated interpretations of films doesn't prove anything.

My word.

"I see him as troublesome in the 5th film because the 5th film is nothing less than An Explosive, Unmitigated Disaster of Epic Proportions when it comes to bringing back established characters. Feel free to disagree all you want, but most fans really do still think the 5th film is rather bad. Because it's a huge spit in the face to anyone who paid attention to the 4th. Actually, why hold back- it utterly pissed right on Loomis, Rachel, and Sheriff Meeker. For all the reasons I outlined in the thread above and several more that weren't large problems for me but were for other fans."

And I think Rachel blows as a character. Glad to see her wiped away. I thought Halloween 4 pissed on Halloween 2, and you think Halloween 5 pissed on Halloween 4.


Still, all the insight into how a film works for you doesn't matter if you do not get what objective goodness of badness is.
Body Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 04:45 AM   #68
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Halloween II was not a character-driven film. Objectively, 4 shouldn't have been made. Creating a daughter for Laurie was a terrible idea. But if you think II didn't already make the biggest conceptual mistake of the franchise, so big that it literally relegates the damage 4 would be making to the original so minor it's not worth bothering to recognize, you don't understand a thing: Michael and Laurie were not related. So, prepare yourself for a shock- Halloween II pissed on Halloween. This decision was made for the money, not to further the story of the franchise. See- there was never supposed to be a franchise. Michael Myers cannot be killed, the original film introduced that as set-in-stone. So, why on Earth would you whine about anything done to the 2nd film? The 2nd film is a mess! I enjoy it when I turn my brain off (more than can be said for Halloween 5) but it's trash. And, in a sense, it ruins the original. Untold people now have it ingrained in their minds that Michael follows Laurie in the original film because he realizes she's his sister (same as Friday the 13th viewers in the 90's expected Jason was the killer in the first film, and that he would have the hockey mask in Part 2).

Now, to be fair, changing the mythology of any original film with a concluding ending to facilitate a franchise is a bad idea. Well, if the film in question is great. Like: Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, etc. But we tolerate it because that's the nature of the business. To an extent, we have to look at each new film as a self-contained entity. To the point where Dawn of the Dead or Dead by Dawn are considered remakes. (Isn't it funny how those two go together like that?) And even then, it's a sequel in terms of how they change the tone, the style, etc of the original film. The problem is, returning characters. (See: Hellbound: Hellraiser II.) We have to be able to hold some things unimpeachable when it comes to that. Laurie Strode being Michael Myers' sister is a big one. After that, Laurie having a daughter is not as big a deal. It isn't. The franchise already went over the edge, you either accept the new changes or you don't. Who's going to blame the 4th film for not re-writing the 2nd, disregarding that Michael has any familial relation to Laurie? I let the 4th off the hook after I saw the original film (I saw it in 2000, the 4th I saw in 1993-1994).

I saw the 2nd film first, so I too assumed they were siblings the first time I saw the original. Thanks to Halloween II, Halloween 4 has free range to do anything it wants to in my opinion. Especially since I find you arguing that the 2nd film did anything that shouldn't be undone by a future sequel. Whatever that may be, by the way. Loomis dead, not just injured? Again, each progressive sequel gets to be its own new self-contained system so long as it's not fucking over a crucial element in a good film to come before it. Say: returning characters. Now, let's play a fun game. A check list. Most fans of the franchise still agree Halloween 4 is a good movie. Check 1. Most fans of Halloween 4 agree Rachel was a good character. Check 2. Most agree what the film did with Loomis was right. Check 3. Most fans of the franchise still agree Halloween 5 is bad. Check 4. Everyone who saw the movie would say no other actress should play Rachel. The actress who played Rachel herself said she hated what Halloween 5 did to her character. Check 5. Most fans of the franchise hate the new characters in Halloween 5. Check 6. Several people have complained that Donald Pleasence's performance in Halloween 5 is weaker than the film before it.

I won't count that as a check. Again, because I want to be fair. But this franchise was very fan-controlled for a long time. Until Rob Zombie came along and created a new fanbase. Compromised of lots of people who hate Carpenter's film and probably all the sequels. So, in a way, what the majority of fans think is important. This was after all, until his death, the rare franchise that was still actually controlled by One Guy (Mustafa Akkad) having the final say. Of course, you know I'm the last person to bow to majority opinion. But the initial fan opinions are typically pretty telling. They certainly predicted just how we would all forgive sequels that went against the entire point of an original film. Now, was Rachel a weak character? The answer is: compared to whom? Good luck answering that. Especially within the canon of sequels. You can't classify the 4th film a failure by any standards that would consider the 2nd film a success. Rachel has all the legit motivation, strength, and depth as the vast majority of effective 80's horror heroines. There is nothing that sets her apart as being weaker than Kirsty from Hellraiser or Nancy from A Nightmare on Elm Street. Her role in the story may be secondary to Jamie. But, that's it.

Now, as for the fans who agree Halloween 4 is the best sequel (that's The Best), they have a point. Maybe Season of the Witch is the best sequel because it has an entirely original concept while keeping the strengths of the 2nd film (which are typically any ties to Carpenter's film: the use of widescreen, similarities with the style of music, visual influence of Italian horror, brooding atmosphere). And on some level, I still think Halloween H20 is a valid attempt to try and wipe the slate clean of all the sequels. In a way, even the end of the original movie since Laurie never once mentions Loomis. Or that Jimmy was the one to tell her Michael was her brother. In fact, Loomis was brushed entirely out of the scene where Michael escapes the sanitarium in Laurie's retelling of the backstory for the franchise. Again: each new sequel has the right to operate as its own separate mythology. For example, you think I'm going to bitch about the Thorn cult? The only returning characters in that disaster were already polluted beyond further insult by Halloween 5. And, hell, even in Curse of Michael Myers, Donald played Loomis as being more restrained. That's 3 films in the franchise, all arguing that Hysterical Loomis is not the right Loomis. Even Curse got that right.

As I previously mentioned, the fans are the ones who forced me to reevaluate Halloween 4. Where I saw for myself something I already knew as a kid: this does the Dead End Town feel better than Phantasm II and Children of the Corn combined. Signifying what is fairly inarguably an example of evil's fate to never die, as well as in this case start over through new host. Which is the kind of image, the final one in the film, which literally blows any argument for the 5th film as superior right out of the water. That's an image with such power that it deserves to have Donald Pleasence on the receiving end (the only character with the ability to understand it). The 4th film had such a greater thematic cohesion than it gets credit for. It adds flourishes of nightmare imagery and piercing tones of terror (the scene where Jamie runs to the school, the only part of the movie I loved as a tween who as I mentioned in the other thread didn't like this sequel) into what is trying to be both a brutal film where Michael's kills punctuate it and a traveling film about that fateful dead end: Jamie can't get away from Michael and Loomis can't stop him. He knows it, she doesn't. It's kind of brilliant when you're ready to open your mind to it.

I'm less a fan of the 4th film, like with many other horror films, as I am an admirer. Looking at it as its own story, own characters, it's either the best sequel or the best sequel with Michael stalking a family member. Considering, again, that it needed to reboot the franchise stylistically. And did have its own sense of style and atmosphere. Halloween 5 has a strong visual eye too. But it halfasses literally everything else. What the fuck does it even have thematically when it's over? Loose ends (the mystery man in the coat and boots, the town wants to kill Jamie because of the ending of the 4th movie...which this fucking re-writes anyway), the worst re-write and idea on how Myers will find Jamie and vice-versa (and they do nothing with it, more on that later), the tragically sad waste of Donald Pleasence's talent in a mind-bogglingly stupid final physical confrontation, and the tragically untragic tale of a girl who destroys herself because she's flighty. Like Halloween II, it's a bad Friday the 13th clone. A real bad one. Introducing a set of new characters and the only novelty here is that we spend a lot of extra time with them. Watching them do everything. This should be good for enhancing atmosphere or tension. It enhances neither.

The film exists for its new characters and doesn't do shit with them. I'm almost embarrassed at this point to compare Samantha in this film to Sara in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter but that's who she is. Of course, at this juncture, I think Halloween 5 is better than Final Chapter. But who deserves the credit for the idea, or which film actually grounded their version of the character using something resembling a point? Tina does have a point, a reason to exist in the story. Congratulations, Wendy K- you are The Only One. Including among the returning characters. Too bad, again, it isn't a tragedy when she dies. Unless we can count her not being nearly as annoying as the young male characters. Or why the hell are you here again as every cop in the film. Another case of something in the 4th film which had a purpose being carried over here for urination target practice. The official telltale sign being the honking noise our two bungling Grease rejects make whenever they're onscreen. But does it ever irritate me that the force inhabiting Michael Myers is given a name just for the movie to completely misunderstand the role he played in the previous film.

Treating the old characters like they were new didn't do one bit of good for this story. Who on Earth would believe throwing out Jamie being taken over by Michael's dark impulse to kill in favor of a psychic link showing her his location and apparently keeping her semi-mute was a good idea? It doesn't save Tina, it doesn't keep him from trying to kill her, Loomis and the cop trying to protect her die. There's no thematic use for it. None. Meanwhile, it turns Loomis into an abusive old pig, puts Billy in harm's way, doesn't tell her a goddamn thing about the man in the coat and boots. That fucking guy has as much psychic link to Michael Myers as Jamie does. So, we're meant to be happy about this device because it in no subtle way whatsoever acts as the thing that facilitates nearly all the danger the first place? Michael Myers practically has a psychic link with Rachel's friends, his new crop of victims, since he knows exactly where they are at all times. That's... not how this thing works. There is no seed of an explanation for half this shit. Anywhere. Just the words "psychic link." Which most fans clearly expect to act as a bridge from nonsensical travesty of an idea to lucid and functional.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 05:08 AM   #69
dave13
HackMaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,887
holy fuck
dave13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 08:13 PM   #70
spawningblue
Deadite
 
spawningblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,059
DVD Fanatic believes if you write enough nonsense people will throw their opinion away and agree with his as facts.
__________________
"First you wanna kill me, now you wanna kiss me. Blow."

My Movie Collection

The Horror and More! Podcast
spawningblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 09:22 PM   #71
Do you see
Victim
 
Do you see's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: R1
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave13 View Post
holy fuck
My thoughts exactly...cheese & rice!
Do you see is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 09:27 PM   #72
Workshed
October!
 
Workshed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,634
Please don't quote him anymore, guys. Thanks.
__________________
*Films watched in: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thing View Post
Well as the video explains, I do not think it is a great film, nor do I think.
Workshed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 09:35 PM   #73
Workshed
October!
 
Workshed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,634
I went with Resident Evil: Retribution because I saw it in theater 3D, half in the bag, and had a blast with it. My little sis and I sneaked in beers, cracked 'em and laughed. I'm pretty sure that was the esteemed filmmaker's intent. At this point, the series has finally devolved into a video game--with stages, bosses, and an A-to-B plot. Plus, the series continues to deliver it's over-the-top action and ridiculous 3D pandering, like:





And really, by Part 5 of anything, don't you wanna have fun?

Also, Milla:

__________________
*Films watched in: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thing View Post
Well as the video explains, I do not think it is a great film, nor do I think.

Last edited by Workshed; 04-11-2014 at 09:40 PM.
Workshed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2014, 12:28 AM   #74
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by spawningblue View Post
DVD Fanatic believes if you write enough nonsense people will throw their opinion away and agree with his as facts.
Spawning Blue believes chatting on a podcast for hours is the same as spending those hours carefully reading, analyzing, writing, and researching opinions.

I may not be popular but I know what I'm talking about.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 04:18 AM   #75
Jack Grendel
Victim
 
Jack Grendel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 69
I went with Friday The 13th Part V cause it's the series I grew up on. So it holds a place in my heart no matter how bad some/most of the sequels got.
__________________
I Have Come Here To Chew Bubble Gum & Kick Ass
And I'm All Out of Bubble Gum!!!!

It's more of an obsession really...
http://jgrendel.filmaf.com/owned?rc=1
Jack Grendel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1999-2014 Horrordvds.com

No text or images from this site may be reprinted or used elsewhere without express consent from Horrordvds.com