Halloween 4/Halloween 5 ~ Blu-rays 8/21/12 - Reviews

[sancho]

I was not going to buy part 5, but screw it, I am in for both.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mredman

Zombies Halloween movies is the worst crap

That's because the fool failed at making an arty horror flick. #2 is quite possibly one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen. The ending is hilariously awful. The best thing about it was the sendoff of Danielle Harris.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

That's because the fool failed at making an arty horror flick. #2 is quite possibly one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen. The ending is hilariously awful. The best thing about it was the sendoff of Danielle Harris.

I actually enjoyed them *shrugs*

[bdisc]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I actually enjoyed them *shrugs*

I hated them. The only horror movies I like are the original Halloween series; I guess it's because of the Hitchcock atmosphere they had that the Rob Zombie movies didn't have.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by bdisc

I hated them. The only horror movies I like are the original Halloween series; I guess it's because of the Hitchcock atmosphere they had that the Rob Zombie movies didn't have.

They certainly don't touch the original, which is up there as one of my favorite films. However, I do appreciate Zombie's take... when you take both of his films in as one complete story, we get to see just how much 'the night he came home' messed with Laurie psychologically.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I actually enjoyed them *shrugs*

I find the first to be mediocre, though I did walk out when I attempted to see it theatrically. The violence got to me because of some personal issues. But a few years ago I sat through it and didn't mind it. The sequel lost me completely. Anyone remember this hilarity?

[bdisc]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I find the first to be mediocre, though I did walk out when I attempted to see it theatrically. The violence got to me because of some personal issues. But a few years ago I sat through it and didn't mind it. The sequel lost me completely. Anyone remember this hilarity?

It's funny you say that because I thought the first was disturbing as well (a.k.a. Rob Zombie's take on a horror movie), but not as much as the second one! I took the movie off (the second one) when, toward the beginning of the movie, the nurse walked through the room bleeding from her chest (I believe it was Laurie having a dream?)...I knew what was to come so I turned it off.

I like movies that are scary WITHOUT the over-the-top violence. The gore ruins the artistic aspect of the movie-making.

[Arlington]

Originally Posted by bdisc

It's funny you say that because I thought the first was disturbing as well (a.k.a. Rob Zombie's take on a horror movie), but not as much as the second one! I took the movie off (the second one) when, toward the beginning of the movie, the nurse walked through the room bleeding from her chest (I believe it was Laurie having a dream?)...I knew what was to come so I turned it off.

I like movies that are scary WITHOUT the over-the-top violence. The gore ruins the artistic aspect of the movie-making.

That ain't just a nurse...that was soon-to-be Oscar-winning actress Octavia Spencer! Who knew?! (Hmmm...any other Academy Award winners in a Halloween film?)

[zafisher94]

i will never understand the hate for the Zombie movies. I understand his style with all the violence isn't for everyone, but how people can say it's worse than any of the sequels is mind-boggling. While I love all the sequels, it's no secret that they are low quality cash ins of the original with very little thought put into them. Zombie's movies actually had a purpose. Him making them so different from the original is what made it worth watching. There is no way anyone would be able to touch the original by doing the same suspense style, so Rob did the exact opposite which makes it worth watching. That was a very smart move. And yes, the 2nd one is different. When I saw it in theaters, I was greatly disappointed and ranked it the worst in the series. However, upon watching the director's cut and doing a little research, I now rank it as number 3 (behind the original and his remake). Once again, why repeat what was already done? The original series was about suspense and lack of gore (although only the original, 2nd, and H20 was really successful with that). Zombie explored new territory by doing it different. And especially if you watch both movies back to back, there is an exceptional, comprehensive story that works great.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Arlington

That ain't just a nurse...that was soon-to-be Oscar-winning actress Octavia Spencer! Who knew?! (Hmmm...any other Academy Award winners in a Halloween film?)

She played a ticket lady in the original Spider-Man movie too.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

i will never understand the hate for the Zombie movies. I understand his style with all the violence isn't for everyone, but how people can say it's worse than any of the sequels is mind-boggling. While I love all the sequels, it's no secret that they are low quality cash ins of the original with very little thought put into them. Zombie's movies actually had a purpose. Him making them so different from the original is what made it worth watching. There is no way anyone would be able to touch the original by doing the same suspense style, so Rob did the exact opposite which makes it worth watching. That was a very smart move. And yes, the 2nd one is different. When I saw it in theaters, I was greatly disappointed and ranked it the worst in the series. However, upon watching the director's cut and doing a little research, I now rank it as number 3 (behind the original and his remake). Once again, why repeat what was already done? The original series was about suspense and lack of gore (although only the original, 2nd, and H20 was really successful with that). Zombie explored new territory by doing it different. And especially if you watch both movies back to back, there is an exceptional, comprehensive story that works great.

The problem with H2 is that the script is just awful. You don't care about any of these characters. What made the first and fourth films good in the original series is that you have these down-to-earth characters that are easily identifiable: Annie, Laurie, Jaime, and Rachel. But in H2, you have a bunch of white trash doucehbags that you can't identify with and hope that they make it out alive. Even the relationship between Zombie's Annie and her father is one-note daughter-son loveable bickering. There's nothing else there and her death has no meaning, which makes the entire scene laughable because it's filmed in a way that's supposed to make you feel bad for her and her father. Combine all of this with the horrid acting, laughable cinematography, and a failed attempt to make a connection between siblings work, and you have a horrible movie.

As for Octavia Spencer, don't forget her role in the American version of Dinner for Schmucks.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The problem with H2 is that the script is just awful. You don't care about any of these characters. What made the first and fourth films good in the original series is that you have these down-to-earth characters that are easily identifiable: Annie, Laurie, Jaime, and Rachel. But in H2, you have a bunch of white trash doucehbags that you can't identify with and hope that they make it out alive. Even the relationship between Zombie's Annie and her father is one-note daughter-son loveable bickering. There's nothing else there and her death has no meaning, which makes the entire scene laughable because it's filmed in a way that's supposed to make you feel bad for her and her father. Combine all of this with the horrid acting, laughable cinematography, and a failed attempt to make a connection between siblings work, and you have a horrible movie.

As for Octavia Spencer, don't forget her role in the American version of Dinner for Schmucks.

I certainly agree that there are many flaws to the film. There are tons of things I would've changed (and apparently Zombie would've too if he had his way). Some things I would've changed (based off Director's cut):

[Show spoiler]
1) better character development and dynamics
2) improved dialogue
3) Trimming scenes that dragged on too long (notably the scene after they hit the cow)
4) Not making the beginning a dream (biggest mistake)
5) Not having Michael without his mask except for the end (he made a point that Michael needed his mask in his first film)
6) Toned down Laurie's new attitude (I get that she's supposed to be traumatized, but I don't think she would have a big Manson poster after her parents and friends were so brutally murdered)
7) An explanation of how Michael has become this superhuman force of evil since that didn't seem to be the case in the first one)

That being said, I still find it extremely entertaining and enjoyable. I love Michael's brutality and anger. I love the dark and grimy feel of the movie. I love the disturbing dream sequences. Michael's new look even grew on me. I love that it's unlike any other Halloween movie (or even horror movie) that we've seen, and it truly isn't a rehash of what we saw in 8 other movies.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

i will never understand the hate for the Zombie movies. I understand his style with all the violence isn't for everyone, but how people can say it's worse than any of the sequels is mind-boggling. While I love all the sequels, it's no secret that they are low quality cash ins of the original with very little thought put into them. Zombie's movies actually had a purpose. Him making them so different from the original is what made it worth watching. There is no way anyone would be able to touch the original by doing the same suspense style, so Rob did the exact opposite which makes it worth watching. That was a very smart move. And yes, the 2nd one is different. When I saw it in theaters, I was greatly disappointed and ranked it the worst in the series. However, upon watching the director's cut and doing a little research, I now rank it as number 3 (behind the original and his remake). Once again, why repeat what was already done? The original series was about suspense and lack of gore (although only the original, 2nd, and H20 was really successful with that). Zombie explored new territory by doing it different. And especially if you watch both movies back to back, there is an exceptional, comprehensive story that works great.

I ripped apart the theatrical cut of H2 on the "comment" cards given to us when we saw the film opening weekend. Blasting Zombie and his ruining of a classic series.

Saw the film's Director's Cut on BD and was blown away at what a brilliant take on PTSD and damaged characters was lurking beneath the mess that the Weinstein's released in theaters. The director's cut is a completely different film with a very different tone -- all the best scenes are missing from the theatrical release. It's a very misunderstood film. It's not about a slasher coming to kill his sister -- his stalking of her is relatively unimportant in the sequel -- her fate was sealed the moment she pulled the trigger on him at the end of the first film. She was a broken person with no hope for a return. You'd never get that from seeing the theatrical release, which plays as a generic and overly violent stalk n' slash film without the nuanced performance of Compton and the overall "hopeless" vibe he was going for. Her scenes with Margot Kidder are almost painful to watch. People disliked this direction but I felt the direction they took that film was great. How would an event like what happened in the first film REALLY mess with someone's head? Harris' best scenes are also cut out of the film -- and she deserves praise for turning in a stunning performance out of what was mostly a wasted part in the first Zombie Halloween. Every character is a walking mess of a person -- suffering from the worst kind of denial and torture that this kind of experience can have on a person.

Everything about Halloween II blows Zombie's first attempt out of the water and it stands above most of the sequels to Carpenter's classic. Is it a perfect film? Nope. Is the theatrical version one of the worst films I've seen? Yup.

The director's cut was on my best of the year list. Who would have thought 20 minutes of altered film could make such an impact.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

<director's cut praise>

I do not recall if I saw the director's cut or not. Perhaps I should seek it out?

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I do not recall if I saw the director's cut or not. Perhaps I should seek it out?

definitely. The director's cut is a completely different movie (more character development, better paced, 20 min longer, more Laurie's story, and different ending)

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

I ripped apart the theatrical cut of H2 on the "comment" cards given to us when we saw the film opening weekend. Blasting Zombie and his ruining of a classic series.

Saw the film's Director's Cut on BD and was blown away at what a brilliant take on PTSD and damaged characters was lurking beneath the mess that the Weinstein's released in theaters. The director's cut is a completely different film with a very different tone -- all the best scenes are missing from the theatrical release. It's a very misunderstood film. It's not about a slasher coming to kill his sister -- his stalking of her is relatively unimportant in the sequel -- her fate was sealed the moment she pulled the trigger on him at the end of the first film. She was a broken person with no hope for a return. You'd never get that from seeing the theatrical release, which plays as a generic and overly violent stalk n' slash film without the nuanced performance of Compton and the overall "hopeless" vibe he was going for. Her scenes with Margot Kidder are almost painful to watch. People disliked this direction but I felt the direction they took that film was great. How would an event like what happened in the first film REALLY mess with someone's head? Harris' best scenes are also cut out of the film -- and she deserves praise for turning in a stunning performance out of what was mostly a wasted part in the first Zombie Halloween. Every character is a walking mess of a person -- suffering from the worst kind of denial and torture that this kind of experience can have on a person.

Everything about Halloween II blows Zombie's first attempt out of the water and it stands above most of the sequels to Carpenter's classic. Is it a perfect film? Nope. Is the theatrical version one of the worst films I've seen? Yup.

The director's cut was on my best of the year list. Who would have thought 20 minutes of altered film could make such an impact.

Agreed! It was actually this movie that made me comprehend the power of editing and how it can drastically change a movie

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The problem with H2 is that the script is just awful. You don't care about any of these characters. What made the first and fourth films good in the original series is that you have these down-to-earth characters that are easily identifiable: Annie, Laurie, Jaime, and Rachel. But in H2, you have a bunch of white trash doucehbags that you can't identify with and hope that they make it out alive. Even the relationship between Zombie's Annie and her father is one-note daughter-son loveable bickering. There's nothing else there and her death has no meaning, which makes the entire scene laughable because it's filmed in a way that's supposed to make you feel bad for her and her father. Combine all of this with the horrid acting, laughable cinematography, and a failed attempt to make a connection between siblings work, and you have a horrible movie.

As for Octavia Spencer, don't forget her role in the American version of Dinner for Schmucks.

Zombie didn't want you to 'like' the characters. They behave like realistic people who aren't necessarily perfect or even likable -- does this mean they deserve to die or are undeserving of sympathy when it happens to them? I think Zombie makes a particularly interesting point with that angle. People mistake his "white trash" characters for being "worth offing" but what does that say about the general audience of slasher films and how they value life? Even the loathsome creatures that populate his films don't really deserve the fates they get -- and if you think otherwise I have to ask -- would you feel the same about people who behave like this in the real world and suffer similar fates?

Regarding Annie and her father -- Annie went from being a bit of an extroverted and snotty girl in the first film to becoming very closed off and snarky. Her dialogue with her father is the result of an individual using sarcasm and humor to avoid closeness. The angry and bitter person that Harris portrays is suffering as much from the events of the first film -- it just happens to manifest itself in that way. You watch the movie watching this handful of broken individuals make mistake after mistake knowing that it's only a matter of time before they meet death. It's absorbing and sad. Poorly acted is something I'd completely disagree on.

Regarding the cinematography -- big disagreement from me there. It's a very deliberate looking film... both beautiful and ugly. I really dug it -- and felt it was a great alternative to the look of the original series.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

I ripped apart the theatrical cut of H2 on the "comment" cards given to us when we saw the film opening weekend. Blasting Zombie and his ruining of a classic series.

Saw the film's Director's Cut on BD and was blown away at what a brilliant take on PTSD and damaged characters was lurking beneath the mess that the Weinstein's released in theaters. The director's cut is a completely different film with a very different tone -- all the best scenes are missing from the theatrical release. It's a very misunderstood film. It's not about a slasher coming to kill his sister -- his stalking of her is relatively unimportant in the sequel -- her fate was sealed the moment she pulled the trigger on him at the end of the first film. She was a broken person with no hope for a return. You'd never get that from seeing the theatrical release, which plays as a generic and overly violent stalk n' slash film without the nuanced performance of Compton and the overall "hopeless" vibe he was going for. Her scenes with Margot Kidder are almost painful to watch. People disliked this direction but I felt the direction they took that film was great. How would an event like what happened in the first film REALLY mess with someone's head? Harris' best scenes are also cut out of the film -- and she deserves praise for turning in a stunning performance out of what was mostly a wasted part in the first Zombie Halloween. Every character is a walking mess of a person -- suffering from the worst kind of denial and torture that this kind of experience can have on a person.

Everything about Halloween II blows Zombie's first attempt out of the water and it stands above most of the sequels to Carpenter's classic. Is it a perfect film? Nope. Is the theatrical version one of the worst films I've seen? Yup.

The director's cut was on my best of the year list. Who would have thought 20 minutes of altered film could make such an impact.

I completely agree. It's not a perfect film but I still like watching it. Not many horror sequels show you the harsh psychological effects of the events that transpire in the previous movie. I praise its uniqueness.

I also love the grainy 16mm film quality. Very gritty.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

Agreed! It was actually this movie that made me comprehend the power of editing and how it can drastically change a movie

If you think about it -- even just a single scene or line can dramatically alter a film and the intended message. The order of scenes -- how a story plays out -- a single reaction shot of a particular character can justify an entire film's existence.

Laurie does come off as rotten person in either cut -- but her behavior is much more justified in the director's cut -- so much of it hinges on what Compton does in the scenes that are cut. Also the fact that the film takes place 2 years after the first... it's one thing if it's the first anniversary -- but the notion that these people are 24 months out from these events and are still in such deep denial about their situations and behavior is an absolutely necessary alteration that is often overlooked. It makes their situations all the more awful.

The Weinstein's should be ashamed for trying to dump the garbage that was the theatrical release on us... and I fully stand by my original comment card. It was a piece of junk. I wish I could go back and rewrite the part where I call out Zombie for wrecking it. He didn't. He made a fantastic film. It just didn't debut until the Blu-ray was released... after most people had written it off as the mess that it was theatrically. A shame so many people missed out on the good version of Halloween II. It's still not for everyone and I can totally see why fans of the original series might not embrace it (for the record, I love the original series, except Resurrection which doesn't exist) but I think it's great.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

Zombie didn't want you to 'like' the characters. They behave like realistic people who aren't necessarily perfect or even likable -- does this mean they deserve to die or are undeserving of sympathy when it happens to them? I think Zombie makes a particularly interesting point with that angle. People mistake his "white trash" characters for being "worth offing" but what does that say about the general audience of slasher films and how they value life? Even the loathsome creatures that populate his films don't really deserve the fates they get -- and if you think otherwise I have to ask -- would you feel the same about people who behave like this in the real world and suffer similar fates?

That is a great point. I always noticed that in The Devil's Rejects. You have a group of horribly, demented, ruthless, but in some sick way likable. Yet the good guys are all unlikable in their personalities and we find ourselves rooting for the murdering, raping, evil villains. It does speak volumes about our society today. The only people who I found weren't rooting for the the Firefly family was my grandparents, which then makes me think of differences of their generation to ours.

I also feel the same about H2's cinematography.