Halloween (2018)

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by theEXORCIST

I hate the term Horror Hound. If someone referred to himself as a horror hound I would laugh

They could have least used a better name,Horror dachshund,that would sound far better imho.

[badfingerboogie]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah, the discussion was based on a post a few pages back. No big deal though.

Yeah, I was just replying to the dude that brought up Star Wars and Star Trek. At that point I figured anything was fair game!

[jayman3]

I don't understand. The sequels are so inconsistent, why anyone would want them to share continuity with this film is beyond me.

Think about it. You have this small town being terrorized by a maniacal psychopath on a Halloween night. He's apprehended but his "legend" lives on.

The residents spread stories about his killings. Details are exaggerated, the story misconstrued, people report false sightings, etc. In doing so Michael becomes the Boogeyman.

Not to mention that's really the only thing that makes Haddonfield famous. Again, there are real world neighborhoods that befall victim to a single serial killer and they exploit that and spread urban tales.

[Himmel]

Halloween is #1 second weekend in row!!! Woo Hoo

[Himmel]

Current B.0 Worldwide: $120,539,897

[spanky87]

Scream still sold more tickets.

[bb8977]

Originally Posted by Himmel

Halloween is #1 second weekend in row!!! Woo Hoo

There are no other wide releases today so that was expected but it's going to have a big drop this weekend. Box office mojo have already revised their estimate from $38 to $30 mil but I think the real number will be closer to $28.

[bb8977]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Scream still sold more tickets.

And is a far better film !

[jayman3]

Oh boy, here comes the "more tickets sold" and "inflation counts" argument

[Hoke Moseley]

What's Scream have to do with anything?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Scream still sold more tickets.

Yeah, but didn't Titanic sell more tickets than both?

[jayman3]

Fan Theory: Michael Meyers is a Robot!


https://movieweb.com/halloween-movie...l-myers-robot/

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

You said that Insidious 4 did poorly? The film cost 10 million to make and grossed almost 168 million. That's not "poorly" at all.


Also, Wolfcop is garbage.

I love Wolfcop as it's something different for the horror-comedy genre and different attempt to create a horror icon and i found it to be different.

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I quite like the Conjuring and original Insidious movies,as this is the new face of horror movies imo,but I also will never get tired of Michael Myers as it's a series of movies I have always enjoyed,sorry to see you did not like the new movie as it's clear you have a lot of love for the genre.

I just want this franchise to die because Michael earned his retirement from the genre, i just want new horror icons and new franchises already and let the old ones rest in peace as they deserved/earned their retirement.

Originally Posted by avs commenter

I like how people are referring to this as a cash grab. But not the other 9 Halloween movies?
The original was intended to be a stand alone film and not a franchise. This movie is the only sequel the creator of MM actually endorses.

What about Halloween 3's anthology idea?

Originally Posted by Foggy

Was this one of your friends from YouTube?

Nope but outside youtube a friend of mine from work. I'm sure the two youtube friends of mine i mentioned are gonna have a rant field day with this like i did! i enjoy their reviews and they feel like real people who can see some errors in hollywood now who aren't blinded by the beauty of a movie sometimes. I also stand by them defending Predator 2 which i love too and also feel it's the last Predator film worth a damn while AVP, Predators and The Predator all suck even on their youtube rant/reviews of the films. Him and i will continue to defend Ghostbusters 2 as we think it's a misunderstood sequel and him and i both despise 2016's Ghostbusters film being the worst film of 2016 and you should see his epic rant on the film as he even gave it no stars.

Both are intelligent honest modern youtube critics who are real people not blinded by Hollywood's beauty sometimes when there can be surprises like Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2, Quiet Place, John Wick 1 & 2 etc. as even Ocpcommunications with me consider Shape of Water to be best movie of 2017 while Last Jedi as the worst film of 2017.

Ocpcommunications is an excellent youtube critic with honesty and better than any RT critic as it's his channel, his rules and opinions and all. his thoughts on degradation of film criticism and what could possibly be done in his eyes to prevent it from crumbling away to dust or continuing to remain in purgatory, never really changing and not helping cinema improve as a whole.

Here are his five main reasons why film criticism lately is degrading.

Reason 1: Archaic & Unfair Viewpoints(I.E. "A film is worthless without a deeper meaning", "It is bad because it does not have an original idea."

Reason 2: Politics(The film is good or bad because it does not appeal to or agree with my or my employer's political beliefs.Or let's prop up or dismantle a film to get virtue points and to promote a particular agenda.)

Reason 3: Fast Food For Views(Five Minutes Or Less)/Clickbait(Five minute or less "reviews", comedic critiques, or criticism that is controversial just to get clicks or lacks any context or weight.)

Reason 4: Lack Of Individuality/Honesty(Opinions that are so subjective that they are no longer unique to the individual, criticism that is heavily skewed by public perception or an employer's political bent or opinions)

Reason 5: Skimming The Surface(Saying a certain element of a film is good or bad but not really saying why in detail and in depth.)

That's why he has honesty and truth than reviewers who are paid to say this movie is good and all when he is a true movie buff and knows about what films for his enjoyment are. He is popular on youtube and is like a Gene Siskel of the youtube channel in a way. In my opinion? There are way too many "reviewers" only saying what the masses want to hear. It's almost like honesty when it comes to reviews is hard to find. If you don't like a popular movie? Just admit it. Don't let the idea of getting dislikes, petty insults, and useless death threats deter you from saying what you really feel about a movie.(Was The Dark Knight Rises really that great? I mean honestly? Or were so many reviewers afraid of internet trolls they told them what they wanted to hear?) I would rather a reviewer like Ocpcommunications be honest than lie or take the middle road in order to avoid controversy. It's a rare thing to hear anyone talk about the film's score, the editing, it's tone, it's atmosphere, the performances, it's special effects, or even it's story sometimes. The following quote from Birdman sums it up perfectly.

"Let's read your f ' review. "Lackluster..." That's just labels. Marginality... You kidding me? Sounds like you need penicillin to clear that up. That's a label. That's all labels. You just label everything. That's so f' lazy... You just... You're a lazy ****er. You know what this is? You even know what that is? You don't, You know why? Because you can't see this thing if you don't have to label it. You mistake all those little noises in your head for true knowledge.

There's nothing here about technique! There's nothing in here about structure! There's nothing in here about intentions! It's just a bunch of crappy opinions, backed up by even crappier comparisons."

And I admit that Mike (aka Ocpcommunications) himself fall into this trap. And have done that many times. Because so many times it seems like "reviewing" in a way is just coming up with ways to label a film. To come up with labels to describe how bad or good a film is or isn't. Same goes for comparisons. A lot of his reviews and other people's reviews have comparisons in them to movies they feel are actually "good" to show what a particular film should aspire to be. But in the end all taste is subjective so the comparison would only work for a handful of people who share the same feelings. To anyone else? It would seem pointless to them, because they disagree. It makes you wonder why people even bother making reviews. I think about that sometimes, but then he remember how much fun I have making them and the group of people who actually do like to hear his thoughts and feelings on films and then he wipe those thoughts from his mind. But the thought is there.

Another issue him and i have with reviews lately is how short they are. Most of the popular internet reviewers whom so many people watch and go to for advice nowadays make reviews that are five minutes long. But if they feel like it? They might make it to the ten minute mark. Egads! I really don't care for this time limit crap. Mainly because it is almost impossible to go in depth on a film in five minutes or less. That's why I really appreciate other reviewers like Oliver Harper, Ramboraph4life, Razorfist, and GoodBadFlicks. Who go against the grain of boring over saturated online reviews from channels like Jeremy Jahns, TheFlickPick, ChrisStuckmaan(Who in my opinion has the personality of a rock) and so on. A review to me is much deeper and more complicated than just bullet points of what was good and bad about a movie. Why was it good? Why was it bad? No time for that, we can't possibly fit that into five minutes or less. It's gotten so bad that people expect this type of review and are disappointed when you don't make a review in this format. To me personally? A review can be however long it wants to be. It is all subjective after all. But I personally prefer an in depth review because then I can truly understand the reviewers feelings and thoughts on the film and know why they feel that way. But that being said? I have no issue with those of you who happen to enjoy those channels or this type of movie reviewing including his. It just is not his cup of tea so to speak.

Apparently in today's day and age getting into film journalism or the attention of filmmakers involves kissing butt 24/7.

Which is why he will more than likely never get a job in the field that he so so passionate about. Which is honestly too bad. It wasn't always like this. But lately, that's how it is. And that isn't fair and balanced journalism. That's bias at its finest and I don't get why that is what is desired nowadays in the industry. This is dishonest journalism. And a prime example of this is Bloody Disgusting Which should be relabeled Bloody Disgusting Shills because it is so loaded with butt kissers and writers being paid off.

Its no longer about people sharing honest opinions on films anymore. It's about politics and glad-handing. Which does the filmmakers and studios absolutely zero favors. How can an independent filmmaker improve their craft if they get nothing but praise for their work no matter how flawed it is? How can a studio improve their output if critics aren't able to be brutally honest about the quality of their films?

This quote from MST3K alum Kevin Murphy sums it all up perfectly. "It's the tendency for audiences to be so damned complacent that makes the overall quality of Hollywood suck so much."

Him and i with Matt would rather these cinematic horror icons just die already, rest in peace for they deserve their retirement and come up with new mainstream horror icons and new horror franchises, take risks again like Quiet Place and all. And that's why we should rely on youtube critics than RT which he says RT is bad for business and opinions when some youtube critics like Ocpcommunications have honesty.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

This is a horrendous and unfettered piece of tripe with no redeeming value. Those involved should now be seen as talentless hacks who have no love for the iconic villain and his arch-nemesis. If you're going to disregard decades of canon, make sure your movie is better than those it is supposed to replace. As much flack as 4, 5, Curse of Michael Myers, H20, and Resurrection get, this one takes the cake.

There is no atmosphere. There are no scares. The acting is shite. The script is shite. The directing is shite. The cinematography is shite. Themes set up are squandered. The music is malignant and uninspired.

if you like this, reflect on your taste in horror movies.

1/5

H2O to me was the last worthwhile Halloween film as that story ended the saga, Michael DIED at the end. You agree with everything i said to let these beloved horror icons like Michael, Freddy, Chucky, Leatherface, Pinhead, Ghostface, Jason, Jigsaw etc. rest in peace as they earned their retirement from film and the genre and be in favor of new horror icons and new horror franchises? now i'm glad Quiet Place was a hit with audiences/critics as it's something different and a fresh new horror franchise.

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Fan Theory: Michael Meyers is a Robot!


https://movieweb.com/halloween-movie...l-myers-robot/

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

I love Wolfcop as it's something different for the horror-comedy genre and different attempt to create a horror icon and i found it to be different.



I just want this franchise to die because Michael earned his retirement from the genre, i just want new horror icons and new franchises already and let the old ones rest in peace as they deserved/earned their retirement.



What about Halloween 3's anthology idea?



Nope but outside youtube a friend of mine from work. I'm sure the two youtube friends of mine i mentioned are gonna have a rant field day with this like i did! i enjoy their reviews and they feel like real people who can see some errors in hollywood now who aren't blinded by the beauty of a movie sometimes. I also stand by them defending Predator 2 which i love too and also feel it's the last Predator film worth a damn while AVP, Predators and The Predator all suck even on their youtube rant/reviews of the films. Him and i will continue to defend Ghostbusters 2 as we think it's a misunderstood sequel and him and i both despise 2016's Ghostbusters film being the worst film of 2016 and you should see his epic rant on the film as he even gave it no stars.

Both are intelligent honest modern youtube critics who are real people not blinded by Hollywood's beauty sometimes when there can be surprises like Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2, Quiet Place, John Wick 1 & 2 etc. as even Ocpcommunications with me consider Shape of Water to be best movie of 2017 while Last Jedi as the worst film of 2017.

Ocpcommunications is an excellent youtube critic with honesty and better than any RT critic as it's his channel, his rules and opinions and all. his thoughts on degradation of film criticism and what could possibly be done in his eyes to prevent it from crumbling away to dust or continuing to remain in purgatory, never really changing and not helping cinema improve as a whole.

Here are his five main reasons why film criticism lately is degrading.

Reason 1: Archaic & Unfair Viewpoints(I.E. "A film is worthless without a deeper meaning", "It is bad because it does not have an original idea."

Reason 2: Politics(The film is good or bad because it does not appeal to or agree with my or my employer's political beliefs.Or let's prop up or dismantle a film to get virtue points and to promote a particular agenda.)

Reason 3: Fast Food For Views(Five Minutes Or Less)/Clickbait(Five minute or less "reviews", comedic critiques, or criticism that is controversial just to get clicks or lacks any context or weight.)

Reason 4: Lack Of Individuality/Honesty(Opinions that are so subjective that they are no longer unique to the individual, criticism that is heavily skewed by public perception or an employer's political bent or opinions)

Reason 5: Skimming The Surface(Saying a certain element of a film is good or bad but not really saying why in detail and in depth.)

That's why he has honesty and truth than reviewers who are paid to say this movie is good and all when he is a true movie buff and knows about what films for his enjoyment are. He is popular on youtube and is like a Gene Siskel of the youtube channel in a way. In my opinion? There are way too many "reviewers" only saying what the masses want to hear. It's almost like honesty when it comes to reviews is hard to find. If you don't like a popular movie? Just admit it. Don't let the idea of getting dislikes, petty insults, and useless death threats deter you from saying what you really feel about a movie.(Was The Dark Knight Rises really that great? I mean honestly? Or were so many reviewers afraid of internet trolls they told them what they wanted to hear?) I would rather a reviewer like Ocpcommunications be honest than lie or take the middle road in order to avoid controversy. It's a rare thing to hear anyone talk about the film's score, the editing, it's tone, it's atmosphere, the performances, it's special effects, or even it's story sometimes. The following quote from Birdman sums it up perfectly.

"Let's read your f ' review. "Lackluster..." That's just labels. Marginality... You kidding me? Sounds like you need penicillin to clear that up. That's a label. That's all labels. You just label everything. That's so f' lazy... You just... You're a lazy ****er. You know what this is? You even know what that is? You don't, You know why? Because you can't see this thing if you don't have to label it. You mistake all those little noises in your head for true knowledge.

There's nothing here about technique! There's nothing in here about structure! There's nothing in here about intentions! It's just a bunch of crappy opinions, backed up by even crappier comparisons."

And I admit that Mike (aka Ocpcommunications) himself fall into this trap. And have done that many times. Because so many times it seems like "reviewing" in a way is just coming up with ways to label a film. To come up with labels to describe how bad or good a film is or isn't. Same goes for comparisons. A lot of his reviews and other people's reviews have comparisons in them to movies they feel are actually "good" to show what a particular film should aspire to be. But in the end all taste is subjective so the comparison would only work for a handful of people who share the same feelings. To anyone else? It would seem pointless to them, because they disagree. It makes you wonder why people even bother making reviews. I think about that sometimes, but then he remember how much fun I have making them and the group of people who actually do like to hear his thoughts and feelings on films and then he wipe those thoughts from his mind. But the thought is there.

Another issue him and i have with reviews lately is how short they are. Most of the popular internet reviewers whom so many people watch and go to for advice nowadays make reviews that are five minutes long. But if they feel like it? They might make it to the ten minute mark. Egads! I really don't care for this time limit crap. Mainly because it is almost impossible to go in depth on a film in five minutes or less. That's why I really appreciate other reviewers like Oliver Harper, Ramboraph4life, Razorfist, and GoodBadFlicks. Who go against the grain of boring over saturated online reviews from channels like Jeremy Jahns, TheFlickPick, ChrisStuckmaan(Who in my opinion has the personality of a rock) and so on. A review to me is much deeper and more complicated than just bullet points of what was good and bad about a movie. Why was it good? Why was it bad? No time for that, we can't possibly fit that into five minutes or less. It's gotten so bad that people expect this type of review and are disappointed when you don't make a review in this format. To me personally? A review can be however long it wants to be. It is all subjective after all. But I personally prefer an in depth review because then I can truly understand the reviewers feelings and thoughts on the film and know why they feel that way. But that being said? I have no issue with those of you who happen to enjoy those channels or this type of movie reviewing including his. It just is not his cup of tea so to speak.

Apparently in today's day and age getting into film journalism or the attention of filmmakers involves kissing butt 24/7.

Which is why he will more than likely never get a job in the field that he so so passionate about. Which is honestly too bad. It wasn't always like this. But lately, that's how it is. And that isn't fair and balanced journalism. That's bias at its finest and I don't get why that is what is desired nowadays in the industry. This is dishonest journalism. And a prime example of this is Bloody Disgusting Which should be relabeled Bloody Disgusting Shills because it is so loaded with butt kissers and writers being paid off.

Its no longer about people sharing honest opinions on films anymore. It's about politics and glad-handing. Which does the filmmakers and studios absolutely zero favors. How can an independent filmmaker improve their craft if they get nothing but praise for their work no matter how flawed it is? How can a studio improve their output if critics aren't able to be brutally honest about the quality of their films?

This quote from MST3K alum Kevin Murphy sums it all up perfectly. "It's the tendency for audiences to be so damned complacent that makes the overall quality of Hollywood suck so much."

Him and i with Matt would rather these cinematic horror icons just die already, rest in peace for they deserve their retirement and come up with new mainstream horror icons and new horror franchises, take risks again like Quiet Place and all. And that's why we should rely on youtube critics than RT which he says RT is bad for business and opinions when some youtube critics like Ocpcommunications have honesty.



H2O to me was the last worthwhile Halloween film as that story ended the saga, Michael DIED at the end. You agree with everything i said to let these beloved horror icons like Michael, Freddy, Chucky, Leatherface, Pinhead, Ghostface, Jason, Jigsaw etc. rest in peace as they earned their retirement from film and the genre and be in favor of new horror icons and new horror franchises? now i'm glad Quiet Place was a hit with audiences/critics as it's something different and a fresh new horror franchise.

I never go off reviews for a movie,the only opinion that matters at the end of the day is my own personal one,I do however feel your opinion that the only critic reviews that can be trusted are the bad ones,is a little unfair as there could be reviewer bias either way.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Nobody specified as far as I could tell. That's why I asked for specifics and began listing actors who portrayed characters in other franchises. Their other example was Norman Bates so I didn't know if they meant to suggest just in horror or not. But, regardless, if not a main character, Grandpa in Texas Chainsaw 3D has him beat. But must the character have also aged as long?

This is why we need specifics.

. That’s the problem with forums lol. If a few of us were having this discussion face to face it would be a few sentences then onto something else. Here I have managed to build this into something significant when it isn’t.

Norman Bates was a great answer though!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I never go off reviews for a movie,the only opinion that matters at the end of the day is my own personal one,I do however feel your opinion that the only critic reviews that can be trusted are the bad ones,is a little unfair as there could be reviewer bias either way.

I have already went over the film many times by the time I end up talking about it. . I agree though, if it’s on my shelf a few months from now that’s all the reviews I need. My own review backed up by hard cash.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

In a horror franchise? As a main character? If not, there is a rather notable example from last year featuring two Skywalkers. And Spock in Star Trek Into Darkness beats both.

There's Grandpa in Texas Chain Saw Massacre & Texas Chainsaw 3D who's close (39 years).

Those are the ones that spring to mind immediately for me. I'm certain there are other examples, some probably involving animation. But it depends on what exactly you're asking. If just "Has anyone ever played the same character onscreen more than forty years later?" the answer is "Yes."

One series that comes close is the Phantasm series. The four main actors from the first film in 1979 reprised their roles in the fifth and final one in 2016. And most of those actors were in all the previous sequels, too.

[Himmel]

http://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=l3QVFJBMn2U

[Bumblefeet]

Just came back from seeing it, fun movie theatre experience; I'd place it on the same level as Scream 4 in terms of pro's and cons; it has the references and nods to the original and freshens it up by playing with expectations, but it also has another generation of teens and the obligatory party scene which I could have done without.

The opening had me worried and there are parts in the movie where the plot and plot devices veer toward the baffoonery of the sequels, but thankfully it is a movie that knows its weaknesses and tries to cover them up with non-stop suspense and terror, whereas the sequels kinda celebrated some idiotic premises (there was a nice 'sister' nod in this one).

I've only ever liked the first 3 Halloween movies and consider Moustapha Akkad the Rick Berman of horror movie franchises. Jamie Lee Curtis called Halloween 2018 a movie dealing with trauma; Please, I find that laughable. Trauma was renting Halloween 4 and 5 based on the VHS covers and discovering some guy called Moustapha Akkad had drugged Donald Pleasance into doing shit movie after shit movie, thus flushing another horror franchise down the toilet; With Rob Zombie's Halloween movies it felt like watching a Rob Zombie Halloween movie, I much more enjoy his own movies than his take on Halloween, but it was still more watchable than Moustapha.

I watched the 35th anniversary blu-ray edition of Halloween prior to seeing this and highly recommend doing this; like I said, the new movie plays with expectations but also has many references and even shots etc. to the original. This is going to be a great double bill.

Regarding the music, it mainly works best when referencing Carpenter's original score and even dropping some stingers, but at times it also felt too present and cheesy. There was one moment where the shivers ran down my spine,

[Show spoiler]after the fat kid Oscar gets killed on the fence

and Michael shows himself, that was one hell of a music cue.

To conclude, fun time at the movies, decent body count and finally a Halloween movie that's worthy to be called a sequel. Now can we get the same with Child's Play/Hellraiser and dismiss all the crappy sequels?