|
david_a posted:Come on there’s gotta be some fellow H2 haters in here I remember marathoning through all the Halloween films when 18 came out, it was the first time I got around to watching the Zombie Halloweens and all I could think after watching them was "Jesus Christ, Rob." IDK if that's a compliment or a criticism.
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
david_a posted:Come on there’s gotta be some fellow H2 haters in here Can you elaborate on what you hate about it? I really don't see anything to hate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
H2 was the more visually interesting and charismatic of the two Zombie films, but I think H1 works better as a Halloween film. I really appreciated that he took the time to flesh out Michael as a character, it just made everything that came afterwards that little bit more meaningful. For instance Danny Trejo's death scene was for me one of the strongest moments in the entire franchise, and without that build up it could have just been a throwaway cameo. Trejo also kills that performance, I think it's the best I've ever seen him. Also H1 has Ken Foree, so it's instantly better
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
I'm the most hardcore OG Halloween fan, I kinda don't like counting Zombie in with the rest of the movies, I though Zombie's first Halloween was a mess of half assed approaches and edgelord ideas, but I thought Zombie's Halloween II was an absolute revelation. Zombie managed to shake whatever temptation he had to pay homage and remake Carpenter's film and did a little mini-remake of Halloween II that was fun, and then he just made his own film with his own ideas that were different and explored elements of story and character that were never done in the original series and was really a worthwhile remake/sequel to watch. He even did the one thing I think '18 screwed up and brought back Danielle Harris and she added a ton of gravitas, emotional support, and humanizing elements to Laurie's trauma and terror.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Yea Halloween II isn't nearly as good without Danielle Harris and also of course Brad Dourif. Between the two of them they really inject a lot of genuine humanity into the movie, which is something people often complain about with Rob Zombie films.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Its a problem with Zombie films AND a problem with Halloween films. In the originals Laurie's totally on her own, her friends are kind of dicks, and Loomis is a raving mad man. And Jamie's a scared kid. The victims have humanity but like, there's often a disarming lack of humanity around them. Like one of the most impactful scenes in the original film to me is when Laurie is running through her suburban community screaming for help and people turn off their porch lights. Obviously that was intentional and part of what makes the first film so good but I think it kind of permeated the whole franchise at times (although there's one movie where Jamie feels super loved and protected, I just can't remember which). But Zombie did a great job just letting us get to know Laurie more and everything she was going through. She wasn't always likable and she could be kind of a dick, but Danielle Harris and Dourif help humanize that and keep it all very relatable and sympathetic and full of growth and pathos outside of Loomis' breakdown. There's not a lot of that in any of the Halloween movies, honestly. I think Zombie made a lot of understandable but bad decisions with his first Halloween but maybe the most right calls with his second of any Halloween sequel. I think I like Halloween '18 more because its got that old school Carpenter vibe but Zombie's II is 3rd at worst for me and not by very much.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Can you elaborate on what you hate about it? I really don't see anything to hate. The horse thing was incredibly pretentious, Sheri Moon puts in a career-low performance, Scout Taylor-Compton was grating and annoying, there’s a 20 minute fake-out dream sequence, a continual disturbing focus on mixing exploitative female nudity with violence, and the sappy Love Hurts cover over the slow-mo ending was one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I’ve ever seen. I strongly dislike Zombie’s movies in general and this is easily my least favorite of the ones I’ve suffered through.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
david_a posted:The horse thing was incredibly pretentious, Sheri Moon puts in a career-low performance, Scout Taylor-Compton was grating and annoying, there’s a 20 minute fake-out dream sequence, a continual disturbing focus on mixing exploitative female nudity with violence, and the sappy Love Hurts cover over the slow-mo ending was one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I’ve ever seen. Well I strongly disagree with most of this but to each their own. I don't know how you can say Sheri Moon puts in a bad performance though, she's hardly in the movie. The Love Hurts thing is definitely sappy but I love it and also it's a callback to the first film. Taylor-Compton is grating in a few scenes but she's supposed to be(in those particular scenes). And I have a hard time criticizing Zombie for mixing nudity with violence considering it's like one of the foundations of the whole slasher subgenre.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Other criticisms aside (I have mixed feelings about the horse thing but kind of just respect that it was Zombie's own idea for Michael so went with it) I think that second usage of Love Hurts was entirely intentionally humorous. Also I loved Scout Taylor-Compton, and yes, she could be unlikable in II which is why Harris and Dourif are so important to humanize and check her. Zombie did a good job there showing a trauma victim who wasn't always coping in healthy or sympathetic ways and still built the support system around her to remind everyone of what the problem was.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
I really really do not think the Love Hurts ending is supposed to be funny. Goons are just dead inside.Debbie Does Dagon posted:The horse thing would have been fine if there wasn't a flashcard at the beginning of the film saying "WATCH OUT FOR THE SYMBOLIC HORSE! HERE'S WHAT IT MEANS...." and yeah, the fakeout was pretty annoying. I loved the Love Hurts sequence though, but I'm a sappy bitch. Agreed there. The card at the beginning was unnecessary. As a kid who saw Halloween II on t.v. a hundred times, I couldn't help but love the hospital fakeout at the beginning but maybe in another unrelated movie it would've annoyed me. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
The horse thing would have been fine if there wasn't a flashcard at the beginning of the film saying "WATCH OUT FOR THE SYMBOLIC HORSE! HERE'S WHAT IT MEANS...." and yeah, the fakeout was pretty annoying. I loved the Love Hurts sequence though, but I'm a sappy bitch.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
I think Love Hurts was entirely sincere in the first one. And I don't think he's mocking himself or anything in II, but I think the timing and presentation of that can't be unaware of how everyone reacted to it the first time and had to at least be somewhat intentionally a middle finger/laugh.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think Love Hurts was entirely sincere in the first one. And I don't think he's mocking himself or anything in II, but I think the timing and presentation of that can't be unaware of how everyone reacted to it the first time and had to at least be somewhat intentionally a middle finger/laugh. There's an absurdity to the situation in that Laurie has been completely put through the ringer in her life and when you look back at it the inevitability of it all feels absurd. It's not fair, she never had a chance. But that kind of absurdity is also very very sad.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Y'all making me want to watch Zombies Halloween movies again.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
I agree, I just think there's a million song choices Zombie could have chose for that moment and he made a point to go back to the thing that he had been ripped to shreds for. Maybe that's just him wanting to call back and connect them and not thinking at all about the blowback, but I dunno. I kinda think Zombie was saying "gently caress you, I'm playing the song again" at least a little.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
I guess I don't really remember him being ripped to shreds for using the song in the first film. Was that really enough of a thing that Zombie would've wanted to respond to it?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Maybe I'm projecting my own criticisms. I felt like "Love Hurts" kind of became the symbolic "too much" for that whole Michael back story that a lot of OG Halloween fans absolutely hated. I feel like I never heard or read something about that movie without hearing that song brought up with an eye roll or laugh. But like... maybe that was just my hardcore Halloween/Carpenter tunnel vision.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Y'all making me want to watch Zombies Halloween movies again. You should. Also, let's not forget, Halloween II has a cameo from "Weird Al" Yankovic and it rules. In fact, that cameo and Loomis' whole character is some really brilliant self-reflection on serial killer obsession, the book signing scene being more relevant. But for a guy entrenched so deep in horror subculture, Zombie gets very critical of the cultural cult followings of people like Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, etc. that sprung up after their crimes and uses this iconic fictional character of Michael Myers and the opportunistic Loomis to really probe that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I really like that Zombie recognized he couldn't just recreate Pleasance's Loomis so he just went the entirely opposite way and made him a sensationalistic hack and using it to take a rip at true crime poo poo and that obsession. In Halloween Zombie just gets too mixed up trying to balance his own ideas with paying respect to Carpenter. In II he's just like "gently caress it, I'm gonna make my own thing" and that's why it really works. I mean, if you like what he did. But its not all bogged down in the comparisons.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Completely agree. Like, I do think if we're weighing the TCM matchup, Zombie's Halloween II can go toe-to-toe with Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, in that both see the franchise turning a mirror on itself, injecting some humor (TCM moreso but Zombie's Halloweens have good levity in them), while also better exploring the inner lives of their female protagonists and the killers alike.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
His version of Loomis is fantastic and one of my favorite things about Zombies remakes which have a lot of good things going on. Yeah I'm do for a rewatch on these.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Just watched TCM3 and TCM:TNG and I don't understand why they aren't revered as cult classics. They're far from what would be considered "Good Films", but that's not really what I want from horror sequels. I want deranged b-movie spectacles, like cyborg Matthew McConaughey, cowboy Viggo Mortensen, genderqueer Leatherface, Ken Foree throwing fists in a swamp, and well, every minute Tonie Perensky is on screen. If you have a minute, go back and watch them. TNG especially. They're crazed, dumb, deranged, and half of the ideas don't stick their landings, but they're a lot of fun! e: I didn't want to double post, so I guess I'll just put this here. I really wasn't a fan of the '03/'06 films. R. Lee Ermey kills his role, but the rest felt like soulless shovelware. So that works out as my liking 66% of the TCM films, and 45% of the Halloween franchise. Even adjusting the weights to compensate for TCM only having one really strong film, and Halloween having 3 strong films, it still comes out as 83% to 72% favouring TCM. So I'm going to change my vote to Halloween, because it isn't about numbers. Those two Zombie films were the highlight of this marathon, and I gotta respect that. Debbie Does Dagon fucked around with this message at 05:11 on May 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
After sleeping on it, I'm switching my vote back to TCM. There is way too much mediocrity in the Halloween franchise, and even when TCM is bad, it's watchable, fun, and noteworthy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
I'm a fair bit through S1 of Hannibal and while I find it a bit absurd its incredibly well crafted absurdity and I'm very worried for Will. My vote was already for Lecter but this is shoring it up well. Maybe I'll give those late Hellraiser movies a watch tomorrow. Not that it really has a chance.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I'm a fair bit through S1 of Hannibal and while I find it a bit absurd its incredibly well crafted absurdity and I'm very worried for Will. My vote was already for Lecter but this is shoring it up well. I will tell you, as I tell everyone, just watch Hellraiser VII: Deader, as it's the only one with an interesting story or any commitment to being actually spooky instead of a crime drama (V), a religious parable (VI) or a cheap meta-film (VIII). We don't speak of the found-footage Hellraiser nor the one with the Hell-accountant.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
Hellworld is better than Deader, and Hellworld blows.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
Hellworld is the first of three Hellraisers in a row to totally suck rear end AND take a dump on what remains of the Cenobites mythos and mystique. Deader at least has the amazing subway scene. How can you say Hellworld is better than any other movie when it has both "it was all a dream" and "if you die in the game you die for real" in it Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
I find it interesting that there's tons of discussion on the merits and values of TCM vs Halloween, two certain giants that stand athwart the genre, but relatively little on the Scream vs Nightmare side. It's just taken as a given that Nightmare is better and that's that. I'd like to interrogate that assumption. Nightmare 1 is spooky and cool and good, yeah sure, Nightmare 2 is the series' Halloween III, almost outside continuity, then Nightmare III is where we get prankster Freddy and the bright color palette and creative deaths the series would be known for. But it takes a quick spiral into turgid dreck. 4 is only notable for having the absolute best kill (Roach Motel) and absolutely nothing else going for it. The acting is atrocious, the kids unlikeable and Freddy at his most irritating. 4 also has a dog pissing fire for no reason. 5 is straight bad, with a low body count married to some of the worst mother allegories outside an Arronofsky disaster. Freddy's Dead actually went out of its way to be so frustratingly cartoonish and awful it actually managed to win a few Razzies, and New Nightmare was just the test-bed for the meta storm Scream would kick into high gear. Scream, on the other hand, is just straight gas the whole way. Even 3's goofball aesthetic never stops being just so darn fun in the face of all that carnage. And I think 4 really does a great job at being a better treatise on remakes always sucking than whatever Trevorrow was trying to do with Jurassic World. Sure, Ghostface kills almost entirely via stabbing vs Freddy's more creative skills but in a way that more visceral, grounded killer that could be fought off and understood the painful, haphazard act of actually murdering someone who would be fighting for their lives was something worth exploring. And the fact that the core cast remained intact throughout four movies is something that Nightmare (and honestly almost every franchise on this list over three movies long) could never dream of doing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
There isn't a single thing in the Scream franchise as memorable as any kill in Dream Warriors.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:There isn't a single thing in the Scream franchise as memorable as any kill in Dream Warriors. Do you like scary movies?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Someone else said it before, but I just have a hard time voting against Englund's Freddy in favor of a static mask worn by various bumbling idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
I love Scream and seem higher on some of the sequels than most but I agree "Ghostface" is kind of a lame rear end villain who isn't even really a villain because its really like 27 random people. Meanwhile Freddy is the loving king and if you walk up to a random person on the street and say "Freddy" there's a decent chance they'll immediately picture Robert Englund's burned up face and that hat and sweater and razor gloves. But for me I'm voting Nightmare simply because I genuinely believe it to be the better franchise and if you gave me the choice of binging either I'd pick Nightmare 4 out of 5 times (not accounting for time).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Even though there's definitely some value in the Scream sequels, a deconstruction of a genre does not lend itself very well to sequels in the way that Freddy does. Scream is kind of a victim of its own success in that sense. Ghostface has no supernatural powers and isn't even really a slasher, he's just some lovely teens cosplaying as one. So what the hell do you do for a sequel? It kinda dilutes the brand. It is kinda neat that Neve Cambpell is the main character of the series instead of Ghostface, and that she gets increasingly good at murdering masked psychos with each installment. But she ain't no Robert Englund.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
I like the first three Nightmares and New Nightmare to varying degrees – and Robert Englund is unimpeachable as Freddy – but the Scream series has an internal consistency that I don't think any other slasher series has. You really get to see these characters change and grow, even it does feel a bit like a soap opera. Even Scream 3, probably the most maligned one, has that sense to it despite the goofiness. Sydney becomes a crisis worker after everything she's been through. Dewey cashes in and becomes a consultant on a slasher movie loosely based on his life. Gale is now totally beyond her hunger for fame and is just trying to find out the truth for the sake of people she now cares for. I think it's the only series where I actually really like every single movie. Going with Scream on this.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
The Scream franchise is weird to me because like... each sequel is essentially meta about the franchise's metaness until its just a giant ball of neuroticism. But I think it mostly works for me. And while I don't think I ever really care that deeply about the main characters I guess I do appreciate Sydney's journey. But Freddy is king. The Nightmare series is much more fun to me. It has sentimental value to me in a way Scream doesn't (I mean I grew up with Scream too but not in the fun childhood "watching without my parents knowing" way I did with Freddy and instead I kind of annoying "college film students all up their asses about it" way). It has much more iconic and flashy moments than Scream. Wes knows when its done and tries to put a bullet in it in an interesting way. I can't vote against this until Ash charms me with his groovy mojo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
Bad Hellraiser sequels. Hellseeker. Saw this one time back when Dean Winters was the dude from Oz and not Mayhem. Ashley Laurence being back would be interesting except that she's barely in it and does nothing. Its pretty clear that this is one of those "random horror script with the franchise poorly shoved in" movies. And the basic script is just a mess of nonsense that drags along. Hellworld. Watched this out of order because my DVD put it 2nd of the 3. Not that it remotely matters. Another obvious random movie loosely made into a Hellraiser script. At least Doug Bradley was making some money. At least Doug Bradley was getting some paycheck. Matter of fact the most interesting thing about this is that Joel Soisson apparently spent a couple of years just making bad DTV horror sequels in Romania recycling the same cast members so Bradley spit out 3 Hellraisers and a Prophecy film with a plane trip between them. I'd almost like to see a documentary on how 2 Prophecy films, 3 Hellraiser films, a Highlander film, a Mimic film, Dracula 2000 sequels, and god knows what else got filmed mostly by one dude in with a ton of shared cast (and presumably crew) in Romania over the course of a couple of years. This movie sure wasn't interesting. I mean I suppose it was mildly funny to see Superman and King Ezekiel be skeezy douches destined for death. But this film actually made Hellseeker feel brisk and with great focus. There’s no way this movie was an hour and a half. It felt like hours. Also when it was finally over I couldn’t find my remote and this really terrible and obnoxiously loud song was playing over the ending and it was such torture I thought I might have opened the Lament Configuration. Deader. I basically watched this through the inertia of it being on the DVD that had the previous two films and being too lazy to take it out. Apparently Kari Wuhrer spent a sizable part of her life just living in Romania making these bad DTV sequels. That’s a life. Zzzzzz. Another boring generic horror with a kind of nonsensical plot that is then forced into “the box did it” to make it a Hellraiser movie. As much as I love the first two films this might actually be the worst franchise I’ve watched during this tourney. And that’s saying a lot. I have no opinion on "Hellworld vs Deader". They're both very bad and boring. I suppose Deader felt marginally more like a Hellraiser movie? I dunno. This is an argument not worth having. In the name of completionism (not a word) I’ll probably watch the last 2 Hellraisers in the next couple of days. But I just recorded Silence of the Lambs and have Season 2 of Hannibal to get back to. This was a… palette cleansing break from good stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 07:13
|
|
|
I have to push back against people ragging around the Ghostface look and persona. I think it's a great look because of how evocative it is. You see the opening scene and right away you know a few things: -- It's not a supernatural force --There is an inherent fragility to this person. They're not Michael Meyers, you can fight them. -- It's someone in a mask and you're watching a whodunnit -- Not only is it a person in a mask, but in a store bought Halloween costume. It's not Roy's weird Jason prosthetics. Really anyone could have bought that costume The conceit of the phone call is also great, and was a smart way to cut the difference between a talky Freddy/Chucky villain and a silent Jason/Michael villain. Lurdiak posted:There isn't a single thing in the Scream franchise as memorable as any kill in Dream Warriors. I'll just restate even though it's a lost cause, Scream is a franchise that starts perfect and never dips that low. A Nightmare on Elm Street should be the greatest slasher franchise ever made and it just never sticks the landing. Dream Warriors is the closest to being its platonic ideal, but it still feels messy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Those are all fine points but really what you're doing is putting the opener of Scream up against the weight of Englund's entire run as Freddy. And it's just never going to be a contest. As much as I do value consistency it's not enough to beat the Mount Rushmore-level horror icon that is Freddy. The inconsistency of Freddy will probably hurt him next round through, when he goes up against Evil Dead which has three films + a t.v. series that are all beloved. Most people really do not like Scream 3 and barely anyone even knows the Scream t.v. series exists. The Evil Dead matchup will be a totally different ballgame.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
I guess it's not fair a point to weigh in on Franchises as established, but if you were to tell me there was a new Elm Street movie in the works (not just in talks, as of late), I'd be completely excited. There is a Scream sequel in the works, and I just don't care. I don't see the point of continuing Scream, and I especially don't like how each sequel kinda makes the over-arching plot of Sydney Prescott being the most unlucky poo poo-upon person in existence. If you were to tell me I could write and/or direct a Scream film or an Elm Street film, I'm picking Elm Street all day. Elm Street is such a wonderfully inventive premise that if the powers that be had the brains to put the time and budget into a new Elm Street film instead of trying to pump out one every year, it wouldn't have felt the weight of slasher fatigue. You tell me there's a new Elm Street movie--with or without Englund--I'm in. I love Englund, but he's an old man, and I think a new performer could still give us a fresh new take on Freddie. Maybe not Jackie Earle Haley. And with Scream 5, I would hope that they just leave Sidney out of it. I know they've already open up talks to Campbell, but it would be lovely for Sid to die, and it would be lovely if she had to survive and kill another masked killer. Just let her rest.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I have no opinion on "Hellworld vs Deader". They're both very bad and boring. I suppose Deader felt marginally more like a Hellraiser movie? I dunno. This is an argument not worth having. I love Pinhead and the concept of Cenobites and the Lament Configuration. There's tons of good ideas in this franchise, but as somebody who binge watched all of them in a row recently I stand by this statement: There are no good Hellraiser movies. The first one introduces some great concepts but the lighting and cinematography are pretty mediocre and the acting is abysmal all around pretty much. The script had the makings of a good horror movie and obviously the practical effects and make-up are good, but it didn't get there. Hellraiser 2 replaces the bad acting with a nonsensical script full of great ideas that still doesn't add up into anything as good as you want it to be. Hellraiser 4 is probably the most interesting idea around taking one of these franchises into space but is still kind of meh. Most of the remainder are spec scripts that had Pinhead shoe-horned into them OR they are rapid-fire trash just meant to keep a commitment to a contract so that the studio can keep the rights to the property.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2020 17:59
|
|
