|
One of the big problems with 3D movies is that they are no good when the theater run is over. There's no way to reproduce the 3D used today in the home. The DVD and Blurays are done in the old blue/red 3D or some variation of it which is poo poo. And because the gimmick is usually the focal point of the movie there's really no value to the film at all past it's theater run.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
UncleMonkey posted:Really? It's actually good? Keep in mind who's posting. For a different take, this is someone else who saw it at FrightFest (from that thread): quote:Distraught, confused, and half-wild with fear, Sarah Carter emerges alone from the Appalachian cave system where she encountered unspeakable terrors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:46
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Looks like the Weinstein's were a little hurt that FD4 beat H2. They are fastracking a Halloween 3D to come out next summer. I really wish this 3D gimmickry would die already. A ticket to FD4 costs twice as much as one for Halloween 2, so in theory, it would seem that they had a similar number for tickets sold. I don't see why they'd be hurt by it, since even if FD4 had half the audience of Halloween 2, they'd still be neck-and-neck, though I'm really surprised so many people would be willing to spend almost $20 a ticket to see a hour-long movie in a crowded theatre. I'd berate them for fast-tracking a sequel and tacking on a 3D gimmick to get in on the current trend instead of trying to make a GOOD movie, but there really isn't any point in them bothering. Edit: And going back to the Final Destination series for a moment, one review on Rotton Tomatoes pointed something out that I never bothered to think about; Tasha Robinson posted:Here’s a question: What seemingly friendly force keeps gifting pretty twentysomethings with prophetic visions in the Final Destination movies, enabling them to oh-so-temporarily escape death? Is there some positive influence in the universe working to counteract fate? If so, why is it so incompetent at what it does? Alternately, is the Grim Reaper just loving with these poor kids by magically granting them reprieves, then even more magically hunting them down one by one? Why does any of this happen? It would actually be pretty interesting if the movies actually explored this. Jamesman fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 14:44
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:A ticket to FD4 costs twice as much as one for Halloween 2, so in theory, it would seem that they had a similar number for tickets sold. I don't see why they'd be hurt by it, since even if FD4 had half the audience of Halloween 2, they'd still be neck-and-neck, though I'm really surprised so many people would be willing to spend almost $20 a ticket to see a hour-long movie in a crowded theatre. Twice as much? Maybe where you live but not everywhere. Here theaters charge two dollars more for 3D movies, hardly twice the price. I'm sure it's different everywhere as there's really no standard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 15:20
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:It would actually be pretty interesting if the movies actually explored this. That's me and my friends' favorite topic of discussion with these movies. My interpretation is that Death is bored causing typical deaths since its so easy since people don't know its coming, and decides to randomly give people a "chance" to give himself something interesting to do. That or there is some Shingami with a Death Note out there that keeps unfortunately getting these psychic people and has the hardest time at his job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
Darko posted:That's me and my friends' favorite topic of discussion with these movies. My interpretation is that Death is bored causing typical deaths since its so easy since people don't know its coming, and decides to randomly give people a "chance" to give himself something interesting to do. That or there is some Shingami with a Death Note out there that keeps unfortunately getting these psychic people and has the hardest time at his job. One of the books explored this. In the book it was a war between life and death and sometimes when Death was about to cause an accident, Life might get wind of it to late and give the characters warnings. Then death would try to finish them off with Life trying to give them clues. Also Sorority Row out this day next week. Can't wait. Please God let the killer be someone OTHER then the lead Character (Cass).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 15:44
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:One of the books explored this. Well I'll be, there are spin off books and a graphic novel. Thats interesting. Its a good explanation too. As for the premonition debate, I always thought Death was just being a dick, like a cat playing with its prey before devouring it. The premonitions were not to warn them, but to guide them to their own demise since whenever the main characters seem to show up, people start to die around them. It wasnt as evident in the new film but its really prevailent in the 3rd (I thought the 3rd would have a twist ending and that the main character had unwittingly became an angel of death since any time she showed up or contacted anyone who escaped the rollercoaster, it was the catalyst for the accident that would kill them off). I suppose we will have to wait for the inevitable 5th film though as it topped the UK Box office with a good £5 million this weekend and Craig Perry said they would only consider a 5th if it did well at the box office and people want a new one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:Well I'll be, there are spin off books and a graphic novel. Thats interesting. Its a good explanation too. That's the twist ending to the 3rd novel. The third one opens with someone dying but coming back from death. It then explains at the end that when this happens to anyone they become and unwitting angel of death. The character pretty much caused every death in the book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
Final Sorority Row Poster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:43
|
|
|
Darko posted:Halloween He kills one friend at the concert while Laurie stays there being blitzed. He goes to her house and maims her friend. She leaves the concert and drives home, finding her friend. She runs away from Michael to a road and stops a passerby. While he tries to calm her down, Michael catches up. Where is the supernatural in this that you're complaining about. Again, the only thing missing is the busywork that ties them together. If anything, Michael is less supernatural in this film than the Carpenter films. He takes fewer bullets, he doesn't take bullets in the loving eyes and still get going. He doesn't walk around while on fire before passing out. In this movie, he gets shot by a sniper and pinned to a wall before being stabbed by Laurie. Jamesman posted:FD Around the time of the second one I thought up that there was some sort of mischief god at work, like a Loki, that has been gumming up the works of the universe forever. He'd been limited to saving individual people from time to time but that was no biggie. With the industrial revolution and the transportation age, he figured out how to be a giant pain in the rear end by influencing one person to save a dozen and then laugh at the carnage as death works to fix it all. So he keeps sending vision as the humans run around trying to avoid fate while death ties to correct fate. And Ali Larter would be his greatest work as she lives in total safety for years until death finally gets her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 18:03
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:You seem convinced that Michael is teleporting in Zombie's sequel but I don't see any evidence of that. The only thing the film is guilty of is not displaying his traveling but there's nothing teleport-y about it. It's not like anyone ever runs away from him only to run into him. There aren't even concurrent scenes where he's at two places he couldn't possibly have been at. Why did he go to the concert and just happen to kill a random friend? Why did he then go to the policeman's house, which was in the middle of nowhere instead of sticking around the concert and picking off more random people? There was no reason for him to go there - this wasn't his old house, he didn't follow Laurie to her new house - he should have no idea Laurie was staying there at all. There was no Halloween 2 type news announcement that Myers just happens to hear saying 'Laurie Strode, who is living with the sheriff, says happy Halloweeen!' He just "appeared" where he needed to be to put the main characters in danger. Combine that with Loomis "appearing" at a random shack with no location given where every earlier indication was that he was in another state (or at least hours away), and you say "wait a minute." You can try to excuse things individually, but when you have a bulk of B.S. happening in the movie, it is harder to apologize things under the rug. If you say he "just happened to go to the concert," then too much "just happened" that happened to get the plot to where it needed to go. If there was a purpose, it was an undeveloped/explained purpose, which is also bad. The movie seemed to maybe indicate that it was because Michael's mom told him to kill all of Laurie's friends (and her old boss) to turn Laurie. But then again, this makes Michael's mom supernatural, which is introducing a supernatural element halfway through the movie out of nowhere. You're comparing it to Halloween 2 OG (which I also don't like), but as much as I hate defending it, the nonsensical 'invincible' nonsense at least happened in the last 5 minutes of the movie, and KIND of went with the thematic established at the end of the last movie, that maybe he actually WAS the bogeyman. In this case, the last Halloween established that he was nothing more than a serial killer with no occult or mystical background at all, given that (non necessary) redneck backstory he got, so introducing some supernatural BS out of nowhere is jarring. Darko fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
I think it was pretty obvious that Loomis was in Haddonfield and not in another state for if not all, at least the majority of the day. He had a TV interview in front of the Myers house for instance. And a book signing there, or if not there probably close since Lynda's father showed up at it. There's no real Haddonfield so the geography of the area isn't something that can be confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
Anyone else here see Red Mist (known somewheres as Freakdog)? I saw it yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised. It's nothing brilliant, but it's a really fun movie to watch and a neat throwback to '80s slasher tropes. Also, it doesn't hurt that it was directed by Paddy Breathnach (Shrooms)...I'm starting to think he's one of the best directors out there for material like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I think it was pretty obvious that Loomis was in Haddonfield and not in another state for if not all, at least the majority of the day. He had a TV interview in front of the Myers house for instance. And a book signing there, or if not there probably close since Lynda's father showed up at it. There's no real Haddonfield so the geography of the area isn't something that can be confirmed. Did the Weird Al talk show predate or postdate the book signing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
Darko posted:Did the Weird Al talk show predate or postdate the book signing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:20
|
|
|
Darko posted:Did the Weird Al talk show predate or postdate the book signing? In the movie's timeline all 3 of those took place on the same day. First the interview, then the book signing, and then the talk show. So they probably weren't too far apart seeing as how Loomis was seen traveling by limo to and from each of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
It blew my mind when i realized the sheriff in h2 was wormtongue/chuckys voice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:29
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:He was watching a pretaped interview. That's why he looked disgusted with himself and how the segment turned out. From my memory, they showed him at the show, and then showed his agent telling him that he did ok in it, and then showed him at the hotel (?) watching the interview and thinking he looked like a joke, apparently making him want to redeem himself in the public eye. So when watching, the feeling I got is that he was running around in limos in some unknown location doing book promotion stuff, and it wasn't Haddonfield, unless they had a talk show taped in a small town, which is why he was watching the show/news reports in a hotel. Then he gets a news report of Michael Myers holed up in "a shack," and somehow knows where "a shack" is (he could have called around, but that would take even more time) and gets there in minutes, unless you were to believe the police had hours of a standoff with one guy with no gun and one hostage. That's why it came off so weird to me. It's a little less so if he had flown in and gotten home and saw the report at home, but it's still awkward. Darko fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
Nosaj posted:It blew my mind when i realized the sheriff in h2 was wormtongue/chuckys voice. Watch One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
Yes, Darko, you were right. God, my memory sucks these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:36
|
|
|
7 Sorority row clips. http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/17232
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Twice as much? Maybe where you live but not everywhere. Here theaters charge two dollars more for 3D movies, hardly twice the price. I'm sure it's different everywhere as there's really no standard. I'm just going by posts in this thread and the reviews, where it was being said they were $17 or $18 per ticket because of the 3D. Didn't realize that wasn't the case everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:00
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:Well I'll be, there are spin off books It was a lot of fun to write, though. Coming up with multiple hideous and convoluted Rube Goldberg deaths that were character-appropriate, complete with numerous fake-outs and near-misses, was tremendously entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
Re: Final Destination, I always liked the concept that it wasn't necessarily DEATH incarnate that was behind everything but rather the universe itself. That predeterminism was true to the point that even if you could change your fate the entire universe would work to correct you because it MUST happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:59
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I actually wrote one of them (Death Of The Senses), but it never made it to the shelves because of a production gently caress-up - they put the wrong author's name on the spine and had to recall it, then found that the cost of reprinting would make it impossible to break even, so cut their losses. I still got paid and a box of (now extremely rare) copies, though, and I've had my own novels published since then, so it was hardly the end of the world. Oh my God!! Are you being serious? Is there anyway to get my hands on that book? Been looking for it like forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:12
|
|
|
Darko posted:Why did he go to the concert and just happen to kill a random friend? There's nothing random about it. The only undirected killing in the movie were the open field rednecks but you could chalk that up to being dickheads to the wrong guy. The rest were people close to Laurie or in the way of getting to his target (in the case of the concert boyfriend and the good samaritan). You should really settle down and accept that the Halloween series has always had a supernatural element to it. Michael Myers takes a revolver full of rounds in the first movie, bullets to the eyes and full body immolation in the second, gets into a barricaded house with a deputy's shotgun in the fourth and veers heavily supernatural after that. That he may have observed Laurie in town and followed her home or followed her to a concert offscreen is hardly supernatural. If it is intended to be a psychic link, there's at least foundational support for it in the shared dream sequences that are peppered throughout the movie. And there's the psychic connection displayed in Halloween 4 (which this movie draws from in part) so it's not exactly out of character. I mean, are you really arguing for the mundane nature of the Halloween series by saying that 95% of the first film isn't supernatural and ignoring all of the sequels? Zombie isn't pushing the supernatural any harder than Carpenter did or any of the early sequels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Oh my God!! Are you being serious? Is there anyway to get my hands on that book? Been looking for it like forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
Nosaj posted:It blew my mind when i realized the sheriff in h2 was wormtongue/chuckys voice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 00:40
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I thought for certain that him preventing the mall explosion meant that he just added a few dozen more people onto death's list and there was going to be some kind of ridiculous montage massacre as death gets busy meeting quota. It would have been a welcome twist because of all the catch up death has to make it becomes impossible to ignore the phenomenon and it "outs" death. The local newspaper has headlines like "The Grim Reaper is real!" and death groupies follow around surviving theatergoers in order to watch their moment of death like a scene from Dead Like Me. That's actually brilliant. I wish you wrote that movie instead of whoever did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
Ytadel posted:That's actually brilliant. I wish you wrote that movie instead of whoever did. At least his might be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 00:48
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Judging by the quality of the fourth movie they'll let anyone write a Final Destination screenplay, so why can't Ape Agitator? I would say that they have to do something - ANYTHING - to shake up the formula in the inevitable #5, whether it's the world getting wise to death's pattern or having an evil protagonist or revealing the nature of the psychic visions or anything else. But then I realized that The Final Destination won the weekend box office and is gonna make money, so they don't have to do anything, they can just keep regurgitating the same movie over and over and they'll keep making money, so gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
All this Halloween talk made me rustle up some discs of the movies and I watched 2,4, and H20 again. Why isn't H20 given any praise? Benefiting from the post-Scream tightening of horror filmmaking but preceding the neutering of late 90s/early 00s PG-13ization of horror, I think it's a very tight film that practically justifies its existence from its conclusion. I mean, the body count is low but well used, the callbacks to the first Halloween and Psycho are pretty solid, and even though it has the obligatory black comic relief character, LL Cool J is neither in the film too much or given too many quips. Plus, I rather liked the way they mechanized the now infamous "killer rises" meme into something you could set your watch by and worked it into Laurie's climactic solution to the infinite punishment Michael could take. I'm also liking that they took a few pages from Cameron's horror sequel heroines (Ripley and Sarah) by giving Laurie a post-trauma makeover where she kind of pushes through to become a proactive fighter. Why's it get no love? It's purty, respectful of the source, and doesn't abuse its obvious revival nature by weaving it into the plot. Is it just because of the dumb watery name?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Judging by the quality of the fourth movie they'll let anyone write a Final Destination screenplay, so why can't Ape Agitator? It's not so much that the formula for the movies is bad (it works well for the series, except when they run out of ideas to keep it fun and interesting - Seriously, would these people REALLY go to a loving NASCAR race in the first place?), but I would be totally down for expanding on the idea and exploring new things. The review quote I posted earlier posed the questions about what's behind the premonitions, and Ape presents the idea of the inevitabiliy of death becoming mainstream. I'm not saying that the movies need to get all deep and artful and explain everything away, but I think it would be pretty cool to see things evolve a bit. I think it'd be kinda neat if a future installment was about a group of people who deliberately challenge Death's design to see how long they can survive. At least that way you could cut out the whole "What's going on? Wait, we were supposed to die in this horrid accident but didn't, and now Death is out to kill us! What, you don't believe me? Fine, let's watch a few more victims do stupid things until the remaining survivors come around and we then try to figure out how to not die!" thing. Jamesman fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Sep 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 05:44
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:There wasn't anything random about it. We're presented with three friends of Laurie. He kills all three. The girl at the concert was the first friend of Laurie, then he goes and maims the oldest friend of Laurie, and finally he kills the friend Laurie brings with her. It's a death list, an old movie convention, where they kill everyone important to the lead character until they're alone. Are you being contrarian in saying you don't understand why Michael kills the girl at the concert? They established her very well as one of Laurie's cadre of friends. Which he didn't see with Laurie. He DIDN'T stalk Laurie in this film. He just happened to run across them according to what is presented on film. Michael's stalker nature pretty much IS his character. He slowly stalks people for an extended amount of time, then he kills those around them, then attempts to kill them. This is much of the reason the first Halloween is so praised as a horror film; for half the movie, he's stalking. That's partially why 4 was seen as a 'return to form.' He's not Candyman who just appears around people tangentially related to the main character. Rob Zombie may have 'changed' the character to be Candyman, but why is it so hard for you to see why this may be jarring as hell and take away from a lot of people watching the movie? quote:There's nothing random about it. The only undirected killing in the movie were the open field rednecks but you could chalk that up to being dickheads to the wrong guy. The rest were people close to Laurie or in the way of getting to his target (in the case of the concert boyfriend and the good samaritan). You're misinterpreting the Halloween films. First of all, nobody likes Halloween 5 or 6, there's no point utilizing movies that everyone hates. Yes, Halloween 5 has a psychic connection, but nobody LIKED that movie, so why would Zombie use that? He may as well used the supernatural Mark of Thorn stuff that nobody liked in 6 as well to round it off. In the Halloween movies that people generally like (1,2,4,7), Myers is a resilient stalker that goes after the main character, kills those around them before finally going after them. There is a bit of "is he even human" at the VERY end, but that's as supernatural as they get. Otherwise, the movies go through pains to provide feasible explanations as to why he is able to get to certain places, as opposed to having him just pop up. There's a reason 7 jettisoned the supernatural stuff - it just didn't work. It's really simple; Zombie basically followed the non supernatural idea in his first movie, grounding him even more by giving him a typical "abused child" background. Then, halfway through this movie, we have to accept that he's supernatural, with no prior establishment as to the whys and hows. Why do you have such a problem seeing why this is a problem for many?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 14:15
|
|
|
Still no word on when Halloween 2 is out over this side of the pond.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 14:20
|
|
|
Darko posted:Which he didn't see with Laurie. He DIDN'T stalk Laurie in this film. quote:Rob Zombie may have 'changed' the character to be Candyman quote:Yes, Halloween There is nothing in Zombie's Halloween 2 that wasn't present in original recipe Halloween 2 and Halloween 4, which it's an amalgam of. Also, it should be said that H20 had the same level of supernatural power with Myers taking a half dozen knife stabs, axe to the chest, being run over, and then having his back broken by an out of control van. So let's be clear...this is supernatural:  Being able to find Laurie who still lives in the town he previously attacked her at and finding her best friend, the sheriff's daughter, at the sheriff's house is nothing out of the ordinary for the series. There's no teleporting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 16:31
|
|
|
Agreed. Michael was way more supernatural in the original series. Especially in 2 and 4-6. In H20 I'd say the only thing really supernatural is from the ax in the shoulder forward. The fact that he didn't even budge when the ax embedded into his shoulder was definitely not something that can be explained other than as supernatural. And the whole ending with him being shot out the van as well. What makes that more ridiculous is that it was partially retconned in Resurrection that it wasn't even Myers. And I say partially because it's not widely known, but there was footage shot during the filming of H20 that was shot specifically to show it wasn't Myers in case of a sequel. Most of it was scrapped though. But one scene from that footage did make it into the retcon at the beginning on Resurrection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Agreed. Michael was way more supernatural in the original series. Especially in 2 and 4-6. In H20 I'd say the only thing really supernatural is from the ax in the shoulder forward. The fact that he didn't even budge when the ax embedded into his shoulder was definitely not something that can be explained other than as supernatural. To be honest I didn't see much supernatural in 2 by itself. When you consider it knowing there's a sequel with the same character, then yeah, but as a standalone movie in a series I can't think of much at all. The movie establishes he doesn't feel pain (hand in boiling water repeatedly while drowning the girl), so taking a few blind swipes after being shot before he's blown up isn't too implausible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:10
|
|
|
pantsfish posted:To be honest I didn't see much supernatural in 2 by itself. When you consider it knowing there's a sequel with the same character, then yeah, but as a standalone movie in a series I can't think of much at all. The movie establishes he doesn't feel pain (hand in boiling water repeatedly while drowning the girl), so taking a few blind swipes after being shot before he's blown up isn't too implausible. Well, on top of the being shot twice in the face you have to remember in preceding hours he'd already had a large needle plunged into his neck, a coat hanger in the eye, shot six times by Loomis and falling out of second story window, walked through a glass door, and then shot FIVE more times by Loomis. So Michael had already been shot shot 11 times before the two in the face. That's supernatural.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:He doesn't need to stalk Laurie. Every night is filled with Michael Myers. Every day is a psychiatrist talking about Michael Myers. And in retrospect, the only stalking of Laurie in the original series happened in the first film. In the sequel, Myers is doing the same thing here, making a beeline for Laurie and killing random people in between. It's actually a lot more focused in this remake as the people he kill are a lot more connected to the story than the nursing staff and whatnot who bit it in the sequel. Let's see the plain as day difference: Halloween 1: Laurie goes to his house. He follows her around all day. At night, he kills those closest to her. Halloween 2: Michael Myers hears that Laurie is taken to the hospital on the radio. He then goes to the hospital. Then he kills the people he runs into at the hospital while looking for her. Halloween 4: Michael Myers hears that he has a living niece. He goes to Haddonfield, follows her around, kills people around her/trying to get to her. 5 and 6 suck, who cares. Halloween 7: Michael Myers finds out from records that Laurie faked her death and where she's living. He makes his way there and kills people along the way in trying to get her. 8 sucks, who cares. Rob Zombie's Halloween 2: Michael Myers sees a white horse and wanders back to Haddonfield. He then inexplicably goes to a party where Laurie is with no way for him to have run into her on the way as she was driving around, and he was shown walking everywhere. And instead of following and killing her at the party, then beats her to the house in which she's staying, which shouldn't be knowledge that he has. He didn't follow her to her house - he beat her to it. quote:Goddamn hyperbole destroys discussion. Myers does nothing Candyman-like. His travel within the movie world is hardly impossible. We've been provided many shots of his travels leading toward Haddonfield. His physical encounters are even grounded within the scope of the Halloween series, as he doesn't get into a rooms or buildings or behind people that he shouldn't be able to. And he takes less damage within this movie than in most of the others and doesn't do supernatural feats of strength like press his thumb through the front of someone's forehead. The only thing arguably supernatural would be his knowledge, which could have been gleaned by observing Laurie during her day or via the shared dreams they have. But that's hardly Candyman and I wish you'd be willing to look at what's actually in the movie than some fictional exaggeration. The point is not hyperbole, it's that its a comparable scenario. The plot of Candyman was that he would appear to people around the main character and kill them in order to force her to fulfill her role. The plot of this was APPARENTLY that Meyers appeared where needed to kill all of Laurie's friends in order to force her to fulfill her role, whatever that was supposed to be. The only real difference in "amount of supernatural" being that Candyman could literally appear wherever, and this guy had to actually walk. Either way, it's a shift from a villain that needs to do detective work to find out about you and one that is omniscient and just "knows." quote:Jamie is clearly linked to Michael. She has accurate dreams of a guy who was been incarcerated since before she was born. She picks out the same costume he had as a kid. And in the end she fully becomes him. I know you're well versed in the films and an avowed fan of 4 so you know this to be true. The series has been supernatural from the beginning when Myers takes six bullets and gets up afterwards. He takes bullets to the eyes and immolation. He teleports into a barricaded house and kills the deputy guarding the only door. He has a psychic link to his neice. That's ignoring your reviled 5 and 6. Being able to find Laurie, who is driving around the town in 1 day, on foot with no prior knowledge of where she is, and then beating her to the house in which she's staying, which he should also have no prior knowledge of, IS supernatural to a level not previously established.. Like you say, this is really an amalgam of Halloween 2/4/5. The problem being that - it combines the Jason like strength from 4 (getting beat to near death by a baseball bat with no effect at all/smashing people's heads in), with the psychic radar from 5 with no gradual buildup. It's saying "You know how I made Myers' LESS supernatural in the first movie, giving him this abusive childhood and establishing he's a (really strong and durable) human? Well, never mind that, he's got supernatural radar and is driven by a ghost with a white horse that also is linked to his sister! And although you think he's just crazy and hallucinating at the beginning, it will be established that it's real in the last quarter of the film with no explanation!" If it was the gradual buildup of 4 different movies, it would be better received than just throwing it at you out of nowhere in the sequel to something in which you were purposely grounding the series even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:35
|
|
