I'm all for killing hippies! And use whatever ya want to do it, says I. But dammit Michael...speed it up Boyo! You
know what I'd like to see? More bench-mounted vise related killings. Kind of a Joe Pesci head in the vise, baseball
bat kinda thing..that would would be swell! Your average, garden variety, 70's slasher villain just doesn't seem to
have enough anger to really to totally F-up the long haired flower children he's offing. Ya gotta have style man, be
flashy, egg-whisk someone to death...it's the 70's....waste someone with a lawn dart!!! Use that clown head that
screws into the water hose to flay someone!!! The mask is a good touch though. But the jumpsuit?
C'mon...remember...the 70's...how about sequins and platform boots...high collars....eagle belt buckles....now
THAT's scary!! Anyway..that's just what I think...could be the ritalin.
DJ
It's funny how Hollywood continues the HALLOWEEN films even though the first one was nothing special. Hollywood can't make a film like RE-ANIMATOR, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, or BRAINDEAD due to today's Polliticaly Correct times.
And yet, they are still able to make another boring, unoriginal, uninspired, pedestrian, dull, silly, unimpressive sequel to some old 1979 film that was good for it's own time. What next, another FRIDAY THE 13th sequel? I hope not!
When are we gona get another EVIL DEAD-like feature? Comon Hollywood, stop spewing the same slasher s**t and give us some Old School!
"It's funny how Hollywood continues the HALLOWEEN films even though the first one was nothing special."
I'm speechless. I simply have no retort for that comment.
Of course, when I say "nothing special" that doesn't mean I didn't like it. Truth be told from me, Donald Plesence was quite good as Dr. Loomis and Jamie Lee Curtis also delivered a fine role. The 2.35:1 Panavision looked EXCELLENT and the direction was nicely paced with some effective twists. But, it has all the same elements of your routine slasher film you will find even in the crappy SCREAM trilogy.
But HALLOWEEN was nothing new to the horror film genre. The slasher theme, as well as the "body count", has been done way before HALLOWEEN beginning with Mario Bava's TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE (and I might add, NO CREDIT has been given to this little Italian wonder ever since FRIDAY THE 13th ripped it off). The HALLOWEEN films are virtually the same: Michael Meyers comes back, killes teens who have premarital sex, Meyers ends up dying at the end, but then his body mysteriously disappears (however, since it has been a while since I saw the sequels) . Of course, one could ask why would I watch a Lucio Fulci or George A. Romero film? Simple, because they have gone PAST the slasher film and done other features more worthy than FRIDAY THE 13th or, dare I say it, HALLOWEEN.
John Carpenter is indeed a good director, but I think his directorial skills have created far better films like DARK STAR and THE FOG. Sure, without HALLOWEEN he would have never continued on. But then, if Carpenter had not directed DARK STAR first he would have never become a good director.
To sum it up: HALLOWEEN is not bad, but it's too overrated as a trend-starter of the slasher films even though it wasn't the first and isn't too original. However, I would rather watch HALLOWEEN than FRIDAY THE 13th!
at the end of the day does it even matter its all run of the mill mainstream s**te unlike truth told by chris.k. evil dead
kriss emmett wrote:
>
> at the end of the day does it even matter its all run
> of the mill mainstream s**te
Of course, that is true as well. But, HALLOWEEN first began as a low budget feature spawning a couple low budget sequels. Now HALLOWEEN has definately gone mainstream and now another sequel is on it's way as well. Will I go see it? Maybe, just to see if it is a bit different or not. I will, however, make sure I will not pay $7.50 to see it.
Yes, it's run of the mill mainstream s**te. But will this type of s**te change it's direction? Who knows.
Slashers certainly didn't start with halloween (which ripped off black christmas like friday the 13th did with bay of blood I'd say.) The first two I liked but they certainly are overated and after that the series fell into trash sequels.
"Genre has been done to death..." - Richard Band, composer of RE-ANIMATOR
Quite true. The film industry has so many genres, and yet with genre it can be done to death. Like with HALLOWEEN and it's sequels, it's a genre film that does the exact same thing over and over again. Of cours, one can say HALLOWEEN is trying to be "traditional" when doing the same thing over. I think not.
To me, "traditional" films are features that go a different route than what is to be expected. Take the original 1931 FRANKENSTEIN for instance in which the Frankenstein Monster doesn't talk, but groans and Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster are portrayed as the "bad guys". In the sequel BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, the Monster begins to talk and Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster are now the "good guys". In other words, the original theme of the first has now changed in the second. To me, that is a traditional film.
Going down the road further, let us turn to THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD. When you hear the title you think, "An in-name-only sequel to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and it's gona' be the same." But when you finally see RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, their are differences that are a twist in both plot structure and you point of view. The zombies eat flesh, walk slowly, and make no sounds in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. In RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, the zombies eat brains, more fast moving , and even talk! Again, in my own view, tradition is to take an original idea and create your own motifs to make it slightly different than than what the average viewer expects. Rules are broken to make room for something new while using an older theme.
How about BRAINDEAD? Like with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the zombies do nothing but eat flesh and walk around dazed-and-confused. But, the intent is not to take the films plot or storyline seriously whatsoever. Instead, you treat the film with laughter due to it's use of black comedy and unserious situations. Again, tradition is to take an original idea and create your own motifs to make it slightly different than than what the average viewer expects. Rules are broken to make room for something new while using an older theme.
Now looking at HALLOWEEN, as a genre film it involved slashing unsuspecting (i.e. dumb) teens and the like. This storyline is forever repeated in the rest of the sequels and nothing is changed and nothing is different. The only sequel it does not involve most of what the HALLOWEEN films is HALLOWEEN 3. But even then HALLOWEEN 3 is a film with a totally misleading title and has noting at all to do with Michael Meyers, so it can be easily excluded from the list as a HALLOWEEN sequel as well as a boring flick.
As Richard Band said "Genre has been done to death." It sure has, Richard! And because of that, HALLOWEEN-like with FRIDAY THE 13th and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET-is a genre film that is just the same thing over and over in the sequels. It looses it's mark after that and will die out. But, later on down the road Hollywood will revive it once again to audience members who act as if a slasher film has never been done before! While that is done, other themes like zombies, vampires, aliens, etc. will be left in the Vaults of Time to rot and die out leaving the slasher films to repeat the same routine until it becomes too repititive.
Those who love the HALLOWEEN flicks will certainly have a different view of the film and it sequels. Some fans love the sequels, some don't. But even so, to watch the same theme over and over is like a broken record going on and on.
That said, genre has been done to death. Will we ever see something new? I hope.
Didn't mean to spark a debate on genre films. I love 'em especialy if there's lots of nudity and naughty bits (tastefully done, of course. What I'm on about is that Halloween sucked big green weanie. It was bad..bad...badbadbadbad. And not in a good way. Eeveryone's always on about how it's a classic and yada yada. Same with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I don't see it. I think they're both painfully boring, although TCM was a little off putting. How did these flicks get to be the Holiest of Holies among slashers? Maybe I just don't get it, I could (concievably) be wrong. Any way, thanks for leting me rant.
DJ
Not only was the original halloween POOP! The installments that followed were also totally fecal...more so! But at least the kids got better looking! C'mon every one would rather see a good looking kid get wasted..am I right...Oh, just grow up and admit it!!!
DJ
I think the slashers were better when they were more politically incorrect. Some of the ones from the 70s were almost like porn films, except with death scenes instead of sex scenes.
BRAINDEAD I have never liked. It's not really a horror film. It's gory, but that doesn't mean anything if you never get the idea that the characters are in serious danger. It's sort of like a Troma movie in that respect.
RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD does a much better job-it has black humor [which is funnier than BRAINDEAD's Pythonesque humor] while at the same time it never forgets that it is a horror film.
EVIL DEAD started off well, but ARMY OF DARKNESS went too far into fantasy/science fiction territory, and was too comical.
I saw BLACK CHRISTMAS only recently. It's important historically, but I thought it moved too slowly. I guess in 1974 it was a big deal, though, and it does have some scary elements.
All of the HALLOWEEN sequels are terrible. The third one is kind of interesting just because it has no connection with the series. I think it might have done better if it had been produced as a stand-alone film.
Hey.Deej and Jmc...what the hell are you both smoking?!
Films like "Halloween","Braindead"/"Dead Alive","Evil Dead",and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" are true horror classics,whether you like it,or not!!
Hell:even "Black Christmas" absolutely rocks!!!!
Accept it, and deal with it, guys!!!
But Braindead isn't scary. It's like a Monty Python sketch, and it's funny in that sorta way, but it's not a horror film any more than Scooby Doo. There's nothing in that movie that is as stomach turning as, say, the eyeball scene from Zombie.
The first 2 Evil Dead films are fine. Army of Darkness isn't, probably because they were tired of making the same film again and decided to take it into a new direction. It went too far off for me, but I don't like action or fantasy very much, and hate most horror comedies [another reason I don't like Brain Dead.]
And I have nothing against Texas Chainsaw Massacre, though I can understand how jaded fans of today might not be able to relate to it since it's all about creepy atmosphere and imagination instead of buckets and buckets of gore. My favorite character is Franklin....
I like the original Halloween. True, it probably wasn't a new idea, but it was still done well, and it was new to the majority of people who saw it.
The sequels suck, but that's just the way it goes. It is interesting that the Halloween sequels ran out of gas before the Friday the 13th sequels [which are good up to part 5, though part 5 is only good because of the gal with the big cans.]
Black Christmas: Not enough killing.
how the hell can jmc sit there and say that modern cinema goers only enjoy gore then say that blay christmas (an atmospheric masterpiece) dosent hav enough killing. boy get off that weed and plant a brain seed.
steve i agree with you and nothing personal to jmc but your views suck a big fat afgan ass.
Halloween is my second favorite film of all time, so I am biased. But I saw it first run at the tender age of 11 and the effect it had on me was something that has never quite been surpassed (the same thing can be said of my favorite movie of all time, Jaws).
Liz over at An You Call Yourself a Scientist ways in on what makes Halloween great when all is said and done...
http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/liz_halloween.htm
I agree her critical reading nearly one hundred percent. For me scary movies were about being SCARED, not getting off on violence or gore. I'm all for irreverence, but trollish slamming is making this message board surfing tiresome and depressing. I'm sure the kids of today find most of Hitchcock's movies boring and stupid.
One of the most interesting statements about Halloween's impact was in an issue of the now defunct small press magazine The Horror Show. The film critic asked readers to send in their top ten lists of their favorite horror movies off all time. Readers weighed and the votes were counted, the movies getting placed on an inclusive list depending on the amounts of votes from the fans (hence there were a variety of films at each number - seven at the #10 slot, eight at #5, etc) but only ONE movie occupied the #1 slot. That was, you guessed it, John Carpenter's Halloween. The reason was small, but telling. People had sent in lists and, as was expected, movies were placed all over the map (someone's number one was not even on another's list) but Halloween was the ONLY move on EVERY SINGLE LIST.
That says something about it.
But someone will always dislike or hate a movie for whatever reason. But disliking or hating a movie for taking the time to develop characters and build tension?
Perhaps we truly deserve the Michael Bay's and Renny Harlin's of today's cinema.
I agree with most everything that Chadzilla said.
I just want to add that the comparisons of Bava's "Twitch of the Death Nerve" to "Halloween" are unjustified. They are two different beasts entirely. Just because people die gruesomely in both movies does not mean one ripped off the other. One could just as easily say that Bava was ripping of Hitchcock films and not giving Hitchcock any credit.
The same thing goes for "Black Christmas." Hitchcock, Bava, Clark, and Carpenter all made films with the same basic premise - a murderer preying on innocents. Their methods, their skills and their stories set them apart from one another. No one ripped anyone off.
Plus, the Slasher Genre is MUCH older than "Halloween" and "Friday the Thirteenth." Mad Dog Killers have been with us since the beginning of film. If the genre hasn't died in fifty years, it will, in all likelihood, stay with us for a while to come.
_____________________________________________________________________
The words "Old Fart" shall not be used to describe anyone less than ten years older than myself from here on out under pains of causing me to weep at my lost youth. Thank you and good day.
With the horror genre always being reffered to "slasher films", I personally doubt the genre will change. Good or bad? In my opinion: BAD. Horror film fans keep thinking that the slasher genre is the supreme one out of all other elements in horror features. How sad, since other films in the past like RE-ANIMATOR and RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD has shown that the horror film isn't all about slashing people.
And as I said in my earlier in one of my comments, the slasher films have been already done before HALLOWEEN. TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE is one of them, but go all the way back to Hershcell Gordon Lewis' BLOOD FEAST. Now their is an early slasher film (maybe not the first, but the most memorable in my book).
And looking back at HALLOWEEN and it's dreadful sequels, it's been done to death. HALLOWEEN is definately a genre film, but to me it's pretty dull (and if you want my theory of the horror genre film, please reffer to my earlier comment "Like with HALLOWEEN, genre has been done to death"). None of the characters were worth caring about (except for Donald Pleasence, of course) due to either being quite annoying or just plan dumb. And the idea of the killer Michael Meyers isn't at all memorable either (he's like Jason, some wacko in a strange mask and it's unappealing or effective). But, some like the film and that's fine. Everybody has their own taste in film.
While some (including those in this Message Board) love HALLOWEEN, unfortunately I don't so I guess that makes me part of the minority. HALLOWEEN may be a horror classic, but to me it's really nothing new. Same old s**t that you can find in SCREAM or I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER or any other recent horror film that looks like it's new and inovative, but it's still the same "psycho-with-a-knife-and-wearing-a-mask" crap. And like with the old saying of Chadzilla, I vote for my wallet and choose not to waste my time on these slasher films.
Due to budgetary cutbacks, I'm smoking Carnival full flavors (donations welcome). I agree with you that Dead-Alive is a classic..too true...spoken like a true gentleman...here, here..there, there!!! But the fact remains that in my(humble) opinion, Halloween and all its sorry progeny is/are s**tE!! I hope that this in no way takes away from your love of this(poop)film. Many happy viewings(crap).
love and kisses
DJ
I think maybe if someone wasn't around or was too young to remember what it was lke when HALLOWEEN came out, they might have a hard time appreciating it. I remember seeing it when it played network TV and was scared out of my socks!
I think my trouble with BLACK CHRISTMAS is that the killer isn't onscreen all that much, or even involved in the action other than the beginning of the film and the end. It had a good start and a good ending, but the rest was just filler. If they'd had people being killed or at least being threatened throughout the film it would have been a little better. I kept expecting the killer to leave his hiding place and start wreaking havoc, but it never happened. So I was disappointed.
But I have to say that in general, I'm not a big fan of the slasher genre, except for the occasional visit for old times sake.