Halloween (franchise discussion) (1 Viewer)

[Tommy R]

Halloween (1978)
Halloween II (1981)
Halloween H20
Halloween 4
Halloween (2018)
Halloween 5
Halloween (2007)
Halloween 6
Halloween Resurrection

Well, I just got done with watching EVERY Halloween film this month and my opinions have changed with a few. This was also my FIRST viewings of Halloween III, Halloween II (2009) and of course Halloween Kills.

I also found the “Producer’s Cut” of 6 on Vudu, so I watched that. I could sort of tell that there was alternate footage in there, but not sure I could discern 45 minutes worth. Though I was never super familiar with that film, so I wouldn’t be one to notice too much. But anyways, here’s my updated ranking list:

Halloween (1978)
Halloween II (1981)
Halloween (2018)
Halloween Kills
Halloween 4
Halloween III
Halloween H20
Halloween 5
Halloween 6
Halloween Resurrection
Halloween (2007)
Halloween II (2009)

Though I still find Resurrection pretty awful, I’ll give it a bit of an edge over the Zombie films, as there’s at least a sort of potentially interesting idea to Resurrection. The first Zombie movie was worse than I remember and the second is even worse somehow. I REALLY enjoyed III, but gave 4 the edge as I’ll have to wait and see how III holds up over time. I’m ashamed it took me so long to see it. H20 has NOT held up well, so I knocked it down a few. But I really enjoyed the 2018 film. The new one isn’t quite as good, but I appreciated it and look forward to the next.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, a question for those that have seen the Zombie films. I have said that Loomis is my favorite character and this owes quite a bit to Donald Pleasence playing him and when Zombie was making his pictures I thought it would be tough to replace Mr. Pleasence but then he went and cast Malcolm McDowell as Loomis and I thought that could be interesting. So, the question is how is McDowell as Loomis in the Zombie films?

Last here is a great clip of Carpenter letting you know what he thinks of Zombie and his remakes. I love how John does not hold back and tells it like it is...

 

[TravisR]

So, a question for those that have seen the Zombie films. I have said that Loomis is my favorite character and this owes quite a bit to Donald Pleasence playing him and when Zombie was making his pictures I thought it would be tough to replace Mr. Pleasence but then he went and cast Malcolm McDowell as Loomis and I thought that could be interesting. So, the question is how is McDowell as Loomis in the Zombie films?

He's not Donald Pleasence but McDowell is a plus for the movies and I couldn't think of anyone else that would have been better picking up the Loomis character. Honestly, one of Zombie's strengths is his ability to cast solid character actors. Not just fun genre stalwarts like Clint Howard, Udo Kier, or Danny Trejo but guys that are so good that they should be more famous like Brad Dourif, William Forsythe, or Daniel Roebuck.

 

[Tommy R]

I thought McDowell played that particular version of Loomis very well, especially in the scenes with Michael still as a child in the first movie. In fact that stuff was the only really interesting thing about the Zombie movies. I didn’t care for the stuffy English snob version that he morphed into for “II”, though. Though it’s funny when Weird Al references the “Austin Powers” Myers.

 

[Jim517]

Honestly, one of Zombie's strengths is his ability to cast solid character actors. Not just fun genre stalwarts like Clint Howard

If he wasn't Ron's brother, Clint would be working at McDonald's !

 

[Tommy R]

I watched Halloween II (1981) this morning before everyone in my house was up, with the commentary with Rosenthal and Leo Rossi (who played Bud). It was a fun commentary, and something resonated with me that Rosenthal said about it Dick Warlock’s walk, saying that it was sort of “other worldly”. While it WAS a different sort of walk than Nick Castle’s from the original, I sort of like Warlock’s slower “glide” as Rosenthal calls it.

 

[WillG]

I thought McDowell played that particular version of Loomis very well, especially in the scenes with Michael still as a child in the first movie. In fact that stuff was the only really interesting thing about the Zombie movies. I didn’t care for the stuffy English snob version that he morphed into for “II”, though. Though it’s funny when Weird Al references the “Austin Powers” Myers.

I don’t know, zombie’s HII was bad, but I sort of found Loomis’s diva turn to be mildly amusing

 

[WillG]

We did our annual Halloween viewings last night. One thing about HII, while I know that the twist wasn’t completely well thought out, but I haven’t seen it mentioned much that according to the timeline offered on HII, there is no way Loomis couldn’t have known there was another Myers sister

 

[WillG]

.

 

[Tommy R]

We did our annual Halloween viewings last night. One thing about HII, while I know that the twist wasn’t completely well thought out, but I haven’t seen it mentioned much that according to the timeline offered on HII, there is no way Loomis couldn’t have known there was another Myers sister

Yeah, that’s certainly a factor that makes the twist kind of weird. I remember Carpenter saying he came up with the siblings twist “out of desperation”, and I’m not sure if he elaborated or if I just assumed that he meant this in regards to why Loomis would check the hospital where Laurie Strode was taken, since it’s that conversation in the Sheriff car that made him think to go there. It makes me wonder if the script could have gotten Loomis to the hospital in any other plausible context so he could still save the day exactly as he did.

I personally find it plausible enough that a non-brother Michael hearing the radio report of Laurie being taken to the hospital would send him there looking for her as someone who had survived his attacks being unfinished business, WITHOUT Laurie being his sister.

I’m only musing on this as I find the sibling thing kind of dumb myself, but the rest of HII is so great and the sibling thing is really barely touched upon overall that it’s easy to ignore and enjoy the movie.

 

[TravisR]

We did our annual Halloween viewings last night. One thing about HII, while I know that the twist wasn’t completely well thought out, but I haven’t seen it mentioned much that according to the timeline offered on HII, there is no way Loomis couldn’t have known there was another Myers sister

I rationalize that as Laurie was adopted prior to Judith's murder which doesn't make much sense either or correspond with the dream she has of seeing young Michael sitting there (since it's a dream, I discount it). However, Marion delivers that dialogue in the Marshal's car really fast so even having seen the movie 100 times, I'm still not sure about all the dates mentioned so she might negate the idea of Laurie being adopted before 1963 when she's explaining everything to Loomis/the audience.

 

[WillG]

I rationalize that as Laurie was adopted prior to Judith's murder which doesn't make much sense either or correspond with the dream she has of seeing young Michael sitting there (since it's a dream, I discount it). However, Marion delivers that dialogue in the Marshal's car really fast so even having seen the movie 100 times, I'm still not sure about all the dates mentioned so she might negate the idea of Laurie being adopted before 1963 when she's explaining everything to Loomis/the audience.

I think says “She was born two years before he was committed, two years later his parents were killed and she was adopted by the Strodes” The ages line up as well, Michael is 21 and Laurie is around 17/18. Loomis was definitely treating Michael when Laurie was still part of the Myers family

 

[WillG]

Yeah, that’s certainly a factor that makes the twist kind of weird. I remember Carpenter saying he came up with the siblings twist “out of desperation”, and I’m not sure if he elaborated or if I just assumed that he meant this in regards to why Loomis would check the hospital where Laurie Strode was taken, since it’s that conversation in the Sheriff car that made him think to go there. It makes me wonder if the script could have gotten Loomis to the hospital in any other plausible context so he could still save the day exactly as he did.

I personally find it plausible enough that a non-brother Michael hearing the radio report of Laurie being taken to the hospital would send him there looking for her as someone who had survived his attacks being unfinished business, WITHOUT Laurie being his sister.

I’m only musing on this as I find the sibling thing kind of dumb myself, but the rest of HII is so great and the sibling thing is really barely touched upon overall that it’s easy to ignore and enjoy the movie.

I always thought it was odd that Loomis never considered the possibility that Michael was still stalking Laurie even before he found out she was his sister and would have thought to check out wherever she was taken. But I guess you wouldn‘t have much of a movie then. Interestingly enough, my wife and son argue that Loomis isn’t exactly all that smart. Its true Loomis tries to warn people about Michael, but the obsessive way in which he always talks about him probably hurt his arguments more than they helped

 

[Wookie Groomer]

Well, I just got done with watching EVERY Halloween film this month and my opinions have changed with a few. This was also my FIRST viewings of Halloween III, Halloween II (2009) and of course Halloween Kills.

I also found the “Producer’s Cut” of 6 on Vudu, so I watched that. I could sort of tell that there was alternate footage in there, but not sure I could discern 45 minutes worth. Though I was never super familiar with that film, so I wouldn’t be one to notice too much. But anyways, here’s my updated ranking list:

Halloween (1978)
Halloween II (1981)
Halloween (2018)
Halloween Kills
Halloween 4
Halloween III
Halloween H20
Halloween 5
Halloween 6
Halloween Resurrection
Halloween (2007)
Halloween II (2009)

Though I still find Resurrection pretty awful, I’ll give it a bit of an edge over the Zombie films, as there’s at least a sort of potentially interesting idea to Resurrection. The first Zombie movie was worse than I remember and the second is even worse somehow. I REALLY enjoyed III, but gave 4 the edge as I’ll have to wait and see how III holds up over time. I’m ashamed it took me so long to see it. H20 has NOT held up well, so I knocked it down a few. But I really enjoyed the 2018 film. The new one isn’t quite as good, but I appreciated it and look forward to the next.

I just watched all the films too and find this list to be accurate.

What I noticed most about the entire experience is Michael Myers is less the star of the show with very littles screen time. However, Halloween Kills was a remarkable change in form as it actually starred Myers front and center the majority of the time. Not only that, through the franchise we never get to see how he takes out a police station or group of people, we only see the aftermath. In Kills, we see him battle groups of people and it totally gave me the Halloween movie I always thought I wanted.

The twisting and turning of ignoring and revisiting timelines is unforgivable. Rob Zombie movies tend to all be bad because characters are constantly mean and nasty to each other all the time making them less appealing than they need to be.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I ended up watching Halloween 4 (first time seeing it since it was released in cinemas) and Halloween 5 (first time seeing it) in October as part of my scary movie challenge stuff (which I still not have updated in that thread, ha) and will say this...

Halloween 4 I basically enjoyed this time, I believe primarily due to nostalgia. When I saw it in the cinema I was completely annoyed by the picture. I wanted to get up and walk out. At that point it seemed like an incredibly lame attempt at bringing Michael Myers back and it seemed, to me, so far below the first three films as if to not even belong in the series. I still think it is a bad film, horribly written, and a really bad sequel but...ha...I had fun watching it. I liked the opening of the film and how they set a mood with that. It is pretty generic but there is Donald Pleasence and well, that helps.

Halloween 5 was quite honestly horrible. I am not sure what the guy directing this was trying to do and the random addition of the guy in the black cowboy boots was just ridiculous and had nothing to do with the story...which I guess is fine with a story this bad. This, I believe, is the worst Halloween film I have ever seen.

So, in October I managed to watch the original 6 Halloween pictures. My personal ranking of these would be as follows:

1. Halloween, it is not even close. This picture is a classic.

2. Halloween 3, this remains where I wish the series went telling different Halloween tales.

3. Halloween 2, I have to admit huge nostalgia for this one. I do think it is mostly a mistake to have made it. Every time I see it though I am reminded of sitting in a cinema watching it. It is a fun picture even though it essentially destroys what Carpenter was doing with the original film.

4. Halloween 6 The Producer's cut, I can't comment on the theatrical version which I understand greatly turns up the gore factor. I liked this for the pure bonkers nature of the thing. The guy in the black boots in 5 (who nobody involved with 5 could explain or had any idea what that was about) becomes an actual character in 6...and man is it nuts. I give this credit for attempting to create all kinds of story to tie all the films together. If you want the picture from the original 6 that tries to give the series its own mythology, this is it. It is fun, weird, dark, has both Donald Pleasence and Paul Rudd, and a demonic sex cult. Enjoy.

5. Halloween 4, it does stand out that they were fishing around for a way to continue the series of Myers pictures with only Donald Pleasence returning but what they come up with is really pretty lousy. It does not look like, sound like, or entertain like (in my opinion) the first three entries in the series. The little girl is pretty good in her first picture but Pleasence looks tired of doing this in this one and the other actors are all just passable. It essentially plays like a cheap knock-off of the Halloween idea...which is what it is.

6. Halloween 5, the key to this picture seems to be that they had no idea what to do or what they were doing. In this picture much of the time Michael just sort of stands around in the background or shadows. He often seems not to be pursuing anybody and waits for long moments before becoming active. The guy in black boots is so random it sort of plays like he was a character and they cut all of his scenes except boot close ups. The direction and editing on this film are quite frankly horrible. The entire enterprise is a mess. The ending just leaves you sitting there thinking "What?" as if they just ran out of money and never shot the ending. Horrible film I would recommend skipping but...if you are into this franchise you kind of have to watch it...or maybe not because really all it does leading up to 6 is introduce a pair of silver tipped black cowboy boots.

 

[TravisR]

Halloween 5 was quite honestly horrible... This, I believe, is the worst Halloween film I have ever seen.

Some may argue that Halloween Resurrection or Zombie's Halloween II are worse but Resurrection has some unintentional laughs (Busta Rhymes karate fighting Michael and saying "Trick or treat, motherfucker!" or the dated webcam crap or even Jamie Lee Curtis being in the movie at all presumably because her H20 contract required her to do two days on any sequel) and Halloween II, while bad, is still a better made movie than Resurrection or Halloween 5 and it also has some decent actors and OK ideas that don't work.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Some may argue that Halloween Resurrection or Zombie's Halloween II are worse but Resurrection has some unintentional laughs (Busta Rhymes karate fighting Michael and saying "Trick or treat, motherfucker!" or the dated webcam crap or even Jamie Lee Curtis being in the movie at all presumably because her H20 contract required her to do two days on any sequel) and Halloween II, while bad, is still a better made movie than Resurrection or Halloween 5 and it also has some decent actors and OK ideas that don't work.

I can't rate the Zombie films or Resurrection as I have never seen them. In fact I only recently looked at the cast for the Zombie pictures and was impressed with some of the old school character actors he has in them That made me want to check them out but with a bit of trepidation because so many people seem to dislike them.

I last minute in October decided to watch Halloween 4 and 5. I decided I should watch them to try to figure out what the hell is going on in 6, ha. I laughed every time they showed the black boots in 5. I laughed harder when i discovered nobody that was making 5 had a clue who the guy in the black boots was or what that was all about. The story I heard was the director of 5 added those shots in an effort to give the producer something he could play with in 6. I guess one reason why the fan that wrote 6 got the gig was because he was the only person that came up with who the guy in the black boots was! This is a riot.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This is fun...

 

[TravisR]

This is fun...

I told you guys he was a grumpy old man... Although he's right, it does seem completely fucked.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I told you guys he was a grumpy old man... Although he's right, it does seem completely fucked.

Honestly, I had never seen nor heard of a Labo prior to seeing that and it does seem like something to avoid. I can only assume whatever a Labo was it failed miserably and they are no longer made.