This may be the best Halloween film since III. There's a lot that I liked here.
Moderator: Controllers
jellydonut25 wrote:I liked that a lot.
It won't be hard to top everything since 3, even though I enjoy 4, H20, RZ, and RZII on various levels of irony.
O.Supreme wrote:Trailer does look interesting, but of course I have questions....
So basically this is retconing everything except the first film? (Basically the "Godzilla 1985" of Halloween films?), I actually liked H20, because I thought it brought closure to a franchise that had gone way off course, but then they had to muck it up again with Resurrection, and I haven't seen any of the ones since then.
But being as it is, this all goes back to the single event of 1978, then basically the entire "supernatural" element is removed, and we just go back to a human psycho killer, which is fine. Michael however, has to be pushing 60 (as is Jaimee Lee Curtis IRL) . Now I'm not saying that the idea of a 60 year old Psycho killer is beyond the realm of reality, but you gotta imagine, after almost 40 years in an institution, his health cant be that great. I would not be surprised if this doesn't end with him dying of some sort of bodily failure, unless, of course, the supernatural element is reintroduced.
jellydonut25 wrote:The supernatural element is extremely present in the first film. Perhaps you're due for a re-watch?
He's heavily insinuated to be a literal manifestation of the boogeyman...a human body possessed by some evil force.
eabaker wrote:jellydonut25 wrote:The supernatural element is extremely present in the first film. Perhaps you're due for a re-watch?
He's heavily insinuated to be a literal manifestation of the boogeyman...a human body possessed by some evil force.
Huh. You're taking some stuff literally there that I always read as more metaphorical.
It's blank, emotionless, unchanging, nonexpressive.
O.Supreme wrote:Trailer does look interesting, but of course I have questions....
So basically this is retconing everything except the first film? (Basically the "Godzilla 1985" of Halloween films?), I actually liked H20, because I thought it brought closure to a franchise that had gone way off course, but then they had to muck it up again with Resurrection, and I haven't seen any of the ones since then.
But being as it is, this all goes back to the single event of 1978, then basically the entire "supernatural" element is removed, and we just go back to a human psycho killer, which is fine. Michael however, has to be pushing 60 (as is Jaimee Lee Curtis IRL) . Now I'm not saying that the idea of a 60 year old Psycho killer is beyond the realm of reality, but you gotta imagine, after almost 40 years in an institution, his health cant be that great. I would not be surprised if this doesn't end with him dying of some sort of bodily failure, unless, of course, the supernatural element is reintroduced.
Because it IS a 90s horror film. Stuff adapts to the sensibilities and times of when it's made. Making a standard mid-80s Halloween movie in 1998 would have not been a good play.Dr Kain wrote:THe problem with H20 is that it feels like a 90s horror film rather than a Halloween one.
Dr Kain wrote:For as bad as A New Beginning, The New Blood, and Jason Takes Manhattan are, they are no where near the levels of suckitude of everything that came after.
Return to Sci-Fi, Horror, and Fantasy Films and Television
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest