|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:08 AM)
|
Lets discuss John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978)
#1
So I am aware that Gaf does not have much of a slasher horror fan base, but I figure many of you have seen this film.
Did it do anything for you? I personally find it to be the most enjoyable of the slasher-horror sub genre, simply because the music and overall feel of the setting is so creepy. Another thing I have always liked is how iconic the design of "the shape" is.
|
|
|
|
Banned
(09-20-2012, 06:11 AM)
|
#3
The beginning scared the shit out of me as a kid, whereas I didn't find most of the rest that scary. Still, I always thought it was very good
Donald Pleasence deserves a lot of credit for giving some weight to the film. A lot of horror or "cheesy" films have a serious British guy to make you believe something, and he handles the job perfectly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBMoxTSPq-c |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:18 AM)
|
#5
http://www.screenvision.com/cinema-events/halloween/
Maybe you'll have a chance to see the original in theaters in late October |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:24 AM)
|
#8
Halloween is an incredible film.
The most tension comes from how perfectly paced the music is with Michael Meyers. Watching Michael move slowly towards his victims, while that iconic theme comes on is just gold. I really like Michael's mask too. It's pale, emotionless, and has these two eye holes that are just always pitch black. Crazy that a WS mask would be so terrifying. |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:28 AM)
|
#10
He is a lot scarier when the viewer is not sure what is driving him.
Last edited by Horse Detective; 09-20-2012 at 06:30 AM.
|
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:33 AM)
|
#13
I enjoyed the movie itself, but it was still a "meh"/5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8QWGrtPVyU |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:36 AM)
|
#17
I only use it because as a stand alone film discussion, it makes more sense. The whole "Michael Myers" angle didn't really build until the sequel.
Last edited by Horse Detective; 09-20-2012 at 06:38 AM.
|
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 06:43 AM)
|
#20
|
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 08:10 AM)
|
#32
Saw these guys play a years time ago and it reminded me of how much I loved this damn movie. Remember as a fairly young kid buying a VHS box set with the movies, power and a shirt in, was wearing that with pride despite it being way too large for me.
|
|
Banned
(09-20-2012, 08:16 AM)
|
#33
Great movie. Very fun!
Did you know that during the production of the movie, John Carpenter and part of his crew gave a talk at a university about the movie. The students panned it and called the group of film makers "sell-outs" and said the movie would suck because it wasn't "art". Hoho. In your faces pretentious film school kids. |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 08:24 AM)
|
#34
|
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 09:05 AM)
|
#37
Yep. With respect to the argument that remakes should be unique to the original, there was no place for a back story in this film. It was just unnecessary.
|
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 09:45 AM)
|
#41
Seen it once or twice and love it. Rewatching it sometime this October for the 31 Days of Horror challenge.
|
|
Junior Member
(09-20-2012, 09:49 AM)
|
#42
It's really not a slasher film. It works so well because it's really suspense and building up the characters, only to kill them off at the end. When you like characters it has so much more of an impact.
I mean, in most movies I get more upset about when the dog dies than the people. |
|
Banned
(09-20-2012, 11:11 AM)
|
#45
Greatest horror film ever shot. Carpenter understood suspense like Hitchcock did and like no one who has touched the franchise since has. What you don't show is a lot scarier than anything you can show. Also big ups to Dean Cundey's cinematography. I could watch this weekly and never tire of it.
And of course, Carpenter's score is the most springe-tinglingly awesome one you'll find in horrir outside a Goblin score. |
|
Banned
(09-20-2012, 11:52 AM)
|
#48
I love the franchise. Don't get me wrong, the first film is the masterpiece and none of the rest are even remotely close.
Havong said that, both 2 and 3 are damn fine movies. Not surprising since Carpenter was still in the picture. 2 is kind of a retread, but its done quite well and has some great sequences and an awesome ending. 3 is awesome and it pains me to see how it failed with audiences and how Carpenter's idea of each Halloween film featuring a different terror was jettisoned in favor of THE MICHAEL MYERS SHOW. 4, 5 and 6 are pretty bog standard slashers and brought in that "curse of thorn" nonsense, but they are inoffensive for the most part. H20 was kind of fun and I nice return to the roots........until Resurrection came along and shit all over the franchise. I liked Zombie's movies - they were the best efforts since 3. But his films had 2 fatal flaws: first, his trailer-trash hillbilly dialogue style was 10 shades of wrong for Halloween, and second (and most grevious), he committed the cardinal since by trying to humanize Michael. 1 >>>>>>>>>> 3 > 2 >>>>>>>>>> RZH (9) > RZH2 (10) > H20 (7) > 4 > 5 > Curse of Michael Myers (6) > Resurrection (8) First 3 are the only 3 I would ever recommend to anyone though, unless I knew they were Rob Zombie film fans. |
|
Member
(09-20-2012, 12:08 PM)
|
#49
I love part 1 soooo much. I even edited out the nudity/sex talk in Windows Movie Maker so that my kids could watch it with me.
Part 2 was totally awesome, too, but you can tell that they felt pressure to be influenced by what the other big slasher films of the time were doing. It feels more like a Friday the 13'th than a Halloween. I even love part 3. I wish that they had stuck with the direction that Carpenter wanted with the series (a new story based on the holiday every year or two). Hell, Halloween 4 and 5 are really fun guilty pleasures, too. It's a shame that everyone ever involved with the franchise, EVER, died in that tragic yacht fire after part 5 and that they'll never make any movies in the franchise again after part 5, right guys? |