 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 25, 2013 - 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Reeler
(Member)
|
I've been thinking over how the sequel's setting could have been written differently yet maintaining the Myers legend. And I cannot off-hand. To bring him out more into the open would've just ended up losing the appeal like all the sequels did. Had every character been conscious of him, that wouldn't have worked. Loomis and Laurie were the only ones who really believed he was real and a threat, and if there wasn't that contrast of ignorance in the other characters I don't think so. I suppose Laurie could've been quarantined in some way while Myers as the force powered his way through. But he'd have been more in the open and so cannot see that working. I say that cause Deborah Hill said in the sequel Laurie should've had a bigger part instead of being drugged up. Anyway, here's my review...
http://worldofpop.blogspot.com/2013/09/halloween-ii-1981.html
Update: While Halloween is debatable as being the greatest horror film, I'd argue Michael Myers is the greatest horror villain. He was "mechanical" but rose to a mythological position, and I imagine that's why Jason is (falsely) the best or most popular villain ever. He never rose to the mythological heights of Myers, and after those first two films, with such a high, the disappointment that Myers was just another cardboard killer in those sequels. Jason never really had those highs and lows and remained comfortably consistent. After Carpenter's influence was gone, it was never the same. The simplicity of it WAS its genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly think Halloween II is on par with Halloween, they are both wonderful and brilliant and I always think of the two films as just one long movie (albeit one that gets progressively gorier!).
Agreed.
When first released, I loved it... Yes, the gore factor was bumped up... however, John Carpenter and Debra Hill were still heavily involved in the series. The stylistic touches that make the original stand out are there with the sequel.
Example: When Pamela Susan Shoop parks her car outside of the hospital... As the camera pans down... you see Michael in the mirror.
As time has gone on... I too think that both films are part of an organic whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 25, 2013 - 8:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Reeler
(Member)
|
Example: When Pamela Susan Shoop parks her car outside of the hospital... As the camera pans down... you see Michael in the mirror.
My two favorites are when Myers is looking at Laurie across the street from her school and when he's standing in the clothes line. Freaky stuff.
I've long been of the opinion that the original is somewhat overrated and that the sequel is very underrated. In some ways, I like the second film better. (Heresy!)
I think if there's a big complaint is that the original's screenplay was written around the frights as opposed to the frights being written around the screenplay. There's a wee bit of chronological issue at times, and the sequel looks as though things were edited in at spots, suggesting that may have been when Carpenter stepped in to do some re-do's. I don't really know. The bluray might say.
I think Nick Castle was easily the best with Dick Warlock as honorable mention. Castle's father was a choreographer and it's clear to me some of that rubbed off.
Edit: Halloween was truly a collaborative effort. If one of the pieces isn't there, the whole thing crumbles--the featureless mask from Wallace, the lighting, and even Irwin Yablan looking up to see if the title had even been used, making it synonymous with the day. And yet if not for Carpenter's idea none of it becomes a reality.
In hindsight I don't see how the screenplay could have been developed first. Yablan's deal to Carpenter was to make the film with babysitters, on Halloween, and naturally he and Hill thought of ideas beholden to the holiday.
Edit 2: Hmm, not sure. Anyway, it was Hill's idea to have Myer's hiding under a bed sheet. FYI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2015 - 12:17 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
Because I have yet to find a convenient screening of It Follows, I decided to quench my thirst for genre viewing by revisiting the first two Halloweens. I'm "doubling down" on my previous assessment. Sorry, but there is a lot about the first movie that is more amateurish--especially technically, and in that realm, especially with the scoring. The music on its own is iconic, no doubt, but, as score, it's often poorly mixed (too loud), sophomoric, and lacking any subtlety. It even detracts from the film's scares in places. Jerry Goldsmith or Bernard Herrmann John Carpenter, unfortunately, is not.
The second film is much more polished all-around. Plus, it actually gives us insight into Michael's motivation.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One shouldn't underestimate the influence of the giallo subgenre and Dario Argento on this movie. The sometimes hypnotic visuals, the bigger masses of blood, continuing the association of incipient eroticism with hyperviolence. I think it made for a nice extension of a ripe concept that had not yet been fully exploited.
Seeing in the meantime that Friday the 13th had done such boffo business, the Halloween team had to up the brutality. I think they did so in the most striking and economically stylish way they could think of.
I still really like about 75% of this movie. With Donald Pleasance returning, it got the all the talent it needed to succeed. And it really gave me a couple of nightmares, no joke. Can't say that about many movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2015 - 8:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
There is no right or wrong in this equation, only what the viewer prefers.
Ordinarily, in this context, I'd agree with you. However, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking that the scenes I'm thinking of (where Laurie sees Michael staring at her out her bedroom window, and where Michael strangles the dog, for instance) are better off with the melodramatic, in-your-face musical approach they have. (I wish someone--in almost any other situation, the director, who wouldn't have been the same person as the composer--would have stepped in to say, "Just dial it down a couple notches.")
My assessment is not all bad; Carpenter's score is very Goldsmithian in the sense that its overall structure is excellent--very synergetic, thematically. (That's an absolute, absolute plus.)
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly think Halloween II is on par with Halloween, they are both wonderful and brilliant and I always think of the two films as just one long movie (albeit one that gets progressively gorier!).
I agree, both freaking awesome movies. I think I may actually like 2 better, JUST slightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 22, 2015 - 3:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
The music on its own is iconic, no doubt, but, as score, it's often poorly mixed (too loud), sophomoric, and lacking any subtlety. It even detracts from the film's scares in places. Jerry Goldsmith or Bernard Herrmann John Carpenter, unfortunately, is not.
I disagree, I think it is very iconic in the movie as well and the way it is mixed too loud only adds more tension, it really drives the movie though I will say it gets repetitive near the end. Carpenter may not be Goldsmith or Herrmann (or Morricone for that matter), but the other way around Goldsmith, Hermann and Morricone couldn't do an electronic score the way Carpenter (& Howarth) does, often with little time, budget and very minimalist and to the point. Apples and oranges perhaps, but his signature sound still resonates in current scores as much as the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
