Halloween (2018)

CastorTroy · 18-09-2018 10:31pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Special mention should go to 'Halloween III' which I saw in college and has a little place in my heart too. But it's largely a bad film. But, it's just so damned entertaining. I think I put it on every Halloween.

Wasn't a fan when I first saw it but liked it on the rewatch. I think I read that they looked at Halloween as an anthology series going forward.

And with the new one out next month, I guess we can sing
"31 more days to Halloween Halloween Halloween. 31 more days to Halloween. Silver Shamrock"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIHUv2ooG38

Might save the new one to Halloween night

northgirl · 23-09-2018 8:12pm

fin12 wrote: »

The music really is so stunning and so unique. Every time that tune comes on and Michael just standing there, brilliant.

Love it and can't wait for the new one.

johnny_ultimate · 05-10-2018 10:42pm

Rather enjoyed this I have to say. This isn't a groundbreaking sequel by any stretch - it is in many ways 'more of the same', with a little bit of extra polish and a higher body count than the original film. But there's a certain enthusiasm to it that elevates beyond being a mere cashgrab or redundant sequel.

The David Gordon Green / Danny McBride guiding hands are obvious - while the film doesn't lack in tense setpieces, there are moments of banter and comedy scattered throughout. This often works (applause for the kid being babysat in the middle of the film, who's hilarious) and sometimes doesn't (there's a small number of random 'banter' scenes throughout which are pure McBride). While there's a playful streak, it doesn't overwhelm - as a slasher film, this is confident and well-engineered, without ever going into the more masochistic excesses of the worst examples of the genre (there's a few pleasingly gruesome moments, but they don't linger). There's plenty of cool details scattered throughout - a menacing figure casually strolling past out of focus in the background; ominously pressure-sensitive lights (a highlight... literally); a shot that lingers at a window as Michael slowly makes his entrance; a mannequin-filled room that just might contain a psychopath as well. Also: of course irritating British podcast producers would be interested in the Michael Myers case :cool:

What it absolutely achieves is a sense of catharsis -

the final extended sequence, featuring three generations of Strode women, facing down a trauma that has haunted the family directly & indirectly for decades. It's a fun, satisfying extension of the old-school final girl approach - and taking the approach of a house that's prepared for an invasion makes for some cool twists like those slamming shutters

.

Listen: it's a largely derivative piece of work, and inevitably exists in the shadow of its inspiration. There's the odd unnecessary jump scare, but not too many... and I did like its often tactical use of silence instead of a score. It has plenty of stylish and clever moments, but lacks perhaps an overall stylistic identity beyond that. I don't know much about the series beyond the first two films and the remakes a few years back so I'm no series expert. But it worked for me, and honestly I thought it was more confident in its own skin than the more obviously respectable A Star Is Born which I watched right beforehand. That's a success of sorts, I guess?

Also: Jamie Lee Curtis is a delight to listen to, but no surprise there.

Decuc500 · 06-10-2018 12:43am

I thought it was a very accomplished film, stylish and quite skilfully made. All involved approached it with a real respect to Carpenter's original. This was certainly no cheap, derivative sequel. That said there is only so much you can do with a slasher film that hasn't been done a thousand times before.

I loved the opening sequence and the build up to the credits had me grinning to myself. Very cool stuff. The score from John Carpenter and his son was of course great. The ending was very satisfying.

Of course the real bonus tonight was seeing Jamie Lee Curtis and hearing her speak passionately about the film and the times we live in.

Outlaw Pete · 06-10-2018 12:52am

Decent enough film. No masterpiece but more to like than dislike.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Jamie Lee Curtis is a delight to listen to, but no surprise there.

Decuc500 wrote: »

Of course the real bonus tonight was seeing Jamie Lee Curtis and hearing her speak passionately about the film and the times we live in.

Couldn't disagree more......

Breaking down in fake tears, multiple times, whining on and on about the metoo movement and how this Halloween parallels with much of what is going on.

Sweet baby Jesus, people go to films like this as a form of escapism, not to listen to a privileged liberal pontificating to us about how progressive making public allegations of sexual assault are.

If that wasn't bad enough she arrogantly assumes everyone there would be in alignment with her politics, even going as far as asking the audience to do a 'blue' Mexican wave, which most did.

Michael Myers is one of the greatest fictional characters in cinema history and Jamie Lee should not be politicizing him ffs. Is nothing sacred anymore.

Fysh · 06-10-2018 7:42am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Michael Myers is one of the greatest fictional characters in cinema history and Jamie Lee should not be politicizing him ffs. Is nothing sacred anymore.

Ah here, pull the other one, it'll feel better. He's one of slasher film history's many personality-free unstoppable immortal killing machines; the only difference from most is that he happened to be introduced in what is still one of the best slasher films ever made and thus became culturally significant - there's still too little to him to describe as a character. But "widely recognisable in popular culture" doesn't mean "good character", much less "one of the greatest in history".

Also - given how many comprehensively turd-like sequels Halloween has spawned, it's entertaining to see someone suggest that a single talk/Q&A with someone who starred in the franchise's best (only good?) film is somehow desecrating it...

Decuc500 · 06-10-2018 10:35am

Breaking down in fake tears? Regardless of what you think about her bringing up politics and metoo (and I'd be a bit cynical of that too) I think JLC was genuine in her own beliefs.

Anyway, horror films have always had strong female characters. Nothing new there.

This new Halloween will make a lot of fans happy and that's really all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

artvanderlay · 06-10-2018 8:31pm

This is a slasher movie, and we know who the killer is, so there is no surprise with that, therefore, I didn't think there was much they could do with this, but.........I loved it! It was one of the best cinema experiences I have had in a long time. I'd give it 9/10, would nearly go 10/10. I went in with low expectations, but from the intense opening scene, jumping quickly to the title sequence/music, I was gripped throughout.

The music sounded better than ever, and I thought that reanimating pumpkin in the title sequence was very cool and clever

. It looks fantastic too.

There were some nice unexpected twists and surpises, and Michael has never been so brutal. A total killing machine; you can feel that 40 year pent up rage in him!

I think it was a good choice to show us Michael without the mask, just to remind us that this is a man, but he is a total homicidal maniac

.

It does make sense why they called it Halloween (not Halloween 2), because it feels like both a remake and a sequel, a 2 in 1. It captures the atmosphere and feel of the original, but updates it for a modern audience. I have to admit that even though I think the first Halloween is great, I preferred this. It feels like a remastered version of the original, but with enough new stuff to keep it fresh and interesting.

I have a lot more to write about this, but I'll wait until more people have seen it.

Also, I though Jamie Lee came across very well. The questions she was asked were very lame, I cringed when I heard some of them. Yes, she got emotional, but I think she is very sincere. She has struggled with addiction and she is probably a lot more open and unapologetic after coming through that. She was good fun, but she is just an actress, there is only so much she can say about the movie. Ideally I would have preferred to have had David Gordon Green/Danny McBride/John Carpenter there, and have a real movie fan pick their brains.

One last thing: try to avoid the trailer if you haven't seen it already. It gives away quite a few kills, which reduces the shock factor.

Osmosis Jones · 06-10-2018 9:08pm

Politics? In my Halloween??? Never!

The original movie was just a fun slasher flick, there were no statements being made, no moral, no commentary! It's those damn liberals taking over Hollywood!

artvanderlay · 06-10-2018 9:09pm

Continuing on: I never really bought that Michael was out for revenge on Laurie. His attachment was to Haddonfield and his family home.

That's why I'm glad the movie didn't show Michael pursuing Laurie; he didn't care about her at all and in the end, he was brought to her home by his deranged doctor. Michael would even have been dead earlier in the movie if the Will Patton character had been allowed to finish him off after hitting him with his car.

Another thing: the movie was 105 mins long. It absolutely flew. I could have done with another hour at least. I was thinking afterwards how well this story would work as a TV show, even a real time style show like 24, with all events occuring around Halloween.

I was a bit disappointed that we didn't see more of Judy Greer's character, Laurie's daughter, and we didn't even see much of Laurie, but the other characters more than made up for this. The granddaughter storyline was probably just there to give Michael more teenage victims like the original, but the young cast were good, not annoying where you want them all to die!

I noticed as well that the toilet scene was probably an homage to a similar scene in Halloween H20; even though it was erased from this Halloween timeline, the makers probably wanted to pay tribute to it as the best sequel of the franchise.

One thing that did make me laugh: I'm a huge Eastbound and Down fan (except Season 4: muck!), which was written/directed by Danny McBride and David Gordon Green, and I did notice Dontel from that show playing the sheriff in this movie, and also, hilariously if you know the show, Mammy was the woman showing the podcasters Judith Myers grave! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGo6BZiTquk

batgoat · 06-10-2018 9:38pm

Decuc500 wrote: »

Breaking down in fake tears? Regardless of what you think about her bringing up politics and metoo (and I'd be a bit cynical of that too) I think JLC was genuine in her own beliefs.

Anyway, horror films have always had strong female characters. Nothing new there.

This new Halloween will make a lot of fans happy and that's really all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

I would suspect the 'fake tears' remark is more to do with the user's personal views on the metoo movement etc than anything else.

pixelburp · 07-10-2018 1:27pm

There is absolutely nothing new about Feminist readings of the Slasher genre; they pretty much sprung up the moment Halloween came out and spawned the countless knock offs. A genre that arguably, eventually morphed into the 'home invasion' series, one that itself speaks to topical subjects via features like the original Purge. Nor is it that hard a stretch to see why there are social interpretations to glean: Slashers constitute a bevy of films whose linking conceit are young women, occasionally scantily clad, being chased by a dangerous man with a great big knife / meat hook. Said women often turning the tables and conquering their aggressors. At the height of feminism in the 70s, 80s it was a ripe genre for deconstruction.

Maybe those readings don't matter, or aren't important for some of the audience, but they exist, are perfectly valid and shouldn't be ignored or ridiculed. Many great horror films are explicitly born from preying on distinctly human anxieties or insecurities: where some films have those fears centre in the Text, and pretty literal - such as Jaws, Arachophobia etc - others take the route through the Subtext; reading fears of parenthood (The Babadook); grief (Don't Look Now); ethnic / racial fears (The Purge); fear of rape / sexual assault (Alien & the face-huggers) etc. etc.

Horror is a bedfellow to Science Fiction, whose best stories often take simple tales of humanity, progress and tells them through the lens of the fantastic or extraordinary

And Michael Myers a great character? Plllllease. He's a classic MONSTER yes, but where's the character? Dracula had character, Myers has a spray painted William Shatner mask...

Mark Kermode touches on the subject, albeit through another sub-genre of the exploitation / assault-revenge thriller; these discussions are older than the internet and most of these subtexts didn't come down with the last shower:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_wKuosCHQk

batgoat · 07-10-2018 2:05pm

Iconic villain is more of an accurate description, doesn't imply they're developed. More incredibly recognisable. In general, Laurie is the developed character and she is relatable, be it teenage Laurie or Laurie in sixties. Laurie now being a person who faced an incredible and is still coping with the consequences of that. Relating that to that to the real world is reasonable.

On top of that, Laurie is Curtis' character, she is pretty entitled to say how she views the story in a real world context. The fat right love shouting "snowflake" but you'd have to be pretty fragile if you view her interpretation as so devastating.

johnny_ultimate · 07-10-2018 2:06pm

I actually think the suggestion that any film is fundamentally obliged to be merely escapist fantasy and apolitical is deeply disrespectful to the artists involved, no matter how light or fantastical the content. If filmmakers are expected to not say what they feel about the material or story being told, that’s a shortcut to bad art / entertainment. Not that they should feel obliged to be political either: they should say what they want to say, regardless of whether that’ll sit badly with individuals or even large portions of the audience. Sure, it’s absolutely possible and reasonable to be individually disappointed or frustrated by what a film does / doesn’t explore - but ultimately the idea any film should just be ‘escapism’ and nothing more is an unfortunate one IMO.

That said, I don’t think Halloween (2018) is a particularly political film - unless you believe the idea of three women forced to confront a sort of shared generational trauma is a naturally political idea. I think Jamie Lee was absolutely correct to highlight that elements of the film do resonate more strongly now given the events of the past year... hell, after the events of the past two weeks even more. But as she also pointed out, the script predates MeToo even if it may have been an obvious context during production. I think it would be dishonest to not comment on those parallels, especially if - as this film’s star clearly does, and she’s much more capable of speaking about what she believes the film stands for more than any of us - one feels strongly about the issues dominating the discourse of the moment. Absolutely stood out to me watching the film. But generally it’s just a modestly, ‘inoffensively’ feminist film in the sense of ‘strong female characters’ - no more overtly or explicitly so than hundreds of mainstream and horror films before it. Probably more interesting as what I felt in pure storytelling terms was a very natural evolution on the Laurie / Michael dynamics from the first film, and the rare horror film where characters are actually

prepared for the final outcome, which proves quite fertile territory for a tense, exciting setpiece.

Most importantly: the moment where

Judy Greer tricks and shoots Michael is completely and utterly delightful

.

p to the e · 08-10-2018 1:41pm

batgoat wrote: »

Iconic villain is more of an accurate description, doesn't imply they're developed. More incredibly recognisable. In general, Laurie is the developed character and she is relatable, be it teenage Laurie or Laurie in sixties. Laurie now being a person who faced an incredible and is still coping with the consequences of that. Relating that to that to the real world is reasonable.

On top of that, Laurie is Curtis' character, she is pretty entitled to say how she views the story in a real world context. The fat right love shouting "snowflake" but you'd have to be pretty fragile if you view her interpretation as so devastating.

Freudian slip?

sirmanga · 12-10-2018 10:45am

Does anyone know of this is getting a general release in Ireland next week as it is everywhere else?
I can't seem to find any cinema listings for it. Most movies now are available to pre book a couple of weeks in advance.

northgirl · 12-10-2018 10:47am

sirmanga wrote: »

Does anyone know of this is getting a general release in Ireland next week as it is everywhere else?
I can't seem to find any cinema listings for it. Most movies now are available to pre book a couple of weeks in advance.

Omniplex in Cork only gives the listings the Wednesday before Friday releases AFAIK

artvanderlay · 12-10-2018 10:51am

It's out in most cinemas on the 19th, but even my local cinemas are not listing it yet for pre-booking. I'm going to it again it was so good

JKerova1 · 12-10-2018 12:53pm

I thought some cinemas might show the original and the new one back to back but it doesn't seem to be happening...pity.

gmisk · 12-10-2018 2:13pm

JKerova1 wrote: »

I thought some cinemas might show the original and the new one back to back but it doesn't seem to be happening...pity.

Yeah that seemed like an obvious thing to do, the lighthouse did show it on Wednesday this week, 2 screenings, both sold out.

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 5:43am

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

gmisk · 18-10-2018 8:40am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

Never heard of that site tbh.
But it still has 83% on rottentomatoes and 69% on metacritic so the reviews in general are good.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 9:14am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

It has a 89 on rotten tomatoes so the majority of reviews are pretty decent
1 bad review vs lots of good reviews means I take it that it’s a very well made horror film of course not everyone is gonna like it

gmisk · 18-10-2018 9:17am

biggebruv wrote: »

It has a 89 on rotten tomatoes so the majority of reviews are pretty decent
1 bad review vs lots of good reviews means I take it that it’s a very well made horror film of course not everyone is gonna like it

Nope 83% at the minute, but still reviews seem positive I am looking forward to it.

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 10:25am

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

gmisk · 18-10-2018 10:31am

Business Cat wrote: »

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

That is true but can be a good indicator, I go by a few reviews mainly (mark kermode, variety, the hollywood reporter) i wouldnt really place much faith in a review site I have never heard of.

SnakePlissken · 18-10-2018 10:41am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

A cursory look at this "critic's" other reviews displays similar damnation toward Deadpool 2, First Man, and A Star is Born, so you'll have to forgive me for not putting much stock in their opinion.

correction · 18-10-2018 12:39pm

Business Cat wrote: »

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 1:10pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

Fysh · 18-10-2018 1:38pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

So...

Halloween in particular has a base of fans who will passionately defend most of the franchise, so if I in particular think that e.g. only Carpenter's original was worth a damn and the rest were somewhere between derivative retreads and actual cinematic garbage... an aggregator is no use.

More broadly, though, aggregators are useless unless you know for a fact that your taste in film always aligns with the masses. A review worth a damn will either tell you "If you like X or Y, you'll like/dislike this" or give you the information to make that comparison yourself. An aggregator just says "this many people thought the film wasn't bad enough to walk out of". Whether those people share your taste in any way (or appreciate all the things you hate in films) is outside that scope.

JP Liz V1 · 18-10-2018 1:40pm

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 1:49pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

On RT.

Deadpool has a score of 84%, I thought it was utter, utter dogshyt.

Guardians of the Galaxy has a score of 91%, I attempted to watch it twice and failed both times, what I saw was imo utter dogshyt.

Nightbreed has a score of 39%. While not without its flaws I really enjoyed it personally.

I could go on but you get the picture.

I will say though that I am biased as Halloween is my favourite movie of all time and imo the greatest horror movie ever made so I am more likely to find fault with any iteration of the franchise than maybe the average popcorn scoffer. Im sure this will do well anyway and we will see a raft of sequels over the coming years.

correction · 18-10-2018 1:57pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

But all the reviews are there. You can read one/all/none of them. I find Rotten Tomatoes is what you make of it, it can be a quick check to see if a film is watchable and it can be for more in depth reviews of the finer points.

With that said I agree completely that nothing can be better than an actual well written review from someone you generally trust. But I think to completely write Rotten Tomatoes off is going overboard big time.

Fysh wrote: »

So...

Halloween in particular has a base of fans who will passionately defend most of the franchise, so if I in particular think that e.g. only Carpenter's original was worth a damn and the rest were somewhere between derivative retreads and actual cinematic garbage... an aggregator is no use.

More broadly, though, aggregators are useless unless you know for a fact that your taste in film always aligns with the masses. A review worth a damn will either tell you "If you like X or Y, you'll like/dislike this" or give you the information to make that comparison yourself. An aggregator just says "this many people thought the film wasn't bad enough to walk out of". Whether those people share your taste in any way (or appreciate all the things you hate in films) is outside that scope.

I mostly agree with everything said but I do think that someone can learn to use Rotten Tomatoes to their advantage. You can pick up some of the reviewers by name and check out what they say about it.

I want to clarify that I'm not championing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacrtic as the go to for reviews, I think anyone who really cares about movies will already have some reviewers they know to check out, but I do think to completely dismiss it is overly harsh.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 3:27pm

83% is damm fine for a horror slasher movie which the slasher genre having been almost dead over the past decade I’m happy with what Iv seen if this it looks amazing can’t wait till tomorrow

I’m just so happy that the rob zombie crap is long gone and forgotten now this feels like a proper halloween movie

pixelburp · 18-10-2018 3:46pm

It always needs reminding: those User Reviews on aggregator sites are just as prone to sock-puppet / troll accounts as any other community platform these days. In fact probably more so, given the combination of low-stakes vs the deep pockets of those who might benefit from a slew of fake, good reviews propping up a critical panning (of all things, the Honest Trailers video on Gotti found a bunch of obviously fake User Reviews by way of example). The opposite can also cause an unfair or false score, through spurned fans dog-piling on a franchise out of petty spite *cough*lastjedi*cough*.

Obviously this doesn't necessarily apply when it comes to Halloween as it's not out yet & so there are no User scores yet, but I'll trust a critical consensus sooner than I would that of the 'public' - the obvious exception being genres I know wouldn't be my cup of tea...

gmisk · 18-10-2018 4:08pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

He is an executive producer.

johnny_ultimate · 18-10-2018 4:10pm

Having seen the film, a ‘generally positive’ critical response seems wholly reasonable - it’s a good, solid 3-4 star film if ever there was one. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable albeit hardly revolutionary film. I’m sure some will dislike it for perfectly legitimate reasons - from its sometimes goofy Danny McBride streak to the general familiarity of the material - but I’d definitely suggest there’s enough wit, enthusiasm and cleverly staged scenes to appeal to most viewers. The final act is a particularly pleasing slice of classic slasher finale directing from David Gordon Green.

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 5:50pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

correction wrote: »

But all the reviews are there. You can read one/all/none of them. I find Rotten Tomatoes is what you make of it, it can be a quick check to see if a film is watchable and it can be for more in depth reviews of the finer points.

You've missed the point.

All a given film has to do is get an average score across the board to get a high RT percentage, even if that film is nothing to write home about.

If you, me and ten other people think that film A is an unremarkable, ok flick that isn't absolutely terrible, but has numerous bad flaws and mark it just 6/10 across the board. Rotten Tomatoes will class that as a 100% fresh film. Thereby giving the false impression that the film is 100% good, despite any criticism that we've levelled at it.

Similarly, if we all gave it 5/10 - still an average - the film will get a splat, thereby looking like everybody hated it.

Simply quoting the RT score is something that everyone should take with a pinch of salt.

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 6:00pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

gmisk wrote: »

He is an executive producer.

As said, he's an exec producer. Carpenter can't get any money for his own movies these days and studios won't touch him. His last film, 'The Ward' was largely trashed and he hasn't had a hit in a long, long time. So, he basically whores out his old repertoire and, as he's said himself, watches the checks come in.

He has no real input into these things, despite his name being attached in some manner. Nor does he really care either.

Fysh · 18-10-2018 8:12pm

Tony EH wrote: »

As said, he's an exec producer. Carpenter can't get any money for his own movies these days and studios won't touch him. His last film, 'The Ward' was largely trashed and he hasn't had a hit in a long, long time. So, he basically whores out his old repertoire and, as he's said himself, watches the checks come in.

He has no real input into these things, despite his name being attached in some manner. Nor does he really care either.

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 9:47pm

Fysh wrote: »

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

That may be true for the fog but here he is talking with David Gordon Green in interviews and much more involved with this movie and imo I think he does have genuine respect for these guys aswell from all the interviews I’ve seen online.

I’ve listened to the new soundtrack on YouTube just now aswell and it’s excellent

Btw that fog remake is like 13years old now not a few years ago &#55357;&#56860;

correction · 19-10-2018 8:15am

Tony EH wrote: »

You've missed the point.

All a given film has to do is get an average score across the board to get a high RT percentage, even if that film is nothing to write home about.

If you, me and ten other people think that film A is an unremarkable, ok flick that isn't absolutely terrible, but has numerous bad flaws and mark it just 6/10 across the board. Rotten Tomatoes will class that as a 100% fresh film. Thereby giving the false impression that the film is 100% good, despite any criticism that we've levelled at it.

Similarly, if we all gave it 5/10 - still an average - the film will get a splat, thereby looking like everybody hated it.

Simply quoting the RT score is something that everyone should take with a pinch of salt.

Only if you don't know how it works. The RT score should be taken as exactly what it is, the percentage of critics who gave the film a positive review. If people assume that a film with a 95% is a 9.5/10 that is their own fault. If you don't value knowing the percentage of positive reviews then the actual reviews are their to read and see how highly the critics actually rated the film.

Tony EH · 19-10-2018 8:30am

Fysh wrote: »

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

Sure.

John Carpenter is 70 now. He knows that, bar a miracle, his directing days are over. Which is something I take no joy in saying, as even a duff Carpenter film is worth a look. So, much of his income is from him selling name rights to his old movies. He's probably made more off of recent 'Halloween' films, than he did with the original.

What I love about him is his honesty about it, though. It's very refreshing, especially in a world where there's so much bullshit from people in that business.

Micheal Clark · 19-10-2018 5:30pm

HandsomeBob;107243720

Fox Hound wrote: »

I have only watched the Halloween films, house of a 1000 corpse and the devils rejects,

Its something very rare that we get a writer/director that likes to do his own thing, I think that needs to be championed these days,,, he is not the greatest but I like his style of horror and as for the casting, Id say he finds it hard to get actors for his movies because he likes to work on low budget things (outside the Halloween franchises) plus he probably just trusts these actors, lots of Directors do this, i.e Tim Burton, Chris Nolan etc...anyway getting a bit side tracked, but this Halloween sale 2018 does look cool, and plus Myers is an awesome bad guy, so lets bring him back and watch him F**k things up!
https://www.ivacy.com/blog/halloween-sale-and-clearance/

It's not necessarily an issue with the actors as he does have a very decent core that do perform for him. Just seems every film revolves around hicks and a lot of exploitation in the arse end of America. That's what he brought to Halloween which was interesting in itself, but showed his limitations when viewed in the wider context of his general work.
Bought the ticket for Halloween 2018. First day first show.

HandsomeBob · 19-10-2018 6:52pm

Odeon Coolock not showing any screenings before 1pm which is strange given I was able to see the Nun at 11am and I'm sure that the Deadpool films had opening showings in the morning also, so can't be a case of rating.

Usually up early and fresh so I like to go to the cinema as soon as possible if something I fancy is on.

Basq · 19-10-2018 7:19pm

I don't understand why my local Omniplex is rotating between 'Johnny English Strikes Again' and 'A Star Is Born' in MAXX and this is relegated to a smaller screen! :mad:

sirmanga · 19-10-2018 9:27pm

Very disappointed in this film. Had no atmosphere and the little subplot with Michael's doctor was rubbish.

There was a certain snobbery from everyone involved in this movie. A sense of "Oh look at all those stupid sequels. Forget them. This is the real sequel. The good one."
And in the end this movie is just as ridiculous as most of the other sequels.
The version of Laurie Strode in H20 was much more believable than the Sarah Connor wannabe we got in this one.
Not a good movie!

Bowlardo · 20-10-2018 12:21am

This was poor . 5/10 movie. No atmosphere, no tension, no real menace.
Jamie was good in it. Ending was very well done then but was surprised how poor the music was.

Assault on precinct 13 on film four now that will have to do me

esposito · 20-10-2018 8:54am

Overall it was a decent movie. The start and ending were very good.

Have to agree with the music - disappointing that the original score wasn’t used tbh ( it would have added to the tension)

The scene with Michaels doctor going mad was pointless.

Jamie Lee Curtis was excellent in it though.

7/10 for me.

Autecher · 20-10-2018 9:08pm

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Odeon Coolock not showing any screenings before 1pm which is strange given I was able to see the Nun at 11am and I'm sure that the Deadpool films had opening showings in the morning also, so can't be a case of rating.

Usually up early and fresh so I like to go to the cinema as soon as possible if something I fancy is on.

Basq wrote: »

I don't understand why my local Omniplex is rotating between 'Johnny English Strikes Again' and 'A Star Is Born' in MAXX and this is relegated to a smaller screen!

It's nothing to do with ratings it's just that it's not expected to do that well. Cinemas are generally good at knowing in advance what are likely to be the more and less popular movies in any given week so that's how they decide how many screenings a day and what size screen to show them in. I saw this today at 3:45 in Odeon Naas, it was the first screening of the day in their smallest screen one day after the movie was released and it was barely one third full. The screening was slightly ruined by 2 very very rude people who eventually left as people kept shushing them but I think without those 2 I still would have disliked this cliche ridden boring movie. I will not be going to see Halloween 12.

Halloween (2018)

Comments