Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine halloween films !!

One more thing--A year or two ago, Bravo aired its 'Top 100 Scariest Film Moments of all Time' or something, and it was a pretty kick-ass special. In fact, that have spurned this thread, but I'm far too lazy to click on the page one link and check. Anyone know if this will be re-airing anytime soon? The special was pretty awesome for a TV special.

Can't wait to see what Brewvies does for the Halloween festival they promised. From their short list, these were the five movies I suggested:

Dawn of the Dead (the remake)
28 Days Later
An American Werewolf in London
Shaun of the Dead
The Lost Boys

It's that time of year again!!

I watched the last hour or so of Halloween 5 last night on AMC. Question for Cobie and the rest of the "experts": Did or didn't the character Tina die in the scene out in the forest after Michael tried to run down Jamie? It's heavily implied that she did, especially by Jamie's reaction. But to me, it looked like a survivable wound, and it showed Tina on a gurney moments later with ot any covers over her.

I dunno. To me it looks like they're leaving her fate up in the air in case they want to use her in a sequel, but I could be wrong. I swear it bothers me every time I see that movie because I think she lived!

Of course, I'm sure no one planned for part 6 to come out six years later, so that has to be taken into consideration!

Yeah, I liked the Tina character in that film, especially after she tried to shield Jamie from Michael. But I never thought that she might have survived.

Snce I made that post, Sarky, I've looked at various Wikipedia articles on the movie and the characters, and they all list Tina as having been stabbed to death. I dunno. I've only ever seen the edited-for-television version of that movie. Maybe her death's more explicit in the uncut version?

I mean, hell, you can even argue that Loomis died in H5 after subduing Michael. Obviously, he appeared again in H6, though.

I've always considered her dead but the case can definitely be made for her living. I suspect it was left open 'if needed' for a possible sequel which was originally intended to happen pretty soon after.

I'd love to find a decent image of Tina in her costume for a commission at some point.

I haven't really sat down to watch the Halloween movies in a while, but I did like parts 4, 5, and 6.

I read there was a deleted scene in H2O where Laurie Strode, under her new identity, learns from one of her students that Michael managed to kill Jamie Lloyd a couple of years ago, and she then excuses herself from the classroom to go vomit in one of the bathrooms.

So I've been watching most ("most" because the kids kept walking in ) of Halloweens 4-6 today on AMC, and I must say that my opinion on them has changed overall since 3 pages ago when I denigrated the trilogy overall compared to H20 and resurrection. Anyhow, seeing parts of 6 again reminded me of the Producer's Cut, and a little internet research shows it has actually gotten a standalone Blu-ray release this year after having finally gotten a release last year as part of a massive complete series set. I'm weighing whether or not I may actually want to obtain this version in the near future.

I guess the question is: Is it worth owning?

It's an interesting question because a fair number of reviews posted on Amazon characterize the cut as "boring" compared to the theatrical version. I also noticed that while Cobie states he'd eventually obtained it in the course of this thread, he never reviews it or compares it to the main version. Prof doesn't speak well of it, either. So I'd be curious if Cobie or any others with an opinion on the subject could speak up!

(BTW, I STILL think Tina should have survived 5 from what we were shown! )

My feelings on Halloween 6 are those of most of the general public: it just doesn't work. The fundamental problem behind the movie is that tries to explore something that shouldn't be explored: Michael's origin and motives. John Carpenter's original Halloween was so successful in enveloping the audience in a sense of dread and suspense was because Michael Meyers was an enigma, a force of nature that could not be reasoned with or stopped.

The whole business with the "Thorn curse" makes Michael less threatening as a character because he's simply the pawn of some cult leader who we have no investment in and don't know about until the reveal, undermining Michael's autonomy as a character. I don't feel the producer's cut really helps all that much except for a few scenes with the great Donald Pleasence, who unfortunately passed away shortly after the movie finished.

I kind of liked the expansion of the mythology beyond Michael just being a supernatural murderer. Carpenter himself even laid the groundwork somewhat by working in a reference to samhain in his script for Halloween 2. I dunno, I think it was better than the Jason Voorhees series that was mostly stagnant after the first film. To me, Halloweens 4-6 at least have some re-watchability, whereas the Fridays have very little, imo.

Lardy, I agree with you that the Friday the 13th films have very little rewatchability, though I attribute that less to Vorhees himself being an uninteresting villain and more to the fact that the entire cast in every installment serves as canon fodder with little actual character development.

I actually think the Halloween series should have followed through on the original plan of the studio and become an anthology series after Halloween III. That would been much more interesting and led to more creative movies year after year, almost a cinematic Tales from the Darkside if you will. Unfortunately, the public hated the idea and kept demanding more Michael Meyers movies, which is how we eventually got Halloween 6 where Michael somehow impregnated his niece and Halloween: Resurrection where Michael meets his end at the hands of Busta Rhymes' martial arts skills.

Halloween was the first horror movie I ever watched, at the tender age of 8. The truth is, the movie didn't actually scare me that much. Neither did The Wolf Man, which I'd watched at around the same time I'd seen Halloween.

My sibling and I used to be big fans of the Halloween movies, even the third one long before we found out about Carpenter originally planned for the franchise. I remember how badly we used to want one of the Silver Shamrock masks.

I've rewatched 5 and 6 a couple of times in the last few years. I actually own a bootleg of the director's cut of 6 but I've never watched it from beginning to end. That said, I...

I know the movies aren't perfect and have problems, especially the whole "Man in Black" thing and the ending of 6. But I liked Jamie Lloyd's character and a few others. Tina from 5 and Kara Strode from 6. I especially liked the bond Jamie developed with that nurse from the fifth movie, if only because it was nice seeing her receive some consistent emotional support and nurturing after everything she went through. Tina sacrificing herself to help Jamie, and Kara trying to protect her son from Michael in 6 were also parts I enjoyed.

I'm also rather fond of the opening to the fifth movie when they do the recap of 4's ending, the music is awesome. Same said for the theme remix used in 6 and the song they played at the end.

But that's just me.

It's been many years since I posted in this thread but my love of the Halloween films had continued and grown unabated. A look at earlier posts in the thread show how I came to love the franchise.

A few things have crystallized even more for me (and I'll make my way to 4-6 here):

The first film continues to age like a fine wine. It is iconic and deservedly so. Not only is it hands down the best Halloween film, it's probably the greatest slasher film and one of the top few horror films ever. I've seen it like 40 times now and can't get enough.

The 2nd one is also great though not on the level of the first. If the first creates a hunger for the viewer for this kind of movie, the second one really satisfied that hunger you in spades. IMO, it's the perfect sequel.

Meanwhile, jumping ahead, by dissatisfaction with H20 and Resurrection (7 & 8) has only grown over the years. All my complaints about both are earlier in the thread ad nauseam. They have only intensified: the "Scream-ing" / youth hippiness of H2O and the cutesy pandering with Busta Rhymes and reality TV make me react to them as if they're campy and comedic like the current TV show Scream Queens.

Meanwhile, the recent Rob Zombie reimaginings haven't been my favorites for some reason. I watched, I enjoyed, but I never find an urge to rewatch when they're on. Perhaps they're too dark and grimy (literally--not the plot or tone but the lighting and the sets) or perhaps they have that purposeful element of cruelty that Zombie infuses in his work that isn't my favorite, where he's trying to hurt the viewer. The originals scared the shit out of me; the reimaginings, like much of modern horror, feels like a personal attack. I'm not scared, I'm defensive and taken out of the movie when I see what the director is trying to get me to feel.

And this circles back to my beloved 4-6, which still indeed are beloved. Upon numerous rewatches (at least 1 each every 2 years or so), I continue to love these films. Yes, the are B-quality when compared to the original, but that only enhances the feeling (see my original comments).

On the 6th one, one complaint I share is that I dislike that Jaime dies in the beginning too. I'm probably more invested in her than any other character in series, including Loomis and Laurie. So I agree on that.

I do love the added mythology to Michael and the Cult of Thorne. Part of it is because as a kid, the end of 5 intrigued me to no end, and then 6 was such a big moment in my cinema viewing experience. Part of it is also how the Son of Sam and other serial killers have strange ties to satanic cults that aren't really ever reported on but have a whole genre of literature that I find fascinating. But mostly it's because the concept of Michael being the lone, silent killer was already done, and done very well, in the first two films, as Lardy alludes to. They couldn't just keep making the same movie over and over again, and needed to add something to it. By doing so, they don't detract from the first film because that still exists and can be enjoyed on its own with the viewer none the wiser. But they can give a little something extra if you're invested and want to keep living in this world.

The first film is the ultimate slasher movie. The second one is the ultimate follow up where the mystery is gone, and the lead characters know what they're up against with the mayhem turned up to 10. The fourth one, 10 years later, reestablishes it for the viewer with the additional element of a young girl connected to Michael. The 5 serves to enhance Jamie's story, give hints to a larger plot, and mirror 2 as 4 mirrors 1. And then 6 brings the cult plot to a culmination.

Obviously when the franchise was considered B-grade and the genre was shit on, they could get away with it, so why not go in a totally different direction? And with 6, they had no real blueprint on how to proceed, if you consider 4 & 5 followed the road map of 1 & 2.

So yeah, I love the Cult stuff. I also love that it serves as a moment in time before Scream made horror cool again and the Halloween movies were forced to try to be cool and what the standards of the decade considered "good".

Getting to 6 specifically, I did finally watch the Producer's Cut years ago. For some reason I was vague then because I received a burned copy, but the awesome Lightning Lad sent me a copy. My thoughts boil down to: yes, it was a little better as more of it made sense; however--and this is big--considering all I've read online, including links earlier in the thread--it didn't totally satisfy my craving for a proper Cut and proper resolution to the plots / ending. It's like we get a step in the right direction, but there should be yet another "super producers cut" that should exist that truly makes it work.

Part the mystique of 666 is this of course. Hell, I can't watch 6 without rereading the article about what we could, or should, have gotten. But with Mustapha Akkad deceased, we probably never will have any true resolution.

Hope that answers the question. To be totally honest, my memory isn't fresh enough to get into specifics on the differences in the cuts.

Lastly, I'm thrilled they didn't turn it into an anthology series after 3! Movies don't really need anthologies, they just need to be good movies made by the same people. And Carpenter in recent years has been very happy and positive about how the franchise has lasted. The Halloween franchise, IMO, is a good example of how a franchise can continue on open-ended if the film makers are creative and take some risks. Horror lends itself very well to serial art because the innate fears and anxieties they exploit will never go away; like superheroes and detectives, the genre and characters can tell great one-off stories but are perfectly poised to establish a dedicated audience and then take them for a long ride.

I despise remakes and I tend to write off sequels, but in certain cases they make sense and can serve a purpose. Michael Myers, like Dracula and others before him, is a character worth seeing again and again.

Kind of. I guess what I was looking for, more than what the differences were, is which of the two versions you prefer. I know that you kind of answer this by saying it needs a third "super" version, but my hunch is that you ultimately prefer the theatrical version. Ultimately, I'm just wondering whether I need to see the Producer's Cut or not.

I see what you mean there, and that may very well be why those films weren't discussed much here after they were released, even though anticipation expressed for them was high prior to their release. I think you kind of nailed it there by alluding to the basic cruelty in the feel of them.

*spoilers follow*

I think this is most exemplified by the Annie character who is played by Danielle Harris this time. Danielle, of course, played Jamie Lloyd in 4 and 5. And Annie is easily the victim in the original film that we care about the most. So we have double the investment with the character this time. We are elated to see her survive Zombie's first film this time, but in the second.....

I guess it's more than just that, though. Zombie invests a lot in the characters and especially Michael's backstory, so the deaths and the carnage hurt a lot more than any other Halloween film for the most part. Plus, it feels more real because, IIRC, Zombie completely eschews the supernatural elements that were present in all of the originals, specifically Michael's inability to die. Basically, Halloween is now a story of a serial killing spree that is bereft of any escapism with the supernatural taken out.

So, like you, I kind of enjoyed and appreciated them when I first saw them but have not been keen to re-watch at all.

Thinking about it some more, I would say, yes, I enjoyed the theatrical version better. The overall experience was more pleasing.

You definitely don't need to see the producers cut. It's worth watching if you have easy access to and can get on the cheap. But you're definitely not missing out.

I think somewhere on this thread someone (Prof?) said that it was the original script that was so awesome, IIRC, rather than any filmed version.

I grew up on '80s horror movies, and the first two Halloweens were a big part of that. The first one seems absolutely tame by later slasher standards, but it's just so iconic and simple and just well-done. And there's several images that just stay with you: Michael with the sheet over him and wearing Bob's glasses, the tombstone and jack o'lantern used to pose the bodies, the light coming thru the slatted closed door as Laurie hides for her life--those are just a few that come to mind.

The second one has its iconic moments but doesn't hold up as well as the first over time. The escalated violence, body count and nudity seem more like an attempt to be like other slashers that have arisen since the first film. But you pretty much had to bring things to another level to have a satisfying sequel. There's also some ambiguity as to whether Jimmy survives, though there's a version that clearly shows he did. However, given the explosion we see, there's no friggin' way Loomis survives! Michael, you can excuse because of his supernatural aspects. Loomis, not so much. It's nice, though, to have Loomis in the sequels, but his survival is still ridiculous.

This was something I was thinking abut when this thread was bumped a few weeks ago, but forgot to post about: How did Michael learn to drive and follow traffic laws after he stole the car in the first movie?

Was that ever addressed in any of the sequels or is it just a huge plot hole?

I seem to recall it being mentioned by Loomis, but I can't remember exactly what was said.

There's a hilarious spoof on YouTube somewhere about Loomis teaching Michael how to drive. It's one of the great Wtf elements of the franchise.

Looks like Carpenter himself has confirmed his involvement in new Halloween movies, which has my interest piqued for both good and bad reasons.

https://twitter.com/TheHorrorMaster/status/734973168469692416

Aren't they saying they're planning another reboot with a movie that's supposed to be like a direct sequel to the original that ignores everything else?

Which is kind of what they did with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise?

I know they're rebooting it, but I don't think they've revealed any of the "continuity logistics" yet. It would be weird for them to do that again since that's basically what H20 was.