Nurse Jill's shoes fall off. Brilliant!
-
popcorn_bliss — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 06:48 PM)
Good work! I would have never caught that, but I'll have to look for it next time.
Yeah, there's a lot to digest in Halloween II. It's one of the reasons I prefer it to the original. Not that all the continuity errors make it "better" but there's just more touncoverin the sequel. When you add the countless trimmed edits and additions of the TV Cut, it makes it a fun yet challenging project trying to put it all together to come up with an "Ultimate Cut". -
enfilmigult — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 06:53 PM)
LOLthat's actually exactly how I noticed a lot of errors myself. I did put together such a cut, and in the process watched the movie so many damn times it really was down to the point of noticing people's shoes.
Edit: And I should add, I gained a new appreciation for the theatrical cut's editing even though I was "fixing" it. In some spots they get away with murder, continuity-wise, because the cutting rhythms are just so well done. There's that bit with Karen arriving, there's the way they switch around and mash together a lot of early scenes to condense the first halfreally excellent work for a somewhat less excellent cause. -
enfilmigult — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 03:13 AM)
Well, you know meI don't think it's a truly great horror film, and I hate that plot twistbut what the hell, it has a special place in my heart.
I certainly can't think of another slasher movie that looks so goodthe cinematography is really stellar. -
enfilmigult — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 09:31 PM)
You know, it just occurred to me: why didn't Gordon Willis do more horror movies? Dean Cundey obviously did a few, even John Alcott did 'Terror Train,' but the Prince of Darkness himself did zero if I'm not mistakenthe only Jamie Lee Curtis movie he lensed was 'Perfect,' LOL. (Well, there was 'Windows,' but that barely counts.) That seems like a real lost opportunity.
-
johnfuture — 10 years ago(March 17, 2016 03:36 PM)
I prefer II over the original, but then I'm not one of those people who waxes lyrical over how groundbreaking Carpenter's film was. It's certainly an achievement, but sound artistic choices aside, he didn't pioneer anything.
"Killer POV" shots had been in many other horror films before. Everyone mentions Black Christmas, but even Argento used it before Bob Clark did in The Cat o' Nine Tails.
Same goes for the use of anamorphic lenses to create unease in the viewer's field of visionArgento is another director who used the technique in his Animal Trilogy well before Carpenter utilized it in Halloween.
As for the film's use of color in the night scenes, I believe (or someone has said so, anyway) that Carpenter got this inspiration from Argento, as he wanted Halloween to look like his Argento film. Regardless of whether he said that or not, the fact remains Argento (and even Mario Bava) were pioneers in the use of striking color before Carpenter.
Carpenter's music was certainly inspired, I'll give him that. Few films benefit from their score as much as Halloween. It's almost impossible to imagine it with a different one.
But even the basic plot is reminiscent of Black Christmas, and it certainly was not the first teenagers-in-peril film, either.
And for all the philosophical treatises done on the film that try to analyze the significance of The Shape along with various other aspects of the film (I've seriously read entire books on the psychological and philosophical undertones in the film), the fact is Carpenter didn't have such lofty ambitions in mind when he made it. You can ask him yourself why Michael kills, for example, and he'll say "I don't know." It's a case of people searching for meaning in a work of art that means something different to every viewer.
I applaud Halloween for its use of restraint, its artistry, and the way it obviously aspires to be a classy thrill ride, but at the end of the day I don't see anything about it that was groundbreaking. Particularly the script, which largely revolved around teenage girls making idol chitchat. This wasn't Hitchcockian dialogue. It served a function, but beyond a select few lines from Loomis, we don't have any "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"'s here.
Halloween was an inspired amalgamation of techniques already being used by European and other independent filmmakers at the time, and frankly Carpenter is given too much credit for it.
Halloween II has no pretentions about what it is. The use of wide angles and other film techniques to evoke suspense weren't anything novel by 1981 and the audience knew exactly what you were going for, so in a sense all artistic trickery was seen right through by the audience. You couldn't manipulate them the same way anymore, all you could do was give them what they expected and hope to thrill them. There was an invisible contract between filmgoers and makers of slasher films at that point, and Halloween II largely played into what they expected from such a movie. In that sense, it's a much more satisfying experience because all artistic pretentions are thrown out the window in favor of scaring the audience. And I will argue that Halloween II is a much scarier film than its predecessor.
The best thing that happened between 1978 and 1981 is that literally dozens of slasher films came out, familiarizing audiences with their tropes and forcing Carpenter to do away with artistic ambition and compete with them in terms of body count and gore. Halloween II ended up being a much more visceral film as a result. -
johnfuture — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 12:15 AM)
Halloween is a good movie, I just disagree with everyone that thinks it was groundbreaking for its time or pioneered anything. Carpenter skillfully wove techniques already in existence to create a classic suspense film, but it gets far too much credit for being original when it's influences go back for years. On top of that, while it's effective, script-wise it's quite mediocre. Pleasance has some good lines, but this wasn't stellar writing.
I actually enjoy Friday the 13th more, though I wouldn't call it a "better" film. Cunnigham tapped into that primal fear of isolated places and the fear we have of the dark and managed to get some (for its time) gruesome murders past the censors in the process. Friday the 13th is the more derivative film, but as an experience, I think it's more of a roller coaster ride than Halloween. I'd also argue that the pacing is better. Comparing an artist like Carpenter to the money-minded Cunnigham seems unfair, as their approaches were completely different, but Cunnigham assembled the nuts and bolts of a perfect slasher film, even if it was like lightning in a bottle. His career is proof even amateurs can strike gold on occasion. -
-
cjh8504 — 10 years ago(March 25, 2016 04:37 PM)
It's in my nature. "Everyone should like everything I do, and if you don't, you suck." Or at least respect what I like. I'm sorry, but that's how I think.
RIP Wayne 'Trapper John' Rogers. MASH wasn't the same w/o you. RIP Tony Burton. RIP George Kennedy -
cjh8504 — 10 years ago(March 26, 2016 04:37 PM)
Because, some of what others like is crap. Now, I know you'll say, "Well, some might think what you like is crap, Cj." And, they can think that, but it's not the case. There's a big difference between Rocky or Raiders of the Lost Ark, almost universally loved, award winning movies and some of the movies Kurt says he likes, for example. Halloween 5, 6, and the like. I mean, come on. There's the Beatles, then there's GWAR. I think I've told you this before, Barn. Some things are beyond reproach, and if someone doesn't like them, then THEY'RE the wackos. And
. MASH wasn't the same w/o you. RIP Tony Burton. RIP George Kennedy