Improvement over 4 & 5
-
Manna-Fest — 10 years ago(October 31, 2015 08:29 PM)
As much as I like this movie, I find it inferior to Halloween 4 and 5. At least those movies had a coherent plot and you could understand them. While this movie had a brutal Michael, a good mask, a dark atmosphere, good kills, and a good soundtrack, the movie's funky editing, poor character development, and a confusing third act which basically throws the whole cult aspect out the window in favor of a science experiment X-Files type fiasco is what ruins it. I find H4 and H5 to be better than H6 storywise.
-
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(September 03, 2016 01:32 PM)
If you think H5 is dull, then you must think the original is VERY dull. If not, there's a problem. Halloween 5 has a lot of action sequences going on it and Michael is active all throughout it. The original is basically very simple and nothing spectacular happens and Michael is kept in the background for the most part.
-
dave626 — 9 years ago(September 03, 2016 11:04 PM)
There are dull moments. Loomis' search of the Myers house in the daytime. Dull. Tina and Sam's "planning". Dull. It really picked up after Mikey got killed. Even then, Tower Farm build updullwaiting for Michael to show and testing signalsdull. So it's not all non stop. Same with the original. The true action begins when night falls.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 10:14 AM)
But you had moments of a rock being thrown through the clinic window of Jamie's room, Michael stalking and killing Rachel, Mike getting killed, Jamie believing she's been stalked by Michael and runs all over the clinic, her whole breakdown at the clinic during the costume show, and car chase stuff in the woods and this is before the epic showdown at the Myers house. H5 has more action and kills in it than the original. That's what I'm saying.
-
dave626 — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 01:05 PM)
I agree with that. That is attributed to 3 things. 1. The director, Girard had a more gothic/avant garde/European style filming, which is dark and moody. 2. The time it was released/filmed the late 80s were filled with fast action sequences, not necessarily horror films, but there are exceptions, so a fast pace was just typical for that era's films. 3. They have to up the ante for a sequel. Being part 5 did it no favors, seeing as how poorly Friday 5 and Nightmare 5 both did, but also it's own competition. Halloween 4 had the rooftop chase, the end truck scene, etc. So 5 had do that one better with multiple chase scenes, 1 fake, 2 real. The laundry chute sequence was a direct result of trying to top Rooftop chase in the last film.
As for the original, it was 1978, when slow and steady won the race (a la Psycho),, low budget and simple. Not boring, but simple. No roof chases, no laundry chute scenes, the best we got then was Michael walking across the street to kill Laurie. That was it. No competition then, no need to one up, rookie filmmakers, it's all relative to it's time and place in history.
But it's still a great film. I feel 5 would've been better served with more time to develop, get it right and not rush it. But we'll never know how good this could have been had they fixed their mistakes, like some people hate the house, the whole crying, psychic link, the ambiguous nature of the Man in Black, all of it needed more polish.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(September 07, 2016 10:33 AM)
Yes, the original was at a time when slow and steady won the race. But my thing is, don't hate on a sequel for being dull when the original movie is duller and the sequel still holds more action, story-telling, elements than the original. You mind as well hate on the original even more.
Halloween 5 may have been rushed, but we had quite a few Friday and Nightmare movies that were made within a year time-span of it's previous installment and they did fine. Halloween 5 didn't require a bunch of special effects and stuff so there was no problem getting that then within a year. The only thing I hate was the house, but it was probably all intended for it to look like a castle to provide that Gothic element to the movie. As you said, Girard is into that thing. Why else would they just pick a house that looked NOTHING like the original one? -
dave626 — 9 years ago(September 07, 2016 04:03 PM)
Depends on your definition of "did well". Both the Friday and Nightmare series took to serious decline by the time Halloween 5 came out in 1989.
Sure, they may have had low budgets, but no stars, weak stories and a lot of fan distaste. Friday 5 was so hated that even titled Jason Lives, 6 did not do was well as it should. Technically it was their version of "Return" aka Halloween 4, which did no. 1 for 2 weeks at the box office.
Then psychic teens and going to Manhattan? I mean come on. Those were bad. As for Nightmare, the Dream Trilogy did modestly, but it was stretching thin by Child. I will admit 3 was my favorite of the franchise.
So it's all relative, I suppose. Financially okay, but that's not saying much and critically acclaimed I think not.
As I've often said, the Amityville House was altered, didn't stop people and the Gein house torched, so why not apply that logic to Halloween 5's Myers house. Keep in mind it was being trashed in 1978 by a bunch of towns folk the last we saw it and not in the best shape then. So I imagine 11 years later it wouldn't be that great either. If not for the attic shrine and laundry chute sequence, the size of the house wouldn't have mattered, but those set pieces were integral to the script (1 upping the rooftop chase in 4 seemed a priority here). And can you see that working in either the 1978 or 1995 versions of the house> I can't.
People tend to shy away from "infamous houses" due to trespassers and sightseers so changing it's appearance to avoid that is logical. And from a production standpoint, they didn't have the time and did have the script to fit the house as it was.
For me, it was the least of 5's problems.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:20 PM)
Depends on your definition of "did well". Both the Friday and Nightmare series took to serious decline by the time Halloween 5 came out in 1989.
I don't think it had anything to do with the actual qualities of the movies. A box office drop doesn't mean the movie is terrible quality-wise. It just means people aren't interested, and Friday has been going on for EIGHT movies now. I know people are bound to have gotten tired of Jason by then. I don't really know the deal for Nightmare since it was only at it's fifth movie by 1989 but it was also a series being released practically yearly so I guess people were just getting tired of it too.
Sure, they may have had low budgets, but no stars, weak stories and a lot of fan distaste. Friday 5 was so hated that even titled Jason Lives, 6 did not do was well as it should. Technically it was their version of "Return" aka Halloween 4, which did no. 1 for 2 weeks at the box office.
Friday 5 was hated because of there being no Jason. The story itself, the music, directing, acting, etc. were all still very well good. This basically got the Halloween 3 backlash and it's unfair because apart from the main killer being gone, everything else still works. And Friday 5 definitely should have been a movie to fair better despite no Jason since the original movie didn't have Jason as the killer. H3 would be understandable because Michael was already there since the beginning.
Then psychic teens and going to Manhattan? I mean come on. Those were bad.
Not to me. They were fresh. Jason met his match with Tina who had the powers to really pack a punch to him and then we were able to get out of Crystal Lake and venture elsewhere. It's just a shame Part 8 didn't spend too much time on the NYC setting and the style and tone of the series was perfect to throw in a character with telekinesis. That's not anymore far-fetched than a walking zombie so it was fine.
As for Nightmare, the Dream Trilogy did modestly, but it was stretching thin by Child. I will admit 3 was my favorite of the franchise.
Eh, I guess you're right here. But I'm one of the few people who liked 5. I only saw it twice over the course of like six years. When watching it the second time, it wasn't as bad and goofy as I thought it was since watching it the first time. It was rather darker than I remembered. It's a shame this movie isn't given more credit.
As I've often said, the Amityville House was altered, didn't stop people and the Gein house torched,
The Amityville house was only altered in "Curse" and the succeeding sequels later went back to the design of the original house displayed in Parts 1-4. The house in "Curse" is often dismissed as a different house and not the same one. It's fitting too. The origin of the house in "Curse" does not match up to what we learned on it thus are it bears just no connection to the other movies.
so why not apply that logic to Halloween 5's Myers house. Keep in mind it was being trashed in 1978 by a bunch of towns folk the last we saw it and not in the best shape then. So I imagine 11 years later it wouldn't be that great either.
It wasn't that trashed up in 1978. We only saw people throwing rocks at it! The police were there so it's clear the people couldn't torch it up if they wanted to without planning on getting arrested in the process, so the worst they did was in fact throw rocks. That's not enough to go remodeling it, and why remodel something that has been off the market for 15 years that no one is interested in living in or putting any use to? To say they remodeled it is false, especially when in H5 the house is now located at a STREET CORNER, which was not the case in the first two movies. How would you get around that one? And a house remodeled that drastically should no longer be referred to as "The Myers House". It would be it's own house in and of itself!
If not for the attic shrine and laundry chute sequence, the size of the house wouldn't have mattered, but those set pieces were integral to the script (1 upping the rooftop chase in 4 seemed a priority here). And can you see that working in either the 1978 or 1995 versions of the house> I can't.
Um, Resurrection used a replica of the original house and there was a lot more action in the house setting than what we seen in H5. They didn't need to go all big with the house to accommodate the events. The house size shouldn't have been the issue. As we suggested, the change was probably done to throw in something gothic to the movie rather than make things extra roomy for the chase sequences.
For me, it was the least of 5's problems.
But it does stand out as the most more-so than Michael's mask, Jamie's age, or the error of the events of 1978 happening "twelve" years ago instead of eleven. -
dave626 — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 06:31 PM)
Resurrection had a basement and underground tunnels. So could have any version of the Myers houses we've seen over the years. We just don't know. Easier to go down than up. And again, Res."s and even 6's conforming to the original house is because of whiny fans and nothing more. Had nothing to do with the story. They just didn't want people to bitch about it anymore.
5's timeline goofs could've easily been fixed if they waited a year to release it. 1990 wouldn't have been a big deal or changed a title card to 2 years later. Movies don't occur in real time and jump in the future all the time, like Jason X, literally.
But they didn't and it's haunted them. To me, the house didn't seal the movie's fate in any of the films. It was a set piece, nothing more. Saying a movie sucked because of a prop is silly. Acting, story, production, those are good excuses and what made H20 so awful for me. But that's neither here nor their. It's all subjective and a matter of personal opinion, which everyone is entitled too, I suppose and not meant to be swayed by constant arguing. This debate has gone on long enough for me. After 25+ years, I'm over Halloween 5.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN -
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(September 11, 2016 04:14 PM)
Resurrection had a basement and underground tunnels. So could have any version of the Myers houses we've seen over the years. We just don't know. Easier to go down than up.
.
Yes, but the house seemed much bigger on the inside than the outside and that's just besides the basement scenes. Characters are getting stalked and attacked without notice by others and there's screaming and glass shattering going on without notice. In a small house, this makes no sense. And how is it that no one is bumping into each other all like that? It's more like they're in that mansion in Scream 3 than the Myers house. But my point is, they did not need a drastically big house to fulfill their duties of a mansion-like inside setting. We're just to ignore that and just appreciate the fact they got the house right and looking like the original one and no on is bound to really pay attention to how much bigger it seems on the inside than out.
5's timeline goofs could've easily been fixed if they waited a year to release it. 1990 wouldn't have been a big deal or changed a title card to 2 years later. Movies don't occur in real time and jump in the future all the time, like Jason X, literally.
True, but Halloween is one of those series that flows with real time. Practically every movie is set in it's present year of production and release except for Halloween II and Rob Zombie's Halloween II. Two years would have just seemed a bit of a drag, especially when you have that old hermit guy taking care of Michael. The fact he had him for a whole year is stretching enough but for TWO? It wouldn't have worked. I am curious to why the hermit didn't just have him taken to a hospital.
But they didn't and it's haunted them. To me, the house didn't seal the movie's fate in any of the films. It was a set piece, nothing more. Saying a movie sucked because of a prop is silly.
That includes the mask too. I LOVED the mask and even tried to make one myself out of dough and it didn't work out. I love the F-CK out of Halloween 5 but is still bugged out by the house. -
LuckyMatt93 — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 08:13 PM)
I wouldn't say it's better than Halloween 4 but pretty much anything save for Resurrection is better than H5. I'm sorry but that movie still is almost borderline unwatchable to me. There's literally no aspect of it that was even the least bit positive. The cinematography was lousy and looked like they were filming behind a greasy camera lens, the characters were either annoying AF (pretty much every single one of the teenagers) or uncharacteristic of themselves (Jaime, Rachel, Loomis), Michael's mask was awful and the story itself was just plain dull on top of being contrived.
I really enjoyed 4 even despite its lackluster third half. It was artistic, had strong character development and felt like way more of a return to the roots of the first three films than H20 did.
"All in the game" - Omar Little -
Hannibal_Manhunter89 — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 11:42 PM)
4 was the best after the original, and 5 is criminally underrated.
6 was ok, but it had the potential to be a great sequel and it failed to live up to what it could achieve (tried to explain too much, the convoluted backstory/plot, confusing ending, etc). The films troubled production didn't help it either. The Producer's Cut is the superior version, but even it is not that memorable. -
NorthernLad — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 07:36 PM)
Just watched this again tonight, and yeah I found it slightly better than 4 and 5. But the mask really wasn't much better. And I don't really like the curse crap. It makes Michael look like a pawn in someone else's game and that's just wrong.
American Horror Story Season 6: Donald Trump