The opening scene…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 04:25 PM)
really drew me into the movie. It felt like a modern-day setting for the Celtic and Middle English folklore and mythology that partly underpinned the first two movies.
Dwight Little's surehanded direction of a film that basically rehashed the first appealed greatly to me and caused me to consider Halloween 4 to be the best film in the franchise other than the original Halloween.
Scenes like the opener were the reason.
Unfortunately the franchise went downhill from here.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served. -
GorchBrother — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 01:26 AM)
The shots in the opening title sequence (all too short IMO) are head and shoulders above everything else in the film.
It all went downhill from that moment they ended.
"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!"- Yarael Poof
-
GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 04:16 PM)
I disagree there. Halloween 4 was largely a rehash of the first movie, but had some decent acting and a good sense of pacing. Halloween 5 with its slapdash storyline, out of place comedy, and unlikable characters was where the series went off the rails. Halloween 6 was marginally better than its predecessor but was far from great.
H20, Resurrection, Rob Zombie's Halloween, and the second Zombie Halloween were pure dreck with few if any redeeming qualities.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served. -
GorchBrother — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:59 AM)
Halloween 4 was largely a rehash of the first movie
I don't know about that. More of a rehash than Halloween II or III, at best.
The opening scene is almost a comedy in tone. Michael has an intended victim and that victim is already having visions of him and fearing him coming after her through some half baked psychic connection that is purely a set up for the half baked shock ending. It's anything but faithful to either the premise or the tone of the first movie.
Nobody in charge of looking after Michael is impressed at all by his endurance since being shot a dozen times, twice in the head and barbecued for a good few minutes , even if it is in a catatonic state. The people who should know better don't seem to care that he was voluntarily catatonic for 15 years before getting up and and escaping to murder over a dozen people.
I think people got suckered in by the original mask and the Wallace house appearing in the poster. Absolutely nothing in the film is anywhere close to the original in stylishness.
The acting was perfunctory.
Rachel and Jamie receive equal prominence even though we know that Jamie is the target. And why do we care about Rachel? Oh because her boyfriend cheats on her with a tart whom, lo and behold, Rachel and Jamie are locked in house to with later in the film. So there will be some totally incidental romantic tension. Oh great. That's what we came to see.
5 and 6 were worse. I'll give you that.
"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!"- Yarael Poof
-
GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 04:47 PM)
The opening scene is a desolate portrayal of Halloween ornaments in rural Illinois. I'm not exactly sure how that's comedy.
As for the scene introducing Jamie, I don't quite understand how it's comedic to have Jamie be terrorized by nightmares of her serial killer uncle. It's a red herring, yes, but that comes with the format. You and I have much different definitions of comedy if you think that scene was funny.
As for the people you refer to handling Michael, there's exactly one culprit in that instanceHoffman. The crew transporting Michael seem only vaguely familiar with him and see no indication Michael is either conscious or able to move. Hoffman should probably know better, but he comes across as a self-important dick who wants Michael gone. He even points out the obviousthat Michael should have no muscle tone or ability to move after a decade in a coma. It's only when it's clear Michael has indeed healed to the point of being able to move about and kill people he begins to realize Loomis is right. That's actually a realistic portrayal of the way things would happen in that situation because Michael Myers is beyond anything anyone has ever encountered before.
Regarding the Rachel/Brady/Kelly subplot, it takes up maybe seven minutes of the running time of a ninety-minute movie. I'm sorry, but although I didn't much care for that subplot, something that took up 1/13 of the film's runtime didn't kill it for me.
As far as Rachel herself, she starts off as a selfish teenager holding her foster sister at arm's length. She grows over the course of the movie to genuinely care for Jamie and does everything possibleincluding nearly sacrificing her own lifeto stop Michael. That's not a poorly written character to me.
I thought the acting was fine. Some of the side characters were a bit stiff, but overall the acting for a relatively low budget horror movie was fine to me.
Do I wish the Producers had gone with the script John Carpenter and Dennis Etchison wrote?
Absolutely. I think it would be a better film.
That said, for a movie that retreads familiar ground, I think Halloween 4 did well. Everything after it from Halloween 5 to Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 was dreck with few redeeming qualities, but this one I find fewer problems with.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served. -
Lets_talk_about_that — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 05:19 PM)
I really enjoy the opening shots, they show great cinematography, and are wonderful for setting the tone for the film.
The Exorcist also kind of does the same thing at the beginning of the movie with the very creepy scenes shot in Iraq. It establishes a very creepy tone and sets the stage for the demon that was brought forth from that region of the world.