Movies you have seen recently

[Stinger390X]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 11:55 PM, ViceFanMan said:

Yeah, I think even Craig is now getting too old to do too many more Bonds. I’ll be honest and say the out-there, sometimes silly humor aspect of 007 (even with Connery’s early ones) was what made those movies ‘fun’ to watch. They’re not supposed to be realistic or believable...total fantasy and escape from reality. 

I love Connery’s first several, but Roger Moore’s were and still are my favorites...he did the most and lasted the longest!  There’s something about his portrayal that totally “made” the role!  Pierce Brosnan was awesome too...but he’ll always be Remington Steele to me.  Timothy Dalton was okay, but something just wasn’t quite “there” to truly make it work. Poor George Lazenby tried, and I respect his one time attempt...but ultimately it just didn’t happen.

Daniel Craig is an awesome actor, and I respect him...but ultimately his 007 is way too “dark” and depressing for me.  I want some “fun” action and humor...a cool escape from the dark and dreary reality.  

I agree in some sense that the earlier bonds were very humous and a way to get away and daydream of exotic places. I have the entire collection and once a year I will pull out one or two and re-watch them. They are "fun" as you stated.

 

I highly recommend the two movies in the series that "spoofs Bond" called "OUR MAN FLINT" and "IN LIKE FLINT" These are hilarious and makes fun of trans global espionage and secret agents.  It stars James Colbourne and he is hilarious as the over qualified, knows every form of martial art, studious with every secret gatget ever created spy who cannot be killed, yet he gets more girls than anyone alive!  Great movies for a rainy day!!!

[Daytona74]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Stinger390X:

I agree in some sense that the earlier bonds were very humous and a way to get away and daydream of exotic places. I have the entire collection and once a year I will pull out one or two and re-watch them. They are "fun" as you stated.

 

The early or earlier Bonds had the right kind of mixture of grit and comedy. With the exception of Diamonds Are Forever, Sean Connery stood for them being spy action movies first, and a bit of comedy thrown in second. And then when Roger Moore took over, it kind of got worse with every new Bond movie in terms of slapstick comedy and not taking his own role seriously. I saw Timothy Dalton like a welcome attempt to get a bit more back to Sean Connery-type of no-nonsense, but yeah, he just didn't have enough charisma as an actor to carry a whole spy movie franchise. Not for more than two movies anyway.

I have to say of all the actors that came after Sean Connery, I liked Pierce Brosnan best. He was a believable hardball secret service operative when it counted, but also the equally believable suave British Gentleman with a bit of wry humor in other scenes. Daniel Craig, well... never really got into his Bond movies. I think I have seen one or two,  but the kind of franchise reboot that was attempted with the beginning of his tenure just never really did much for me.

Maybe the next Bond actor will be better.

[ViceFanMan]

29 minutes ago, Daytona74 said:

 

The early or earlier Bonds had the right kind of mixture of grit and comedy. With the exception of Diamonds Are Forever, Sean Connery stood for them being spy action movies first, and a bit of comedy thrown in second. And then when Roger Moore took over, it kind of got worse with every new Bond movie in terms of slapstick comedy and not taking his own role seriously. I saw Timothy Dalton like a welcome attempt to get a bit more back to Sean Connery-type of no-nonsense, but yeah, he just didn't have enough charisma as an actor to carry a whole spy movie franchise. Not for more than two movies anyway.

I have to say of all the actors that came after Sean Connery, I liked Pierce Brosnan best. He was a believable hardball secret service operative when it counted, but also the equally believable suave British Gentleman with a bit of wry humor in other scenes. Daniel Craig, well... never really got into his Bond movies. I think I have seen one or two,  but the kind of franchise reboot that was attempted with the beginning of his tenure just never really did much for me.

Maybe the next Bond actor will be better.

I agree with everything...except Roger Moore. In all honesty, there was more slap-stick with Connery’s movies—with corny one-liners, with Q, with the girls, etc... There was still some humor thrown in with Moore, but I thought his movies actually took a more serious tone (for James Bond, that is ) than the earlier ones. I loved Roger Moore as 007, and he’s actually my favorite...he also made the most 007s, so far. 

The only Moore movie that is pretty poor, was sadly his last: View To a Kill. Superb theme song by Duran Duran  ...but other than that the movie was poorly done. It had good actors in it (including Christopher Walken & Tanya Roberts), but for some reason the acting in this movie was pretty bad. It seemed very forced, corny, and faky. Not sure what happened? 

Its a tie between Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan, of who’s my 2nd favorite. I agree Timothy Dalton, for whatever reason, just didn’t quite end up having what it takes. Don’t care for Daniel Craig as 007, but he is a good actor.

Edited October 14, 2018 by ViceFanMan

[Daytona74]

Yeah I watched A View To A Kill recently as well, and it was really not a strong movie for Roger Moore to go out on. It could have been much more, with the stunning views of a French castle and the Eiffel Tower, and with a very decent Christopher Walken performance, but it just doesn't captivate you. And the fire truck chase scene is just painful.

I remember I enjoyed it when I watched it as an 11-year-old at the movies when it first came out, but maybe that in itself doesn't speak to the movie... 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Daytona74

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Daytona74 said:

Yeah I watched A View To A Kill recently as well, and it was really not a strong movie for Roger Moore to go out on. It could have been much more, with the stunning views of a French castle and the Eiffel Tower, but it just doesn't captivate you. And the fire truck chase scene is just painful.

I remember I enjoyed it when I watched it as an 11-year-old at the movies when it first came out, but maybe that in itself doesn't speak to the movie... 

Yeah, the fire truck scene, and others are painful...and at one point Bond saves Tanya Roberts and asks something like, are you okay, or still with me, or something like that. She responds with a very corny, dumb-blond “You-betcha”. OUCH...I cringe every time I see that scene ...you-betcha?? Who wrote that dialogue?  Definitely not a good film for Moore to go out on...he deserved WAY better! 

[Remington]

12 hours ago, Daytona74 said:

I watched Dr. No last night. As everybody knows, this was the first outing of James Bond on the big screen.

Kind of an interesting movie, in that it's about the most basic and low-key spy thriller of the whole series. You've already got the whole theme of some supervillain attempting world domination (Sean Connery even quips in one scene, "World domination... the age old dream"), and Dr. No has even got an elaborate base of operations running on nuclear power that appears to occupy nearly an entire small island. So there's already plenty of extravagance in that respect.

But all the bells and whistles that often saw the franchise drift into gratuitous exuberance in later installments are largely missing. There are no spy gadgets, there is no Q, and the most elaborate large-scale set is that of the reactor control room, although even it seems very basic and cardboard cutout like (the words "danger level" on top of the reactor's life sized power output scale really kind of look endearing). Production values were visibly not up there yet, with filming largely confined to Jamaica for exteriors and the Pinewood Studios for interior scenes, and you kind of always know it's a stage set because nearly all the furniture and fixtures are the same kind of mid-century modern style. They all look similar, in their own way not unlike the way Miami Vice season 2 interior sets all looked vaguely similar to each other. What the movie does give is a window into early 1960s style and chic, which feels right for this movie, and still today pleasant and stylish to look at.

All the hot women are already there as well (although the term "Bond Girl" probably didn't yet exist), and James Bond already gets plenty of opportunities to live out his womanizer side, and in a way that must have caused somewhat of an outrage. After all, this was 1962, with the Sexual Revolution still eons away. 

In terms of special effects and everything else that you expect from a good Bond movie, there are definitely many orders of magnitude between Dr. No's reactor control room (and the scale model of his compound that blows up at the end) and the mock up of Fort Knox which was built from scratch for "Goldfinger" just two years later on an open-air lot at Pinewood, tree-lined driveway and all.

If you've mainly seen the newer Bonds in recent years, or the more outrageous Bond films from the franchise's first heyday in the mid-60s to early 70s, then "Dr. No" will feel like Bond on detox to you. It just doesn't feel like that kind of movie. But what you do get is a well made spy thriller with a decent story, in which Sean Connery looks the part right from his first-ever scene, and which, again, offers plenty of early 60s style and everything else that feels like the height of 1962 cool.

Definitely recommended... if you approach it from the right kind of angle.

One of my favorites of the series.

[Vincent Hanna]

17 hours ago, Daytona74 said:

Yeah I watched A View To A Kill recently as well, and it was really not a strong movie for Roger Moore to go out on. It could have been much more, with the stunning views of a French castle and the Eiffel Tower, and with a very decent Christopher Walken performance, but it just doesn't captivate you. And the fire truck chase scene is just painful.

I remember I enjoyed it when I watched it as an 11-year-old at the movies when it first came out, but maybe that in itself doesn't speak to the movie... 

A View To A Kill has it's moments. I love the soundtrack, especially the part where Bond is carrying Tanya down a ladder as they escape a burning building is really cool. 

 

[ViceFanMan]

I’m currently snuggled up in my sunroom/small solarium (I call it my God-room), with windows slightly open to smell the fall rain, watching the original 1931 Dracula with Bela Lugosi, and sipping Vanilla Crown, lol!   For 1931, they truly created a freaky-as-heck castle for the ‘ol Count!   

Afterwards I plan to watch the award winning 1992 version with Gary Oldman...which actually is much “truer” to Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel or horror, than any of the vampire/Dracula movies made prior or since! I love both movies, and the terrifying but captivating aspects each brings to the screen—especially this time of year! 

A few pics—first Bela Lugosi in the 1931 classic, and 2 of Gary Oldman in the now contemporary 1992 classic...one of his creepy/ancient self, and one of him grown younger when he goes after Mina (looking very much like Valed Dracul...the real-life torturer who was obsessed with brutal death & blood that the character Dracula was based on):

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by ViceFanMan

[agent 47]

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Horror comedy film about an aging Elvis (played by Bruce Campbell) and a man claiming to be John F. Kennedy (played by Ossie Davis) who team up to fight a soul sucking Egyptian Mummy in a cowboy hat who's killing the residents of their Texas retirement home. As the plot suggests pretty crazy with some dark humor and certainly a spark of creativity. Bruce and Ossie do  excellent jobs in their respective roles avoiding overly hammy performances and bringing something human to a film you wouldn't expect it from. Needless to say it was an overall unique film and also had some good supporting performances from Ella Joyce as The Nurse and River's Edge's Daniel Roebuck as a clumsy hearse driver. 

[ViceFanMan]

13 minutes ago, agent 47 said:

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Horror comedy film about an aging Elvis (played by Bruce Campbell) and a man claiming to be John F. Kennedy (played by Ossie Davis) who team up to fight a soul sucking Egyptian Mummy in a cowboy hat who's killing the residents of their Texas retirement home. As the plot suggests pretty crazy with some dark humor and certainly a spark of creativity. Bruce and Ossie do  excellent jobs in their respective roles avoiding overly hammy performances and bringing something human to a film you wouldn't expect it from. Needless to say it was an overall unique film and also had some good supporting performances from Ella Joyce as The Nurse and River's Edge's Daniel Roebuck as a clumsy hearse driver. 

Lol...have not seen this one.  Sounds interesting! Im-Ho-Tep was the name of The Mummy, so I’m sure the cowboy mummy ‘Bubba’ was a “play” with words.  

[Stinger390X]

22 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

 

I liked the old Lagosi film too!  I Vant to dreeenk yooor blood...classic line.

By the way, in the movie starring Johnny Depp as film maker "Ed Wood" (movie of the same name) Martin Landau does the spot-on BEST impression of Legosi I have ever seen! I laughed my a$$ off when I watched that movie. It is so-right on!

The Stoke film was really well done I thought and the special effects on the Dracula face makup and the changes were quite good for the day.

I also liked :Interview with a Vampire" which also had a great story line.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Stinger390X

[ViceFanMan]

4 minutes ago, Stinger390X said:

I liked the old Lagosi film too!  I Vant to dreeenk yooor blood...classic line.

The Stoke film was really well done I thought and the special effects on the Dracula face makup and the changes were quite good for the day.

I also liked :Interview with a Vampire" which also had a great story line.

Interview With a Vampire was awesome too...I saw both the ‘92 Dracula and Interview in the theater when they came out!  

[Vicefan7777]

22 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

I’m currently snuggled up in my sunroom/small solarium (I call it my God-room), with windows slightly open to smell the fall rain, watching the original 1931 Dracula with Bela Lugosi, and sipping Vanilla Crown, lol!   For 1931, they truly created a freaky-as-heck castle for the ‘ol Count!   

Afterwards I plan to watch the award winning 1992 version with Gary Oldman...which actually is much “truer” to Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel or horror, than any of the vampire/Dracula movies made prior or since! I love both movies, and the terrifying but captivating aspects each brings to the screen—especially this time of year! 

A few pics—first Bela Lugosi in the 1931 classic, and 2 of Gary Oldman in the now contemporary 1992 classic...one of his creepy/ancient self, and one of him grown younger when he goes after Mina (looking very much like Valed Dracul...the real-life torturer who was obsessed with brutal death & blood that the character Dracula was based on):

ViceFanMan, I too enjoy both versions of Dracula.  The 1992 version really was truer to the book in that Count Dracula was a romantic who suffered greatly from the loss of his true love.  He tries to find that love again and goes to the extreme to make that happen.  Oh, by the way, this morning I watched Halloween (1978) and after all these years this movie STILL gives me the chills!! Tomorrow's viewing Halloween II. 

[ViceFanMan]

2 hours ago, Vicefan7777 said:

ViceFanMan, I too enjoy both versions of Dracula.  The 1992 version really was truer to the book in that Count Dracula was a romantic who suffered greatly from the loss of his true love.  He tries to find that love again and goes to the extreme to make that happen.  Oh, by the way, this morning I watched Halloween (1978) and after all these years this movie STILL gives me the chills!! Tomorrow's viewing Halloween II. 

Yes, the Dracula movies were awesome, but I especially like the ‘92 film.

I watched the original Halloween last week to get ready for the new 40th Anniversary Halloween film. I agree...the ‘78 original is a masterpiece of chills and fear!  It doesn’t need blood-n-guts, or wild special effects. Sadly, I can’t say the same for the new H40.  I’ll be honest and say I was disappointed...it wasn’t scary at all, just gross.  I plan to watch the original again on Halloween (one of my all-time favorite films! ), followed by Part II.  

[agent 47]

I also agree on the 1992 film being the more truer to the source version of Dracula and Gary Oldman truly embodying Dracula like few others had. Weird how with so many adaptations it took a long time for someone like Coppola to do a proper adaptation of the source novel. I've heard the 1970 European made film Count Dracula with Christopher Lee also is fairly loyal to the source material although is fairly weak as a film overall. Lee is my favorite Dracula though primarily due to his imposing presence and the oddball direction his films would go in (see Dracula 1972 and it's sequel The Satanic Rites of Dracula for something a bit off kilter and so very '70's).

Cross of Iron (1977)

Excellent Sam Peckinpah-directed World War II movie with James Coburn as a disillusioned German Corporal on the Russian front trying to keep his men alive also while dealing with a glory seeking Captain played by Maximilian Schell. Despite it's lesser known status amongst Peckinpah's films this may be one of his best and fully realized films. Like previous Peckinpah films strikingly violent but carrying a distinct anti-war message he'd been trying to deliver over the years. Coburn delivered a great performance as well as Maximilian as the scheming Captain who will do anything for a coveted Iron Cross. Also worth noting is the presence of James Mason and a young David Warner who Mason's character takes an almost fatherly approach to later in the film. I don't watch a lot of war movies but I have been digging into Peckinpah's filmography over time and not only does this rank highly it's definitely amongst the best War films right up there with Das Boot and The Dirty Dozen as films with a more realistic and less glamorized approach to the genre.

[ViceFanMan]

15 minutes ago, agent 47 said:

I also agree on the 1992 film being the more truer to the source version of Dracula and Gary Oldman truly embodying Dracula like few others had. Weird how with so many adaptations it took a long time for someone like Coppola to do a proper adaptation of the source novel. I've heard the 1970 European made film Count Dracula with Christopher Lee also is fairly loyal to the source material although is fairly weak as a film overall. Lee is my favorite Dracula though primarily due to his imposing presence and the oddball direction his films would go in (see Dracula 1972 and it's sequel The Satanic Rites of Dracula for something a bit off kilter and so very '70's).

 

Yes, Coppola’s 1992 movie was amazing, and the best adaptation of Stoker’s novel! Superb film!!  I’ve seen Christopher Lee’s Dracula movies, and they’re okay. Definitely a British/Hammer style to them. But his first Dracula, The Horror of Dracula in 1958, is probably my favorite of his. The others were pretty 60s/70s out-there and sometimes more psychedelic, lol! 

[Vicefan7777]

19 minutes ago, agent 47 said:

Cross of Iron (1977)

Excellent Sam Peckinpah-directed World War II movie with James Coburn as a disillusioned German Corporal on the Russian front trying to keep his men alive also while dealing with a glory seeking Captain played by Maximilian Schell. Despite it's lesser known status amongst Peckinpah's films this may be one of his best and fully realized films. Like previous Peckinpah films strikingly violent but carrying a distinct anti-war message he'd been trying to deliver over the years. Coburn delivered a great performance as well as Maximilian as the scheming Captain who will do anything for a coveted Iron Cross. Also worth noting is the presence of James Mason and a young David Warner who Mason's character takes an almost fatherly approach to later in the film. I don't watch a lot of war movies but I have been digging into Peckinpah's filmography over time and not only does this rank highly it's definitely amongst the best War films right up there with Das Boot and The Dirty Dozen as films with a more realistic and less glamorized approach to the genre.

Well another film I too enjoy.  The film is gritty, dirty and frightening about a German company on the Russian front in 1943.  German soldiers invaded Russia two years earlier with high morale expecting the war to be over in three months.  This film shows the soldiers with one objective---survive and go back home to their families. They were not fighting for Hitler's dream of lebensraum anymore.  They were fighting for their very lives.  The conflict between Coburn and Schell is outstanding.  Peckinpah was known for letting the blood fly in filming and does the same in this film. It has been over 10 years since I last saw this movie but I have fond memories. Two thumbs up from me. 

[ViceFanMan]

Watching Prom Night tonight. Havn’t seen it in over 20 years. Recently acquired a Blu-ray of it...as I think I have an old VHS boxed up somewhere, but not sure what box, and from what I remember the sound was pretty bad.

But the Blu-ray definitely had improved sound and picture quality! It’s Jamie Lee Curtis and a “fun” slasher flick to watch...good backstory & plot with the characters. Awesome disco songs and dances created for the movie, too. 

 However it’s really not that scary or frightening.  Other than Jamie Lee Curtis & Leslie Nielson, the acting and filming was pretty low-budget, you can tell.  But, the plot is still good and  if you’ve never seen it, it is interesting to see how the story unfolds.

 Cool filming locations! I love the abandoned “jail farm” building that they use at the very beginning and in the middle of the film. I love exploring and photographing old abandoned buildings, so that would’ve been fun to have been able to go in there and see what they’re still was. 

 

[Remington]

Just back from seeing Halloween (2018). Unfortunately, I'm disappointed. This movie does SO many things right but there's some things that just...ugh why?!

 

SOME SPOILERS

 

Pros:

●Michael Myers himself. Holy sh*t this movie just nailed this character. James Jude Courtney is simply phenomenal as the Shape. The way he moves and the mask is perfect. Possibly my favorite since Nick Castle or Dick Warlock.

●Jamie Lee Curtis. I've yet to see her deliver a bad performance. She's great here.

●The kills. I think they got a perfect balance for the amount of gore. One of the things I hated about the Rob Zombie films is how they dwelled on the gore so much. Seriously Rob, I don't need to see a guy get his head sawn off with a piece of glass for two minutes. Anyway, the kills in this are basically like in the original while others are more brutal. Some are left more to the imagination and it works perfectly. The only others in the series to get it right so far is H1, H2, and H4.

●The showdown between Michael and Laurie. Definitely better and more brutal than in H20.

●The score. Thank God for John Carpenter. The music for this film is amazing. Enough said.

●The cinematography. Beautifully shot.

●The title sequence. You'll love it.

●Allison. Laurie's granddaughter. I actually really liked her character and wouldn't mind seeing her return.

●The nods to previous films.

 

Neutral:

●The atmosphere. While it has its moments, the movie lacks the Halloween atmosphere that is SO important for this series. Then again this has been a problem since H20. The first six films nailed it IMO.

●The humor. Some of it worked but some...ehh.

●The two journalists. I liked the woman character more than her partner. They just came across as (sorry for their expression but it's the only one I can think of) snowflakes. Their deaths however are a highlight of the film.

 

Cons:

●The writing. For every brilliant line, there's a totally cringeworthy one. I know this series isn't exactly Shakespeare but this isn't just an average slasher film. Definitely needed some polishing.

●Some of the characters. Laurie's daugher(I forget her name), her husband, some of the teen characters, and the "new Loomis" really drag this movie down. The doctor could have been dropped all together.

●Laurie's character. Dedicating her life to preparing for Michael's return would have made more sense if this film included H2 and the sister angle but here it just makes no sense. And it just feels like a different character. One of the few things H20 nailed was Laurie and how she responded to the 1978 events.

●The ending. Just felt so anticlimactic and sudden. I'm curious to see what the original ending was.

 

So overall, I'd give it a 6/10 or a C+. I enjoyed and was entertained. But after such a long wait, the anticipation, and the fact that critics were actually praising a slasher film and calling it the best since the original made my expectations just too high. I'll need to see it again to really form my opinion. My top five remains as:the original, 2, 4, 3, and the producers cut of the sixth film. This movie beats the hell out of the Rob Zombies films, Resurrection, and possibly H20 and 5 but that's it. I still recommend it. Cheers.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Remington said:

Just back from seeing Halloween (2018). Unfortunately, I'm disappointed. This movie does SO many things right but there's some things that just...ugh why?!

 

SOME SPOILERS

 

Pros:

●Michael Myers himself. Holy sh*t this movie just nailed this character. James Jude Courtney is simply phenomenal as the Shape. The way he moves and the mask is perfect. Possibly my favorite since Nick Castle or Dick Warlock.

●Jamie Lee Curtis. I've yet to see her deliver a bad performance. She's great here.

●The kills. I think they got a perfect balance for the amount of gore. One of the things I hated about the Rob Zombie films is how they dwelled on the gore so much. Seriously Rob, I don't need to see a guy get his head sawn off with a piece of glass for two minutes. Anyway, the kills in this are basically like in the original while others are more brutal. Some are left more to the imagination and it works perfectly. The only others in the series to get it right so far is H1, H2, and H4.

●The showdown between Michael and Laurie. Definitely better and more brutal than in H20.

●The score. Thank God for John Carpenter. The music for this film is amazing. Enough said.

●The cinematography. Beautifully shot.

●The title sequence. You'll love it.

●Allison. Laurie's granddaughter. I actually really liked her character and wouldn't mind seeing her return.

●The nods to previous films.

 

Neutral:

●The atmosphere. While it has its moments, the movie lacks the Halloween atmosphere that is SO important for this series. Then again this has been a problem since H20. The first six films nailed it IMO.

●The humor. Some of it worked but some...ehh.

●The two journalists. I liked the woman character more than her partner. They just came across as (sorry for their expression but it's the only one I can think of) snowflakes. Their deaths however are a highlight of the film.

 

Cons:

●The writing. For every brilliant line, there's a totally cringeworthy one. I know this series isn't exactly Shakespeare but this isn't just an average slasher film. Definitely needed some polishing.

●Some of the characters. Laurie's daugher(I forget her name), her husband, some of the teen characters, and the "new Loomis" really drag this movie down. The doctor could have been dropped all together.

●Laurie's character. Dedicating her life to preparing for Michael's return would have made more sense if this film included H2 and the sister angle but here it just makes no sense. And it just feels like a different character. One of the few things H20 nailed was Laurie and how she responded to the 1978 events.

●The ending. Just felt so anticlimactic and sudden. I'm curious to see what the original ending was.

 

So overall, I'd give it a 6/10 or a C+. I enjoyed and was entertained. But after such a long wait, the anticipation, and the fact that critics were actually praising a slasher film and calling it the best since the original made my expectations just too high. I'll need to see it again to really form my opinion. My top five remains as:the original, 2, 4, 3, and the producers cut of the sixth film. This movie beats the hell out of the Rob Zombies films, Resurrection, and possibly H20 and 5 but that's it. I still recommend it. Cheers.

Rob Zombie’s films were utter and absolute garbage! So, by all means the new 2018 Halloween (aka H40) is awesome compared to them! 

But, I’m an immense or serious Halloween fan, and I Too was disappointed with the film overall.  It was Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode again, and like you said, I have yet to see her give a bad performance. The music score, and mask & movement of Michael Myers were superb too!

But, the film as a whole was so shallow it might as well been another 80s Friday the 13th sequel. All it mainly focused on was how shocking & gorey the kills could be. There wasn’t much plot or backstory, or fear. This wasn’t scary...just gross. And some of the kills were so ridiculous, I was shaking my head in the theater.

Overall I was disappointed, and was expecting more. I realize this new movie is supposed to be a new start to the original franchise (excluding Zombie’s crap), and/or new “Halloween canon”, so-to-speak. But, personally I still say Halloween II is the best sequel to the 1978 original masterpiece! 

My ratings of the Halloween movies (again excluding Zombie’s garbage), in order from favorite to least favorite, are as follows:

Halloween (1978)

Halloween II (1981)

Halloween: H20 (1998)

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (aka Halloween: 666) (1995)

Halloween (aka Halloween H40) (2018)

Halloween: Ressurection (2002)

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1983)

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by ViceFanMan

[Remington]

9 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

Rob Zombie’s films were utter and absolute garbage! So, by all means the new 2018 Halloween (aka H40) is awesome compared to them! 

But, I’m an immense or serious Halloween fan, and I Too was disappointed with the film overall.  It was Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode again, and like you said, I have yet to see her give a bad performance. The music score, and mask & movement of Michael Myers were superb too!

But, the film as a whole was so shallow it might as well been another 80s Friday the 13th sequel. All it mainly focused on was how shocking & gorey the kills could be. There wasn’t much plot or backstory, or fear. This wasn’t scary...just gross. And some of the kills were so ridiculous, I was shaking my head in the theater.

Overall I was disappointed, and was expecting more. I realize this new movie is supposed to be a new start to the original franchise (excluding Zombie’s crap), and/or new “Halloween canon”, so-to-speak. But, personally I still say Halloween II is the best sequel to the 1978 original masterpiece! 

My ratings of the Halloween movies (again excluding Zombie’s garbage), in order from favorite to least favorite, are as follows:

Halloween (1978)

Halloween II (1981)

Halloween: H20 (1998)

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (aka Halloween: 666) (1995)

Halloween (aka Halloween H40) (2018)

Halloween: Ressurection (2002)

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1983)

 

Respectable ranking but H3 is too low. Lol I know we already had that conversation. 

Honestly, I think the only death that was too much was the head explosion. I'm not a gorehound, which is weird cause I love old slasher films, but that just wasn't Michael Myers-like.

With the new film I'd rank em like this

Halloween (1978)

Halloween 2 (1981)

Halloween 4:The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Halloween 3:Season of the Witch (1982)

Halloween 6:The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Halloween (2018)

Halloween H20 (1998) - this would be higher if they didn't retcon the previous films, had a better score, had more of a autumn feel, and didn't feel like a Scream film, although I love Scream.

Halloween (2007)

Halloween 2 (2009)

Halloween:Resurrection (2002) - this doesn't exist to me.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Remington

[ViceFanMan]

3 minutes ago, Remington said:

Respectable ranking but H3 is too low. Lol I know we already had that conversation. 

Honestly, I think the only death that was too much was the head explosion. I'm not a gorehound, which is weird cause I love old slasher films, but that just wasn't Michael Myers-like.

With the new film I'd rank em like this

Halloween (1978)

Halloween 2 (1981)

Halloween 4:The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Halloween 3:Season of the Witch (1982)

Halloween 6:The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Halloween (2018)

Halloween H20 (1998) - this would be higher if they didn't retcon the previous films, had a better score, had more of a autumn feel, and didn't feel like a Scream film, although I love Scream.

Halloween (2007)

Halloween 2 (2009)

Halloween:Resurrection (2002) - this doesn't exist to me.

Lol... I know we already talked about III. I actually do at some point want to get a hold of a DVD or Blu-ray, and re-familiarize myself with that movie. However, I will still consider it something separate from the actual Halloween series. In my opinion, that movie does not really exist with the original Halloween ‘Canon’. 

 As for the new 2018 Halloween movie, I totally agree about the head stomping/explosion part! Absolutely ridiculous!! This was definitely not Michael Myers. This was more like Jason Voorhees.  A very unrealistic kill!  Also, although everyone else seemed to find the little kid with the babysitter hilarious, I found it rather stupid! That kid did not come across realistic or scared at all.  He seemed like he was on the verge of laughing or smiling the whole entire time. It just came across really stupid in my opinion. 

 As for H2O, I really didn’t get a Scream feel with that??  I understood doing away with all the other Halloween sequels except for Part II. That sort of made sense. I love H2O!! My only issue with it, was it was way too short! It was only like an hour and 20-some minutes long. I will agree, that the Halloween score could’ve been included “better” with H2O. 

 I didn’t really like or care for Halloween: Resurrection much either. However, it is actually part of the original Halloween ‘canon’, so-to-speak.

 Again, in my opinion Rob Zombie‘s movies don’t exist with the “real” Halloween franchise.  I don’t count them, nor do I even bother to analyze them. They’re just garbage! They were sort of like the ‘Pinto phase’ of Ford Motor Company’s history.  Something no one really wants to remember, or repeat and/or continue. 

[Remington]

13 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

Lol... I know we already talked about III. I actually do at some point want to get a hold of a DVD or Blu-ray, and re-familiarize myself with that movie. However, I will still consider it something separate from the actual Halloween series. In my opinion, that movie does not really exist with the original Halloween ‘Canon’. 

 As for the new 2018 Halloween movie, I totally agree about the head stomping/explosion part! Absolutely ridiculous!! This was definitely not Michael Myers. This was more like Jason Voorhees.  A very unrealistic kill!  Also, although everyone else seemed to find the little kid with the babysitter hilarious, I found it rather stupid! That kid did not come across realistic or scared at all.  He seemed like he was on the verge of laughing or smiling the whole entire time. It just came across really stupid in my opinion. 

 As for H2O, I really didn’t get a Scream feel with that??  I understood doing away with all the other Halloween sequels except for Part II. That sort of made sense. I love H2O!! My only issue with it, was it was way too short! It was only like an hour and 20-some minutes long. I will agree, that the Halloween score could’ve been included “better” with H2O. 

 I didn’t really like or care for Halloween: Resurrection much either. However, it is actually part of the original Halloween ‘canon’, so-to-speak.

 Again, in my opinion Rob Zombie‘s movies don’t exist with the “real” Halloween franchise.  I don’t count them, nor do I even bother to analyze them. They’re just garbage! They were sort of like the ‘Pinto phase’ of Ford Motor Company’s history.  Something no one really wants to remember, or repeat and/or continue. 

I consider H3 separate from the canon myself. That was the intent basically. Apparently, after H20 came out they considered making another film without Myers since they killed him in H20.

Honestly, if that would have spared us Resurrection then I wish that it had happened. Would have made the transition to the Rob Zombie era a little less shitty. NOTE:these are the only three movies in the franchise that I have no desire to own. The first seven I got on Blu-ray and watch them every October repeatedly.

There's a lot of good stuff in H20. Agreed that it's too short. Ironic since it takes forever to get to the confrontation between Laurie and the Shape. Also, the masks were terrible IMO. They should have just used the one from H6. That was really creepy. My love for the Jamie Lloyd character just kinda makes the retcon sting a bit.

I gotta agree about the kid being babysat in the new one. Kind of annoying. LOL at least the babysitter was really cute. I think Halloween (2018) will grow on me over time. I'm just happy I finally got to experience one of these movies on the big screen.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Remington

[ViceFanMan]

8 minutes ago, Remington said:

I consider H3 separate from the canon myself. That was the intent basically. Apparently, after H20 came out they considered making another film without Myers since they killed him in H20.

Honestly, if that would have spared us Resurrection then I wish that it had happened. Would have made the transition to the Rob Zombie era a little less shitty. NOTE:these are the only three movies in the franchise that I have no desire to own. The first seven I got on Blu-ray and watch them every October  repeatedly.

There's a lot of good stuff in H20. Agreed that it's too short. Ironic since it takes forever to get to the confrontation between Laurie and the Shape. Also, the masks were terrible IMO. They should have just used the one from H6. That was really creepy. 

I gotta agree about the kid being babysat in the new one. Kind of annoying. LOL at least the babysitter was really cute. I think Halloween (2018) will grow on me over time. I'm just happy I finally got to experience one of these movies on the big screen.

 Didn’t really know they considered making a Halloween movie without Michael Myers, after H2O? I’m actually glad they didn’t. That wouldn’t have been Halloween, without Michael Myers. It just would not have worked. Although I don’t really care for Resurrection, it still was Michael Myers. The main issues I have with the Resurrection, are how they supposedly killed off Laurie strode, and the annoying, ridiculous “rapper” characters. 

 In H2O, the whole point was to have the final confrontation at the very end. However, I do agree that the masks were pretty bad. They were not that scary nor did they look like the original Myers mask. But, there was something going on at the time legally about what they could use and not use for the mask, and I think that’s why they came up with what they did. 

 I’ll eventually get either a DVD or Blu-ray of the new Halloween movie. It will probably grow on me a little bit. But I still don’t think it was as good as I was hoping it would be.  Maybe they’ll make a second one, as I’ve been reading that they’re seriously thinking about it. If they do, maybe they’ll have more depth to the plot. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by ViceFanMan

[Remington]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

 Didn’t really know they considered making a Halloween movie without Michael Myers, after H2O? I’m actually glad they didn’t. That wouldn’t have been Halloween, without Michael Myers. It just would not have worked. Although I don’t really care for Resurrection, it still was Michael Myers. The main issues I have with the Resurrection, are how they supposedly killed off Laurie strode, and the annoying, ridiculous “rapper” characters. 

 In H2O, the whole point was to have the final confrontation at the very end. However, I do agree that the masks were pretty bad. They were not that scary nor did they look like the original Myers mask. But, there was something going on at the time legally about what they could use and not use for the mask, and I think that’s why they came up with what they did. 

 I’ll eventually get either a DVD or Blu-ray of the new Halloween movie. It will probably grow on me a little bit. But I still don’t think it was as good as I was hoping it would be.  Maybe they’ll make a second one, as I’ve been reading that they’re seriously thinking about it. If they do, maybe they’ll have more depth to the plot. 

With the amount of money that this movie is making and the fact that we don't actually see Michael die, they'll definitely make a sequel. Jamie Lee Curtis returning is a bigger question. It would not surprise me at all if they kill her off and have the granddaughter carry the film.

I think a film in 2002 without Michael could have been done. It'd be tricky but doable. Even if the film was a masterpiece like the original, people would still give it shit because there's no Michael. Hell it could be similar to Resurrection. Just replace Michael with an evil spirit and make the house a mansion or something. And definitely amp up the Halloween setting. Or just don't do a film between 1998 and 2007. Lol or preferably 1998 and 2018.