new halloween movie
just saw it need people to talk to who have also seen it.
Comments
-
I loved it. It gave me the same feeling when I watched the original for the first time. Only sad thing is that there was no Dr.Loomis
0 -
please add "SPOILERS" to your post so it doesnt get taken down we dont wanna make people mad. it was a pretty good movie but i kind of wish they would of had the granddaughter be chased longer from house to house of the people micheal had murdered before hand. before escaping to the house where she was looked after.
1 -
SPOILERS:
Favorite scene was the one with the baby crying.
Because of the kid earlier, you could feel everyone in the theater hold their breath! And his reaction to it (or lack thereof) brilliantly played (no silly head cocking). It just played to the essence of who they were trying to convey Myers is.
Worst scene was the knife in the neck of the woman in the window. Cheap cgi. I prefer the practical effects and that one looked like bad cgi.
I also liked when the doctor took his mask. At first I was like "seriously? Is it going to be one of those where Michael is locked up while this doc kills for a while?" , but they nipped that while thing in the bud.old
The bathroom scene was outstanding....so brutal.
The whole "woman empowerment" was done generally well. If the media hadn't been shoving it down our throats for the past month, I wouldn't have noticed it as a "statement", and just seen it as a this family fighting back (who happens to be made of 3 generations of women). But like most things, the media over analyzed it, crammed it in our face and you couldn't help but see the "statement" (much like black panther) instead of just enjoying the movie and strong characters in it (who happened to be women).
I thought the whole thing was just done so well.
Not as scary as Rob Zomb ies, but such a great sequel to the original...And the kid's statement about how "killing 5 people really isn't that big of a deal, by today's standards"....so right on the money! But they definitely adjusted for that in this film haha!
4 -
It wasn't a great addition to the series. Seemed almost tame compared to the rest. It wasn't terrible over all, but as a slasher flick, it was disappointing. Most of the kills were boring.
I liked that the gals were tough, and the middle one hadn't gotten terribly rusty. They weren't Sarah Connor, or Ripley, but they did ok.
Overall the characters were decently done.
Hell with it, I'll open the can of worms. Laurie had a huge collection of guns and was in the United States. There was zero semi-automatic rifles (especially not an AK, or AR), and no semi-automatic pistols? A Lever action, and a pistol grip pump action shotgun (which she briefly aimed like a rifle, which was weird) was about as advanced as it got.
Knowing the political leanings of Jamie at the least, it seemed like some sort of lecture. Kinda surprised she didn't use blunderbusses, and muskets.
Seeing the gun play, it wouldn't have likely made a difference what they used.I am interested in how they handle the sequels, if there are any.
0 -
I loved it. Full of fan service since it has a lot of references to the original. Much better sequel than the others in my opinion.3
-
For the guns: Laurie tell Ray that she prefers revolvers be cause they "don't jam "(which isn't entirely tru...But FAR less so than automatics). Most home "defense experts" advise using a revolver for home defense.Rebel_Raven said:It wasn't a great addition to the series. Seemed almost tame compared to the rest. It wasn't terrible over all, but as a slasher flick, it was disappointing. Most of the kills were boring.
I liked that the gals were tough, and the middle one hadn't gotten terribly rusty. They weren't Sarah Connor, or Ripley, but they did ok.
Overall the characters were decently done.
Hell with it, I'll open the can of worms. Laurie had a huge collection of guns and was in the United States. There was zero semi-automatic rifles (especially not an AK, or AR), and no semi-automatic pistols? A Lever action, and a pistol grip pump action shotgun (which she briefly aimed like a rifle, which was weird) was about as advanced as it got.
Knowing the political leanings of Jamie at the least, it seemed like some sort of lecture. Kinda surprised she didn't use blunderbusses, and muskets.
Seeing the gun play, it wouldn't have likely made a difference what they used.I am interested in how they handle the sequels, if there are any.
Which is all well and good, but then Laurie proceeds to hunt M M down in her home using a long gun! The rifle!? Lol seriously? Even after she finishes telling the dad all this stuff about guns lol. She should have taken either the revolver or the shotgun (sawed off) and it would have played to her fun defense knowledge. The rifle was about the dumbest choice lol.
I liked the rest but there were a few parts that didn't work....that part was one.0 -
I love d it too! In this world of terrible reboots and remakes, I was expecting garbage....But I think it was a great sequel to the first one, possibly even better than the original sequel.chococri said:I loved it. Full of fan service since it has a lot of references to the original. Much better sequel than the others in my opinion.1 -
@Attackfrog said:
chococri said:I loved it. Full of fan service since it has a lot of references to the original. Much better sequel than the others in my opinion.
I love d it too! In this world of terrible reboots and remakes, I was expecting garbage....But I think it was a great sequel to the first one, possibly even better than the original sequel.
the call backs and scene recreations were great i feel this was the best sequel in the series and my new second favorite, sorry season of the witch.
1 -
I was just disappointed that we never really saw Myers reach Tier III in the movie
2 -
I think he spent it on that mom in the window. After that, it was like he never had good LOS to build past EWII.pureleeawesome said:I was just disappointed that we never really saw Myers reach Tier III in the movie
I could tell he was gaining EW while stalking the friend in the yard, but once he started running, he had to stop stalking and try to M1 (I think that kid got mori'd)
And stupid noob didn't run NOED or else Laurie would have easily been on the hook after being thrown out the window (one hit down!)
Then again, she was probably running DS ....ugh. Toxic survivors, those strodes!2 -
Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?
I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum.1 -
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum.
Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick.
0 -
Also mind boggling how they tried to make him more human... by letting him keep his supernatural powers without explanations.Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum.
Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick.
He is strong enough to lift the metal reinforced cupboard out of the frame, still lifts people like they are made of air (like that Absolute Unit he had to lift back up in order to impale him on the fence), turns a head into literal paste by stepping on it.
He also takes 3-4 bullets over the duration of the movie without trouble.
The blood in the house where he got shot isn't even his own, he apparently survived the fire trap too as it was shown empty.0 -
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?
I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum.
Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick.
Also mind boggling how they tried to make him more human... by letting him keep his supernatural powers without explanations.
He is strong enough to lift the metal reinforced cupboard out of the frame, still lifts people like they are made of air (like that Absolute Unit he had to lift back up in order to impale him on the fence), turns a head into literal paste by stepping on it.
He also takes 3-4 bullets over the duration of the movie without trouble.
The blood in the house where he got shot isn't even his own, he apparently survived the fire trap too as it was shown empty.Plus he's older than Laurie, IIRC, so this guy is in absurdly great shape for his age. Even at the same age he's gotta be pushing 60? 70? If he's older, as most killers are, this guy might be 90, or more.
Seriously, they hid most of the kills, too. And I imagine they were really tame, too. But in contrast to the bathroom scene, and the doctor they were probably no big deal. Why the inconsistent shows of bloodshed?
The movie probably did well, or was reported to, so we can maybe expect a sequel, and I'm not sure I'm looking forward to it.
Pretty sure the original movies had nudity, too.
It doesn't make or break the series, but seeing where it's going with the recent movie?
Why bother bringing it back? If it's not going to be a slasher flick, it's boiling down to "girl power" (not that I have issues with female protagonists) and a reflection of their views on gun control.1 -
Exactly. It was very inconsistant. Also the use of guns in this movie was kinda questionable, Laurie held a shotgun with no stock like she wanted to lose her eye and the cop held his finger on his pistols slide blocking the sights and would IRL probably cause injuries and burns when fired.Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?
I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum.
Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick.
Also mind boggling how they tried to make him more human... by letting him keep his supernatural powers without explanations.
He is strong enough to lift the metal reinforced cupboard out of the frame, still lifts people like they are made of air (like that Absolute Unit he had to lift back up in order to impale him on the fence), turns a head into literal paste by stepping on it.
He also takes 3-4 bullets over the duration of the movie without trouble.
The blood in the house where he got shot isn't even his own, he apparently survived the fire trap too as it was shown empty.Plus he's older than Laurie, IIRC, so this guy is in absurdly great shape for his age. Even at the same age he's gotta be pushing 60? 70? If he's older, as most killers are, this guy might be 90, or more.
Seriously, they hid most of the kills, too. And I imagine they were really tame, too. But in contrast to the bathroom scene, and the doctor they were probably no big deal. Why the inconsistent shows of bloodshed?
The movie probably did well, or was reported to, so we can maybe expect a sequel, and I'm not sure I'm looking forward to it.
Pretty sure the original movies had nudity, too.
It doesn't make or break the series, but seeing where it's going with the recent movie?
Why bother bringing it back? If it's not going to be a slasher flick, it's boiling down to "girl power" (not that I have issues with female protagonists) and a reflection of their views on gun control.
Also Laurie is a dumbass. Giving away her position in the house all the time while hunting him with an inappropriate gun while pretty much making sure she stays within arms reach of Michael by herself.
Also again, i love how Michael beats up the Journalists as if he had no powers only for the movie to give it back afterwards with sll his strength to the point where he can tank what i assume to be a .45-70 gov (Used for big game hunting with about twice the kinetic energy as a 44. Magnum) to the spine and be fine.0 -
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:
@ChesterTheMolester said: Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?
I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum. Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick. Also mind boggling how they tried to make him more human... by letting him keep his supernatural powers without explanations. He is strong enough to lift the metal reinforced cupboard out of the frame, still lifts people like they are made of air (like that Absolute Unit he had to lift back up in order to impale him on the fence), turns a head into literal paste by stepping on it.
He also takes 3-4 bullets over the duration of the movie without trouble.
The blood in the house where he got shot isn't even his own, he apparently survived the fire trap too as it was shown empty.
Plus he's older than Laurie, IIRC, so this guy is in absurdly great shape for his age. Even at the same age he's gotta be pushing 60? 70? If he's older, as most killers are, this guy might be 90, or more.
Seriously, they hid most of the kills, too. And I imagine they were really tame, too. But in contrast to the bathroom scene, and the doctor they were probably no big deal. Why the inconsistent shows of bloodshed?
The movie probably did well, or was reported to, so we can maybe expect a sequel, and I'm not sure I'm looking forward to it.
Pretty sure the original movies had nudity, too.
It doesn't make or break the series, but seeing where it's going with the recent movie?
Why bother bringing it back? If it's not going to be a slasher flick, it's boiling down to "girl power" (not that I have issues with female protagonists) and a reflection of their views on gun control.
Exactly. It was very inconsistant. Also the use of guns in this movie was kinda questionable, Laurie held a shotgun with no stock like she wanted to lose her eye and the cop held his finger on his pistols slide blocking the sights and would IRL probably cause injuries and burns when fired.
Also Laurie is a dumbass. Giving away her position in the house all the time while hunting him with an inappropriate gun while pretty much making sure she stays within arms reach of Michael by herself.
Also again, i love how Michael beats up the Journalists as if he had no powers only for the movie to give it back afterwards with sll his strength to the point where he can tank what i assume to be a .45-70 gov (Used for big game hunting with about twice the kinetic energy as a 44. Magnum) to the spine and be fine.
Yeah, holding a pistol grip shotgun like a rifle did grab my attention.
For someone training so hard, she had nothing with a rail system (Cozza they big black scary guns! Or Semiautomatics!) so she could mount a flashlight, and/or maybe laser sight (which would have helped on the shotgun. They do require some aiming, and aiming like a rifle is just nuts) to help out.
Hell, even revolvers, and her lever action could have had one. But I guess mounting stuff on guns was just so scary.
I'm not surprised they were idiots about guns.Clearing the rooms and using the gates was an OK idea, IMO, but she could have just closed all the gates first, too. Doesn't matter if the room is clear then, or not. He's trapped until he makes a likely noisy escape, or exposes himself to get shot.
Having those mannequins in her house was dumb, though. And on the top floor. In a dark room. Expecting a guy that could look like one. Then going in there. In the dark. Again, no rail system flashlight. Not even sure she had a decent flashlight.
You know tactical flashliights, the ones bright enough to dazzle people, aren't that expensive these days. Or even a head lamp with a few hundred lumens. DBD killers know the power of the flashlight! lolSpeaking of lights, why were they all on the outside? The house was kept dark. Some strobe lights could have dazzled Meyers and made him uncomfortable at the least.
I feel like "no powers" is a little unfair in the bathroom scene. He did drop a handful of what looked like teeth, meaning he removed them from a poor soul in a hurry.
0 -
Yep gun hysteria in 2018 in a nutshell.Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Rebel_Raven said:
@ChesterTheMolester said: Am i the only one who was disappointed with it?
I mean its not like Halloween, its an ordinary slasher flick. Barely the same genre as the first one. Virtually all characters were insufferable with a fat kid so annoying even Michael Myers was asking himself how the hell he made it into his movie.
The suspense is kept to a minimum. Definitely not the only one. It was barely a slasher flick. Also mind boggling how they tried to make him more human... by letting him keep his supernatural powers without explanations. He is strong enough to lift the metal reinforced cupboard out of the frame, still lifts people like they are made of air (like that Absolute Unit he had to lift back up in order to impale him on the fence), turns a head into literal paste by stepping on it.
He also takes 3-4 bullets over the duration of the movie without trouble.
The blood in the house where he got shot isn't even his own, he apparently survived the fire trap too as it was shown empty.
Plus he's older than Laurie, IIRC, so this guy is in absurdly great shape for his age. Even at the same age he's gotta be pushing 60? 70? If he's older, as most killers are, this guy might be 90, or more.
Seriously, they hid most of the kills, too. And I imagine they were really tame, too. But in contrast to the bathroom scene, and the doctor they were probably no big deal. Why the inconsistent shows of bloodshed?
The movie probably did well, or was reported to, so we can maybe expect a sequel, and I'm not sure I'm looking forward to it.
Pretty sure the original movies had nudity, too.
It doesn't make or break the series, but seeing where it's going with the recent movie?
Why bother bringing it back? If it's not going to be a slasher flick, it's boiling down to "girl power" (not that I have issues with female protagonists) and a reflection of their views on gun control.
Exactly. It was very inconsistant. Also the use of guns in this movie was kinda questionable, Laurie held a shotgun with no stock like she wanted to lose her eye and the cop held his finger on his pistols slide blocking the sights and would IRL probably cause injuries and burns when fired.
Also Laurie is a dumbass. Giving away her position in the house all the time while hunting him with an inappropriate gun while pretty much making sure she stays within arms reach of Michael by herself.
Also again, i love how Michael beats up the Journalists as if he had no powers only for the movie to give it back afterwards with sll his strength to the point where he can tank what i assume to be a .45-70 gov (Used for big game hunting with about twice the kinetic energy as a 44. Magnum) to the spine and be fine.
Yeah, holding a pistol grip shotgun like a rifle did grab my attention.
For someone training so hard, she had nothing with a rail system (Cozza they big black scary guns! Or Semiautomatics!) so she could mount a flashlight, and/or maybe laser sight (which would have helped on the shotgun. They do require some aiming, and aiming like a rifle is just nuts) to help out.
Hell, even revolvers, and her lever action could have had one. But I guess mounting stuff on guns was just so scary.
I'm not surprised they were idiots about guns.Clearing the rooms and using the gates was an OK idea, IMO, but she could have just closed all the gates first, too. Doesn't matter if the room is clear then, or not. He's trapped until he makes a likely noisy escape, or exposes himself to get shot.
Having those mannequins in her house was dumb, though. And on the top floor. In a dark room. Expecting a guy that could look like one. Then going in there. In the dark. Again, no rail system flashlight. Not even sure she had a decent flashlight.
You know tactical flashliights, the ones bright enough to dazzle people, aren't that expensive these days. Or even a head lamp with a few hundred lumens. DBD killers know the power of the flashlight! lolSpeaking of lights, why were they all on the outside? The house was kept dark. Some strobe lights could have dazzled Meyers and made him uncomfortable at the least.
I feel like "no powers" is a little unfair in the bathroom scene. He did drop a handful of what looked like teeth, meaning he removed them from a poor soul in a hurry.
Watch out for those laserpointers and flashlights. They are almost as dangerous as bullets, not to mention the other possibilities.
Post edited by ChesterTheMolester on1 -
Michael is 4 years older than Laurie, in this movie he is 65 while Laurie is 61 if Im not wrong. EDIT. Michael is 61 (he is 21 in 1978) so Laurie is 58.
About the weapons topic... Its a fricking movie... Why is so important those little mistakes, are you even americans or what? Lmfao
You gotta remember he is not human, he is the Evil. Why people wont listen to Loomis? He is not human. I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES, SIX!!And yeah, 2nd part is confirmed. The boogeyman is always back.
0 -
It's important because these idiots are using their idiot ideas to try and put their idiot ideas into reality.chococri said:Michael is 4 years older than Laurie, in this movie he is 65 while Laurie is 61 if Im not wrong. EDIT. Michael is 61 (he is 21 in 1978) so Laurie is 58.
About the weapons topic... Its a fricking movie... Why is so important those little mistakes, are you even americans or what? Lmfao
You gotta remember he is not human, he is the Evil. Why people wont listen to Loomis? He is not human. I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES, SIX!!And yeah, 2nd part is confirmed. The boogeyman is always back.
Ever look at a survivor main claim to be a killer player, and make some of the most outlandish calls for nerfs on killers?
It's like that, and the devs might listen. But with way higher stakes.
I'm on the fence about an immortal, evil sexagenarian.
I have low expectations on the sequel.0 -
@Rebel_Raven said:
chococri said:Michael is 4 years older than Laurie, in this movie he is 65 while Laurie is 61 if Im not wrong. EDIT. Michael is 61 (he is 21 in 1978) so Laurie is 58.
About the weapons topic... Its a fricking movie... Why is so important those little mistakes, are you even americans or what? Lmfao
You gotta remember he is not human, he is the Evil. Why people wont listen to Loomis? He is not human. I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES, SIX!!
And yeah, 2nd part is confirmed. The boogeyman is always back.
It's important because these idiots are using their idiot ideas to try and put their idiot ideas into reality.
Ever look at a survivor main claim to be a killer player, and make some of the most outlandish calls for nerfs on killers?
It's like that, and the devs might listen. But with way higher stakes.I'm on the fence about an immortal, evil sexagenarian.
I have low expectations on the sequel.At this point I think we all can agree they need to stop. Enough. No more. Its gonna be like THIS next time lmfao
Please, watch the video.You wont regret.
1 -
@chococri said:
@Rebel_Raven said:
chococri said:Michael is 4 years older than Laurie, in this movie he is 65 while Laurie is 61 if Im not wrong. EDIT. Michael is 61 (he is 21 in 1978) so Laurie is 58.
About the weapons topic... Its a fricking movie... Why is so important those little mistakes, are you even americans or what? Lmfao
You gotta remember he is not human, he is the Evil. Why people wont listen to Loomis? He is not human. I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES, SIX!!
And yeah, 2nd part is confirmed. The boogeyman is always back.
It's important because these idiots are using their idiot ideas to try and put their idiot ideas into reality.
Ever look at a survivor main claim to be a killer player, and make some of the most outlandish calls for nerfs on killers?
It's like that, and the devs might listen. But with way higher stakes.I'm on the fence about an immortal, evil sexagenarian.
I have low expectations on the sequel.At this point I think we all can agree they need to stop. Enough. No more. Its gonna be like THIS next time lmfao
Please, watch the video.You wont regret.
There were definitely inconsistencies (especially when it comes to the guns and Laurie's "home defense" knowledge), and I agree that it wasn't strictly a "slasher" flick....I am waiting for the director's cut because, if it is anything like the original few Friday the 13th movies, there is probably footage of those kills that for some reason, wasn't put into the movie.
We have to remember that the ratings board is entirely subjective (and sometimes old-fashioned or borderline racist).
When it comes to MM's "powers", I can appreciate a certain level of "suspension of disbelieve". Why is he so strong when all he does is stand around? We accept this (to a point) much in the same way that we try not to think about him eating his tray of food in the asylum or taking a dump. He is just this embodiment of evil...and that is enough explanation. I hated when they tried to explain some occult or mystic background in those later ones.
As for "slasher flick"...I am not sure that a true slasher flick could be made nowadays. They had to really reach to make the girl lose her phone in this one (we are far too accessible nowadays). And the kid said it best, that by todays horror movie standards, a lot of those older movies (IE the original halloween) just wouldn't seem scary. Basically....everything has been done so it would all just seem cliched.
We all pretty much knew what to expect going into the theater and to make an "original" movie based on the first Halloween....well good luck lol! Instead, they played off our expectations and nostalgia (shot for shot remakes) and our own uneasiness of wondering "are they going to go there?" (IE the baby scene and the kid scene).
I think, given our time, the history of the Halloween (and horror) franchise, they pulled it off as well as could be expected. I had a ton of fun!
0
