| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 02:27:57
Rob Zombie, if you're going to cover a classic, you better bring it.
the original Halloween is indeed a classic, though comically dated at times during modern viewings. i met John Carpenter a few years ago and told him that i saw Halloween when i was about 11. (i really didn't want to watch it, but that damn peer pressure.) he gave me a disturbed look that said, "my god, what kind of awful parents must you have?! i didn't make that movie for 11-year-olds!"
anyway, i'm one who usually despises the lack of originality in Hollywood, with sequels, remakes, comic books and tv shows adapted to the big screen, but i'm looking forward to this one.
i've kind of liked Zombie's touch on movies too. i'll probably see it opening night, but damn that bar is high. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 18:46:50
Well, this remake finally came up in the Netflix queue. Wish it hadn't.
Probably the worst thing of all is that it incorporates story elements from those horrible sequels I'd lambasted. But I could go on and on about what's wrong with this movie. However, I won't. Yuck. |
| Sean |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 12:31:16
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
That's a good answer. Of course I would point out that realism, as far as Myers was concerned, is totally not what Carpenter was going for.
True. I think the 'unreality' came from Myers' uncanny ability to elude capture and get from one place to another without detection. It wasn't quite supernatural, but perhaps not far from it. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:56:07
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I mean, yeah, he's a pedophile, but believe it or not there are lots of pedophiles who don't kill people.
True, but there are enough who do - or at least enough high-profile news stories of it happening - that it's perfectly reasonable to put that into a movie and not expect the audience to ask questions. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:35:25
Well, yeah, that explains why he kills in the dreamworld, not why he killed when he was a human being. I mean, yeah, he's a pedophile, but believe it or not there are lots of pedophiles who don't kill people. And yeah, son of a thousand maniacs and all that, but also -- son of a nun! His mom's a nun! |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:24:37
This post contains spoilers about the Nightmare on Elm St movies. Most of these details are from the films, but a few elements were revealed in the short-lived television series:
Freddy Krueger was a child molester that kidnapped kids to his lair in the boiler room of an abandoned factory, where he abused and then killed his victims. He was caught, arrested, and put on trial, but walked on a technicality. Disgusted, community members formed a vigilante group that cornered him in the boiler room, doused him with gasoline and burned him to death. Ever since, he's been taking out his revenge on those that killed him by preying on their children in the one place their parents can't protect them: in their dreams.
There's more, such as information about how someone so "unholy" came into existence in the first place. But I think I've covered enough.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:51:02
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I always thought that Mike Myers killed because he enjoyed it. He liked blood, fear and death. He was also massaging his ego by reaffirming his power over others (which he would have interpreted as verification of his superiority); he could kill when and where he wanted and saw each kill as a personal victory. That's a not-uncommon driving mechanism for real-life sadistic psychopathic serial killers. The reason for Myers' evil was not 'explained' as is commonly done in fiction, hence my assumption that he was simply a sadistic psychopath.
Fictional serial killers are often more elaborate than 'real' serial killers, ie, the 'reasons' for their evil are presented, whether they're on a mission (Spacey in Se7en), or have a deathwish (Hauer in The Hitcher), or are a thoroughly delusional psychotic (Bates in Psycho). I think Mike Myers was more like Ted Bundy than any other fictional serial killer (except that we don't see the rest of his life, only the effect he has on others). In fact a story about Ted Bundy would probably be rather uninteresting and would inevitably concentrate on the kills rather than on Bundy himself. There's nothing much to say about him other than that he enjoyed killing and the feeling of power that killing gave him, and that he regularly conducted 'experiments'. E.g., "I wonder what would happen if I kill someone with another victim watching?", and "OK, I've just tortured this woman to death, but I've got some time left, so I wonder how many other kills I can make in the next 10 minutes in this dormitory" etc. None of that is as interesting as Spacey's or Hauer's missions. In fact Bundy's kills were too much like science (much like clinical tests on lab rats) to make Bundy an interesting subject for fiction.
So if Mike Myers is uninteresting, it's because the standard fictional elements (or 'human' elements) haven't been added to his character, he's too much like a real-life sadistic psychopath - an emotionless predator. Absolute evil.
Edit: Oops, I missed my point.  What I'm getting at is that as much as I like the contrived killers in Seven, Silence of the Lambs, The Hitcher etc - who are all very interesting and make for great stories - they are fictional and are not grounded in reality. And yep, Mike Myers isn't very interesting at all, but he's far closer to a real killer, and I'm glad Carpenter created him that way (someone needs to stick to reality occasionally) rather than turning him into yet another 'popcorn' killer.
That's a good answer. Of course I would point out that realism, as far as Myers was concerned, is totally not what Carpenter was going for.
quote:
That's all well and good but it makes it a completely different movie.
Sure does. Actually, the biggest problem with Zombie's Halloween is that it's not ENOUGH a completely different movie; he's too tethered to his source material and it kind of drags down his ambitions. I think once you've taken the movie into this other area you're kind of obligated to keep it going.
quote:
He's not an indestructible supernatural force, unless you're including all those stupid sequels but that's an inherently flawed way to look at it.
I dunno... he sure didn't seem like a human being with human flaws and stuff in that first movie. They sure play him up like he's a supernatural force.
quote:
Dude, you're taking it - and yourself - too seriously
Nuh-uh.
quote:
The reasons he does what he does are quite explicit, they're not even open to interpretation by the audience...they just flat out TELL you why he kills.
Well, it's been a while -- what did I miss? |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:01:43
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Awright, I got demonic to back me up, 'cause that's exactly how I feel about it. Myers is evil because he just is. There's some existential terror to be wrung out of that, I'm sure, but I don't think Halloween ever really tried to. Most of the emphasis on Myers's blank inhumanity is given to us in exposition, not by his actions, really.
This is a much bigger problem in Freddy Krueger movies, which also subscribes to the blank he's-just-evil philosophy despite having a VERY human boogeyman. Freddy needs to have a more compelling motivation besides just being a bad guy.
Dude, you're taking it - and yourself - too seriously. Besides, you're also 100% wrong about Freddy Krueger. The reasons he does what he does are quite explicit, they're not even open to interpretation by the audience...they just flat out TELL you why he kills. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 13:57:01
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
See, here's the thing I never liked about Michael Myers. He's boring! Boooooooring! Even Jason has a primitive motivation of revenge. Myers's claim to fame is that he has no motivation for what he does. Interesting in its blank nihilism, perhaps, but I've never been able to muster up the ability to care.
Sorry to hear that, since the fact that he kills just because and does nothing else is the whole point of the movie and the precise reason he's so scary. He's just evil.
quote:
Plus, I've never been able to get how he's both an indestructible supernatural force and a drooling mental defective.
He's not an indestructible supernatural force, unless you're including all those stupid sequels but that's an inherently flawed way to look at it.
quote:
Rob Zombie puts a face behind the mask. It's not entirely successful, but it's a billion times more interesting to me.
That's all well and good but it makes it a completely different movie. |
| Sean |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 03:33:32
I always thought that Mike Myers killed because he enjoyed it. He liked blood, fear and death. He was also massaging his ego by reaffirming his power over others (which he would have interpreted as verification of his superiority); he could kill when and where he wanted and saw each kill as a personal victory. That's a not-uncommon driving mechanism for real-life sadistic psychopathic serial killers. The reason for Myers' evil was not 'explained' as is commonly done in fiction, hence my assumption that he was simply a sadistic psychopath.
Fictional serial killers are often more elaborate than 'real' serial killers, ie, the 'reasons' for their evil are presented, whether they're on a mission (Spacey in Se7en), or have a deathwish (Hauer in The Hitcher), or are a thoroughly delusional psychotic (Bates in Psycho). I think Mike Myers was more like Ted Bundy than any other fictional serial killer (except that we don't see the rest of his life, only the effect he has on others). In fact a story about Ted Bundy would probably be rather uninteresting and would inevitably concentrate on the kills rather than on Bundy himself. There's nothing much to say about him other than that he enjoyed killing and the feeling of power that killing gave him, and that he regularly conducted 'experiments'. E.g., "I wonder what would happen if I kill someone with another victim watching?", and "OK, I've just tortured this woman to death, but I've got some time left, so I wonder how many other kills I can make in the next 10 minutes in this dormitory" etc. None of that is as interesting as Spacey's or Hauer's missions. In fact Bundy's kills were too much like science (much like clinical tests on lab rats) to make Bundy an interesting subject for fiction.
So if Mike Myers is uninteresting, it's because the standard fictional elements (or 'human' elements) haven't been added to his character, he's too much like a real-life sadistic psychopath - an emotionless predator. Absolute evil.
Edit: Oops, I missed my point. What I'm getting at is that as much as I like the contrived killers in Seven, Silence of the Lambs, The Hitcher etc - who are all very interesting and make for great stories - they are fictional and are not grounded in reality. And yep, Mike Myers isn't very interesting at all, but he's far closer to a real killer, and I'm glad Carpenter created him that way (someone needs to stick to reality occasionally) rather than turning him into yet another 'popcorn' killer. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 02:34:46
Awright, I got demonic to back me up, 'cause that's exactly how I feel about it. Myers is evil because he just is. There's some existential terror to be wrung out of that, I'm sure, but I don't think Halloween ever really tried to. Most of the emphasis on Myers's blank inhumanity is given to us in exposition, not by his actions, really.
This is a much bigger problem in Freddy Krueger movies, which also subscribes to the blank he's-just-evil philosophy despite having a VERY human boogeyman. Freddy needs to have a more compelling motivation besides just being a bad guy. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 02:23:51
I don't actually find that very interesting thinking about it. Psychologically it's about as uninvolving as you can get. He's implacable and unstoppable and has no perceived reasons for his actions, but you could say the same of a steam roller. Perceptible lunacy is much more scary I think, then you can see how far a man has lost his reason and is beyond safe boundaries - in this instance he's barely even a man. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 22:39:52
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
See, here's the thing I never liked about Michael Myers. He's boring! Boooooooring! Even Jason has a primitive motivation of revenge. Myers's claim to fame is that he has no motivation for what he does. Interesting in its blank nihilism, perhaps, but I've never been able to muster up the ability to care. Plus, I've never been able to get how he's both an indestructible supernatural force and a drooling mental defective.
The whole point about Michael Myers is that he has no real motivation to do the thing he does. Whether he was born this way or became this way is not even of interest. The point about him is that he is the Boogeyman. He is the very thing we're all most afraid of. He has no motivation, therefore there's nothing we do that will provoke him and absolutely nothing we can do to placate him. Wrong place, wrong time and you're his. He's at no point "a drooling mental defective" he's just an empty, soulless vessel. One that can't be stopped. |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:48:20
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
So, Mr Bad Idea...good idea, sir...bring on the remakes...
Starting with The Godfather. Someone needs to update that piece of crap right away.
I'm thinking Frank Oz is the best director to do this.
|
| randall |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
So, Mr Bad Idea...good idea, sir...bring on the remakes...
Starting with The Godfather. Someone needs to update that piece of crap right away.
|
| randall |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:39:23
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Okay, man, that's another concept, along with "insists upon itself," that needs to be retired. If you find Michael Myers interesting, I'm sure you've got reasons, and by all means, I wanna hear them.
Pure evil.
No apologies.
The Man-Goat got into his DNA somehow.
Yet all you actually see [except for a confused :05 at the climax] is an innocent child's face, like Patty McCormack's years earlier.
Why?
Never answered.
Chilling character!
"Jason" is a wannabe. And from HALLOWEEN 2 on, so is Michael Myers.
The Duke's [or whoever it actually was] comment will never be retired, because a true naysayer simply cannot be convinced. Therefore, let's let the people who do enjoy whatever it is, alone with whatever it is that they like, as long as it doesn't hurt or threaten anybody else. If you don't dig it, you just don't, and God bless you, too bad you're missing a life pleasure, but be happy regardless. That's all the Duke is saying, all I am too. |
|
|
