|
Post by 4barrelhemi on Sept 9, 2007 17:02:37 GMT -5
Can someone please explain to me the timeline in this movie??
It starts out in what looks like the 70's 1978 I would imagine no later than 1980 at the very most.
Then it skips 15 years ahead which would be 93-95 sometime but you look around and there are modern 2007 things cars and cell phones that weren't around in the mid 90's.
So that bein said if this movie takes place in present day then 15 years prior would have been 1992 and its very clear the begining of that movie is not 1992.
It seems to me that ole Rob can't count.
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Sept 10, 2007 13:46:28 GMT -5
It takes place originally in the early 90's, then 15 years later or whatever, it's present time. I think I mentioned this in the other Halloween thread. Also, I hate to disagree with you Dustin, but the movie is nowhere near the nuts pile that is Resurrection. Not even close. Now it's not the BEST film ever made, but people are giving it WAY more nuts than it deserves. If anyone has yet to read my mini review in the other Halloween thread, I kindly suggest doing so. EDIT: I'll just re-post it here. What a turd of a movie. I just got back from seeing it and man oh man it was bad. Michael Myers acted more like jason in this movie than anything else. Normaly when Mike comes to a locked door he either finds another way or punches a hand through it to unlock it not blow the d**n thing off its hinges. Honestly was the truck stop scene truly needed? okay also if I remember right when Mike was a kid it was like 1973 or something right. okay so then after he kills 6 months pass with the good Dr. Loomis. okay so then 15 years pass by but Loomis says he had been with Mike for 17 so...... HOW IN THE HELL DID THE ONE GIRL HAVE A CELL PHONE? Wouldnt it only make it at least 1990 and cell phones were not that modern looking back then. Also it seemed that Zombie tried to make up for the first act by cramming everything into the last act. I think you're a little confused here... in Zombie's version, when we see little Mike it is set in the early 90's. Seventeen years later, it is present time and this is when we see Laurie and her pals with cell phones. Also, I'm going to go out on a lonely limb here and say that I didn't think it was half bad. Was it perfect? No way. Was it great? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it's horrible or a turd. Sure the movie had some flaws... most do (especially horror movies). A lot of people complain that it doesn't show how Michael got to Haddonfield... but in my opinion, leaving that a mystery is way better than having him suddenly know the inner workings of a car and being able to navigate it all the way back to his hometown. By simply leaving out how he got back, we as viewers are able to wonder that on our own. Maybe he walked... who knows. I don't need to be led by the hand through every scene. Put simply, Zombie makes it ANY possibility in how he got to Haddonfield instead of locking into a ridiculous and unbelievable means. The biggest flaw in the movie is the lack of character development (aside from Micheal). Personally, I think they should have tacked on another 30 minutes or so to flesh out Laurie, the sheriff, and her friends. Loomis was pretty well developed, but I would have liked to have seen even more with him. He was the best part of the movie (just like in the original in my opinion). The back story, I loved it. Obviously the better half of the film, but again I think the 2nd half was decent only it needed some of the improvements I listed above. Another thing about this movie I loved is the dramatic changes Zombie made... like the ending, which to me at least made it clear that Laurie killed Micheal with a shot to the head. Sure, this made Micheal a mortal instead of an unkillable demon... but that made this film refreshing in a sense. Oh yes, I just remembered another gripe a lot of people had with this movie. They complain about how Micheal knew what Laurie looked like when she was older. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that the exact same case in the original? Doesn't seem fair to rip apart a remake for the identical flaws the original contained. Overall, the remake of Halloween isn't the original, and that's what people should expect going in. It encapsulates some key scenes from the original, while delving into Mike's past and repackaging it in a new form. It's 1000% better than the last few entries into the series, and for that I think people should be a little more forgiving and appreciative. Obviously if I had to pick between the original and the remake, I'd pick the original instantly. But as an alternative, Zombie's take on Halloween is pretty d**n cool. My verdict: 7.5/10 Last word of advice for people who have yet to see it... don't go in with all these pre-conceived ideas of how it "sucks". Go in with an open mind, and try not to expect the best movie ever made. That's what I did, and I left the theatre rather pleased.
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Sept 10, 2007 13:49:32 GMT -5
Also, why is the forum turning my sh!ts into nuts? Sh!t isn't a horrible word.
|
|
|
Post by The Never Dead on Sept 10, 2007 14:35:24 GMT -5
I liked Resurrection waaaaaay better than Zombie's cinematic turd.
|
|
|
Post by DustinM on Sept 10, 2007 17:10:47 GMT -5
Well... at least Resurrection got Michael right. They got his mask, movements, motive, all of this right. It also had Jamie Lee Curtis and the Myers house in it- two very recognizable series elements. I even liked the plot as a satire on the sick reality show trend of today - they just messed it up with the dialogue, bad characterization and casting Busta Ryhmes and Tyra Banks.
These are my two cents and I'm sticking to them.
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Sept 10, 2007 18:23:37 GMT -5
Well... at least Resurrection got Michael right. They got his mask, movements, motive, all of this right. It also had Jamie Lee Curtis and the Myers house in it- two very recognizable series elements. I even liked the plot as a satire on the sick reality show trend of today - they just messed it up with the dialogue, bad characterization and casting Busta Ryhmes and Tyra Banks. These are my two cents and I'm sticking to them. I can appreciate that viewpoint. I like a fella who know his guns and sticks to em. ;D I can see your points on all but one thing... the mask. Are you saying his mask wasn't right in Zombie's Halloween? I think we both agree on one thing... Busta and Tyra had NO place in that movie. Personally, the reality show thing just made me cringe. Perhaps the plot was satire on it, but it's more than obvious it was only using this as a cash-in. It reminds me of all those sh!tty movies that came out around that time that attempted to use "reality tv" and "the internet" as story-driving plot devices. Stuff like that, to me, just reeks of trendy, dated material that cannot be taken seriously in any form whatsoever. I'm either way ahead of my time on this, or stuck in the past... you know, back when even the laziest of filmmakers could muster up better ideas.
|
|
|
Post by DustinM on Sept 10, 2007 18:35:22 GMT -5
You have a point there, Tony. I think many times the best movies are the ones that are timeless.
|
|
vitaman2007
Sentinel Sphere
"Be de be de be de...f#@ you Buck!"
Posts: 698
|
Post by vitaman2007 on Sept 10, 2007 19:22:22 GMT -5
Gopher, I like your review. One of my good friends explained the whole movie for me verbally (just like my older brother use to do when I was a kid, when I was too young to see movies).
The whole thing sounded pretty decent. My buddy said that most people were quite unhappy with the ending. I was intrigued about the person who befriended him at the asylum. He told Michael "find a place inside your mind to escape" etc...etc...yet he still wasted him.
I might rent it.
|
|
|
Post by hemitallman on Sept 10, 2007 21:41:02 GMT -5
he dosent kill hm in the workprint
|
|
|
Post by The Never Dead on Sept 10, 2007 21:45:27 GMT -5
What were they thinking with killing Danny Trejo in the theatrical version? Danny Trejo is immortal & would waste Michael Myers. Then he'd suddenly be teleported to the movie Marked for Death where Steven Seagal would chase him down the street.
|
|
|
Post by 4barrelhemi on Sept 10, 2007 22:44:48 GMT -5
I dunno the beggining of this movie doesn't look like 1990 or 1992 to me at all.
It looks like something out of the 70's or very early 80's
|
|
|
Post by scubasteve on Sept 17, 2007 16:49:04 GMT -5
I just saw it tonight and I have to agree with gopher, it wasn't the biggest turd by far. A bit of light entertainment for a cold autumn eve. Always like to see Malcolm McDowall and Brad Dourif (no idea how to spell his name). Quite liked the soundtrack as well. A bit of symbolism in the start of the film with Mike wearing a KISS t shirt and kills his sister listening to BOC?
|
|
vitaman2007
Sentinel Sphere
"Be de be de be de...f#@ you Buck!"
Posts: 698
|
Post by vitaman2007 on Sept 17, 2007 17:12:31 GMT -5
Ya know, I was gonna go see the matinee (better bargain). But it's already gone from my local theatre. I heard BOC was played quite a bit...
|
|
|
Post by scubasteve on Sept 18, 2007 5:10:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I love the BOC. A bit of Dio (Heaven and Hell) as well.
|
|
|
Post by DustinM on Dec 20, 2007 17:06:54 GMT -5
I bought this movie on DVD today along with Hatchet and T3. Ugh.
I'm hoping whatever 11 minutes Rob added to the movie made it a TON better otherwise I'll have the same bitter reaction to it. I'm such a completist, though. I simply had to own this.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Dec 20, 2007 17:16:42 GMT -5
i went to see it at the cinema, then got a copy of it with a different ending
|
|
|
Post by gopher in heat on Dec 20, 2007 17:43:46 GMT -5
Would you mind sharing what the alternative ending is all about?
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Dec 20, 2007 17:50:38 GMT -5
Laurie's face is all battered an swollen and she got hold of Loomis's .357 and shot Michael until he's lying on the floor and drags herself over to his body and points the gun at his face and keeps firing the pistol until you see her face covered in blood and it ended with her screaming
that's how it ended here in England
|
|
vitaman2007
Sentinel Sphere
"Be de be de be de...f#@ you Buck!"
Posts: 698
|
Post by vitaman2007 on Dec 27, 2007 22:52:02 GMT -5
Just watched it and, I don't see what all the hub bub is about.
Now I'm not sticking up for RZ....but,
The first (and original) half was good. The 2nd half (homage?) seemed quite rushed. Not as much developement, kinda squished the original film's plot into 1/2 the time. This movie should have been 2:30 or 2:45 to achieve balance.
Excellent use of Rush, and Frampton. Hearing KISS' "God of Thunder" in the beginning was like a time warp for me. The swimming pool scene had some creep factor to it also.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by KillerSphere on Jan 9, 2008 10:08:46 GMT -5
The film wasn't terrible. However, I liked the workprint ending much better. Short and sweet and to the point. I own the DVD and it felt like all of the 11 extra minutes were tacked onto the ending. It really dragged on. Other than that, I am pleased to have this film in my collection.
|
|