It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Wel, with his particular fixation on Laurie I think they felt motivated to tell us why that was, and why he kept coming for her out of everyone else. There's always got to be a motivation, or it's better if there is. I only dislike it when horror films try to also explain why that force of evil is in the horror character. Despite sharing the Laurie connection, Carpenter was smart to keep Michael's evil and power ambiguous. Is he a man, or something more?
@Master_Dahark, it's definitely not a fantastic, paradigm changing film, and nostalgia very much paints a picture of it in my mind and others. It's just a fun Halloween movie to see around this time of year. I definitely agree that it falls a bit too much into comedy than true horror or suspense beyond the beginning (when Laurie starts to make the connection between Michael's rampage and her son's birthday), which has some great paranoid energy. I love LL Cool J though, but maybe that's the writer in me. I feel sympathetic to his attempts to knock out a book, even if it's a romance!
By the way, with talks of the new Halloween film coming and with the confirmation that Laurie will have a daughter, do you think the script will retread Michael's motivation in H20 for wanting to kill Laurie's son around the same age he tried to kill Laurie? The daughter has to play into the plot somehow, but I hope they have a fresh take on that particular angle.
‘Round....melon..... breastststs’ :))
Yes. Like I said it's happenstance and/or fate.
One could certainly make those perceptions, sure, but ultimately Carpenter and co. went with the brother/sister angle.
When I rewatch it in the coming weeks I'll have to see what I make of it all when I experience it again (I may watch 2 again as well).
I got you beat. The first one I saw was Halloween: Resurrection... and in theaters. I was 14 when it came out, so I was creeped out by it back then.
Well they did but like I said it was shoehorned and even Carpenter said if I'm not mistaken that it was not a necessary idea.
I've only seen the original once or twice and it's been years since I have. I've seen the Rob Zombie reboot a few times and more recently than the original. In the Zombie version the fact that they were brother and sister was a major driving point of the movie. Was it not that way in the original or were they brother and sister just for the heck of it?
I guess since I've always known they were brother and sister I just assumed it was revealed in the first one that they were. I guess it's time to go back and rewatch the first two.
The less said of the Rob Zombie remake the better. In the original movie there's no indication whatsoever that they were brother and sister. Laurie is randomly seen by the Shape in the morning of Halloween after his escape. Like say Norman Bates he has seemingly no motivation to kill her in particular. She's at the wrong place at the wrong time, that's it and that's the beautiful simplicity of it. Carpenter added the sister thing writing Halloween 2, when by his own admission he was inebriated and uninspired.
The only thing I didn’t like, actually was in the directors cut, and had to do with Michael’s escape. That bit they added of the two guards raping that poor girl was out of place and uncalled for.
Fortunately, you can just pop in the theatrical cut and that scene isn’t even there!
I do agree about the director's cut. I hated that scene and I think his escape in the theatrical version was much better.
It adds nothing to the story and cheapens the first one. People complain about Blofeld being Bond's stepbrother for the same reason. I'd say they could have created atmosphere and creepiness without it. The first one took it's cues from Hitchcock that was the way to do it.
Well, I always see Michael's ability to keep track of Laurie as his connection to her via blood, like he can just sense her. I've never been upset about it, so can only speak personally. I think it's interesting and slightly poetic in a dark way that the two main "good" characters of the films, Laurie and Loomis, both have a connection with Michael that is shared in blood by the former and one of another kind in the latter. Both characters always seem to know when Michael is around, like they can track him. I dunno.
Might do just that. None of the Escape films are available on iTunes though, but they might be available to stream somewhere.
Michael's beef is clearly with Laurie, so I think making his blood connection with Loomis would've just distracted from that. Loomis is in danger of Michael too, but that's because Loomis goes looking for Michael and Michael acts against him when he's in his way. If Loomis just retired Michael would never think of him another minute, as that wasn't his goal. It was always Laurie.
I imagined Michael does; I mean, Loomis for sure addressed himself any time they talked. But as we know Michael was just blank faced and focused on something else when they talked, as he was targeting Laurie and waiting. So maybe all that he was told by Loomis for those years was just white noise to him, lost in his hyper-focus?
It's not easy to tell in the first films, but later on during the ret-con era when Loomis becomes the lead of all the drama Michael does seem to recognize him and sees him as a threat of sorts; at the very least, we can see their history. I just think we never really get to see much of what Michael feels because he's always after someone else, and Loomis is only ever in danger when he places himself there.
Very true. I don't know what kind of mind Michael has, but you could be right by comparing it to a kid's. There's one moment in Halloween 6 where, while Loomis is talking to him, Michael slowly cocks his head or something like that and looks at him as a child would a thing they're curious about. He definitely gives off the vibe of someone who has a more childlike sense or behavior.
The moment he killed his sister and her boyfriend could've well stunted his growth and sort of mentally froze him in age after that point.
He did not kill her boyfriend. Judith Myers' boyfriend is the biggest unknown of the franchise. What happened to him? Did he have survivor's guilt? Did he move out of town? How did he turn out? That's something I wished they had explored in the subsequent movies. I would have rather seen that than that silly Laurie is really a Myers connection they came up with out of the blue.