PatrickS77 said:

LOL at all these butthurts comments from you two. Pointless in rehashing and commenting all that. I stick to my original point in that Zombie's second is better then the first, a quite decent movie and the hate for it not quite warranted.

I feel the same way about you. But good for you for liking it.

PatrickS77 said:

PatrickS77 said:

LOL at all these butthurts comments from you two. Pointless in rehashing and commenting all that. I stick to my original point in that Zombie's second is better then the first, a quite decent movie and the hate for it not quite warranted.

If it makes you feel better I do agree with you that part 2 is better than part 1. I also agree with you hating the "white trash" aspect of it in part 1. I do like the actors Malcolm McDowell and Danielle Harris in the Rob Zombies movies. No hard feelings buddy.

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said:

LOL at all these butthurts comments from you two. Pointless in rehashing and commenting all that. I stick to my original point in that Zombie's second is better then the first, a quite decent movie and the hate for it not quite warranted.

I didn't see any "butthurt" comments from either myself or kpowers. All we've done is point out a few undeniable facts. Namely, Rob Zombie is a hack and his movies are terrible. Not to mention, box office failures for the most part. It's OK if you like his version of Halloween. I like plenty of badly made movies. Mostly ones that are so bad you just can't look away. Movies like Plan 9 From Outer Space or The Room. Or Zero Hour. Or Ninja Dragon. I could go on and on. They're awful movies but still entertaining. I don't get any entertainment from Rob Zombie's Halloween or the recent Ghostbusters remake though. I just found Halloween to be shit and Ghostbusters to be painfully unfunny. Both of them totally unnecessary remakes of classic movies. But like I said, if you like it, then more power to you.

I agree with you about there are some really cheesy low budget movies that are still kind of fun to watch. I liked Plan 9 from outer space. Other bad horror movies I like was killer clowns from outer space, night of the creeps, night of the comet, CHUD, and a whole bunch of zombie movies. Now Rob Zombie movie is different because it's a big budget movie and I expect more. Like how Patricks577 said about the white trash aspect of it. I found that part very mean-spirited.

[Edited 10/27/18 16:38pm]

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

PatrickS77 said:

Don't get stupid.

Damn you sure are sensitive

PatrickS77 said:

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

Damn you sure are sensitive

Huh? Why would I be? Because I think most of your responses are childish, stupid and/or wrong?

So if people disagree with you they are childish, stupid and wrong?? How childish is that of you. Your the type of person that hates to be wrong. Everything you have said has you coming off sounding like an idiot.

[Edited 10/28/18 10:44am]

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

Damn you sure are sensitive

Huh? Why would I be? Because I think most of your responses are childish, stupid and/or wrong?

Go have sex with Rob Zombie

Ranking the Halloween movies (not counting part 3 since it's not a Michael Myers)

1. Halloween

2. Halloween 2

3. Halloween 4

4. Halloween (2018)

5. Halloween H20

6. Halloween 6

7. Halloween 5

8. Halloween Resurrection

9. Halloween 2 Rob Zombie

10. Halloween part 1 Rob Zombie

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said:

It was you guys who threw everything but the kitchensink into the ring of why Zombie shouldn't have been allowed to make these movies and why they shouldn't be enjoyed, when most of that is subjective. Box office, which you brought up, doesn't determine the quality of a movie. Bad acting is subjective, as most couldn't recognize it, if it would hit them in the face. They don't like what they see, don't like the script, don't like the actor and boom it's "bad" acting. Same goes for Zombie's ability as a film maker. He wouldn't have fans, if he would be that bad and most importantly, no one would hire him if that would be the case, So also that is subjective. And to reinstate a further point. The new one isn't that great. It got a lot of hype and that's it.

I brought up the box office success (or lack thereof) as a response to the comment you made about how movie studios keep allowing him to make movies. My point was that due to his multiple box office failures, those same movie studios are unlikely to allow him to make movies for much longer. Also, given his box office failures and the fact that his movies are panned by critics, it doesn't seem that he has many fans. You're one of the few. Plus, good or bad acting is NOT subjective. Nobody can look at his movies and genuinely think the acting is good. And given that there were actually decent actors in some of his movies, and the acting was still bad, is further proof of Rob Zombie's total lack of filmmaking talent. Great directors draw great performances from their actors. Rob Zombie has, up to this point, shown he is incapable of that. And given his history in the movie business, I doubt he'll have many more opportunities to impress.

Once again all valid points in proving PatrickS77 wrong.

I was afraid this would suck so I was pleasently surprised. not a bad movie at all. by now I can even accept the alternate timeline/canon

[Edited 10/29/18 2:38am]

come to think of it... this gives me hope that somehow Star Wars could be saved... by dropping bullshit atrocities like Last Jedi or the prequels from the canon, start an alternate timeline/universe

if it's suddenly possible that Laurie is not Michaels sister, then Darth Vader could not be Lukes father. just like Lucas originally planned. and the Force returns to being an ancient religion/philsophy, without Kung Fu and magic telekineses rubbish
shit, yes, this is a cool thought! cut everything after SW'77 and bring it back to what it was supposed to be

[Edited 10/29/18 0:49am]

BombSquad said:

come to think of it... this gives me hope that somehow Star Wars could be saved... by dropping bullshit atrocities like Last Jedi or the prequels from the canon, start an alternate timeline/universe

if it's suddenly possible that Laurie is not Michaels sister, then Darth Vader could not be Lukes father. just like Lucas originally planned. and the Force returns to being an ancient religion/philsophy, without Kung Fu and magic telekineses rubbish
shit, yes, this is a cool thought! cut everything after SW'77 and bring it back to what it was supposed to be

[Edited 10/29/18 0:49am]

Cool as that would be I think there's zero chance of that happening. A number of the Halloween sequels were lambasted by both fans and critics so it was easy to drop them from canon ... there can't be anyone out there that would miss Resurrection.

But opinion on the Star Wars sequels is mixed so you'd cheese off a chunk of fans by booting them out of canon ... for example I can't stand Phantom Menace but I really enjoyed Revenge of the Sith and Last Jedi. And cut everything after SW'77??? ... so no Empire?!!

DaveT said:

BombSquad said:

come to think of it... this gives me hope that somehow Star Wars could be saved... by dropping bullshit atrocities like Last Jedi or the prequels from the canon, start an alternate timeline/universe

if it's suddenly possible that Laurie is not Michaels sister, then Darth Vader could not be Lukes father. just like Lucas originally planned. and the Force returns to being an ancient religion/philsophy, without Kung Fu and magic telekineses rubbish
shit, yes, this is a cool thought! cut everything after SW'77 and bring it back to what it was supposed to be

Cool as that would be I think there's zero chance of that happening. A number of the Halloween sequels were lambasted by both fans and critics so it was easy to drop them from canon ... there can't be anyone out there that would miss Resurrection.

But opinion on the Star Wars sequels is mixed so you'd cheese off a chunk of fans by booting them out of canon ... for example I can't stand Phantom Menace but I really enjoyed Revenge of the Sith and Last Jedi. And cut everything after SW'77??? ... so no Empire?!!

haha I was just thinking aloud, and don't get me wrong, I love Empire, even the Teddybears in ROTJ I can live with, and the prequels had their rare shining moments too,

but still, the scope layed out in the original SW77 was changed a lot already in Empire and of course way more in later movies
I just loved the purist and vast endless scope and feeling of the first movie, I loved a giant universe where not everyone is related or linked to everyone else, including the droids, that's just bullshit, unless the galaxy has just 100 inhabitants. you were thrown right into the middle of a way bigger plot and story arc, from now on rather random events drive the story. and some things were just hinted at, the rest was left to your imagination, cause I do not need to see and know everything in detail, clone wars or emperor, just a quick mention, that's enough. and that was the initial magic of this big unknown universe

so at times I just dream on, and like to see SW77 as a standalone movie. again.

[Edited 10/29/18 3:50am]

PatrickS77 said:

DaveT said:

Uhm. Yeah, it is. But we're way past that point. We're 40 years later and Michael is notorious, at least the "real" Michael, for being a relentless, unstoppable killing machine. This Blumhouse Michael isn't. He's a deranged guy, who killed 3 teenagers on Halloween night 40 years ago and then got locked up. Does that warrant two british Podcasters coming to the states to report/investigate this very old/very cold case?? Like the guy in the movie says, it's nothing. That track record as a serial killer is not impressive and thus there wouldn't be a big deal made out of it. And Laurie would be quite crazy to go off the rails like she did.

Point taken re. Laurie ... I think he just returned to Haddonfield to kill because that's all he knows. Laurie put herself in his path, he saw her, a moment of recall and he's after her again, simple as that. The sister thing had some plot holes in it anyway, I always thought that when I saw the original Part 2, and even Carpenter said it was a hokey thing he just chucked in there ... so even though I'm a bit sad a couple of the sequels I like are no longer canon, in terms of plot logic I can see it makes sense.

What holes? I thought it set him apart.

Dude in sprayed painted William Shatner mask kills a group of teens on Halloween night 15 years after he stabbed his sister to death aged 6? I've seen podcasts about way more obscure things than this.

And the Laurie sister thing ... Laurie being 17 in the Halloween (1978) script, she'd have been 2 when her 6 year old brother killed their older sister (not sure how old she is but in the film she looks about 18 to 20). She was supppsedly then put up for adoption when Mr and Mrs Myers themselves died, which unless it was right away would have given Laurie a couple of years growing up with disturbed parents. But she was then put up for adoption and given to a new family in the exact small town where her brother and sister were murdered. The records were then sealed and her name changed.

... so if they were trying to keep it all from Laurie, why the hell would they keep her in the same small town where it all happened? She could have been given to a family anywhere in America. That's extremely dumb. And surely someone who knew about it in town would have told her, some idiot at her school and rumours starting ... I can't see her going all those years without hearing about the murder in the Myers house and someone letting on.

kpowers said:

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said: Huh? Why would I be? Because I think most of your responses are childish, stupid and/or wrong?

So if people disagree with you they are childish, stupid and wrong?? How childish is that of you. Your the type of person that hates to be wrong. Everything you have said has you coming off sounding like an idiot.

[Edited 10/28/18 10:44am]

Where did I say that? I said the comments where childish, stupid and wrong and you keep continuing them and getting personal. So don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

As for ranking the movies, I would rank them:

Halloween

H4

H20

H2

H2018

H5

RZH2

RZH

H6

HR

[Edited 10/29/18 12:57pm]

DaveT said:

PatrickS77 said:

What holes? I thought it set him apart.

Dude in sprayed painted William Shatner mask kills a group of teens on Halloween night 15 years after he stabbed his sister to death aged 6? I've seen podcasts about way more obscure things than this.

And the Laurie sister thing ... Laurie being 17 in the Halloween (1978) script, she'd have been 2 when her 6 year old brother killed their older sister (not sure how old she is but in the film she looks about 18 to 20). She was supppsedly then put up for adoption when Mr and Mrs Myers themselves died, which unless it was right away would have given Laurie a couple of years growing up with disturbed parents. But she was then put up for adoption and given to a new family in the exact small town where her brother and sister were murdered. The records were then sealed and her name changed.

... so if they were trying to keep it all from Laurie, why the hell would they keep her in the same small town where it all happened? She could have been given to a family anywhere in America. That's extremely dumb. And surely someone who knew about it in town would have told her, some idiot at her school and rumours starting ... I can't see her going all those years without hearing about the murder in the Myers house and someone letting on.

Supposedly the Myers died soon after Michael snapped. The Straude's took her in, as almost neighbors and probably friends of the Myers. And yes, people knew what happened, but in a pre Internet/Social media/Omni present media world, they managed to keep the fact that Laurie is the sister a secret. And since it all happened before anyone of her peers would go to school/be aware of such things, no one could spill the beans to Laurie. It seems unlikely, but also not such a stretch to believe that. I mean, that supposedly happened in around 1964. Different, simpler times.

As for the podcasters, that's really more of a stretch for me. And how would they get their hands on the mask... some foreign podcasters? If at least it would be some high profile investigative crime reporters. And why would they just show up at Laurie's doorstep to talk about her life? Why is that important, when they are interested in Michael? It has nothing to do with him and really is unimportant since they are not even related anymore.

[Edited 10/29/18 14:33pm]

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said:

It was you guys who threw everything but the kitchensink into the ring of why Zombie shouldn't have been allowed to make these movies and why they shouldn't be enjoyed, when most of that is subjective. Box office, which you brought up, doesn't determine the quality of a movie. Bad acting is subjective, as most couldn't recognize it, if it would hit them in the face. They don't like what they see, don't like the script, don't like the actor and boom it's "bad" acting. Same goes for Zombie's ability as a film maker. He wouldn't have fans, if he would be that bad and most importantly, no one would hire him if that would be the case, So also that is subjective. And to reinstate a further point. The new one isn't that great. It got a lot of hype and that's it.

I brought up the box office success (or lack thereof) as a response to the comment you made about how movie studios keep allowing him to make movies. My point was that due to his multiple box office failures, those same movie studios are unlikely to allow him to make movies for much longer. Also, given his box office failures and the fact that his movies are panned by critics, it doesn't seem that he has many fans. You're one of the few. Plus, good or bad acting is NOT subjective. Nobody can look at his movies and genuinely think the acting is good. And given that there were actually decent actors in some of his movies, and the acting was still bad, is further proof of Rob Zombie's total lack of filmmaking talent. Great directors draw great performances from their actors. Rob Zombie has, up to this point, shown he is incapable of that. And given his history in the movie business, I doubt he'll have many more opportunities to impress.

Yeah, whatever. Like none of the other actors in the Halloween series, including the original, ever have been accused of bad acting and like any of that would diminish the original Halloween or the sequels.

I'm NOT a Rob Zombie fan.

how come micheal myers doesnt kill the infant???

luvsexy4all said:

how come micheal myers doesnt kill the infant???

Supposedly, because he's not that monster every one makes him out to be and he has some morals after all. He kills the mother, that bitch, but stops at the baby.

luvsexy4all said:

how come micheal myers doesnt kill the infant???

He doesn't kill every one he sees. In part 2 he bumps into somebody then keeps on walking until he gets to the hospital. In the original Halloween movie there is no mention of him killing any of the inmates when he got away.

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

So if people disagree with you they are childish, stupid and wrong?? How childish is that of you. Your the type of person that hates to be wrong. Everything you have said has you coming off sounding like an idiot.

[Edited 10/28/18 10:44am]

Where did I say that? I said the comments where childish, stupid and wrong and you keep continuing them and getting personal. So don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

As for ranking the movies, I would rank them:

Halloween

H4

H20

H2

H2018

H5

RZH2

RZH

H6

HR

[Edited 10/29/18 12:57pm]

Nobody knows what you are talking about, you make no sense. You are the one bringing up childish comments all the time

kpowers said:

PatrickS77 said:

Where did I say that? I said the comments where childish, stupid and wrong and you keep continuing them and getting personal. So don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

As for ranking the movies, I would rank them:

Halloween

H4

H20

H2

H2018

H5

RZH2

RZH

H6

HR

[Edited 10/29/18 12:57pm]

Nobody knows what you are talking about, you make no sense. You are the one bringing up childish comments all the time

Yeah. Deny all you want. It's for everyone to see. But whatever, I'm done with you.

PatrickS77 said:

kpowers said:

Nobody knows what you are talking about, you make no sense. You are the one bringing up childish comments all the time

Yeah. Deny all you want. It's for everyone to see. But whatever, I'm done with you.

As I am with you

With Halloween 2018 officially over I got a chance to watch some Halloween movies that I have not seen in a very long time. Here are my takes on them.

OK this sequel ranks pretty high on my list and is better than most of the rest. The biggest thing that sucks is no Jamie Lee Curtis. Laurie Strode is dead and left behind her 8-year-old daughter Jamie. Jamie is in foster care and is being taken care of by the Carruthers family in Haddonfield. Yes I know why not move far away?? Well it's a Halloween movie and we want it set in Haddonfield, can't see a Halloween movie set in Miami. First of all love little actress Danielle Harris. Also liked the new character Rachael Carruthers who is Jamie's big step sister and protector. So the story makes sense in the Halloween universe, Jamie is Michael Myers niece and thus he needs to kill her. Also back is the burned Dr. Loomis (I'll add more when I get to part 6) Would have love to see Sheriff Brackett or Deputy Gary Hunt back. One problem I did had was Rachael's friend Lindsey. OK is this little Lindsey that Laurie babysitted in part 1? Not sure. Also she just disappear in the movie. Maybe she was in some deleted scenes, who knows? The ending way to cool. Jamie wearing the same type of clown outfit that young Michael Myers wore when he killed his sister, stabs her foster mom which almost gives Dr. Loomis a heart attack. Will Jamie be the next Michael Myers?

Part 5, one of the worse movies in the series. Mostly had to do with focusing the movie on Tina. Tina??? Yeah exactly. Will get into that later. What was one of the best things of part 4, it's Jamie. So what do they do?? They make her a mute for most of the movie which really staled the story. Even burned Dr. Loomis can't save this turkey. OK back to Tina. Rachael Carruthers is killed off early in the movie and for some reason Michael Myers is chasing Rachael's party friend Tina through out the rest of the movie. Who wrote that?? Nobody cares about Tina. Why not just keep Rachael alive longer?? Why not bring back little Lindsey? Better yet why not focus on tracking Jamie down to the facility where she is at? The 4 teenagers (Tina and her 3 friends) in this movie are there just to be killed off. You don't care about them because they are irritating one dimensional characters that add nothing. Didn't care about the psychic connection between Jamie and her uncle. Then there is some guy dressed in black and you don't find out who he is until 6 long years later.

To tell you the truth I totally forgot what this movie was about. Better than part 5 this movie tries to tell why Michael Myers is the way he is. Umm not sure some kind o druid/pagan thing I guess. Something about the stars lining up on Halloween night. That's the guy in black in Halloween 5. Stars Paul Rudd in his first film I think. I like that he plays Tommy Doyle, one of the kids Laurie babysitted in the first film. Well the people in black captured 9 year old Jamie. So it's 6 years later as they state in the movie which would make her 15 years old. So at the beginning of the movie a pregnant woman who looks to be in her early 20's escapes because the druids wants her baby. Turns out it's Jamie, was confused by that because clearly the actress is way older than 15. Maybe they didn't want to show a pregnant 15 year old. Hey why not bring back Danielle Harris back? Well Jamie is killed off by Michael Myers shortly after her escape. Dr. Loomis is back but for some reason has no scares.

With all the sequels made part 2 is the only film that has the feel of the original. First of all it takes place right after where Halloween 1 ended. It's the only sequel with Laurie Strode and Dr. Loomis in it together. It also brings back Sheriff Bracket and Nurse Marion from part 1. This movie is kinda shot the same way as part 1 was. Also most of the sequels change the Halloween theme music by giving it a disco beat. Part 2 sounds the same to me. Also the opening credits. I love the black screen with the Halloween pumpkin in the corner (with John Carpenters music being played) as the credits roll. Most of the sequels don't use the opening sequence. That's like not having the James Bond movie intro. What I like is that this movie isn't about a whole bunch of horny teens getting killed (ok there was Bud, but he was fun). You kinda get to know the hospital staff more and felt kinda bad when they got killed off. I know some complain that the hospital was small. Well it is Haddonfield, it was kinda hospital/clinic. The closes hospital where I live is very much like that in Halloween 2, small looking hospital with a small staff. Also another complaint was the hospital was dark. Well in the TV version we see that the power went out and we all know Michael Myers was behind it. I like the whole thing about Laurie Strode is Michael's sister. Yeah I know the flaw about wouldn't everybody know, why not move. Well nothing happen for 15 years and besides we want it set in Haddonfield and not Miami. The Strodes were friends of the Myers, makes sense I guess. Keeping the secret. Well it's the early 60's, I guess the community decided not to talk about it. The younger generation doesn't know about it. New people move to Haddonfield over the years and they don't know Laurie is Michael Myers sister. It's the 60's and late 70's so there is no internet to research it. Also at this point he wasn't consider a serial killer until after part 2. Plus other events occurred over the years which would put a kid killing his sister on the back burner. John F. Kennedy was killed like 2 weeks later, there was the Vietnam war, moon landing, and Watergate that went on before Michael Myers escape in 1978.

[Edited 11/4/18 13:56pm]