I wore a mask in an Uber the other day. Guess I'm a ripoff too.
Even when people in comments are pointing out Black Christmas, and saying Carpenter even references BC as an influence in a Halloween audio commentary, this Owen guy is saying that doesn't mean Carpenter wasn't subconsciously ripping off TCM.
Besides, what is even his point? Every movie steals from/is influenced by/is an amalgamation of past movies.
I think he didn't like being called out for his ignorance so rather than stay quiet, he's now posturing.
All the more reason he can't be wrong.It's somehow a million times sadder too where he is a paid "professional" writer and not some random internet poster.
It's somehow a million times sadder too where he is a paid "professional" writer and not some random internet poster.
And the dude's getting stuff wrong about the original Halloween too, describing Michael as wearing an asylum jumpsuit. Should've just stepped back from this one.
Halloween has more Psycho and Black Christmas in its veins than TCM 74.
I'm sure Halloween 78 would still exist in a universe where Hooper never made TCM.
William Shatner!But then who could John Carpenter steal the idea of someone in a mask from...
Yeah... I hadn't thought too much about this in the moment, but now...
This isn't stupid? Marion was attacked by Myers while with Loomis. She probably formed some sort of connection with Loomis after Mikey was captured. If anything she said it because she knows how strongly Loomis would want him dead if he were there.
I'm filing in blanks, but the movie makes it clear that the survivors are all close, plus it's a small town.You're filling in blanks yourself on that one though.
Let me ask you, do you think anyone would have brought up the line if she said, "This is for that night!" rather than specifically saying it's for Loomis?
Part of why it's stood out to me now is that I suppose I truly would have liked to have learned more about Chambers' history with Loomis since that night. Makes me wonder if there was anything they might have cut there specifically about it.
I'm filing in blanks, but the movie makes it clear that the survivors are all close, plus it's a small town.
Learning more about Chambers' and Loomis' history would've been really nice.
Look-alike with prosthetics. It's insane.
Apparently it was a look alike actor.
wow. damn good look alike
If you guys think the reviews I'm here are harsh, watch out for Letterboxd, there's some savage ones in there.
Excessive negatively on Letterboxd ? You're kidding.If you guys think the reviews I'm here are harsh, watch out for Letterboxd, there's some savage ones in there.
Well you can watch…Dead Silence?Haven't felt such a profound sense of regret for spending $5 in a while. Coulda gotten a crunchwrap and acid reflux afterward and had a better time.
Ah, I need to watch The Hills Have Eyes movies.
Same.
Ah, I was out of school when the 2nd one came out.=O But yeah, I'm really curious about both of them and should try to get to them when possible and the trailers help with that!Same.
I remember both those trailers scared the hell out of middle school lol
The Hills Have Eyes (2006) Trailer
While traveling in a trailer to California through the New Mexico Desert, a family is misled to a shortcut going to nowhere by the owner of an isolated gas s...youtu.be
What a massive disappointment. I can't fully put into words why I disliked it so much, but I think it's mainly got to do with this movie fitting a trend of horror movies where the villain is untouchable, and I fucking hate horror movies that are like this.
To be clear, I'm down for Michael staying alive again and again, especially when we know it will happen because there's already another installment greenlit and titled, but to care for these movies, I have to feel like the heroes are capable of defeating the villain. If the villain appears to be an all-powerful being who is stronger than anyone else put together times infinity and can slash his way out of any situation, then I don't care. More than that, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Also, this movie completely wastes almost all the returning characters.
...although I'm sure it's intentional, it doesn't feel like a Halloween movie. It's like a film from a different franchise with a Halloween skin.
I really liked this movie even though it's kinda hard for me to explain exactly why :P
I really liked this movie even though it's kinda hard for me to explain exactly why :P
I think the next time I watch a film at this person's house, I'm going to insist that it be It Follows, since he's never seen it, and it's the only other film that I can think of that evokes a similar style of the original Halloween without trying to be a clone.
What a massive disappointment. I can't fully put into words why I disliked it so much, but I think it's mainly got to do with this movie fitting a trend of horror movies where the villain is untouchable, and I fucking hate horror movies that are like this.
To be clear, I'm down for Michael staying alive again and again, especially when we know it will happen because there's already another installment greenlit and titled, but to care for these movies, I have to feel like the heroes are capable of defeating the villain. If the villain appears to be an all-powerful being who is stronger than anyone else put together times infinity and can slash his way out of any situation, then I don't care. More than that, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Also, this movie completely wastes almost all the returning characters.
It's well-made, though needlessly disjointed, but to me it goes in the pile with the Rob Zombie movies. It's a clear step back from Halloween 2018, and although I'm sure it's intentional, it doesn't feel like a Halloween movie. It's like a film from a different franchise with a Halloween skin.
My entire dorm floor is gonna be setting up a projector in the lounge room and watching this on Peacock Friday night. Super pumped.
Folks getting really crazy with the hyperbole, even if you didn't like it this is not touching bottom of the barrel of Halloween films.
he is "a child's mind in the body of a man" and not the whole "pure evil" angle they were going with in the previous film.