Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It’s only right..
eb8bfc97dd4293183fa453baccd8f0e1.jpg

Apparently Michael Myers just can’t die after 40 years since the OG film in 1978, 😁. (As the next film is expected for fall 2021.)

 
Last edited:
A Dark Song(2016)
An Irish occult horror movie. More indie than Hollywood, in a good way. (The occult aspects in the movie, according to some reviews, were well portrayed.)

adarksongUSposterbigOccult59901.jpg

Nice. I’ll check this one out. (Good to see you back in this thread by the way.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeye_a
The Strangers [2008]
39B66A93-CDE5-4C61-AB7E-75AB25718F6F.jpeg


Last Halloween Film for 2020:

I’m always in search for a horror film that doesn’t use cheap tricks and tactics to try and scare you, but legitimate scenarios that could happen to anyone. Like for example: ‘Someone appearing in the background that you weren’t expecting to see (Reference movie poster above), or just a shadow outside a window of someone staring at you in your house, and/or the notion that you believe that someone else is in the house with you being alone, ect. [<—] Those are key elements that make something scary for me. And that’s what this film does so well. Such a simple plot of a couple who is being terrorized in a cabin in the remote countryside with no help or assistance.

I had the privilege of watching this film in theaters when it launched in 2008, I remember it being packed full of people and how scared everybody was when they were watching it. And to say the least, if I’m far more immersed into a solid film with a quality surround-sound with a big screen. Turn the lights down and the sound up, and I think you might agree with me once you watch this.
 
Last edited:
I’ve only watched the original and that’s how it will stay lol. Sounds like they are milking that franchise.

They are. There’s been quite a few different spinoffs. The only ones worth noting that I really like are the ‘Rob Zombie’ re-boots. But nothing will top John Carpenter’s original 1978 film, especially with how it was truly intended to be with Michael just being a stalker and a cold blooded killer with a knife.
 
To your list I add Sir Lawrence Olivier.

And Toshiro Mifune representing East Asia since your list is overwhelmingly American-British-centric.

Excellent additions, I'm a big fan of Kurasawa who of course collaborated with Mifune on multiple films, but the latter was a huge star in his own right. FYI, the 250th EP of The Big Picture podcast is a terrific discussion and review of his work:

 
They are. There’s been quite a few different spinoffs.


Well, they're sequels, except for the remake/remake-sequel, spinoff sounds like they made "The Amazing Adventures of the Haddonfield Babysitters"

:p

I’ve only watched the original and that’s how it will stay lol. Sounds like they are milking that franchise.


Halloween and all the sequels are a bit tricky. So of course there's the original 1978 movie (that you saw), it has a sequel, Halloween II, it takes place on the same night.

Then as part of a compromise Carpenter allowed Season of the Witch to be called Halloween III, it has nothing to do with Michael Myers, it's umm, about a company using pieces of Stonehenge to kill children through Halloween masks ... there's also robots. The original Carpenter idea for Halloween was a one off, and every year, do another "Halloween movie", but with a totally different plot (kind of like multi-movie anthology series).

Anyway, so then we got Halloween 4, 5, 6 (6 wasn't technically numbered in the title), these are sequels to Halloween I and II, they involve Laurie Strode's child (she gets killed out-of-film in a car accident, so no JLC for a while ... but plenty more Dr. Loomis :D) So these introduce some crazy ideas that are never really explored, kind of some backstory-ish lore, it's all pretty fun and silly, but these aren't great movies.

That, I guess you could call it, a timeline, ends.

OK, so then they made the really fun Halloween H20 (i.e., 20 years later), it's a direct sequel to Halloween II. Laurie Strode / JLC is back, really fun movie, was kind of a nice clean resolution - but of course, $$$, so they make a sequel, Halloween Resurrection, and it's craptacular (it features Busta Rhymes and a social media angle ... yikes)

Once again, that timeline fizzles out.

Then the industry started doing these higher budget horror films again, the whole "elevated horror" with more depth, etc., so once again, let's generate some more cash flow with this property, but really invest in making a decent movie. So 40 years later, both in movie and real world time, they released Halloween (aka Halloween 2018). This is a direct sequel to Halloween 1978. It retcons 2 (yeah, even the immediate original direct sequel), 4, 5, 6 (sort of just ignores Alt Timeline 2, H20 and H:R).

It's very good.

The trailer above, Halloween Kills is the sequel to Halloween (2018), which will be followed by Halloween Ends (2022). All three of the 2018+ direct sequels to the original are directed by David Gordon Green, and co-written with Danny McBride (who you may know, they've collaborated on several comedy shows/films).

Hahaha, still with me?

So you, having seen Halloween 1978, could skip everything else and watch the superlative Halloween 2018, and you'd be caught up (so to speak). That's sort of the canonical "timeline". You could also watch Halloween II (1981) and then H20 and that had a nice tidy ending (please do not watch Resurrection).

You might also want to check out the wild ride that is Halloween III: Season of the Witch since it's a standalone movie (and JLC is "present", no spoilers).


re: Rob Zombie remakes

So Halloween (2007), is a remake of the original 1978 Carpenter film (well, a very loose remake, it's the same story setup, introduces MM as a kid, takes him through to becoming "The Shape"). Then RZ made a second movie, Halloween II (2009) which is NOT a remake of H: II (1981), it's a direct sequel to his own Halloween movie (since it went off and sort of did its own thing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Real-Deal82
This weekend so far movie wise I watched North By Northwest, Vertigo, Dune and today I am going to find one of my favorite Connery movies to watch. As a recently turned 40 year old guy I love the classics 😎
 
The appearance of being one shot is intriguing and a novelty. Can it make for a better story? I’m thinking it has its uses while limiting other possibilities in story telling.

The "one-shot" technique has definite uses. I think in 1917 the idea was to give some sense of the hectic, constant strain of living in a combat zone. But it obviously begins to fall apart when telling a story that is supposed to take place over 24 hours or so. At the very beginning of the movie you see actors relaxing in a peaceful quiet meadow. They hop on a truck, chat for a couple of minutes, and then hop out in the middle of a war zone with shells bursting overhead. Did that help the story? Or was it just a gimmick?

One of the best examples of the one-shot technique was the shot at the beginning of Goodfellas, as Ray Liotta walks into the Copacabana, walking through the kitchen, greeting and glad-handing people along the way. That worked, because it portrayed - in a very realistic manner - the life of a mobbed-guy, and the way his contacts worked at literally every level of society. The director didn't ask the audience to suspend belief to get there.

The camera techniques you mention in Matrix Reloaded I think fall into the latter category. They work there because they tell the story better. And you didn't get the feeling that the audience was being asked to play along with a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn
The appearance of being one shot is intriguing and a novelty. Can it make for a better story? I’m thinking it has its uses while limiting other possibilities in story telling. I have been very impressed with the one shot as a single scene in War of the Worlds (2005), the van escape scene where the camera flies around and in and out of a van where Tom Cruise is hustling his kids out of Newark while having a conversation with them.

The other technique which probably does not qualifiy as a one shot, but is still impressive, in Matrix Reloaded (2004) where a camera flys around a highway full of vehicles, between their tires, centered on a car chase. It makes you question what part of the scene is practical vs CGI effects, although many of the effects are obviously CGI, not that they are bad effects, but impossible to be practical effects.

The "one-shot" technique has definite uses. I think in 1917 the idea was to give some sense of the hectic, constant strain of living in a combat zone. But it obviously begins to fall apart when telling a story that is supposed to take place over 24 hours or so. At the very beginning of the movie you see actors relaxing in a peaceful quiet meadow. They hop on a truck, chat for a couple of minutes, and then hop out in the middle of a war zone with shells bursting overhead. Did that help the story? Or was it just a gimmick?

One of the best examples of the one-shot technique was the shot at the beginning of Goodfellas, as Ray Liotta walks into the Copacabana, walking through the kitchen, greeting and glad-handing people along the way. That worked, because it portrayed - in a very realistic manner - the life of a mobbed-guy, and the way his contacts worked at literally every level of society. The director didn't ask the audience to suspend belief to get there.

The camera techniques you mention in Matrix Reloaded I think fall into the latter category. They work there because they tell the story better. And you didn't get the feeling that the audience was being asked to play along with a game.
On the topic of one-shot sequences, I recall there being a rather intense battle one in the middle of Children of Men that kind of stuck in my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn
Unhinged [2020]
333ECC07-1B29-4695-BA76-E22CA2D6B32E.jpeg


Russell Crowe‘s career really shocks me how much he has slumped, and this movie is even even more indicative of that. The movie itself works kinda, it’s about a man who experiences a ‘road rage‘ incident and takes revenge on a female who basically pissed him off, where he relentlessly doesn’t stop making her life a nightmare. There’s a few good scenes in this movie, but just falls flat nainly

Anyways, I streamed this movie and that’s about it all that it’s good for. Just on a quick sidenote—when I was watching the movie, I was really shocked to see how much weight Russell Crowe has racked on, this was a guy that was really in shape at one point and it’s staggering how much I didn’t even recognize him given his weight increase. He doesn’t look healthy at all in this movie.

But still, as much as Russell Crowe isn’t liked outside the movie industry, I still think he has some solid films and I wouldn’t judge him just based on this movie alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn and Queen6
The Command/Kursk(2018)
A distinctly European production about the true story of the Kursk submarine disaster in 2000. I'm surprised that I hadn't heard about(or can't recall) this story. Well produced and well acted; Colin Firth and Max von Sydow(in his final appearance) have supporting roles. The tone/mood of movie reminded me of Das Boot(1981) (my favorite submarine movie) and Chernobyl(2019 TV Series).
Kursk_poster.jpg
 
Vertigo (1958) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. A great classic of mystery, deception, and suspense.

The Mist (2007) directed by Frank Darabont. Lovecrafian movies are hard to make due to their necessary pulp foolishness, but this movie is able to gets it. The ending is much better than the book's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn
The Mist (2007) directed by Frank Darabont. Lovecrafian movies are hard to make due to their necessary pulp foolishness, but this movie is able to gets it. The ending is much better than the book's.

Just rewatched this last night (it was technically in our horror/Halloween queue, but that spilled over into November :D)

It's pretty fantastic, a favorite of ours, apparently Darabont told the studio, "Here's the script, I'll shoot this, but only under the condition the ending is not changed in any way ...". Word is that King said something to the effect of, "That's the ending I wish I had written".

There's a ton of fun easter eggs in this movie too, for horror/King/Darabont fans (names, props, actors from various King/Darabont productions, even a neat, *ahem*, __thing__ about some artwork shown :D)

The deluxe BD package has the movie (with all the expected extras and whatnot), but also, the entire movie remastered in B&W and it's amazing - it's both more old school nosologic (feeling like a 1950/60s throwback) while also being darker, having more of a sense of pending doom, and the F/X are more convincing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn and Queen6
Just rewatched this last night (it was technically in our horror/Halloween queue, but that spilled over into November :D)

It's pretty fantastic, a favorite of ours, apparently Darabont told the studio, "Here's the script, I'll shoot this, but only under the condition the ending is not changed in any way ...". Word is that King said something to the effect of, "That's the ending I wish I had written".

There's a ton of fun easter eggs in this movie too, for horror/King/Darabont fans (names, props, actors from various King/Darabont productions, even a neat, *ahem*, __thing__ about some artwork shown :D)

The deluxe BD package has the movie (with all the expected extras and whatnot), but also, the entire movie remastered in B&W and it's amazing - it's both more old school nosologic (feeling like a 1950/60s throwback) while also being darker, having more of a sense of pending doom, and the F/X are more convincing.

ah! The Mist in B&W must be a true gem! I have to watch it. It's also a favorite of ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.