tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post607164621185348759..comments2023-11-05T02:01:53.847-06:00Comments on Antagony & Ecstasy: SUMMER OF BLOOD: IN WHICH JOHN HOWARD CARPENTER LOSES HIS FREAKING MINDTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09491952893581644049noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-82108435323859723052015-01-30T08:00:06.571-06:002015-01-30T08:00:06.571-06:00A paradoxical film for me: I keep convincing mysel...A paradoxical film for me: I keep convincing myself I enjoy it and want to watch it every so often (as with Halloween III, as a matter of fact), but every time I do, I keep getting distracted by its many, many problems, as a sequel to a great film and as a film unto itself.<br /><br />So much so that there's nothing in this review that I can disagree with (except for the angry jabs at Carpenter throughout, but I only say that because I'm constantly on the bandwagon for him, and seeing him mocked just stings me). I think my affection for Halloween II has to do with growing up with it as a child; I saw the heavily-compromised TV version at the age of 4, and it was both the first horror and R-rated film in my own viewing canon (as well as the first in a trend of watching the sequels before the original, which eventually included the likes of Jaws 2, 3, and 4, Terminator 2, and the other Halloween movies up to 5. None of this was intentional.). That, and it's just so dosh-garn pretty compared to 99% of all other slasher movies - no matter how nonsensical the scenes of an empty hospital are, I can't help but be a little intrigued when I see Michael Myers walking (slowly, very slowly) down those hallways, or by the red/green lighting throughout.<br /><br />But yeah, it cheapens the mystery of 'The Shape' so much that it's just not effective. I think I was willing to forgive this as a kid (and, when I actually got around to watching the first, it had the opposite effect for me as it had for you, making me retroactively appreciate Carpenter's intentions with the original more), but it's hard to grapple with except as a warped nostalgia-fest.WBTNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10723456891272273669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-64214821151828558932012-12-18T21:39:25.262-06:002012-12-18T21:39:25.262-06:00In addition to your comment about the changed expr...In addition to your comment about the changed expression, why, after shooting Michael, would Loomis leave Laurie all alone in the house till cops/paramedics arrive?<br /><br />He assumed Michael just takes off. But hell, let's say Michael just hid in some bushes in the backyard, and then Loomis jets off. Bam - easy access to a helpless Laurie and he finishes the job. Movie over. <br /><br />With that said - and while I agree that pretty much all or most of your criticisms are valid - I still enjoy this film a great deal. Perhaps part of it is nostalgia, but even though Halloween 2 is a barebones slasher film, it still has a touch more class than the rest of the slasher genre. The continuity between the first and second film is heads and shoulders above the continuity of the Friday the 13th series, even in her comatose state Jamie Lee Curtis is still good, Dean Cundey's cinematography is excellent, and Donald Pleasance steals the show. Seriously, Dr. Loomis carries this film. Villain612https://www.blogger.com/profile/14182867823309914822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-14640900079007317362011-10-06T15:19:30.435-05:002011-10-06T15:19:30.435-05:00There’s another continuity gaffe at the beginning ...There’s another continuity gaffe at the beginning of the film that’s more than just a simple goof as the 6 vs 7 gunshots was; it’s actually damaging to the film.<br /><br />Loomis, having just blasted Michael off the balcony of the Doyle house, tears as downstairs to find a matted, blood-stained patch of grass where Michael had just landed. The look on Loomis’ face upon seeing this is one of shock, but this doesn’t gel with the ending of <i>Halloween</i>. For one, the preceding film ended with Loomis peering over the balcony and discovering that Michael had indeed survived the gunshots and disappeared. Why would Loomis now act surprised at this once he gets downstairs?<br /><br />Even more importantly, though, is that this reaction is not nearly as chilling as Loomis’ matter of fact, “I saw this coming” reaction at the end of <i>Halloween</i>. In fact, it was at Pleasence’s recommendation (according to the making of documentary) that Carpenter shoot two separate reaction shots: a shocked, “oh my God” reaction and a “I knew this would happen” reaction, and decide later which one to use in the final cut. Carpenter made the wise choice by going with the second reaction, because it was this that reinforced the notion that Michael was an unstoppable force, pure evil that only possessed the barest of human qualities. Michael shaking off his ballistic injuries and walking away only confirmed what Loomis had known all along, so of course he wouldn't be surprised. Changing his reaction at the beginning of this film dilutes Michael’s menace considerably.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865927808936178525noreply@blogger.com