Looks alright. Michael is just being mysterious and there's no Busta Rhymes in sight.
Yeah i love how they are treating like a oncoming storm/a shark in the water slowly approaching.
The tracking shot with him just going door to door killing random people was very good and gave off that first film vibes of him just picking at random and no motivations in sight, that is truly terrifying. Glad they've nailed that aspect of the first film.
Oh that's awesome, at 1:57 you can see some kids wearing the masks from Halloween III
That scene where he drops the teeth is wild.
As long as they keep it simple like the first two, I'll be happy.
Danny McBride is a producer on this. Weird.
That's pretty normal when you consider he co-wrote the movie with the director.
So is this is a sequel to H2O or a soft reboot?
It's a sequel to the original one, ignoring everything else.
ye but its still the same plot as H20
Imo it feels a lot better this time around cause of the higher production value, the return of Nick Castle and John Carpenter, and Laurie Strode's character really pushing on the crazy old lady aspect, which I think is really cool. I feel like the "crazy old lady" character is delegated to campy background characters, so having a movie with a serious one as the protagonist is dope - even moreso that it's Halloween.
The premise of being a sequel decades later sure, but it's not going with the Myers being a brother of Laurie angle established in 2, nor Laurie having to fake her death and attaining a new identity. It's just disregarding anything after Halloween 1 and then treating this new film as the brand new direct sequel. Carpenter is also a bit more involved in this one compared to H20 and the other sequels previously.
I thought there was something oddly familiar about the "trick or treat!" at the start of the trailer. Turns out it was also used in an episode of the Venture Bros (1:51)
https://youtu.be/JcJVMP74Ua0?t=111
Fuckin' stock sound effects, man.
Glad to see that movie getting some love for once. I had its flaws, but it was honestly better than most of the other sequels.
hell yeah
I CLAPPED WHEN I SAW HALLOWEEN 2 REFERENCE!!!
Being serious, I am a little bit afraid that the references will kill the movie, but I'm still going to see it.
I disagree a bit re: crazy Laurie. All we know has happened in the past 40 years is that Michael has been imprisoned the whole time, Laurie has apparently had a daughter. But she's still Crazy and has a fortress-house with an armoury and is just waiting for Michael to break out and try to kill her. Why? Sure '78 was traumatic, but the boogeyman hasn't had any contact with her for 40 years, nor she with him (as far as we know, maybe she visits and shouts at him through a window?). Yet she's calling him 'Michael' too, yet they only met once. This film feels like it would make more sense as a sequel to 2, then you have that family relationship rather than just Laurie's paranoia that Michael is going to come and kill her 40 years on. It feels a bit tacked on, and I normally love the crazy old lady/man character who was right all along.
Fair. I have to wonder why they didn't just start from 2 instead, since I think her character motives would've clicked a bit more. Honestly, you guys got me on her preparing for one guy who she has no reason to assume is even still alive by the time this movie takes place I do hope they reference Tommy Doyle though! Don't get me wrong, Paul Rudd's portrayal was... fascinating. I just wanna see how they'll handle everything else.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
