Halloween (1978)

[Chedney Honks]

Carpenter full stop is well overrated. That said, this is brilliant and any young cunt who watches streams like they're anything but somatic dogshit is belm tier.

[druss]

The original intention, as reported elsewhere, was that Carpenter and company wanted Hallowe'en to become an ongoing horror franchise linked by name only and the events of each film happening on or around Samhain - effectively an anthology series rather than an ongoing narrative. Unfortunately for that idea, Michael Myers proved so iconic that the second film was a direct sequel to the first (literally taking up where the first one leaves off). Now, maybe a Myers-based sequel would have been good, but in the original conception it really shouldn't have been second in the series. Hallowe'en III made a brave try to switch direction towards that anthology series idea, but the routine had already been set and the fanboys just wanted more stalk 'n' slash antics with Michael. A pity.

And yeah, III is one of my favourites of the series.

I think about this a lot. Halloween III was an interesting little film with a great ending and I'm often annoyed by the fact that we get a dozen or so copy and paste slasher sequels in place of the potential anthology idea.

Carpenter full stop is well overrated.

He's just a cult director, definitely not for everyone but he has a distinct style.

[Chedney Honks]

Yes, and even within that rather forgiving remit, I think he's done little that stands up to the best genre cinema.

[Famous Mortimer]

I think he's done little that stands up to the best genre cinema.

Clearly, horses for courses, as some of you seem to think that Halloween 3 is anything other than a terrible idea, done badly; but They Live, The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Dark Star, The Fog, Big Trouble In Little China, and In The Mouth Of Madness are all very good, I think. They stand up with the best of their respective genres and show what a range he had.

[druss]

Yes, and even within that rather forgiving remit, I think he's done little that stands up to the best genre cinema.

Having a distinct style means that if you don't like that style, his films probably aren't for you.

I can understand why his films aren't to everyone's taste, although I'm not sure I can quite comprehend anyone not rating Halloween and The Thing.

[bgmnts]

I simply cannot stand back and watch Escape From New York and They Live get attacked like this.

[ImmaculateClump]

The Thing is fab!

[zomgmouse]

watched III the other night - I thought it was good, I liked the stand-alone aspect of it and the weird small town and general story and vibe. Towards the end though it kind of lost all sense of urgency and all in all felt a little like a glorified Creepshow segment.

[Rev+]

The original intention, as reported elsewhere, was that Carpenter and company wanted Hallowe'en to become an ongoing horror franchise linked by name only and the events of each film happening on or around Samhain - effectively an anthology series rather than an ongoing narrative.

It was, yes, and was prompted by Carpenter not even wanting to do Halloween 2 and trying to come up with a way they could turn it into a series without him having to get out of bed.  What I was referring to was Nigel Kneale's original script for Halloween 3, which has always been a bit shrouded in mystery.  The studio fucked about with it enough that he was able to get his name taken off of it, but you can sort of see the bones poking through at times.  There are little bits that have the same vibe as Quatermass or the Stone Tape, but then long bits that are more like a Sunday evening cop show of the era.  It still works as a whole, it'd just be interesting to see what the original idea was, and why it differed so much from the writer's intentions.

On the other bollocks:  I don't think Carpenter has a particularly distinctive style, other than the music.  He had a flair for horror and it most associated with it, but he's done other stuff and done it well.  The Thing and They Live are both great, no idea why they're being criticised, and Big Trouble in Little China is loads of fun.  He is one of those directors who you'd expect to have a lot more good films than bad in their filmography when you look it up, mind, and he comes up a bit short there.

He's knocked the filmmaking on the head and is happy to just roam from town to town playing his organ now of course.  More power to him.

[Chedney Honks]

Having a distinct style means that if you don't like that style, his films probably aren't for you.

I can understand why his films aren't to everyone's taste, although I'm not sure I can quite comprehend anyone not rating Halloween and The Thing.

They're the two I rate.

Whatever his style may be, it doesn't put me off his best work at all.

[phantom_power]

On the other bollocks:  I don't think Carpenter has a particularly distinctive style, other than the music.

I don't know if you would call it a style but his 70s/80s work does have commonality. They are usually pretty streamlined, quite stark and gritty. The camerawork is unshowy but interesting. The heroes are often stoic and ambiguous. The music of course. They generally look really good, belying their low budget.

I would put his 07s/80s work up to They Live (not counting TV movies) on a par with any other directors run of 9 or 10 films. Even relatively lowkey films like The Fog have something interesting about them

[petercussing]

I don't know if you would call it a style but his 70s/80s work does have commonality. They are usually pretty streamlined, quite stark and gritty. The camerawork is unshowy but interesting. The heroes are often stoic and ambiguous. The music of course. They generally look really good, belying their low budget.

I would put his 07s/80s work up to They Live (not counting TV movies) on a par with any other directors run of 9 or 10 films. Even relatively lowkey films like The Fog have something interesting about them

I agree with this man, he does have a style, as pointed out here, but it's kinda understated, sort of like watching films in chunks.

I concur that he's bossman from, as PP says from 1907-1980s, and even In The Gob of Madness is really good and i'll fight anyone who says, "no it isn't, and i'm going to take your life now, and i'm right here next to you in the same room", and I'd firmly disagree with all others. It's good.

Lots of folks say there's something missing from his films that doesn't quite deliver, and i'd agree that some don't, but screw those guys, seriously, including me just then agreeing with myself slightly. They are usually doing something interesting, which for me trumps almost anything with the type of films i like.

[phantom_power]

In the Mouth of Madness is a complete mess but it is very ambitious and captures that cosmic dread of Lovecraft better than almost any other film I can think of. It has what a lot of his films have that is sort of undefinable; a specific and encompassing atmosphere. A lot of that is the music of course but it also achieved by pacing, shot composition and various other things.

[petercussing]

Perfect summary again! That's why i love it cos it's so Lovecraftian. It's a great end of world film too, the way it shows the slow then rapid break down of things is great.

[Gregory Torso]

Yeah I really like In The Mouth Of Madness, and it pairs well with his Masters of Horror episode, "Cigarette Burns".

[phantom_power]

It is part of a loose apocalypse trilogy with The Thing and Prince of Darkness I think

[oy vey]

Season of the Witch is decent. Replacing Myers with Kraftwerk was ambitious. Their bog trotting manager is a cunt to boot. Fun fact: The Halloween franchise is mostly bollocks.

[druss]

It is part of a loose apocalypse trilogy with The Thing and Prince of Darkness I think

It's definitely a step up from Prince of Darkness but not quite at the excellence (or perfection) of The Thing.

I think I've only seen 7 John Carpenter films and I've liked them all, should probably work my way through them all really.

Actually I've seen 7 and a half, gave up with Escape from LA halfway through because it was shit.

[phantom_power]

Pretty much anything from the 70s and 80s is worth a watch, and I would say Memoirs of an Invisible Man, In the Mouth of Madness and Vampires are worth watching even if they aren't completely successful. As the RLM review of his films says, it is fun to watch Vampires to see the gap between how cool the film thinks James Woods is compared to how cool he actually is

[thecuriousorange]

You know how those two follow ups were simply called Halloween? Well the first trailer for Scream 5 has been posted and it's called

Spoiler alert

Scream

[close]

.

[phantom_power]

On the back of this thread and other similar ones recently I finally watched Halloween III and enjoyed it. It is by no means the best Halloween film, or even the best film called Season of the Witch, but it is comfortably second best. Despite Carpenter having no creative involvement beyond the score (which is odd in itself), it manages to retain some of his atmosphere and style and is genuinely creepy in places. In the end it is all a bit rote but certainly not the disaster it has been painted as

His scoring the film throws up an question actually. Has any other director been involved in a sequel to one of their films beyond being either a writer, director or producer?

[Magnum Valentino]

His scoring the film throws up an question actually. Has any other director been involved in a sequel to one of their films beyond being either a writer, director or producer?

Edit: I was wrong. I'll get one yet, though!

[Custard]

watched III the other night - I thought it was good, I liked the stand-alone aspect of it and the weird small town and general story and vibe. Towards the end though it kind of lost all sense of urgency and all in all felt a little like a glorified Creepshow segment.

To me it feels a bit like a high(er) budget episode of 80s Tales From The Darkside, in a good way. It's a fun little film

[phantom_power]

Edit: I was wrong. I'll get one yet, though!

It turns  out Carpenter did a pass on Nigel Kneale's script before the director did another re-write but it was uncredited so I was wrong as well

[Rev+]

Will probably stick 'Halloween Kills' on in a bit.  Say what you like about the original run of sequels, none of them had a title quite as shit as that.

[oy vey]

Will probably stick 'Halloween Kills' on in a bit.  Say what you like about the original run of sequels, none of them had a title quite as shit as that.

H2O could be the worst of all movies from all time, but Kills is fucking lazy.

[Chedney Honks]

Wow Halloween 2 is no good.

[Catalogue Trousers]

The one good thing about it is that it lets Loomis be a badass hero. But Laurie spends most of the film drugged into a coma. Not cool.

[oy vey]

Being drugged up in a shit wig doesn't work outside of glam rock.

[Glebe]

Have to admit I find the first Halloween a little slow in patches. I think John Carpenter himself has suggested as much.