H2: Halloween 2 (2009)

[cheluvshorror]

Originally Posted by The Bear Jew

So the Director's cut is 2 hours and 7 minutes and the theatrical was 1 hr and 41 minutes..... Wow 26 minutes longer!!!! I'm so pumped for January 12TH

Hey fellow Zombie lovers (UNITE). I bought the directors cut at Target last night, but I have not watched it!! Are u jealous!!

[bleeding slowly]

Matter of taste I presume. But I liked his saucy remakes. What was he suppose to do? Make some boring fictitious story that we couldn't buy into because we felt like we were watching Peter Pan from the start? (although some I know prefer this) The original scared a nation back in the late seventies. It was raw, had the feel of a real killer loose stalking and killing a small town. Since then, this sort of story/style has been done to death.

The Friday remake...? WTF was that? Didn't scare or invoke any emotion whatsoever. What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original but still entertain and keep us on edge with an audience that has become so desensitized of Myers who has been iconed to the hilt. No fancy story, he wasn't delivered to us by baby Jesus, or found floating on a lilly pad by the devil, but rather a real life breathing, abused psychopath.

Otherwise, it would have just been another sequel starring your latest pop tart star.. Again, matter of taste. I like mine bloody as hell...

[cheluvshorror]

Originally Posted by bleeding slowly

Matter of taste I presume. But I liked his saucy remakes. What was he suppose to do? Make some boring fictitious story that we couldn't buy into because we felt like we were watching Peter Pan from the start? (although some I know prefer this) The original scared a nation back in the late seventies. It was raw, had the feel of a real killer loose stalking and killing a small town. Since then, this sort of story/style has been done to death.

The Friday remake...? WTF was that? Didn't scare or invoke any emotion whatsoever. What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original but still entertain and keep us on edge with an audience that has become so desensitized of Myers who has been iconed to the hilt. No fancy story, he wasn't delivered to us by baby Jesus, or found floating on a lilly pad by the devil, but rather a real life breathing, abused psychopath.

Otherwise, it would have just been another sequel starring your latest pop tart star.. Again, matter of taste. I like mine bloody as hell...

I think some people just don't know who or where Zombie is coming from. I totally appreciated both installments! Very raw in the 1978 original and Zombies!

His Laurie is just more modern and not from a yuppie home life.

I like your comments!

[The Bear Jew]

Originally Posted by bleeding slowly

Matter of taste I presume. But I liked his saucy remakes. What was he suppose to do? Make some boring fictitious story that we couldn't buy into because we felt like we were watching Peter Pan from the start? (although some I know prefer this) The original scared a nation back in the late seventies. It was raw, had the feel of a real killer loose stalking and killing a small town. Since then, this sort of story/style has been done to death.

The Friday remake...? WTF was that? Didn't scare or invoke any emotion whatsoever. What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original but still entertain and keep us on edge with an audience that has become so desensitized of Myers who has been iconed to the hilt. No fancy story, he wasn't delivered to us by baby Jesus, or found floating on a lilly pad by the devil, but rather a real life breathing, abused psychopath.

Otherwise, it would have just been another sequel starring your latest pop tart star.. Again, matter of taste. I like mine bloody as hell...

Awesome first post Sir!!!!

Originally Posted by cheluvshorror

I think some people just don't know who or where Zombie is coming from. I totally appreciated both installments! Very raw in the 1978 original and Zombies!

His Laurie is just more modern and not from a yuppie home life.

I like your comments!

Rob Zombie likes his characters to have a "White Trashiness" about them,,, Posters on this board seem to hate that for some reason. I grew up in that kind of atmosphere so his characters don't bother me in the least.

I also agree that Rob Zombie's Laurie is better than John Carpenter's as well. Do you think Jamie Lee Curtis' version could've shot Michael in the face? Fuck no, she needed Loomis to save her...TWICE!!!!

[bebopman182]

Originally Posted by The Bear Jew

QFT!!!!

Rob Zombie said this version(Director's Cut) would be very different from the theatrical cut.

I wonder in what ways will it be different??? I think Rob said Laurie will be a darker character and Annie and Laure are at each others throat's....

Yeah..... damn that bitch, fucking with Annie who's only trying to help her.

Originally Posted by bleeding slowly

Matter of taste I presume. But I liked his saucy remakes. What was he suppose to do? Make some boring fictitious story that we couldn't buy into because we felt like we were watching Peter Pan from the start? (although some I know prefer this) The original scared a nation back in the late seventies. It was raw, had the feel of a real killer loose stalking and killing a small town. Since then, this sort of story/style has been done to death.

The Friday remake...? WTF was that? Didn't scare or invoke any emotion whatsoever. What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original but still entertain and keep us on edge with an audience that has become so desensitized of Myers who has been iconed to the hilt. No fancy story, he wasn't delivered to us by baby Jesus, or found floating on a lilly pad by the devil, but rather a real life breathing, abused psychopath.

Otherwise, it would have just been another sequel starring your latest pop tart star.. Again, matter of taste. I like mine bloody as hell...

I think almost all of your statement is correct but unfortunately I disagree with one part, "What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original." I don't think he did that at all. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed both of his movies but they had almost no ties to the original except for the killer, the names, and the location. He couldn't evoke the same kind of emotions or absolute terror that the first one brought. There are also lapses in his logic, Michael's been in that asylum for 15 years. How in the hell does he know where Laurie is or where's she's living? I mean don't get me wrong, I really really liked both of his movies, but they just don't hold a candle to the originals.

[acp35]

Originally Posted by cheluvshorror

I think some people just don't know who or where Zombie is coming from. I totally appreciated both installments! Very raw in the 1978 original and Zombies!

His Laurie is just more modern and not from a yuppie home life.

I like your comments!

Thats exactly the reason why his Laurie doesn't work though.

Shes pretty cardboard cut-out and its the normal life. The thoughts that such evil can invade even a seemingly normal home thats so scary.

There's nothing scary about evil invading tthe trailer park set. Because like it or not people already assume that if the life is fucked up bad stuff happen there.

RZ didnt get the basic premise of Halloween in the slightest. His films come across as one of the really bad Halloween/Friday rip-offs of the 80s.

[Willowfang]

Welcome to the boards, but I don't find any good logic here to make me change my opinion on RZ's Halloween(s).

Originally Posted by bleeding slowly

Matter of taste I presume. But I liked his saucy remakes. What was he suppose to do? Make some boring fictitious story that we couldn't buy into because we felt like we were watching Peter Pan from the start?

How is RZs any less ficticious? If you enjoy the movie, great, but the size of MM and the wounds he survives is far more fictious than anything in the originals.

The original scared a nation back in the late seventies. It was raw, had the feel of a real killer loose stalking and killing a small town. Since then, this sort of story/style has been done to death.

Success is still success even if it's been done a 1000 times. No matter how many times it's been done, we still want to see success. By any measure of reviews and money, RZ failed, by fans original comments, he failed. If you're looking for feel, why'd you even go see this if it's been done to death, and what sort of RL serial killer did RZ's MM feel like exactally.

The Friday remake...? WTF was that? Didn't scare or invoke any emotion whatsoever. What Rob was able to do in my opinion, like him or not, is bring back the essence of the original but still entertain and keep us on edge with an audience that has become so desensitized of Myers who has been iconed to the hilt. No fancy story, he wasn't delivered to us by baby Jesus, or found floating on a lilly pad by the devil, but rather a real life breathing, abused psychopath.

If he really brought back any essence of the original, why is it so hated? Not a mystery actually, we got hundereds of pages saying why it's so bad. The "no fancy story.." part on makes no sense, wasn't in the original or any knock-off, nor does MM/hulk resemble any know slash, only the bear from Prophecy at beast.

Otherwise, it would have just been another sequel starring your latest pop tart star.. Again, matter of taste. I like mine bloody as hell...

Not sure how pop tart star makes it here nor there, but RZ had tons of horror movie regulars and they didn't save him. Bloody is fine, a graphic kill is always nice.

Originally Posted by The Bear Jew

Awesome first post Sir!!!!

While it is his 1st post, it's hardly anything new, it's been said before and broken down.

Rob Zombie likes his characters to have a "White Trashiness" about them,,, Posters on this board seem to hate that for some reason. I grew up in that kind of atmosphere so his characters don't bother me in the least.

There is no "...seem to hate that for some reason..." The movie has be deconstructed extensively and reasons given why it's so horrible as a remake of Halloween, finical failure, crictical failure, missing the point, bad origin, illogical behavior, bad acting. There's more that a few threads with 1000s of posts on how bad RZ remade Halloween.

I also agree that Rob Zombie's Laurie is better than John Carpenter's as well. Do you think Jamie Lee Curtis' version could've shot Michael in the face? Fuck no, she needed Loomis to save her...TWICE!!!!

If you identify more with the white trash Laurie than JLC's Laurie, well, meh, that's just taste I think. I honestly don't think that's insult material. But which is the tougher version I don't think is a valid comparison. In 79, a tough Laurie would be out of place, you could have made her tough, it would make it a much different film. The modern Laurie could have been as meek as JLC's but it's not a direction even JC would have taken prolly, I don't think JC would have made her all "Ripley" tho not sure even RZ did that. a meek as the original would not be JC's final Laurie I'm sure.

[cheluvshorror]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

Welcome to the boards, but I don't find any good logic here to make me change my opinion on RZ's Halloween(s).



How is RZs any less ficticious? If you enjoy the movie, great, but the size of MM and the wounds he survives is far more fictious than anything in the originals.



Success is still success even if it's been done a 1000 times. No matter how many times it's been done, we still want to see success. By any measure of reviews and money, RZ failed, by fans original comments, he failed. If you're looking for feel, why'd you even go see this if it's been done to death, and what sort of RL serial killer did RZ's MM feel like exactally.



If he really brought back any essence of the original, why is it so hated? Not a mystery actually, we got hundereds of pages saying why it's so bad. The "no fancy story.." part on makes no sense, wasn't in the original or any knock-off, nor does MM/hulk resemble any know slash, only the bear from Prophecy at beast.



Not sure how pop tart star makes it here nor there, but RZ had tons of horror movie regulars and they didn't save him. Bloody is fine, a graphic kill is always nice.



While it is his 1st post, it's hardly anything new, it's been said before and broken down.



There is no "...seem to hate that for some reason..." The movie has be deconstructed extensively and reasons given why it's so horrible as a remake of Halloween, finical failure, crictical failure, missing the point, bad origin, illogical behavior, bad acting. There's more that a few threads with 1000s of posts on how bad RZ remade Halloween.



If you identify more with the white trash Laurie than JLC's Laurie, well, meh, that's just taste I think. I honestly don't think that's insult material. But which is the tougher version I don't think is a valid comparison. In 79, a tough Laurie would be out of place, you could have made her tough, it would make it a much different film. The modern Laurie could have been as meek as JLC's but it's not a direction even JC would have taken prolly, I don't think JC would have made her all "Ripley" tho not sure even RZ did that. a meek as the original would not be JC's final Laurie I'm sure.

I think that Zombie was trying to appeal to a wide audience here. Because white or not there is "trashiness" throughout all cultures. However, since the original film was a caucasian family, he stayed with that.

An empowered Laurie from 1978 was not the way it was not the "norm" for women. However she outwitted MM for how many years?!! It was a sad day when he finally did kill her, but make no mistake as Laurie (JLC) got older and wiser she got tougher. She was also just a teen with a "wholesome" upbringing. Zombie's Laurie had a totally different background.

I wonder if current film courses discuss this movie? If I was a teacher this would make a great discussion like it is here!!

[Willowfang]

Originally Posted by cheluvshorror

I think that Zombie was trying to appeal to a wide audience here. Because white or not there is "trashiness" throughout all cultures. However, since the original film was a caucasian family, he stayed with that.

An empowered Laurie from 1978 was not the way it was not the "norm" for women. However she outwitted MM for how many years?!! It was a sad day when he finally did kill her, but make no mistake as Laurie (JLC) got older and wiser she got tougher. She was also just a teen with a "wholesome" upbringing. Zombie's Laurie had a totally different background.

I wonder if current film courses discuss this movie? If I was a teacher this would make a great discussion like it is here!!

It prolly would, I could do without the trashy-ness, or make it two parallel topics, wholesomeness/non-wholesome & Change in self-reliance from beginning to end.

The self reliance aspect was kinda reversed wasn't it? JLC basically got stronger physically and mentally, while STC started stronger, but got weaker? hmm.

[Talunex]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

There is no "...seem to hate that for some reason..." The movie has be deconstructed extensively and reasons given why it's so horrible as a remake of Halloween, finical failure, crictical failure, missing the point, bad origin, illogical behavior, bad acting. There's more that a few threads with 1000s of posts on how bad RZ remade Halloween.

My personal opinion here is that anyone who remade Halloween was going to get a new one torn by Halloween fans. It was inevitable. The difference was that Rob had the balls to have a crack at it where as everyone else has just churned out a piss poor, luke warm sequel.

When you make a slasher film, critical failure, missing the point, bad origin, illogical behavior, and bad acting are all the hallmarks of the genre! Lampooning the shit out of it by making ridiculously over the top characters is all part of the magic. It's something that the haters seem to avoid, in their critique of Rob. Maybe he was intentionally fucking with you for personal amusement? I'm not expecting anything else except the Rob Zombie version of a film. If I wanted him to draw me a picture of Spongebob Squarepants I'd be kinda upset if I wasn't presented with some grotesque caricature. But I dunno maybe I'm just looking at it differently. I'm not offended by franchise meddlars as you can't polish a turd no matter how hard you try.

That's all this has been. 1978 a masterpiece was created. From then on it's been poorly imitated. Then someone came along and tore it up and did it differently. It was nothing more than an exercise in pissing on art. The rest is how you liked the result. You either did, or you didn't. That's what makes personal taste so wonderful.

Originally Posted by Willowfang

If you identify more with the white trash Laurie than JLC's Laurie, well, meh, that's just taste I think. I honestly don't think that's insult material. But which is the tougher version I don't think is a valid comparison. In 79, a tough Laurie would be out of place, you could have made her tough, it would make it a much different film. The modern Laurie could have been as meek as JLC's but it's not a direction even JC would have taken prolly, I don't think JC would have made her all "Ripley" tho not sure even RZ did that. a meek as the original would not be JC's final Laurie I'm sure.

I saw two stereotyped teenagers of their respective time periods. I accept that the latter time period was grossly exaggerated and was aimed to both entertain and piss off people that contribute to threads like this.

I saw H2 as a giant fuck you to series. Instead of contributing the Halloyawn franchise by making a piss poor sequel he gave us the bird by taking JC's masterpiece. Burning it. Then pissing on the ashes.

I'm cool with that.