So I hate one movie movie everyone likes, that doesnt mean I hate the classics and I love stephen king. halloween is the only carpenter film I hate. so I like M. Night Shyamalan but we liked "6th Sense" and "Sighns" didnt we? I just went and saw "Devil" in theaters M. Night came up with the idea and "Devil" was a good movie. Wes Craven? Why would I hate him hes my favorite director. I loved "Swamp Thing" and "The People Under The Stairs". I only hate one movie and everyone hates me.

Who said they hate you?

Shyamalan hasn't made or been involved in a good movie since Unbreakable, by the way.

Go see "Devil" you'll change your mind.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvlqM7IiIeY

I won't be doing that. I'm sorry but I'm not going to take watching advice from someone who hated Halloween and liked The Village. That and I knew who the Devil was after watching the first trailer.

Who was it then?

Okay. No question about it now. You are trolling. Ignore function will be engaged shortly.

SPOILERS TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT.





The old lady who acted innocent and didn't do a damn thing durin gany of the previews.

No, "we" didn't.

just ignore this thread I regret I ever posted this.

How many threads do you want us to ignore? It might be a good time to step back, take a breath, and THINK before you create a thread. I don't hate you-just some friendly advice.;)

To be totally honest, I found it somewhat dull on my first viewing too...but I was probably around 12-13, just a budding horror fan and didn't want anything but blood, guts, tits and scares. When thats all you're looking for in a movie, something as smart, tense and subtle as Halloween can seem "boring" for sure.

I revisited it a few years later, once I was able to appreciate the finer parts of film making, and obviously I started to see it for the masterpiece that it is. Give it a couple years Zack...hopefully you'll get it eventually.

Me say, NOT boring! Have MANY thrills. Film classic. Influenced modern horror. Many foolish ones criticize, but HALLOWEEN whumps all.

HALLOWEEN are happy :confused::confused::confused:

I agree....and banana are happy

THIS THREAD IS POO-NUTS

I'm actually with you. Loved this movie when I was younger. Watched it again recently and found it was quite boring to me. It doesn't take away for what it did for the genre at all. But I feel it doesn't hold up well. I did much prefer the sequel. I'm probably also in the minority of liking the remakes too.

It's the horror film that got me into horror films. I remember my older sister telling me about it once and I ended up having a nightmare about Michael Myers. I can't remember what I pictured him to look like, but it wasn't like the real thing! Then lo and behold, one week later it was on television. I put it on and I was absolutely enthralled the entire way through. I think I was around...9? Either way, I can endlessly re-watch it because whilst a lot of time is focussed more on normal life than the killings, I don't mind that, mainly because even through those scenes there's a certain unease, something which isn't quite right. This omnipresent figure who keep being spotted then disappearing.

I am a big fan of slow paced cinema (like anime for example) so I don't think Halloween is a boring movie. It's not one of my favorites and it doesn't scare me but it's definitely not boring.

not boring

Halloween was the movie that made me fall in love with horror. I was probably 10 when I first saw it and it scared the CRAP out of me. I've showed it to a lot of people over the years and some of them thought it was boring...I guess, to them, a movie needs to have expensive special effects and cheap scares to be "scary". I'll always love Halloween!

First off all body count is not a measure of how good or bad a movie is, you can have a film with no deaths which is scary, while a movie where someone just run around moving people down left and right can get boring. After the first few horrible deaths your mind sort of expect it and it looses it's shock effect. I would say that a few well done kills in a horror movie is worth a hundred empty characters just moved down. If all you are after is body count then go see a war movie, between machine guns and bombs and what have you those movies usually rack up a much, much higher body count than twenty regular slasher movies combined.

Now off course if what you are after is gore then Halloween is not going to give you that, it is not a very gory film, it is all about the suspense, the horror comes as much from not knowing where Michael Myers is as it from what he actually do. If he just ran around killing dozens of people then that suspense would be lost, the movie might be gory yes, but it would definitely not be scary, then it would just be a man in a mask killing folks with a knife. It is much more scary to wonder is Michael Myers in the kitchen, is he hiding in the closet, is he just waiting to spring on the characters. That coupled with the fact he is played completely emotionless, he do not want revenge or is angry or have any good reason to kill people, he just kills, well that and the fact that he seams to be able to survive about anything, that is what causes suspense.

Now granted I have never been a gorehound, I appreciate gore when it is part of a story, but I much more prefer atmosphere and suspense to gore. I loved the original Halloween, I think it was a very good film.

The influence of Alfred Hitchcock is readily apparent in Carpenter's original Halloween, something that modern horror filmmakers would do well to emulate a bit more. I am not a fan of slasher flicks at all but Halloween is so much more than a slasher flick. It was (for better or worse) the template for every slasher flick that came after it for decades. It may seem dated now but that is just because it has been imitated so heavily for decades. Kind of the way Enter the Dragon seems cliche now because every chop-socky movie for the past 30+ years has imitated it in one way or another. I for one would rank Carpenter's Halloween as a contender for the greatest horror movie of all time.

Haha that's a joke.. ..right? :eek:

I do not think Halloween really are that dated, sure when you look at people's clothes and the level of technology they have it is obviously placed a few decades ago however I do not think the film feels dated when I watch it, it has style over fake blood. However I do not know if I agree it is the best horror movie of all times, though it is really good.

Like a lot of people here I adore the original halloween but everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it seems a joke. I for one love Don't Look Now, The Beyond, A Bay Of Blood, City Of The Living Dead, The Village and Drag Me To Hell. I am both a gorehound and a slow pace atmosphere lover. There are always going to be people who hate these films as people who think they are among the best ever made (ok I wouldnt say The Village was but I liked its silliness). People's tastes change as they learn more about filmmaking, directing and production. I think what's great about this forum is the love of horror and though we will disagree about what is great "horror" its always interesting to hear different opinions. I'd rather that than people calling you "scary" or "psycho" just cos you love horror like you get on other sites.

While I wouldn't exactly call it boring, I don't really find it to be that enjoyable of a watch anymore. I attribute this to the difference in film making (and quite possibly my own desensitization and a general desire for bigger, faster, stronger, etc that we're so used to in today's world.) In the past movies tended to have a fair bit of downtime. Lots of scenes that brought the tension down in order to ramp it back up again. Nowadays movies can end up going balls out from start to finish. I don't think that movie goers a couple decades ago were quite ready for a movie to be intense right from the get go and never stop until the credits rolled. For me when it comes to horror especially I don't want downtime. I want intensity from minute one and don't let me calm down and figure things out. Just assault me. I don't need a breather. I don't want time to remember that I'm sitting on my comfy couch watching a movie.

Which is why in some ways I prefer the Zombie remake. It's intense. It's brutal. Michael scares the bejeezus out of me as opposed to just kinda creeping me out in the original. In the original he's a bad ass, but he seems almost human. I get the feeling that he might just be stoppable. In the remake he's like a force of nature. A really nasty, evil force that you just cannot stop no matter what you do.

The thing about Halloween (the original) was Myers wasn't that different to the average person until he flipped and he was capable of all that. Wasn't the original guy/s like 5ft 10, not really that big, who played Michael?

Then Zombie got hold of it and practically put Valuev in Myers shoes, isn't Mane at least 6ft 7/8 and built like a brick s--- house... I guess I can get that being scarier, I mean if you're taller than Myers it probably loses it's appeal somewhat in real life but the re-makes just turned the film into an average slasher.

Halloween just needs to die now, I can't believe how many sequels have been made. Only the original, 2nd and H20 were remotely worth watching. Now they're remaking them all over, urgh. Just let it go and bring in something new.

I would not say that Michael Mayers are a completely average guy, he survive about anything, he get shot, tossed out a window, I do not know how many times in one movie alone he get wounds which would have most likely killed a normal human and he gets up and continue his killing spree.

Yeah, point taken.

I meant as in height, body shape. I mean how many guys do you know who are the height and power of Tyler Mane...?!

Think Carpenter wanted to keep at least his physique and presence fairly run of the mill rather than make him into a glorified incredible hulk.

I'm 6'6" so Mane's Michael would be more imposing in person than the original. The original film is better and Myers is scarier in the context of the film. But if I encountered both in real life Mane would make me shit myself much harder.

I also don't see how he turned into an average slasher. They removed the being of pure evil that exists in the shadows until the very last minute, but he was still more developed than most characters in most slasher movies. I'd be disappointed if Michael were the face in the shadows again, because unless there were a different interpretation of the character the movie would be... Boring. I try not to use the word "pointless" for a movie because really, what makes one movie more important than the other?

The original is my favorite movie, but it still exists so I can watch it at any time. So I'll gladly give a new interpretation a chance, can't hurt a thing.

I do not really think a few inches in height matters so much for me when it comes to who is imposing or not. It is more the air they hold themselves with. I had a friend as a teenager, he was skinny as hell, and just over 170 cm tall. However he had studied Martial Arts since he was a little kid, and he worked as a bouncer. I mean if he looked at you wrong you backed away, even if he was a short, frail looking man. I also have a friend who is huge, he looks like a bear, but he have his kind, friendly nature that I can not imagine that he could scare a newborn kitten.

True, I know what you're saying. Tyson is shorter than me and look at what he was capable of! Anyway, I think it's just going back to the childhood thoughts of the 'boogie-man' you always imagined him much bigger i.e. taller and stronger, you never imagined a monster smaller than you, I think that's why Zombie chose Mane, if you're taller than Mane then all I can say is tough luck!

I'm sure that Carpenter at some point would have specified the kind of person he would have wanted to play 'the shape' and height would have been a factor in his decision making, it wasn't just by chance. I mean the original Myers or the new Myers I know which one I'd be more intimidated by. Though the original is still the better film, mainly because it was original!

Actually my boogy men where fairly normal looking juppies in pastel colored clothing with sports cars and fake smiles. I am not kidding, I had a nervous breakdown when I was nine years old due to bulling and I saw said juppies, and their car in my bedroom wall.

On another note I have always found grays to be creepy, and they are not big, they are like three or four feet, much smaller than me, but it is just those almost feature less faces and huge, all black eyes. Size never was a deciding factor for me when it came to whatever or not I found someone scary, perhaps because I have a temper and in school I usually would fight boys five or six years older than me and far, far bigger, and most of the time I would win. I was bullied allot at school, in the form of verbal bulling and that got rather bad, but if I got my hands on the bullies they where limping home, something my teachers did not appreciate.

I do see why high is a factor, but unless you are Godzilla it is not really a thing that matters for me when it comes to intimidation. For me it is the eyes, insane, or deformed eyes are allot more intimidating than body shape.

Ah, sorry to hear that. At least you gave what you got!

Don't get me wrong the original Myers I've never been so more freaked of than anything. I watched Halloween probably when I was too young but I guess that's why to me it's a bit more freaky. Had I watched it now I would have liked it but wouldn't really have been that scared by it.

On screen height isn't a factor to me. Just if I were to see say in real life, Myers the original and Myers (Tyler Mane) I know which one would be more terrifying. I mean I have a close mate who's 6ft 8 (measured) as well and he's massive compared to me! (I'm 6ft) but if he was the stature of Mane and put a lifelike Myers costume on I'd be out my house so quick :p

Whereas if the guy was even height or smaller than me I don't think it wouldn't be as intimidating, at least not to me. Granted though the way Carpenter films it Myers doesn't seem 5 10/11 in the original he seems about 9 ft tall!

I have my hubby's uncle fresh in mind. I was a girl of 17 at the time and was going to my boyfriend on the weekends and stayed with him as he lived some ways from me. Now my hubby's landlord, a man of over 80 made a pass on me, he was very insistent and very lewd and I was young and I do have Aspergers syndrome so I got rather upset, this made my boyfriend very upset as well so he called his uncle who lived near by and who is a policeman, not to rapport the man as he had not broken the law, but to give me some hints on security and how to handle people who behaved as morons. Now I said I was not afraid of the old man, he was small, thin and frail, and I am very strong for a woman, I just found the social part of it uncomfortable as I did not know what to say, what to do. Then my boyfriend's uncle said to never judge a person by looks and size to evaluate threat, for he had seen little 12 year old boys skilled in Martial Arts take down grown, top trained men. That sort of stuck with me.

However yes I do agree, the new Michael Mayers do have a more imposing figure, I think the difference between the two characters is about the same as the movies themselves. The original Mayers are silently imposing, it is his eyes, it is that you do not know where he is. He have a otherworldly feel to him, that even if he is human, he is this evil force that can not be stopped. The new Mayers had a more of a in your face way of scaring you, he is a killing machine. Both are scary, but in very different ways. The new Mayer smake you feel small, you have this powerful man who can rip you to shreds, the old one did not make you feel small, but he made you feel like there is no where you can hide for I am more than a normal man.

I think it vary from person to person which one of the two would be most scary.