the original "Halloween" = BORING!

[BookZombie]

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.

[yobbos1]

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.

[Jokuc]

Originally Posted by horrorzack

By my opinion the original halloween was boring because it had a low body count and no thrills. A terrible movie. however the sequel is thrilling and way better. Who agrees?

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

[BookZombie]

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.

[Fearonsarms]

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.

[siorai]

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.

[ash89]

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.

[BookZombie]

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.

[ash89]

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.

[massacre man]

Originally Posted by ash89

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.