In Defense of Halloween: H20 [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

ANTBond007

07-08-2000, 11:57 PM

After seeing HALLOWEEN: H20 - TWENTY YEARS LATER on Showtime again, I remembered the number one source of criticism the film receives: it falls under the teen genre.

Everyone, including Arrow, who hates the fact that Myers was made into a flick like this, has destroyed the movie critically.

I myself don't mind. Why? Because every Halloween has been a teen flick of its time. Didn't the teenagers in HALLOWEEN and HALLOWEEN 2 act like teenagers did in the kind? Didn't the teenagers in RETURN and REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS?

Yes! After seeing H20 again, the teens just act like the teens of Generation Y (or do they fall into Gen-X?). I mean, if we don't get a HALLOWEEN 8 until 2008, won't the teenagers act like they do in that time?

My point is; the teens have always acted their generation in the HALLOWEEN films; why should HALLOWEEN: H20 be bashed more than the others?

Hell, I consider H20 to be the second best sequel (behind HALLOWEEN 4, of course). So, the next time you see H20, take this into account. I'm sure you'll find it a better movie.

Mr. Meat

07-09-2000, 09:52 AM

That is a very good summary 007. But does what you say make the movie any better? I think not. A lot of the teen movies out there are good. I get what you're saying and all, but H20 can't even pull a hair off the first one. I have a question about one of the sequels. What was up with Season of the Witch? It was the 3rd one in the series. What the hell was it about?!

BlynS2

07-09-2000, 03:32 PM

Meat:

The Season of The Witch explains Michael's drive to kill and his Druid heritage, as for H20, it was about a 5/10 for me, only because it was a Halloween film and Jamie lee was in it. no other reason. It definitely had the great potential to be a 7.5/10 or an 8/10, but it had many problems.

The plot needed to be changed - okay Michael comes back for his sister, she has an older son at a school and he not only stalks his sister, but her son's friends - yeah, great /ubb/rolleyes.gif

The film need to be, hmm, let's say, about an Hour and A Half longer. This was one of the fastest horror films I've ever seen. Was it over in 40 mins. or was it just me?

Jamie lee's character needed to go somewhere. Okay she had been in hiding, changed her identity faked her death and is now facing her death brother in a blood bath. Fine. It seemed to me that there was a lot of drama around her character, but Laurie/Ms. Tate lacked something. Not to say jamie lee was bad in this film - she was great, I loved her, but the film itself, aah, not so much.

AND FINALLY, what is with the ending, just as it started to pick up it was over, and way too easily might i add as well as convenient. Now, I have also heard that there might be a Halloween VIII - Please!!!
Unless you honestly think you can wrap this series up in the same excellent way it began, be my guest, but if you produce another H20, I will personally come looking for you!!!

I mean c'mon - talk about beating a dead horse - gcheesh!! /ubb/tongue.gif

P.S. You are definitely correct 007, and I totally understand your point, but I think that it is a little bit of a stretch as an excuse for H20.

[This message has been edited by BlynS2 (edited 07-09-2000).]

Mr. Meat

07-10-2000, 01:19 AM

I dunno, Blyn. When Mike got his head chopped off that was the only cool part in the movie...hehehe

The Arrow

07-10-2000, 10:05 AM

It's not how the teens acted that got to me, it's the lack of suspense, the "Psycho" references, the low bodycount and the total departure from the previous Halloween films. Piss on me all you want at leasts part 6 had a cruel edge too it. H20 is way too safe, way too mainstream and way too dull to satisfy my Halloween craving.

ANTBond007

07-10-2000, 03:07 PM

Well, Arrow, I will agree with how that H20 was a bit tame (Was there really a chance Michael was gonna kill Laurie? Was there a chance Charlie and Sara would live?), but it least it made sense! Curse of Michael Myers made none. It was directed in an MTV style which basically said "Fuck off, Halloween fans." I mean; some of the questions can be answered by the Producer's Cut: Who's the baby's father, what Thorn wanted with Danny, etc. But still. Oh yes, why was Jamie alive after being thrown on the farm equipment? That should kill you pretty instantly.

In another argument, you said the body count was too low. Have you seen the original? Seven deaths, one of them a dog. Both Halloween and H20 have a 6 person body count.

Excuse me; but that's the main reason, besides the fact that it's too cartoonish, that I hate the Friday the 13th series: The body counts are far too high. I mean, look at Curse; The drunk truck owner has his face RIPPED APART! John's head exploded! I'd take a simple stabbing over those anyway. In fact, the main fault I have with H20 is no Donald Pleasence, simply because he made me enjoy the series more than Myers could ever hope to.

BlynS2

07-10-2000, 11:26 PM

I'll definitely give you that one Meat.

You as well 007, but Pleasance kinda got a little boring after all the sequels, but maybe it was just because the series had been milked to death so much.

The Arrow

07-12-2000, 08:39 PM

Halloween 6 was butchered in the editing room but at leasts it didn't bend backwards to appeal to the masses. Even though it was shot "MTV" style (which I enjoyed) it was still a horror film for true horror fans. It had mayem, gore (the exploding head was stupid but bloody) and a cruel streak. H20 was just like it's title...watered down and tweaked to appeal to the "Scream" crowd. I'm surprised they didn't have a H20 happy meal at McDonalds when the film came out.

cRaven

02-04-2003, 04:00 PM

hey, 007.

"In another argument, you said the body count was too low. Have you seen the original? Seven deaths, one of them a dog. Both Halloween and H20 have a 6 person body count."

seven deaths, "one" of them a dog?

isn't the body count:
judith myers
man in grass
dog
dog
annie
bob
lynda

?

who else dies?

Shape

02-04-2003, 05:29 PM

H20 was decent. why? well my fellow schmoes, one ..thing. LL Cool J.

speaking of the H series i felt the best sequel was definitly #2. it was closest to the classic & had the same weird aura, sense/feel about it. after #2 everything went down hill. it's a shame, really.

Toxferatu

02-04-2003, 06:23 PM

H20 is way too safe, way too mainstream and way too dull to satisfy my Halloween craving.

^^^^

my problem as well.

there's a difference between movies that have teens and teen movies. teen movies are geared towards teen, trendy styling, trendy actors and big budget.

the original halloween whereas it had teens, they werent the "flavor of the month" teens nor was it big budget. it wasnt scared of scaring you.

H20, i felt was scared to scare people. so it was watered down, where as the first one is full strenghth, not deluted like H20.

the night watchman

02-04-2003, 07:53 PM

Going off the subject a little, one of the reasons I love the original "Halloween" is its portrayal of teenagers in the late 70s. It gives me flashbacks. I was around nine or ten when "Halloween" was released, but my friend's sister and her friends were around the age of the characters in the movie, and I swear, they were Annie, Lynda, and Bob. I thought they were so damn cool, and that I would be just like them when I reached their age.

Little did I know the 80s were on the way ... :D

Boogeyman

02-04-2003, 09:16 PM

I find my self also defending Halloween H20 all the time. I just love it. I mean, Laurie and Michael meeting again...it was purfect. The vs of Good and Evil...again, purfect. I just thought that almost everything was purfect. The storyline (although ignoring 4-6) was still great. And just because it attracted a larger audience (even thugh some of them are clueless to alot of horror movies) I still think all it did was breathe new life into the series. But, if I had my way....H20 wouldve been the last, unless a futrure sequel can provide the same kind of closure that H20 did.

later

HalloweenShape31

02-04-2003, 11:48 PM

Hey 007! I agree completely with you that yes, Halloween H20 is the second best sequel after Halloween 4. The only thing that I think is bad about this movie it the fact that too many people live. Not that there's not enough killings. In the original, there werent that many people in the first place which was why there werent that many deaths. Here, FOUR people survive. One of which was a disposable character that should've died and did in the orginal script and another that also originally died, but I guess there's some law somewhere that says you can't kill off a music artist in a horror film. I'll tell you that law better not apply in Freddy vs. Jason. I wanna see Rowland get SLICED DA FUCK UP! But I mean think about it: LL Cool J in H20, LL Cool J in Deep Blue Sea, Brandy in ISKWYDLS, and Busta Rhymes in H8.

My qualm is not with H20, I honestly LOVE H20. It's with Halloween: Resurrection! That fuckin piece of shit was just pure... well... SHIT! With the exception of a good lookin house, Brad Loree, the deaths, and the music score, not to mention Bianca Kajlich. I do not watch reality tv anymore ever since they fucked over my favorite film series! H8 is honestly the third worst of the series after 3 and 5.

H8 is a teeny bopper movie more than H20. Everything before they go into the house was afucking quick cut montage to shit music. H20 had TWO pop songs in it. And at least H20 put its rapper in a good role for him where he didn;t have much to do unlike Rhymes where they put him in a major role, ruining the movie. And at least LL Cool J is a good actor, and likeable at that. I cant see him putting up a decent fight against Michael, but not RHymes that dumb fuck. H8 FUCKIN SUX! H20 FUCKIN RULES!

DR. EGON SWHARZ

02-05-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by The Arrow
Halloween 6 was butchered in the editing room but at leasts it didn't bend backwards to appeal to the masses. Even though it was shot "MTV" style (which I enjoyed) it was still a horror film for true horror fans. It had mayem, gore (the exploding head was stupid but bloody) and a cruel streak. H20 was just like it's title...watered down and tweaked to appeal to the "Scream" crowd. I'm surprised they didn't have a H20 happy meal at McDonalds when the film came out. THE DR. IS IN...LOL ARROW U CRACK ME UP MAN...I AGREE TOTALLY HARDLY NO GORE AND OUR LIL MIKIE JUST DIDNT SEEM LIKE HIMSELF. I MEAN THE MOVIE WAS DIRECTED BY STEVE MINER U WOULD THINK HE WOULD OF BEEN A LIL MORE CREATIVE. CHRIS DURAND WAS THE WORST MYERS EVER HE WAS SO NOT THE GUY FOR THE ROLE. LAURIE KIKS HIS ASS ALL THROUGH THE FUCKING MOVIE ...I MEAN COME ON IVE SEEN MYERS RIP GUYS APART AND THIS ALCHOHOLIC BITCH IS GOING TO KIK HIS ASS THAT EASY COME ON. HIS HEAD GETS CHOPPED OFF FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THAT WAS THE MOST OBVIOUS WAY TO KILL ANY HORROR ICON ..HOW MANY TIMES HAS SOMEONE SAID ...'Y DONT THEY CHOP HIS HEAD OFF'. IT WAS EVEN MYERS AS WE ALL KNOW BUT STILL ITS THE THOUGHT THAT COUNTS...AND IT WAS OVER BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED..THE DR. IS OUT LATA FELLOW HORROR BUFFS

Lord Crumb

02-06-2003, 08:25 AM

OK, seeing as this thread has been resurrected from three years ago, I'm gonna move it to PAST...

KaMiKaZ3

02-06-2003, 11:06 AM

havin no gore doesnt make it a bad film though, i mean the original 2 where not overly gory, it was moreh4 and h5 that brought that in. And i cant remeber seeing more than about 3 seconds of blood in Black Christmas, and that film really was awesome.

I dont really agree that it was watered down either, i felt that it did its job quite nicely. In a locked down school like that, there arent that many opportunities to mulch someone on farm equipment, or burn them on an electricity power station. The film was appropriate to the situation that they where in.

An doc, laurie kiks his ass through the whole fucking movie? are you serious? up until about 30 15 minutes from the end, she is shit scared and running!! you have seen this right?

Which leads me to another point, the realisation and turn around of Laurie was an excellent development of her character from the first two movies. It added something that dodged away from the running and screaming. Even though it had already been done in aliens.

MisterTwister

02-06-2003, 03:07 PM

I agree with Arrow, Halloween H2o was too tame and was still more like a scream flick. Halloween 6 did indeed have a cruel edge and i enjoyed(lots of gore). That lots of gore would have helped H2o.

Shockwave

02-07-2003, 09:57 PM

H20 was tame i thought as well but it made sense and gave the series a dignified end while Halloween 6 was worse in my mind due to the "what in the heck just happend" nature it had. It was cut to ribbons and it showed.

Scully1888

02-08-2003, 11:48 AM

I really liked Halloween H20.

Yes, there were times when it seemed too "teen-flick" for me, but the numerous references for the true horror fans (such as Janet Leigh's Psycho music and car and the line "It's Halloween, everyone's entitled to one good scare", and Mr Sandman coming on the radio) kept it enjoyable, in my opinion.

If only the ending had been the ENDING and not manipulated to make Halloween: Depression- I mean Resurrection.

MisterTwister

02-08-2003, 02:16 PM

Resurrection was alot better than H20. I would have gone crazy if they ended the series with H20. I want a great ending to the series not a crappy one like H20. Yes The plot for Resurrection was bad but at least it felt like a true halloween film and not a wannabe scream sequel. But H20 is till better than halloween 5 never will be good as 1,2 and 4 and was'nt as cruel as 6. And the Halloween theme in the opening sounded terrible. Yuck what a piece of crap. Jaime lee curtis was at least fun to watch, it was a short fun movie but the changing masks, lack of gore, scream vibe and music make it weak.

My ratings for the Halloween series
Halloween(1978)-9/10
Halloween 2(1981)-8/10
Halloween 4(1988)-8/10
Halloween 5(1989)-3/10
Halloween 6(1995)-6.5/10
Halloween H20(1998)-5/10
Halloween Resurrection(2002)-7/10

Peace out!

the night watchman

02-08-2003, 02:51 PM

Frankly, in a perfect world "Halloween" would have no sequels. In a slightly imperfect world, it would have one. Horror, it seems to me is the one genre that doesn't lend itself easily to sequels, yet, ironically, it's the one that's slapped with the most. I don't think any of "Halloween's" sequels benefits it or Michael Meyers. IMO "Halloween" is a better movie by itself than as the first movie in a franchise, if you catch my drift.

MisterTwister

02-09-2003, 05:55 PM

The thing is us fans want sequels so we can see our favorite serial killer go on more bloody(but at times pointless) killing sprees. Every series has it's weak and great sequels. You can't always be perfect.

Boogeyman

02-09-2003, 07:05 PM

WHy do people complain if a Halloween film doesnt have alt of gore? Did you see the original? It has not gore whatsoever practically. Halloween sequels arent made to be pointless, gory fun...they always continue a storyline (gore just comes in at some points). But Resurrection was guilty of that, it didnt continue the storyline except for the beginning. But, the point is, is that gore isnt supposed to be the main ingredient in Halloween. So, if you want to see gore out the ying-yang...watch Hellraiser or Friday the 13th sequels.

later

teenkiller

03-08-2003, 01:50 AM

I am not disappointed by the gore or even the low body cout of H20. What I hate was the casting and the fact that they ignored parts 4 through 6 (yes I liked the much hated 5th and 6th installments). Casting rappers in horror movies is a baaaaad move. I also thought the idea of Jamie Lee Curtis coming back to the series was a bit corny. Well at least compared to Resurrection this film seems tolerable. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

ANTBond007

03-08-2003, 05:00 PM

Dude, I started this topic when I was 14! This is one helluva blast from the past.

teenkiller

03-08-2003, 05:11 PM

Antbond007 I am curious as to whether your thoughts on this film have changed at all in the three years since you started this topic. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

ANTBond007

03-08-2003, 05:43 PM

Well, the film is still my second-favorite sequel, and the argument that it's made for teens still makes me laugh, as all the films were (with, maybe, the exception of Part 1).

That said, I can understand the "watered-down" comments, as the film isn't as violent or cented on Michael as much as the other sequels were.

myersfan31

03-08-2003, 08:51 PM

HalloweeN H20 is the best HalloweeN sequel period:D

The Claw

03-08-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by myersfan31
HalloweeN H20 is the worst HalloweeN sequel period and I just realized Halloween is damn overrated:D

I agree. ;);););)

ANTBond007

03-09-2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by The Claw
I agree. ;);););)

^^^ thinks H20 is worse than 3, 5, and 6, so therefore is an idiot ;);););)

X-Nightcrawler

08-05-2004, 03:58 AM

Huh. And here I am thinking that 1 and H20 are the only quality Halloweens . . . You can spit on me now. ;)

Zeptron

08-05-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by ANTBond007
I can understand the "watered-down" comments, as the film isn't as violent or cented on Michael as much as the other sequels were.

That's 1 of my problems with the film: Michael is the de facto star of the series (his mask alone has become iconic), & there's just so little of him here; even worse, what little of him we do see is nearly devoid of menace! Chris Durand is, simply put, the WORST Michael in the series: His body language is all wrong, & he's way too skinny to be convincingly threatening; I know Michael's never been a very big guy, but at least in the other films, he looked like he actually had some meat on his bones! In H20, he looks anorexic, what with his coveralls hanging off his body! :rolleyes:

Why do people complain if a Halloween film doesnt have a lot of gore? Did you see the original? It has no gore whatsoever practically.

The first film didn't NEED gore because it, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre before it, had Pure, Unfiltered, Unrelenting Terror that could not be matched by any sequel; sequels often realize that they cannot equal the sheer power of the original, so they wisely choose to pursue the more base elements. At least that's what I think.

!MorganOnyx!

08-09-2004, 05:39 AM

H20 is like a tightly oiled ship - it works well and runs smoothly. I know a lot of peeps think this desperately wanted to appeal to the MTV - post-SCREAM generation. Maybe it did. But whilst they ignored HALLOWEEN 4-6, they bought back the fans fave JAMIE LEE CURTIS. We should thank them for that. It wasn't gory. True. But neither was the first. CARPENTER showed very little blood, and we all know how well that worked. Why do some of you feel it wasn't the same for H20? I thought it was extremely intense, and the scariest edition since H2. MYERS appeared to be much more dangerous than he did in previous installments. Chopping off someone's head doesn't make him more scary. He lumbered in the shadows alot more, which worked to the films advantage. The more you see him, the less scared you are.

P.S - It's also unfair to rag on LL COOL J. Whilst he IS a rapper, he wasn't cast as a rapper. He was a security guard for Christ's sake. If y'all didn't know your hip hop you would've never guessed he was a rapper in real life because he played such a goofy character.

countchocula

08-09-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
P.S - It's also unfair to rag on LL COOL J. Whilst he IS a rapper, he wasn't cast as a rapper. He was a security guard for Christ's sake. If y'all didn't know your hip hop you would've never guessed he was a rapper in real life because he played such a goofy character.

True, but everyone knows who LL Cool J is. That's the whole point. It's cheap "name" casting. The original is chalked full of nobodies, which works to the film's advantage.

On the subject of gore, Halloween didn't need it; H20 did.

!MorganOnyx!

08-10-2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by countchocula
True, but everyone knows who LL Cool J is. That's the whole point. It's cheap "name" casting. The original is chalked full of nobodies, which works to the film's advantage.

On the subject of gore, Halloween didn't need it; H20 did.

You're all forgetting that "name casting" obviously wasn't on their list of priorities. Sure, LL COOL J would've garnered a little attention, but only from the most hardcore LL fans. He hadn't released a decent album in years, and wasn't exactly known for his acting skills. If "name casting" was the intention they would've got bigger stars than JODI LYN O'KEEFE, ADAM HANN-BIRD, ADAM ARKIN and BRANDON WILLIAMS - all virtually unheard of before this movie, and a couple of them still are.

Not to mention the fact that this was JOSH HARTNETT'S FIRST movie. Sure, he's famous NOW, but nobody even had a clue who he was back then. And MICHELLE WILLIAMS had only just finished her first season in DAWSON'S CREEK. Hardly JULIA ROBERTS territory.

countchocula

08-10-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
You're all forgetting that "name casting" obviously wasn't on their list of priorities. Sure, LL COOL J would've garnered a little attention, but only from the most hardcore LL fans. He hadn't released a decent album in years, and wasn't exactly known for his acting skills.

But he was popular, which is the only reason he was offered the role. Of course, that's just one of the many reasons why I didn't take to H20. I'm not sure why I felt the need to comment on it.

!MorganOnyx!

08-11-2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by countchocula
But he was popular, which is the only reason he was offered the role. Of course, that's just one of the many reasons why I didn't take to H20. I'm not sure why I felt the need to comment on it.

Not sure I agree. I could understand why they offered it to him IF that WAS the case, because, indeed, he is popular. But if they were aiming at the teen market, surely someone like LANCE BASS from N-SYNC or some geezer from the BACKSTREET BOYS would've been a safer bet?

Doesn't REALLY matter though does it? It's just fun to argue sometimes. :p