Higher rating than Curse?


Seriously?

Part 5 and 6 aren't good. But 6 is at least watchable, better made, has better atmosphere, soundtrack, etc. It isn't good as a sequel, but when watched as its own thing, It's genuinely quite an interesting and atmospheric experience.

Part 5 is genuinely just all round a bad film. It's poorly shot, poorly acted, written, scored, and has no real purpose in existing. Nor does 6 for that last part by the way, but as I stated, it was just a more interesting experience and is all round better made. Halloween 5, I have shown several friends during marathons, and everyone including myself reacted the same. The film is boring, annoying, and from about 10 minutes in, everyone pleaded at the screen for the film to just end. Every time I have watched, or shown anyone else Halloween 6, we all agreed it wasn't very good, but it did hold our attention.

A pointless thread, sure. But somebody tell me how this pile of rushed garbage is better than part 6?

reply

Well, given there are 2 versions of 6, Producer's and theatrical cuts, people could be voting on either one, depending on which they saw. Also, the fact that Curse took 6 years and several versions to make and that is the best they can come up with is bad. Plus you have the whole insinuation that Michael raped his niece or someone else did or artifically inseminated her at 14 (9 in 5 + 6 years later in 6). Might all be factors.

The acting is not much better here. Rudd, first film. All the rest, Kara, the Dad, the Mom, even Beth and Barry. The only good acting experience was Loomis/Pleaseance and his lack of screen time in the theatrical at least, more factors.

Granted 5 isn't much better, but at least it had less issues. Personally, the acting sucked, hated the psychic link, the crying. But otherwise, a dark and moody film. Plus having Danielle Harris and not JC Brandy or some other recast might have bumped 5 up. And she lived in 5, not 6.

That's just off the top of my head the reasons Curse might be ranked lower than 5, which had one version, was hampered by the year later release to polish it, but must not have affected opinion too much.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

Part 5 felt like a typical Halloween film while part 6 tried to be different with the Thorn stuff. Didn't Micheal also kill a dog and eat it just like he did in the first film? H6 is the oddest of the Halloween films, its so different than the rest. The Thorn stuff makes it feel too different compared to the others.

reply

No, Michael never ate any more dogs. Max was killed in 5, but it didn't look like he was eaten. Looked more like a taxidermist got to him. Michael ate no animals in 6 that I recall.

"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

I have a better question... how are 5 and 6 rated higher than III? The silly clown music that accompanies the cops is enough to make part 5 the worst Halloween film, aside from the Zombie flicks.

reply

III has been hated for a long time. The most common rating for HIII on IMDB WAS a 1/10. (I rememebr that being the case but checking it again there now, it has been overtaken by 4, 5, 6 & 7). People literally gave it a 1/10 because it doesn't have Michael Myers.

It has slowly climbed in rating. It's now level with 5 and higher rated than 6, 8, RZ HII.

reply

I literally watched them back to back last night and 5 is far better than 6. I'm dying on that hill.

Calling 5 poorly shot, acted, written, scored and having no purposes in existing is laughable when we're comparing it to 6 which is worse in all those aspects except arguably 'purpose in existing', even then 5 laid the foundations for the whole thorn plotline and introduced the cloaked figures. So 6 was merely an expansion on the Jamie and thorn plot from 5.

reply