Okay, so I get that he made the initial nightmare scene long to throw us off that is was one. But seriously. Twenty minutes of film that didn't really happen?
I've watched it a few times now and the last two times I skipped the entire intro sequence as I felt conned by it.
I agree. It was a con and then we went onto a story that was so convoluted and brutal, I have no idea what I just watched (I just watched this tonight since I saw it when it first came out). Minutes of my life, I'll never get back...why I wasted time on it again, I still don't know.
I must be in rhe minority here because I liked the dream sequence!It was so freaky that I got into it.(although you are right it might be seen as distracting from the main story for some.)
Your life is forfeit anytime I care to take it.
I think that the dream sequence was like a memory, just that Laurie didn´t really die.
I love classic monsters.
I agree with above. I always took the sequence to have actually happened, but the ending being changed in the nightmare for max effect on Laurie's psyche in her dream.
Cheers mate!
It was easily the best part of the movie, it should of been a short film of 20 mins, after she wakes up the movie gos from ok to bad to terrible.
shareThe first 20 minutes were how the rest of the film could have/should have been. I really wish that it could have been almost a straight remake of the old Halloween II. As much as some would've hate the concept, I feel it would have been much better. I mean the dream sequence was phenomenal, it was intense, it was everything I'd hoped for out of the sequel. What I wound up getting was a bearded hermit version of Michael, what might've been a quasi-lesbian relationship between Annie and Laurie, and a money hungry Loomis. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. A somewhat straight remake of II could have worked. They could have kept the cow car crash sequence the same (although I wish 80% of the usage of the word "*beep*" would have been omitted) and just take it from there. Rob showed us a decent remake that I enjoyed, albeit only the theatrical cut, and a great opening sequence to the sequel. Oh well, I guess.
shareWow. People keep moaning and complaining about remakes and reimaginings and the lack of original ideas, but when someone dares to do something original with a remake they'd rather have a rehash of the old movie. Mindboggling.
shareI agree. I was totally taken in by it and I didn't feel the least bit cheated but quite the opposite. It was unexpected and I applaud Zombie for having the balls to do something that would likely cheese people off while at the same time delivering something original and risky.
shareYou sir are so wrong.
share[deleted]
I thought the dream sequence was much better than the entirety of the rest of the film
RAWR!
Your'e not the only one , the dream sequence was ok , then the rest of the film happened and i wish i'd never watched it , quite possibly the worst sequel/remake/rehash/re imagining/re whatever i've seen which is a shame as the first one wasn't too bad.
shareI think it's great. It really immerses you into the state of Laurie's mind. Which is a main point of the movie. If it had been shorter, it might not have been believable. For example, in Scre4m, the opening scene. The very first two girls we see, Sheri and Trudy, I believe, the ones who turn out to really be in the opening for Stab 6. The moment the second one got stabbed, I knew something was up, it couldn't possibly be that quick and simple.
My only problem with this portion of Halloween 2 is the scene of Michael killing the two paramedics. I've never been able to decide whether I think this scene is part of the dream, or what really happened.
[deleted]
If you listen to Zombie's commentary he explains that her dream starts the moment she wakes up in the hospital to the time Myers smashes into the booth to get her. This movie's concept was better than the original II and the first remake, period. The original Halloween and Halloween III are the only movies in the series I watch regularly outside of this one.
shareI thought the sequel was good. I assumed that Michael Myers exists only in her mind in this movie (I've only seen the directors cut) and thats why I thought it was smart. She has a personality disorder too... Michael's hobo journey exists only within her - like it's the psycho part of her getting closer and closer to revealing itself. Michael killed her friend whilst she was at the party, but did he? Or was that just her spazzing out in her mind like she did when she thought he was behind her?
Her relationship with Annie is broken and she already admitted to her therapist that she wanted to kill her - I think Annie is the only person that really dies in this film (Loomis too maybe) and I think Laurie killed her (them), I don't think we can trust anything else we see because we're seeing the whole thing through Laurie and she's snapped.
I think if you watch this film as a generic slasher then that's all you kind of get from it, but if you watch it as a study of someones decent into madness it changes it and makes it a much more interesting film.
[deleted]
I'd not seen anything on any forums but it just seemed logical. I'd not thought about her two friends not being real but I guess that makes sense too. Gives me another reason to watch it anyway. Watching a film again from a different perspective can totally change a film. A friend of mine told me to rewatch ferris beulers day of and assume it is all in Camerons head. I enjoyed it much more lol.
shareI love this theory of the film and not only does it make sense but it also makes the movie a 100 times better. the only bit I cant explain is who is Dr Loomis talking to in the shack? He tells Myers the girl has to come with him, surely he would just tell Laurie she has to come with him because he would not see or Myers but in the shack he talks directly to him. Again great theory
share[deleted]
yes makes more sense now. thanks for the reply.
share