MovieChat Forums > AdamWaldron96-2 > Replies
AdamWaldron96-2's Replies
True, but the guy had a vision for his documentary; something along the lines of a documentarian who looked too deep into everything that he gets wrapped into it. He wants to build the documentary up so he can surprise everyone when he reveals the killer to be himself at the very end.
That’s primarily what I’m thinking. He didn’t kill the analyst to avoid being caught. It’s just that it wasn’t the right time for him to get caught. The documentary needed to be completed.
In the last several minutes of the documentary portion, where he decides to retrace the path the crew took to get to the Pine Barrens, you can see David is wearing the same clothes after he just killed Shelley, even though the documentary portion claims that it occurs the following day. You can briefly see the plastic he used to wrap her up in the back of his car when he’s talking to the camera while driving. And the final shot of the documentary portion of him in the woods by himself is what we see in the narrative portion.
Now as I said before, the documentary portion shows that March 31st is when he goes into the woods, and April 1st when he goes into Shelley’s to kill her. But as seen in the narrative portion, we see that he killed Shelley before he went to shoot the other segments, further cementing the theme of the movie; the footage should be telling the truth when it really isn’t because it’s edited to fit a narrative that David wants to tell. Same thing with law enforcement with the raw footage from the show; they used what they had to fit a narrative that they wanted in order to convict Jim Suerd for the murders.
Point being, in the documentary section, it seems like he left Shelley to her own devices and occasionally stepped in until she got something. But off camera, in reality, it’s possible he kept checking up on her every day to see how much progress she got to make sure she hasn’t made him yet. Once he decided she got far enough, he broke in and killed her. The segments where we see his face slowly being revealed could just be his work doing that he is editing into his documentary and not Shelley’s.
The documentary ends with the reveal of David being the killer. It not only accomplishes his goal to posthumously exonerate Jim Suerd and incriminate himself, but it supports his thesis that the murders of the Fact or Fiction hosts did nothing but allow everyone around them to profit and expand their careers with it. And David is exploiting that with the documentary that he plans to release to the public. The first 75 minutes is that documentary. The rest that follows is an epilogue of sorts that is separate from the documentary itself.
Without Jeff and Mutt, the Mead-Bot wouldn't talk or function. They went to Outpost 2, and a year and a half later, Michael said Outpost 2 was overrun and everyone is dead. Yet, the Mead-Bot had its memory wiped before the apocalypse, meaning Jeff and Mutt spent a year and a half just playing pranks on everyone in Outpost 3 with Venable? So either Michael magically made the bot function after they died or made her function without their help before the Apocalypse, or somewhere in Outpost 2 Jeff and Mutt spent the past year and a half pretending to have an existentialism crisis.
Basically. Depending on which cut of Halloween 6 you watch, it goes one of two ways, and either way is a cliffhanger:
a) The doctors at Smith's Grove, who are in the Thorn Cult, have been doing experiments with genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization to harness the evil that is inside Michael, and baby Stephen is the result of that. Thorn, the demon that the cult has been trying to keep at bay through Michael for the past 32 years, finally takes control of him, and makes him slaughter the doctors as Smith's Grove. Tommy Doyle injects Michael with corrosive chemicals, and beats him to supposed death with a lead pipe. As Tommy, Kara and the kids escape, Loomis heads back inside to find Michael gone. Either Loomis is killed off here by Michael, or Loomis screams because Michael has disappeared again.
b) The cult of Thorn gathers in the basement of Smith's Grove for the final sacrifice. Michael has to kill baby Stephen to complete what he started 32 years ago, and then the evil will transfer over to Danny, and his first sacrifice will be Kara. Tommy infiltrates the building, and holds Wynn at knife point to let Kara and the kids go. Michael chases after them, and Tommy uses the runes of light to try to cancel the evil energy inside of Michael. Wynn, however, steps inside the runes of light, and cancels their power. Tommy, Kara and the kids escape, and Loomis heads back inside, only to discover that Michael has swapped clothes with Wynn, and as Wynn supposedly dies, he makes Loomis the new leader of the Cult of Thorn, meaning Loomis has to watch over Michael from now on and protect him.
Halloween: Resurrection, either one, but they both suck:
a) Michael just had a death rattle or something, and died on the coroner's table.
b) Michael gets away, never to be seen again.
Kind of glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought Sartain supposed to be a Wynn throwback. I saw a video online where someone said Sartain is supposed to represent our over-obsession with those who perpetuate violence, and how we over-analyze and study killers to try to get in their heads, figure out what makes them tick. While I think this idea was established already in the beginning with the podcasters, Sartain being a fanatic did nothing overall, other than drive Michael to Laurie's house.
Maybe its because the Rob Zombie films were my first Halloween films in the theaters, but I kind of rewatch them over some of the other sequels. I don't think they're great, but they could be better. I do think the remakes get the brother/sister aspect down better than the 1981 part 2 did. Feels more natural. In 1981, it felt like it was added there so Loomis had a reason to go to the hospital. I kind of like how Laurie in RZ's H2 is just so messed up that she acts like a bitch, mostly because, to me, this is fairly realistic to people who I've met who have survived terrible ordeals. They're not always like Annie who is just trying to move on with her life, sometimes they're like Laurie who just acts out and lets her past be the catalyst for her piss poor decisions and attitude.
I will defend Loomis in Halloween 5 another day, but Loomis in RZ's H2 I kind of found funny, mostly because its Malcolm McDowell and he's a riot. If you've never seen the outtakes for the first remake, I urge you to watch it because Malcolm McDowell is hysterical. I'm guessing Rob Zombie heard people say they liked Malcolm in the outtakes, and so he wrote Loomis to be a comedic asshole in the second one to allow McDowell to act that way. Not all of it worked, I will say that. Questioning his assistant on her outfit and insulting her by calling her a clam digger, to me, was funny. Telling his assistant that he'll beat her when he's ready for her opinion and grabbing her didn't feel right.
The film is just okay. To me, it’s like a 5/10. It’s a safe, mediocre sequel. I’ve been a fan of the series when I first binge watched them in preparation for the Rob Zombie remake about a decade ago. This is not the worst of the series, it’s better than 4 through 8 (I rank this at 6th) but it could have been better. To me, hype killed this movie. I don’t know whether to blame myself for believing in the hype, or the general audience for praising the crap out of it.
Since we are complaining about those who don’t like the movie, here’s what I hate about people who enjoyed it. I hate the ones who are pissed that some of us have different opinions, and can’t seem to accept that. It’s like those who liked or loved the movie think that everyone needs to be close to a unanimous agreement on it. Yes, we’re in a day and age where there are a lot of nitpickers and complainers. Welcome to the internet, where we’ve been granted a tool to exploit the shit out of our first amendment right. If you can’t handle all the trolls, assholes, nitpickers, constructive critics, and just regular people in general, then either write more angry comments at how they piss you off, or take a break from here so you can appreciate your time elsewhere.
If this film was at a 21% on rotten tomatoes, or heavily panned by everyone, I can kind of be on your side here, but that’s not the case. This film is for the most part accepted by everyone as a good movie, it’s just some of us who didn’t. If a film is universally loved or universally hated, there are always going to be people in the minority who object to like it or hate it. I know people who hate Get Out, but like Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I know people who hate Deadpool. I know people who think the IT miniseries is better than the movie. I know people who thought The Haunting of Hill House was boring as hell. Their tastes lie elsewhere, and I just have to accept it.
Can someone please remind me how old Michael is supposed to be? He was born in 2012, and that flash forward in Murder House showed him at age 3 when he murdered his nanny in 2015. The surveillance of him killing the cop said 2017, so...he’s 5? And then in the present day of 2021 in Outpost 3, he’s 9?
It’s ignoring everything after the first film. They are no longer siblings. Just the first film is all that happens before this new film. Everything else didn’t happen.
I’m more so curious what the hell they’re going to do with the Michael Myers character. The character is 61 years old in this movie. Unless they turn Michael into the Jason Voorhees zombie from FT13 parts 6 through 8, I don’t really see how this film can reboot the franchise and keep it going with Michael Myers.
We’ll get Halloween (2038), Laurie Strode is using her walker, and Michael is using a cane instead of a knife. He can use the handle part to lash it around his victims neck or something.
It was supposed to be some other movie on TV, but some producer told the filmmakers to put a scene from Scream 2 in there, not knowing the confusion it would cause.
Although, Halloween III takes place in a universe where the first film, and possibly Halloween II is fictional. So, what would Halloween III in...Halloween III be?
Not only that, but Michael Langdon was born in 2012, and was 3 years old in 2015 when he killed his Nanny. So technically, the anti-christ child should be 9 years old by now, but has the body of a 30 year old man.
They'd still remove the mask. They had enough sense to remove the axe from his head, but not the mask.
I'm going to be honest, I barely remember typing the post I made from 3 months ago, and I honestly don't know why I thought that way. I'm just going to assume I had a bad day or something when I wrote it, because I'm actually in 100% agreement with you about the teen dialogue in the remake. College girls especially talk the way the teenagers in the movie did. I'll even say it, some of today's teenagers and young adults (depending on where you live and the environment the teens are raised in I guess) are far more worse than the teenagers in the Rob Zombie film. Again, I don't know why I made that post 3 months ago, but I am in agreement with you.
I haven’t been looking into the production of the movie that much. I was just making assumptions.
Yes, to hook the fans in. The same way they used James Cameron to promote Terminator: Genisys, and used Tobe Hooper to promote Texas Chainsaw 3D. This is slightly different for the fact they got Carpenter to do the score for this film.
Blumhouse owns the Halloween rights now, and Carpenter is aware that Blumhouse makes movies that are successful, so of course he's going to jump on board and take part of it. The man's probably tired of collecting residuals from his previous work in the past, and also probably hates himself for Halloween II.
Halloween II set in stone Michael being Laurie's brother, and made everyone want more Michael instead of more anthology what Halloween III provided. Carpenter probably wanted to correct the mistake of Halloween II, and get involved with this film to close the chapter on Michael Myers. Or at the very least, close it in a way he'd probably wanted it to, considering the writers and director of this film have a sequel in mind.
I could be off, but I'm positive he's referencing the Cinema Snob, an internet reviewer/critic. When he reviewed Halloween 4, he said this: "Halloween 4 finally answers the question we've all been asking since 1978: what would the original Halloween be like if it sucked?"
(2/2)
Now, with this new one, while I'm annoyed that the other films are being ignored (even though H20 already did that 20 years ago), I can at least say it SHOULD be interesting to see Michael just kill random people like he was in the first film. But when you really look back at the franchise, killing random people was all Michael did in ALL of these films, regardless if he had a motive or not. Hell, if you ignore the first 15 minutes of Resurrection, that movie is entirely what the theme of this new reboot is: Michael killing people who aren't related to him. Problem is, the movie was shit, with some enjoyable moments, in a so-bad-its good way.
So to me, this whole get rid of the sibling narrative doesn't really add anything, or change anything for the franchise other than erase the other sequels from this new timeline. The remakes were already in their own little universe, so who really cares about them. This new reboot will leave room for a potential future film to dive into what makes him tick again, which let's face it, there will be a sequel eventually down the road. This film is guaranteed to be a financial success regardless if its good or bad. And the sequel after this upcoming reboot, or the sequel after that can repeat history with the franchise by fucking it up in different and/or similar ways.
(1/2)
I've become attached to the whole killing his entire family growing up as a kid. But recently, going back through the films, I wished they weren't siblings, because especially when you get into Halloween 6 (either cut giving Michael Myers bat-shit crazy reason for everything), the sibling/niece/grandnephew narrative does not make any sense. In Halloweens 2, 4 and 5 individually, his goal is to kill ONE family member, yet he always manages to tangent off stalking or killing others, or just stalking his target.
Once you get to Halloween 6, and apply the Cult of Thorn storyline to the first one as well, and add the fact that this cult can kidnap Michael's targets (and have kidnapped his targets, like Jamie Lloyd), it makes Michael look incompetent, and possibly ADHD since he stalks and goes after others. It also makes the cult look incompetent as well. By the end of Halloween 6, at least 70 to almost 80 people (depending on which cut of 6 you watch) have died, whether it be at the hands of Michael Myers, or Jimmy's own clumsy ass, or Dr. Wynn, or four drunk gunmen, or a cop with his foot pressed too hard on the gas pedal. And out of those people, spanning the course of 32 years, Michael only killed TWO family members (one in the producer's cut). For a cult that needs an entire family sacrificed to spare them the wrath of Thorn, they seem to be doing fine 32 years later when it began.
H20 had this issue as well. He knows where Laurie is, but decides to just stalk Molly, and kill her friends. I'll give Resurrection a little credit for at least having him succeed in killing Laurie Strode 15 minutes in rather than by the end of the movie, but then we see it leads to what is considered to be the worst Halloween film, so probably for the best he didn't succeed in killing his family members I guess.
I mean, she did come across the bodies of her best friends, and they were murdered by a man who had been stalking her ALL day. She probably feels responsible for their deaths for not alerting the cops sooner. Laurie witnessed Michael stalking her four times (outside the school, passing by in his car, waited for her behind a bush, and was even right outside her window). In today's day and age, any man who would've stalked a woman like this would have had cops on his ass, and placed in handcufs. And to top it off, he just wouldn't die. She stabbed him in the neck with a knitting needle, he got back up again. She poked at his left eye with a coat hanger and stabbed him with his own knife, he got back up again. He got his hands wrapped around her throat and got right up in her face with the heavy breathing shit, and she removed his mask to see his face, right before she witnessed/heard him take 6 bullets to the chest, fall off a two story balcony, and he got up again. She was bound to have PTSD from day one, she has enough nightmare fuel to do so.
To top it off, its possible she became obsessed with Michael, and its possible she talked to Loomis about Michael and what makes him tick, and Loomis probably tried to help her but to no avail. And ever since that night, Laurie has become quite handy with a gun. Its to ensure herself that she can take care of herself against not only normal every day folk who want to mess with her, but in case another Michael Myers, or THE Michael Myers were to ever come back and harm anyone else. Laurie needed help, but no one gave it to her, and she spent 40 years letting that night eat at her sanity.