A sequel is a work of literature or film that is written after a completed work, and is set in the same "universe" but at a later time. It usually continues elements of the first story, often with the same characters, although this is not always the case - for example, if the main character dies at the end of the first work, a new character (e.g. their son or daughter) may take up their role in the sequel.
-- wordIQ.com
Why it's better
There are a couple movies on this list that are more than "moderately adequate." In fact, a couple are even "as good as" their predecessors (& in some cases, successors). I'll go even further with Halloween III and say that sometimes, late at night, in those frenzied moments before the sandman, I almost always consider it to be better than all other installments.
Yes, all.
Part one is full of abysmal dialogue delivered through inadequate acting. The story is full of holes, & moments of actual, solid suspense tally up to one or maybe less.
& so, the biggest flaw people find in Season of the Witch is that it doesn't continue that trend(?)
Halloween is one of the best lit movies of all time, & probably the best lit 'nighttime' movie ever. Only second to that is - yes, Michael Myers is pretty badass & has a cool mask. Though it kinda ends there; his backstory/mystique/motive/strength/powers weren't really pressing in part one, and have all but been destroyed by its sequels.
Most of em.
After Myers is 'killed' in II, the bigger, more important character lives on - October 31st. That's what people don't get -- or, they get it & don't care. Go to any message board or read any review, & more often than not, you'll find this line somewhere:
If it doesn't have Myers, it's not Halloween.
So, I just gotta ask: were parts 4 through 8 really that spectacular? Did the inclusion of Myers help them at all? You know, it was kinda spooky when he disappears at the end of part one, but when Loomis plainly and inexplicably survives a massive fireball at the end of II, it kinda sucks the spookiness out of Myers's longevity.
I'm not championing III simply by default, because, I will say that, apart from the fact that it is one of the most clever, logical continuations in a franchise, it is also legitimately chilling. It's startling and disturbing, and I can list all the films that fall under that criteria on my hand - at least for me.
Very few films of any genre dare to depict murdering children in gruesome ways. & when they do, it's for shock value.
Sure, it's used that way in Halloween III, but it's the fucking plot! Seriously! That's just too much awesomeness to put into words.
Halloween the holiday is really only about two things: kids & costumes. So, in that sense, Season of the Witch is more Halloween than Halloween. You know?
Why it's worse
Tommy Lee Wallace isn't John Carpenter.
"I don't believe this commercial. It never stops."
Posts
.png)
.jpg)
4 comments:
Once again, I'll have to agree. I probably do enjoy the original Halloween more than you do, it's my personal favorite horror film of the 1970's (possibly a tie with Exorcist), but this sequel does have a lot going for it. Pretty much out of any science-fiction film, this really has the most feeling of classic horror to it. I can't even say that about Alien. Besides the obvious, I think another reason people give it flack is for it's insane plot, but it's always pretty cool to check out something this ludicrous and original. Plus, if anyone can honestly tell me that this worse than Halloween 5 and on, than I've lost faith in humanity. Wow, I actually mentioned those sequels in a previous comment...Well, they do indeed suck.
OK. As long as you're not ragging on John Carpenter. Which I didn't think you would be.
I'm with you. Dismissing Season Of The Witch as "That Halloween film without Michael Myers." is just wrong. I liked the initial idea of different Halloween films, but everyone's afraid of change so we had to suffer through a series that should've died in that explosion.
You make a good argument for Halloween III. Although I do disagree with you on your examination of Michael Myers. yes, there is no explanation to his strength and powers in the first film, and yes it's explained in the other sequels, but who wants an explanation? One of the reasons Anton Chirgurh or Hannibal Lector (Silence of the Lambs Hector, not the other sequels) are so memorable is because we do not understand their background or what made them the way they are. Who wants that?
Post a Comment