Is it a perfect movie?

[AllHallowsNight]

This movie we all adore. Is there anything you secretly wish they did differently, or something about it that bugs you? I am talking first and foremost about the 'real' movies, John Carpenter's Halloween 1 and Halloween 2. There are quite a few things I don't like about the first movie. The fact that they did not use Nick for all the scenes is unforgivable (not including stunt scenes or animal scenes). It will always bother me. I know it's a low budget movie but the fact they did not sculpt their own mask for the movie - they should've done it! Not only that they bought a mask, they bought a mask based on another actors face! The paint on the mask and the hair faded but it turned out cool! I think I've only seen one of the movies versions but the film is WAAAYY too short for me and the real entertainment for me doesn't come until the last 20 minutes, when Laurie starts wondering if something's wrong, when she walks out of the house on the way to the other house looking for Annie and Lynda. We barely get to see Michael Myers. It amazes me there is so much talk about Michael and all the takes on the mask and finishing on the mask from the movie, there are too few scenes with the Shape. I can not believe also how people can say 'oh yeah this mask looks exactly like what it looks like in the movie'. The only scenes worth mentioning with the mask is The hedge scene, Mr Riddles backyard - these two scenes because of the hair color only!,The phone scene, Michael coming out of the shadows scene, The hallway scene, The closet scene, Michael's last attempt and barely even After the first shot scene- when he takes his last breath.

In Halloween 2, using an other actor causing the mask to look completely different, the heavy weathering on the stunt mask, the gore and violence(it's too scary ) and overall theme of the movie, being set on the same night.

Discuss.

[CallMeRetorik]

This movie we all adore. Is there anything you secretly wish they did differently, or something about it that bugs you?

One thing.

The fact that they did not use Nick for all the scenes is unforgivable (not including stunt scenes or animal scenes). It will always bother me.

This is the only thing I can agree with. But I cannot say that it will always bother me. I can easily watch the movie and it not even cross my mind.

I know it's a low budget movie but the fact they did not sculpt their own mask for the movie - they should've done it! Not only that they bought a mask, they bought a mask based on another actors face! The paint on the mask and the hair faded but it turned out cool!

If the mask looks cool then why complain? John wanted an 'expressionless' mask and the Kirk mask fit the bill. It's hella creepy once it's altered. The mask has proven to be iconic. It obviously worked for what they wanted.

I think I've only seen one of the movies versions but the film is WAAAYY too short for me and the real entertainment for me doesn't come until the last 20 minutes, when Laurie starts wondering if something's wrong, when she walks out of the house on the way to the other house looking for Annie and Lynda. We barely get to see Michael Myers. It amazes me there is so much talk about Michael and all the takes on the mask and finishing on the mask from the movie, there are too few scenes with the Shape.

Which one of the versions did you see? A good horror film is about an hour and a half. This movie is 91 minutes - perfect! The pacing is great and everything was edited to perfection for that time - and everything holds up today.

All of the action starts towards the end - but c'mon! The whole aspect of the movie that makes it truly great is the mood and the score and this overall question in your mind about Michael stalking the girls. If you want action for the whole movie watch RZ's remake.

In Halloween 2, u, the gore and violence(it's too scary ) and overall theme of the movie, being set on the same night.

Wait, wait . . . you are saying that you don't like H2 because it is too scary? It's a horror movie. What do you expect?
Being set on the same night is one of the greatest concepts of the film. How else were they supposed to capture the fact that Michael survived falling off the balcony? We wanted to know what happened after he fell.

[BRoswell]

To answer the question posed: no, it's not a perfect movie. No movie is. That said, it's a VERY well done film (talking about Carpenter's original only).

Also, your complaints about the original are, for lack of a better term, silly. They didn't use Castle for all the Michael scenes...who cares? If you didn't know that, would you even notice? Carpenter and Co. do such a great job at building up Michael as an evil force that, no matter who was behind the mask, you still feel the power of the character. I love Castle's performance, but it doesn't even occur to me that it's a different actor for the one or two scenes where it's not him. That just shows how well done the film is.

They didn't sculpt their own mask? Again, who cares? The converted Shatner mask was perfect for the film, and that's all that matters. That complaint shouldn't even be leveled against the film because it has no bearing on the finished product.

As far as the length, if there's one thing that approaches perfection in the film, it's the pacing. The length and the timing of the dramatic and horrific moments is so well done. If you want proof that a longer version of the movie wouldn't work, watch the extended TV version. Those extra scenes added in slow the film to a crawl and break up the near perfect pacing. If that's what you're looking for, cool, but I definitely don't think the film needs to be any longer.

And finally, Michael is shown for the exact amount of time that he should be. He's a phantom, a spirit, a ghoul of the night. Seeing him more sort of ruined Michael in H2, because rather than being some sort of omnipresent force, he's now just a psycho in a mask. Having him appear more in the original would have killed the atmosphere and the sense of dread that Carpenter and Co. worked so hard to bring into the film.

[CallMeRetorik]

To answer the question posed: no, it's not a perfect movie. No movie is. That said, it's a VERY well done film (talking about Carpenter's original only).

Also, your complaints about the original are, for lack of a better term, silly. They didn't use Castle for all the Michael scenes...who cares? If you didn't know that, would you even notice? Carpenter and Co. do such a great job at building up Michael as an evil force that, no matter who was behind the mask, you still feel the power of the character. I love Castle's performance, but it doesn't even occur to me that it's a different actor for the one or two scenes where it's not him. That just shows how well done the film is.

They didn't sculpt their own mask? Again, who cares? The converted Shatner mask was perfect for the film, and that's all that matters. That complaint shouldn't even be leveled against the film because it has no bearing on the finished product.

As far as the length, if there's one thing that approaches perfection in the film, it's the pacing. The length and the timing of the dramatic and horrific moments is so well done. If you want proof that a longer version of the movie wouldn't work, watch the extended TV version. Those extra scenes added in slow the film to a crawl and break up the near perfect pacing. If that's what you're looking for, cool, but I definitely don't think the film needs to be any longer.

And finally, Michael is shown for the exact amount of time that he should be. He's a phantom, a spirit, a ghoul of the night. Seeing him more sort of ruined Michael in H2, because rather than being some sort of omnipresent force, he's now just a psycho in a mask. Having him appear more in the original would have killed the atmosphere and the sense of dread that Carpenter and Co. worked so hard to bring into the film.

I couldn't agree with you more on every point stated. Basically supporting my response as well.

[anth0777]

Seems all these youngsters think about is how quick are we gonna see the bloodfest and killing,Entertainment doesn't come until the last 20 minutes Eh? Halloween is a True Masterpiece and it put JC on the map,sure theres a few imperfections here and there with palm tree's and peoples/crew members heads popping up over bushes and some ciiigar smoke floating across our screen etc but that all adds to it and gives it character and makes it what it is,hell the budget was so tight the cast had to wear there own clothes on set,as for Castle not portraying the Shape throughout,im sure if we never knew that fact we'd not even be discussing it as it's not even noticable throughout the movie that another person is playing a certain scene.whilst i can respect another persons opinion yours are off in so many areas.

[AllHallowsNight]

...anyway, if there's anyone else who'd like to pop in..please.

[benny]

I honestly love EVERYTHING about these 2 movies.. The phantom portrayal of h1 and the continuation of h2 now that you've seen him, he is now a psycho behind a mask that could not have been more perfect! Every idea of it from the fact that it was a low budget film just clicked and that is why it is still amazing to watch. The ONLY thing i would change is how they changed the end of h1 where he falls off the balcony to h2 where he walks backwards up a ramp and then falls off. That just bothers me. They used the same footage for the reveal of his face but shortened it which is fine but the falling off the balcony being completely re-shot bothers me.. You clearly see him walking up a ramp as he walks backward.. Other than that one little part, PURE EXCELLENCE! I'm glad they used the mask they did and the actors they did. I wouldn't change any of the actors who played him. To me it just adds to the fact that what was a low budget film turned into something we still talk about and analyze every detail to this day and years to come..
......benny

[CallMeRetorik]

...anyway, if there's anyone else who'd like to pop in..please.

Why are you not responding to those who have answered your post?

In all honesty it seems as if there are so many things that bother you about the movie you might as well say you don't even like it.

A few of us have given you some good points - I wonder what your thoughts are on them.

[GHOSTCLOUD]

YEAH WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THE SHAPE BUT AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE... ESPECIALLY WITH PART 1 ITS CLASSIC PERIOD..I WISH I COULD SEE MORE OF THE MASK IN H1..BUT THEY DONT MAKE MOVIES LIKE THAT ANYMORE AND I CAN WATCH THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT GETTING TIRED OF IT.

[Kirk Magnum]

Halloween is a perfect horror movie. If it wasn't perfect, so many people wouldn't have tried to emulate it in every way.

From the movie score that sets you on edge from the opening notes, from the razor thin plot line from John and Debra, John's cat and mouse extended scenes of tension, to the vulnerability that Jamie Lee played in Laurie, the exquisite cinema photography by Dean Cundey and to a cast and crew working together towards the same goal...scaring the hell out of the American public.

Call it lighting in a bottle, call it 1 in a million, call it in the right place at the right time...call it whatever you want, but call it a perfect horror movie.

[Deep Red]

The 1978 Halloween movie is perfect to me. Given the budget, and time that they had, they created a masterpiece. John Carpenter captured the very essence of what the BOOGEYMAN is with the 1978 film. It's Halloween night, it's evil, it's suppose to be a fun night. This night has turned into HELL. It's still one of, if not the best horror movie ever created. And there's been plenty of great horror films made. Long live that Halloween night in 1978.

[squidboy]

Is any film ever perfect? Is there such a thing?

It's hard for me to personally find faults with the film. The film was made for around 300k mind you, so of course there might be few minor technical faults. Little nitpicks that only the diehards and sharped eyed critiques can point out. I believe it made about 70 Million during it's box office run (for years, the biggest net return on a "low-budget" film). The funnest fact about the original release of the film, was it start out at limited theaters and word of mouth helped the weekly draws grow for weeks after it's release (something that hardly ever happens with a movie). It was a unique film for the time, that basically propelled the slasher horror format to what we know today. We wouldn't have Jason, Freddy, Scream, and countless other film series/films/ sub genres without the success of the film. As a lynchpin in the genre, the father of the modern day slasher (Psycho is a grandfather) it is a Masterpiece, and yes in doing so obtains a degree of perfection. It's a classic, something that is as close to perfect, as possible (again perfection is probably impossible, because of differing opinions of viewers).

I'm not sure if the age or generation of the viewer plays a role in how one views a movie like this, but I think it's highly important to factor. In a way, to me it's timeless. I was born in 1980, and first saw the film in October, when I was 5 or 6. I remember cutting out pumpkins, it was on WPIX (or some other basic cable channel), and forever that memory was engraved in thoughts. I was just at the right place, right time...

Film is art. Any critique of such is opinion. All the best works of art have "flaws." Minor nitpicks. Point is it's a timeless classic for some, and flawed for some (a Mona Lisa of Slasher Films). Granted, I could go on and on about flaws found in Halloween 4 - RZH2, but I won't. They've grown on me for the most part, but I find myself sticking more so to the original 3. Zombie's take was refreshing in it's own way, but still doesn't hold a candle to the original (again my own opinion, and I'm a huge Zombie fan).

So if anything, I guess the only thing I want is the better print/ audio track available. We've come a long way from my H1 VHS to the my H1 Blu-ray), but I wouldn't complain if they released better print. ha

Side note: Thankfully Carpenter doesn't pull a Lucas and go in and "fix" things....

[Serial_Killer_2000]

By reading *AllHallowsNights* first comment, it almost sounds like they don't even like the movie... very strange.

[AllHallowsNight]

Just to make one thing clear. I love this movie, probably as much as you do. That's why I tend to think the movies are too short. I always want more. I think this movie is a classic, and I think it's safe to say that I think it is a masperpiece. The fact is I think I would see the whole greatness better if this movie was just a stand alone movie.
I think this movie is more of a thriller than horror. And the fact that you don't get to see Myers in a lot of scenes and this movies suspenseful kind of theme.. or let me just say the movies classicness in general gives me more of a thriller feel!

I know it's a low budget movie but the fact they did not sculpt their own mask for the movie - they should've done it! Not only that they bought a mask, they bought a mask based on another actors face! The paint on the mask and the hair faded but it turned out cool!

If the mask looks cool then why complain? John wanted an 'expressionless' mask and the Kirk mask fit the bill. It's hella creepy once it's altered. The mask has proven to be iconic. It obviously worked for what they wanted.

I love that it turned out to be that mask. But remember we wouldn't have had to missed it if they didn't chose that mask, right? I just wish that they made their own mask, but most of all that it wasn't based on a real life persons face, that's all.

Which one of the versions did you see? A good horror film is about an hour and a half. This movie is 91 minutes - perfect! The pacing is great and everything was edited to perfection for that time - and everything holds up today.

All of the action starts towards the end - but c'mon! The whole aspect of the movie that makes it truly great is the mood and the score and this overall question in your mind about Michael stalking the girls. If you want action for the whole movie watch RZ's remake.

I agree. I both love the movie as it is, and sometimes wish you get to see more. The way you described it also reminds me of the reason why some of the people here like Halloween H2O.

Wait, wait . . . you are saying that you don't like H2 because it is too scary? It's a horror movie. What do you expect?
Being set on the same night is one of the greatest concepts of the film. How else were they supposed to capture the fact that Michael survived falling off the balcony? We wanted to know what happened after he fell.

What I'd expect? How about being based on the plain suspense the previous movie had!??
Okay, so how did the film capture that he survived...a balcony fall?(by setting the movie on the same night)

Seems all these youngsters think about is how quick are we gonna see the bloodfest and killing,Entertainment doesn't come until the last 20 minutes Eh? Halloween is a True Masterpiece and it put JC on the map

I really hope you're not referring to me here, are you!? I have not seen the remake of Halloween. I haven't even seen Halloween 4 and 6. I have not either watched H2 all the way through. And I said otherwise!? It's almost like you shouldn't have said anything at all there.

as for Castle not portraying the Shape throughout,im sure if we never knew that fact we'd not even be discussing it as it's not even noticable throughout the movie that another person is playing a certain scene.whilst i can respect another persons opinion yours are off in so many areas.

But we do know it, or don't we!? My opinions are off!?? Get out of here!

...anyway, if there's anyone else who'd like to pop in..please.

Why are you not responding to those who have answered your post?

It's not America everywhere. You need your sleep.

[anth0777]

Seems all these youngsters think about is how quick are we gonna see the bloodfest and killing,Entertainment doesn't come until the last 20 minutes Eh? Halloween is a True Masterpiece and it put JC on the map

I really hope you're not referring to me here, are you!? I have not seen the remake of Halloween. I haven't even seen Halloween 4 and 6. I have not either watched H2 all the way through. And I said otherwise!? It's almost like you shouldn't have said anything at all there.

as for Castle not portraying the Shape throughout,im sure if we never knew that fact we'd not even be discussing it as it's not even noticable throughout the movie that another person is playing a certain scene.whilst i can respect another persons opinion yours are off in so many areas.

But we do know it, or don't we!? My opinions are off!?? Get out of here!

From the way i read into it' it's like you thought the Movie had nothing going on until the last 20 minutes or so,but then again im not a mind reader so text can be taken any which way and thats the way i took it,ok i'll get out of here now.