Halloween 3

[The Pessimist]

If you're into moody scores that really are not your typical, I'd give this one a go. I was fortunate to have someone over at FSM highlight to me that this 1,000-copy release had been out almost a year and still had not sold out. As to the movie, the idea to get away from Michael Myers was an interesting move. Unfortunately this is one of the slimmest pieces of nothing I've ever discovered in filmmaking. Behind it is a good idea with a psycho selling Halloween masks that will trigger evil via the play of a commercial, but it is so void of any material that it feels like a hollow imagery of darkness. It doesn't proceed to give detail, and I'd have to say it's even worse than some of the later years repetition. Most all of them should be avoided anyhow as this franchise doesn't bother to even advance the mythology of MM and has turned him into another Jason that just hacks away for the sake of selling large body counts. It's quite a pity because this is the one sequel which 'tried' to do something original, but it's so beyond empty it's an enormous let down.

[JSWalsh]

It's interesting to be of my age group, to be really into horror films, and yet not like the movie that so many consider THE horror movie of their day. I found HALLOWEEN a complete bore, and watching Siskel and Ebert try to make it seem like a great movie is actually what made me stop taking them seriously--Siskel going on and on about the "theme" had me giggling. Sure, it's effective and I think appropriate, but gimme a break.

I saw the second movie late one Saturday night, stumbled upon it by accident, and watched the foolishness unravel for about an hour.

Years later, a musician friend with whom I had endless discussions about horror told me the third one was odd and interesting once you got past the idea that it had nothing to do with the previous two. I think Carpenter and company intended to use the "Halloween" name as an umbrella title, and each Halloween have a completely new story with new characters. That would have been a good idea, I guess, if you'd followed it from the start, but when your first two movies are about the same characters...well, you can see where this goes.

Anyway, I've never understood the appeal of John Carpenter movies, with the exception of the mildly diverting BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and the mildly eerie PRINCE OF DARKNESS. Other than those, his entire collected works don't do much for me, so something like this--wasn't it directed by Nick Castle or someone?--doesn't have much appeal. Though current horror flicks are such garbage I bet this would look good in comparison.

[The Pessimist]

It's interesting to be of my age group, to be really into horror films, and yet not like the movie that so many consider THE horror movie of their day. I found HALLOWEEN a complete bore, and watching Siskel and Ebert try to make it seem like a great movie is actually what made me stop taking them seriously--Siskel going on and on about the "theme" had me giggling. Sure, it's effective and I think appropriate, but gimme a break.

I saw the second movie late one Saturday night, stumbled upon it by accident, and watched the foolishness unravel for about an hour.

Years later, a musician friend with whom I had endless discussions about horror told me the third one was odd and interesting once you got past the idea that it had nothing to do with the previous two. I think Carpenter and company intended to use the "Halloween" name as an umbrella title, and each Halloween have a completely new story with new characters. That would have been a good idea, I guess, if you'd followed it from the start, but when your first two movies are about the same characters...well, you can see where this goes.

Anyway, I've never understood the appeal of John Carpenter movies, with the exception of the mildly diverting BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and the mildly eerie PRINCE OF DARKNESS. Other than those, his entire collected works don't do much for me, so something like this--wasn't it directed by Nick Castle or someone?--doesn't have much appeal. Though current horror flicks are such garbage I bet this would look good in comparison.

You have a good point about the original. What really sells it more than anything else is the score. If you read the sleeve notes, Carpenter acknowledges he had problems with the way he shot it. The sequel he even says right up front: '...it was about capitalism...we we're trying to make the money we didn't make in the original.' I believe it was directed by Rosenthal I think, and Carpenter stepped in to re-shoot some of the scenes.

If you were to watch the third I'd keep in mind that it has its moody and atmospheric moments, but there really is no content or foundation to it.

Another example of how this franchise doesn't progress:


http://allmovie.com/work/halloween-351975/review

(excerpt)

Given all of this, is there a silver lining to this production? One compliment that's been thrown out there is that at least it's Zombie's vision all the way -- or is it? When rumors of the reshoots popped up promising more deaths and an extended ending, the filmmaker scoffed at the idea, sizing it up to Internet lunacy. The official response was that Bob Weinstein offered more money to help juice up the production any way that Rob wanted, so the timeline of the film was played with, opening things up for a few more cameos along the way (including key members of the Rejects alumni -- Sid Haig and Bill Moseley). Additionally, the director has said that the ending was reworked to give Laurie a more satisfying arc, but if that's true, then he missed the point even more the second time around, studio interference or not. Either way, one thing no one counted on was a workprint copy leaking onto the Internet the week of release, not only raising the piracy flag in Tinseltown, but allowing an interesting peek at what the picture looked like before the notorious Weinstein Company waved more money around. Reportedly gone is the Texas Chainsaw-tinged ending, as well as the absurd chain-breaking escape from the hospital. In their place, grounded character work that allows for a richer Halloween experience than the cut-and-paste one that made its way onto the big screen. Sadly, it seems that audiences lost out again, making this yet another Halloween sequel that's been tampered with before its theatrical release. What's even worse is that this looks to be a monumental step back creatively for Rob Zombie, who for whatever reason, has delivered what many outside his loyal following would consider to be a colossal waste of time.

[JSWalsh]

Another example of how this franchise doesn't progress:

That's a key word that the owners of these franchises rarely think about--PROGRESS. Of course sequels are about making money, but how about making the series' develop, so when people hear that another installment is on the way, they're intrigued to see something they haven't seen before, and not just a souped-up version of something they know by heart?

I'm tired of talking about the Alien movies, but that's why I enjoyed the idea of the series, because for all the missteps, it seemed like the producers/creative folks wanted to move it forward, until the "Resurrection" which tossed the whole thing in the garbage (and the AVP crap which is too painful to contemplate...but then, I am astonished by the thinking that Predator is a classic action film). Even the Planet of the Apes series is a pretty interesting series of movies that move the ideas forward...or backward, and then forward...or something....

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I had to watch a couple of the Halloween sequels, and they were just so pointless they can only be laughed at, but the butchery becomes a real downer for anyone but some Goth kid who gets off on ultraviolence and sadism.

[AndyDursin]

Carpenter and Howarth's score for this sequel is easily one of their best. That may be faint praise for some, but I think it's quite atmospheric. "Chariots of Pumpkins" is a terrific track and the whole score is equally satisfying and moody.

The movie was an unfortunate, if well-shot and intriguing, misfire. Nigel Kneale of QUATERMASS fame wrote the script and everyone was excited about the prospects of doing a HALLOWEEN movie without a connection to Michael Myers -- sadly they changed Kneale's script so much he was furious and took his name off it, and the resulting film died at the box-office.

[The Pessimist]

That's a key word that the owners of these franchises rarely think about--PROGRESS. Of course sequels are about making money, but how about making the series' develop, so when people hear that another installment is on the way, they're intrigued to see something they haven't seen before, and not just a souped-up version of something they know by heart?

Exactly. The franchise has never really moved forward. In Part 6 there apparently is an alternate cult version floating around available for purchase, but when push came to shove, they went with what is seen on screen, which is hogwash. There's really no reason to believe in the series to go along with Jason. I haven't seen the remake, but from what I understand it's an 'improved' version and possibly the best of the series. It has better and much more dramatic acting from the cast, Jason is 'quicker' on his feet, etc...but even if you agree it's improved, it's hard to say they can go any further with the new installments since the aim has been achieved: to improve, not alter, the ingredient.

[The Pessimist]

Carpenter and Howarth's score for this sequel is easily one of their best. That may be faint praise for some, but I think it's quite atmospheric. "Chariots of Pumpkins" is a terrific track and the whole score is equally satisfying and moody.

The movie was an unfortunate, if well-shot and intriguing, misfire. Nigel Kneale of QUATERMASS fame wrote the script and everyone was excited about the prospects of doing a HALLOWEEN movie without a connection to Michael Myers -- sadly they changed Kneale's script so much he was furious and took his name off it, and the resulting film died at the box-office.

A good idea gone hollow, if you ask me.

[The Pessimist]

I tell you what though, I've said it a thousand time probably, I admire people like F13 producer Frank Mancuso Jr. because he comes right out and acknowledges it's about commerce. It isn't really this thing to smear him, but it's this whole different level of respect when they are honest about their intentions up front. The product...whatever, but I admire the honesty. And so I guess I have a bit more of a fond place in my heart for someone like Mancuso because he's genuine in his comments.

[Paul MacLean]

I honestly never cared for any of John Carpenter's scores. I didn't think the music for Halloween added anything to the film, being mostly an emotional flatline of drones. I thought the film was unscary...but ironically could have been extremely scary with an effective score.

That said I DO think Carpenter is a good director. The original Halloween was was very well-mounted given its budget. I always liked Dark Star (again it is astonishing what Carpenter pulled off on such a small budget), and I am a real fan of The Thing, which is still his best film IMO (and one on which he was was wise enough to hand the task of scoring to a more capable musician).

But as a composer, Carpenter was in many ways a precursor to what we have too much of today -- untrained people of dubious musical inclination throwing switches on a keyboard and passing off random drones, loops and weird noises as a score. The only difference is keyboards are more sophisticated than they were back then.

[mkaroly]

I will agree with Paul and say that THE THING is his best film. For me, it is one of my all-time favorites. The blood test scene is teh highlight of the film for me. It was also awesome in that there was no stupid love story.

I enjoyed the original HALLOWEEN. All the rest of them sucked. It might have helped that I was a teenager when I finally saw it for the first time, and which point I was really into horror movies. I thought it was effectively creepy and scary, and it showed very little gore (as opposed to FRIDAY THE 13TH). Well done in my opinion, especially compared to today's crap that goes way overboard (again, IMO).

The rest of Carpenter's stuff I can take or leave. Never liked THE FOG. Even ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK doesn't do much for me.

[AndyDursin]

I like the way Carpenter's movies are shot, and there are several I admire a great deal (THE THING being his best; HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, STARMAN, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and even the VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED remake being pretty effective). Outside of those, it's a steep drop-off to everything else, and I agree with Michael that ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK was pretty leaden for what was supposed to be a "fun" movie.

Going back to the main topic, as far as his MUSIC goes, some of his scores work better than others -- I do find HALLOWEEN atmospheric and extremely effective -- yet as he and Howarth threw more and more synths into the mix, their scores became less and less effective. That's where I completely agree with Paul.

That whole "'80s electronic" approach is something I noticed while watching V: THE FINAL BATTLE again a few weeks ago. The mini-series was originally scored by Barry DeVorzon and Joesph Conlan in a definite Carpenter mode with synths and droning notes -- it didn't work at all, and they brought Dennis McCarthy in to re-score as much as he could (basically the entire second half of it). It's so obvious, too, because as soon as you hear McCarthy's music come into play, the whole show perked up and became much more entertaining and "accessible." It's something the electronic score didn't provide at all, that McCarthy's more orchestral-oriented approach did.

[mkaroly]

Yes- the scores...lol...honestly, aside from HALLOWEEN I never really paid much attention to them (which is probably why I didn't comment on them in the earlier post). Not memorable.

[Paul MacLean]

I like the way Carpenter's movies are shot, and there are several I admire a great deal (THE THING being his best; HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, STARMAN, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and even the VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED remake being pretty effective).

Forgot about Starman! That was quite a good film too. Altho the plot was very reminiscent of ET, the love story element (and Carpenter's handling of it) was so touching it didn't matter. I wasn't, I admit, crazy about Jack Nitsche's score (whose main theme was obviously modeled on Vangelis' "Abraham's Theme" from Chariots of Fire) but I did think it was a better score than any of Carpenter's.

[JSWalsh]

Dark Star seemed as much Dan O'Bannon's as Carpenter's. which could be why I like it and have no use for most of Carpenter's output. His stuff seems very boxed-in and airless to me, with cardboard characters and nothing interesting going on under the bland surfaces. He's one of those directors who, once he's dead and his fans have aged, I don't think he'll be remembered. There just isn't a lot there.

[AndyDursin]

I like the way Carpenter's movies are shot, and there are several I admire a great deal (THE THING being his best; HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, STARMAN, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and even the VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED remake being pretty effective).

Forgot about Starman! That was quite a good film too. Altho the plot was very reminiscent of ET, the love story element (and Carpenter's handling of it) was so touching it didn't matter. I wasn't, I admit, crazy about Jack Nitsche's score (whose main theme was obviously modeled on Vangelis' "Abraham's Theme" from Chariots of Fire) but I did think it was a better score than any of Carpenter's.

STARMAN is a movie often overlooked (I often forget it, too!) because it doesn't feel like one of his movies. Really, it was right in that window where he became a "studio guy" coming off THE THING, CHRISTINE and before BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA. And then the window closed right after that.

A solid movie, obviously an E.T. clone, but a good one nevertheless. Nitzsche's score, completely agree, did nothing for the movie either.