Halloween films

i love halloween 3,
even though cochran is pure evil,i c'ant help but like the guy,he has a nice charm about him,but there was no way he was going to get the better of the mighty tom atkins.
 
He also didn't do too bad in H2 considering that he was stabbed in the eye and shot a multitude of times in H1. :D

I like watching H1 every year, but the shine's worn off a bit since I read the goofs on the IMDb forum. :eek: :D
 
Nah, Resurrection didn't change anything, the continuities can't be joined in H20 either. There are a few almost-connections between 4-6 and H20 (like Laurie faking her death in a car crash) because originally H20 wasn't going to ignore that middle trilogy, but after a few messy rewrites they decided to erase 4-6 without getting rid of the mention of the car crash and other things that might have connected them.



Yep, they're all owned by different companies.
1, 4 & 5 are owned by Anchor Bay.
2 & 3 are owned by Universal.
6, H20 & Resurrection are owned by Dimension.
 
I've watched Halloween 1 so many times. First at the cinema in 1980 and watched it so many times on tele and videoand dvd that I could play part in it now as I know it so well. :D
 
Apparently according to an interview with John Carpenter a few years ago, John didn't want to get involved with making Halloween 2 and even refused to direct the film, although he was persuaded to write the script. It was always John's intention just to make one movie based on the Michael Myers character and make a series of unrelated films full of wicked twists.

But apparently after the way the first Halloween film ended, there was an outcry for a sequel. H2 was ok, but I found it a little boring compared to the first film. They definately should have ended the series after H2 I think, especially as John Carpenter was never going to get involved with the series again after that point :)
 
I saw one interview where he said he was really grasping at straws for a plotline in Halloween 2. And it shows. H2 doesn't make any sense at all. :)
 
I always thought the best way to keep the story intact with 4 and 5 was that lorrie faked her own death and left her daughter to be up for adoption to make sure shes safe from michael, then by h20 she was a son that shes over protective with, not only because shes afraid of michael but due to the fact she would probably feel guilty about giving up her daughter.

I know that the films dont really show that, but my little theory keeps me content for continuities sake.
 
I saw it a number of years ago.

Many followers of the series consider it superior to the version that was released in 95.However,I found it no better or worse - both are below average sequels,in my opinion.

On the other hand,it does have more of the great Donald Pleasence,and doesn't reek of post production tinkering like the theatrical version does.

Both are mumbo-jumbo however.
 
Hmm, not sure why that would be. Was Resurrection included? If not, it could be a fan demand thing since 6 and Resurrection are often regarded as low points of the series.



Yes, I've seen it. It is an improvement on the normal version, and it connects much better to 4 & 5, but it's still got all that rubbish about constellations, curses etc. and it has an embarrassing climax - Michael is defeated by rune stones!
 
Back
Top