Chomper wrote: LoudLon wrote:
It was never intended to have anything to do with the Michael Myers Halloween flicks anyway; it was an attempt by producers John Carpenter and Debra Hill to make "Halloween" more of an umbrella title or a brand under which they could produce different horror films -- kind of like how Masters of Horror is just a series of different movies by different creators. The only reason they didn't continue with that idea is because of the backlash from folks who expected another Myers flick.
I really wish that they would have taken the "Halloween" franchise in the direction of H3 - a different story each time, but maybe connecting them together somehow (even with a nod to a previous installment here and there). As much as I like Michael Myers, it got stale.
It's good to see others with same opinion as mine. Any series that was not an intended amount of movies (for example Lord of the Rings was intended to be 3 movies) tends to turrn to crap after the first or second movie. That didn't happen with Halloween, part 3 was great. After that though they just became a generic slasher movie.
I'm not keen on rating anything on a scale of one to ten. People just look at a rating and make an assumption, I prefer to write about the film I saw, the album I listened to, or the book I read and let what I wrote speak for itself. If I have gripes, you see the what they are, maybe it's something that won't matter to you. If I have something I really liked, you see that too and you may or may not agree with it. That and I'm a vicious rater, there is maybe one or two movies that are a 10/10, how could there be more? If one movie is your favourite it should automatically be top ranked, anything less could not be equal. Then there's the problem of movies that are so bad they are good, how do you rate that? My experience was positive, so watching the flick was a 8/10, but the movie is really a piece of garbage and it wasn't intended to be funny on that level, so it's 3/10. Even it out at 5.5? Bah, too complicated.