MovieChat Forums > AdamWaldron96-2
AdamWaldron96-2 (178)
Posts
Thoughts on Escape Room (SPOILERS)
Halloween Fans vs. "True" Halloween Fans vs. Casual Viewers
AMC Theory
Who was shooting?
Direct to Video
For the last time... (SPOILERS)
The Editing (Spoilers)
Just watched the SyFy premiere (spoilers)
Glad to know Nick (spoilers)...
IT's origins
View all posts >
Replies
True, but the guy had a vision for his documentary; something along the lines of a documentarian who looked too deep into everything that he gets wrapped into it. He wants to build the documentary up so he can surprise everyone when he reveals the killer to be himself at the very end.
That’s primarily what I’m thinking. He didn’t kill the analyst to avoid being caught. It’s just that it wasn’t the right time for him to get caught. The documentary needed to be completed.
In the last several minutes of the documentary portion, where he decides to retrace the path the crew took to get to the Pine Barrens, you can see David is wearing the same clothes after he just killed Shelley, even though the documentary portion claims that it occurs the following day. You can briefly see the plastic he used to wrap her up in the back of his car when he’s talking to the camera while driving. And the final shot of the documentary portion of him in the woods by himself is what we see in the narrative portion.
Now as I said before, the documentary portion shows that March 31st is when he goes into the woods, and April 1st when he goes into Shelley’s to kill her. But as seen in the narrative portion, we see that he killed Shelley before he went to shoot the other segments, further cementing the theme of the movie; the footage should be telling the truth when it really isn’t because it’s edited to fit a narrative that David wants to tell. Same thing with law enforcement with the raw footage from the show; they used what they had to fit a narrative that they wanted in order to convict Jim Suerd for the murders.
Point being, in the documentary section, it seems like he left Shelley to her own devices and occasionally stepped in until she got something. But off camera, in reality, it’s possible he kept checking up on her every day to see how much progress she got to make sure she hasn’t made him yet. Once he decided she got far enough, he broke in and killed her. The segments where we see his face slowly being revealed could just be his work doing that he is editing into his documentary and not Shelley’s.
The documentary ends with the reveal of David being the killer. It not only accomplishes his goal to posthumously exonerate Jim Suerd and incriminate himself, but it supports his thesis that the murders of the Fact or Fiction hosts did nothing but allow everyone around them to profit and expand their careers with it. And David is exploiting that with the documentary that he plans to release to the public. The first 75 minutes is that documentary. The rest that follows is an epilogue of sorts that is separate from the documentary itself.
Without Jeff and Mutt, the Mead-Bot wouldn't talk or function. They went to Outpost 2, and a year and a half later, Michael said Outpost 2 was overrun and everyone is dead. Yet, the Mead-Bot had its memory wiped before the apocalypse, meaning Jeff and Mutt spent a year and a half just playing pranks on everyone in Outpost 3 with Venable? So either Michael magically made the bot function after they died or made her function without their help before the Apocalypse, or somewhere in Outpost 2 Jeff and Mutt spent the past year and a half pretending to have an existentialism crisis.
Basically. Depending on which cut of Halloween 6 you watch, it goes one of two ways, and either way is a cliffhanger:
a) The doctors at Smith's Grove, who are in the Thorn Cult, have been doing experiments with genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization to harness the evil that is inside Michael, and baby Stephen is the result of that. Thorn, the demon that the cult has been trying to keep at bay through Michael for the past 32 years, finally takes control of him, and makes him slaughter the doctors as Smith's Grove. Tommy Doyle injects Michael with corrosive chemicals, and beats him to supposed death with a lead pipe. As Tommy, Kara and the kids escape, Loomis heads back inside to find Michael gone. Either Loomis is killed off here by Michael, or Loomis screams because Michael has disappeared again.
b) The cult of Thorn gathers in the basement of Smith's Grove for the final sacrifice. Michael has to kill baby Stephen to complete what he started 32 years ago, and then the evil will transfer over to Danny, and his first sacrifice will be Kara. Tommy infiltrates the building, and holds Wynn at knife point to let Kara and the kids go. Michael chases after them, and Tommy uses the runes of light to try to cancel the evil energy inside of Michael. Wynn, however, steps inside the runes of light, and cancels their power. Tommy, Kara and the kids escape, and Loomis heads back inside, only to discover that Michael has swapped clothes with Wynn, and as Wynn supposedly dies, he makes Loomis the new leader of the Cult of Thorn, meaning Loomis has to watch over Michael from now on and protect him.
Halloween: Resurrection, either one, but they both suck:
a) Michael just had a death rattle or something, and died on the coroner's table.
b) Michael gets away, never to be seen again.
Kind of glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought Sartain supposed to be a Wynn throwback. I saw a video online where someone said Sartain is supposed to represent our over-obsession with those who perpetuate violence, and how we over-analyze and study killers to try to get in their heads, figure out what makes them tick. While I think this idea was established already in the beginning with the podcasters, Sartain being a fanatic did nothing overall, other than drive Michael to Laurie's house.
Maybe its because the Rob Zombie films were my first Halloween films in the theaters, but I kind of rewatch them over some of the other sequels. I don't think they're great, but they could be better. I do think the remakes get the brother/sister aspect down better than the 1981 part 2 did. Feels more natural. In 1981, it felt like it was added there so Loomis had a reason to go to the hospital. I kind of like how Laurie in RZ's H2 is just so messed up that she acts like a bitch, mostly because, to me, this is fairly realistic to people who I've met who have survived terrible ordeals. They're not always like Annie who is just trying to move on with her life, sometimes they're like Laurie who just acts out and lets her past be the catalyst for her piss poor decisions and attitude.
I will defend Loomis in Halloween 5 another day, but Loomis in RZ's H2 I kind of found funny, mostly because its Malcolm McDowell and he's a riot. If you've never seen the outtakes for the first remake, I urge you to watch it because Malcolm McDowell is hysterical. I'm guessing Rob Zombie heard people say they liked Malcolm in the outtakes, and so he wrote Loomis to be a comedic asshole in the second one to allow McDowell to act that way. Not all of it worked, I will say that. Questioning his assistant on her outfit and insulting her by calling her a clam digger, to me, was funny. Telling his assistant that he'll beat her when he's ready for her opinion and grabbing her didn't feel right.
The film is just okay. To me, it’s like a 5/10. It’s a safe, mediocre sequel. I’ve been a fan of the series when I first binge watched them in preparation for the Rob Zombie remake about a decade ago. This is not the worst of the series, it’s better than 4 through 8 (I rank this at 6th) but it could have been better. To me, hype killed this movie. I don’t know whether to blame myself for believing in the hype, or the general audience for praising the crap out of it.
Since we are complaining about those who don’t like the movie, here’s what I hate about people who enjoyed it. I hate the ones who are pissed that some of us have different opinions, and can’t seem to accept that. It’s like those who liked or loved the movie think that everyone needs to be close to a unanimous agreement on it. Yes, we’re in a day and age where there are a lot of nitpickers and complainers. Welcome to the internet, where we’ve been granted a tool to exploit the shit out of our first amendment right. If you can’t handle all the trolls, assholes, nitpickers, constructive critics, and just regular people in general, then either write more angry comments at how they piss you off, or take a break from here so you can appreciate your time elsewhere.
If this film was at a 21% on rotten tomatoes, or heavily panned by everyone, I can kind of be on your side here, but that’s not the case. This film is for the most part accepted by everyone as a good movie, it’s just some of us who didn’t. If a film is universally loved or universally hated, there are always going to be people in the minority who object to like it or hate it. I know people who hate Get Out, but like Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I know people who hate Deadpool. I know people who think the IT miniseries is better than the movie. I know people who thought The Haunting of Hill House was boring as hell. Their tastes lie elsewhere, and I just have to accept it.
Can someone please remind me how old Michael is supposed to be? He was born in 2012, and that flash forward in Murder House showed him at age 3 when he murdered his nanny in 2015. The surveillance of him killing the cop said 2017, so...he’s 5? And then in the present day of 2021 in Outpost 3, he’s 9?
It’s ignoring everything after the first film. They are no longer siblings. Just the first film is all that happens before this new film. Everything else didn’t happen.
I’m more so curious what the hell they’re going to do with the Michael Myers character. The character is 61 years old in this movie. Unless they turn Michael into the Jason Voorhees zombie from FT13 parts 6 through 8, I don’t really see how this film can reboot the franchise and keep it going with Michael Myers.
We’ll get Halloween (2038), Laurie Strode is using her walker, and Michael is using a cane instead of a knife. He can use the handle part to lash it around his victims neck or something.
View all replies >