Halloween [Blu-ray]
![Halloween [Blu-ray]](/images/Halloween-Blu-ray-B000UR9QHQ-L.jpg)
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.70 You Save: $14.27 (71%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.23 (click here) Category: Blu-ray See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Halloween [Blu-ray]
Movie Review: Love it!
Summary: 5 Stars
An old classic now better than ever. I bought as a gift for my son.
He loves it.
Movie Review: best horror film of all time
Summary: 5 Stars
This is the best horror movie ever made and it looks great on blu ray.Movie Review: The Night He Came Home...
Summary: 4 Stars
Beginning in 1978 the landscape of cinema changed forever with the introduction of one knife-wielding, masked killer named Michael Myers. The film that introduced audiences to this man was the seminal horror classic "Halloween". With this one movie director John Carpenter ("Escape from New York") launched his directing career to new heights, and made Jamie Lee Curtis into a movie star ("True Lies"). Not to mention, the monster success of this low-budget horror thriller subsequently created an entire sub-genre of horror known as the slasher film.
"Halloween" centers on the sleepy little town of Haddonfield, Illinois. For most people, Haddonfield appears to be the most idyllic place to live; however, beneath the surface lays a deadly secret. Fifteen years ago, on Halloween night, a deranged young boy named Michael Myers murdered his older sister. Now, all these years later, Michael has escaped from a mental institution and is returning home to continue what he started so long ago.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally find it strange to refer to a horror film as a classic in any regard. Because for the most part, entries into this genre are some of the most forgettable movies ever committed to film no matter how many sequels they may generate. However, with "Halloween" John Carpenter created a movie that was more in the vein of a thriller than previous horror titles, resulting in a movie that still stands relatively unchallenged by its genre, even to this day. So, to say that this is a classic horror film, a feat that doesn't seem that hard to achieve, is nothing short of the truth.
In my opinion, the key to why John Carpenter's vision of that horror-filled October 31st remains so resonant with audiences is due to the way he used the camera to bring the viewer into the events. Unlike most modern horror films, well truthfully any horror film made since the release of "Halloween", this one opts to not rely on buckets and buckets of blood and gore to freak out audiences. Instead, John took a much more innovative approach by imbuing the film with an atmosphere saturated with a foreboding sense of terror and dread; thus, keeping the viewers in an almost constant state of suspense from start to finish. In addition, Carpenter filmed many scenes with these slow-moving tracking shots that were designed to give the audience the unsettling viewpoint of virtually being in Michael Myers' shoes as he methodically stalks his prey. If it weren't for the ingenuity of John Carpenter on display while filming this movie, some of which may have been a result of the film's tiny budget, "Halloween" would most likely not have been the often imitated and respected movie that it is today.
With all that being said, I don't want to diminish the story's impact on the film's long-lasting appeal. Co-written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill ("Escape from L.A."), the screenplay is a nearly perfect example of how a horror film, or thriller for that matter, should be paced to allow the tension within the story to naturally build from moment to moment until it reaches its maximum potential for the final act. Both Carpenter and Hill were smart enough to not rush the story to get to the scares quicker, an approach ignored by the majority of horror films released these days. By not rushing into the horror aspect, the screenplay takes some time in attempting to develop the characters, especially Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence).
Also, the story preys upon many people's fear of the mysterious and unknown by taking the less is more approach to showing Michael on screen. This move was both bold and brilliant all at once, and again is a tactic ignored by modern day slasher films. By placing Michael predominantly in shadows, the story escalates the audience's apprehension, because now, they aren't even sure where he's going to strike from next. To me, if I'm a horror director, this is one movie that I would study over and over, because it seems to be that this is the film by which all others are compared.
While the storyline played a very pivotal role in the success of this film, it is not without its share of problems. As a horror movie one must expect certain faults to be evident in the story; however, that still doesn't excuse them from being noted either. For instance, the various characters in the movie are, for the most part, given very little to do other than potentially serve as fodder for Michael. Now this doesn't apply to Jamie's character or Donald Pleasence's, both of theirs received numerous moments of development, and the movie benefits greatly from those times. But if your character doesn't happen to be as important as either one of those two... Look out. Most likely you'll end up appearing as little more than a horny teenager heading for a not-so pleasant demise at the business end of a knife.
Another area this movie suffers, to an extent, is in the dialogue, which seems like a common problem for many a horror movie. There are areas of the movie that are well-written and polished, but other times the characters sound as if their brains have been removed and they're just making pointless, inane conversation. Although to be fair, some of the dialogue problems may have had more to do with the actor or actress speaking the line rather than the actual line itself.
The acting in this film is a mixed bag of surprisingly good performances and those that are barely average or below. Leading the cast was the relatively unknown (at the time) Jamie Lee Curtis. I still am impressed by the work Jamie put into creating Laurie. The innocence and naiveté that she displays is what makes her so endearing to the audience, resulting in us rooting for her survival all the more. Her compassion and bravery during the more harrowing scenes her character goes through are also very commendable. It is not often in horror movies that the characters appear to be as genuinely concerned for the safety of others over their own. Within these moments for Laurie Strode I believe John Carpenter really excelled in driving home her maturity and development as a character over the course of the film.
Veteran actor Donald Pleasence, whose character of Dr. Sam Loomis shares nearly as much screen time as Jamie's, delivered to audiences a character that could have been written off as being one dimensional by so many other actors. Donald portrayed Loomis with an interesting mix of fierce determination to stop Michael's reign of terror, and also an underlying remorse for not being able to cure Michael of his bloodlust. It was this dichotomy within the role that made him an intriguing member of the cast for not only this movie, but the numerous sequels that followed in which he co-starred.
The remaining characters in the movie are easily forgotten, but I would be remiss not to mention the less than stellar performances from the movie. First off, we have actress Nancy Kyes (or Nancy Loomis as she was known back then), who gave easily the worst performance in the movie. Perhaps some people liked her character of Annie Brackett in this film, but I for one found her to be whiny, brash and irritating. Nancy's performance in the movie is the reason for why I earlier proposed that perhaps it was the actor or actress speaking the lines that made them sound bad rather than the line being poorly written. Her delivery was incredibly slow and at times painful to sit through as she struggled to get the words out in anything resembling a normal speech pattern. What's disappointing about the character of Annie is that in the hands of a more capable actress, perhaps she would have been a more likeable addition to the movie; instead, I hated almost every moment she was on screen.
Lastly, there's actress P.J. Soles, who was given the role of Lynda, a character whose sole purpose was to provide the obligatory sex appeal that these movies typically contain. The role of Lynda was a complete waste of time and P.J.'s phoned-in performance didn't do anything to strengthen her character's paper-thin story arc either. At least with Nancy Kyes' character the script gave her more to do, it's just she wasn't able to really sell it. Perhaps P.J. should have been given the role of Annie rather than Nancy Kyes, because out of the two, P.J. is the more accomplished actress. Maybe with a different role P.J. could have given a better performance in this movie. Although, to be fair one would be hard pressed to find anything in this film, other than her looks, that shows how good P.J. Soles can be.
Despite its flaws, of which there are several, "Halloween" still stands tall as one of the best horror movies of all-time. Featuring a relatively solid storyline, good acting from the two principal players, a reliance on creating genuine scares rather than gore, and one of the eeriest musical scores I've ever heard, "Halloween" birthed not only a popular movie franchise, but an entire sub-genre. Not too shabby for a movie that was made for next to nothing.
"Halloween" is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.
Movie Review: a tip 4 U
Summary: 4 Stars
just a tip that box set IS NOT worth it. If you want all the movies> walmart has halloween 1 for $10, H-2, H-3 combo pack for i think $8.00 and then theres BEst bUY whom has H-4, H-5 for $15 ea. Walmart just got in recently a NEW odd never seen b4 till recent a box set of Halloween 6, 7, 8 combo for $15. Buy it if yur a hard core fan. Good $ price for 3 movies!! Plus just about anywhere has the 2007 vs of halloween for about $20 i think. so for bout $85 you can get all the Halloween movies if you got the $$$ and are a hard core fan! SOOOO wish a produceers cut of H=6 would come out. I heard its about 45min of additional footage that the theatrical release didnt show?? for whatever reason... SO there you go... AND another Halloween movie a sequal from last years (2007) will be out in 2009 i heard>?? who knows the more remakes and or ssequals they make there just ruining what few great halloween movies there are currently. If there going to make a sequal make one w/ john(josh hartnett) lauries son coming back and facing michael one last time or something like that. who knows what those joker producers will end up doing???Movie Review: Better color timing than DIVIMAX edition... less pumped than Cundey version
Summary: 4 Stars
After seeing screen grab comparisons this new version has GOBS of extra detail in the 1080p transfer and the color timing lands squarely in between the extreme and pumped color pallet (almost cartoonish) of the THX Dean Cundey approved version and the completely 180 degree different Divimax version that everyone screamed bloody murder about. The fall color timing is much improved over the Divimax version and much closer to the Cundey version, but the extremely BLUE!! color scheme of the night time shots has been toned down while still retaining the bluish tint created by gels on the lights.
It allows for you to choose the original mono track in Dolby Digital and the new 5.1 mix in uncompressed PCM.
It'll probably be good enough for me (it's a classic Carpenter horror!) and the extra detail will more than make up for any discrepancies in the colors. Some say this cleaned up HD version looks as good or better than the original theatrical release.