FFA Movie Club - DotM: John Carpenter (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

Month 1 Steven Spielberg
Month 2 Billy Wilder
Month 3 Martin Scorsese
Month 4 Denis Villeneuve
Month 5 George Miller
Month 6 Richard Linklater
Month 7 Ridley Scott
Month 8 Kelly Reichardt
Month 9 Akira Kurosawa


Horror month!!! Toward the end of the FFA's top 200 Horror Movie Countdown I PMd scores to ask him what director got the most points when he was adding up the stats, and that is who I wanted to do for the October DotM. It was predictable outcome, but that was also because I thought I knew what the #1 was going to be, and I was wrong. What I did think was a little surprising is how much he won by, so we will be doing ....

Month 10: John Carpenter

When scores posted that there was only 1 movie that was ranked on all the participant's lists, I was certain that would be Halloween. It wasn't, but Carpenter near doubled up the next director's points. He had 2164 and the next was Romero with 1346. I liked the idea for DotM because there are some great horror movies to be watched in his filmography, there are some interesting non-horror movies for people who don't like scary movies.

There seems to be several of his on Peacock like The Thing, Prince of Darkness, and Christine - two of which I haven't seen so they were in my 31 for 31 plans.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Can I just post clips of Dr Loomis all month?

“He was doing very well last night!”

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My wife and I just watched Halloween last night, and I was remarking (okay, lecturing) on how Carpenter isn't commonly thought of as a "great" director, but he has two absolute all-timers in the horror genre (Halloween and The Thing), along with a whole bunch of other films that people know, either because they're legitimately good (The Fog, Escape from New York, Big Trouble in Little China) or because they turned into memes (They Live).

They guy makes fun movies that he seems to have fun making. Doesn't fit the mold of an auteur, and he's not really making movies for that audience.

 

[KarmaPolice]

My wife and I just watched Halloween last night, and I was remarking (okay, lecturing) on how Carpenter isn't commonly thought of as a "great" director, but he has two absolute all-timers in the horror genre (Halloween and The Thing), along with a whole bunch of other films that people know, either because they're legitimately good (The Fog, Escape from New York, Big Trouble in Little China) or because they turned into memes (They Live).

They guy makes fun movies that he seems to have fun making. Doesn't fit the mold of an auteur, and he's not really making movies for that audience.

I just watched The Fog last night and we might disagree on that, but you didn't even mention In the Mouth of Madness or Starman which are two I hold in high regard.

 

[Eephus]

I just watched The Fog last night and we might disagree on that, but you didn't even mention In the Mouth of Madness or Starman which are two I hold in high regard.

I watched The Fog last October and didn't like it at all.

 

[Eephus]

Doesn't fit the mold of an auteur,

It's probably more semantics than disagreement but I'd argue Carpenter is totally an auteur. My definition of an auteur is a filmmaker who maintains creative control over the project. If you look at Carpenter's films, there are techniques and themes that transcend his films in the horror genre.

He's always fought for his vision sometimes to the detriment of his career--he probably would have been able to make pictures with bigger budgets and stars if he would have relinquished some control. He even writes his own musical scores, I'd like to see Howard Hawks try that.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

His musical scoring isn't to be underestimated either.
Escape from New York
Christine

Christine is an all time favorite movie of mine.

He has a lot of schlock but the great is great.

I have never seen Assault on Precinct 13 but will make every effort this month.

 

[Eephus]

I'm starting at the beginning with Dark Star

 

[shuke]

Halloween III is so underrated.

 

[Todem]

Carpenter is my favorite horror director.

I am an unabashed Carpenter fan boi.

 

[Eephus]

Dark Star (1974)

Carpenter's first feature film began as a student project at USC but was expanded as additional funding was secured. It's a space travel movie co-written with Dan O'Bannon who went on to write Alien, Total Recall and Invaders From Mars. Even with the expanded funding, it's a very low budget affair coming in at an estimated $60K. It bombed on initial release in 1974 but eventually found an audience as a cult film on the midnight movie circuit.

The story falls somewhere between 2001 and MST3K. The crew of the eponymous spaceship are 20 years into their mission to locate and destroy unstable planets. Their ship is breaking down and they've lost their commander to an accident. The astronauts are weary and slowly going crazy but find ways to keep themselves occupied in deep space as they battle boredom and uncooperative technology. The script has a low key comic tone to it with a handful of suspenseful sequences to break things up.

The budgetary constraints are obvious but O'Bannon's visual effects have a cheesy charm to them. The cockpit of the Dark Star is particularly effective and looks better than spaceships from movies that cost many times more. On the other hand, the crew's living quarters look like a crash pad and an astronaut's space suit clearly has a muffin pan attached to his chest. Carpenter's future cinematic style is apparent in a scene where Sgt. Pinback pursues an alien through the darkened ship. The director also uses sound very effectively to signify activity when very little is actually happening on screen.

Dark Star is a pretty decent movie especially if I'm grading on a curve to account for its ultra-low budget, . It mostly kept me engaged over its short 83 minute runtime. It's no masterpiece though; some of the scenes with the alien are just silly and the stoner humor of the crew played better in the 70s. The film's success put Carpenter and O'Bannon on the map and led to bigger and better things.

 

[El Floppo]

Dark Star (1974)

Carpenter's first feature film began as a student project at USC but was expanded as additional funding was secured. It's a space travel movie co-written with Dan O'Bannon who went on to write Alien, Total Recall and Invaders From Mars. Even with the expanded funding, it's a very low budget affair coming in at an estimated $60K. It bombed on initial release in 1974 but eventually found an audience as a cult film on the midnight movie circuit.

The story falls somewhere between 2001 and MST3K. The crew of the eponymous spaceship are 20 years into their mission to locate and destroy unstable planets. Their ship is breaking down and they've lost their commander to an accident. The astronauts are weary and slowly going crazy but find ways to keep themselves occupied in deep space as they battle boredom and uncooperative technology. The script has a low key comic tone to it with a handful of suspenseful sequences to break things up.

The budgetary constraints are obvious but O'Bannon's visual effects have a cheesy charm to them. The cockpit of the Dark Star is particularly effective and looks better than spaceships from movies that cost many times more. On the other hand, the crew's living quarters look like a crash pad and an astronaut's space suit clearly has a muffin pan attached to his chest. Carpenter's future cinematic style is apparent in a scene where Sgt. Pinback pursues an alien through the darkened ship. The director also uses sound very effectively to signify activity when very little is actually happening on screen.

If I'm grading on a curve to account for its ultra-low budget, Dark Star is a pretty decent movie. It mostly kept me engaged over its short 83 minute runtime. It's no masterpiece though; some of the scenes with the alien are just silly and the stoner humor of the crew played better in the 70s. The film's success put Carpenter and O'Bannon on the map and led to bigger and better things.

Saw it as a kid on the theaters. All I remember is the alien impatiently tapping and the Strangelove-esque scene towards the end. But I remember enjoying it a bunch. Always wanted to rewatch.

 

[El Floppo]

Also, I think he was neighbors with my childhood friend Alex's dad ina town called Inverness.

 

[Eephus]

Vampires aka John Carpenter's Vampires (1998)

I'd never seen this one before but was intrigued by a quote from Carpenter saying he took on the project because it reminded him of a Western. I didn't pick up much on that vibe other than it's set in modern day New Mexico. Carpenter made the most of the location--it's a very good looking film although I think it's dated by the oversaturated color palette that was popular in the late 90s. Carpenter didn't take a screenwriter's credit even though the finished film varied greatly from the original script by Don Jakoby. He did contribute the musical score which incorporates some western motifs into his usual synths.

James Woods stars as the leader of a crew of vampire slayers along with one of the lesser Baldwins and the actress who played Laura Palmer. Woods plays his character a bit like Snake Plissken vampire hunter but he isn't as charismatic or likeable as Snake. The Baldwin brother's character is also kind of a jerk so there's a real dearth of sympathetic characters. I did feel sad for Sheryl Lee as the only woman character. She had the thankless role as a prostitute turned vampire who got slapped around by everyone and mostly served as a plot device so Woods could track the vampire master. There were a bunch of vampires as promised by the title. They're portrayed as animalistic creatures without the pretentiousness or style of a lot of movie vampires.

I found Vampires to be a lot more gory than scary. There weren't any jump out of your seat moments for me because the appearances of the vampires are mostly well telegraphed. The vampires were highly efficient killing machines vs. mere mortals but they seemed to lose some of their strength when matched up against Woods and company. There's one very cool scene where the vampires emerge from their daytime hiding place but the film's budgetary constraints were apparent in the bigger action set pieces. I thought the movie started promisingly enough but got bogged down in backstory in the middle and didn't nail the ending at all. I still enjoyed Carpenter's usual craft, the southwestern scenery and Woods' over-the-top performance.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Nice. I just picked up Vampires and In the Mouth of Madness at the library for possibilities this month.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I’ve seen the majority of the Halloween movies but not sure I’ve ever seen any of his others.

I watch ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK the other day. Felt like a proto-dalton from road house in a cross between Halloween and the Warriors. It is a great premise for a film, though I found the logistics of the manhattan prison quite confusing. I guess they put all of the prisoners there and never supervised them or gave them any services so they could just roam around doing anything they wanted? In any event, it often felt quite campy , but the direction was pretty skillful, moving slowly to build tension and framing long shots to make it feel real. It seems like maybe a lot of his movies are like that, looking at the filmography? And of course I loved seeing my guy Donald Pleasence. It’s enjoyable but I wouldn’t call it great.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

EFNY is kind of a clunky, poorly paced movie. But the aesthetic, music score, and Snake Plissken are so cool it mostly makes up for it.

I just love the creativity of pre-CGI films. Stuff like this:

The wire-frame computer graphics on the display screens in the glider were not computer-generated. Computers capable of 3-D wire-frame imaging were too expensive at the time. Special effects designers built a model of the city, painted it black, attached bright white tape to the model buildings in an orderly grid, and moved a camera through the model city.

 

[Eephus]

It's been a long time since I've seen Escape but I remember it being a clever take on the prison movie genre. It was a lot fresher when it first came out; some things probably seem cliche now because of many imitators over the decades. Snake makes it better than it is but that's Hollywood.

As for Manhattan Island as a maximum security prison, if the plot slows down enough for the audience to worry about the logistics, the game is already lost. President Pleasence always struck me as a daring casting decision.

 

[foxco]

You're the duke!
You'e the duke!
A#1

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's been a long time since I've seen Escape but I remember it being a clever take on the prison movie genre. It was a lot fresher when it first came out; some things probably seem cliche now because of many imitators over the decades. Snake makes it better than it is but that's Hollywood.

As for Manhattan Island as a maximum security prison, if the plot slows down enough for the audience to worry about the logistics, the game is already lost. President Pleasence always struck me as a daring casting decision.

"Manhattan as a prison island" is cliche because this movie made it a cliche.

Similarly, "jump scares" are a cliche because of Halloween. I know Carpenter didn't invent the jump scare or the stinger, but he sure mastered them.

These are good reasons to praise the guy. He was genuinely influential in this world.

 

[Eephus]

Similarly, "jump scares" are a cliche because of Halloween. I know Carpenter didn't invent the jump scare or the stinger, but he sure mastered them.

Where's the Jump?

Join Our Weekly Email List Become A Site Contributor Join Our Weekly Email List Become A Site Contributor High Jump Scare Movies Top Jump Scares Low Jump Scare Movies Television Shows [elementor-template id=”18641″]

wheresthejump.com

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Similarly, "jump scares" are a cliche because of Halloween. I know Carpenter didn't invent the jump scare or the stinger, but he sure mastered them.

Where's the Jump?

Join Our Weekly Email List Become A Site Contributor Join Our Weekly Email List Become A Site Contributor High Jump Scare Movies Top Jump Scares Low Jump Scare Movies Television Shows [elementor-template id=”18641″]

wheresthejump.com

Without clicking the link, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what the jump scare is in An American Werewolf in London that they liked so much. That's a good one.

Edit: Yep.

 

[Eephus]

Elvis (1979)

Carpenter shot this made-for-TV movie the same year he made Halloween. It aired on ABC in a three hour Sunday night timeslot during February sweeps and its success helped to cement his reputation as a bankable director.

It's the familiar legend of Elvis told in flashback beginning with his boyhood in Tupelo and ending in triumph with his 1969 Las Vegas comeback. The movie was released less than a year and a half after Presley's death and Priscilla was attached as a consultant so we get a sanitized and rather flat portrait of the king. There are only hints of his personal demons and Col. Parker is portrayed as a mostly benevolent figure. Elvis's rise to fame is done pretty well but the lack of conflict makes the story drag in the second half. The cut I watched was 2:48, eighteen minutes longer than the broadcast version, and it could have shorter still. It did leave plenty of time to hit many of the musical biopic cliches later parodied by Dewey Cox.

Frequent Carpenter collaborator Kurt Russell is excellent in Presley--it was a crucial role in his career as he transitioned from Disney kid actor to Hollywood star. Russell's strong performance is the glue that holds the film together. His scenes with Season Hubley as Priscilla display a chemistry that led to them getting married in real life a month after the broadcast. Russell's actual father Bing also co-stars as Elvis's dad Vernon.

Carpenter was working strictly as a hired hand when directing this one; he later lamented the way it was edited without his input. For me the highlights were the many musical numbers which Russell lip-synced to tracks sung by country singer Ronnie McDowell. There's a nice montage at the end that shows clips of all the numbers with a freeze frame image of Elvis in split screen. Carpenter's direction is workmanlike without a lot of surprises. He came into a very challenging compressed shooting schedule and managed to make a solid picture but he chose to never again work on a project where he had so little creative control.

 

[Eephus]

Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)

I'm not much for horror movies these days, especially before bedtime which is when most of my movie viewing happens. So I went with one of Carpenter's few non-genre efforts, the 1992 sci-fi, spy, superhero, rom com Memoirs of an Invisible Man. It stars Chevy Chase as an aging yuppie who becomes invisible in an industrial accident. The movie takes that flimsy premise in a number of different directions with varying levels of success.

The CIA led by a sinister Sam Neill wants to use the invisible Chase as their asset so most of the film is spent on a Hitchcockian man-on-the-run plotline. Chase is able to turn the tables on his pursuers as he discovers how to use his powers. There's also an improbable romantic plotline featuring Chase and Daryl Hannah. It's improbable not because Chase is invisible but because he's a huge jerk in the beginning when she can still see him. Although his character is invisible for almost the entire movie, Chase often appears on-screen interacting with characters who can't see him. This gives Chevy some opportunities to perform his brand of physical comedy which adds to the uneven tone of the movie but provides some laughs.

Carpenter came onboard as the director only; he's not one of the three credited screenwriters and didn't do the music. He does make a cameo as a helicopter pilot under the name of Rip Haight. As a hired hand, his vision is harder to detect than in his more auteurist films. The only recurring Carpenter theme I picked up on was his anti-authoritarianism. Perhaps because of this, he seems more invested in the spy story than the romance although I think the latter works better. The love story hearkens back a little to Starman but I haven't seen that in a long time so I could be mistaken. The film was a commercial bomb and Carpenter hated working with Chase (which isn't an exclusive club) so he never returned to direct a big studio picture like this.

In spite of its shortcomings, I found Memoirs to be an entertaining enough watch. The pacing is sharp and the script includes some clever bits on what it means to be invisible in modern society. The 90s state-of-the-art invisibility special effects may be dated now but are believable in the context of the story. The movie is also set in San Francisco which is always a plus for me.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Halloween III is so underrated.

although at first I was confused with the Halloween movies being referenced until I realized that I was thinking of John Hughes movies and not John Carpenter

 

[Raging weasel]

Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)

I'm not much for horror movies these days, especially before bedtime which is when most of my movie viewing happens. So I went with one of Carpenter's few non-genre efforts, the 1992 sci-fi, spy, superhero, rom com Memoirs of an Invisible Man. It stars Chevy Chase as an aging yuppie who becomes invisible in an industrial accident. The movie takes that flimsy premise in a number of different directions with varying levels of success.

The CIA led by a sinister Sam Neill wants to use the invisible Chase as their asset so most of the film is spent on a Hitchcockian man-on-the-run plotline. Chase is able to turn the tables on his pursuers as he discovers how to use his powers. There's also an improbable romantic plotline featuring Chase and Daryl Hannah. It's improbable not because Chase is invisible but because he's a huge jerk in the beginning when she can still see him. Although his character is invisible for almost the entire movie, Chase often appears on-screen interacting with characters who can't see him. This provides opportunities for Chase to perform his brand of physical comedy which adds to the uneven tone of the movie but provides some laughs.

Carpenter came onboard as the director only; he's not one of the three credited screenwriters and didn't do the music. He does make a cameo as a helicopter pilot under the name of Rip Haight. As a hired hand, his vision is harder to detect than in his more auteurist films. The only recurring Carpenter theme I picked up on was his anti-authoritarianism. Perhaps because of this, he seems more invested in the spy story than the romance although I think the latter works better. The love story hearkens back a little to Starman but I haven't seen that in a long time so I could be mistaken. The film was a commercial bomb and Carpenter hated working with Chase (which isn't an exclusive club) so he never returned to direct a big studio picture like this.

In spite of its shortcomings, I found Memoirs to be an entertaining watch. The pacing is sharp and the script includes some clever bits on what it means to be invisible in modern society. The 90s state-of-the-art invisibility special effects may be dated now but are believable in the context of the story. The movie is also set in San Francisco which is always a plus for me.

Never heard of this movie and I'm a big fan of both Chase and Carpenter .

 

[Eephus]

Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)

I'm not much for horror movies these days, especially before bedtime which is when most of my movie viewing happens. So I went with one of Carpenter's few non-genre efforts, the 1992 sci-fi, spy, superhero, rom com Memoirs of an Invisible Man. It stars Chevy Chase as an aging yuppie who becomes invisible in an industrial accident. The movie takes that flimsy premise in a number of different directions with varying levels of success.

The CIA led by a sinister Sam Neill wants to use the invisible Chase as their asset so most of the film is spent on a Hitchcockian man-on-the-run plotline. Chase is able to turn the tables on his pursuers as he discovers how to use his powers. There's also an improbable romantic plotline featuring Chase and Daryl Hannah. It's improbable not because Chase is invisible but because he's a huge jerk in the beginning when she can still see him. Although his character is invisible for almost the entire movie, Chase often appears on-screen interacting with characters who can't see him. This provides opportunities for Chase to perform his brand of physical comedy which adds to the uneven tone of the movie but provides some laughs.

Carpenter came onboard as the director only; he's not one of the three credited screenwriters and didn't do the music. He does make a cameo as a helicopter pilot under the name of Rip Haight. As a hired hand, his vision is harder to detect than in his more auteurist films. The only recurring Carpenter theme I picked up on was his anti-authoritarianism. Perhaps because of this, he seems more invested in the spy story than the romance although I think the latter works better. The love story hearkens back a little to Starman but I haven't seen that in a long time so I could be mistaken. The film was a commercial bomb and Carpenter hated working with Chase (which isn't an exclusive club) so he never returned to direct a big studio picture like this.

In spite of its shortcomings, I found Memoirs to be an entertaining watch. The pacing is sharp and the script includes some clever bits on what it means to be invisible in modern society. The 90s state-of-the-art invisibility special effects may be dated now but are believable in the context of the story. The movie is also set in San Francisco which is always a plus for me.

Never heard of this movie and I'm a big fan of both Chase and Carpenter .

I watched it free with ads on Plex. It's also available on Vudu and the Roku Channel.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)

I'm not much for horror movies these days, especially before bedtime which is when most of my movie viewing happens. So I went with one of Carpenter's few non-genre efforts, the 1992 sci-fi, spy, superhero, rom com Memoirs of an Invisible Man. It stars Chevy Chase as an aging yuppie who becomes invisible in an industrial accident. The movie takes that flimsy premise in a number of different directions with varying levels of success.

The CIA led by a sinister Sam Neill wants to use the invisible Chase as their asset so most of the film is spent on a Hitchcockian man-on-the-run plotline. Chase is able to turn the tables on his pursuers as he discovers how to use his powers. There's also an improbable romantic plotline featuring Chase and Daryl Hannah. It's improbable not because Chase is invisible but because he's a huge jerk in the beginning when she can still see him. Although his character is invisible for almost the entire movie, Chase often appears on-screen interacting with characters who can't see him. This provides opportunities for Chase to perform his brand of physical comedy which adds to the uneven tone of the movie but provides some laughs.

Carpenter came onboard as the director only; he's not one of the three credited screenwriters and didn't do the music. He does make a cameo as a helicopter pilot under the name of Rip Haight. As a hired hand, his vision is harder to detect than in his more auteurist films. The only recurring Carpenter theme I picked up on was his anti-authoritarianism. Perhaps because of this, he seems more invested in the spy story than the romance although I think the latter works better. The love story hearkens back a little to Starman but I haven't seen that in a long time so I could be mistaken. The film was a commercial bomb and Carpenter hated working with Chase (which isn't an exclusive club) so he never returned to direct a big studio picture like this.

In spite of its shortcomings, I found Memoirs to be an entertaining watch. The pacing is sharp and the script includes some clever bits on what it means to be invisible in modern society. The 90s state-of-the-art invisibility special effects may be dated now but are believable in the context of the story. The movie is also set in San Francisco which is always a plus for me.

Never heard of this movie and I'm a big fan of both Chase and Carpenter .

As eephus noted, memoirs was a commercial bomb. It was basically the last gasp for Chevy as a leading man in movies and maybe if it would have worked better, he would have gotten better roles, but it basically ended there for a guy who was a pretty big movie star for a decade

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

I kind of liked the movie, even though it has a lot of a problems. It’s really muddled in what kind of movie it wants to be and honestly probably would have been better as like a 15 minute short. The inciting incident happens like 2 minutes in and then act 2 is largely divorced from the point of the movie, then we finally connect back to the original premise at least 30 minutes. And the film has a lot of “and then, and then, and then” rather than “buts and therefores”, to paraphrase Trey stone and many others before him, I’m sure. It starts off like typical 70s lawless city/vigilante movie. Then becomes a prison/prison break movie. Then becomes kind of a slasher flick, at least in the eerie tone. Then it basically becomes a zombie movie for the last half. All the stuff once the station is officially under siege is almost just like night of the living dead.

The interesting part, I guess, is Carpenter’s mix of a sort of cinema verite with over the top violence and goofy music. You can totally tell that this is the same guy who did Halloween, as the beginning of the movie demonstrates the creepiness of antiseptic suburban banality, where no one is really connected and that provides monsters a place to ply their trade. Basically, you could take the first 20 minutes of this movie and make napoleon super evil in his intro and then have the killer fixate on one person rather than veering toward the abandoned police station and then you are in Halloween. Escape from New York has a little bit of this feeling too, then goes into a more campy, over the top direction like assault. I am interested in looking at some of his later stuff, though his filmography seems like it may be more like assault and escape than Halloween.

 

[Eephus]

As eephus noted, memoirs was a commercial bomb. It was basically the last gasp for Chevy as a leading man in movies and maybe if it would have worked better, he would have gotten better roles, but it basically ended there for a guy who was a pretty big movie star for a decade

Memoirs of an Invisible Man is like Citizen Kane compared to Nothing But Trouble.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

 

[Andy Dufresne]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

A college professor thinking something is about sexual repression? Shocker.

 

[Todem]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

Yeah….no.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

There are certainly elements of that considering that Michael is set off by seeing his sister have sex, Laurie is very buttoned up and sort of a symbol of purity, everyone else who is having sex is getting killed, and the physical act of stabbing people is certainly phallic. Also, Laurie is the most repressed and is the one who unleashes the most violent response.

So there is a lot there to speculate on but I don’t think that was the intent of carpenter and hill.

 

[Todem]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

There are certainly elements of that considering that Michael is set off by seeing his sister have sex, Laurie is very buttoned up and sort of a symbol of purity, everyone else who is having sex is getting killed, and the physical act of stabbing people is certainly phallic. Also, Laurie is the most repressed and is the one who unleashes the most violent response.

So there is a lot there to speculate on but I don’t think that was the intent of carpenter and hill.

Not the intent at all.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

There are certainly elements of that considering that Michael is set off by seeing his sister have sex, Laurie is very buttoned up and sort of a symbol of purity, everyone else who is having sex is getting killed, and the physical act of stabbing people is certainly phallic. Also, Laurie is the most repressed and is the one who unleashes the most violent response.

So there is a lot there to speculate on but I don’t think that was the intent of carpenter and hill.

Not the intent at all.

To be fair, the author’s conscious/stated intents are not the only elements that define what a creative work means. Other meanings and feelings can be evoked in the consumer that are not illegitimate.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

I think Larry is correct here as it may not have been the intent and the killing of his sister was just to provide a reason he was in a psychiatric hospital. It's been a while since I've seen Halloween and I've never watched any of the others but do they ever hint at why Michael killed his sister? or why do you think he killed his sister?

 

[Todem]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

There are certainly elements of that considering that Michael is set off by seeing his sister have sex, Laurie is very buttoned up and sort of a symbol of purity, everyone else who is having sex is getting killed, and the physical act of stabbing people is certainly phallic. Also, Laurie is the most repressed and is the one who unleashes the most violent response.

So there is a lot there to speculate on but I don’t think that was the intent of carpenter and hill.

Not the intent at all.

To be fair, the author’s conscious/stated intents are not the only elements that define what a creative work means. Other meanings and feelings can be evoked in the consumer that are not illegitimate.

Sure…..I get it. But when a college professor starts lecturing it is….GTFOH with that.

It’s a horror movie about pure unadulterated and what drove him I guess is left up to the viewer….the sexual repression is just looney.

He was ****ing 6 when he killed his sister.

Oh he saw her making out (that’s all he saw) with a guy….”sexual repression”

Come on man.

 

[Todem]

I think Larry is correct here as it may not have been the intent and the killing of his sister was just to provide a reason he was in a psychiatric hospital. It's been a while since I've seen Halloween and I've never watched any of the others but do they ever hint at why Michael killed his sister? or why do you think he killed his sister?

Pure evil.

Dr Loomis tried to reach him for 5 years and then made sure he remained locked up the next 10 years before he escaped.

Lifeless eyes….the blackest eyes he ever saw. He had not spoke a single word the entire 15 years he was in Smiths Grove.

I probably have watched Halloween at a minimum 200 times since 1978. It is my all time favorite horror movie hands down.

And in 200 times I have never ever thought “Michael Myers was sexually repressed”

Again he was 6 freaking years old when he murdered his sister that Halloween night in 1963.

No college professor worth his salt should even be thinking that if they watched this film a lot. It’s a malarkey theory and this post that mentioned it is the first time I have ever read anything suggesting that.

It’s horse **** in this case.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

yeah, hadn't even gone through puberty yet.

Although TBF, I don't think it was my prof saying that HE thought this (although maybe he did) as much as saying "oh this theory exists"

 

[Todem]

yeah, hadn't even gone through puberty yet.

Although TBF, I don't think it was my prof saying that HE thought this (although maybe he did) as much as saying "oh this theory exists"

Ahhhhhh ok. Got it.

That’s a warped theory considering his balls had not even been close to dropped yet!

LMFAO!!!!!

 

[Eephus]

Why do Freudians want to go an ruin a perfectly normal killing spree

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I think Larry is correct here as it may not have been the intent and the killing of his sister was just to provide a reason he was in a psychiatric hospital. It's been a while since I've seen Halloween and I've never watched any of the others but do they ever hint at why Michael killed his sister? or why do you think he killed his sister?

He has no reason, no, uh, conscience, no understanding in even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, of good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale…emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the DEVIL'S eyes! I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... EVIL!

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Love John Carpenter and his music. I saw Dark Star as a midnight movie at a science fiction convention. Perfection!

Rather like Prince of Darkness.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

not a big horror guy and I especially dislike slashers but I'll always remember my college film professor telling us that there was a theory that Halloween is really about sexual repression

There are certainly elements of that considering that Michael is set off by seeing his sister have sex, Laurie is very buttoned up and sort of a symbol of purity, everyone else who is having sex is getting killed, and the physical act of stabbing people is certainly phallic. Also, Laurie is the most repressed and is the one who unleashes the most violent response.

So there is a lot there to speculate on but I don’t think that was the intent of carpenter and hill.

Not the intent at all.

To be fair, the author’s conscious/stated intents are not the only elements that define what a creative work means. Other meanings and feelings can be evoked in the consumer that are not illegitimate.

Sure…..I get it. But when a college professor starts lecturing it is….GTFOH with that.

It’s a horror movie about pure unadulterated and what drove him I guess is left up to the viewer….the sexual repression is just looney.

He was ****ing 6 when he killed his sister.

Oh he saw her making out (that’s all he saw) with a guy….”sexual repression”

Come on man.

It's not that Michael Meyers is sexually repressed. Obviously that would be stupid. You are 100% right on that score.

But this is an early example of a slasher film in which the slutty girls get killed off and the final girl is the virgin. It's a trope, and Halloween is one of the first major films to establish that trope. It's fair to point it out. Not a criticism in any way.

 

[Eephus]

But this is an early example of a slasher film in which the slutty girls get killed off and the final girl is the virgin. It's a trope, and Halloween is one of the first major films to establish that trope. It's fair to point it out. Not a criticism in any way.

I think salvation for the virtuous dates back a little further than 1978.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

THEY LIVE (1988)

I must have seen at least part of this before because I remember it being on tv a lot, but really didn’t remember much specific about it. The underlying idea is pretty good, sort of a precursor to the matrix or even something like fight club.

Roddy Piper is…not very good. Seems to be drawing from the underacting school of sly Stallone or Steven seagal. Except maybe when he delivers the kick *** and chew bubble gum line, which he apparently improvised.

I’m starting to think that John carpenter has ADD or just kind of doesn’t care that much about how these movies flow or fit together. The iconic fight scene between piper and Keith David is completely insane to just put in the middle of the movie, the ending which is basically a naked woman and then cut to black and the fact that he left in the bubble gum line makes me think that he just wants to put things up on the screen that he thinks are fun are or interesting. Also curious that piper is wearing a wedding ring even though he is presumabky not married, yet Keith David is not, despite his only real character trait being that he has a wife and two kids.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

I kind of liked the movie, even though it has a lot of a problems. It’s really muddled in what kind of movie it wants to be and honestly probably would have been better as like a 15 minute short. The inciting incident happens like 2 minutes in and then act 2 is largely divorced from the point of the movie, then we finally connect back to the original premise at least 30 minutes. And the film has a lot of “and then, and then, and then” rather than “buts and therefores”, to paraphrase Trey stone and many others before him, I’m sure. It starts off like typical 70s lawless city/vigilante movie. Then becomes a prison/prison break movie. Then becomes kind of a slasher flick, at least in the eerie tone. Then it basically becomes a zombie movie for the last half. All the stuff once the station is officially under siege is almost just like night of the living dead.

The interesting part, I guess, is Carpenter’s mix of a sort of cinema verite with over the top violence and goofy music. You can totally tell that this is the same guy who did Halloween, as the beginning of the movie demonstrates the creepiness of antiseptic suburban banality, where no one is really connected and that provides monsters a place to ply their trade. Basically, you could take the first 20 minutes of this movie and make napoleon super evil in his intro and then have the killer fixate on one person rather than veering toward the abandoned police station and then you are in Halloween. Escape from New York has a little bit of this feeling too, then goes into a more campy, over the top direction like assault. I am interested in looking at some of his later stuff, though his filmography seems like it may be more like assault and escape than Halloween.

Oh and I really liked Laurie zimmer as Leigh. She barely did anything else, which kind of sucks, though she apparently piqued others’ interest enough to make a whole documentary about whatever happened to her: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368188/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

 

[Eephus]

Roddy Piper is…not very good. Seems to be drawing from the underacting school of sly Stallone or Steven seagal. Except maybe when he delivers the kick *** and chew bubble gum line, which he apparently improvised.

It would have been a better movie with Kurt Russell but Piper is a memorable casting choice who brings an everyman quality to the role.

 

[KarmaPolice]

THEY LIVE (1988)

I must have seen at least part of this before because I remember it being on tv a lot, but really didn’t remember much specific about it. The underlying idea is pretty good, sort of a precursor to the matrix or even something like fight club.

Roddy Piper is…not very good. Seems to be drawing from the underacting school of sly Stallone or Steven seagal. Except maybe when he delivers the kick *** and chew bubble gum line, which he apparently improvised.

I’m starting to think that John carpenter has ADD or just kind of doesn’t care that much about how these movies flow or fit together. The iconic fight scene between piper and Keith David is completely insane to just put in the middle of the movie, the ending which is basically a naked woman and then cut to black and the fact that he left in the bubble gum line makes me think that he just wants to put things up on the screen that he thinks are fun are or interesting. Also curious that piper is wearing a wedding ring even though he is presumabky not married, yet Keith David is not, despite his only real character trait being that he has a wife and two kids.

I just watched this the other day and had similar thoughts. It feels like this was right around the time that V was a thing too, and I remember loving the ideas of each of them but when I watch them with adult eyes there are a ton of warts I can't quite get past to truly love it - the way too long sunglasses fight scene being a prime example. After watching it I would put this one up there with Running Man as movies I actually would be interested in seeing a remake of in the right hands.