MovieChat Forums > Halloween Kills (2021) Discussion > Who actually thinks this new trilogy is ...

Who actually thinks this new trilogy is better than the original sequels

posted 3 years ago by Sidha108 (2356)
9 replies | jump to latest

In my opinion, Resurrection and Rob Zombie’s 2nd Halloween movie were the only terrible films in the franchise before the 2018 reboot (3 and 6 were only considered “bad” by some fans who didn’t like the direction taken). So, why would any of the producers think it would be a good idea to erase all the sequels that came before and who actually thinks this new trilogy provides a better continuation to the original film than Halloween II and all the rest?

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) 3 years ago

Part 3 wasn't a bad film. It was actually pretty good for what it was. It just has a bad rap because there's no Michael Myers in it. Part 6 wasn't terrible, it was just flawed. The fact that Danielle Harris wasn't in it, and that the writer killed off the Jamie character is what irks people the most about part 6. Had they kept the Jamie Character alive it wouldn't be so frowned upon.

I saw the first Rob Zombie film... ugh, I was rooting for Mike Myers to kill all of those annoying girls. I even wanted him to kill Laurie Strode. I didn't want a humanized Mike Myers. I didn't want a blow job mimicking Laurie Strode. Rob Zombie simply failed. He had no idea why the Laurie Strode character was liked. It was because she wasn't an obnoxious whore.

I hated H20, and I couldn't even make it through Resurrection.

Not much of a cheerful post on my part, but that's how I feel.

[–] Kowalski (57914) 3 years ago

I saw the first Rob Zombie film... ugh, I was rooting for Mike Myers to kill all of those annoying girls.

DANIELLE HARRIS IS ONE OF THOSE GIRLS...IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO BE ANNOYING.

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

Considering only one movie in this new trilogy has come out, I can't really say what's better.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

Aside from III, all of the sequels in the original series were shit.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 3 years ago

Nah, 4 and 5 were easily more entertaining than the original (overrated) film, even H20.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

4 and 5 were both boring as shit. H20 was only good in the last half hour.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 3 years ago

I'd watch any of 'em over the first film any day.

Did you notice that the trees clearly reveal it's not late October in the original "Halloween"?

Other problems include a tedious lack of drive and some weak dialogue, like the girls' conversation walking home from school, which doesn't ring true. Speaking of the girls, they're decent, but not nearly as good as the "Friday the 13th" films. Another dubious part is the doctor hiding in the bushes by the abandoned Myers' abode speaking portentously.

I appreciate "Halloween" because it's classy, atmospheric and it's a fine pick for the fall season; it also holds an eminent place in horror history. But, in light of the above flaws, it's a tad overrated by gushing fans.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 2 years ago

Halloween III was better than all this new trilogy combined.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

II, III & IV > H18 & H Kills.

I haven't seen 6 & H20 in a long time so can't comment on how they measure up. From memory they are probably about equal with these two new films.

The new films are better than RZs remake plus it's sequel, Ressurection and 5.