slowcando

I watched the 1978 classic Halloween for the first time last week expecting to like it as I already enjoy most Carpenter movies, and generally have time for older low-budget horror films...but it was slow, with dull direction, no suspense...had a couple of ok-ish moments....overall I rated it a missable 4/10.

Normally, a 4/10 for a series first-entry means I don't bother with the rest of them...except Season of the Witch (III) was recommended to me, so i got the DVD-trilogy box-set.

A bit wary about part II, which scores lower on IMDB than the first one...however already within the first 10 minutes I realised superior camera work (from a different director this time): some neat long takes, immersive angles and pans. I felt tension here, which I didn't feel in the first one. It still has issues like forgettable cast and a couple of painfully-contrived stupid-character moments.

Crucially Michael Myers felt dangerous rather than silly, so Part II rates a 6/10 which is my minimum cut-off to be a movie worth watching.

Now onto the reason I got the trilogy...Part III. Lowest IMDB score, tho' that doesn't always mean something.

No hint of spoilage or even plot-summary here...just how I rate it.

The first 30-40 minutes or so are a bit too 'manic pixie dream girl' for me. Began to switch off, but then a key event peaked my interest again tho' the film didn't immediately capitalise...by the halfway-point I was beginning to feel a little bored.

Thankfully, the second half finally gets interesting, making the build-up to it worthwhile after all. We get some neat theologically-flavoured sci-fi ideas and a charmingly-emotional pay off.

The main cast are functional, dialogue is good, music is nice (some Radiohead), cinematography competent enough.

Recommended for those who don't mind their 'big-idea' sci-fi films to be modest indie-budget productions with a slow build-up and somewhat-overuse of kissing/cuddling scenes. I'm here for the big idea, not the romance angle (tho' I guess the romance angle sufficiently hits home for those who are looking for that).

_____ Camera-geek alert: Another thing I appreciated (as a photographer myself) was attention-to-detail with Ian's camera, something which almost all other films get wrong:

• using what looked like a Canon 300D in the 2006 scenes, which would be accurate.

• using a reversed 50mm for macro-photography (for close-up detail).

• he didn't use flash, he used a white-spotlight.

Tho' nitpicking here, DSLR's didn't have these, they had red AF-finder lights...white spotlights are common now in Smartphones. And the effect of pushing up shadows like that would result in more noisy images, especially for the 300D sensor.

Still...this was refreshingly-accurate use of a camera from a movie. Not really effecting the score, just a neat thing for us camera-nerds.