“I’m Paul Barlow, and this is my daughter Jo.”

“Malone.”

“You got a first name?”

“Yeah.”

Halloween (2018)

(Many SPOILERS in this review, I’m not gonna label all of them)

HALLOWEEN is the new HALLOWEEN in the HALLOWEEN series – the original HALLOWEEN series, not the remake, HALLOWEEN. HALLOWEEN takes place 40 years after HALLOWEEN and acts as if it is the only sequel ever made to HALLOWEEN. So really it could be called HALLOWEEN II, but maybe that would be confusing since there are already two movies called HALLOWEEN II: HALLOWEEN II and HALLOWEEN II.

Other than being produced by Blumhouse, this one’s not coming from any of the usual horror suspects. It’s the first horror movie, sequel or licensed property movie from director/co-writer David Gordon Green, who is best known in my opinion for writing the introduction to my book Seagalogy, but also directed GEORGE WASHINGTON, PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, JOE, STRONGER, etc. He wrote it with Jeff Fradley (Vice Principals) and Danny McBride, who he turned into an actor by having him play “Bust-Ass” in ALL THE REAL GIRLS fifteen years ago and continued with PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, YOUR HIGHNESS and Eastbound & Down. McBride is usually a comedy guy, but remember he also got killed by a faced xenomorphs in ALIEN: COVENANT. So he’s legit.

Since this is a return to the original series, with no dumbass Weinstein involvement, with Jamie Lee Curtis returning as Laurie Strode, and most surprisingly with John Carpenter executive producing and scoring for the first time since HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH in 1982, there are some high hopes. If you’re not a fan of slasher sequels and want something that transcends them, you might be disappointed. For me, though, it’s a satisfying treat that revisits the series template and most important character with many scenes of great tension and without committing common franchise horror sins like obnoxious characters, overly polished look or intrusive rock ‘n roll soundtrack.

Also, it’s a fucking John Carpenter score. With his bandmates Cody Carpenter (his son) and Daniel Davies (Ray Davies’ son) he throws in a little guitar and modern sounds but mostly builds onto the keyboard textures of his ’78 style, helping the world of Laurie Strode to feel unexpectedly reconstituted like the pumpkin on the opening credits.

I’ve always been a fan of the HALLOWEEN 20th anniversary sequel H20 and when I wrote about it a few years ago I noted that its own 20th anniversary was coming up, so they’d have to do HALLOWEEN H40: HALLOWEEN H20 20 YEARS LATER 20 YEARS LATER. Though they ended up erasing it along with all of the sequel continuity they did sort of a remake of the same premise: Laurie was horribly traumatized by what happened, she’s had a drinking problem and divorces and tensions with her kid and needs to face Michael in order to kill him and be able to get her life back. The biggest difference is that instead of running until she realizes she can run no more, she’s already lying in wait.

This time she has a grown daughter instead of a teenage son, she’s way more paranoid, in fact with a Sarah Connor level of survivalist preparation and teaching her kid to fight and shoot guns and freaking everybody out. Her daughter Karen (Judy Greer, CURSED) tries to avoid talking to her, which bothers Karen’s daughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) even though she’s distanced enough from Laurie to always call her “Grandmother.”

Two British true crime podcasters (Jefferson Hall [GREEN STREET HOOLIGANS] and Rhian Rees) either set things off or just put themselves in the path when they attempt to interview both Michael (James Jude Courtney [“Mafia Goon,” SOCCER DOG: THE MOVIE], plus original-Shape Nick Castle in one scene somewhere) and Laurie for a retrospective of the murders. Their narrative purpose is to reunite Michael with his mask, but their thematic purpose is to be the smug perspective of a younger generation looking back and thinking they know better – specifically, trying to tell Laurie that there’s no such thing as a “boogeyman.” In the real world they would be right, that Michael is a human, and something caused him to be the way he is. In HALLOWEEN though he’s not a man, he’s “pure evil,” he’s The Shape. (Laurie even calls him that at one point.) And denying that dooms them.

I remember in the late ’80s noticing that Fangoria would often refer to Michael Myers as “The Shape” and I guess I’d never really examined the credits on HALLOWEEN and there was no internet so I always wondered what the hell that was all about. But now I know and I’m glad that this new one has SHAPED up to be so good. You know. Huh guys?

To the true crime enthusiasts Michael is just an old guy in prison, they even see the back and partial profile of his head, though they fail to get him to talk. Of course he later gets out, and for old times sake puts on the mask he stole from that hardware store in 1978 (still no word on what happened to the rope) and goes wandering around killing people. For a second I was wondering why this, H20 and the Rob Zombie one all have murders in gas station bathrooms, but then I realized it’s from proximity to coveralls and work boots.

There’s one scene in particular that homages that great opening of HALLOWEEN II that voyeuristically follows Michael walking unnoticed at night and into a woman’s kitchen. A subsequent scene that stays outside and watches him through someone’s window is even more gutwrenching.

My friend asked me before the movie “Are there teens?” Of course there are teens. It follows Allyson’s holiday plans to go to a Halloween dance with her boyfriend Cameron (Dylan Arnold, FAT KID RULES THE WORLD playing the son of that kid Lonnie who Loomis scared away from the Myers house) and dumbass friend Oscar (Drew Scheid, BOY ERASED), and later meet up with her best friend Vicky (Virginia Gardner, PROJECT ALMANAC), who is babysitting, and her boyfriend Dave (Miles Robbins, Dee Dee Ramone on The Get Down).

I saw a somewhat disappointed review that argued the movie was a letdown for having more young characters instead of focusing entirely on Laurie. That it had let her and her generation down. Which sounds cool but I wonder how that would work, are we talking about a HALLOWEEN movie where Michael Myers doesn’t kill anyone? Or where he only kills old people who are friends with Laurie?

Well, I’m okay with the traditions of teen horror and I’ve just rolled through all the HALLOWEEN sequels in my head and yeah, I think I enjoy the company of these characters the best of any of ’em. I particularly like Vicky, and that Julian (Jibrail Nantambu), the kid she babysits, is hilarious, and has a sweet friendship with her. It’s genuinely the first time in any HALLOWEEN movie where I was worried they might kill a kid.

Even Oscar, who dishonors himself by drunkenly hitting on Allyson at the worst time, is funny enough to be sympathetic and to make me feel sorry for him. Another great character is Allyson’s goofball dad Ray (Toby Huss, THE COUNTRY BEARS), who gives her shit in an annoying but funny dad way, and is calm but reasonable about trying to protect his family from Laurie’s seeming craziness. Those two each have one of the lines I thought seemed like McBride lines. One about guacamole, one about peanut butter.

There’s some nostalgic Carpenter mimicry, but this is still very much a David Gordon Green movie. It has lots of minor characters who are interesting and say odd things and have a very natural, quirky charisma to them. It has funny, random conversations and goofy uses of language. And it has more black people in it than any other HALLOWEEN.

Laurie drives around looking for Michael, which is obviously putting her in the Loomis role, but man, it feels to me more like Paul Kersey. Police officer Frank Hawkins (Will Patton, THE POSTMAN) is looking too, and doesn’t have to be convinced, because he was there that night and knows enough to refer to Michael as “that thing.” He brings with him Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer, BEN-HUR), a student of Dr. Loomis who took over as Michael’s psychiatrist at Smith’s Grove and wants to save him.

After the movie someone pointed out that Cameron, who breaks Allyson’s heart, doesn’t get killed. Now that I think about it I really like that. Having recently watched all ten of the other HALLOWEENs (for a freelance piece you’ll be able to see soon if interested) I feel that most of their worst moments are when Michael kills characters who “deserve it” in movie terms, like CURSE’s abusive husband and obnoxious shock jock. We should never be tempted to root for Pure Evil.

Laurie gets to be a knife-carrying, fast-gun-loading, target-shooting Final Woman That Motherfucker Is Gonna Have To Deal With, but she’s not, like, doing roundhouses or anything. She’s still an old lady and very fallible. She’s just very trained and intense and I love her strategy for searching the house section by section.

There’s a moment near the climax of the movie that’s a reversal of a famous moment in the original film. I don’t know how it will go over when you see it, but my audience cheered. It gave me goosebumps as soon as I realized what was about to happen. I guess taking an iconic horror movie scene and turning it badass is the ultimate way to pander to me. But I’ll take it.

I was surprised when I first heard they were even ignoring HALLOWEEN II for this one. I guess it’s easier to say that Michael was captured after the end of the first movie than to explain how he survived an explosion. But it’s bold to disregard the twist that Laurie was Michael’s sister, and that was why he was coming after her. This explanation was maintained in all of the sequels and even the remake of I and became synonymous with HALLOWEEN, like hockey masks with FRIDAY THE 13TH.

They make a joke about it here. When a friend asks Allyson if her grandma was Michael’s sister she says “that was something people made up to feel better about it.” I guess the implication is that having even less motive makes it scarier. And it does make the events less explainable, because now I wonder why Michael would care about coming after Laurie. (As some have pointed out, he might not. He gets dropped off by her house.)

There’s kind of like a Star Trek violated-the-prime-directive thing here where it’s impossible to make a slasher movie without already knowing what Carol J. Clover pointed out about them, or at least Randy from SCREAM‘s remix of it. This one introduces some grey area in the “don’t have sex” theory: Vicky specifically dry humps her boyfriend before getting attacked. No penetration. How do you qualify that, Randy?

In 1978 there was Laurie, the shy girl, the responsible girl. She had a crush but she didn’t know how to get dates like her friends did. She ran errands for her dad’s real estate business, babysat for money, babysat for Annie so Annie could have fun with her boyfriend. She made the honor roll. A good kid. Then the fuckin boogeyman killed four of her friends, or at least two of her friends and their dumb boyfriends, and tried to kill her, and she pulled its fucking mask off and looked it in the eye and got no answers. And now we see what that did to her.

If sex = death then too bad no sex doesn’t = life. All that work being a good girl so the boogeyman won’t get you just leads to 40 years of fear, obsession and torment. Her daughter seems to take after her younger self and so does her granddaughter (though Allyson can get men – she rejects two shitty ones in one night). But Karen is traumatized by the way Laurie raised her before losing custody.

So that’s the beauty of the ending. ENDING SPOILERS. Laurie succeeds in her four-decade goal. Karen sees her mother and her own childhood in a new light. Allyson sees her mother and her grandmother in a new light. They burn up not only The Shape, not only the dollhouse representing the memory of where his reign of terror began, but also Laurie’s prison, Karen’s childhood, the guns, the targets, the family’s burden. And they ride away in the back of a pickup truck, perhaps an allusion to Sally’s escape in THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, except they’re not hysterical. I know there’s an ambiguity to the shot that can imply more troubles, and I know the end of the credits have the sound of The Shape breathing, but I like to take this as a happy, victorious ending, like we had with H20 before it was taken away in RESURRECTION. Here are three generations of women, of survivors, holding hands, maybe for the first time. And maybe with them all having accomplished this together and possibly having more of a relationship now so they can support each other, there’s some hope that Allyson won’t have to live in constant darkness the way her mother and grandmother did. That she hasn’t just had her life spared, but might actually get to enjoy it. Sequels willing.

HALLOWEEN (the sequel to HALLOWEEN) will return in HALLOWEEN (the sequel to HALLOWEEN [the sequel to HALLOWEEN]).

VERN has been reviewing movies since 1999 and is the author of the books SEAGALOGY: A STUDY OF THE ASS-KICKING FILMS OF STEVEN SEAGAL, YIPPEE KI-YAY MOVIEGOER!: WRITINGS ON BRUCE WILLIS, BADASS CINEMA AND OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS and NIKETOWN: A NOVEL. His horror-action novel WORM ON A HOOK will arrive later this year.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 22nd, 2018 at 12:32 pm and is filed under Horror, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

86 Responses to “Halloween (2018)”

  1. Thanks for the review, Vern. I was curious about this movie but unmotivated by the decades of HALLOWEEN sequels – some of them with numbers/subtitles, and some of them not. I had heard for this one they were throwing out all the sequels’ continuity after the original, which is a bold move but at this point, unless you’re going to do a Blair Witch 2-style commentary on the phenomenon, you almost have to. It would have been fun to see Cool J in H40; we’ll always regret missing out on that cinematic reunion. At least it sounds like they didn’t retroactively reverse engineer anything that occurred in the original. I look forward very much to your feelance review of the sequels!

    Also, in the interest of striving always for excellence, I’m no McBrideologist but I do remember he survived the end of Alien: Covenant until at least the credits; Waterston put him into his pod before getting into her own. I supposed after the last scene David could have opened up McBride’s pod and killed him, turned him into an alien experiment or taught him to play John Denver on the flute. I guess we’ll never know until the sequel. Anyway, he still helped kill a xenomorph so still totally legit in my book.

  2. I think this is a positive sign for the impending wave of reboots. Feels like – between this and IT – we’re seeing the fruits of the big new general audience blumhouse (and the conjuring people) have managed to create. When you tap into that crowd and add some nostalgia you make mega-bucks. Mainstream horror has had a rough decade and a half, but it is rebounding in a big way. I don’t think we’ve seen the likes of this stuff since the 80s.

    Creatively this felt like a rebuke to the 00s reboots – which as a rule tended to see the killer as the main draw and that was that. Some of them ended up more like glorified Youtube kill compilations (Friday the 13th for example streamlining three whole movies into just their kills). Series after series got ran into the ground, and the studios plugged on regardless – like the logic seemed to be that if they made it gorier, grimier (as in, literally coating things in grime but also in doing shit like making Freddy – someone plastered on lunchboxes – a pedo) and had bigger kills than the originals that people would be happy. They stopped telling stories, I think.

    This one is smart enough to foreground the victim, and makes it Laurie’s story again. I think this isn’t quite getting its dues on the whole (though it has been received positively) – in terms of what it adds to the horror conversation. This is probably an absurd thing to say in relation to a Halloween movie, but this really does feel topical in the wake of Blasey Ford and the MeToo stuff – the way she tries to raise the alarm, is ignored, and has to take matter into her own hands.

    Anyway the Halloween series has ballsed up two better-than-expected movies twice by rushing a sequel, hopefully they have something better in mind for Halloween 2020-ish.

  3. I discussed this thing to death with other members of this here board so I will say:

    -Like with the Platinum Dunes reboot/make of FRIDAY THE 13th, I’m not positive on it now but I probably will be in the future
    -Thus at the moment this is not a great movie considering the pedigree of the talent behind it and what we were being told (yeah, yeah hype machine n all that)
    -For a movie that constantly wags it dick around real proud that it’s a TRUE sequel made by TRUE fans and the real HALLOWEEN II is garbage, it sure does go and make a lot of the same decisions that one… In fact they straight up steal an awful from that one
    -I disagree about the ending being good. It gives zero closure in favor of sequel-baiting unlike H20 which has a perfect ending.
    -Speaking of H20, I noticed a lot of people who hate that one and calls it Not-SCREAM or whatever, love this one and conveniently ignores this one actually DOES have cringy fourth-wall-breaking dialogue
    -The humor (while some funny) was out of place
    -So with this being the TRUE sequel, why did they use sequel Michael Myers? You know crazy kill everybody he meets in extremely brutal ways. The exact opposite of the Michael in the original.

    SPOILER-SECTION
    I enjoyed the later part more because like with PART CURSE, the movie gets so damned stupid (after the ludicrous mad doctor twist) that I gave up on it being any good and just went along with it and didn’t ask stupid shit like:
    -Why does Lauri have an entire forest and house full of creepy mannequins?
    -So she was readying for forty-years and chose a house with that type of layout?
    -Uh… what was the actual plan with the safe/trap room?

    My final hot-take: If they didn’t get Jamie Lee Curtis back there is no way people would be being as nice as they are to this thing. Also this doesn’t even crack the top-five of HALLOWEEN sequels much less being the ONLY good one.

  4. As far this leading to a wave of ‘good’ reboots (like having a wave of reboots is a good thing) I will only satisfied if FRIDAY THE 13th FORTY YEARS LATER is made by a pretentious fan who only liked the original and thus when the hockey mask comes off it’s revealed that it was Mrs. Voorhies with her head stitched back on all long.*

    *This amazing idea was inspired by a discussion with Sternshein so I cannot take full credit.

  5. I liked this one a lot. Not super scary or anything, but a very worthy sequel. There’s a lot of good humor in it but I’m glad it didn’t go too overboard with the comedy, most of it is fairly subtle. I agree with you that this movie does a good job of not killing off too many characters who “deserve it” (also really like that they just forget about the boyfriend after the dance, no need to redeem him or anything), but it also does a great job of offering two characters who REALLY deserve it in those obnoxious true crime podcasters. When they pulled into that gas station I practically shouted “Finally!” Also laughed out loud when the woman tries to get away by crawling to the next stall and Michael just opens the door.

    Also, best opening credits of the year.

  6. One thing I’ve noticed about these HALLOWEEN films is that they drastically overestimate the lifespan of your average latex mask. The reason they always look wrong in the sequels is that the original had already deteriorated by the time they made Part IV so they had to make a new one. So the mask from Michael’s original 1978 rampage would have been a pile of crumbs and hair long before most of the cast of this film was even born.

    Anyway, I thought this was decent bordering on pretty good, but re-exploring some of the films it has attempted to erase from the ledger over the past few days has made its stock drop in my estimation. It’s executed pretty well but it’s just not very interesting or imaginative. There’s almost nothing in it that hadn’t been explored somewhere (and often better) in one or another of those sequels that this filmmaking team is apparently too cool for.

    I get why erasing the sister thing from the continuity is attractive. The concept was clumsily shoehorned into the second film and was only ever really significant to the fun-but-offbrand Jamie lloyd Trilogy, where Michael is pointedly coming after family members as a sacrifice to Samhain or some shit. Even H20 would have worked just fine if Michael was only coming after Laurie to settle an old score. The blood relation doesn’t really add much to the conversation.

    Which is why I think there was little point in so smugly and pointedly eliminating it from the continuity, since Laurie and Michael have THE EXACT SAME RELATIONSHIP in this film as they do in all the others. They’re two sides of the same coin, the yin to each other’s yang, the perfect villain creating the ultimate hero. It’s still indicating that Michael has MOTIVATION. He is not just a random force of evil. If he were, why would he sit there for 40 years and obsess about the one who got away? That’s not an unknowable enigma. That’s actually very easily understandable. They’ve still done the thing they deride the other sequels for doing: explaining the unexplainable and thus rendering it less scary. Taking away the blood relation factor does not take away the central conflict inherent in their shared story, either symbolically or logistically. It displays a very simplistic, reactionary take on what the choice to make them blood relatives was supposed to accomplish in terms of story, character, and theme and makes me think these guys aren’t as smart as they think they are.

    I would also say that eliminating the real HALLOWEEN II from the continuity does make Michael seem like small potatoes. They hang a lantern on it but that doesn’t change anything. A Michael Myers who has only killed five people in 55 years is not a Michael Myers I give a shit about it. I also don’t want to think about a Laurie Strode who spent the rest of that fateful Halloween night comfortable doped up in a hospital bed, nor do I want to think about the implied scene in which Michael, after surviving six bullet wounds to the chest and disappearing into a montage of establishing shots indicating that he has transcended the physical and is now an amorphous evil that can be everywhere all at once, just fucking surrendered when one dumb deputy apprehended him. That’s so lame I can’t even deal with it.

    So Michael is less than he used to be and the movie is less than it thinks it is. But hey, it has the PACKAGING of the original, so I guess that makes it inherently better than the other films in the series, which might not be as well crafted but at least TRIED to put their own stamp on the material. It pains me that we’re in an era where filmmakers are rewarded for taking fewer risks, for being less distinctive, for openly aping other filmmakers. It’s the Age of Doing It “Right” and I’m already sick of it. This is a perfectly serviceable piece of fanwanking that has some very good scenes, but it’s as mercenary and cynical an endeavor as any of the other sequels—more so in many ways.

    It’s got a lot going for it but also it has some weird failings that everybody seems to be giving a pass. The doctor character is an embarrassment. A walking combination exposition dispenser/plot contrivance. He’s the Snoke of the HALLOWEEN franchise. Meanwhile, you have two British journalists flying all the way to Illinois to interview a mute (for their audio podcast, mind you) who 40 years ago stabbed a couple people and has been a model patient ever since. What a shitty podcast, by the way. It’s just two sanctimonious fucks narrating to themselves with like two minutes of an old lady telling them they’re idiots. And what’s more, they add nothing to the story that the ridiculous doctor character couldn’t have accomplished. It takes three fucking expository characters to add up to half a Loomis. It’s just bad writing. The kind you might find in a lesser HALLOWEEN sequel.

    Also I’m pretty sure I’d have a better defense strategy if I had 40 years to think about it. For one, I probably wouldn’t have a house full of louvered closet doors and long flowing drapes for someone to hide behind if I lived my whole life thinking about someone breaking into my house to kill me. I CERTAINLY would have installed a secret secondary egress from that basement death trap if I intended to use myself or my daughter as bait in it. “I’ll knock him down the stairs and then you climb over him awkwardly while he’s momentarily stunned” could not have been the plan all along, could it? Maybe everybody’s right and Laurie really IS crazy, because that is the worst plan I’ve ever heard.

    I also would have worked it out so I could watch him burn all the way to ashes. The way they did it, it couldn’t have been more of a sequel setup if Michael’s hand popped out of the rubble at the end giving the thumbs up. At least H20, the film most affected by the retconning, did its level best to offer a definitive ending. It has some clunky bits that haven’t aged well but overall it’s a better film than this.

    I might sound like I’m down on it, but hey, they asked for this. If it was sold as just another HALLOWEEN sequel, I’d probably be happy. These cocky fucks are the ones who talked all the shit about making the only worthwhile sequel. Well, I beg to differ. Then again, Danny McBride has made a career out of playing loudmouths who brag a lot but can’t deliver so I shouldn’t have been surprised that his horror cred turned out to be just a lot of hot air.

  7. “Danny McBride has made a career out of playing loudmouths who brag a lot but can’t deliver so I shouldn’t have been surprised that his horror cred turned out to be just a lot of hot air.”

    **slow clap**

  8. I can’t wait to get home and then rant because the last 1/4 of this movie is junk.

  9. I love the original, which, along with the 1963 version of “The Haunting” is one of the most effectively creepy movies of all time in my book. The transcendent ending of the original, as Majestyk pointed out, is perfect, but I’m not necessarily opposed to a sequel. I was optimistic but this was definitely a disappointment considering the filmmakers involved, who should know better. The script was really unfocused, feeling very much like a rough draft – too many characters and ideas that went nowhere at the expense of developing atmosphere and suspense. It ends up being a slog, in stark contrast to the lean and effective original. There’s almost something interesting with framing Laurie in similar shots as Michael in the original, but it’s pretty half-assed amid the clutter. I thought Jamie Lee Curtis did a very good job portraying the awkward and ugly effects of trauma though. With more work and thought it could have been an effective exploration of generational trauma, which would have actually made it more intense – the relationship between her and her daughter and granddaughter, had it received more attention, would have made a solid foundation for a scary and cathartic horror movie. What Michael represents is something scarier than a brute-strength killer – it’s the insidious infiltration and undermining of safe spaces, the unfathomable danger around the corner depicted by having him subtly intrude on the edge of the frame, in the background until it’s too late. The kills themselves feel more like the Rob Zombie movies, and similarly lack suspense or creepiness (I did like the teeth in the bathroom stall bit though). For the most part, they’re inferior to those in the entertaining but trashy cash-in Halloween II (1980 edition). I wish they had gone for something more in line with what Carpenter envisioned for a potential Halloween IV, wherein Michael would be gone, but his presence is felt as a reverberation in the town psyche, more of a haunting. At the very least, they could have just removed a bunch of the fat and focused on creating a few creative, effective setpieces and developing atmosphere. As it is, it’s some nice shots that don’t add up to much, the homages to the original are distracting and distancing, and lacking a solid focus it feels weirdly old-fashioned in a hokey way. They really should’ve thought this one through a little more.

  10. If ya’ll want to unnecessarily nitpick things. Why don’t you nitpick how Karen/Judy Greer doesn’t shoot Michael in the head? (She was pretty awful in this movie btw.) Or how Laurie in her 2nd nice reverse Michael Myers moment on Michael surprise stabs him…in the shoulder?

    I don’t think this one was great (though it’s likely at least the 3rd best movie in the whole franchise, if not #2), But it reminded me a lot of some of the recent reboot/remakes we’ve been getting in recent years–e.g. CREED, THE FORCE AWAKENS, etc.–where there are lots of explicit references and remixes of moments of the more beloved movies in a franchise. For the most part, I thought they were handled well. BTW, Vern, did you forget that Michael *SPOILER* killed that little boy in the truck earlier in the movie? *SPOILER*

    That bathroom scene was prettay legit. I probably won’t even be mad when some dickhead Republican running for office repurposes it to argue for restricting bathrooms.

  11. I was about to post but Mr. M said it all.

  12. This definitely is not intended as a rebuke of the sequels. If it was it wouldn’t have so many homages to them. I think they just realized that going back to basics was a good way to tell a story. And I’m not sure John Carpenter would’ve been on board if that wasn’t their approach.

    And Laurie had mannequins for a) target practice and b) our benefit as cool horror movie scenery, both things amply illustrated throughout the movie.

  13. Doesn’t this movie keep it ambiguous what Michael’s motivation is? Lots of people talk about his motivation, but I don’t know if any one is intended to be authoritative. The new Loomis is clearly off his rocker. The podcasters are borderline jokes. Laurie while the heroine, obviously has a complex and obsession. And Michael himself still makes somewhat oddball choices–e.g. chilling in the kid’s closet, not killing the crying infant, putting a dead girl under a ghost sheet (another remix of the original).

    I guess nothing should surprise me anymore, but considering how much the earlier sequels had altered the mythology of Michael Myers or things like how HALLOWEEN 5 borderline disregards the ending to HALLOWEEN 4, I don’t see how anybody could only single out this movie without going scorched earth on almost the entire franchise along with a number of the classic slasher franchises

  14. I liked this one and actually found the characters and dialogue and overall tone dealing with PTSD and inherited trauma so fascinating, that when Michael Myers would show up it felt kinda cut in from a different movie. It just felt odd I guess having grown up watching him in so many sequels, to have this be directly linked to only the first was jarring and little difficult to stop thinking about and just let wash over me.

    Still, it was a great theater experience (aside from the jackass right next to me checking her damn phone every five minutes like clockwork) and my crowd too also applauded at the moment you’re talking about Vern. I think I may have actually high-fived said dipshit’s iphone screen when that happened.

    I also reeeeeally >a href=”

    “>loved this new addition to the soundtrack. The fact that Carpenter managed to whip up a new Halloween theme that instantly feels so iconic and genuinely creepy is a treat all by itself.

    I thought this movie was pretty good and probably the best sequel but no, not a gameslasher like some people are talking about it.

    8/10

  15. I liked this one and found the characters and dialogue and overall tone dealing with PTSD and inherited trauma so fascinating, that when Michael Myers would show up it felt kinda cut in from a different movie. It was just odd I guess having grown up watching him in so many sequels, to have this be directly linked to only the first was jarring and little difficult to stop thinking about and just let wash over me.

    Still, it was a great theater experience (aside from the jackass right next to me checking her damn phone every five minutes like clockwork) and my crowd too also applauded at the moment you’re talking about Vern. I think I may have actually high-fived said dipshit’s iphone screen when that happened.

    I also reeeeeally loved this new addition to the soundtrack:

    The fact that Carpenter managed to whip up a new Halloween theme that instantly feels so iconic and genuinely creepy is a treat all by itself.

    I thought this movie was pretty good and probably the best sequel but no, not a gameslasher like some people are talking about it.

    8/10

  16. I’m out of the country for the next couple of weeks, so I won’t get a chance to see it til November, but Halloween is my favorite of all the horror franchises, so I’m looking forward to this one.

    One thing that I think is interesting is the idea of Michael as an old man in this one. The big horror icons all tend to either wear masks (your Jasons, your Leatherfaces, your whatever the guy’s name from the My Bloody Valentine movies is) or are mutilated or deformed in some way (your Freddys, your The Hills Have Eyes-ers), which kind of detaches them from typical concepts of morality, so the concept of this killer getting older and older – I mean, shit, he’s like 8 years older than Laurie in this one – but still feeling that drive to get out there and chop up some teens, well, I guess we can all take a lesson from that. It’s never too late to chase your dreams. Uplifting really, when you think about it.

  17. Glad most people enjoyed it but I absolutely hated this movie. The subplots with the British podcasters and “new Loomis” are aggressively stupid, Laurie’s obsession with Michael makes no sense now that she’s not his sister and the plot is a boring retread of the first movie — no imagination, no cleverness. It’s most egregious sin though it’s thats completely not scary. It has some brutal images and scenes and tries to be unsettling by taking a matter-of-fact depiction of Michael’s brutal killings. But there are almost no moments of suspense. And aside from Curtis, doing her best with an underwritten part, there are no characters worth caring about. Cell phone in the pudding was a nice touch, though. Overall, this was a huge disappointment.

  18. “McBride is usually a comedy guy, but remember he also got killed by a xenomorph in ALIEN: COVENANT. So he’s legit.”

    Er … no he wasn’t.

  19. Oh hell, somehow I missed in my search that someone already brought that up.

    Here’s an article on it.

    Danny McBride talks about his surprising fate in 'Alien: Covenant'

    Danny McBride was as surprised as everyone else to learn what happens to his character in "Alien: Covenant."

    … and apropos of nothing, I did get a free pair of brand new Nike shoes (complete with box and packing, so absolutely brand new) because of one of the people working on Alien: Covenant who lived in my building and was getting rid of everything before moving to Los Angeles for work. Good luck Jimmy, wherever you are now.

  20. I seriously don’t even know if I want to see this. Mostly because (and for some reason, no reviews are even mentioning this) with it’s release, Green undoubtedly wins the fucking craziest career of any film-maker living or dead.

    Even studio system guys like Michael Curtiz who had to make whatever the bosses handed him can’t approach the sheer randomness of his mostly auteurist resumé.

    So, would I like to see his sequel to 1978’s Halloween that’s also called Halloween even though it isn’t a remake of Halloween? I don’t have a fucking clue. I have absolutely no point of reference, and the whole thing makes such little fucking sense to begin with.

    And why do I seem to be the only person who’s saying this?

  21. I had no problem with the podcasters. First off, there is a podcast for everything. It shouldn’t surprise anybody that a podcast would want to do a story on this. The one guy who got fucked over by this remake, btw, is Loomis. I would argue that Loomis is just every bit as important to the first movie as Laurie is and he’s dismissed. He’s never really talked about and even Laurie seems to not give a shit about Loomis by dismissing the other doctor by calling him the “new Loomis”

    The other thing that bothers me is how much time and effort is spent with characters obsessing with Michael talking. Who gives a shit? Gone is the talk of him being the boogeyman and pure evil and all that. By ignoring it they are essentially saying he’s just a man. It’s bullshit.

    Also, I think we found the one more Mr. M and I see eye to eye on because his likes and dislikes are the exact same as mine.

  22. I think that’s part of the theme, though. The podcasters and the doctors both want him to talk because they think there is some explanation that he can give. But a theme of the entire series (even RESURRECTION, though I guess disregarded in 6’s Thorn Cult plot) is that there is no explanation for The Shape. They’re wrong, and they pay for it.

  23. Did we watch the same movie? The boogeyman and pure evil things aren’t ignored at all. The kid refers to Michael as the boogeyman. He even hides in the bedroom closet! The deputy is definitely on the Michael is pure evil kick, and new Loomis flirts with some of those ideas too. The doctor even posits a theory that Michael can’t die because he’s too hellbent/rage fueled to get Laurie. (I personally like how some things were kept ambiguous. Such as, did Michael just freak out and cause the bus crash and escape? Or was the doctor involved there? Is the doctor lying about Michael being dead because he wants to assuage the sheriff? Or is he telling the truth and upset but wanting to keep the body preserved?)

  24. Yeah we saw the same movie. Thanks for reminding me of the half assed ways they bring it up. :)

  25. BTW, I’m guilty of this all the time and I’m trying to stop it but can we not be dicks when we disagree with something. A simple “I disagree here is X, Y, Z” should just be enough.

  26. I would bear no hard feelings to anyone who likes this movie, even though I don’t for reasons stated above. Perhaps it was because I had just watched “The Haunting of Hill House” on Netflix, which is a deeply felt, moving story that is also terrifying, and raised the stakes in my mind so high for what I want from a horror story, that I was disappointed with this. It feels like just another cheap slasher. Seriously, no matter whether you liked this or not, go watch the new Haunting—it is just a devestating and beautiful piece of modern horror.

  27. @Larry Sternshein: I apologize if I came off like a dick with how I framed my earlier reply. Half-assed is fair. And even though this movie isn’t in the league of the original (though nothing in the series is imo), those things you mentioned weren’t exactly heavily played up in the original either. But, on the other hand, when this movie choose to hit us in the head multiple times with the “it’s a trap! The Strode’s have been preparing for this and are ready to take out Michael!” theme, your point strikes me as valid, if mitigated.

    If I can sloppily transition to another point. After finishing this movie, I couldn’t help but think of JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM, perhaps because I watched both with my girlfriend and how both heavily reference images and themes from the original in the franchise IP, and this movie–while not perfect–struck me as one that at least re-utilized and repurposed the images and moments of the original to much, much superior impact. I’d think/hope there’s some consensus around that, although I’d agree that subject-matter wise strikes me as much more debatable, given this thread.

  28. I have only seen the original movie, and I love the idea of late sequels. Which one would you recommend me, this new Halloween or H2O? And do I need to watch H2 before H2O?
    If you need more information, I like horror, but in truth the slasher genre hasn’t done anything for me since the late 90s. Maybe that helps?
    Thanks!

  29. I downloaded and watched a little of H20 and the guy they got to play Michael and that mask was pretty lame.

  30. Merso, no need to watch H2 to be able to watch H20. I’m sure you know anyway that in that timeline Michael and Laurie are siblings. If not: Sorry for the spoiler.

  31. I realize that my epic takedown of this movie is probably not strictly necessary. I’m just feeling feisty because, like every horror movie the Internet loves, it does not even remotely live up to its hype. But taken outside of that context, which I admit is ludicrous and I should just ignore, I stand by my initial statement: decent bordering on pretty good. That’s about the best any reasonable human could expect from a Halloween film in 2018. I didn’t hate it, which is some kind of fucking miracle. I’m sure when it’s just another sequel on the pile, I’ll think of it as one of the three or four best ones. But for now, it talked shit and didn’t deliver, so it’s gotta take its licks.

  32. Who played Michael Myers is the best in all of the sequels?

  33. It seems like some of the reactions here are more or less similar but the tenor of those opinions is largely dictated by one’s attention to the whole franchise and the hype surrounding the movie. I guess I liked it because 1) I didn’t care about any of the discontinuity with the rest of the series, 2) I didn’t pay too much attention to what people were saying about it, and probably most important 3) I was sort of bracing myself for the worst (I had been through this before with Rob Zombie’s entries to the franchise, which I hated).

    Merso – no need to see Halloween 2 to watch H20, but I still recommend it. It’s way dumber than the first one but a lot of fun. Between H20 and the new one, I would have to go with the new one, though they’re pretty close in quality.

  34. I hate, hate, hate, hated this movie with a passion.

    If you are going to hit the circuit and say all these Halloween sequels were garbage and we are going to go back and figure out what made the original a classic, how the fuck do you come up with a movie that isn’t the least bit scary? This movie is far more similar to Halloweens 4 through 11 (or whatever the fuck they went up to) than the original. Having a ridiculously high kill count and giving the audience winks to the original doesn’t make for a scary movie. The crowd I was with laughed and groaned almost the entire way through, especially when they figured out how to get all the main characters back to Laurie’s house. One guy in the theater next to me at the end said “Halloween 11:Extra Crispy” after the fire. That made me laugh.

    If I had gone into this movie expecting a fun romp with Jamie Lee Curtis and the shape, maybe I would have liked it. But all I heard for months was how much everyone wanting to make a horror film just like the original. Swing and miss.

    I could go on about how much this movie got wrong for days, and I will collect my thoughts and try again. My one enormous complaint, though, is the FUCKING TRAILER. The only two scenes that I thought kind of worked were the scene in the garage bathroom with the teeth and the scene with Michael in the closet and the babysitter. Any impact either of these scenes would have had were completely ruined by the trailer. STOP RUINING MOVIES WITH THE FUCKING TRAILERS YOU ASSHOLES! STOP IT!

  35. And hate on Rob Zombies Halloweens all you want, but give the man credit. They are brutal, humorless movies. The purpose of those two movies was to make you uncomfortable, make you squirm, and scare you. They aren’t great, but they do accomplish that. The original Halloween is not a movie that sets out to make you cheer or chuckle, or even make you smile.

  36. I haven’t seen the new one yet, so I’ve got nothing to add to that part of the discussion.

    I do agree with the choice to toss each and every one of the sequels, though. I get that Resurrection is (properly) hated here, but I’m astonished by how much love (okay, more of a begrudging “like”, but still) is being given to parts 4, 5, and 6, which are just horrible and hideous and odious and undoubtedly other “ouses” that I just can’t think of right now. I’ve been rewatching them on AMC this season, thinking maybe I’ve done them wrong. Nope. Even II is pretty weak sauce, but at least it has its moments. 4, 5 and 6 look like something my high school buddy and I might have written back in the ‘80s. And then had our creative writing teacher direct for us. (Actually, that likely would have been better.)

    On the other hand, it’s a rare series where I think any of the sequels offer much value.

    In short, and apparently quite foolishly, I’m still hopeful for this one! Don’t bring me down, people!

  37. Well, I guess it’s hard to define what “scary” is since watching movies never made me, like, run out of the room or whatever. But to me the “interview” with Michael, the kid going through the fog with the gun looking for his dad, the off screen hammering of that woman, the shot through the window as the other woman is on the phone, Vicky’s too-real fake out when we know Michael is actually in the closet – these are all scenes I found incredibly tense and nothing pops to mind from any of the sequels as being clearly “scarier.” I’m sure it helps that I just saw this for the first time on a big screen with a good audience and the others I’ve seen many times each and mostly on video. But I think these are all very effective scenes and partly because, to me, these are characters who I like and believe in more than the vast majority of the ones in the other sequels. Just the brief bit with the kid not wanting to miss his dance class makes him more endearing to me than most of the hospital staff in II (a movie I really like).

    That’s why I disagree with criticisms about the humor. It’s not like they’re making a bunch of gags, it’s just some of the characters are themselves funny. It’s characterization and it makes you empathize with the characters more, just like P.J. Soles saying “totally” so many times or Laurie and Annie rushing to hide the joint from Annie’s dad. It makes me more worried for them, makes me wince more if something bad happens to them, it’s not turning the whole thing into a romp.

  38. I don’t think I really want to bother getting too deep into this argument but I’ll say I really, really enjoyed the film.
    There was more a sense of everyone else trying to get Michael and Laurie together, not Michael actively going after her. And yes, I punched the air and cheered at that certain moment as well.

    I dunno. I marathoned the series (got the boxset) for like, the fourth time leading up to the film and this time I did it in reverse order. It was kind of cool working backwards through the series and it actually led to a few new observations and reevaluations.
    But ending it all with the original and going into this new one blind (I don’t normally care about spoilers and what not, but I straight up avoided all info about it other than trailers so I guess I didn’t care one bit about what the filmmakers said or whatever and I still don’t and what would the alternative statement to make, “Ours is pretty good but not, like, as good as Halloween 5”?) was probably the best way to see it.

    So, I just put this together last night while talking to my roommate about it: The weird little hidden penknife Sartain used to stab the deputy? He had that because he could smuggle it onto the transport bus. I don’t know if he ever got the chance to use the knife on there but it at least explains why he had something like that. Maybe other people already deduced this. *shrug*

  39. If we’re talking about scares and suspense, then someone’s gotta bring up the bit with the motion sensitive light. That scene, to me, was a HALLOWEEN all-timer. If anything, they shoulda milked it for another minute or two coz it was a great idea that was executed very well.

    And despite the generally rushed nature of the pacing in this one, I’d still say that there’s more genuine suspense here than any of the sequels or remakes.

    Finally, I thought the twist with the doctor was great. Ridiculous, sure, but what else can you do with a ‘new Loomis’ that isn’t a total retread? I like the idea of a doctor with less will and steel than Loomis just totally losing his way trying to figure Michael out and paying the price for it. I do wish the movie had had another 20-30 minutes to let all the various plot threads breathe and play out a little more naturally. Fingers crossed for a Director’s Cut!

  40. I am a pretty tough scare, too. I think of a movie like Hereditary, and that is a completely different experience. Revenge was another recent movie I saw that I wouldn’t say I was hiding my eyes or running out of the room, but it sure made me squirm. I don’t see a lot of movies like that, that are also well done, but they are out there. There’s a lot of unnerving stuff on Netflix nowadays, Haunting of Hill House comes to mind. Apostle too.

    I saw this at the Thursday night preview, so it was a crowd full of people who wanted to love it and loved the original. And it definitely got the crowd riled up, for sure.

  41. And by “romp” I was referring to the whole final act of the film in Laurie’s fun house. Up until then, it kinda had me on board. At least a little bit. But all of that lost me. I don’t even know what genre that whole section of the film would be considered.

    And one serious question, how many people did Michael kill, on and off camera?

  42. The reversal at the end doesn’t work because Michael is unfeeling and not frightened at all when he noticed she disappeared. If he feels anything at all (and he shouldnt) its probably annoyance. Not to mention that its yet the umpteenth nod and wink to the audience, because we all needed to be reminded of a much better movie over and over again.

    This is suspense-less, overwritten, over praised fluff with lame characters, bizarre music video style editing sequences (these are terrible. Why is no one mentioning these) a weak score (what happened JC?)
    dreary cinematography, and no fucking clue.

    And the pumpkin at the beginning looked like a low IQ child animated it.

  43. I cannot disagree about the score more, Kris.

  44. I’m glad you liked it. Just didn’t grab me man. And I thought the score was going to be a highlight, especially after seeing Carpenter in concert.

  45. Kinda surprised by all the negativity here. I thought this one was great. I love the first Halloween (obvs) and like the second two and am fairly indifferent about the rest of the franchise, so this was right up my alley. I’ve also been the guy who always said they screwed up the franchise with the sibling retcon and that a faceless, motiveless murderer is way scarier than some dude trying to kill his sister because reasons. I don’t get people being weird about this “disrespecting” the sequels either, because there are a ton of little nods to them that only obsessive fans would catch (or bother putting in their movie), from the comedic cops from 5 to mentioning Mr Elrod to the kids in the Silver Shamrock masks.

    I think what I liked best was that this one really made Haddonfield feel like a real place filled with real people. So many slasher movies treat their leads as throwaway characters and it was awesome that people would blink into the movie for a second and you’d get to know them. Like the kid who didn’t want to go hunting with his dad because he’d rather go to dance class, which could’ve been played for laughs, but instead just let him be a kid who shot guns with his dad sometimes but also loved to dance. Or the guy trash talking the cop for trying to beat his Back to the Future pinball score. The movie had affection for its characters which is something OG Halloween had that most slashers don’t.

    And the ending – when it was down to the Strode ladies, I was running the probabilities of who would make it out and I figured the least likely scenario was for all of them to survive. It was an uplifting, uncynical ending that was oddly refreshing in a time when cynicism and a lack of compassion have overtaken the real world to a degree most of us never thought was possible. The ending was so satisfying that I would love for them to not do a sequel, but this thing made a shit-ton of money so that’s unlikely. Then again, I did get my fondest wish of a Halloween without the family connection, so maybe I’ll get my second-fondest wish – that Season of the Witch did better and the franchise turned into an annual anthology movie series. How cool would it be to see some talented young filmmaker do a modern update of Part 3 next year and then ever year after that to get a new Shape-less Halloween movie?

  46. Hey Free Dummy-

    SPOILERS

    I think they could get away with a sequel if they wanted to. You never do see his corpse. Yes he’s trapped in a flaming house but you know… maybe he dug through something, a wall collapsed, etc.

    But I like your idea better. Or the alternate part 4 somebody above mentioned where he “haunts” Haddonfield.

  47. I found it interesting that for all the talk of “this is a slate cleaner” and bla bla bla it was heavily dependent on swagger jacking bits from all of the previous 9 Myers led Halloweens. Even RESURRECTION. As a fan of the franchise overall I actually liked that but I could see how those homages rubbed many the wrong way.

    I did feel that like H20 the comedy attempts were absolutely dreadful. I literally only chuckled at the dad and the babysat kid. Rest of my theater didn’t laugh at shit. However the use of wide shots (with tracked movements) and actually listening to a Carpenter soundtrack in loud ass dolby surround made up for it to me.

    It’s the best one since H4 overall to me and the only one since 6 to actually have a proper Halloween atmosphere to it. The whole time I really did feel like I had been transported to next week. Good stuff there. I was satisfied overall. Leagues ahead of H20 at least. Considering how disappointing that movie always was to me I’ll take it.

  48. Oh and the twist was so bad and easily projected that I rolled my eyes so hard it got to the point that I lost a contact lens. That was so uneccessary and made me remove at least a point from my overall rating.

  49. I thought this one was pretty damn good, and I like it more the more I think about it. It might well be the second best of the whole franchise, in my opinion.

    One thing I want to point out that I really liked was the visual style. The field of action in some of these scenes was much deeper than in most modern movies (not most horror, just most modern movies in general) you see outside of DePalma. The first Halloween had that too, but since it was more a stalker movie than a slasher one, the background presence of the Shape was more static and haunting than in this version. This one had a number of occasions where Michael was doing things behind the foreground action of the shot and I thought that added a lot of tension and visual interest to the scenes.

  50. Not just the reversal of the shot at the end, but I also loved when Allyson looks out the classroom window and this time it’s Laurie standing outside.

  51. I find this movie to be resting on its Lauries. It needs less homage and standard slasher fare and more original type storytelling and exploration of what these characters mean to each other. The Shape concept (Loomis’s take on Michael) has been done perfectly. But Michael is just a man and I think there’s a great movie in denying him his mask. I want a story that is hyper focused on the central relationships and not various threads. It may not even feel like a Halloween/slasher movie but that’s partly the point. This installment is what it is but I want a sequel with balls, a movie (almost) as good as the original but without trying to mimic it as much.

  52. How many times are they going to be able to get Jamie Lee Curtis back? Give her a real movie to retire the role with, worthy of her, Laurie, and the original.

  53. It’s funny I interpreted that great poster with the mask looking like aged skin as promising a movie that addressed what 40 years later might mean to Michael in addition to Laurie. Turns out it meant nothing which makes sense I suppose.

    One more thing I want to say for the record is I’m opposed to the idea of any sequel to Halloween 1978. It’s like a sequel to Jaws. Totally unnecessary as everything has been said perfectly already. But given that they have now established this 2018 continuation I have two cents.

  54. Kris, you might not know, but after the end credits you hear Michael breathing. I still say that they always had it in their minds there was going to be a trilogy. If they were just thinking of making this one movie then we would have had a much more definitive ending like we got in H20. Instead we got the dumb decision to set a room on fire and then walk away like they’re some Bond villain.

  55. Is there something about horror where lackluster sequels doesn’t impact people’s assessment of the original that much? Some people definitely seem less high on other movie franchises, e.g. THE MATRIX, after the sequels than they do about, say, HALLOWEEN, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, ALIEN, THE EXORCIST, PSYCHO, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, or JAWS–all of which got tons of “bad” sequels but remain beloved.

  56. So years after both Vern and Majestyk suggested it to me I finally watched ROB ZOMBIE’S HALLOWEEN II: ROB ZOMBIE’S CUT and boy that was some really interesting shit. A lot more compelling than his 1st. The Jamie Lloyd at the end of HALLOWEEN 4-esque angle they took with Laurie was surprising but pretty sensible.

    Dourif was fucking brilliant as Sheriff Brackett with nothing but revenge on the brain and Tyler Mane was a much more effective Michael the 2nd time around despite the retardes detiriorating mask. It’s been like 3 or so years since the recommendation but thanks fellas. Better late than never. Now I’m actually interested in seeing the theatrical cut just to observe the key differences.

  57. BrianB -I would argue that people are more disappointed with THE MATRIX sequels for the same reason they’re disappointed by LOST. Those things promise huge revelations at the end of an overarching narrative, so you might sour on the entire endeavor if your reaction is “It all amounted to THIS?!”

    I really fucking loved the new HALLOWEEN. The first scene is good but then there’s a scene later where the podcasters talk about how they misinterpreted it, and it makes it better/scarier. The scene where Shape is first running amok with the trick or treaters is absolutely fucking nuts, the CHILDREN OF MEN of slasher sequences. The scene in the back seat of the car when the doctor revives his patient with the utterance of a word… yeah this movie was fucking awesome.

  58. I guess, just to keep the conversation sort of going because I am actually very surprised at the reactions I’m seeing here and other spots, so, y’know? I’m intrigued.
    I’m going to copy/paste this here from a convo I’m having elsewhere but it has been the growing issue I’ve been dealing with in the last decade or so that I’ve been taking criticism seriously.

    “Now, going into the new Halloween, I feel in some many ways that it is getting the same kind of “baggage” that every take on an established property has to deal with, ESPECIALLY if you are announcing that you’re subverting or reshaping an established piece of cinema.
    But what the fuck? What else will you do? Hire nobody hacks that nobody will ever even confuse with a director with vision? Did that a few times. Someone who can crank a wheel in the studio and make sure that every wall looks just as white and bland as it can be? Did that too.
    I’ll never be able to understand people who can’t separate art from what they want. The general consensus, without getting into the hyperbolic realm above mentioned, is that it isn’t the Halloween movie THEY would’ve made. That’s the most subjective, frankly idiotic, and strictly wanking argument anybody can ever make about a film, let alone art. Criticize it if you will, but make sure that the arguments aren’t about the fan-script you wrote in your head. I’m sure it’s pretty cool. So is mine. But, y’know, mine wouldn’t have surprised and delighted me as much as someone else’s “cool” idea.”

    I mean, I’ll take a film from an established director who fills a film with idiosyncratic ticks and has a willingness to not shill to the studio; a director who knows how to make his “own” films on a small budget the way he wants it made (kinda like a John Carpenter fellow I’ve heard of) AND a writer who, much like a certain Vern we all know and love, who takes the lowest of low-brow anti-populism and spins it into uplifting and challenging narrative…Yeah, I’ll take that kinda film over the next Dwight H. Little joint or the next Joe Chappelle flick. Maybe I’m the dunder-head for liking a film on it’s own merits vs. ingrained expectation, fan-writing, or letting the making of the film create a narrative for the ACTUAL film.

    It gave me the most involving (as in engaged with the film as a whole, not one single aspect) Halloween film since 5 even if it is totally NOT the film I would’ve made. And that’s my take and I won’t try to fan-write over yours but I just don’t know that this isn’t some new disease in criticism that we need to try to stamp out now. Judge it for what it does or does poorly, not for what YOU wish it did. That seems, again, like the most subjective disagreement you could have with anything.

  59. I mean, if you have to stick to a strict formula and style and structure and mood and setting and yadda yadda yadda, then how can you expect something with inspiration?
    This is where I feel (and I’ve done this too) that FANS can often time be the worst thing to ever happen to anything. It’ll never be the original, it won’t be the story they want, and if it does anything different then it’s already fucking its way uphill.
    “Fans” don’t see movies; if they did then they’d already admit that no new entry is going to satisfy them as much as whichever parts of the series were their old fix. There’d be no let-down; it’d just be another one that they don’t like as much as the entries that nothing will ever be better than to them and mean just as little/much.
    Cool.
    I always wonder, though, about the new fans that are created by each new entry. I’m pretty damn sure I saw some converts in the audience when I watched H20 all those years ago and I KNOW I saw some in the audience for H40, so…as a fan, do I welcome them to the fold or do I let ’em know to start drawing lines in the sand and digging into all the details so that they can posit a better movie than the one they’re watching?

  60. I should have thought to post this sooner. I was having fun with this. I like to think that when Michael hit the ground after being shot out of that window in the original film, reality splintered into some kind of multiverse.

    Handy Chart Lays Out the 'Halloween' Franchise's "Choose Your Own Adventure" Timeline - Bloody Disgusting

    The franchise gets real interesting with this year's David Gordon Green-directed Halloween, as it's not quite a continuation of the original franchise or R

  61. Oh wow, I have no idea what happened there. This was supposed to be the link:

    Handy Chart Lays Out the 'Halloween' Franchise's "Choose Your Own Adventure" Timeline - Bloody Disgusting

    The franchise gets real interesting with this year's David Gordon Green-directed Halloween, as it's not quite a continuation of the original franchise or R

  62. Thanks John, CJ, and Larry for your input! CJ, I think I knew before about the sibling connection, but honestly I forgot about it at some point.

  63. Jamie Lee as Mrs. Voorhees?

  64. PJ Soles vs. the Wolfman?

  65. A little sad the babysitter died. I liked her and the kid together.

  66. I enjoyed this film. It could have lived without the Dr. altogether, just find another way to get Michael and Laurie together. Same with the podcasters. The bathroom scene was great, but find some other characters to be the victims for that. I thought all the characters were great and very well humanized and grounded. I thought the humor was generally pretty light and sparing and worked in context. Great look, Michael was menacing as hell, I loved the way they worked with no-mask Michael, the stalking through Haddonfield houses run was great, the motion lights scene was great. Score was fantastic. The final act was a treat, very satisfying for my money. Jamie Lee Curtis does some really nice work here.

    At the same time, I think Rymar is right that the film feels a little bloated and disjointed. Felt somewhat lacking in cohesion, like Laurie’s parts and the third act were a different film from the rest. Get rid of the Dr. and podcasters and either ground the film more with Laurie and her family, or just take her out of it.

    Overall, I thought this was fun and competent, and it did a nice job of making Michael menacing. The Jamie Lee vs. Michael fan service was a-ok witht his fan. Pretty effective. Solid B or B-.

  67. So I ended the annual October Horrorthon with the ceremonial viewing of the original HALLOWEEN, as my people have done for generations, and seeing it so soon after watching the latest sequemake, I realized the main thing that Green and McBride completely dropped the ball on in their attempt to recapture the essence of the original: the simplicity. The plot of the real HALLOWEEN is a straight line, symbolic of the character who drives it. It plods relentlessly forward, slowly, almost imperceptibly picking up speed until we’re in the final onslaught of terror, which leaves you without resolution: Everyone is either dead or broken, corrupted by evil, which is still out there, always out there, everywhere and nowhere. This is not a twist. This is the inevitable fate the film had been marching toward, both in substance and style, since its first frames. The simple, primal fatalism of the storytelling and filmmaking is what gives the movie its power.

    Compare that to the 2018 version, which is chock full of philosophical debates, subplots, metafictional asides, extraneous backstory, and (ugh) plot twists. You think John Carpenter had time for fucking plot twists? Michael Myers don’t need no plot twists. He is straightforward, he is elemental, and he is COMING. That’s the basic, primal appeal of the character and the original film, and the new one completely fails to understand that by labeling gobs and gobs of extra crap onto what by all rights should be the most barebones of stories: the night HE came home…again. If they needed a ridiculously contrived heel turn to make that story happen, they already failed.

    It has become clear to me now that Green and McBride are victims of their own hubris. They had no more understanding of or connection to the true essence of the first and immortal HALLOWEEN than the chumps who decided that 200 proof purity of purpose needed to be complicated and thus diluted by the insertion of the Thorn Cult. They’re just more fanboys who, inspired by the vast spaces purposely left unexplored by Carpenter’s ruthless efficiency, could think of nothing else except what extraneous doodles could be added to the margins of a masterpiece. It’s an entertaining piece of franchise fluff but it gets no closer to the essence of HALLOWEEN than any of the other sequels.

  68. Your comparative observations are accurate but are equally or even more true of most perhaps all, HALLOWEEN sequels. This still rates as top of second-largest sequel and probably edges out Zombie H2. Further, I don’t see how a sequel is going to duplicate the Carpenter H1 approach without seeming incredibly boring and derivative, even if it were executed with perfect technical proficiency.

    Finally,all of those criticisms may be sufficient to explain why this film is inferior to the original, but was anyone expecting it to equal the original, even at peak hype? It’s an entertaining, compelling film that makes some missteps. It is a sequel that unapologetically stands on the shoulders of the original, to which it is vastly inferior. it is quite openly in many respects an homage to the best set pieces of the sequels, and its Michael clearly takes some inspiration from Zombie. in look and killing tactics and ferocity. What do you want, and to what standard should this film be held?

    Also, I am puzzled by your Danny McBride animus. I’ve read some interviews with him, and he is nothing if not modest and transparent about his choices in solving the storytelling problems. The idea that he’s some, contemptuous-of-the-sequels, self-important auteur douchebag is a fiction.

  69. Auto correct bit me. “top or second-best”

  70. I’m only judging the filmmakers by their stated intent: to make the only true sequel to HALLOWEEN. I don’t think they got any closer to that than Rick Rosenthal or Dwight Little, and not as close as Steve Miner, filmmakers who are generally considered hacks and will not receive a tenth of the accolades this filmmaking team will for doing almost the exact same thing. I’m saying talking shit about something you clearly don’t understand any better than the average studio-hired hack just makes you look stupid when your movie is no better than the movies you just talked shit about, and it will definitely set a good chunk of your audience against your movie before it even has a chance to entertain them on its own terms. I keep saying that this is an entertaining movie in its own right but it doesn’t recapture the essence of jack shit the way it’s purported to. And I wouldn’t care about any of that if McBride and Green had just shut the fuck up and made their stupid fan-fiction sequel that completely misses the point without writing any checks their screenplay couldn’t cash. I don’t have anything against these two guys and in fact wish I could have seen an original slasher story from them that wouldn’t have to be compared to one of the greatest horror movies of all time. But they didn’t want to do that. They wanted that franchise money and that franchise clout. Well, you make a deal with the devil and you have to take the bad along with the good. You get more eyes on your movie than if you make an original property, but now all those eyes have a lot of fucking opinions, and you have to deal with them. That’s the trade off. When I see young filmmakers with no track record getting interesting and entertaining original work off the ground that nobody will ever see, it makes me have very little sympathy for these franchise fuckers. Oh no, did some of the millions of people your marketing budget reached have too many opinions? Boo the fuck hoo. Go spend two years of your life making an indie horror movie that’ll disappear after a few festival screenings if you want to know real pain.

  71. I don’t know how I became Mr. You. But I kind of like the name. Maybe I’ll use it for something.

    But what also irks me is not they failed to understand the essence of HALLOWEEN the way they claimed to. It’s that they think they succeeded because they copied the superficial trappings. The look and sound. Those matter but they’re not the point. You can’t just throw a Carpenter soundtrack and a gliding camera over any old garbage and call it HALLOWEEN. There was substance to its style. Here it’s just empty homage. The FORCE AWAKENS approach. I can be entertained by that but I can’t respect it.

  72. Also, Skani, if you look at what we’re actually saying about the movie itself, we’re more or less in agreement on its strengths and weaknesses. You’d put it in the top two sequels, I’d put it in the top four (if Zombie’s installments count). That’s not a massive disagreement. I’m just coming at it from a place of total disenchantment with the current state of nonstop fan pandering and mechanical franchise remixing that we’re stuck in, and you’re coming at it from the perspective of being a reasonable human being who has bigger things to worry about. We’re making the same basic points. It’s just our reactions to it that are different.

  73. This new one does have more atmosphere, scares, and genuine filmatism than Miner, Rosenthal, and Little were able to muster. H20 and H4 are both adequate but also generic and workmanlike, mostly lacking the strong atmosphere, pacing, and elemental sonic-visual approach to storytelling that Carpenter nailed. H20 in particular has aged poorly. Aside from slapping Jamie Lee and Michael in the mix, it bears no tonal similarity to H1 and could be any generic teen hearthrob slasher flick of its SCREAM-era zeitgeist. Every unfavorable comparison you make between the 2018 and 1978 films holds x10 for H20 and H4.

    1980 H2 is definitely stronger than H4 and H20. 1980 H2 finishes very strong in the final act but is a painful slog for much of the first half, notwithstanding a couple of good moments. It’s not a split decision, but all told, I think 2018 edges out 1980 H2. This new one has problems, but it takes many of the best ideas from the sequels, as well as some elements of the Rob Zombie Michael, and rolls them together with a strong visual style and some cool ideas of its own in what is probably the best film since the original.

    I completely agree with you that H2018 adds a lot of unnecessary fat and machinations that could have been trimmed to make it a leaner, more elemental film, closer to the vein of the original. H2018 is far more choppy and self-indulgent and frankly wastes a lot of time on stupid and unnecessary stuff. I firmly believe you could have left Dr. Sartain and the podcaster behind at Smith’s Grove, then just find some other way to bring Michael to Laurie’s place, and maybe kill off Laurie’s daughter and husband in the bathroom. At the same time, I think H2018 does a lot of things well on its own terms. It makes Michael effectively scary and menacing, the visual and sonic filmatism is very strong–stronger than any of the other sequels by a wide margin. It’s genuinely creepy and unnerving at points in a way none of the sequels are. For me, it blends the Carpenter H1 shape with the Zombie H2 shape to near perfection.

    Also, I need you to point me to the interview where Danny McBride is talking all this shit you keep say he’s talking. I can’t find it. Here are some relevant interview excerpts:

    BEGIN QUOTES
    GREEN: “Anyone who’s a fan of any of these films will find nice little Easter Eggs acknowledging our salute to the filmmakers that have preceded us, in the stories and mythologies as they’ve unfolded. For us, it was a clean slate type of opportunity, where if there was a little inspiration or mirror image of something it’s very subtle in the movie because we want to start fresh for a new generation but with great appreciation for the previous.”

    MCBRIDE: …Maybe we’ll look back and say ‘Oh, it was such a mistake not to make them siblings,” but I don’t know, it seemed as opposed to just duplicating it would be cool to see if it gives us anything else.

    …I feel like it’s almost one of the things like Batman or something. You see different artists take on these iconic characters so I think it’s kind of cool to see what different filmmakers will do with a property that is so well known. I would rather have that approach to Michael Myers than everyone just continuing some storyline and just trying to regurgitate these things. I think it’s more interesting to have someone like David or Rob Zombie, these filmmakers that just come and put their own stamp on it for better or worse, I think that’s a more interesting way for a franchise to stay alive than to just continue to beat the same drum over and over again.

    END QUOTES

    I hear what you are saying about the franchise soft rebooting nostalgia-porn industrial complex that has developed. I enjoy original stories, too. I think where we differ is that I end up liking some of these corporate, cash-grabbing nostalgia-milking abominations. I like FORCE AWAKENS (better than LAST JEDI!), SOLO, CREED. They can’t help that they’re the trust fund children of their first-generation immigrant parents. And some of them are a lot of fun.

  74. Okay, there’s where we disagree. I found H2018 about as scary as a Saturday morning cartoon. There’s zero chance for any tension to build because we keep cutting back and forth between 45 different subplots, all starring some very Chatty Cathies. Just when something’s started to get good, they’d cut to something else. The scares boast some good ideas but they’re too gimmicky to get under the skin. Like, that long take is cool but is it scary? I don’t think so. I think both HALLOWEEN II and H20 are vastly superior in sustaining horror, and both have superior climaxes that make the new one’s look like a scenario cooked up by two 13 year olds at a sleepover spitballing about how they’d take out Michael Myers if they had the chance. “We’d have a trap door! And flamethrowers!” It’s silly. The whole climax was kind of silly.

    Which is fine. I don’t need to find a horror movie scary to enjoy it. I haven’t found the original scary in decades.

    In any case, if McBride and Green’s intent was to honor the franchise as a whole, then they marketed this thing all wrong because that’s the first I’ve heard of it. This movie was sold as nothing less than the only Halloween sequel. I still don’t think it’s anything special on its own terms, but if what they really wanted to do was just toss another drop in the bucket of Halloween sequels, then they did a decent job. But so have several anonymous journeymen. It’s really not that big a deal to make an okay Halloween sequel if that’s all you’re setting out to do. I just don’t think there’s anything particularly special about this one. I’ve been here before and I’ll no doubt be here again.

  75. And honestly, I liked it a little better when I thought they were Carpenter purists who’d unknowingly replicated some of the qualities of the other sequels. Knowing that they went full TERMINATOR GENESYS with the intentional Easter eggs is just lame.

  76. Eh, I’m overthinking it as usual. It was a well-made slasher movie that I got to see in the movie theater. The pragmatic half of my brain assures me this is the best I could possibly hope for in this exhausted, compromised era. It’s only the stubbornly, stupidly idealistic half of my brain that thinks we deserve more. The pragmatic half knows very well that we as a culture of consumers are getting exactly the art we deserve so we might as well enjoy it. On that level, on the level the culture actually operates on, which is that stories are just combo platters and the customer is always right so just shut up and eat you crybaby, H2018 is better than most of the recent crop of fan-wanks. It’s fine. Really. And most days, fine is all we have the right to ask for. If we ever really thought we deserved better, would we even be here talking about the 11th Halloween film in the first place?

  77. Jesus dude, get better help.

    I loved the door to door killing sequence, and the babysitter scene, and the sad fat guy motion sensor scene, and the soundtrack, and I legit thought there was a decent chance Jamie Lee was going to die at the end.

    And it was simple. It was a killer escaping, and killing on his way to a confrontation.

    The doc heel turn is still pretty stupid, but everything else was pretty goddamn fun.

  78. Had to give you a little pushback here, Majeystyk, but I think both sides of your brain have it right. This is a fun, well-made slasher film, and we deserve more and better original slasher films. We deserve this and HELL FEST, and we deserve better than both. You are not wrong to want more original stories. I think the challenge your faced with is that each individual film represents an opportunity to comment on what you miss or want or think is lacking and unbalanced in cinema writ large, even if the film of the moment happens to be decent enough for what it is. Even if it has committed no crime, it’s the stand-in (whipping boy, straw man) for contemporary film industry trends writ large, so it’s going to take some of those hits.

    I feel the same way about rap. In terms of record sales and other success “metrics,” it’s all soft, club, poppy shit. The good news is that not all of the new shit is bad, and in both horror and hip hop, there is a vibrant less-commercial scene. The true master craftsmen don’t sell tickets or records like they used to, and the new indie guys are often staying indie, but there are those old and new heads carrying the fire, still putting out good shit. It’s just more underground and on the margins. Which is arguably where it belongs. Leave the pop shit to the novelty-chasers and tourists.

    Then again, I do sometimes wonder what you would like or what would satisfy you. I liked this, IT FOLLOWS, HEREDITARY, THE INNKEEPERS and, HOUSE OF THE DEVIL all way better than HELL-FEST (and I enjoyed HELL-FEST!). What are your favorite new horror movies of the last five years?

  79. The other thing we have to remember is that relentless, clockwork-like, mercenary, continuity-irreverent, and frequently hacky-but-still-enjoyable sequelizing has always been one of the very hallmarks of the slasher films we grew up on. As a kid, I really loved and was comforted by that period in time when I could count on getting a new Jason or Freddy (or both) every year, even if the continuity or quality was decidedly uneven. HALLOWEEN 1 and ANOES 1 are great films, pure and simple–not just greater slasher films or even greater horror films. Their sequels take us off into all kinds of alternate timelines or what-ifs and are in many respects themselves frequently clumsy, frequently enjoyable rehashes and bastardizations, fan-fic-y in their own way. H2018 was enjoyable in its own right and scores very well on that curve.

  80. Definitely, part of my angst over this topic is my full awareness that I am complicit in it. I’m part of the generation that taught Hollywood that people will watch the same old shit over and over again as long as it has the right branding on it. It just seems like it’s getting even more insidious. We used to all know that the constant regurgitation was a bad thing, but now we’re so used to it that a blatant piece of nostalgia porn like H2018 can be hailed as a “the right way to do it.” It makes me feel queasy about the state of the collective unconscious. This seems to be a source of perpetual ennui for me, and I apologize if I’m repeating myself on the subject.

    I’m not sure I could tell you what my favorite horror movies of the past five years are off the top of my head. It usually takes me longer than that to separate the ones I enjoyed while watching from the ones that stick with me for life. I agree that the two Ti West films you listed are better than HELL FEST, which is mediocre at best but bolstered by the novelty of its theatrical release. I’ve enjoyed bouts of diarrhea more than IT FOLLOWS and HEREDITARY. I really liked BLOOD FEST and TERRIFIER recently but it’s not like I think this kind of tongue in cheek retro workout is the future of the genre. Right now the stuff that’s getting hailed as state of the art is just boring and obvious to me without any of the outlaw thrills that drew me to the genre in the first place so I can’t say there’s anything I’m particularly excited about. It seems like on one end of the spectrum you’ve got these fanboy homages that never really add up to an actual film experience, and on the other you’ve got these self-serious sepia tone hipster horrors made by and for tourists who get scared by all the same old tricks and think they’re watching something new. I wish there were more directors who split the difference, who weren’t afraid of fun but also had more on their mind than referencing the movies they watched at sleepovers in junior high. You know, The John Carpenter Equinox. It’s pretty rare. I thought maybe Adam Wingard was gonna be that guy for a second but three straight remakes in a row has disabused me of that notion. There’s no one in the horror realm I’m more than modestly excited about at the moment. I guess I’m just waiting for the next era to start, because this one is pretty unexciting.

  81. Hmm.
    I mean, if I was a fan of Halloween and I wrote THE sequel I wanted to see and thought it had all the elements of the original that mattered while expanding on some others and thinking I had the perfect way to turn it out of the narrative cul-de-sac that the original IS, of course I’d be hyping it. I mean, I put all the things I THINK need to be there, right?

    Is there some straight-up litmus or guidebook on what will work as well as the original? I keep hearing “the first one did this better”…Well, yeah. Or maybe it didn’t. Maybe it did somethings like gangbusters and maybe it was weak in some others. Maybe what is “straight distillation” to you isn’t what another person cares for; maybe they care more for character development. Maybe for some of us, with the distance from when the original was something “different”, with the ingrained expectations that are solely YOUR expectations, not OURS, with all the years of far more insightful people building a library dedicated to unearthing and revealing the nuances of that original…

    Maybe. Maybe a couple of decades from now, after all the think-pieces have been written in stone, after the stone has been picked up and wiped clean and then re-written, maybe there’ll be some place for this film in your Halloween oeuvre.

    Or not; the taste is yours.

  82. MANDY is another great one, and I really enjoyed the ENDLESS. I also liked UNDER THE SKIN. GET OUT. Some great stuff the last few years.

    I watched SOUTHBOUND and GHOST STORIES and enjoyed them all right, but both were overhyped.

    A couple i really didn’t get the hype for were DON’T BREATHE and the EVIL DEAD remake and CLOVERFIELD LANE.

  83. I guess while I’m at it, I’m never quite as enamored of the “completely motiveless antagonist”. I love Mike as much as anyone who has grown up watching the entire series over and over again. However, much like, say, Hannibal Lec(k)ter, without exploring the character at all just ends up in a narrative dead-end. To delve into the character that was created as some kind of “perfect simplicity” creates a shitstorm among the purists.

    I could argue that the best monsters HAVE some kind of character and reason to be that we can relate to down in our reptilian back-brain and that connection IS one of the keys to the beast being unnerving.

    Dracula HAS to feed. Frankenstein reached too far and his monster child paid for his neglect. A werewolf has to fear losing control and hurting people they love. Mummies have historically been either slaves, out to restore their place of control, or reincarnated lovers. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is a simple-minded solitary hermit protecting its lonely home. Godzilla is a walking metaphor for war. Rawhead Rex is just being the thug he was before his imprisonment. The Alien is just a boogeyman, but it’s a boogeyman with a life-cycle. The Predator is better than us at what we’re supposedly best at. Zombies are US, man! Jason’s got mommy issues. Freddy’s a sicko with a chip on his shoulder. Pinhead knows pleasures. Chucky’s that persuasive asshole you always knew would get your kid in trouble. Pumpkinhead is begat by blind vengeance. Carrie, oh man, Carrie. Emeric Belasco had the most intense short-man syndrome ever. Gremlins live to party, at our expense. The Kraken was a pawn of higher deities. Reagan was the child out of control. Rosemary’s Baby didn’t get to choose what it was born into. The Tall Man has an agenda on a higher plane, even if it’s hard to make out from here. I can keep going on, I guess, but even things like Lovecraft’s creations, not retroactively, were commenting on deification and it’s implication.

    I think that the inexplicable nature of Michael in the original is perhaps key to that film, but even as the first sequel knew, there had to be more to it. I could argue that the second has more narrative satisfaction at the cost of the precision of the first. Which is ultimately “better”? Who knows? In the first film Michael’s first kill doesn’t even really come from a character beat; it’s a clockwork opening that states its intent and ends on a shocker. In the narrative, it wasn’t really necessary to even HAVE Michael be a kid or anything. He could’ve just been an escaped killer. Does it ramp the overall effect of the film? Yes, but it doesn’t reveal anything more about MIKE than if a Sheriff had just read the dossier. That’s by design and I know it. But, can you imagine an It Follows sequel? They’re either going to have to tip their hand on the creature or it’ll just be the same flick again.

    That’s kind of a thing I think the anti-H40 crowd are sweeping under the rug just a bit. I mean, this is the first sequel to take Michael back, as a CHARACTER, to the Shape in the original. It’s just an example of one of the things that I think this one did that everyone was always talking about wanting a sequel to be like but that seem to never get brought up in the listings of all the things they would’ve done instead.

    This is maybe all a REALLY long-winded way of getting around to my point: Even after all I qualified there above about monsters with depth, I think Mike might be one of the very few that can get away with it. I mean, I wouldn’t want to be the guy who has to write another misadventure of just a walking prop-knife, but this film gave me some hope that there’s milk in that bottle still. I’ll take it over Thorn cult any day and I always thought the sister stuff was half-baked. But I won’t tell them what movie to write or make, Hell, if they bring in the cult or runestones or something in the next one I’m not going to say I’ll be looking for MY Halloween movie, but I’ll be highly intrigued by what they think they can bring to it. Then I’ll judge the final product after I’ve seen it.

    P.S. Seriously, when the doctor put on Michael’s mask was some seriously shocking shit. That was about as close to making the audience believe that the film just killed the character we’re there to see before the climax. Everyone in my theater kinda froze up in suspense. It was awesome and then it got a great gore shot and then it went back to where we thought it was going. I honestly thought it was a clever little set-piece. And if it had continued on with the doctor we’d all be talking about how it was like the ending of To Live and Die in L.A., right?

  84. Adam: It’s easy to miss in the wall of text I’ve written so far, but I did say the movie was “decent, bordering on pretty good sometimes.” The movie’s fine. It’s got some good sequences and a likable cast, and I had fun watching it. It’s just giving me the chance to rant about the same old crap I always rant about. I talk a good game but I usually get over it.

  85. Of course, I understand. And hey, I’m certainly not arguing “you must like it as much as me”. As much as you, I’m just ranting on the stuff I usually do. And you DO talk a good game. Cheers.

  86. They should have called this movie Easter since it’s just a bunch of references. Ha ha.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <img src=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <b> <i> <strike> <em> <strong>