Halloween (2018)

[prozacnation1978]

I loved the film. Nothing bad to say.

I wanna babysit that lil black kid

[Berek]

Just got back. 4/5 for me. I went in with lots of hype, but left rather half full. They should've kept part 2 in the continuity because that's all we really see here, except 40 years later.

Loved the atmosphere and the music. I liked the Doctor at first. The little kid was awesome.

Very shallow ending. Was expecting more, much more.

[Prog5000]

70 million opening expected. Not bad for 10 million.

[prkchopexpress]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

I think the death scenes were plenty graphic. As far as Greer

[Show spoiler]screaming at the end - you know that was fake, right? She shot Michael right after that "fake" scream.

yeah. I think might have been like my eleventh (cause it's Halloween 11), but thankfully last eyeroll during the movie.

[Show spoiler]this might be too nitpicky... but is there any reason to think at any point that michael could have been reasoned with? are we supposed to think he is just going to have some pavlovian response to hearing her scream and he's just gonna head right for it? gimme a break.

also, wouldn't he have made his way there anyway momentarily? so it's kind of a dumb nonsense scene.

[Padawan9188]

I think HYPE will always be a problem with moviegoers. I saw It Follows with all the "It's the scariest since Halloween" in my head and walked out thinking, "THAT'S IT? That's the big deal"

I saw The VVitch, Quiet Place and Happy Death Day blind, I was at early screenings of Don't Breathe, Anna and the Apocalypse and Hush and really liked them all. If I had seen them after the hype trains, I probably would've been somewhat let down.

I tried not to read too much about Halloween and go in with an open mind. Parts I loved, parts I hated, things I wish were different.

Now that the movie is out, I wonder if the test screening plot will finally leak. I've heard it's massively different.

[Padawan9188]

Originally Posted by prozacnation1978

I loved the film. Nothing bad to say.

I wanna babysit that lil black kid

At your own risk, dude.

[ambient_indie]

It's a Halloween sequel. The movie is very self-aware and makes callbacks left and right. And it's pretty uneven, but I still enjoyed it. There's a better movie in this, but whatever, it's better than many of the sequels. Just not a stand alone piece.

Again, Halloween sequel, my expectations were for a fun slasher flick with Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Myers. It delivers on that.

Some good kills. Lots of dread. I found Michael scarier here than most of the others.


Things I didn't like:

[Show spoiler] I hated Dr. Sartain so much. When Laurie says "You're the new Loomis." I groaned. He has more in common with Dr. Crews from Friday the 13th Part 7 A New Blood than Dr. Loomis from the original. He shouldn't have been in this for as long as he was.

So when Dr. Sartain kills Officer Hawkins and does his stupid "I want to see what killing is like Michael." And puts on the mask. I wanted him to go away. He felt very Jar Jar corny in this Halloween movie. I was glad when Michael squashed his face. Still doesn't change he's a sour note. The movie didn't need his character.

The opening scene is better structured in the trailer sadly. The podcasters were obnoxious. So for me it took awhile to get into it. But once Michael gets the mask, it gets going.

How I'd rate them:

[Show spoiler]
1. Halloween (1978)
2. Halloween 2 (1981)
3. Halloween (2018) / Halloween H20
4. Halloween 3
5. Halloween 4
6. Halloween 5
7. Rob Zombie Halloween
8. Halloween 6 theatrical/producers cut
9. Rob Zombie Halloween 2






10. Halloween Resurrection

[spanky87]

The original is one of my favorite films of all-time but i have no fondness for the franchise as a whole, especially the non-Laurie Strode installments. I like Halloween II and H20 just fine but theyre merely serviceable. I like Halloween 3 but that's more of a spin-off. The others I don't care for at all. So for me all this movie had to do was give Laurie Strode a compelling characterization and a satisfying arc to conclude her story to justify retconning the original two Strode sequels, and it accomplishes that.

The combination of these 5 aspects easily make this the best sequel:

- the film has heart, as the core of the story is family relationships, and it shows the effect trauma can have on a person and their family.

- Jamie Lee gives the best performance of the franchise, and Laurie Strode's characterization being far more interesting than what we got in H20.

- the brutality of Michael Myers

- JC's score

- the climax is so intense and immensely satisfying, it gives proper closure to the franchise for me.

However, while everything involving Laurie and her family is well done and the climax is immensely satisfying, everything else is kind of a mixed bag. The journalists are there to provide some exposition and set the story in motion, but they dont matter in the grand scheme of things and eat up way too much screentime to do so. The entire opening sequence is lame, trying too hard to be intense and falls flat. The "new loomis" character is simply there to add a twist that is unearned, pointless and utterly nonsensical, adding nothing to the narrative and needlessly makes the intensity of the 3rd act screech to a halt for a few minutes. Laurie Strode actually referring to him as ""the new Loomis" is lazy self-aware humor. Theres no reason that character shouldve made it to Haddonfield anyway. Every time it was focused on the teens it felt very much like a generic modern horror film. And Toby Huss was a loveable idiot who was more than enough for comedic relief. Having more comedic characters other than him was overkill.

Another positive note is the callbacks were clever and didnt hinder the film like I thought they would. Especially

[Show spoiler] the reveal of Laurie surviving falling out the window

Without a doubt one of the most well-earned, and crowd-pleasing callbacks I can recall in a sequel. How can any fan not enjoy that moment?

[sandman slim]

4/5, solid entry in the series. (But...)

Trailers were:

Bohemian Rhapsody
Aquaman
Glass
Happy Death Day 2U

So...

[Show spoiler]Really liked this, with a few problems. The acting & direction is probably the best of the series; nobody brought the cheese this time. Great story as well, felt like they were trying to make a good movie first, and a good Halloween sequel second, and they succeeded. (But...)

The kills were good, some unexpected. The random ladies in their kitchens & living rooms, the redneck kid who just wanted to go to his dance class, all of the friends... Felt like this had to be Michael's biggest body count; he was slaughtering so many people, I was actually kinda surprised when he passed by that crib & didn't stab the baby.

The movie is a bit long, or at least feels like it. Plenty of trims that could have tightened things up. The son in law was just annoying; she could easily have been widowed or divorced, would've saved a few minutes. The "twist" with Dr. McCrazy was not really shocking, or needed. We don't know this character; a betrayal/personality reversal like that is really only shocking if its a character we know. Loomis turning like that would have been genuinely shocking, but this guy ain't Loomis. They could have left replacement Loomis behind halfway thru, or eliminated the character entirely, without hurting the plot.

And now for the "but..." I did really enjoy the movie, but it didn't feel as epic as what I was hoping for. By wiping out 40 years of continuity, they set this up to be the be all, end all of the franchise, the final showdown between Laurie & Michael. And it ain't. It's just another sequel. It's a really good sequel, but it's still just another sequel. I had expected this would end with something really epic, the two battling to the death, something like Harrison Ford coming back to Star Wars all those decades later, to give his character a definite ending. Also, they could have kept that history, and it would've made the story richer, not weaker. We all know those sequels happened, that Michael came after her again & again. By stripping all that away, Laurie's just some crazy lady who got attacked a long time ago and never got over it. The Laurie of the movie is a lot weaker than the Laurie in our heads.

As overlong as the movie felt to me, the ending seemed a bit rushed, as though a final scene had been lopped off to clear the way for yet another sequel in a year or two, an idea all but confirmed by Michael's heavy breathing filling the theater at the end of the credits.

Good... but I wanted great, dammit.

[MikeScott]

What trailers did everyone have?

[MikeScott]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

if all you need is michael myers killing people to be happy, then you will probably enjoy this movie. but it doesn't work entirely for me. I'd rather watch it follows. I just love the style of that movie, and I feel like that may be an example of what I love in a slasher.

See, I really wish David Robert Mitchell had done this. Him, Adam Wingard, or Mike Flanagan. But Mitchell really seemed to get what a Halloween film should be like with It Follows, and Wingard as well with The Guest but in a different way. Either would have been great, logical choices. Flanagan is also a great horror director, though he'd be my third choice. Ouija: Origin of Evil had awesome autumn atmosphere though.

[spanky87]

I have to say, Scream 4 was a superior horror franchise revival than this.

[MikeScott]

Originally Posted by spanky87

I have to say, Scream 4 was a superior horror franchise revival than this.

Unfortunate that that went nowhere except a sub-par MTV series.

[McCrutchy]

I thought this was good, but not great. The highlights have to be Jamie and Nick together again, Michael Myers on screen again, and of course, Carpenter's score, which is pretty fabulous.

However, I agree with those who say the pacing is initially slow. It feels like a long time before the film

[Show spoiler]switches gears to following Michael and then, finally, Laurie, and the "podcasters" were two of several minor characters who added essentially nothing to the film (the bit with the mask could and should have been handled by the doctor, which would have made it more believable). I also found Laurie's daughter and her husband, as well as her granddaughter to be ho-hum, while the granddaughter's boyfriend is another character who adds little if anything to the movie and apparently doesn't even get killed, either. The other high school kids were bland and the intentionally less attractive guy friend who is ever so slightly out of shape was annoying. However, the bit in the neighborhood that does work is the middle section with the babysitter. The teenage actress has pretty good chemistry with her younger co-star, and even though her and her boyfriend's fates are predictable, this portion of the film is one of the most satisfying, along with the death of the doctor. The ending initially worked well for me, but the more I think about it, the less I like this characterization of Laurie Strode. I know the writers have said that they abandoned all the sequels, but this Laurie feels like a cousin of "basket case" Laurie from Halloween: H20, complete with single parenthood and a sort of a doomsday prepper vibe. I would have thought that it would have made much more sense to have Laurie be a success in life who has learned to defend herself when necessary, but for reasons that aren't explored, that baton was passed to her daughter. And for whatever reason, that daughter who wants nothing to do with her mother still lives in the same town as her.

The more I think about it, the more I can't help but feel a bit disappointed. Overall, the film is decent, with some good kills and Curtis doing her best to look both strong and kooky, but I was hoping that the film would be less generic and have less stereotypical characters.

Also, I have to say I was a bit disappointed with the Dolby Cinema presentation. I didn't notice any Dolby Atmos or Dolby Vision logos during the end credits (only Dolby Digital 5.1), and the image often seemed to have a sort of wavy noise pattern in the few bright scenes, so I suspect that the film may have gotten a fairly last minute "makeover". There was also a logo I don't recall seeing before for something called "LiveGrain" that according to the credits is responsible for the "Texture" (of the image?), whatever that means exactly. I assume this has something to do with replicating the look of celluloid for digitally-shot films, but maybe Universal need to take another crack at this one before the UHD Blu-ray release.

[samlop10]

Grade: A

This was very much worth the wait. It is a little hard to say just how great this sequel is without setting unfair expectations, but it is definitely fair to say that it is the best sequel in the franchise. And not only that, but it is perhaps the best sequel to a horror movie ever.

Halloween (2018) runs parallel to the original, and it smartly uses this for its own advantage; knowing audiences' expectations and using that to build suspense and surprise us throughout. This is done with the camera work, the actions and fates of some of the characters, and even very specific shots that hark back to the original while adding their own twist to keep thing highly engrossing. There are various illustrations I could use here as examples, but I am restraining myself to avoid giving away any spoilers.

The film also adds an emotional layer to update the slasher formula and make the story not only relevant once again, but also to avoid becoming a rehash of the original which pretty much all of the other sequels fall prey to. Some tried to update it by adding a backstory or different elements like over-the-top moments (Halloween 4), but they had little, if any, success, with most of them rather convoluting the franchise and making the films worse instead of positively adding to them (just think back to the mystery-man in Halloween 5 and how that turned into a cult in Halloween 6). The other sequels, like Halloween II and H20, follow the slasher formula pretty close without trying to change much, but while that makes them the least offending in the franchise, it also makes them somewhat forgettable.

Halloween (2018) surpasses them all by leaps and bounds, as the emotional core underneath the slasher formula of its story very much succeeds because it is very organically manifested through the dysfunctional relationships between Laurie, her daughter, and her granddaughter. This helps two ways. The first is with the portrayal of Laurie and her family as they deal with the aftermath even 40 years and two generations later, making us sympathize with them and thereby raising the stakes and suspense. The second is by bringing to the surface Laurie's trauma and the relationship between her and Michael as victim and perpetrator. And as the film gets closer to its climax, the more relevant all these relationships become, with all of them coming full circle and giving us one of the most suspenseful and satisfying endings in the history of horror cinema.

Acting is great all around, with Jamie Lee Curtis returning to form as someone trying to deal with her trauma, very convincingly showing us the frustration, fear, and bravery of her damaged character. The score was a joy to listen to throughout, as it recalls the original while adding its own modern but tasteful flavor. The violence and attacks were very well balanced, being just graphic and terrifying enough without becoming gratuitous, but at the same time very clearly earning its R-rating and being both very scary and suspenseful.

Halloween (2018) may not redefine horror or create a whole new sub-genre as the original did, but I do believe that it redefines horror sequels. It not only very smartly and competently builds from the original without becoming a rehash of it, but it also stays unpredictable and becomes extremely relevant thanks to its portrayal of the consequences and aftermath of the relationship between victim and perpetrator. These themes culminate together very smartly and satisfyingly, making this perhaps the best sequel in the history of horror/suspense cinema.

[spanky87]

Maybe im misremembering, but didn't the promotion and early critic/fan reviews hype this up like it was going to give you the feels of the original film? If that's the case then they did the film a disservice by setting up these expectations.

It doesn't seem like David Gordon Green was trying to emulate Carpenter at all. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing since it's still a worthy sequel. It has the JC score and the climax brings some of that Halloween/Assault on Prescinct relentless intensity, but the film doesn't really have the look, feel, atmosphere of the original. Maybe some of the Michael stalking scenes. It feels very much like a modern horror film (which it is) instead of trying to be a JC style throwback.

[Spencer_Kain92]

Just got out of it and loved it so much.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Maybe im misremembering, but didn't the promotion and early critic/fan reviews hype this up like it was going to give you the feels of the original film? If that's the case then they did the film a disservice by setting up these expectations.

It doesn't seem like David Gordon Green was trying to emulate Carpenter at all. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing since it's still a worthy sequel. It has the JC score and the climax brings some of that Halloween/Assault on Prescinct relentless intensity, but the film doesn't really have the look, feel, atmosphere of the original. Maybe some of the Michael stalking scenes. It feels very much like a modern horror film (which it is) instead of trying to be a JC style throwback.

I would not say "feels" of the original. Even in the trailers you could tell they were just paying homage to many scenes from the franchise.

[prkchopexpress]

Originally Posted by Padawan9188

I think HYPE will always be a problem with moviegoers. I saw It Follows with all the "It's the scariest since Halloween" in my head and walked out thinking, "THAT'S IT? That's the big deal"

I saw The VVitch, Quiet Place and Happy Death Day blind, I was at early screenings of Don't Breathe, Anna and the Apocalypse and Hush and really liked them all. If I had seen them after the hype trains, I probably would've been somewhat let down.

I tried not to read too much about Halloween and go in with an open mind. Parts I loved, parts I hated, things I wish were different.

Now that the movie is out, I wonder if the test screening plot will finally leak. I've heard it's massively different.

I find it hilarious you didn't mention hereditary. has there been a more hyped horror movie in recent years?

the hype for it follows, which I somehow avoided, makes sense from a stylistic perspective. the widescreen ratio, the frame composition, the analog synthesizer score... there was a heavy carpenter influence. and that's really something we hadn't seen since... the original halloween. so if you respond to aesthetics, there was not a more apt comparison. but if you just wanted to see a guy in mask kill, then you were only going to face disappointment. a lot of stuff tries to capture that feel or reference that era and style. and lot of them fail. but it follows nailed it. if you told me that movie was made in the 80s, I would believe it.

kinda like how planet terror feels like the best john carpenter movie that carpenter never directed.

but that's not what this thread is about. this new halloween is so frustrating because it feels like with a couple tweaks this could have been really amazing. you can say all you want how you are ignoring the other movies, but this is halloween 11. why not try something a little crazier?

also, if they didn't show so much in the marketing. some of the money scenes that are in the advertising are completely stripped of any tension or suspense or atmosphere because YOU ALREADY KNOW.

Originally Posted by spanky87

- the climax is so intense and immensely satisfying, it gives closure to the franchise that is as good as it can get for me.

but that isn't closure. because if this has successfull as we think it might, we'll get a sequel. this could wind up being the most successful blumhouse production.

Originally Posted by MikeScott

See, I really wish David Robert Mitchell had done this. Him, Adam Wingard, or Mike Flanagan. But Mitchell really seemed to get what a Halloween film should be like with It Follows, and Wingard as well with The Guest but in a different way. Either would have been great, logical choices.

agree. I'm very curious about under the silver lake. and I loved the guest. and flanagan really hit it out of the park with hush. it's too bad that only played on netflix. that could have been great on a big screen. and why did all of these work? CHARACTER. you are emotionally invested in the characters. something that doesn't happen in this halloween.

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

[Show spoiler]the granddaughter's boyfriend is another character who adds little if anything to the movie and apparently doesn't even get killed, either. The other high school kids were bland and the intentionally less attractive guy friend who is ever so slightly out of shape was annoying.

[Show spoiler]yes. it's like he only exists to be a dick and take her phone away so she can be surprised when she sees michael later. AND HE HAS THREE SCENES! that awful scene at the locker, and the scene at the restaurant don't even really need to be in the movie. they feel like they're only in there because michael can't only kill randos. but how much better would the movie have been if maybe this happens:

the granddaughter is at the dance. she can't get service. she tries to answer the phone but it cuts out. so then she looks for the boyfriend and then finds him cheating. or maybe she asks to see his phone or make a call and a sext from that girl shows up on the screen. and then she runs away and he waits before running after her and then he runs into michael. and maybe she settles down and then runs into his body.

you have more character time. you have a payoff. the character doesn't exist just to drive the plot forward. and now you've added an element to the story that makes the granddaughter experience some of the trauma that laurie did in the first movie. which could add to another payoff during the climax.

and this is something I came up with in like five seconds of really thinking about it. did no one come up with this during the production?

i know I'm very critical, but I wanted this to be more, and there is not reason why it shouldn't have been.

[spanky87]

The movie definitely suffers from too many characters and subplots. Everything not involving Laurie and her relationship with her family should've been pared down and simplified.