Halloween (2018)

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Come on, strong female leads has been a staple of the horror genre for decades.

Exactly, it applies to both sides of the spectrum. Which is what I don't understand about all this toxic masculinity stuff. There's nothing remotely bad about being manly, feminine or whatever.

[LegacyCosts]

The exposition and dialogue were so bad it's almost admirable. The loomis clone was as bad as advertised. Michael and JLC were great though. 3/5

[dcx4610]

I have a few nitpicks with the film but really the only thing I really don't like is the teen stuff and dance scene.

Both boyfriends were obnoxious and felt straight out of a 1990s slasher movie which is not a good thing. I loved the blonde girl babysitting but didn't need the whole scene of her dumb boyfriend acting stupid on a motorcycle, getting high, etc.

And with the dance, we basically had to sit through a 10 minute scene just to explain why she doesn't have a phone.

Ultimately they are just nitpicks but I would have re-written all of that.

[bobbyh64]

When I first saw the film two days ago I thought it was pretty good, but felt a little bit let down. But I wanted to let it linger in my mind for a while before I really formed an opinion. There are still a couple things I don’t like that much, but the more I think about it the more I like it!

[trans8010]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

That's not quite how I or even social media folks interpreted it. Seeing politicised arguments about the films subtext made me go "huh?". What's so political about a masked killer murdering babysitters? Isn't that just straight up evil, what's to politicise here?

Man would I like to go back to just enjoying a movie without delving into the minds of the filmmakers and analysing everything. I just felt women came across way better than every geezer here, but maybe that's confirmation bias.

I was talking about the characters in universe. The podcasters, the mad doctor, they all thought there was something more to Myers. If you thought I was politicizing anything, I don't know what to say.

I'm 31. I enjoyed the movie. I'm saying that there were plenty of honorable male characters, the only thing that stands the women apart was

[Show spoiler] the might of the three Strode women was what overcame the control and menace of Myers and vanquish him

where the male characters failed.

[TheSweetieMan]

John Carpenter's 'Halloween' has been--and still is--my all time favorite horror film, ever since I first experienced it about 20 years ago.

I saw 'Halloween (2018)' last night, and I made a post with brief thoughts in the 4K Blu-Ray thread, but now that I've had about 24-hours to digest it--I really just want to reiterate that I thoroughly enjoyed it. While I've owned every single Halloween sequel, in every available format, because of the nostalgia tied to experiencing them as a kid during Halloween season, I've always enjoyed them, but have also acknowledged that they aren't particularly good films.

What made me really happy about David Gordon Green's rendition of this franchise, is that he and McBride at least followed through on their word of going back to the roots of Carpenter's film, and reestablishing the character of Michael Myers as an unpredictable force.

The casting of James Jude Courtney as Michael Myers, turned out to be nothing short of exceptional. His body language, and all around visual performance, was every bit as impressive as Nick Castle's performance as The Shape in the original film. His movements were so perfectly timed and paced, that it brought back a sense of visceral unpredictability, that no other previous sequel could achieve. I hope that Courtney will end up being held in the same regard as Castle, as well as Kane Hodder as Jason and Robert Englund as Freddy, since he did a tremendous job of bringing back Michael Myers in a way that no other actor could since Carpenter's original.

I had some minor quibbles with the humor in places, mainly because some of it worked (kid being baby sat was hilarious) and some didn't (the cops sitting in the car, talking about sandwiches, Allyson's dad jokes, etc.)--and some of the dialogue felt either heavy handed or clunky, particularly when Laurie was telling Frank Hawkins that she was hoping he would escape so she could one day kill him. The execution of those lines sell fine on paper, but the interaction between the two on camera, just felt like an outtake.

But minor shortcomings notwithstanding, the backbone of this film had to rely on Jaime Lee Curtis' performance as Laurie, and David Michael Green reestablishing the original identity of what makes Michael Myers work, a feat no filmmaker has been able to accomplish since Carpenter, and both of those things ended up working in spades. Curtis turned in one of the best performances of her career, and Michael had some absolutely relentless and inventive kills. Some of the best the entire series has to offer.

Overall, I think this is unquestionably the best Halloween film since the original. And, more importantly, it's finally just a good Halloween film on its own terms. Haven't been able to say that in 40-years.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by trans8010

I was talking about the characters in universe. The podcasters, the mad doctor, they all thought there was something more to Myers. If you thought I was politicizing anything, I don't know what to say.

I'm 31. I enjoyed the movie. I'm saying that there were plenty of honorable male characters, the only thing that stands the women apart was

[Show spoiler] the might of the three Strode women was what overcame the control and menace of Myers and vanquish him

where the male characters failed.

I never said you were politicising it, sorry if you thought I was nagging at you. I was talking about reports I've read which pretty much made me analyse what I'd seen on screen. If this film is trying to make a bold political statement about abuse then all I'll say is countless other movies have done this before and better (Room, 2015).

Another part of this movie which frustrated me was the scene with the

[Show spoiler]father and son which felt all too brief, almost as if it was supposed to be longer but got cut in post. I know it was setting up how Michael escaped

, but I thought it was weird how they were never referenced again. Would be interesting if the Blu-ray gets an extended cut, as I feel it could do with an extra 20 minutes.

[trans8010]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I never said you were politicising it, sorry if you thought I was nagging at you. I was talking about reports I've read which pretty much made me analyse what I'd seen on screen. If this film is trying to make a bold political statement about abuse then all I'll say is countless other movies have done this before and better (Room, 2015).

Another part of this movie which frustrated me was the scene with the

[Show spoiler]father and son which felt all too brief, almost as if it was supposed to be longer but got cut in post. I know it was setting up how Michael escaped

, but I thought it was weird how they were never referenced again. Would be interesting if the Blu-ray gets an extended cut, as I feel it could do with an extra 20 minutes.

1.) My bad. When I'm directly quoted, I can only assume that this is because of something I said.

2.)

[Show spoiler]It served one of two things.

1.) How Michael escapes, and secures the car.
2.) It shows how ruthless Michael is. He's killing anyone he wants when he wants. Kids are fair game now, which usually in slashers they are usually safe from harm.

[Shingster]

I wasn't particularly impressed by it - I enjoyed it, but ultimately found it too bland and disposable like many of the better sequels over the years. Here today, gone from the memory tomorrow. My main issue is that the characters aren't developed satisfactory because it rockets along and I don't think David Gordon Green really understands how to do a horror setpiece, none of them really had any sense of style or tension, you just sort of sit there waiting for the kill and then move on. They really should have developed Judy Greer's character more imo, probably my biggest complaint. It's never boring though and it has a cracking pace so it's entertaining viewing, especially at the cinema during the Halloween season.

[dcx4610]

David Gordon Green mentioned how they never liked the sister angle because it gave Michael a target and purpose. They thought (as I do) that Michael didn't have a reason to go after Laurie outside of seeing her at the old Meyers house. He zoned in on her like a shark and wouldn't stop until she was dead. It makes him scarier if anyone could be a target. Less so if he's just after his sister.

In this movie, he didn't even care about Laurie. She's the one that went after him. All we know is Michael just wants to get back to Haddonfield and anyone in his way is a target. The kid and his father were just in his way.

[HarrisonJohn]

I

[Show spoiler] felt maybe the killing of the preteen kid was to later make you scared he would kill the crying baby in the house. A heard a few people in the theatre gasp when he walked towards the baby.

[dcx4610]

Originally Posted by HarrisonJohn

I

[Show spoiler] felt maybe the killing of the preteen kid was to later make you scared he would kill the crying baby in the house. A heard a few people in the theatre gasp when he walked towards the baby.

It certainly set that moment up perfectly.

[Show spoiler]The writers programmed in your mind that Michael has it in him to kill a kid and when you heard the baby crying, you had that sense of dread. That's good story telling.

I knew he wouldn't do it because that would be a bit tasteless for a Halloween movie and people would have ripped it apart. Still, it was really effective because the seed was planted earlier that he could do it.

It also adds something to Meyers character. He still has a bit of humanity and/or he just didn't see the baby as a threat.

[Shingster]

It's definitely a reminder to audiences that he is pure evil and won't think twice of going after any target if the mood takes him. Pure chaos. I guess they didn't go there again because it would be too much overkill and too dark for the PG-13 rating. In general the film does a good job of setting up actions later on, or there will be a call back in the dialogue after a big twist to something said in passing earlier in the film that kinda teased it without you knowing.

[HarrisonJohn]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

It certainly set that moment up perfectly.

[Show spoiler]The writers programmed in your mind that Michael has it in him to kill a kid and when you heard the baby crying, you had that sense of dread. That's good story telling.

I knew he wouldn't do it because that would be a bit tasteless for a Halloween movie and people would have ripped it apart. Still, it was really effective because the seed was planted earlier that he could do it.

It also adds something to Meyers character. He still has a bit of humanity and/or he just didn't see the baby as a threat.

I remember watching Halloween 2 (1981) when I was a kid with my friend and his grandmother was sitting there watching and when they showed the

[Show spoiler]maternity ward she said "he better not kill any babies!"

so I'm not sure if that was an intentional reference for the series but it was for me!

[kdawq]

Originally Posted by HarrisonJohn

I

[Show spoiler] felt maybe the killing of the preteen kid was to later make you scared he would kill the crying baby in the house. A heard a few people in the theatre gasp when he walked towards the baby.

I read somewhere today that the crying baby was originally supposed to be the husband sleeping on the couch but the actor never showed so they improvised the baby.

[Kylo Ren]

Originally Posted by Shingster

It's definitely a reminder to audiences that he is pure evil and won't think twice of going after any target if the mood takes him. Pure chaos. I guess they didn't go there again because it would be too much overkill and too dark for the PG-13 rating. In general the film does a good job of setting up actions later on, or there will be a call back in the dialogue after a big twist to something said in passing earlier in the film that kinda teased it without you knowing.

The movie was rated R.

[Shingster]

Crikey I'm getting out of touch, just noticed it got an 18 here in the UK as well! I just assumed it would be a 15 here and PG-13 in the states, the film is incredibly tame for a UK 18 imo!

[jstxanothrxstory]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Crikey I'm getting out of touch, just noticed it got an 18 here in the UK as well! I just assumed it would be a 15 here and PG-13 in the states, the film is incredibly tame for a UK 18 imo!

If it was a PG-13, it'd have to cut out all of the gore and all the F-bombs at the minimum.

[Shingster]

And the boobs! LOL I even forgot the black kid's swearing, I swear worse than that in day-to-day life so it just completely passed me by!

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Shingster

David Gordon Green really understands how to do a horror setpiece,

I’m sorry, but this is wrong.

That single shot sequence was hands down the best—and most creative—technical achievement in the entire Halloween franchise.