Halloween (2018)

[trans8010]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

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.

It only took 11 takes.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by trans8010

It only took 11 takes.

Are you talking the shot or the franchise’s attempts for such a shot?

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

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.

Hang on Sweetieman, if you're gonna challenge my opinion at least quote me fully, I was saying "I don't think David Gordon Green understands how to do a horror setpiece". The way you've quoted me makes you look like you're arguing against me saying he does know how to do a horror setpiece!

Also, what exactly is the specific setpiece you're referring to? I never made any reference to any specific setpiece in the post you quoted, so curious as to how you seem to think I was, and that this setpiece was supposedly better executed than anything in a franchise with a gazillion entries?

[UpsetSmiley]

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!

I thought this as well, Universal could've persuaded the BBFC to trim some of the more violent killings by about 10 seconds and easily got a 15 cert. Compared to Logan, the violence isn't much stronger if at all. Glad they didn't do it though, especially as the films sometimes end up in their cut version on Blu.

I'd really like to know about the deleted scenes, if there are any.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I thought this as well, Universal could've persuaded the BBFC to trim some of the more violent killings by about 10 seconds and easily got a 15 cert.

BBFC don't edit films anymore.

[prkchopexpress]

here's a question...

does the fact that they will make a sequel affect how you feel about the movie?

I was really hoping it would be the last one and we could have a end. but I could not be less interested in the next one. unless, and I'm not joking, it was somehow a crossover with Phoenix wright. because it would have to take a crazy turn or do something really unexpected to make me curious and not just spect some meh mess.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Hang on Sweetieman, if you're gonna challenge my opinion at least quote me fully, I was saying "I don't think David Gordon Green understands how to do a horror setpiece". The way you've quoted me makes you look like you're arguing against me saying he does know how to do a horror setpiece!

Also, what exactly is the specific setpiece you're referring to? I never made any reference to any specific setpiece in the post you quoted, so curious as to how you seem to think I was, and that this setpiece was supposedly better executed than anything in a franchise with a gazillion entries?

I'll spoiler tag the sequence.

[Show spoiler]The sequence where Michael is in Haddonfield, moving house to house. He goes into the older woman's house first as she's making a sandwich (nice call back to HII) and beats her over the head with a hammer; as he's making his way through the house, you hear ominous music, a baby crying (a really tense mood set here, seeing as the film already showed Michael being capable of killing a kid earlier in the film) and as he makes his way out of her house and briefly down the sidewalk, a woman sees him, stops and thinks to maybe say something but doesn't; he then makes his way into another woman's house, sneaks up behind her, smashes her head off the window frame, and proceeds to shove the kitchen knife through the back of her neck in one quick thrust.

None of its glorified. None of its overdone. It's tastefully shot, choreographed seamlessly, and blends technical visual storytelling with ominous, subdued sound design, that makes the sequence in a series of predictable killings, unpredictable.

I'm cool with people disliking the movie. One hundred percent. But god damn if that isn't the single best set piece in any Halloween film. Maybe in the history of slasher films, to be honest. It'll be a signature sequence that fans of this film will talk about as time goes on, IMO.

[prkchopexpress]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I'll spoiler tag the sequence.

[Show spoiler]The sequence where Michael is in Haddonfield, moving house to house. He goes into the older woman's house first as she's making a sandwich (nice call back to HII) and beats her over the head with a hammer; as he's making his way through the house, you hear ominous music, a baby crying (a really tense mood set here, seeing as the film already showed Michael being capable of killing a kid earlier in the film) and as he makes his way out of her house and briefly down the sidewalk, a woman sees him, stops and thinks to maybe say something but doesn't; he then makes his way into another woman's house, sneaks up behind her, smashes her head off the window frame, and proceeds to shove the kitchen knife through the back of her neck in one quick thrust.

None of its glorified. None of its overdone. It's tastefully shot, choreographed seamlessly, and blends technical visual storytelling with ominous, subdued sound design, that makes the sequence in a series of predictable killings, unpredictable.

I'm cool with people disliking the movie. One hundred percent. But god damn if that isn't the single best set piece in any Halloween film. Maybe in the history of slasher films, to be honest. It'll be a signature sequence that fans of this film will talk about as time goes on, IMO.

you are out of your mind to say that sequence is more impressive than the opening of the original. or even more than the opening sequence in Halloween III. or the crazy dream opening with the moody blues in zombieween II. these are probably the only sequences where you watch for the first time, and you're not sure what is going to happen.

it's not original. it's pretentious fan service at best. it's the most predictable, because the opening of this "fantastic" sequence has been shown in the marketing leading up to the film. so instead of being engaged and curious, because they are finally moving the camera... your really just wondering what you're going to see. and for the first half its just what you thought. the second half doesn't matter, because you're already not interested.

[Show spoiler]and gimme a freaking break, all the people who are saying "it's extra scary because you think he is going to kill the baby." you know he's not going to kill the baby. this is widely released movie with a big marketing budget. it's going to take a crazy risk like that. one, because it wouldn't have lasted after test screenings and two, because it does nothing for the character. it doesn't serve the story or make it better.

and then where was literally no suspense at all in the second half, because you get the carpenter stinger on the soundtrack and you see a big open space and a woman looking at the window. and in the back of your mind, it's like, why would we be hanging on this shot? the only reason is for michael to kill this random person. which, granted, wasn't shown in the trailer. but it doesn't work. it's a better scare in the original when michael stops one of the kids who trips tommy doyle, making him destroy his pumpkin. this scene felt literally like they were writing the script or blocking and thinking "how long as it been since he killed someone? thirty seconds? what if we throw in another kill real fast. no build up, completely random."

ooh. they moved the camera. stop the presses. I don't know how any other movie is going to compete with this. that sequence only stands out, because, is that the only time they bother moving the camera in the movie?

carpenters style makes the first movie. not myers. but then they make halloween II, and you realize how much his style causes the movie to be successful. then they go and try to use that same style in part III and all people complain about is that there isn't myers in the movie.

[TheSweetieMan]

>'Pretentious fan service.'

I don't think you know what that means.

In fact, I think when people don't have a fundamentally sound counterargument, they generally tend to overuse the term 'pretentious' since they can't properly articulate why someone else is wrong.

See, you downplay the single shot sequence that David Gordon Green choreographed, right. I mean, your own words: "Oh, they moved the camera, stop the presses." Because yeah, pulling off single shot sequences are so easy, that everybody can do it effectively. Except they can't. As noted by McG's incompetent use of it in Terminator Salvation. But I digress.

Oh man, in 1978, Carpenter used a POV effect shot where Michael kills his sister, in what is the most anatomically laughable stabbings, that don't correspond to what it would actually look like when someone is stabbed repeatedly. Stop the presses!

Also,

[Show spoiler]I didn't imply that DGG's sequence was scary. Just that it was well made. Well choreographed. And well paced. Because it was. And while it's unlikely for Michael to kill a baby because of possible backlash from general film goers, the dude still killed a borderline teenage kid in the film. And they didn't flinch showing it, either. So, there's still a palpable tension being created within that sequence just from the stakes alone.

As much as I love Carpenter's film--it's my all time favorite horror film--I'm not nostalgic. That single shot sequence in the new film is better than any set piece in any previous Halloween film.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by trans8010

Canon has been disregarded for over 35 years now. Myers was dead, a burned up corpse, until he wasn't. Then he was part of a cult, until that was wiped clean, then his head chopped off, till retcon revealed a paramedic in place. Then the series was completely rebooted with Zombie's series, and now that's gone. Continuity has been a mess since 1988.

So? Halloween 2 is a damn fine continuation of the original movie despite the self-loathing from John Carpenter.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by 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.

Can't wait for your version!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

>'Pretentious fan service.'

I don't think you know what that means.

In fact, I think when people don't have a fundamentally sound counterargument, they generally tend to overuse the term 'pretentious' since they can't properly articulate why someone else is wrong.

See, you downplay the single shot sequence that David Gordon Green choreographed, right. I mean, your own words: "Oh, they moved the camera, stop the presses." Because yeah, pulling off single shot sequences are so easy, that everybody can do it effectively. Except they can't. As noted by McG's incompetent use of it in Terminator Salvation. But I digress.

Oh man, in 1978, Carpenter used a POV effect shot where Michael kills his sister, in what is the most anatomically laughable stabbings, that don't correspond to what it would actually look like when someone is stabbed repeatedly. Stop the presses!

Also,

[Show spoiler]I didn't imply that DGG's sequence was scary. Just that it was well made. Well choreographed. And well paced. Because it was. And while it's unlikely for Michael to kill a baby because of possible backlash from general film goers, the dude still killed a borderline teenage kid in the film. And they didn't flinch showing it, either. So, there's still a palpable tension being created within that sequence just from the stakes alone.

As much as I love Carpenter's film--it's my all time favorite horror film--I'm not nostalgic. That single shot sequence in the new film is better than any set piece in any previous Halloween film.

Agree and disagree lol. It was my favourite sequence also but the steadicam POV opening of the original is still the best.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

you are out of your mind to say that sequence is more impressive than the opening of the original. or even more than the opening sequence in Halloween III. or the crazy dream opening with the moody blues in zombieween II. these are probably the only sequences where you watch for the first time, and you're not sure what is going to happen.

it's not original. it's pretentious fan service at best. it's the most predictable, because the opening of this "fantastic" sequence has been shown in the marketing leading up to the film. so instead of being engaged and curious, because they are finally moving the camera... your really just wondering what you're going to see. and for the first half its just what you thought. the second half doesn't matter, because you're already not interested.

[Show spoiler]and gimme a freaking break, all the people who are saying "it's extra scary because you think he is going to kill the baby." you know he's not going to kill the baby. this is widely released movie with a big marketing budget. it's going to take a crazy risk like that. one, because it wouldn't have lasted after test screenings and two, because it does nothing for the character. it doesn't serve the story or make it better.

and then where was literally no suspense at all in the second half, because you get the carpenter stinger on the soundtrack and you see a big open space and a woman looking at the window. and in the back of your mind, it's like, why would we be hanging on this shot? the only reason is for michael to kill this random person. which, granted, wasn't shown in the trailer. but it doesn't work. it's a better scare in the original when michael stops one of the kids who trips tommy doyle, making him destroy his pumpkin. this scene felt literally like they were writing the script or blocking and thinking "how long as it been since he killed someone? thirty seconds? what if we throw in another kill real fast. no build up, completely random."

ooh. they moved the camera. stop the presses. I don't know how any other movie is going to compete with this. that sequence only stands out, because, is that the only time they bother moving the camera in the movie?

carpenters style makes the first movie. not myers. but then they make halloween II, and you realize how much his style causes the movie to be successful. then they go and try to use that same style in part III and all people complain about is that there isn't myers in the movie.

Come on, it was a fantastic sequence.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by kdawq

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.

Correct.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

>'Pretentious fan service.'

I don't think you know what that means.

In fact, I think when people don't have a fundamentally sound counterargument, they generally tend to overuse the term 'pretentious' since they can't properly articulate why someone else is wrong.

See, you downplay the single shot sequence that David Gordon Green choreographed, right. I mean, your own words: "Oh, they moved the camera, stop the presses." Because yeah, pulling off single shot sequences are so easy, that everybody can do it effectively. Except they can't. As noted by McG's incompetent use of it in Terminator Salvation. But I digress.

Oh man, in 1978, Carpenter used a POV effect shot where Michael kills his sister, in what is the most anatomically laughable stabbings, that don't correspond to what it would actually look like when someone is stabbed repeatedly. Stop the presses!

Also,

[Show spoiler]I didn't imply that DGG's sequence was scary. Just that it was well made. Well choreographed. And well paced. Because it was. And while it's unlikely for Michael to kill a baby because of possible backlash from general film goers, the dude still killed a borderline teenage kid in the film. And they didn't flinch showing it, either. So, there's still a palpable tension being created within that sequence just from the stakes alone.

As much as I love Carpenter's film--it's my all time favorite horror film--I'm not nostalgic. That single shot sequence in the new film is better than any set piece in any previous Halloween film.

WTF that single take sequence in Terminator Salvation is awesome!

[NARMAK]

Watched it yesterday and quite dissppointed. The movies got consistency issues galore.

The main premise of the movie even relies on a later convoluted plot twist imo that had no reason to exist like it did narratively. If anything, this movie ends on quite a poor note if they want to make a sequel. Many aspects were effectively done but some plot wise are just downright poor and stink of convenience rather than merit.

I wish they'd not have shown him capable of great physical strength in some scenes and then "normal" human level strength in others because it makes the killing wonky. The movies 6/10 for me and i'm mostly giving that for technical reasons of it being shot well but storywise it just didn't jive well to me.

[JMDiaz718]

Went to see Halloween on Saturday, I really enjoyed it, but there were a lot of issues. Also, people are complaining about the cops in the car, discussing their lunch. I thought it was funny and it was a really short scene.

[Show spoiler]When you see their corpses later, you kinda feel bad.

Likes:

1. Jamie Lee Curtis was excellent, as always.

2. Great cinematography and music.

3. The Halloween atmosphere was greatly done. Reminded me of parts 1 and 2.

4. Brutal kills for some victims. Including a kid.

[Show spoiler]Poor female blogger, her co-worker was a douche! His actions at the psychiatric facility, probably caused the rampage.

5. Some likeable characters, especially the blonde babysitter and the kid she was watching.

6. I smiled watching the rotten pumpkin, rehydrate as the opening credits played.

Dislikes:

1. Them ignoring the events of Halloween II.

2. Making Michael a "normal" human, who still goes around murdering with the agility, of a 20 year old. Still able to take gunshots and other injuries, while being "normal", at 70 years old!

[Show spoiler]He even takes out an entire gas station/mechanic shop so swiftly

, customers don't even notice! WTF?

They should've just kept him a supernatural, demonic entity.

[Show spoiler] I thought when all of the patients went crazy after the mask is help up, but Michael remained stoic, was proof of a supernatural event.

But no, brushed under the rug.

3. Hated most of the supporting cast, especially the creepy looking teens.

4. Didn't give a crap about Laurie's daughter and granddaughter. And especially hated her son-in-law. They were just annoying as heck, pretty useless.

5. The "twist" with the

[Show spoiler]doctor

, was dumb.

6. Ending was a little abrupt.

7. They should've killed the granddaughter's boyfriend,

[Show spoiler]not the chubby kid

.

Still had a great time. My group loved it. Will buy the blu!

[IncrediblesFan82]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

here's a question...

does the fact that they will make a sequel affect how you feel about the movie?

I was really hoping it would be the last one and we could have a end. but I could not be less interested in the next one. unless, and I'm not joking, it was somehow a crossover with Phoenix wright. because it would have to take a crazy turn or do something really unexpected to make me curious and not just spect some meh mess.

Agreed 100%. And yes, it does for me. The conflict of Laurie and Michael needs to come to an end, but with proper closure for Laurie. The actors, especially JLC, was promoting this as the final confrontation between the two. I was hoping that would be what we got with this film. That is why I like Halloween II (1981) so much. To me, its the movie that has the best ending for Michael.

The more I think about it, with the ending we got in Halloween 2018, it is more

[Show spoiler]open to him returning than he died.

The only way I can see the sequel doing all of that, is somehow Laurie dies of natural causes before Michael strikes on the next Halloween. Her dying believing Michael was dead once and for all, and finally having some peace with her daughter and granddaughter, would be the only way I can see them writing her out without pulling another Halloween: Resurrection and disrespecting her.

[JMDiaz718]

Originally Posted by IncrediblesFan82

Agreed 100%. And yes, it does for me. The conflict of Laurie and Michael needs to come to an end, but with proper closure for Laurie. The actors, especially JLC, was promoting this as the final confrontation between the two. I was hoping that would be what we got with this film. That is why I like Halloween II (1981) so much. To me, its the movie that has the best ending for Michael.

The more I think about it, with the ending we got in Halloween 2018, it is more

[Show spoiler]open to him returning than he died.

The only way I can see the sequel to this doing all of that, is somehow Laurie dies of natural causes before Michael strikes on the next Halloween. Her dying believing Michael was dead once and for all, and finally having some peace with her daughter and granddaughter, would be the only way I can see them writing her out without pulling another Halloween: Resurrection and disrespecting her.

Agreed. I loved Halloween II and the fact that they killed off Michael. The close-ups of his burning body, to drive home the point, that he's dead.

That's probably the ONLY reason, the writers of Halloween 2018, ignored part II.

[Show spoiler]Because they basically killed him off in the exact same way! Or we should say allegedly killed him. No burning body shot, just burning house and basement, no sign of Michael.

[coffeeaddict6]

Originally Posted by JMDiaz718

Agreed. I loved Halloween II and the fact that they killed off Michael. The close-ups of his burning body, to drive home the point, that he's dead.

That's probably the ONLY reason, the writers of Halloween 2018, ignored part II. Because they basically killed him off in the exact same way! Or we should say allegedly killed him. No burning body shot, just burning house and basement, no sign of Michael.

Spoilers man, I haven't seen it yet.