Halloween (2018) - SPOILER THREAD

[BladeRunner2007]

Think the movie was awesome, yet it felt a bit like a best of with the best parts from every installment.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

Yeah I was telling that to someone else. He's not Jason Voorhees, he shouldn't be able to withstand all that punishment and keep on going. Minor nitpick, though.

Well, MM is the original Jason Vorhees. MM is implicitly supernatural. This new film did no favors in making MM seem "human."

[bradnoyes]

This film made no effort to humanize Michael. Straight from the get-go the filmmakers were beating you over the head with the idea that Michael is not a real human being and that his mask is some kind of wizard's wand that gives him special powers. For me, that has always been the main flaw with the sequels. The original is the only movie that is scary to me because by-and-large Michael feels like someone who could actually exist. So I was kind of hopeful when I saw they were ignoring the sequels since I thought we might get a return to a more grounded Michael but instead we got a superhero.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

This film made no effort to humanize Michael. Straight from the get-go the filmmakers were beating you over the head with the idea that Michael is not a real human being and that his mask is some kind of wizard's wand that gives him special powers.

literally what?

The podcaster in the opening uses the mask to try and stir some words out of Michael. The mask is......... just a mask. Something Michael uses to cover his face.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

This film made no effort to humanize Michael. Straight from the get-go the filmmakers were beating you over the head with the idea that Michael is not a real human being and that his mask is some kind of wizard's wand that gives him special powers. For me, that has always been the main flaw with the sequels. The original is the only movie that is scary to me because by-and-large Michael feels like someone who could actually exist. So I was kind of hopeful when I saw they were ignoring the sequels since I thought we might get a return to a more grounded Michael but instead we got a superhero.

MM is pure evil in the original. Loomis even says he is not human. He is like a force of nature. Unstoppable.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Brett_B

The only thing I really liked in this movie is the Title Sequence with the pumpkin.

What I didn't like:

- This movie felt like it was a demonstration as to what "not" to do in these situations.

- At the gas station there were other customers there, but only the podcaster notices the main attendant is dead. What were the other customers doing?

- I didn't care for the straight forward attacks on Halloween night, only to have Michael sneak into a house only to hide and wait in a closet. Then when a police officer responds to that call and finds the carnage he does not immediately call for back-up.

- The whole subplot with the boyfriend was only there to give a reason as to why Allyson does not have here cell phone.

- The kid trying to hit on Allyson in the back yard, and the motion sensors don't turn on when Michael moves.

- Again when the police officer is driving around with Allyson and the doctor and he spots Michael he, again, does not call for back-up.

- The plot twist with the doctor.

- How Michael was able to drive the police car through the gate on Laurie's property, stop the car in front of the house, stages the police car by placing one body in the driver's seat and places the head of the other cop in his lap with the flashlight and go hide and wait for someone to come investigate which was almost immediately after the police car rolls up.

- Those cops I just mentioned. They come across that scene and don't call for back-up.

- Having Laurie's house completely fortified, but does not have any security cameras within the house and no monitors in the safe room. Really, why have a safe room where you have no idea of what is going on outside of the room. It is like building a bomb shelter completely stocked with supplies for years of survival, but deciding to go out the very next day after the apocalypse to see if it is safe outside.

- Investigating a house in the dark by searching out each room one by one then "backing" out before you secure that room. Think about it. If no one is in that room that means he is "still" out there somewhere. Possibly in the hallway waiting for you to back out. Why not have a panic button to secure all of the rooms then investigate one by one by opening the steel door to each room to search it?

How do you ever enjoy films when you are nit picking all the time? I mean, seriously.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

literally what?

The podcaster in the opening uses the mask to try and stir some words out of Michael. The mask is......... just a mask. Something Michael uses to cover his face.

In the original movie, absolutely. But it was fetishized in the sequels, especially the new one. How did you miss everything that was going on with the other inmates--and even the dogs--after the reporter took out the mask? And it certainly had an effect on the doctor. I'm not sure how the writers would explain that Michael essentially has some internal radar that tells him where he needs to go to find the people he wants to find, but I can only assume their answer would be "the mask".

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

MM is pure evil in the original. Loomis even says he is not human. He is like a force of nature. Unstoppable.

People keep saying that, but if this new movie is to be believed, Michael was stopped in the original. And I love the character of Loomis and Donald Pleasance's performances, but Dr. Loomis is a loon, and ultimately a failure. He was unable to get through to Michael and now he's loose--Loomis knows what Michael is capable of and he uses the appropriate language to get his point across. You could imagine someone using the same language about Hannibal Lecter or any other murderous sociopath, but they're still people, not some demon. It's not until the sequels that Michael is unquestionably a supernatural creature.

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How do you ever enjoy films when you are nit picking all the time? I mean, seriously.

When there are that many things to nitpick in a movie, I can't see how anyone can claim that this is a great movie.

I really want to hear counterpoints to my nitpicks, especially from those that feel that my nitpicks are really great works of art.

Why do you feel lapses in logic make something great?

Seriously!!!

[connect42]

[QUOTE=cblanchard2018;15662762]

"...especially that a**hole boyfriend throwing allyson's phone into that cheese/pudding/whatever was in that bowl."


I see what you are saying, but that whole scene was just to set her up to be phone-less / out of contact with family.

[Kylo Ren]

Man, some of you guys are REALLY nitpicking and overthinking this movie. This isn't some Best Picture nominee that should be nitpicked and over-analyzed to find any flaws, this is just a good ol' horror slasher movie. These type of horror movies are SUPPOSED to have some suspension of disbelief in them.

For example, yes, it would make sense for Laurie to have the lights on as she's looking for Michael, but why would any filmmaker think that's a good idea? You turn the lights on and there goes all of the eeriness, atmosphere, and tension of the scene. Keep the lights off and you keep your viewers on the edge of their seats.

Another example, yes, the motion detector lights probably should have went off as Michael is moving (unless he moved around the range of the motion detector). But, just like I said before, if the lights are on and you see Michael moving from one location to another location, it completely ruins the effectiveness of the scare as then the audience knows exactly when Michael is going to pop out and attack the teenager. Instead though, with the way the filmmakers filmed the scene, the audience is now thinking, "OMG, where did Michael go? When is he popping out?" The scene is probably one of the more tense scenes in the movie and I'm happy with how they shot it.

If the filmmakers went the 100% realistic route like some of you guys want the film to go, then you're taking away a lot of the scariest and most memorable scenes in the movie and the audience wouldn't be scared or happy with the final product in the slightest.

[JamesKurtovich]

I too wondered why Laurie was clearing the house in the pitch black when she had all those spotlights covering the perimeter of the home, but the way they filmed that scene was great. Love how they blinded you with both darkness and Laurie's flashlight.

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by Kylo Ren

Man, some of you guys are REALLY nitpicking and overthinking this movie. This isn't some Best Picture nominee that should be nitpicked and over-analyzed to find any flaws, this is just a good ol' horror slasher movie. These type of horror movies are SUPPOSED to have some suspension of disbelief in them.

For example, yes, it would make sense for Laurie to have the lights on as she's looking for Michael, but why would any filmmaker think that's a good idea? You turn the lights on and there goes all of the eeriness, atmosphere, and tension of the scene. Keep the lights off and you keep your viewers on the edge of their seats.

Another example, yes, the motion detector lights probably should have went off as Michael is moving (unless he moved around the range of the motion detector). But, just like I said before, if the lights are on and you see Michael moving from one location to another location, it completely ruins the effectiveness of the scare as then the audience knows exactly when Michael is going to pop out and attack the teenager. Instead though, with the way the filmmakers filmed the scene, the audience is now thinking, "OMG, where did Michael go? When is he popping out?" The scene is probably one of the more tense scenes in the movie and I'm happy with how they shot it.

If the filmmakers went the 100% realistic route like some of you guys want the film to go, then you're taking away a lot of the scariest and most memorable scenes in the movie and the audience wouldn't be scared or happy with the final product in the slightest.

Well, I would like to think that a good writer would realize these issues, and instead of trying to figure out how to put a square peg in a round hole they would look for an alternative that would achieve the same result.

As an example to what you posted, why not have night vision goggles? She still would be walking around in a dark house, correct?

[bradnoyes]

I don't think it's nitpicking. I thought the movie had major flaws that eventually became so compounded that I couldn't ignore them even if I wanted to.

I know I've been critical of the movie but I am trying to not sound like I'm attacking people who liked it. The movie is a resounding financial success and clearly a lot of people loved it, which is nice. But I think it's kind of bull**** to just shrug off people's criticisms as nitpicking. Trust me, we wanted to like it!

After the opening scene I remember thinking "hmm, that was kind of bad but I'm sure they'll turn it around." And as the movie continued to stumble around between the journalists and the high school stuff and other things that really didn't matter, I remember thinking, "hmm, why does this feel so sloppy? Well, once Michael gets to Haddonfield it's going to get good." And then when Michael gets to Haddonfield and just randomly kills people and somehow ends up in some kid's closet who just happens to be being babysat by one of Laurie's granddaughters' best friends, I was like "hmm...is this ever going to get good...?" And then came the doctor scene, and the realization that half the characters in the movie are meaningless, and I just thought "damn..." And then just like that it was over. It was a real slow burn letdown and I never felt like I was going out of my way to feel disappointed. The movie took care of that itself.

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I don't think it's nitpicking. I thought the movie had major flaws that eventually became so compounded that I couldn't ignore them even if I wanted to.

I know I've been critical of the movie but I am trying to not sound like I'm attacking people who liked it. The movie is a resounding financial success and clearly a lot of people loved it, which is nice. But I think it's kind of bull**** to just shrug off people's criticisms as nitpicking. Trust me, we wanted to like it!

After the opening scene I remember thinking "hmm, that was kind of bad but I'm sure they'll turn it around." And as the movie continued to stumble around between the journalists and the high school stuff and other things that really didn't matter, I remember thinking, "hmm, why does this feel so sloppy? Well, once Michael gets to Haddonfield it's going to get good." And then when Michael gets to Haddonfield and just randomly kills people and somehow ends up in some kid's closet who just happens to be being babysat by one of Laurie's granddaughters' best friends, I was like "hmm...is this ever going to get good...?" And then came the doctor scene, and the realization that half the characters in the movie are meaningless, and I just thought "damn..." And then just like that it was over. It was a real slow burn letdown and I never felt like I was going out of my way to feel disappointed. The movie took care of that itself.

WELL SAID!!!

It is not that I am nitpicking only one scene in the entire movie, it was that there were problems (nitpicks) scene after scene after scene. I was just hoping that there would have been a satisfying conclusion to the story to make me look past those issues. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Brett_B

WELL SAID!!!

It is not that I am nitpicking only one scene in the entire movie, it was that there were problems (nitpicks) scene after scene after scene. I was just hoping that there would have been a satisfying conclusion to the story to make me look past those issues. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

The guy was shot six times in the original then fell off the balcony. He was then shot again in this film. I think suspension of disbelief might be in order.

This place is becoming like IMDB lately, just enjoy the bloody film lol.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I don't think it's nitpicking. I thought the movie had major flaws that eventually became so compounded that I couldn't ignore them even if I wanted to.

I know I've been critical of the movie but I am trying to not sound like I'm attacking people who liked it. The movie is a resounding financial success and clearly a lot of people loved it, which is nice. But I think it's kind of bull**** to just shrug off people's criticisms as nitpicking. Trust me, we wanted to like it!

After the opening scene I remember thinking "hmm, that was kind of bad but I'm sure they'll turn it around." And as the movie continued to stumble around between the journalists and the high school stuff and other things that really didn't matter, I remember thinking, "hmm, why does this feel so sloppy? Well, once Michael gets to Haddonfield it's going to get good." And then when Michael gets to Haddonfield and just randomly kills people and somehow ends up in some kid's closet who just happens to be being babysat by one of Laurie's granddaughters' best friends, I was like "hmm...is this ever going to get good...?" And then came the doctor scene, and the realization that half the characters in the movie are meaningless, and I just thought "damn..." And then just like that it was over. It was a real slow burn letdown and I never felt like I was going out of my way to feel disappointed. The movie took care of that itself.

Half the characters in MOST slashers are meaningless. Have you ever watched a slasher before?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Kylo Ren

Man, some of you guys are REALLY nitpicking and overthinking this movie. This isn't some Best Picture nominee that should be nitpicked and over-analyzed to find any flaws, this is just a good ol' horror slasher movie. These type of horror movies are SUPPOSED to have some suspension of disbelief in them.

For example, yes, it would make sense for Laurie to have the lights on as she's looking for Michael, but why would any filmmaker think that's a good idea? You turn the lights on and there goes all of the eeriness, atmosphere, and tension of the scene. Keep the lights off and you keep your viewers on the edge of their seats.

Another example, yes, the motion detector lights probably should have went off as Michael is moving (unless he moved around the range of the motion detector). But, just like I said before, if the lights are on and you see Michael moving from one location to another location, it completely ruins the effectiveness of the scare as then the audience knows exactly when Michael is going to pop out and attack the teenager. Instead though, with the way the filmmakers filmed the scene, the audience is now thinking, "OMG, where did Michael go? When is he popping out?" The scene is probably one of the more tense scenes in the movie and I'm happy with how they shot it.

If the filmmakers went the 100% realistic route like some of you guys want the film to go, then you're taking away a lot of the scariest and most memorable scenes in the movie and the audience wouldn't be scared or happy with the final product in the slightest.

These guys are missing the point of the motion detector scene.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Brett_B

When there are that many things to nitpick in a movie, I can't see how anyone can claim that this is a great movie.

I really want to hear counterpoints to my nitpicks, especially from those that feel that my nitpicks are really great works of art.

Why do you feel lapses in logic make something great?

Seriously!!!

Where did I say it was great? I missed that part. I did enjoy it mind you.

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Where did I say it was great? I missed that part. I did enjoy it mind you.

Nowhere in my post did I say that.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Half the characters in MOST slashers are meaningless. Have you ever watched a slasher before?

True enough, but the original Halloween isn't just some random slasher flick, and I went into this movie expecting it to be a direct sequel that also tried capturing the spirit and atmosphere of the original. But it did end up feeling more like a run-of-the-mill slasher. At least I know that now. I'll probably give it another go when it comes to UHD and maybe I'll be able to just enjoy it for what it is as opposed to feeling disappointed in everything it is not.

Also, I really need to move on! Part of my problem with this film is that I haven't had a TV for the last few weeks and it's taking my new one forever to arrive, so even though I saw this last Thursday it is still the last movie I've seen. Usually when I see something I don't like I'll just watch something else to rinse out the bad taste but I've just had to ruminate over this film for nearly a week. Just chewin' that Halloween cud.