Halloween

The movie geeks who saw this early have been overpraising this to the skies. What i saw was an adequate revival with Jamie Lee doing her best with a totally unbelievable, over the top survivalist version of Laurie Strode, sequences taken whole cloth from the original and the myriad sequels, and strange moments of comedy that belonged in another movie and created weird tone issues. I might be alone in this but H20 was a far superior Laurie vs Michael rematch.

Some people on Twitter/Letterboxd say Halloween 3 or Zombie's Halloween 2 are better than this. I am supposed to listen to that without laughing. 😆😆😆

One of the best entries on the Halloween franchise. Tense, violent, atmospheric, dark, well acted (much better than the original regarding this btw). Yeah, love this one even more than when I watched it for the first time.

When I go see a slasher film I want to see kills and gore a lot of gore. On top of that I would like to be engage completely. Halloween offer me that, From the moment that they visit Michàel in the mental health prison to when he goes on his killing spree in Halloween. The killings were creative. Michàel Myers was brutal and pure evil in this one. Some of my favorite scenes were the baby sit scene. The scene where You see Michàel waking around the house and later appears inside the house in the same shot without cut.

I tried watching the rob zombie Halloween and I thought it was boring, compare to this is engaging, creative and completely fun ride.

Grade B

I get that this was meant to be a direct sequel to the original... but why? Why did they bother writing a daughter into the story when she already had a son in H2O. This film could've easily been a follow on from that, with characters that we already knew and were familiar with. I didn't read too much on this before watching, I was just excited for another Halloween film. And when there was no mention of her son, but a daughter, this confused me. To the point I had to google to find out why. Don't get me wrong the film is ok, not very "Michael Myers" though. He seemed more violent bloody murderer than being stealthy and stalking his prey which is what we are used to. A few jumpy bits in the film, but not scary. Not to mention the pointless teenage storyline, which really didn't belong. Unfortunately this film didn't blow my mind like I hoped it would.

David Gordon Greene is an interesting director. He started out with micro-budgeted independent films like Undertow and George Washington before falling in with Danny McBride (and James Franco) for Pineapple Express. He made small to medium budgeted studio stoner comedies for a few years while occasionally making tiny movies here and there like Joe. He had a hand in Eastbound and Down and directed the second season of Vice-Principals where he apparently fell in love with Charleston, South Carolina as a filming location, for when he was given the reins to the Halloween franchise, he decided to recreate California acting like Illinois with Charleston. His history does not lend itself to the idea that horror would be his bag.

The first half hour of his Halloween is pretty much a straight drama with some brooding elements here and there. Laurie Strode's experience fighting Michael Myers in 1978 scarred her deeply to the point that she is a broken woman living on the outskirts of Haddonfield, Illinois on her bunker full of hiding spots, traps, and guns. Her daughter wants nothing to do with her, but Laurie's granddaughter feels that Laurie isn't getting the right level of appreciation from the family. There's a great scene where Laurie shows up to a family outing at a restaurant and just breaks down in front of everyone, including her granddaughter's boyfriend. It's uncomfortable and odd, but that's exactly what it's supposed to be. Not only has Laurie's experience broken her, but she's allowed it to completely dominate every aspect of her life. It's a sad sight.

Of course, the movie isn't a straight drama. It's a horror movie, and the horror comes from Michael Myers escaping from his prison and running loose again (any rumors of any other adventures between 2018 and 1978 are false). The introduction to Myers through a pair of investigative journalists, invited by Myers' doctor to try and elicit a reaction from the silent giant, is a wonderfully brooding piece of filmmaking. These three characters are consumed with the idea that there's something more to Michael Myers than simple evil, but Laurie warns them that they are wrong. It's a tad unclear (probably on purpose), but I think Myers' doctor organizes the killer's escape from the prison bus. He's expressed frustration in the idea that Myers has said nothing in forty years, and Myers is his life's work. He, essentially, knows as much about Myers after decades of study than when he began. He releases Michael so he can observe and study further, to understand Myers' beyond the silent killer.

But, of course, Laurie is right. Michael is just pure evil. And as the movie transitions from brooding drama about trauma into a horror movie, the film falters a bit. The middle section of the film is dancing around a few different tones that all clash together pretty harshly, undermining any real sense of impending danger. There is the central moment where Michael has a small rampage in Haddonfield's residential district, grabbing random weapons in one house and killing someone before simply moving on, that's right there, and it's great. However, it's surrounded by scenes that contain humor that, while oftentimes actually kind of funny, aren't placed in the greatest part of the movie and undermines the tension building. The last time this is a real problem is when we see two cops talking about Ban-Mi sandwiches. It simply doesn't work and stops a tension crescendo in its tracks.

After that moment, though, the movie goes full horror, and it's quite good. Perhaps some of the mechanics are a bit wonky to make it happen, but once there, the fight in and around Laurie's house is really effective tension and horror.

I read that Greene and McBride (one of the writers) were offered to film two Halloween movies back to back, but they turned it down because they wanted to figure out what they did right and wrong with the first movie before jumping into a second. Here's to hoping that if they do film a second film, that they work on getting a more effective and consistent tone.