Messages

Write up on Hugh Jackman stepping in to replace Dougray Scott as Wolverine.

Another Year 2000 piece.

Yeah, this is pretty well put together.

I don't have terribly strong feelings about it. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It's ok.

Halloween '18 is essentially another of those back-to-basics retreads of Carpenter's movie that we get every ten years or so. I liked it more than Zombie's 2007 film, but not as much as The Return of Michael Myers. I suppose I'd rank it roughly on a par with H20.

My only real issue with it, other than its lack of originality, is that I don't buy into the characterisation of Laurie as a survivalist nut who's dead certain Myers is going to return. If it was the Laurie who'd lived through the events of Halloween II and H20 then I'd have no trouble accepting that characterisation. But if this is meant to be the meek and vulnerable Laurie from the original film, without the events of the sequels to instil the expectation of Myers' inevitable return, then I don't get why she's so sure her one-time assailant is coming back after four decades. I understand that she's got PTSD, but I don't think that's a solid basis for her conviction that a sexagenarian Myers is coming back. Again, if she'd lived through H2 and H20 I'd buy it. But if she's only lived through the original film and has lived a relatively normal life since, then it doesn't quite work for me.

Perfectly understandable, and I would even say it's indicative of Hollywood taking the "different than" route, and since we already had the PTSD-shrouded Laurie in H2O, PTSD-surivalist Laurie would be the next step even if it was a bit of a stretch.

Halloween Kills has a strong opening sequence that effectively captures the look and feel of the early instalments in the series. The storyline about the town vigilantes elevates it above being just another retread, and I like the appearance by the Silver Shamrock masks. It's a solid continuation of the previous film and a decent sequel.

I had some problems with HK, but overall felt it was a solid follow up to H2018. Some choices were a bit clunky, just as they were in H2018, but what the film had in spades was this continued momentum where Michael was arguably at his most vicious, and the town of Haddonfield was gradually succumbing to mania and chaos.

I didn't think Halloween Ends was as terrible as its reputation led me to expect, but maybe that's because I went into it with low expectations. I thought it was ok. I appreciate that they tried to do something different, a la Friday the 13th Part V. But I didn't buy into the central romance, or the way Allyson instantly falls in love with Corey. The bully characters were so stereotypical and one-dimensional they belonged in a Stephen King story. I thought the final showdown was formulaic and unintentionally comical in places. I don't understand why Laurie went through the charade of pretending to kill herself. To lure Corey out? Why? He was coming for her anyway. Did she really need to dial 911? Couldn't she have just faked the telephone conversation if she knew Corey was listening in? That all seemed a bit forced to me. So it definitely has issues and is the weakest entry in the trilogy, but I didn't hate it.

I watched this one again just the other night, and yeah, it's OK. Unfortunately, I can't help but think, every single time, that I just wish everyone involved would have stuck to landing with this trilogy rather than the road ultimately taken. As the crescendo that the previous installments were building up to (Hk's extended ending hammers this home), just winds up discarded and deflated in favor of trying something different. Which just comes across as Blumhouse becoming disinterested in the original direction/story ideas, and decided to try something else, but as a consequence, resulting in HE being incredibly disjointed from the overall cohesion of H2018/HK. Which isn't particularly satisfying.

As a general point, I miss the subtlety of the 1978 film. The most haunting moments from Carpenter's movie were the quieter scenes, like when Laurie sees Michael standing by the washing line looking up at her window, or the final shots of the film playing to the sound of Myers' breathing. There's very little blood in the first movie. It didn't need gore, and that restraint set it apart from other horror franchises of that era. I don't think there need to be any more Michael Myers movies after the recent trilogy. The formula's played out (I just realised the Halloween franchise now has more instalments than the Friday the 13th series!). But if they must make more, then I'd like to see a return to the subtler approach of the 1978 movie.

I've said numerous times that my favourite movie in the Halloween franchise is Season of the Witch. I don't think it's the best entry in the series (that would be the original), but it's my favourite on a purely subjective level. However, if I were to pick a Michael Myers headcanon trilogy, it'd be Halloween '78, Halloween II and The Return of Michael Myers.

I think H4 still has the reigns for the most shocking ending that has come out of the franchise. It's great!

1999 article discussing the 'web exclusive' Matrix stories that would debut soon after the success of the original film.

Wizard article on the Bat books going into the year 2000.

Joe Kelly and Jeph Loeb speaking about Superman comics for the year 2000.

I watched Halloween Ends on Netflix last week.

I am going to assume that you have seen the Halloween Blumhouse trilogy, Silver.

Care to share your thoughts?

[after]

After all these years I would seriously still say Nicholson is my number one guy as the Joker. He provides a package that resembles my type of comics while retaining the required darkness. An aspect of B89 I like is how we get a glimpse into Jack's psyche after the transformation. He speaks about the trauma of falling into the chemicals and crying inside. His former self is still buried under there, providing depth, but it's not dwelt on. He's a brand new person who knows who he was and what happened, but moved on and embraced insanity. He's in character too much now for it to hurt him. For a one movie performance they packed a lot in there and a lot of it's right.

Oh, for sure! Jack is pretty much the perfect merging of the Golden Age, and Bronze Age Joker. Comedic, and openly partaking in tomfoolery, but very lethal at a moments notice. Also, Nicholson's Joker is still the only live action Joker that has used the villain's signature weapon; Joker Venom (renamed Smylex for B89). Which is wild. I also like how Jack himself has described the Joker as; "A hateful occurrence of a man who survived nuclear immersion".

Because of Hamill (to whatever degree), Ledger, Phoenix and Leto (to whatever degree), something that These Dang Kids today seem to be forgetting is how big a deal Nicholson playing the Joker was back in the day.

But a tremendous part of B89's success owes back to the casting announcement of Nicholson playing the Joker. That single element alone gave the film a LOT of mystique and interest.

It's safe to say that the hype around B89 would've been greatly diminished (or maybe even completely eliminated) if Nicholson hadn't been involved in the film.

For as good as Ledger might've been, he still had to prove himself in the role. In the early days, he had skeptics and doubters.

But literally nobody questioned Nicholson's ability to play the character. Which says something, I think.

Exactly. Jack Nicholson as the Joker was one of those casting decisions where it just fit like a glove. Not unlike the notion of Patrick Stewart being chosen to portray Professor X about 10 years later. Sometimes the best choice is simply the obvious choice.

Reviving this thread just in time for Halloween, but I thought these were pretty fun and well made.