The Halloween Franchise

[thecolorsblend]

Oh yeah, something else. Since I'm here...



Pretty big disparity between the critics and the audience on Rotten Tomatoes.

[Silver Nemesis]

Meanwhile I'm lagging behind by three years and still haven't seen the 2018 Halloween. Fortunately it's making its UK TV debut tonight, so I'll be watching that this evening while everyone else is watching the new film.

If you feel like posting your thoughts later about the 2018 film here, you might as well. I'd be interested in that.

They didn't show it. I was sitting there with the lights out, all hyped about seeing it, and at the last second the announcer said there'd been a change to the schedule. A British politician named Sir David Amess was tragically stabbed to death yesterday, and I think sensitivity over the knife crime element might have been the reason for the rescheduling. At any rate, they showed some Michael Fassbender film I'd never heard of instead. So I ended up watching Andy Muschietti's It Chapter Two (2019) on Amazon Prime, and now I'm even more sceptical about the quality of The Flash.

Halloween '18 is presently scheduled to be shown on Thursday night, so I should be able to watch it then.

[thecolorsblend]

My view is that it's been basically impossible to get two good Halloween movies in a row.

Halloween 1978 is obviously good. But Halloween II is crap on a stick without the stick, if you ask me.

Halloween 4 is good. But Halloween 5 is BY FAR the worst in the entire franchise as far as I'm concerned. Yes, 5 is even worse than 6, I don't care what anybody says.

Halloween H20 is good. But Halloween: Resurrection is bad. I can still enjoy it on some level. But it's objectively bad, I acknowledge that.

Halloween 2018 is good... which didn't bode well for HK... which makes it so much more satisfying to me that HK is as awesome as it is. Because history wasn't on HK's side here.

Anyway, wanted to throw that out there.

For anybody interested, free to watch on YouTube.

On a different subject...

Halloween, 1978

The original. All thrilla, no filla.

Halloween, 1978 (TV Version)

The original... edited for TV. There are some new scenes included to pad out the runtime. Because even with commercials, there just wasn't enough material to fill a two-hour timeslot.

Halloween 04

I'm a big fan of this movie.

Halloween 05

I'll say it. This is the worst Halloween movie ever made. Worse than Resurrections, worse than the Zombie versions, worse than everything.

[The Joker]

My quick thoughts review.



SPOILERS





Halloween Kills is a worthy enough follow up to 2018's Halloween, but I came out of this movie feeling that it was a bit uneven, and had it's share of issues. Did I like it? Yes. Just not to the extent of it's predecessor. What this film has going for it, is a story that is incredibly fast paced, and is pretty unrelenting in providing the gore and kills. It's pretty much Michael Myers being at his most vicious in the entire series. About the only films that come anywhere close to this level of viciousness, is perhaps the 6th movie (especially the scene where Michael massacre's Wynn and the cult of Throne in the operating room scene from the theatrical cut), and Rob Zombie's Halloween movies. More so the second than the first. In that context, it's outstanding. Unfortunately, I find the movie itself has some problems that inevitably bring it down a peg or two. It's very much the "Empire Strikes Back" in this particular Halloween timeline (H78, H2018, HK, HE), darker tone and all, but unfortunately some directing/story/character choices just simply lack that 'oomph' that the 2018 Halloween has in spades.

The flashbacks to 1978 was handled extremely well, and I have to call out that the (apparently) non-CGI Dr. Loomis was DAMN impressive visually. The voice however, unfortunately got wonky a few times (especially so in the pitch levels), but man, what a feat in bringing in the visual treat of Dr. Loomis from 1978 for one more go! I also dug the slick way in how actual footage from Halloween II (1981) was incorporated. Very nicely done indeed.

Speaking of the 1978 flashback, the whole Lonnie deal is a curious thing. In the original, we see Lonnie teasing Tommy Doyle about "the boogeyman" at school. Suggesting he's in with the school bullies. We later see him attempting to go into the old Myers home, on a dare, until Dr. Loomis spooks him, and he high tails it out of there. Further suggesting Lonnie is likely something of a juvenile delinquent. In HK, we see now that Lonnie gets teased just like Tommy, and even has a brief encounter with Michael on Halloween night 1978. Cut forward to 2018, Lonnie is portrayed as a pretty swell guy who's now friendly with Tommy. You'd think the point of showing Lonnie encountering Michael in 1978 as a child, and again in 2018 as an adult, would be to further heighten the tension, but no. Lonnie is just simply killed off screen. I didn't get that.

The opening title sequence with the multiple burning jack-o-lanterns was alright. I was honestly expecting something different, but it's ok. comparatively speaking, I absolutely LOVE the inflating jack-o-lantern from the H2018. That was absolute aces. HK's is just alright.

Laurie is sidelined for the entire film, due to the injuries she sustained in H2018, but she get's enough screen time to where the film doesn't absolutely forget about her. Despite Laurie saying that Dr. Sartain was the "new" Loomis in H2018, it's absolutely Laurie who's the embodiment/extension of Dr. Samuel Loomis now. She's decidedly speaking just like him, and is unconditionally integrated with how Dr. Loomis viewed Michael now. The simpatico is complete, and it's more than just Laurie being like T2 Sarah Conner. Her perception of Michael Myers and what he is, is perfectly aligned with Dr. Loomis.

The stalking scene featuring Lindsey and Michael was very effective, and pulled off marvelously. It's shot well, and being a survivor from the original, I actually CARED whether Lindsey lived or not. Which is why I found the scene actually suspenseful. Unfortunately, most of the victims in Halloween Kills, I could literally care less than zero about. The film runs at such a break neck pace, and as a consequence, the overwhelming majority of the victims are literally just there to get slaughtered by Michael. In that sense, HK is essentially a homage to some of the Friday the 13th movies. Where any real investment with the victims, are null and void. They are there to get killed, and you know it. As intentionally hilarious and annoying as those two John guys were, I literally could give less than a flying f*** about their fates. Making the run up to their deaths feel incredibly drawn out in the films futile attempt at suspense. In short, it's like the blonde babysitter, and her boyfriend from H2018. Only in HK, this happens multiple times.

Speaking of drawn out, the whole subplot at the hospital featuring the mob turning into a frenzy over who-they-think is Michael Myers, but turns out is just a schlubby mental patient (who appears to be about as tall as Danny Devito) that escaped alongside Michael, but CLEARLY doesn't resemble Myers in the least bit, to be incredibly tedious. Again, I get the idea, I see what they were going for, but the execution was poor. Personally, that entire sequence really needed to be trimmed down significantly.

Anthony Michael Hall as Tommy Doyle was very good in his role, and you kinda get a sense that adult Tommy isn't someone you necessarily want to F with. As he comes across as one of the more braver characters in the film. Almost not even thinking twice to go outside the bar when they *think* Michael Myers is outside. Probably a bravado persona as a result in how he deals with his PTSD following the events of 1978 no doubt. His line to Laurie about, "40 years ago you protected me, let me protect you now." was a nice touch. Hated to see the guy off'ed (being a child survivor from the original, and his Paul Rudd appearance in H6/Curse), but it's understood from the get go that this was Michael's retaliation for everything that went down thus far in this timeline. I wouldn't mind if they pulled a Hawkins (yeah, Sartain stabbed the guy in the neck AND ran him over in a cop car) with Tommy, but I don't see AMH in the cast for "Halloween Ends", so that means Tommy Doyle is very dead.

Was cool to see Nurse Marion Chambers again (I can't help but think of Marilyn Chambers with that name! haha), even though she got H20'ed again. Pretty amusing she's been killed in two different Halloween revivals now. However, this time around, HK was more fan servicey by the entire thing being played out as something of a homage to the car scene in the rain from the original Halloween. I kinda wish the, "This is for Dr. Loomis" line would have been cut. Mainly due to whenever Loomis is seen, or even just mentioned, I want it to always pack a punch.

There is no doubt, that James Jude Courtney is definitively, one of the best Michael Myers actor's of all time at this stage. If there was any lingering doubt on that following H2018, he's cemented his status as one of the very best Michael's in HK. With Halloween fans, Nick Castle is the OG, set the stage, and any who follow will always be compared to him, but I think it's more than safe to say that JJC is to Michael Myers, what Kane Hodder was to Jason. A definitive incarnation, that will forever be a fan favorite. Speaking of other Myers actors,  Airon Armstrong was also damn impressive as Michael in the 1978 flashback sequences. Like, noticeably so. Well done, Airon. Well done.

Best kills would probably have to go to either the old couple, where the older guy gets to be something of a "project" for Michael all while the older lady gets to witness helplessly (shades of Leatherface sawing up Kirk right in front of his girlfriend hanging on a meat hook from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974) while slowly dying off herself, or how the Cameron kid, who's brought back from H2018, gets his. Other's were amusing, but I found those to be the most memorable.

The ending, well, I just found very lackluster in it's execution. The build up with Michael going after Allyson is outstanding, Karen coming out of no where to protect her daughter from Michael is great. Karen taking off Michael's mask, taunting him, and making him go after her instead is achieved very well. Michael soon after finding himself in a trap, where Karen reprises her "Gotcha" line from H2018 is even good. It's from there on out, where to me, the quality noticeably takes a dip. I mean, it was cool see Brackett once again in HK, but I couldn't help but think it was incredibly cringey when he delivers a quotable line from the 1978 original literally out of no where. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind fan service (and HK is VERY fan servicey), and would generally prefer that approach over the more recent trite use of "subverting expectations", but it just didn't come off well to me. Like at all. Michael taking a licking, but keeps on ticking after the gang thinks he's dead was expected (cause this one points at a very much supernatural take on Myers), but the stylistic approach in how he begins killing each and every one really felt off. That entire part just didn't really fit in anywhere with how Halloween has been presented. As it almost came across as way too edited, or they were rushing thru the filming of this scene (I don't even recall seeing any wide shots), and what we got is what we got. Which was more surreal and dreamlike than what has been typically firmly established when it comes to Halloween movies. Honestly, it actually came across like something from the rejected H4 Dennis Etchison script, where Michael is not presented as a unstoppable killer in a white mask, and blue mechanic jumpsuit, but rather as a shape shifting supernatural ghostly spectre. In addition, I thought the scene with Karen going up alone into the Judith Myers room to gaze out the window literally right after being pursued by a lethal serial killer came across as incredibly pretentious, or overtly melodramatic (similar to the whole mob chasing Danny Devito's mental patient cousin bit from earlier). Especially so by incorporating this, I guess, "vision" of a child Michael Myers standing there looking out the, what I would call, 'motive window' before she decides she, apparently, needs to do the same. It flat out felt like the movie needed to give Michael a big WIN, and killing Karen in Judith's Myer's room (in similar fashion), would be just the closer that would get that done. A more realistic take, would have been Karen going straight to her daughter, who was just attacked herself (in addition to witnessing her boyfriend getting murdered right in front of her as well as losing her father earlier in the night), and holding onto her tightly as they (probably) would be returned to the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital. That's what one would expect a parent to do. That's what I would have expected from Karen in the H2018 film. This just veers off into left field, by having her hang around and explore the Myers house by herself. Even with the cops around, this was a stretch when concerning her character. I mean, I could kinda see Laurie doing something like that, since it's all-too-well established in this timeline that it's actually Laurie who is the one with the one-sided obsession, but with Karen ... it's rather dubious.

With HK, the representation of Michael Myers appears to be going right back to over explaining things. Much like H2 in 1981. What made Michael scary in the 1978 classic, was that we, as an audience, were not privy to a whole hell of a lot of information when it came to Michael. His motivations. Almost nothing. Was he just simply a escaped deranged mental patient, or perhaps actually evil incarnate? Something in between? What little we get comes from only Dr. Loomis, but it's concise, and doesn't give too much away. There was a big mystery when it came to Michael, as you could watch the Carpenter film, project whatever your conclusions were onto Michael (whether he has supernatural abilities or not), and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. Thus making him The Shape. The 2018 film chose to do away with every sequel that attempted to explain Michael and his abilities/motivations, and just acknowledge the 1978 original. Laurie, the pod casters, Dr. Sartain, all of them wanted to force some sort of a motivation/connection, but as we saw in H2018, there simply isn't one. Michael was decidedly the mysterious emotionless embodiment of evil. Just as he was in H1978.

With HK, I found that there was a glaring tendency, literally almost from the beginning, to explain and elaborate on Michael's powers and motivations. Which goes into the whole deal of Michael having a need/desire to go to the Myers house, and stare out his sister's window. Course this was addressed much later in the film, but even in the 1978 flashback, the young Hawkins is having a conversation with another cop while they are looking for Michael, and the topic suddenly shifts to the revelation that Michael, even as a child, displayed this behavior of looking out his sister's window. With the cop friend thinking it was weird, and feeling sorry for Michael. I remember watching this, and kept thinking, "Please shut up.  Please shut up. This isn't necessary."

Then we also get Laurie narrating at the end, about how every time Michael kills, he "transcends". The inference being that with each kill, Michael "transcends" into a higher being of evil I suppose. We see Michael has human like qualities (hiding in the gun room while Laurie's house is ablaze, freaking out when his mask is off or even messed with), but then we go a step further, with Laurie further stating that Michael's "true power" comes from fear and emotional distress of his victims (which is evident due to Michael's looming stature in Haddonfield even four decades later). Thus, making Michael Myers DEFINITIVELY supernatural again in this timeline. As he is feeding off of killing, victims, and terror. With the implication being that Michael's supernatural abilities is WHY he cannot be killed like a normal human being. He's beyond that. Which the group that Tommy, and Brackett are apart of found out.

Ok. Sure. Fine. I don't really have a issue with that, nor did I ever have a issue with the indication of Michael having some sort of supernatural connection with "Samhain" from H2 1981. It's just something of a cheat in my view, especially since one of the major points of doing away with everything but the original, was to return Michael as the mysterious Shape that he was back in the 1978 Carpenter film for this timeline.

All in all, I thought it was a generally good Halloween movie. Highs, and lows for sure. More good, than outright bad I'd say, and I would probably give it a 7 1/2, or maybe an 8 out of 10 overall. I've only seen this once in the theater (I think the 1978 sequences alone make it worth the trip to the theater!), and my rating could change either way, but it's overall enjoyable, and one of the better Halloween sequels out there. It's a film that has both good and absolutely outstanding stuff in it, but also has other parts that, glaringly, stick out like a sore thumb. HK is REALLY good with the KILLS (pretty much a hybrid of the gore found in Rob Zombie's Halloween movies and H2018), but I found it lacked with pretty much most of the characters. Ultimately, the film didn't feel nearly as 'complete' as the 2018 film did. Which parallels with H1978 and H2 1981. You really have to see H2018, to get really anything out of HK.



END OF SPOILERS




I might list a ranking for all 12 Halloween movies later. Since Colors brought the topic up. Looks like we're opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to the original H2, but we're in agreement on H5 and HResurrection being at the VERY bottom of the barrel.



Now, onto Halloween Ends.

[thecolorsblend]

SPOILERS

There is no doubt, that James Jude Courtney is definitively, one of the best Michael Myers actor's of all time at this stage. If there was any lingering doubt on that following H2018, he's cemented his status as one of the very best Michael's in HK. With Halloween fans, Nick Castle is the OG, set the stage, and any who follow will always be compared to him, but I think it's more than safe to say that JJC is to Michael Myers, what Kane Hodder was to Jason. A definitive incarnation, that will forever be a fan favorite.

I basically agree. Nick Castle is a sentimental favorite for me. Because of that, it's hard for me to say JJC is the superior Myers. And yet, all signs point in that direction. So yeah. Much love and affection to Castle. But I think this is JJC's character now.

Before H2018, I didn't get much into the pissing contests over who played the role best. I wasn't big on Dick Warlock. But otherwise, I liked all the actors who played the character and appreciated the qualities they individually brought. So, I hope it means something when I say that (with all due respect to Castle), JJC is definitive at this point.

Speaking of other Myers actors,  Airon Armstrong was also damn impressive as Michael in the 1978 flashback sequences. Like, noticeably so. Well done, Airon. Well done.

I was shocked to discover the fact that a different actor played the role in those scenes. But he did a fine job. A FINE job! When the inevitable reboot/retcon/whatever comes along (which I also can't wait for), I think the production should give Armstrong some serious consideration. That entire sequence was a massive treat for fans.

Then we also get Laurie narrating at the end, about how every time Michael kills, he "transcends". The inference being that with each kill, Michael "transcends" into a higher being of evil I suppose. We see Michael has human like qualities (hiding in the gun room while Laurie's house is ablaze, freaking out when his mask is off or even messed with), but then we go a step further, with Laurie further stating that Michael's "true power" comes from fear and emotional distress of his victims (which is evident due to Michael's looming stature in Haddonfield even four decades later). Thus, making Michael Myers DEFINITIVELY supernatural again in this timeline. As he is feeding off of killing, victims, and terror. With the implication being that Michael's supernatural abilities is WHY he cannot be killed like a normal human being. He's beyond that. Which the group that Tommy, and Brackett are apart of found out.

Ok. Sure. Fine. I don't really have a issue with that, nor did I ever have a issue with the indication of Michael having some sort of supernatural connection with "Samhain" from H2 1981. It's just something of a cheat in my view, especially since one of the major points of doing away with everything but the original, was to return Michael as the mysterious Shape that he was back in the 1978 Carpenter film for this timeline.

I took that line less literally. I've only seen the movie the once. But I thought Laurie was basically using a metaphor. The legend of Michael Myers grows stronger, the fear of him grows stronger with every life he takes. I didn't think she necessarily meant that he was supernatural in some way in a literal sense.

Maybe I misunderstood what she meant?

Other stuff. For me, the best kill sequence in the movie is probably the firefighters. Michael is *PISSED* about having been left to die. So, when a fresh batch of new victims come along for him to vent his frustration, he doesn't waste the opportunity. I love how the firefighters outside the house instantly realized this episode just went from a rescue into a fight. And when you think about it, firemen are somewhere in the top ten list of non-professionals you DO NOT want to mess around with.

The fact that Myers cut through them like a hot knife through butter (A) did a lot to reestablish his bona fides in this movie and (B) illustrate that he's taking the gloves off this time around.

Other stuff. Another thing that works well for me is how HK works as the second half of H2018 that I at least never realized was missing.

All in all, I could bang away about this movie all day long. But maybe it's enough to say that I dig it and can't wait to watch it again.

[The Joker]

I basically agree. Nick Castle is a sentimental favorite for me. Because of that, it's hard for me to say JJC is the superior Myers. And yet, all signs point in that direction. So yeah. Much love and affection to Castle. But I think this is JJC's character now.

Before H2018, I didn't get much into the pissing contests over who played the role best. I wasn't big on Dick Warlock. But otherwise, I liked all the actors who played the character and appreciated the qualities they individually brought. So, I hope it means something when I say that (with all due respect to Castle), JJC is definitive at this point.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. All of the previous Michael Myers actors bring certain qualities that are appreciated, but JJC really sticks out above the pack. Dick Warlock comes across like a sweetheart of a guy in interviews I've seen him in, but unfortunately, he does come across as rather small in stature in H2. Like noticeably so. I think he's even made light of this in self deprecating jokes during interviews. Don Shanks seems like a cool guy, but good grief, I really, REALLY loath the H5 mask. I wouldn't go so far as to say the mask hinders his performance, but it certainly doesn't do him any favors either.

I was shocked to discover the fact that a different actor played the role in those scenes. But he did a fine job. A FINE job! When the inevitable reboot/retcon/whatever comes along (which I also can't wait for), I think the production should give Armstrong some serious consideration. That entire sequence was a massive treat for fans.

Yeah, Airon Armstrong's brief but memorable flashback scenes as Michael kinda makes me wish there could be a "in between" prequel set sometime after 1978, but well before 2018, where Michael escaped, and Dr. Loomis has to go track him down again. Unfortunately, that would be stretching things a bit too far, and would lessen the dramatic impact of Michael not being in the "wild" since 1978. As you say, he should be given strong consideration whenever the next Reboot/Retconned timeline inevitably happens.

I took that line less literally. I've only seen the movie the once. But I thought Laurie was basically using a metaphor. The legend of Michael Myers grows stronger, the fear of him grows stronger with every life he takes. I didn't think she necessarily meant that he was supernatural in some way in a literal sense.

Maybe I misunderstood what she meant?

I just think there's something to her speech about Michael, which sounds very Dr. Loomis-y, and how even Dr. Loomis himself from the recording from H2018, where he's firmly recommending killing Michael, and going the extra mile in cremating his body afterwards. Not even referring to Michael as "him", but "It". "It needs to die!". Evidently, Laurie is on the same page. Speaking of Michael as not simply a man, but something else entirely. It seems like HK further plays this out, as Michael is able to absorb heavy blows, stabbings, getting shot, ect. Rather than appearing just even a little bit fatigued following all the damage inflicted upon Michael from the group at the end, he just sits right back up like literally nothing happened and goes on the offensive like an unstoppable supernatural force.

I'm not even sure Hawkins himself is taking Laurie's speech about Michael literally, because I think she, like Dr. Loomis, can easily be considered unhinged in how she speaks about Michael. However, I think as this timeline progresses, Michael's abilities are proving both of their cases. That's the narrative perception that the film appears to be going for.

Other stuff. For me, the best kill sequence in the movie is probably the firefighters. Michael is *PISSED* about having been left to die. So, when a fresh batch of new victims come along for him to vent his frustration, he doesn't waste the opportunity. I love how the firefighters outside the house instantly realized this episode just went from a rescue into a fight. And when you think about it, firemen are somewhere in the top ten list of non-professionals you DO NOT want to mess around with.

The fact that Myers cut through them like a hot knife through butter (A) did a lot to reestablish his bona fides in this movie and (B) illustrate that he's taking the gloves off this time around.

Agreed. That Michael vs Firefighters scene is going to be one of the more iconic moments in Halloween history in showing off how much of a badass Michael Myers truly is. I should have spoken more about this in my review, but I think you're description of the scene is nicely put.

[Silver Nemesis]

I watched Halloween '18 last night. It was shown in a double bill with Poltergeist (1982), which is a pretty good combination for this time of year. I figured I'd best post my thoughts here rather than in the Halloween Kills thread. Spoilers follow.

Overall I didn't love Halloween '18 as much as most fans seem to, but I think it probably is the best instalment in the franchise since Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. It's certainly the best since H20. At the end of the day, it is another retread of the Michael Myers plot and follows the same formula as the previous entries: the town is haunted by Michael's earlier killing(s), he escapes from captivity, kills a mechanic and steals his clothes, comes to Haddonfield pursued by his psychiatrist, the psychiatrist works with the local police, babysitters are murdered, the final girl(s) confronts Michael, etc. Halloween '18 does at least attempt to subvert some of those formulaic elements by having the Dr. Loomis substitute turn out to be a maniac, and having Laurie turn the tables on Michael in the final act by luring him into a trap, but it never deviates too far from the familiar patterns established by the earlier movies. Ultimately most slasher films are formulaic, and this one is no exception. But for the kind of film it is, I thought it was fairly well crafted and atmospheric.

The characterisation of Laurie Strode was interesting. The H20/Resurrection timeline portrayed her as haunted by her experiences in the original film, but nowhere near as damaged as she is in the 2018 movie. Her trauma seemed much more intense here, and JLC portrayed her bitterness and paranoia effectively. However, I'm not sure I buy the whole survival nut angle if this is a direct sequel to the 1978 film that ignores everything else in between. I'd have no trouble buying it if this was the Laurie who'd lived through the events of H20. If that was the case, then her anticipation of Michael's return, and her dread of its inevitability, would make more sense. But here she only encountered him once forty years ago, and she has no reason to believe that there's anything supernatural about him. His invincibility, as well as his pattern of escaping captivity and returning to Haddonfield, weren't really established until the sequels. It almost felt as though the 2018 Laurie was tapping into the shared trauma of her counterparts in those other timelines, even though the events of those films are apocryphal to this one.

The teenage characters are mostly boring and obnoxious, which is only to be expected in this genre. It makes the audience not mind so much when the killer turns them into mincemeat. Saying that, Halloween '18 also contains some more disturbing murder scenes that are clearly intended to prod the viewer out of their comfort zone: these being the killing of the little boy and the scene where Michael butchers a woman while her baby is crying in the adjacent room. These scenes help maintain the film's edge and remind us that Michael Myers is an evil psychopath, not the toothless franchise mascot he was at risk of becoming circa 2002. I personally prefer the 1978 film's more subtle approach to violence, but at the same time I understand the need to satisfy modern audiences' expectations concerning the level of gore. Especially after Zombie upped the ante so much in his reboot.

On the technical side of things, the film looks good. The dominant colours are a seasonally-appropriate mixture of orange and black; the black being achieved through use of darkness, and the orange through mise- en-scène rather than heavy-handed lens filters. If they'd filmed this movie in the early noughties, I imagine they might have used filters to drown every shot in an unnatural orange tint. But here they convey the prevalence of orange more subtly using props and set design: e.g. the orange candles in the background of the restaurant, or the orange tiles on the walls of the hospital. Little touches like that contribute to the film's visual character and evoke a more seasonal ambience than many of the earlier Halloween films managed to conjure. Needless to say the minimalist score is also effective, combining familiar themes from the original film with some newer tracks that I thought echoed Mark Isham's score for The Hitcher (1986).

Carpenter referenced Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho in the original Halloween, and there were a couple of pleasingly Hitchcockian moments in the 2018 film too. The first was the static shot looking through the window of a house where we see Michael's face reflected in the glass. Michael then moves out of shot before re-entering it as he strolls past a window in the background, communicating to the viewer that he is walking around the side of the house. He then re-enters the shot a third time, only now he is inside the house and calmly stalking the occupant who has yet to notice his presence. This exemplifies one of Hitchcock's classic techniques of feeding the audience information the protagonists lack in order to create suspense. Another very Hitchcockian moment is the Rear Window-like scene where Laurie sees Michael through one window of a house and a policeman through another, but the two men cannot see each other. Again, it alerts the audience to the danger a character is in without the character perceiving it himself, and the resulting effect is one of suspense.

The weakest aspect of the film for me was the script. Obviously it was necessary for the plot that Allyson not be informed of Michael's return, but the scene where her boyfriend spontaneously throws away her phone felt to me like a contrivance. The unresolved nature of that whole subplot and the boyfriend's fate was also a tad elliptical, though judging from previous comments in this thread I understand that this is something the sequels will address. There were one or two other moments when the characters had to display below-average intelligence in order to facilitate a set piece or keep the plot moving, but again, that's par for the course in most slasher movies.

So overall I thought it was solid, but I didn't love it. I'd definitely rank it above Halloweens 5, 6, Resurrection and the first Rob Zombie movie (I still haven't seen the second), and possibly above H20. But I didn't like it as much as the first four Halloweens. The best entry in the franchise is still the 1978 film, but my personal favourite remains Season of the Witch. I think the Myers storyline is thoroughly played out at this point, and if the franchise must continue then I'd rather see it revisit the Cochran/Silver Shamrock storyline than rehash the Michael plot yet again. But I'm still willing to give Halloween Kills and Ends a look at some point in the future.

[thecolorsblend]

On its own merits, I enjoy the movie. I can buy the extent and scope of Laurie's trauma. She was the most emotionally fragile in H1978. Her entire social group was brutally murdered and she only escaped death herself by reaching down deep to find strength to allow her to survive. And she had plenty of luck too. Plus, her attacker is still alive and has already demonstrated his ability to escape custody once before.

Taken together, I can buy that the psychological cocktail Laurie is working with has driven her into some pretty extreme directions.

One part of the movie that esp works for me is the opening bit when Aaron pulls out Michael's mask. It's clear from that moment that Michael has pretty much established himself as the alpha male among all the other cuckoos in the asylum. The other inmates pretty much lose it when Michael is in proximity to his mask. Even the guard dog is starting to freak out a little. That moment does a lot to reestablish just how dangerous Michael is.

And it's enough to make you think that even though Michael is the one in chains, you start wondering who the real prisoner is in that asylum.

The Sartain bit remain controversial to a lot of fans. And I don't completely understand why. Originally, you're supposed to think that Sartain is the new Loomis in the movie. But I would've found that boring. So, the revelation that Sartain had his own agenda through the film works better for me since it means he's not a Loomis knockoff. I buy that a lot better than I would Sartain being presented as Loomis ver. 2.0.

Like SN, I have a tremendous affection for H4 and H20. I'll defend both of them to the last. But H2018 simply offers better dramatic potential for continuing the story than those films did.

[The Joker]

On the topic of trauma, I would probably lean more towards how Laurie was depicted in H20. Though at the same time, I can easily go with how she deals with her trauma in H2018, by being much more proactive as a consequence, and pretty much a excessive survivalist.

One thing about HK, that really further expanded with what was touched upon in H2018, is that it's not only Laurie that suffered trauma, but other people who had encounters (brief or not) with Michael on Halloween night 1978. With in how Michael is brought up by name within HK, where he's not even present, it sure seems like the film evokes the notion that Michael's legend or presence within the town's population, hasn't ever truly diminished despite his decades of being locked up at Smith's Grove Psychiatric Hospital. Essentially becoming very much a real life "boogeyman" for the resident's of Haddonfield. As even the mere account that Michael is stalking around Haddonfield once again, quickly drives people of all backgrounds into a literal frenzy to get rid of him once and for all.

H4 and H6 both address the conception of how Michael's legend is perceived with the people of Haddonfield, but the Blumhouse trilogy seems to have really amped it up to a noticeable degree. If one can accept this concept, then it's understandable how Laurie turned out in this Blumhouse timeline. Especially so since she was very much a primary target on that '78 Halloween night. In all likelihood for Laurie, it was a choice of being either zealously proactive, or sink into substance abuse, and later probable suicide.

[thecolorsblend]

I just think there's something to her speech about Michael, which sounds very Dr. Loomis-y, and how even Dr. Loomis himself from the recording from H2018, where he's firmly recommending killing Michael, and going the extra mile in cremating his body afterwards. Not even referring to Michael as "him", but "It". "It needs to die!". Evidently, Laurie is on the same page. Speaking of Michael as not simply a man, but something else entirely. It seems like HK further plays this out, as Michael is able to absorb heavy blows, stabbings, getting shot, ect. Rather than appearing just even a little bit fatigued following all the damage inflicted upon Michael from the group at the end, he just sits right back up like literally nothing happened and goes on the offensive like an unstoppable supernatural force.

I'm not even sure Hawkins himself is taking Laurie's speech about Michael literally, because I think she, like Dr. Loomis, can easily be considered unhinged in how she speaks about Michael. However, I think as this timeline progresses, Michael's abilities are proving both of their cases. That's the narrative perception that the film appears to be going for.

Something that muddies the water a bit is that Carpenter's balance was usually perfect. Every time Michael was shown in a borderline supernatural light in H78, the moment was immediately followed by something that humanized him. Or vice versa, a very human moment was followed with something arguably supernatural. He always made sure to give conflicting impressions. For example, Laurie tears his mask off and we see a very human face. But then the mfer survives six gunshots and a two story fall.

Carpenter's successors tend not to do that. Rob Zombie would show him in an almost exclusively human light. Or Joe Chappelle would show him in a primarily supernatural light. They never even tried getting the balance right, mostly.

And David Gordon Green has given contradictory stuff too. But not in the same rapid fire way that Carpenter did. I think that's one of the reasons people are on such different pages from each other with these movies. Not criticizing Green. After all, a director's got to do what a director's got to do. I'm just saying, you know? He's not demonstrating the same mastery as Carpenter, that's all. But honestly, you could argue that even Carpenter wouldn't be capable of pulling it off a second time either.

It's been announced that HE will pick up four years after HK. Under the circumstances, that was probably inevitable. But I do wonder how that changes the story that was being told. If it changes at all.

Anyway...