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.

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.

If you see the very first one or remember it very well, right from the start you will see the connection. Yes the credits indicate we get the "true"(?) sequel to the original Halloween. And there are so many nice little treats spread throughout the movie (an actress from the first movie reappearing in a different role, but also shots that are almost the same as in the original ... but sometimes there is a twist for the viewers).

The original two main actors reprising their roles too (even if some may argue you can't tell with Myers because of his mask). This really is a service to fans and a movie that cherishes the original. Of course since the myriads of sequels introduced a lot of stuff, most of which is thrown out the window (no pun intended). One of the primary things being that like in the original, the Killer and the chosen victim are not related. Even so they have a special bond/relationship. So the only movie you need to watch before this, is the Original movie from 1978 - it will be worth your time. The ending of this new one may feel for some like a let down, but it is what it is and even if it feels like a letdown, it still sort of works in the whole picture

After Resurrection and the Rob Zombie films, it's an understatement to say that Halloween (2018) was a pleasant surprise. Laurie Strode was given the T2 Sarah Connor treatment and is now a formidable badass, having waited forty years for Michael Myers to escape prison so that she can kill him. This is the showdown we've been clamoring for.

If there's one thing Halloween (2018) gets right, it's the protagonist. Laurie Strode is treated with respect here, unlike in other sequels (I'm looking at you, Resurrection). She's been training for forty years, preparing, praying for Michael to break out of prison so she can kill him. Her daughter had to learn how to fight at a very young age, and eventually Laurie was deemed unfit to be a parent. Because of this, they have a strained relationship, and it's believable. There's even a satisfying payoff at the end. Horror filmmakers take note: a little character development goes a long way.

There's also Laurie's granddaughter, and this is where the flaws start to creep in. The teenagers and their drama was the weakest aspect of the movie. Sadly, most of the second act is devoted to these characters that we really don't know or care about. There's Laurie's granddaughter, her boyfriend, the comic relief guy, her ditzy friend, and her friend's boyfriend. That's the extent of their characters. Naturally, they're only there as fodder for Michael (except the boyfriend who mysteriously disappears from the movie), but the fact is that we're wasting time watching these characters interact when there's a much more compelling story on the sidelines.

Comedy is used fairly appropriately in the film, the little boy being the clear standout. But there are a handful of farcical bits that are either ill-timed or simply not funny, or a combination of both. This prevents the movie from developing an overall atmosphere. This isn't so much a problem in the third act, thankfully, but the finale would've been more effective if a bleak atmosphere had been established earlier in the film. A few more wide shots of the streets of Haddonfield in the fall weather; more shots of Michael standing in the background eerily out of focus; limiting the comic relief to one, maybe two characters max; any of these could've been helped.

That's not to say that the direction is poor. Far from it. This is the closest the franchise has felt like a Carpenter movie since the original. Gordon Green does a good job of keeping Michael in the shadows - even unmasked, it's difficult to make out his face. You really get the sense that he is, purely and simply, evil. Background action is also prevalent and well done (as in, there's not a music sting whenever Michael comes into frame). Again, a breath of fresh air after the Zombie films which had the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

This is an excellent sequel to Halloween and a thoroughly enjoyable, well crafted slasher movie on its own. It's wonderful to see the Boogeyman on the big screen again, and now he has finally met his match. Is it a perfect movie? Absolutely not. But Halloween (2018) is something to be celebrated if only for one thing: it proves that slashers can still be scary.

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.