Halloween

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.

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.

Halloween wipes the sequel slate clean, pretending that Michael Myers was captured right after the events of the first film and has been kept in a sanitarium for the past 40 years. Some idiots in charge think it would be a great idea to repeat the events from 40 years ago and transfer him to another facility the night before Halloween. Obviously, he breaks out and returns to Haddonfield, killing any random people he can find, but Laurie Strode, his sole surviving victim from 40 years ago has been waiting for him. Why she's been waiting is a bit of a mystery since this film eliminates the brother/sister bond they had from part 2 forward.

This is the biggest issue Halloween can't overcome - the question of why it needed to be told. It's well shot, Michael looks threatening for the first time in a while, and the decision to bring John Carpenter back to score the film was a wise one, but it's a movie that doesn't need to exist at all. We learn nothing about what Laurie Strode has been doing these past 40 years and she becomes a one dimensional basket case. The way the script bends over backwards to get Laurie and Michael to reunite is painful and involves an idiotic twist.

I half expected the usual, cheap thrills, jumpy moments, and liberties taken with the legacy of Michael Myers, but....

....a total and utter surprise, this was a quality film, one that felt as if it had a level of respect for its original, it respected its roots, but forgot all those that came between, perhaps no bad thing.

Michael Myers the man, he transformed years back into some kind of superhero villain, unable to die, able to die and come back life, here he's treated as just a man, very well done.

The writing is fantastic, I loved the story, and how it played out, if only previous films were this standard. The music was absolutely fantastic, I loved it, the best of the original.

Gripping, well acted, exciting, intriguing. Ranks second after the original. 8/10