User Reviews (1,601)

Add a Review

  • Rating 8.3/10 Good acting performance by Jamie Lee Curtis. Great horror movie & great Squeal !!
  • Just when you think a cringe-worthy act of heroism is imminent.... think again.

    Yes, I was expecting this to have numerous moments of cheese... How wrong I was.

    As an avid fan of horror movies, I am totally aware of the shambolic efforts that have graced our screens in years past. I was expecting the worst. But...

    I highly recommend watching this, tipsy, in the darkness and alone.... a that's how I did it. If you watch it with someone, make sure they shut the hell up!

    How could anyone enjoy a film properly with someone waffling in the background?

    EXCELLENT!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *Very minor spoilers*

    I saw this at H40 last weekend. When I left the screening I couldn't help but feel as if there's been a lot of marketing and misdirection thrown out there about this film, because watching the trailers and then the film itself it becomes obvious that Halloween (2018) was heavily reworked and edited.

    Aside from that, the script is laughably bad (wait until you meet one of the new doctors from Smith's Grove and Allyson's horribly written father, Toby), the character of The Shape has been reduced to a really dumb, careless random murderer behind a mask (goodbye stalking scenes), the pacing of the film feels entirely like an action movie and lacks the "slow burn" of the original, and some characters just disappear from the story and you never hear from them again. It is NOT at all the dark, brooding film suggested in trailer #2.

    Only positives, for me: Andi Matichak is fantastic, as are many of the teen actors. The first 1/3 is actually very good. When Michael arrives in Haddonfield, however, the subpar writing and direction really begins to reveal itself.

    Overall, it's so disappointingly bad. The positive reviews seem somewhat disingenuous, probably because of the #metoo subplot (which is nice, but doesn't in and of itself make a film "good") and less of a reflection of the actual quality of the movie overall. All of the TIFF viewers that raved about this should be ashamed, they clearly got caught up in being at the premiere and having the actors in their presence, so they overhyped the movie to the rest of us.

    So, so disappointed. The original "Halloween II," somehow, is the far superior film.
  • 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
  • lojitsu8 February 2019
    Here's The Lowedown on "Halloween" (R - 2018 - US)...Evil is Real!

    Genre: Horror/Slasher My Score: 8.2

    Cast=7 Acting=6 Plot=9 Ending=9 Story=7 Scare=7 Jump=8 F/X=10 Kills=10 Blood=9

    Laurie Strode confronts her long-time foe Michael Myers, the masked figure who has haunted her since she narrowly escaped his killing spree on Halloween night four decades ago.

    "He was not her brother, that's something that people made up." I think my favorite part is that it brought back some of the feel of the original films. The story pulls a days of future past and resets the timeline...turning the franchise into a giant etch-a-sketch. The dynamic of Laurie and Michael's lives was really fascinating and adds depth to the plot. I think this is a solid watch for slasher fans and a must see for fans of the franchise.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I enjoyed Carpenter's soundtrack and seeing Nick Castle and Jamie L. Curtis in action, but I was left with some puzzling questions.... Really, I mean, a mental institution allowing a psychotic inmate to be yelled at by an investigative reporter to pick up his killing mask on the 40 year anniversary of the killings? The state of Illinois allows the original killing mask to be borrowed by a reporter? The father saying that he spilled peanut butter on his penis? Transporting a notorious serial killer in a bus with low level offenders? And how did those reporters just happen to run into Myers at that gas station? That black guy with the big cowboy hat? Low brow humor that doesn't work to fill in the holes? The new doctor Loomis wanting to see what it's like to kill people? Myers could have snapped Laurie's throat at least three times but kept playing with her? Laurie so over the top ridiculous she builds an underground bunker under her kitchen? Then she burns her compound to the ground? Was that a victory for her, to burn her house down? A total let down for me....... I didn't even think the Halloween background setting was all that strong either.... Another B entry into the Halloween franchise...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'll start by noting that the 1978 "Halloween" has long been my favorite horror movie, and beyond that, generally, one of my favorite movies of all time. I've followed the development, production, and marketing of this sequel very closely and have been rapt with anticipation to see it, given that the director, cast, and crew have long cooed about the project's return to the simplistic menace and terror of the original. Well, I'm not sure what happened to that vision, but it wasn't actualized. And I'm really perplexed as to why audiences and critics are universally lauding it as the sequel "Halloween" has deserved for the past 40 years. While I'll openly acknowledge that no sequel could probably do justice to John Carpenter's singular mastery, I dare say that "Halloween II" was more tonally consistent with the original (excepting its considerable flaws, including the addition of the bloodline motive and Michael's portrayal as a glacially paced, unkillable bogey), and if we're talking about awaiting a long-overdue Laurie-and-Michael reunion/showdown, I legitimately think "Halloween H20" may have surpassed this film in quality had Michael been outfitted with a less laughable and cringe-worthy mask.

    This film's director, David Gordon Green, has sold himself as a lifelong admirer, lover, and devotee of John Carpenter's original, and while glimmers of that fanboydom shine through periodically, if not continually, they do so in the most ham-handed fashion imaginable (as when Laurie's thrown from a second-story balcony, only to disappear from view immediately thereafter, a la the conclusion of the original). I applaud and was nerdily delighted to see that the opening and closing credits were captured in the same orange font as the original's, but that fact is hardly worth praising when weighed against the sheer stupidity of the bombastic opening sequence (featuring the deplorable British podcasters producers) and the lackluster, anticlimactic conclusion.

    A lot's been said and reported, too, of this film's significance in its depiction of a female protagonist dealing with the long-term effects of trauma and striving to reclaim her narrative. Fair enough, but that places upon Jamie Lee Curtis the onus of delivering a pretty bare, fierce, and no-holds-barred Laurie Strode performance. And does she? Well, if you've seen the trailers, you've seen the best of it. But JLC can hardly be blamed for the travesty that is hackneyed writing. Perhaps not every traumatized woman would resort to reclusion in a heavily militarized hermitage and restless rumination over and obsession with an event that occurred 40 years earlier. Laurie's struggles with PTSD are every bit the caricature that the ad campaigns suggest, with her booby-trapped home and arsenal of semi-automatic weapons. In point of fact, she feels more like Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor than Laurie Strode, and whether or not that's a desirable transfiguration is, I guess, in the eye of the beholder.

    But above all, I think this film's major transgressions are (1) that is isn't in ANY remote way scary, and (2) that it totally fails to capture any of the original film's essence of simplistic creepiness (which was, after all, the entire point and vision behind retconning out the sequel mythology that followed). Lest we forget that, in the original, Michael slit a chick's throat after choking her, stabbed a guy (once), and choked another chick with a telephone cord. Here, he brutally massacres victims in a manner that's totally on-brand for all of the stupid sequels that were so painstakingly left behind: he rips out teeth, decapitates, impales, and bludgeons, much like Rob Zombie's incarnation did. There's nothing simple, sophisticated, or high-brow about anything that's being served here. And while it may be a stretch to categorize any horror movie as "classy," Carpenter's original came damn close to that distinction. The "genre-defying" Green is fundamentally a humorist, and I don't think that he and his retinue, despite their admiration of and purported respect for the source material, were up to the task of producing a sequel worthy of the original (and when you forcibly scrap every intervening entry in the franchise, for better or worse, that's an expectation you set).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Love horror movies. Thus. Love Halloween movies. Highly anticipated this one and just saw it. So, of course, was plowed with great hype coming in. Must admit I could see some holes. For one, I wasn't a huge fan of the Dr. turning mental in Michael's defense. If one thing Loomis did was pursue Myers relentlessly to kill, while maybe losing some marbles along the way, yet staying grounded. As a former bartender though, you sometimes lose your mind along with the mindless. But the rest is great. Gotta love the numerous references to even discarded sequels past. For the love of Jamie Lee, and you can't love her; Mike's the star. And if you want horror, he's horror. And comes out killing like he hasn't done it in like...40 years!! A well done follow up. Michael burned once (although out of this timeline) and lived; I'll hope he pulled it off again!!
  • Don't listen to the wanna be critics who know very little about the Halloween franchise or films in general this movie delivers for what it was made and advertised for, a return to form to the original ingredients that made John Carpenter's Halloween back in 1978 so good. This movie can't be ground breaking since Halloween is already ground breaking, the father of all slasher movies with his grandpa obviously being Psycho.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It blows my mind that I am saying this but this movie just is not good at ALL. It had no idea what style it was trying to be. It involved characters that weren't needed and were fleeting. It still acts as though Laurie is Michael's sister even though she isn't and I did not believe that Laurie could be that crazy after 40 years, still stuck on that one night. The characters were not interesting or likable. They snuck in comedy at wrong moments. The pacing was off. It would rev up, slow down, take a sharp left turn, then slow down again, rev up for a second. There was little to no suspense or build-up. It was as though they just hoped having the Myers character would make everyone happy and they did not care to make anything else enjoyable. They just did not know what they were going for with this one. I compare it to sitting in a room with 3 TVs that each have completely different programs on each and you're taking turns watching all 3 at once. That's how inconsistent this movie felt. I could not wait for it to be over...
  • As a filmmaker, I never post reviews nor have ever involved myself with anything on IMDB. But I will say this. I saw the world premiere last night at TIFF... it was fantastic. Genre, horror and halloween fans will love it. Being a huge Halloween fan myself, I was immensely happy to see how well they respected the source material and the characters. Fantastic job to the entire team on this film. It deserves all the praise. Go see it as soon as it comes out. Myers is back. Deadly, brooding, and real. Jamie leads the drama to all new levels.
  • I'll keep this brief to avoid spoilers for those who haven't seen it. This movie does everything right and includes almost everything a fan loved about the original. The atmosphere also feels like Halloween, also a good modern but vintage vibe. Michael and Laurie are also given justice in this film for being well made once again. Blumhouse did an amazing job with one of our most beloved characters and they need to start giving all our other characters the same treatment as this version of Michael Myers.
  • TribalWho9 September 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    Seen at TIFF. Almost entire cast was there, inc. the Shape.

    Halloween returns for it's final chapter, and manages to deliver everything you'd expect from a Halloween sequel, and some things you won't see coming. The film opens with the documentary crew visiting Michael, a scene that's been covered quite extensively in the trailers. You'd expect things to go bad immediately but the film pulls back (not before the intro played, to Carpenter's wonderful score) to introduce its key players and gives them time to breath, setting up the status quo and making them more relatable.

    With three generations of Strodes to choose from, there's certainly something for everyone to be able to relate to. Jamie Lee Curtis's Laurie has spent the last few decades getting ready to take Michael out, isolating herself and destroying all her relationships in the process. She has two failed marriages behind her and no relationship with her daughter. Only her granddaughter seems to pay any attention to her, as much as she can anyway, as she enters the movie in the throws of teenage romance, with all the angst and supporting characters such a romance requires. Throw in the Sherrif, Michael's doctor and the documentary crew in the mix, and the movie certainly does a great job of setting up a diverse buffet for Michael to slice and dice his way through. And that, he does. Boasting some truly memorable kills, Halloween does not hold back on the violence and gore, instead using it to build up dread throughout the movie. In fact, the whole film is an exercise in dread, slowly building up tension throughout its runtime and exploding into a glorious, bloody finale.

    While the films comes close to going off the rails trying to keep all its moving parts together (there's an odd subplot that pops up halfway through and one that I did not see coming, but never really goes anywhere and is STOMPED out pretty quickly), it manages to hold it all together and deliver a fantastic (hopefully) final entry in franchise, with some fist-pumping moments sure to be memorialized in pop-cult history. Excellent performances by Jamie Lee Curtis and Judy Greer.

    Some points to note: -There is a lot of Scream 4 in here. From self-aware teens to a toughened-up, table-turning protagonist. Not necessarily a bad thing. -I thought this was a sequel to H1 and H2, but early on they make a point of saying Michael Meyers has killed 5 people - which could not include H2's body count? -It's a pleasure to see Michael Meyers finally cement his position as the Boogeyman of Haddonfield, part of it done during a wonderful long-take.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For starters, I'm a huge "Halloween" buff, so I was anticipating this "recalibration" since it was announced.

    Jamie Lee back in action, Carpenter on board as a producer and scorer--what could go wrong?

    Unfortunately, a few things.

    One, this new "Halloween" seems to be having an identity crisis. It's a somber psychoanalysis on the effects of severe trauma. It's a teenage relationship film. It's a babysitter-in-peril slasher film. It's an action-packed revenge movie. It's too many things, none of them consistent. One moment we're watching hand-held, soft-focus camerawork focusing on a crying Jamie Lee as she copes with her past trauma--a beautiful, poignant shot with diffused lighting that's very "indie." The next, we're transported back into a 1980s slasher film before taking a veer into an episode of "Dawson's Creek" with two teenagers at the school dance. Scenes and tones transition without much coherency, almost as if the director was trying to force several film genres into one movie to cover all possible audience bases. You want a thumping action flick with shootouts and fights? We gotcha covered. A classic slasher film complete with 80s synth score? We got ya there, too. For the kids, you want something to relate to, some high school problems? Come on in. Had the film chosen to stick to one or even two of these genres, I feel the tone would have benefitted from it massively.

    Yes, Michael is back and deadly, the kills being more akin to Rob Zombie's entries in terms of explicit violence. When Michael is on-screen, the film works wonderfully. Unfortunately, this being a "Halloween" film and a slasher, he's in it far too seldom for my taste. In the original "Halloween", Michael is a presence in the film from the opening right towards the very end, barely going 5 minutes without an appearance of some sort--lurking around bushes, watching from street curbs, etc. In this "Halloween", there's an entire 20-minute segment with no Michael at all. What's more, entire narrative segments have either been left unscripted or edited out for running time, leaving some jarring transitions where some offscreen action is explained via dialogue. One of these is the critical bus crash that allows Michael to escape--the scene is never witnessed in the film, only the aftermath. The same can be said for the fate of one character, whose death we only see in hindsight.

    There are also two completely out-of-left-field subplots that spring up and go absolutely nowhere. How they weren't written out is beyond me, as they promise much exposition in the coming scenes only to completely be abandoned or forgotten about in the next. One has to wonder if such "twists" were really necessary to get said character from point A to point B--certainly there are less outlandish ways, no?

    But all's not lost. The film does provide several hair-raising moments of suspense, and, when it plays to its slasher root strengths, works. One can't help but lament how much better it would have been had these elements been the sole priorities throughout.

    Jamie Lee is fantastic again as Laurie Strode, and the new cast members all hold their own. The cinematography, albeit ranging from tonally inconsistent indie shots to glossy big-production horror film, is all very good, as is the music.

    There's fun to be had here, no doubt, but the overall product is a strange mishmash of ideas and genres, like putting multiple kids' breakfast cereals into one bowl.

    The original "Halloween" sequel still reigns supreme.
  • This movie is amazing but in my opinion, this is my fav Halloween movie. People say that the first one is better, and I agree but this movie is not bad. The only reason there's hate is only because of small little pointless details that don't really matter in this movie. This movie is on point scary and enjoyable.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Wasn't scary, don't think they even tried to make it scary as they showed damn near every "jump scare" in the trailers and tv commercials. There are a couple of moments that are supposed to be funny thrown in that made me sigh. This is a horror movie about a masked man going around killing, nothing should be funny here but that's just my take. It takes awhile to get going. I enjoyed the two reporters trying to get Michael to talk and following Laurie's relationship with her family and her struggles with PTS but it was like get to the point already after awhile.

    People are very, very dumb in this. Like, "there is a bus crashed off on the side of the road and mental patients wondering the street!". "Let me leave my child in the car while I investigate". Or "I know we are hiding underneath a kitchen counter/trap door in the kitchen and Michael won't likely find us but let me make as much noise as possible with my crying to help him find us". Or "I am a lady in the ladies room using the bathroom but why is this strange man in a jump suit and steel boots in here"? "And why is he opening every stall door?" "When he gets to mine I'll just tell him it's occupied" "Wait he won't leave...now he's just standing here, OH MY GOD TEETH!" And the list goes on.

    I had high expectations (I don't know why). Jamie Lee Curtis did a good job I thought. As for Michael, this is a nitpick but he's unmasked a little too much for my liking. They never fully show his face but you see him from behind and from the side and he's an old, balding, white male with white hair. I kept expecting him to turn around and it actually be Richard Dreyfuss. The movements weren't Michael like, he moved almost like a robot or like someone was controlling him with a PS4 controller or something.

    I just wish the movie would have been a little better. Especially when Michael finally returns to Haddonfield. It should have really picked up there but unfortunately the movie went down with lame kills, unwanted comedy, and the movie actually being edited badly. There is a scene where Michael is struck with a cop car and it is shot so badly. I hate to nitpick on something like that but it was so bad and obvious. The ending was flat and it was clear that the directors didn't want to kill Michael off because they want to make another one. If this guy traumatized you that bad, why wouldn't you make sure he was dead for sure. Why catch him on fire (they never show Michael actually being on fire) instead of shooting him in the head? He was standing right there?

    I like the Halloween movies and hoped this would set them on a new better path but it might be time to FINALLY just let these movies and the Michael character be because this wasn't it.
  • kariiiwhitaker28 January 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    I saw Halloween in theatres with my two cousins and grandma and the theatre was packed and the movie was very scary and has very good comedic relief after scary parts. And the music in the movie is absolutely amazing. I am only 13 and I love the Halloween franchise and this new entry that goes as a sequel to the 1978 classic Halloween is great. I recommend you watch this film.
  • Not a slasher fan but my we caught the world premiere at the film festival. And... wow, just great. "It does what it says on the tin" - only better. No spoilers - but scary, gory, engaging and surprisingly funny. Great acting. I'm not converted to be a slasher fan, but this gets my big thumbs up. Bravo.
  • It actually started out pretty good progressively got worse as time went on too many cliches definitely doesn't keep you on your toes
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like most, I was genuinely excited to see a new edition to the Halloween franchise. When the first trailer was released, I wasn't sold. It kind of looked a bit ridiculous. But when the second trailer released, I started to buy into the hype. It seemed like this might be the best Halloween movie in a long time. Unfortunately, that was not the case. I think a lot of this movie's success was similar to what happened with H20 in 1998 and the Rob Zombie remake in 2007. Fans of the franchise were eager for something new, something fresh. They had already declared it success before seeing it. No matter what, this movie was going to succeed in theaters. What's puzzling is the amount of positive reviews it's gotten. I think a few years of now, when those same people watch it again they'll realize this simply isn't a very good movie.

    The cold open was unrealistic, unnecessary, and quite frankly ridiculous. IMO, it was a failed attempt to build tension and suspense around the mask. Speaking of the mask, it was literally the only purpose the British journalists served in terms of the story (reuniting Myers with the mask). I don't have much of a problem with that, though, considering they were kind of annoying. The opening scene was essentially a journalist yelling at a mental patient to look at his mask, in a rather ridiculous setting. Are there really mental institutions that anchor their patients to anvils on weird checkerboards for "outdoor time"? Also, considering, he waited 40 years to escape, does this mean the mask is ultimately the source of his power? It almost feels that way. It takes a while for the actual story to get off the ground. And while that's happening, there's clunky dialogue and ultimately failed attempts at humor with essentially meaningless characters. Meanwhile they highlight Laurie struggles with PTSD that has led to a strained relationship with her daughter and family. Once things do get going, there are a few cool scenes. That is probably the highlight of the film, and sandwiched in between those cool scenes are frame by frame recreations of scenes already done in the pre-existing films.

    Then we get to the "twist", which I must admit, was well done and I didn't see it coming. However, the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. If his Doctor (aka the new Loomis) wanted to know what it was like, wanted to hear Michael talk, it's hard to imagine he didn't have chances to do this previously. However, his motivation makes it clear he was an inside man on the bus crash that led to Michael breaking free.

    The finale and final showdown, while tense at moments, was a huge letdown. First of all, Laurie states that she's been praying for Michael to break out for 40 years, so that she can kill him (so much so she has a little training montage of target practice shooting, shows off her impressive collection of guns and weapons and her handy little panic room). So, what does she do when he's standing in her front yard uncovered, and she has a shotgun in her hands? She locks the front door and cowers behind it. This would make sense if Myers was the inhuman evil monster he's been made out to be throughout the years, however, they make a point of stressing that Myers is "human", just a deranged man, which Laurie herself even says. Despite that, he takes a gunshot to the neck, the head, and the hand, none of which slow him down. And interestingly enough, the shot to the hand seems to have the biggest effect on him, and by far the most blood.

    In the finale, when they trap him in the basement, they just stand there, as the house is starting to burn. Considering the floors above her little trap are just basic wood, one would think those were flammable and they'd be booking it out of there. Instead, they stand there watching Michael getting ready to burn. They do get out, but with seemingly little urgency, and then we see them riding in the backup of a pickup truck that they've flagged down, leaving things unresolved. Did Michael burn to death? Apparently not, as there's already a sequel in the works.

    Overall, a big let down. Only thing that made it watchable was a handful of cool scenes.
  • FYI: People cluelessly crying about incredible horror movies like this are the same tasteless sheep who year after year went to see EVERY abysmal Saw/Paranormal Activity worthless cash-grab.

    Case closed 😁
  • THIS is how you make a horror sequel, or even a sequel in general. Micheal Myers is back, and so is the genius of John Carpenter in this new visual stunner that pay a brilliant homage to the 1978 masterpiece that started this all. Anyone who appreciates good horror should enjoy this, even those who have never seen a Halloween movie. It's got great pacing, and an amazing score. Hardcore violent deaths (without relying entirely on gore to sell the scares), genuine scares (despite some being obvious and predictable), excellent cinematography (I love the slow panning and creepy shots of Micheal). They even knew when to threw in some great humor. It is a great mix of everything that we love in the horror movies we grew up with, all with a modern twist. We even get a glimpse more into the psyche of Micheal Myers. And let's not ignore Jamie Lee Curtis who totally owned it.

    It is a phenomenal movie, I only wish more horror sequels were like it.

    Side note: ignore the haters. I read most of the bad reviews here and it's evident they never saw the movie but are just ripping into it for their own malicious reasons. Ignore especially those who claim to be fans of the original. An example would be kylejs-71926, who definitely has never been a fan of horror or Stephen King. Why watch this if you hate horror movies? Losers.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Nearly every review of the new Halloween starts out by stating the problematic nature of the franchise. That's why the possibility of a new Halloween film with a major budget, nine years after the last abortive attempt to make one of these films, raised such hope.

    For the last year, we've been inundated with the assurances that these creators are people who get what makes Halloween work. This would finally be the sequel that fans had been craving since, oh, 1981.

    There's really no nice way to say this, so let me jump in feet first. Beyond being a movie that fundamentally doesn't comprehend what made the original Halloween such a great film, the 2018 version of Halloween is a movie with no understanding of what makes a great horror movie, either.

    That isn't to say there isn't a great set-up. Forty years after the 1978 Haddonfield murders (referred to as "The Babysitter Murders," a nod to the film's original title), a Serial-like podcast team makes its way to the area to investigate the story and try to see both sides. The first mistake the journalists make is to show Michael Myers' mask his iconic mask. This scene is pretty chilling, as the entire yard of Smith's Grove Sanitarium rises up in chaos, dogs barking, insane men screaming, Myers just silent and not turning his back. Let's not let the logic of how two podcasters got such a crucial piece of evidence out of police custody or how any hospital in its right mind would allow this interview to happen this way get in the path of the movie.

    The podcasters then make their way to the fortress home of Laurie Strode, who has spent the last forty years preparing for Michael's return. If this seems like 1998's Halloween H20: 20 Years Later twenty more years later, we should be so lucky. After a quick interview in which the British duo shows that they just don't get it, Laurie kicks them out.

    Outside of Laurie, there isn't a single character that we get to know or care about. Her daughter is someone who has given up connecting with her. That's her one note. Her granddaughter is in a crappy relationship and wants to get to know her grandmother a little better. And that's it. Every single other person we meet - save for Dr. Sartain - is just fodder. Contrast this with the original, where we get to know Laurie, Lynda (P.J. Soles shows up so quickly here you don't even catch her, by the way) and Annie really intimately before the first hint of bloodshed. I defy you to tell me one character's motivation or reason for being beyond words on a page here. For a movie that aspires to be above and beyond the slashers of the 1980's, even the worst of those had a character you wanted to root for other than the final girl.

    Meanwhile, Michael has started to kill people all over again. Allyson's friend Vicky is babysitting instead of attending the school dance and she gets slaughtered. The scene where Myers is hiding in the closest was so much better effect in the trailer. Here, the way its framed, it loses any narrative punch. That's when we get to the next flaw in this film: it has no idea how to be suspenseful. There is no moment where you get that heart pumping feeling where the killer is stalking his prey, where you feel compelled to yell out words of help to the hapless victim onscreen. We saw this movie in a totally sold out environment of people ready to shout, scream and shriek. You could have heard a pin drop during this movie.

    Director David Gordon Green said that the first cut of the film was two hours and fifteen minutes long, with the fat of the film and entire scenes cut for pacing and length. That amazes me, as this 1 hour and 46-minute film felt like it lasted for 3 hours. There are whole characters introduced, made to feel like they'll have something to do and then discarded. You could honestly get rid of Laurie's granddaughter, friends, the high school dance, her walk home and still have the same basic story. The only reason she's in there is so that we have young babysitters for Myers' to kill. We learn nothing about her other than she's strong willed, smart and has horrible taste in men. There's no reason to root for her or hope that she survives. And even worse, her mother is presented as such a shrill that you almost want to see her pay for the way she has shut Laurie out of her life.

    What makes the first two Halloween films work is the atmosphere - from the first frame, you realize that something inhuman is coming after Laurie Strode. The second film just amps up the pace and makes The Shape into an inhuman force that cannot be stopped. In this film, he's just there. At no point do you feel tension from him or worry for the people he has come to kill. Things just happen. It's sloppy, slap-dash and for all the insults lobbed at the other sequels in this franchise, much closer to parts 5 and 6 than I'm sure the filmmakers would like to admit.

    This may be the first Halloween modern filmgoers see. And as such, there is no moment in it that points to what makes Michael Myers special. I can name several from the original, such as the moment where he watches Bob after he kills him or slowly rises up after we're sure Laurie has killed him. And the end, where his body is just suddenly gone, is the stuff of nightmares. Early in the new version, Vicky's boyfriend Dave echoes the voice of millennials, saying that Myers' five murders aren't such a big deal anymore in the grand scheme of things. I feel for anyone whose initial exposure to this franchise is with this film, one where Myers fails to do one remarkable thing or elicit one moment of fright.

    I've seen plenty of reviews that state that this is the best sequel in the franchise and a return to greatness. I think that those reviews were written before anyone even saw the film, preordained so that the feel good story of the return of a much-maligned franchise could come true. I tried to remove myself from the hype, to attempt to be surprised and enjoy Halloween 2018 on its own merits, but it really has little to none.

    The sound of Michael's breathing over the end credits signifies more than the fact that The Shape has survived. No, it means that in two years, we'll be lining up all over again, hoping that this time perhaps someone can get what seems to be such a simple idea right.
  • jeymatt31 October 2018
    Why so high ratings? I sincerely feel it's overrated. Not at all scary for a slasher horror film. And it's boring too. Hell Fest was a much better slasher film than this one.
  • I'm a big fan of the Halloween franchise and this movie made me fall in love with the franchise even more. I was worried it would be another "Resurrection" where it's nothing new and only reusing the same scenes from the original. But my god is this movie great! Recommended for any Halloween fan or horror movie fan overall, Michael Myers is back and ready to stalk his prey.
An error has occured. Please try again.