Halloween (I) (2018) User Reviews (2,026)

Trick or treat

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 25 October 2018]

John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic, as a horror film it is one of the most iconic ones and very influential. To this day it is still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters, and characters overall, in Michael Myers.

The numerous follow-ups are very hit and miss (leaning towards the miss), with none of them being anywhere near as good and the quality decline generally was pretty drastic. 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' was an exception, while the Rob Zombie films and 'Halloween: Resurrection' were abominations. Hearing that there was going to be another film, part of me was really excited as it did look very creepy and word of mouth was positive. There was a little nervousness though as well, due to not being impressed generally with most of the 'Halloween' follow ups. Watched it though as part of my seeing as many 2018 films as possible quest, which has been a worthwhile one mostly but also hit and miss.

Found myself breathing a big sigh of relief walking out of the cinema. While 'Halloween' (2018) is nowhere near as good as the 1978 classic, alongside 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' it is one of the best of the series since. There are flaws and it is not one of my favourites of the year, but there are a lot of strengths and there have been worse films this year. As far as 2018 horror films go, the year has been patchy for horror, it's one of the best ones on the most part.

Starting with 'Halloween's' (2018) problems, some of the humour is misplaced and out of kilter too much with the rest of the film and a few elements of the story could have been explored and gone further more.

The big twist also didn't seem fully realised although a brave one and the ending felt rushed and abrupt, also felt that there could have been more tension and less unintentionally silly camp. Have always been wary of open-ended endings and that they can be dangerous to do in case a planned sequel falls through.

However, there is an awful lot to like about 'Halloween' (2018). Along with 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' it is the best looking of the follow-ups, it is very eerily shot and is close in style to the autumnal look and visual iconography of the original, something that most of the follow-ups failed to do. Loved the haunting music score, here an asset rather than a drawback in how it adds a lot to the atmosphere and enhances it, coming close too in being a character of its own.

While flawed, the script is mostly smart with in-jokes and references that are effectively embedded and coming over as affectionate rather than random. There are humorous moments too. 'Halloween' (2018) succeeds in being fun and creepy, with the atmosphere being riddled with tension and suspense. The deaths are horrifyingly creative and the most shocking since 'Halloween H20', the gore not going overboard on the shock value or looking cheap, not distracting at all. The beginning is unsettlingly tense and Michael Myers has not been this freaky in a long time. Some moments have surprising heart and the scares made me jump and bite my nails. It was great for the film to return to the franchise's roots and treat the original with respect, while with enough new touches of its own. One of the better examples this year in attempts to cater to everybody.

Didn't find myself annoyed by the characters and there was personality to them to stop them from being bland. 'Halloween' (2018) is one of the best acted 'Halloween' films. Jamie Lee Curtis has still got it, none of what made her character great is lost or forgotten, and Nick Castle is supremely terrifying as Myers.

Concluding, didn't bowl me over but found myself enjoying it all the same. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Tonally inconsistent and spreads itself too thin.

[recklesscow · 7/10 · 19 October 2018]

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.

Worthy sequel

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 3 May 2019]

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

It's... Fine

[heil_99 · 6/10 · 15 June 2023]

For a movie that purports to be a direct sequel to the original Halloween (1978), Halloween (2018) fundamentally misunderstands the character of Michael Myers from the first film. In 1978, Michael Myers only killed a few victims (something that's actually referenced in this movie). He fixated on Laurie and spent most of the movie stalking her and her friends Annie and Linda (and Linda's boyfriend, Bob). He took his time, laid out his plan, and then lured Laurie into his trap, which was intended to terrorize her. He might have planned to kill her when he was done, but his primary goal was fear, not murder.

Forty years later, though, this guy is a straight up killing machine! No more peeping tom, no more cat and mouse, just murder and mayhem. Look at how his killing spree on Halloween night begins: two murders with no buildup, no suspense. Just kill, kill. If this were a true direct sequel to 1978, he would spend half the movie stalking these victims, building the suspense as he toyed with them.

The closest we get to old-school Michael are the deaths of Oscar and Vicky, but they're over so quickly that there's hardly any buildup to them at all. They're good but could have been so much better.

Instead of Vicky--a random character we hardly know--the babysitter in peril should have been Laurie's granddaughter, Allyson. And rather than getting sliced up in thirty seconds, she should have been the focus of the whole second and/or third act of the film, fending off Michael.

As much as the filmmakers fumbled Michael Myers, I do like the direction they took with Laurie Strode, turning her into Sarah Connor from The Terminator franchise. Now Laurie is a gun-wielding survivalist who's been dreaming of and planning for this day the way Michael had dreamt and planned his Halloween 1978 horror show. She is struggling with trauma, personal regrets, a life spent in fear and a hunger for vengeance. It's cool to see Jamie Lee Curtis have so much to work with in this movie, unlike the sequels to come. She clearly loves this character and role and puts 100% into her performance.

It was a brilliant idea to bring back John Carpenter for the soundtrack. Having his name attached to the project definitely gives it an air of legitimacy missing from all those other sequels. What's more, the music is awesome! It revisits the themes from the first movie but takes them in new directions. This not a simple rehash of Halloween's greatest hits. It's fresh and exciting and complements the action on screen well.

The best thing about this film, however, is that it got rid of that terrible, utterly misguided decision to make Michael and Laurie siblings. We are finally back to the original premise of Michael Myers fixating on a random stranger... well, almost. He doesn't really fixate on anyone in this movie, he just kills whoever happens to be in front of him. It's like he's developed homicidal ADHD over the past forty years. But whatever, I'll take it.

worthy slasher sequel

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 31 December 2022]

Forty years after the events of the original Halloween film, murderer Michael Myers escapes from captivity and returns to Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night to pick up where he left off. Survivor Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), who has spent the preceding decades a paranoid recluse and survivalist, determines to kill Michael once and for all, and to protect her estranged daughter (Judy Greer) and teenage granddaughter (Andi Matichak). Also featuring Nick Castle as The Shape.

Director Green (working from a script by comic actor Danny McBride, Jeff Fradley, and himself) ignores the events of all of the myriad sequels and reboots, including the superior 1981 Halloween II. That was probably a good idea, as the film series' storyline had become hopelessly confused. Parts of this latest iteration work, others don't, but I felt that it was probably the best in the series after the first two. I enjoyed a lengthy scene of Michael killing his way through adjacent houses as busy Halloween activities take place all around him. The film does an excellent job of stripping the almost supernatural qualities of the character away, showing how he methodically goes about his business in a disturbing yet all too real way.

The film takes a left turn late in the proceedings which I won't go into here to avoid spoilers, but I'll say that the last act is heavily contrived, yet still not without some payoff. The cast is good, though not great, and newcomer Matichak does well as the youngest "damsel in distress". There are frequent nods and callbacks to the first film, as well as a few reworkings of moments from the sequel. In fact, that aforementioned last act seems to revel in taking the finale of the original and subverting it. The score, by John Carpenter and his son Cody, is good, but again not up to the original. As far as slasher sequels go, this is top shelf, but it's still a slasher sequel, so don't expect high art.

A flawed but welcome return to form for the franchise, and for slashers in general.

[lnvicta · 7/10 · 21 October 2018]

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 offers a fun ride with Michael Myers

[larryct48 · 7/10 · 21 October 2018]

When I go see a slasher film I want to see kills and gore a lot of gore. On top of that I would like to be engage completely. Halloween offer me that, From the moment that they visit Michàel in the mental health prison to when he goes on his killing spree in Halloween. The killings were creative. Michàel Myers was brutal and pure evil in this one. Some of my favorite scenes were the baby sit scene. The scene where You see Michàel waking around the house and later appears inside the house in the same shot without cut.

I tried watching the rob zombie Halloween and I thought it was boring, compare to this is engaging, creative and completely fun ride.

Grade B

Great

[PedroPires90 · 8/10 · 21 October 2021]

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.

Really?

[d-nice216 · 23 October 2018]

I dont understand what everyone else watched. I'm a die hard Halloween fan since childhood, and this film was an abomination. So disappointed

Not as good as I'd hoped.

[thechris_1 · 7/10 · 21 October 2018]

I guess I'd blame the director. So many missed opportunities. Huge fan of Halloween and Michael and the whole idea, just left me wanting better. While this one was superior to H20, H20 had more "Oh Yeah!" Moments. Don't get me wrong, it was enjoyable with some great Easter eggs, it just wasn't as awesome as it could have been.

Extremely, extremely overrated by overhyped fans. VERY disappointing.

[jdamaso-50871 · 4/10 · 18 October 2018]

*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.

THE PERFECT SEQUEL TO THE PERFECT HORROR FILM.

[mail-82544 · 10/10 · 9 September 2018]

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.

A first act spent on developing disposable characters should've been used to set up a controversial twist.

[stinkyboi · 7/10 · 22 October 2018]

Major spoilers. Move on. Read this when you're ready.

I only want to review the plot twist of this newest Halloween sequel. The film in totality is pretty awesome and I have no real interest in diving into the rest since it's otherwise pretty good, but it has become clear to me after really ruminating over this film for the past couple of days after seeing it that the plot twist could have been a really interesting surprise as opposed to a poorly executed and near-fatal distraction from an otherwise good entry into such a celebrated horror franchise. Read on to hear my thoughts on how and why this could have been a better-executed twist.

The character in question, the "New Loomis" as Laurie Strode mistakenly and questionably refers to (as I explain later), is Dr. Sartain, introduced in the first act as the doctor of Michael Myers who took the reins from old man Loomis after his passing.

Sartain is introduced as a completely sensible and incredibly knowledgeable character who the screenwriters utilize as a tool for plot exposition in the first act, explaining to the British podcasting duo (and through osmosis, the audience) why Loomis is gone and why he is the guy who is looking after Michael now. He is never once given any sort of dialogue or unsettling scene that can clue us, the audience, in on what his true intentions are later on or why he matters so much to this film. It is a delicate balance for a screenwriter to give an audience *just enough* to anticipate a character's actions with dread, yet still morbidly satisfy the audience when a character lives up to our darkest expectations, and Dr. Sartain is one of those characters--unfortunately, we don't get the exposition necessary to give us something to suspect (or expect) about Sartain. The first act is crucial to laying out these kinds of connections, suspicions, and foreshadowing clues, and unfortunately, this opportunity is squandered.

Instead, the entire first act is spent on setting up the motivations and developing the characters of the (entirely disposable and unnecessary) podcasters on one level, and on a more utilitarian and much more necessary level, the first act is utilized as a device to give Michael his mask and essentially get him to Haddonfield on October 31. It is crucial to get Michael from the loony bin and into the mask and overalls as expediently and sensibly as possible in these films, so kudos to Danny McBride and Co for doing this. Unfortunately, the characters used to do this were the podcasters, who are disposable characters and are given way, way too much screen time and are the first major characters we meet, which sets up certain expectations for these characters that are ultimately deflated and sabotaged when all that happens to them is they are murdered in the Halloween 4-homage truck stop bathroom early in the first act.

Meanwhile, we basically see nothing of "New Loomis" until the bus crash that introduces act two, which he survives with some injury. Again, we have no reason to suspect anything of the doctor. I found myself as a viewer sympathetic towards Sartain when he is mistakenly shot by a bystander and seems to be on the verge of death as a result. If his arc were set up correctly, I would have felt somewhat of a sense of suspicion as to why the bus crashed and he was the lone survivor. Instead, I just watch the movie and feel for the doctor.

Soon after, a major mistake is made by the screenwriter. Laurie Strode, upon meeting the good doctor near the end of the first act, refers to him as "the new Loomis." This is a huge problem with lasting ramifications given the character arc of Dr. Sartain. To fans of previous Halloween timelines, Dr. Loomis was a good man who wanted Michael to be exterminated, destroyed, removed from the world by any means possible, even at the expense of his life and safety. He saw Michael as simply an embodiment of evil who would only go on to harm others in his pursuit to kill and he wanted him wiped from the earth. So when the anchor of the entire Halloween universe, our most pure and trustworthy Final Girl Laurie Strode, explicitly names Sartain as "New Loomis," we can rest easy knowing he, in fact, is *The New Loomis*. He embodies the same ethos as the late, great Donald Pleasance's character. He is the New Loomis and we have no reason to think otherwise, because we implicitly trust the character who bestows this moniker upon Sartain. Except, inexplicably, he is so totally not New Loomis, and we as the audience are subject to a horribly clunky plot twist as a result.

Sartain, as we learn way, way too late into the second act, actually wants Michael to live, to go out and kill in Sartain's presence, so Sartain can see him kill "in the wild." He has absolutely no redeemable moral qualities whatsoever, unlike the good doctor whom he replaced. He wants Michael to kill innocent people and wants to study Michael doing so so intensely that he is willing to see what it actually feels like to do what Michael does--and damn it, he actually does. He murders a man in cold blood with a highly contrived scalpel-blade-hidden-inside-a-ballpoint-pen contraption he keeps in his pocket, and even dons Michael's mask to feel the full effect of his murderous actions. It is an utterly ridiculous turn of events and really sours the film until it is thankfully saved by the brilliant cat-and-mouse chase sequence inside Laurie's rural house in the woods outside Haddonfield that pits her against her ultimate nemesis, the *only* villain this franchise has room for, The Shape.

And that leads me to my final thoughts on Halloween 2018. I give credit to the screenwriters for taking a major chance with a long-dormant horror franchise, I just wish that the first act was spent more on developing Dr. Sartain, a monumentally crucial character in this film, rather than the disposable and almost entirely useless podcaster characters. We could have developed a creeping, sneaking suspicion of Sartain's motivations throughout the first act that culminated in a satisfying murderous twist at the beginning of the third act, but instead we are treated with a highly questionable turn of events that come entirely out of left field that nearly ruin this film and raise some serious questions for the inevitable sequel. The Halloween franchise only has room for one villain--Michael Myers. Any attempt to subvert this unavoidable fact with a poorly-executed plot twist will only serve to muddy up the formula with convoluted film canon and put Halloween on track for more questionable sequels, which was the reason we had to wait all this time for such a good entry into the Halloween franchise in the first place. I sincerely hope the powers that be can learn from the mistakes of the past (and the mistakes of this sequel) to build upon and contribute to a horror franchise that continues to be as frustrating as it is promising. 7/10.

Oh, so many questions about this movie.......

[MWNiese · 3/10 · 19 October 2018]

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...

I am SO DISAPPOINTED! Whoever made this should be ashamed.

[DomNickson843 · 31 October 2018]

What a terrible excuse of a movie that was built to be the next big thing to revive the franchise. What I saw was a shameless generic cash-grab of a sequel. For one you can't connect with anybody because they aren't built up enough to even be considered relatable or a human being. The people are so dull and boring and don't do squat. Laurie isn't even worth knowing anymore because her character has no business being around since she only bumps heads with him when her family is coincidentally being attacked. The kills are boring and honestly don't even look well done more rushed and stupid. Michael is now a clown of a serial killer who isn't even smart like he was in the original one where he waited until everybody least expected it. This film destroys everything that was once creative, scary, and intellectually shot and only aims for the money. I wish there was a zero rating cause that's what this generic, dated, rushed, overhyped, overdone, pile of crap.

A solid thriller with odd moments of comedy sprinkled throughout

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 22 November 2019]

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.

2018's 'Halloween' was a decent horror movie. It was a cut above the rest. Michael Myers finally comes home.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 31 October 2018]

1978's horror film 'Halloween' was a pretty good low budget independent slasher movie directed/scored by John Carpenter. However, the follow-ups that came after, fail to gain the same critical success as the first movie. It wasn't until 2018, that a sequel directed by David Gordon Green, also known as 'Halloween', finally got the respect, it deserve. Set 40 years after the original film, the plot follows Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) once again, as she prepares to face the masked Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle), when he returns to Haddonfield, Illinois, after his last killing spree on Halloween night. Without spoiling too much of the film, while, this movie got mostly praise from diehards and critics for its well balance approach to the source material, by not swaying too far from it, while, also subverting enough expectations to stand on its own with the use of suspense and brutal action, the flick still hit some controversies roadblock with some viewers. Mostly with those, unhappy that the film recon all the previous sequels and it's establish, yet inconsistent lore. Some good examples was taking away the idea that Laurie was related to the Myers family. Look, I get that, the reveal from 1981's 'Halloween 2' took away the menacing unknown motive that made Michael such an effective mysterious villain to some, but I felt that it gave a really good reason for him to predatory stalk Laurie in the first movie & continue to kill people around her in the follow ups. In this movie, Michael goes to the town with no clear target in mind and proceeds on a random, unrelated killing spree that for the most part, doesn't factor, much to the main plot, serving much like filler. Look, I get that he might do this, to service some type of crazy abnormal psychological gratification, hints why he is a mental ward for most of his life, but I find it, more intimidating & creepily, knowing that his crimes were premeditated & well plan than an idiotic mindless zombie-like primitive flaw coming from his mind. I like to think that he's outsmarting most psychologists, chosen to study him & always one step ahead from the rest. After all, based on Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) he's supposed to be, pure evil, not 'mentally ill'. Its shows determination within the character. I get that, some might disagree with me, but we can agree that the out of the blue twist of convenience involving his doctor, Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) was stupid. In short, Myers should had been in control of his own destiny, the whole time, and should had brought himself to Laurie's isolated house to try to kill her. Regardless, the recon involving Laurie's children is also somewhat jarring. Look, I can get, why Laurie's son John (Josh Hartnett) from 1998's 'Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later', couldn't existed in this timeline, but the idea that Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), Laurie's daughter from the fourth movie, 1988's 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers' couldn't return is a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, Judy Greer as Karen Strode is alright actress, but there is something emotional driven with Harris's performance as Lloyd. Her acting in 1989's film 'Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers', match well with the self-medicating PTSD suffering of her mother. In this movie, Karen felt too normal for somebody who went through an intense paranoid, apocalyptic survival uplifting. Greer just hides the past, too well for me. She should had been a little bit trouble. As for Jamie Lee Curtis. I love this catatonic shell, doomsday prepper side of the character. I just wish, the end, didn't justified, how she treat Karen, when she was a kid. In truth, a dogmatic mindset isn't the way to live life. While, many characters may have some negative qualities, the movie does a good job to show enough positive elements with the main & supporting characters to the point that it was still an empowering tale. Glad, the misogyny and misandry sexual is mostly gone from this film. As the eleventh installment in the film series, this was a breath of fresh air. However, there is rarely any nudity, besides the flashback recap, which I found alright. It's not really needed for the story, they trying to tell. As for the violence, it's a mixed bag for me. The film contains more graphic violence and gore than the original movie, however parts of me, felt that they didn't go far enough. Why introduce a baby element if you're not going to do anything about? At least, the film shows that kids are not immune from getting murder. Still, some of the kills were a bit jarring; like for example, how did Myers get time to hollow out a severed head to make a jack o' lantern? It seems like a lot of scenes were cut. There were a lot of off screen murders. Who knows, maybe it's in, the estimated 30 minutes of footage that was cut from the film. It could still turn up in home releases. Regardless, the movie should had a flashback recreation of the aftermath of the first flick to show, how Myers got even capture in the first place. That was a bit off, seeing that he's nearly unstoppable. Still, the action for the most part was amazing. Yet, it's a bit weird to see that old age hasn't slowed the original characters, even with their battle scars. Released for the 40th anniversary. This movie is rife with sly references to other scenes from the franchise. The Meta touches are nice. Plus, the jokes were funny. However, I do miss first person camera perspectives. In the end, it's the Halloween season & everyone's entitled to one good scare! So, why not, go with the first & second best movies in the franchise. It's one trick or treat, that is too sweet to pass up.

GREAT SEQUEL CURTIS WHAT A GREAT PERFORMANCE!

[PrestonCarl · 7/10 · 27 October 2018]

Saw the first one in the theater In 1978 it took 40 years but was Worth the wait. The darkness to the movie match The original. It is a perfect sequel hands down. Will their can their be another. We can only hope!

Effective horror..but

[stevelomas-43986 · 7/10 · 1 November 2018]

Enjoyed it, but needed to slow the pace down, even Myers at 61 seemed quicker in his stride than he did 40 years ago, felt like I still needed a reason for his need to kill, without the sister thing it felt empty. However much better than 4 5 6 and 8 but I preferred h20.

Great Halloween Film

[judge-fudge · 9/10 · 16 August 2019]

If you're a fan of 'Halloween' or slasher films in general you'll love this film. It is one of the best we've had in any decade let alone the 2010s which is not exactly known for it's slashers in the same way as the 80s and 90s. It looks as though there are plans for a few more 'Halloween' films and I cannot wait. Hopefully they can usher in a resurgence in the genre.

If you're a true horror fan you've probably become accustomed to ignoring bad reviews and that should be no different here. As a huge fan of the series I have no problem rating this film as highly as the first two. It's great in every way and does an excellent job of setting itself up for a handful of highly memorable scenes and kills. The special effects are fantastic and I will be eagerly looking forward to more 'Halloween' films in the future.

Great love letter to the original

[bradykitchen-33648 · 7/10 · 17 October 2021]

Halloween 2018 is a blast. I love this movie it plays perfect homage to the original. It has the greatest slasher ever in Michael Myers. The fear factor that Myers has is so unique and is what makes this movie scary. Laurie Strode is an awesome character. She has turned full survivor and it works so well. Soundtrack is as classic as ever. This movie does have flaws of course. A lot of bull that you can expect when you watch a horror movie as well as some plot points that weren't really concluded. The doctor was the big flaw in this movie for me. He was fine up until his twist. Seemed pointless.

Critical 7.5/10 Enjoyment 8.5/10.

Massively overhyped, overpraised, and underwhelming

[dzwilliams · 4/10 · 19 October 2018]

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).

A surprise package.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 2 November 2018]

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

The only movie I was excited about this year. Was.

[dauthier · 6/10 · 22 October 2018]

Well, I didn't notice the tension or atmosphere if it was there.

Halloween 2, 4 and 6 were able to nail the atmosphere. They are creepy even when the story gets ludicrous.

This one rushes through everything with no logic, no characters worth knowing, including the older Laurie strode. H20 is a fast paced movie too, but is a far superior follow up. It has the elements. This does not.

... Once they dropped the Sister storyline they were finally free! They could've taken it absolutely anywhere. I assumed Laurie would hunt him while he was doing other things. Why was SHE a special revenge for him? The story doesn't explain this.

The Loomis replacement was okay, until he wasn't a real character anymore. He becomes absurd then forgotten immediately.

The Podcaster story line was bad too, then gets ridiculous and unrealistic. Although if Laurie had gone along with them it would have been a better story.

A slower movie, with a lot less going on, leaving room for tension and suspense would have been much more appreciated. It could have been great, but it just isn't. Not at all. Such a letdown.

I'll still hold hope for a Directors cut that includes character development and a story that makes sense.

I couldn't wait for it to be over...

[mark-doster · 3/10 · 19 October 2018]

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...