Halloween (2018) movie review: all tricks, few treats

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Halloween yellow light

MaryAnn’s quick take…

A minor fan-fiction take on the franchise’s mythology: Hey, maybe middle-aged Laurie Strode likes guns LOL? Nowhere near as feminist or as psychologically incisive as it thinks it is. And it’s not even scary.tweet
I’m “biast” (pro): love Jamie Lee Curtis and Judy Greer
I’m “biast” (con): not a fan of this franchise
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
women’s participation in this film
male director, male screenwriter, female protagonist
(learn more about this)

I am not a fan of the Halloween series. No, not even John Carpenter’s 1978 original. I can appreciate, from a cinema-history perspective, how groundbreaking it was and how it changed the horror genre onscreen. But, ya know, it didn’t change movies for the better. It popularized the idea of an antagonist as pure boogeyman, a villain with no appreciable motivation beyond insanity, which is tedious from a narrative standpoint and a lazy way to draw a character even if we never get into the horrific ways in which that is a slander on the mentally ill (who are, I’m sure you’ve heard, infinitely more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators). It is the source of the misogynist clichés of the genre that posit that “slutty” girls deserve to die but virginal girls are safe while simultaneously presenting the terror of girls and women — whether they are slutty or virginal — as sexualized and titillating to the presumed-hetero-male viewer. It was all about violent gore as an acceptable be-all and end-all, its own justification for its deployment. And on top of all of that, Halloween simply is not scary. Or maybe I have never found it thrilling because I am not turned on by terrified girls and buckets of blood.

Like mother, like daughter: Judy Greer, as Laurie’s daughter, is just as wasted by the movie as Curtis is.
Like mother, like daughter: Judy Greer, as Laurie’s daughter, is just as wasted by the movie as Curtis is.

And with this umpteenth installment in the 40-year-old franchise, director David Gordon Green (Our Brand Is Crisis, Manglehorn) has found not a single damn thing new or fresh to bring to the long-since overplayed slasher genre. Not even in how he tries to be a little bit feminist about it all. (Green wrote the script with Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley, none of whom have any demonstrated expertise or even experience with horror. Mostly, they’re all about adolescent grossout comedy [Pineapple Express, Your Highness]. How did any of them even get this gig? They might at least have brought in a female screenwriter or two to help them with their supposed feminism instead of imagining they could handle it.) The notion to return to Jamie Lee Curtis’s (Veronica Mars, From Up on Poppy Hill) Laurie Strode, the then-teenaged babysitter who just barely escaped the homicidal rampage of Michael Myers back in the 70s, and see how she has fared since is theoretically a good one (even if it means this movie completely ignores the fact that we have already seen how she has fared since, as in 2002’s Halloween: Resurrection and 1998’s Halloween H20). And there’s potential in their conjecture that Laurie is suffering from PTSD as a result of that long-ago trauma and has turned to the security blanket of stockpiling guns and a literal bunker mentality as a way to cope.

*yawn* Seen it all before...
*yawn* Seen it all before…

But as awesome as Curtis is — here and always, everywhere — this new Halloween doesn’t give her a role anywhere near as big or as impactful as it should be. That’s actually the most shocking thing about this movie, in fact, how small her role feels: she is reactive rather than proactive, and she doesn’t have much agency, which is what a woman who feels powerless and at the mercy of a madman, as Laurie does, needs to feel better, if we’re talking feminist revenge in a popcorn movie. (Then again, the horror genre has never been as feminist as it likes to think it is.) Laurie here talks about how she has wished for Michael — who remains only ever just a hulking, masked figure — to escape from the maximum-security mental hospital where he has been imprisoned, so that she could kill him. And danged if she doesn’t get her wish in a way that represents a preposterous abdication of responsibility on the part of his keepers. That’s plot hole enough… but imagine if Laurie had somehow been instrumental in affecting Michael’s escape. Imagine if she had somehow helped him escape, just so that she could kill him. That would be a feminist revenge worthy of what this movie thinks it’s doing, and fails at.

Instead, Green gives us a minor fan-fiction take on the Halloween mythology: Hey, what’s Laurie Strode up to as a middle-aged lady? Maybe she likes guns LOL? This Halloween is blah, with nowhere near the psychological incisiveness it thinks it has. It’s not at all scary, which doesn’t surprise me in the least, as escaped-Michael lumbers around on yet another All Hallow’s Eve killing random people; they’re not even characters in the slim narrative that passes for story here. (And c’mon: what are the odds that Michael would just happen to have an opportunity to escape right before Halloween… again?)

Preexisting Halloween fans will likely find something to amuse them here. The movie keeps sending out little self-aware snorts; clearly, it is continually referencing the other movies in ways that weren’t registering with me because I am not intimately geek-acquainted with the entire franchise. But anyone in the same position as me, someone who would welcome a standalone scary story, one that isn’t just in-jokes dropped into a dated, familiar slasher flick, will be disappointed and bored.


see also:
Halloween (1978) (review)


Apple News
Read this review and other select content from Flick Filosopheron the News app from Apple.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
60 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 4:00pm

Why does a horror movie need feminism?

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 7:03pm

Because Western women have had it crammed down their throats for the last decade that with-out the ghastly specter of third wave feminism as their shield, they’re ‘oppressed’. Just another scam designed by the same nutcases who’ve used identity politics to unhinge everything else in our culture. The majority of women (not all, calm down) I’ve met in my life wouldn’t pay to see a Halloween movie (or any horror movie for that matter) if one of the Hemsworth’s were taking her, so of course it stands to reason that the new Michael Myers movie be packed with it. I’m surprised that ‘feminism’ would even enter the conversation though. I would have assumed feminists would ‘shut’ the Halloween franchise down as it’s hero was an old white guy with a gun. Such a calamity must have near killed them :)

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 8:01pm

Whatever.

After the last few Halloween movies, it’s a wonder any self-respecting horror movie fan is still interested in the series.

Personally, I find it a bit sad that Jamie Lee Curtis is coming back to the series, especially after she allegedly had her character killed in an earlier movie in order to avoid projects like this.

If that makes me a feminist, well, there are worse things I have been called…

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:28pm

*If that makes me a feminist, well, there are worse things I have been called…*

Jesus. Really? Like what?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:41pm

Show us on the doll where the feminist hurt you.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:27pm

*Show us on the doll where the feminist hurt you*

I’ve opened my front door. The outside world is clearly visible. That should clear things up for you.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  chrishaagan
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 3:39am

I’m sorry your mother never loved you.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:14am

Yours did though, on the reg, so it’s all good.

I would have assumed that an anonymous loser named Dr Rocketscience would be able to transcend mother slurs. After all, if it was easy, we’d ALL be doctors, wouldn’t we? Derogatory statements about mothers, the very feminine arc of life. You’re a horrible c*nt saying that. For shame. What would Anne Bradstreet say of such latent misogyny?

Paul Wartenberg
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 23, 2018 3:52am

(awkwardly touches the heiney where the buttocks were thoroughly kicked)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:41pm

Mister, the whole damn WORLD needs feminism.

Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:10pm

Maby in Saudi Arabia but here in germany everyone is already equal because its in our Grundgesetz.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Friedrich Wilhelm von Preusen
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:36pm

Saudi Arabia doesn’t mean anything to her. The women there are inconsequential as they can’t be utilized for some ridiculous march at the drop of a hat. She’s a pawn, nothing besides which is why muh feminism had to be shoehorned in in the first place. Into an article about ‘Halloween’. Fucking. Halloween. Anyway, the important issues remain at hand- manspreading and mansplaining not decades of religious oppression and violence at the hands of a real patriarchy.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:47pm

So you know your talking points and like to build strawmen. Okay then.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 11:32pm
chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:29am

Yeah, that would have been a kick-ass reply if it was ’98 and I had just logged into dial-up. Boy, if your level of taking me to task wasn’t the comments section equivalent of old people fucking, I’d sure have egg on my face right right about now.

MidxMidwest
MidxMidwest
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 11:00pm

But only MaryAnn’s specific brand of feminism, which includes, apparently, that men can’t be allowed to write (or let’s face it, aren’t CAPABLE of writing) empowered female characters. That should go in your “biast” list.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  MidxMidwest
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 12:55am

which includes, apparently, that men can’t be allowed to write (or let’s face it, aren’t CAPABLE of writing) empowered female characters

Which I guess explains why she loved the male-written female characters in A Star is Born, I Kill Giants, Colossal, The Girl with All the Gifts, Rogue One, The Last Jedi, Arrival, Miss Sloane, and I, Tonya, just for starters.

Build better strawmen.

[edited to add] You’ve trolled here before, and your arguments haven’t gotten any better. We see you.

JC
JC
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 9:12pm

Stop looking for it in the horror genre MaryAnn. And I’ll stop looking for testosterone and male pride in the dozens of corny, estrogen-drenched romantic comedies that are released annually.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JC
Sat, Oct 27, 2018 6:04pm

Stop looking for it in the horror genre MaryAnn

Why?

dozens of corny, estrogen-drenched romantic comedies that are released annually.

Go on. Name 24 rom-coms that have gotten wide releases this year.

I’ll wait.

Not that rom-coms tend to be feminist, either.

Sela Trinity
Sela Trinity
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 5:12pm

How the hell did this random slasher reboot not get Red lit? What possible redeeming factors were there… your review seems entirely negative. I will NOT be paying my money to see this!

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Sela Trinity
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:42pm

Possible redeeming factors mentioned in the review.

The film isn’t actively offensive. It’s just dull and familiar.

I will NOT be paying my money to see this!

Great. You don’t need to.

CaptainBlake
CaptainBlake
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 5:44pm

Violent gore? Buckets of blood? You must be thinking of Rob Zombie’s HALLOWEEN. Carpenter’s has none of this. Its restraint and atmosphere is largely what sets it apart from its countless imitators.

You don’t enjoy the movie, fine, but criticizing it for what it’s not is just lame. And lazy.

Eric Hoheisel
Eric Hoheisel
reply to  CaptainBlake
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 8:30pm

I wondered about that too, but I think The Flick Filosopher is referring to the new Halloween which, by most accounts, is fairly gory. This is a problem caused by the new film being titled simply Halloween.

CaptainBlake
CaptainBlake
reply to  Eric Hoheisel
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 8:59pm

Re-read it to verify, and she’s definitely referring to (things that never happened in) the original. Note the context, “It was” and “I have never found”…:

“It was all about violent gore as an acceptable be-all and end-all, its own justification for its deployment. And on top of all of that, Halloween simply is not scary. Or maybe I have never found it thrilling because I am not turned on by terrified girls and buckets of blood.”

That condescending last sentence is the absolute worst. What a jerk.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  CaptainBlake
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:43pm

So, you’re not going to refute my contention that the terror of girls and women is meant to be titillating?

CaptainBlake
CaptainBlake
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 4:23am

I do refute it, at least in the way you’re implying. It’s obvious Carpenter (and Debra Hill, who wrote the girls dialogue) had empathy for their characters, liked them even. Which makes sense, as Hill stated that she based them on herself and her childhood friends. The deaths were not intended to be “fun”, they were supposed to be horrifying.

Any thrills and suspense (or “titillation”) the movie has to offer derive not so much from the terror of the girls – most of whom are understandably oblivious to the danger until it’s too late – but from the audience itself. Taking his cues from Hitchcock, Carpenter has shown us the bomb under the table, and we’re left waiting for it to go off.

The original HALLOWEEN deals in atmosphere, tension, and dread. The buckets of blood and violent gore you referenced are simply nowhere to be seen; the shower scene in PSYCHO features more blood than the entirety of this film. This is not torture porn.

Final thought. Jamie Lee Curtis tells a story about how when she first saw HALLOWEEN with an audience, during the finale when Laurie is crossing the street, a woman suddenly bolted from her seat in terror, yelling “Don’t go in there!” at her character onscreen. This woman, who spoke so eloquently for me and everyone I know who loves this film, was not leering ghoulishly, gleefully anticipating a grisly death. She was empathizing with the protagonist. That sums up the appeal of this movie for me.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  CaptainBlake
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 9:44am

Bare in mind, this is solely one opinion, but she’s not going to pull the jagged stick out until you outright deny that in regards to the horror genre, it’s 9 times out of 10 more suspenseful to see a woman in peril than it is a man. It’s just the way it is. I guess it has to do with subconscious, perhaps even evolutionary triggers. The female scream is harrowing. Most men’s natural embedded instinct is to protect women (que the pussyhat parade to shut me down once they park the special bus) and the idea of seeing women injured or even worse, murdered is horrifying. When Bob died, it was, well gee, he should have fought harder. It was also partly- ‘Jesus, he was a big dude and Michael still took him out in mere seconds’. Bob’s physical strength did him no good, so what will Laurie’s physical strength do when she’s half his size? Laurie Strode fended off Myers using her intelligence and bravery (it wasn’t physical power that made her strong, but ingenuity) but this in no way made it any less frightening that a waify teenage girl was being attacked by an escaped psych patient, off his meds, twice her size and who had snuffed three kids already. Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is a good example of why the male protagonist doesn’t work as well in horror. Nobody wants to see a male horror film character in peril being chased by a knife wielding maniac. That’s why we call Jamie Lee the SCREAM QUEEN, a role she’s held for 40 years, beloved by horror fans male and female since ’78, This is why John wasn’t Michael’s main target in H20. Good one bringing up Debra Hill by the way. MaryAnn can inform her six cats once she gets home that a WOMAN contributed to the hideous misogyny, in fact, she came up with more than 50% of it. Might as well have thrown a MAGA cap on her and called it a day, yes MaryAnn? And was Bobs death designed to ‘titillate’ (thrill/scare/shock) also? It’s a horror film, so yes. Kind of the point. Don’t you just love how ANYONE can be a journalist/reviewer now? Seriously, anyone. It’s great. It’s really….great.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  chrishaagan
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 11:37am

Thanks for admitting that you get pleasure out of seeing women in danger.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  CaptainBlake
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 6:03pm

As much as I hate to admit it, this post makes more sense than any of the others I’ve read on this forum defending the original Halloween.

Edited to Add:

But then I believe a lot of one’s attitude towards this film is determined by one’s attitude towards Laurie Strode. Do you sympathize with her or not? Somehow I doubt the reason Jamie Lee Curtis became a star after this movie was because the audience was actively rooting against her character.

At best, Laurie Strode’s a bit like Marion Ravenwood. Marion, too, spends a lot of time in mortal peril but like Ms. Strode, she doesn’t hesitate to fight back — even against overwhelming odds. And we in the audience like her for that. Or at least some of us do…

True. Ms. Strode initially does more running away than Ms. Ravenwood. But in the end, she fought back.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 6:57pm

Feminism.
Feminism.
Feminism.
Needs more feminism.
Needs BETTER feminism.

Glad we cleared that up.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:43pm

You’re a fossil.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:25pm

You’re a manipulated drone for the elite class who wish nothing more than to set you at the throats of your fellow countrymen.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  chrishaagan
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:42pm

You’re self-describing here.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:33am

Really? Is that what you think? Really? I mean, DO you, YOU, actually YOU think that? Fuck, hang on a second….

hold up…

I’m just dialing a psychiatrist because….

I’m a

broken

man over what you said.

zzzzz

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  chrishaagan
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 3:37am

Really? Cause it seems like you came in here guns blazing because…
[checks notes]
…a woman wrote a movie review you don’t agree with.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:20am

You know what? You’re right. I should have just gone with:
comment image

I mean, that’s how you see me regardless, right? Now go have a soy-late and relax on the couch for awhile.

[checks notes]

and you’re a dickhead.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 8:02am

Also MaryAnn, your neck is looking like something Dr Hammond cloned at Jurassic Park after the stroke. The OLD JP with the so-so CG. Maybe even closer to JP III (no, no, that would be insulting). I myself don’t post photos of my face as I’m an ugly prick (a combo of Johnathan Ross and Del-Boy), but I don’t call people fossils either when I’m clearly old enough to have cut Napoleon’s fucking umbilical cord. In fact that’s it, you pushed me to this, I’m posting a photo of Commodus giving your review a thumbs down. End of.
comment image

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 7:51pm

…even if it means this movie completely ignores the fact that we have already seen how she has fared since, as in 2002’s Halloween: Resurrection and 1998’s Halloween H20

At least two reasons why Halloween: Resurrection is not all that popular with most horror movies fans (myself included, obviously). (Okay, they are both links to the blog of the same person but still.):

http://www.finalgirl.rocks/2005/10/ok-this-is-last-post-in-my-big.html

http://www.finalgirl.rocks/2013/12/awesome-movie-poster-friday-jamie-lee.html

Eric Hoheisel
Eric Hoheisel
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 8:32pm

It is a big stretch to say that Michael Myers is mentally ill, particularly in the first film. We have a psychiatrist who had studied him for 13 years trying to warn people that he is not mentally ill and that he doesn’t believe he is even human. We are shown that he can survive what would kill or disable a normal human. Calling the character of Michael Myers a portrayal of mental illness is like saying ‘The Exorcist’ was a film about a girl going through a rough adolescence.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Eric Hoheisel
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 9:47pm

he doesn’t believe he is even human

Cool, cool.

Calling the character of Michael Myers a portrayal of mental illness

Good thing I didn’t do that, then.

What do you think Michael Myers’s motivation is?

Whatever nuance you are talking about is far from the impact that the “crazed slasher” genre has on the average audience member, and on the culture at large.

MidxMidwest
MidxMidwest
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 11:04pm

As Dr. Loomis stated, “pure evil.” I know the concept of “evil” is something to be looked down upon, but it touches the psyche on a deep, primal level. There are some people out there whose sole purpose is to cause pain and harm and destruction. They’re not deluded, insane, or mentally ill. They’re evil. That’s the driving force behind The Shape, so put away your mental illness white knight costume and go as something else this Halloween.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  MidxMidwest
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 11:38am

As Dr. Loomis stated, “pure evil.”

So, as I said: nothing but a boogeyman. How is this interesting?

Eric Hoheisel
Eric Hoheisel
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 11:39pm

Most ‘Psycho’ thrillers before ‘Halloween’ were concerned with the motivation of the killer, even precursors like ‘Black Christmas’ or ‘Texas Chainsaw’ gave hints of how the killer got that way, what their motive was. Halloween does not do this, John Carpenter was taking the previous films and changing the rulebook to step from the earlier ‘Psycho’ films into the paranormal. And often paranormal horror works best when the who, what, why are left unexplained. The boogeyman is what we are afraid is lurking in the dark. We are afraid of it because we think it means us harm. We don’t know why. Now, Rob Zombie’s Halloween took the traditional approach and said lets explore the motives and mind of Michael Myers. The original does not do this.

Marius
Marius
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 1:33am

it never ever stated it was gona be a feminist movie you delusional dumbo christ this is dumb

Isobel_A
Isobel_A
reply to  Marius
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 9:41am

Why should a film have to state that it’s feminist? Shouldn’t all films treat humans as equals? Shouldn’t women be able to expect to see themselves portrayed accurately in film without being pure titillation, without having to find something specifically labelled ‘feminist’? I’m not sure MaryAnn is the delusional dumbo in your scenario…

JC
JC
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 2:51am

Hey MaryAnn. Why the F@#$%& are YOU reviewing this film if you are not a fan of the series, ESPECIALLY not even a fan of the original? I absolutely LOATHE when someone begins their review with “I am not a fan……” Why not let someone who is a tad more impartial review this film? It’s like a food critic reviewing his meal at an Italian restaurant starting his review with, “I don’t like Italian food.” And do me a favor? If you’re going to review a film that you already stacked the deck against, PLEASE do your homework. Your review is FULL of inaccuracies. Example (as another poster already pointed out), the original Halloween is known for, among other cinematic milestones, VERY LITTLE ON-SCREEN BLOOD (where the hell do you get ‘buckets of blood’ from?). And in case you’ve been living under a rock, EVERY SINGLE write up on the film, since it went into production has stressed that it SMARTLY ignores all of the previous sequels. Lastly, the filmmakers never promised this entry would be a feminist’s wet dream of a film. If you’ve read anything about the making of this, Jamie Lee Curtis, who embodies Hollywood feminism, was a big part of bringing humanity to Laurie’s story. Really looking forward to your review of the next ‘Friday The 13th’ or “Nightmare On Elm Street’ entries. Give me a break.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  JC
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 3:41am

“let”

Truly it’s amazing the power MAJ has to prevent anyone else from reviewing a film once she’s already done so.

Remarkable.

chrishaagan
chrishaagan
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:39am

Your white knighting is also quite remarkable. I’m sure one day some maiden fair will track you down after you gallantly defend her online to offer you all the delights your incessant online defense of womyn kind hath earned. You seem fairly confident, so I’m guessing you’ve been doing this for a few years now. That equates to a handjob and a game of Warcraft in the real world. Yay! Real world points!

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JC
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 11:39am

Why not let someone who is a tad more impartial review this film?

Whom have I stopped from reviewing this film, or any other?

Isobel_A
Isobel_A
reply to  JC
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 9:42am

“””I am not a fan……” Why not let someone who is a tad more impartial review this film? ”

Because…what? A fan is more impartial than someone who isn’t? I’m not sure you’re understanding the concept of impartiality.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  JC
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 6:26pm

Oh, please. I see guys on the Internet make tons of cracks about the Twilight movies and other stuff of which they are not fans.

Your problem with MaryAnn is not that she is not impartial. Your problem is that she doesn’t agree with you.

JC
JC
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 6:51pm

No Tonio, you fucking dolt. READ more carefully next time. “Making cracks” about films/genres you’re not a fan of is a far cry from offering a serious review which MaryAnn did, for a series she already admittied to not being a fan of. Had she said either, “I am a fan of the series” or “I have enjoyed one (or some) entries in the series,” I wouldn’t have commented. I said don’t waste yours or anyone els’s time reviewing a film in a series you’re “not a fan of”, even the original. I wouldn’t waste my time or yours reviewing an entry in the Atkinson’s ‘Mr. Bean’ canon because it would have been negative from word one. See CK’s reply from 9 days ago. Right on the money on several points.

HALLOWEEN isn’t a documentary. So when Maryann, in her first paragraph, attacks the film/series for slandering the mentally ill with its portrayal of the boogeyman antagonist…….PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK. This isn’t a Paul Schraeder film. It’s a HORROR/SLASHER movie. MaryAnn’s out-of-step observations like “what are the chances that Myers escapes again on Halloween night” are cringe-worthy.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JC
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 9:20pm

For future reference to all idiots, this is the kind of comment that gets you banned. Not for disagreeing with me or with anyone else, but for its abusive attitude and language.

CK
CK
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 5:08am

Why see the movie if you aren’t even a fan of the first one and pretty much know you won’t like this installment?
Also, you criticize that the writers are Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley stating “none of whom have any demonstrated expertise or even experience with horror. Mostly, they’re all about adolescent grossout comedy [Pineapple Express, Your Highness]. How did any of them even get this gig?”
Why can’t they make a horror movie just like Jordan Peele made ‘Get Out’ last year and it turned out to be a pretty great thriller? What about A Quiet Place made by John Krasinski? Just because they aren’t a part of the genre doesn’t mean they can’t try their hand at it.
Moving on, it’s clear that you really want feminism represented in the movie and yet you don’t focus on what makes a film work aside from stories and characters. No mention of the musical composition, cinematography, and if the tone of this film matches with the original favoring suspense over blood/gore. You do mention gore and horror cliches where “slutty girls” have to die, but the original Halloween established Laurie as a strong woman and she’s probably the most iconic woman character in horror. Yeah, the horror genre has really never been feminist but it’s not like it’s treating every woman as a disposable character. There are disposable characters of each sex in slashers.

It’s fine if you didn’t like it or just found it average. I know plenty of people who hate the horror genre as a whole (who can really blame them after so much schlock coming out now?) and I do understand how one could expect some feminism to come out of this new Halloween considering how the first one showed Laurie, but having that as a primary focus of a review seems unnecessary and trivial to the overall experience of what the film was going for. It’s hard for horror films to conjure up a ‘so scary it had me up all night’ in this day and age, but I was hoping to see if it was as suspenseful as the original and possessed the same qualities that made the original stand out since John Carpenter had a hand in making this one.

Larry Edward Jones
Larry Edward Jones
Wed, Oct 17, 2018 7:30am

I’ll I wanna know is if Jamie Lee Curtis has any nude scenes in this movie??? If not, count me out!!!

MarkyD
Mon, Oct 22, 2018 4:18pm

A halfway decent sequel meant to take place many years after the first one, and ignoring all the others.
I didn’t find there to be much suspense or scares in the film, sadly.
It just doesn’t affect me anymore. Especially random killing for no
reason. Michael Meyers is a boogeyman who seemed to have some sort of
directive in past movies. Specifically the first one. But in this movie
he’s just killing for no reason. For audience shocks.
It gets better towards the end, though. No spoilers.
Jamie Lee Curtis is pretty great in this, and makes it worth watching.
She’s way more fascinating than Michael, that’s for sure.
Worth it for horror fans, I suppose, but overall not all that great of a movie. Mediocre I’d say

Paul Wartenberg
Tue, Oct 23, 2018 3:51am

this is case #5402981 of Hollywood recycling an idea and characters rather than spend the money and effort on undeveloped scripts sitting around in a vault somewhere by struggling writers who might have fresh takes on conventional narratives.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Paul Wartenberg
Tue, Oct 23, 2018 10:31am

And the enormous debut weekend this movie had only justifies Hollywood’s recycling of old ideas. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of box-office legs this one has, though. Not much, I bet.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Oct 25, 2018 6:20pm

The latest entry in a successful horror franchise — and moreover, one that has a popular female star — makes money at the box office by being released in the middle of Halloween season. Who would have seen that coming?

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Sun, Aug 16, 2020 4:03pm

Well, believe it or not, I am a fan of the original Halloween — and I still managed to get disappointed by this movie. Apparently I’m not the only horror movie fan who had that reaction. David Skal of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and Stacie Ponder of the Final Girl site have both written negative reviews of this flick — and now that I’ve seen it, I can understand why.

It would be nice to imagine that a scene featuring Jamie Lee Curtis aiming a rocket launcher at Michael Myers would have improved this flick but — er, no. My main problem with this movie had nothing to do with the acute absence of rocket launchers.

Rather my problem was with the movie’s rather depressing pov. Yes, I know it’s a horror film and that such films are often by definition downbeat. But the best films in the horror genre usually had some upbeat scenes that offset the more depressing scenes — and in this film, that never happens.

Nor does it have anything interesting to say about Laurie Strode. Indeed, its take on Laurie Strode makes Sydney Prescott’s story arc in the Scream movies seem like something out of a Capra film.

Yes, it’s nice to see that Jamie Lee Curtis can still have a box office hit at her age but I can’t help wishing that she had such a success with a much better movie.