"One Good Scare": The HALLOWEEN Films

[Snarky Oracle!]

HALLOWEEN (1978) color-corrected for Autumn...

 

[Ome]

I loved the return of Halloween and now having finished all three movies it’s been a blast. Lots of excitement as the Trilogy payed tons of respect to Haddonfield in 1978 and all who were part of the original.

There is a part of me that will say the final trilogy could have been told in one movie if they were to remove a lot of the deadwood that plays out throughout the trilogy. It would have been one hell of a last scare, but they were always going to milk it while the audience turned up and the other part of me has been happy to go along with all three movies.


I always wanted to know how they would bring Myers back and I was happy with how that played out.

I always wanted to know how they would eventually end Myers and I was even happier by how that played out.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I loved the return of Halloween and now having finished all three movies it’s been a blast. Lots of excitement as the Trilogy payed tons of respect to Haddonfield in 1978 and all who were part of the original.

You may remember I was very cynical about the 2018 film before I watched. I was fed up with all the different timelines and realities within the film world, and Laurie had previously been killed off twice (once onscreen). Plus H20 felt to me like the definitive end to the Laurie/Michael saga and it was all undone in the opening minutes of the following film, so I was a bit fed up with all these "final confrontations" that weren't.

As it turned out, I really enjoyed Halloween 2018, especially the numerous nods to the history of the entire series. I've yet to watch Kills and Ends but I really like the little I know about the films, such as the returnees. Oh, and I know of one significant death in Kills and it doesn't displease me.

I suspect I'll wait for the final film to come out on Blu-ray (next JUNE according to Amazon), and watch them both along with the previous two films in the timeline next October. I'm looking forward to (belatedly) finding out how this timeline wraps things up.

There is a part of me that will say the final trilogy could have been told in one movie if they were to remove a lot of the deadwood that plays out throughout the trilogy. It would have been one hell of a last scare, but they were always going to milk it while the audience turned up and the other part of me has been happy to go along with all three movies.

Interesting observation.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

By the way, this JLC interview popped up in my suggestions this morning. I adore her passion for the character of Laurie and this particular vision of the series. She's always so erudite, no matter where the subject goes, and it's interesting to see her become tearful when discussing words of hate here. She's so emotionally intelligent and I could not love her more.

 

[Ome]

I was fed up with all the different timelines

I know2 what you mean, it takes away that little belief we might have had by erasing different parts. Though on the positive side, it's nice that we can have three different Halloween experiences by choosing which timeline to watch. Plus having so many films we don't have to saturate ourselves every October with all movies. I will do a different timeline for each of the next three years.

Oh, and I know of one significant death in Kills and it doesn't displease me.

ooooh......

Interesting observation.

Thinking back to my earlier comment, I guess it could be said for many trilogies over the years. I felt some parts of the last three films were thrown in for thrill and even to stretch the story. I few newer characters that I didn't care for.

But! that could all change when I do this particular timeline again. I've watched the rest of the movies countless times, so I've had time to pick and choose characters I liked over others. With this last thrillogy (I liked JLC using this in the above interview) I've only seen it once, so I could easily change my mind on further watching.

By the way, this JLC interview popped up in my suggestions this morning.

Thanks that was a great interview

 

[Mel O'Drama]

it takes away that little belief we might have had by erasing different parts.

Yes. and it also takes away some of the finality of a film's conclusion because it can always be retconned. Michael coming back from the dead again and again is one thing, as there's always been that slightly supernatural thing to him. But there are only so many final confrontations or deaths Laurie can have before it's almost taken for granted that we could end up doing it all over again in another decade or two. I've always felt it dilutes the purity of the story.

But, that said, I'm thoroughly intrigued by what JLC said about them finding a great way to end the story, and whatever happens the fact that Moustapha Akkad is no longer with us and that silly "Michael can never die because the story must continue" clause presumably doesn't apply. Which means anything really can happen. And John Carpenter's involvement fills me with hope as well.

Though on the positive side, it's nice that we can have three different Halloween experiences by choosing which timeline to watch. Plus having so many films we don't have to saturate ourselves every October with all movies.

Yes, that's true.

I forget, but do you have a favourite timeline, and has the latest series of films affected that?

ooooh......

Of course I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, and I tend to give spoilers a wide berth anyway, so who's to say how I'll feel about things in context.

But! that could all change when I do this particular timeline again. I've watched the rest of the movies countless times, so I've had time to pick and choose characters I liked over others. With this last thrillogy (I liked JLC using this in the above interview) I've only seen it once, so I could easily change my mind on further watching.

This is true. I'm counting on this thrillogy (I liked that term as well) being quite a different experience for me as it becomes more entrenched as part of the lore. I've only watched the 2018 Halloween once, whereas by the time H20 was four years old I'd probably watched it a dozen times.

 

[Ome]

I forget, but do you have a favourite timeline, and has the latest series of films affected that?

My favourite timeline is the one with Jamie Lloyd and it's most likely down to the fact I watched it during my youthful years. As thrilled as I was with the return of JLC in H20, I didn't particularly like that version of Laurie.

Now though, I think I am close to picking the latest spin as my favourite. This is the Laurie that knits the original into the latest three movies much easier and more believable.



I'm looking forward to reading what you think of the latest timeline, even if I have to wait until June

 

[Mel O'Drama]

My favourite timeline is the one with Jamie Lloyd and it's most likely down to the fact I watched it during my youthful years. As thrilled as I was with the return of JLC in H20, I didn't particularly like that version of Laurie.

Yes - I think when a film was first watched can have a lot of influence on how much we enjoy it.

I was very late discovering slashers as I'd avoided them altogether until 1997 when I was introduced to them by a friend who was obsessed with slashers (to quite a worrying degree, looking back on it. He devoured all of them, even the obscure ones that were straight-to-video, TV movies or ripoffs of other franchises). I think Scream and Scream 2 were my entrée to the genre (Scream 2 was the first slasher I watched in the cinema).

I wish I could remember where Halloween came along. I remember watching H2O at the cinema, and I think it was my first encounter with the series. It's certainly the one that had the biggest impact on me, and I still do like those slick, slightly glossy late-Nineties films because that's the time I lost my slasher virginity. That's a big part of the reason why Halloween/H2/H20 has been my preferred timeline.

I like the Jamie Lloyd films - especially Halloween 4 which has a wonderful atmosphere and reboots the story in a creative way - but I suppose because it was already retconned out of continuity by the time I first watched 4-6 it's always felt like an alternative reality to me. Still... there have still been some years when it's been exactly what I wanted to watch and hit the spot as my timeline of choice.

I do wonder how people who experienced the Jamie Lloyd films as they came out felt about H20 . In a way it's the equivalent to Dallas's dream solution since it writes off something in which the audience had been invested.

Now though, I think I am close to picking the latest spin as my favourite. This is the Laurie that knits the original into the latest three movies much easier and more believable.

I had a feeling this might be the case, and it's great to think that I might end up feeling the same way as well. From what I've seen it does look like there's been a lot of attention paid to the details and I'm hopeful that the three films form a really satisfying, well-constructed arc (even if, as you said, there's some filler).

I'm looking forward to reading what you think of the latest timeline, even if I have to wait until June

Ha ha. Mr. Behind-The-Times strikes again. I'm looking forward to catching up with it... eventually.

 

[Willie Oleson]

By the way, this JLC interview popped up in my suggestions this morning. I adore her passion for the character of Laurie and this particular vision of the series. She's always so erudite, no matter where the subject goes, and it's interesting to see her become tearful when discussing words of hate here. She's so emotionally intelligent and I could not love her more.

I don't think I'll ever understand this kind of passionate interviewing and the need to manipulate it into a "show", especially when you have a chatty guest like Jamie Lee Curtis who knows what she wants to say and how she wants to say it.
Did the interviewer really have to mention the tears in Jamie's eyes, wasn't it enough that it happened?

Sorry for being so negative, JLC is a very likeable person indeed, but I just don't understand why the interviewer has to be so shouty and creating spectacle where none is needed.

 

[Emelee]

I tried watching the 1st movie last night because it was on telly. But I found the characters annoyibg, the dialogue annoying, the heavy breathing annoying and the plot slow. I gave up after 30 minutes.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I tried watching the 1st movie last night because it was on telly. But I found the characters annoyibg, the dialogue annoying, the heavy breathing annoying and the plot slow. I gave up after 30 minutes.

Yeah, it's overrated. But more restrained than the slasher trend it started.

 

[ginnyfan]

The only thing Halloween (1978) has is the atmosphere, I'll give it that. Everything else is so beyond average, for a movie that's supposed to be the grandaddy of slashers. One of its weakest points is its protagonist, the bland Laurie, played uninspiringly by Jamie Lee Curtis.

Black Christmas, which came out in 1974, is the true first slasher, in the modern term of the word. I's an excellent, far superior movie that is unfairly underrated today.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The only thing Halloween (1978) has is the atmosphere, I'll give it that. Everything else is so beyond average, for a movie that's supposed to be the grandaddy of slashers. One of its weakest points is its protagonist, the bland Laurie, played uninspiringly by Jamie Lee Curtis.

Oh, that's really interesting. I thought melancholy Curtis was the best part about it.

 

[Crimson]

I think the entire genre is extremely limited, at least until SCREAM put some humor into it. And even that novelty wore out pretty quickly.

HALLOWEEN (1978) doesn't have much going for it beyond being (more or less) the first, some restraint that would be uncustomary in its follow-ups and knock-offs, and a creepy atmosphere. But that's still enough to put it head-and-shoulders above 99% of the rest of the slasher genre.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

This afternoon I had a "sod it" moment, purchased the 2018 version on Prime and watched it there and then.

Last night - three years on from the first time - I had my second viewing of Halloween 2018.

​

A testament to the film is how much of it I remember fairly clearly from just one viewing. I'd say this is partly down to the film's relative simplicity, mostly linear storytelling and a few effective set pieces. Plus, of course, the structure and iconography being modelled on the original film (and, to a lesser degree those from several sequels).

I was curious whether or not the film would hold up the second time round, and very pleased to find that it did. Even knowing much of the story, I still found some of the suspense very effective. Some of the big jumps got me and there were a couple of moments where I was watching from between my fingers (literally. Judge me if you must). I'm sure it helped that there's been a huge gap between viewings and, despite watching a number of thrillers this October I have a fairly low anxiety threshold when it comes to scary films.

Having somewhat familiarised myself with the nods to earlier films from the previous viewing, looking for them became less important this time which meant I was able to focus on the story rather than having my eyes peeled for this or that reference. Not that this stopped me from picking up some things I'd missed before, such as Oscar speaking to "Mr Elrod" in the security light sequence: a name I recognised from Halloween II.

I really liked the atmosphere created, particularly early on. Haddonfield looked right, and I noticed when Allyson and her friends were walking that it genuinely looked like late October.

The first time round I really struggled with Laurie's appropriately-named daughter whom I found a bit entitled and whiny (that little girl voice could not be less like Laurie's). I found her a tad more tolerable this time, though I did find myself rolling my eyes at the scene where she used her femininity to get Michael exactly where she wanted him by pretending to be even more helpless and whiny than usual).

Even without the novelty of a first time viewing, the film holds up really well, and at this moment I'd say vies with H20 for my second favourite in the series.

I suspect I'll wait for the final film to come out on Blu-ray (next JUNE according to Amazon), and watch them both along with the previous two films in the timeline next October. I'm looking forward to (belatedly) finding out how this timeline wraps things up.

Well, I never got round to buying the Blu-ray, but I'm thinking I might just go ahead and buy Kills and Ends on Prime, with the aim of watching them this week. It'll be my first time with both (so no spoilers please) and I think it's time.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

This week also marked the 25th Anniversary of my first Halloween cinema experience. On 29th October 1998 I watched H20 in the cinema.

I only know the date because it happened to be the same date that flashed up on-screen in the pre-credit sequence with Marion Whittington (naïve young me spent a few minutes wondering if it was a gimmick where they changed the date to match the screening). My friend was a Halloween buff, but I was coming in after a hasty introduction to the series. I think I'd first watched the first two films a very short time before this, but the exact chronology is a bit jumbled up in my memory.

I also remember getting some takeaway after the film and being a bit freaked out using the grotty public toilets after watching the film's Rest Stop sequence. It didn't help that someone pushed open a door I thought I'd locked, freaking me out further.

H20 remains one of my most-watched films in the series, and one which I view very fondly. I do realise, though, that it's very much a flawed gem, and an exercise in potential never fulfilled because of rushed production, mandated changes and compromises and too many cooks. Jamie Lee speaks about her own frustrations here, and it certainly translates to the viewing experience, especially since any reference to the ending invariably leads to a mention of the godawful Resurrection.

There are so many things I'd dearly love to change about H20. The ever-changing masks, of course (each worse than the last); and John Ottman's score, which was hacked up on orders of the Weinsteins.

Watching the 2018 film last night I was trying to decide which makes the more satisfying reboot of the two. H20 has the far more cathartic ending, of course (assuming one watches no further). The climax needs be a one-to-one between Laurie and Michael.

That aside, though, the 2018 film is a serious contender for the better reboot. It's grittier, more raw and tonally feels closer to the 1978 original. Much as I enjoy H20's glossy Nineties-ness, I love the attention to detail in the 2018 film's opening titles, for example.

Laurie shares many similarities between the timelines. In both she's the haunted, paranoid person in hiding, afraid to connect to people and sublimating her post-traumatic stress with alcohol. H20 Laurie's pain is somewhat glossier, and that's fine for me. I find it more accessible and soapy and entertaining to watch in that regard. All the same, 2018's Laurie is pretty terrifying to watch and once I'd seen ranting Laurie as the new Loomis I couldn't unsee it.

While H20 - as we now know - would never fully be allowed to fully deliver on the promise of its strong foundation due to Moustapha Akkad's "Michael contractually can't die" clause, I'm hopeful that the triple whammy of Halloween 2018/Halloween Kills/Halloween Ends will.

The bottom line, though, is that both reboots are apples and oranges and (despite my initial disdain upon hearing about the 2018 film) I'm glad we have them both.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Last night marked a lifetime first for me. It was the very first time I've sat down to watch a brand-new-to-me Halloween film on Hallowe'en itself.

Having refreshed myself on the 2018 film just the night before, I was more than ready and actually felt pretty excited about watching Halloween Kills. So excited, in fact, that we ended up sitting down to watch around 6pm.

It was a promising start with the neat picking up of events immediately following the 2018 film.

I was a little on the fence about the flashbacks to 1978, but it didn't feel like a damaging retcon because it all seemed to take place after the events of the 1978 film, and so felt more like filling in gaps. I also appreciated how they'd tried to closely match up the film's aesthetics, and particularly how Michael and Loomis looked. The voice actor for Loomis didn't work for me and made the whole character feel "off", but overall it was a valiant effort.

It was also initially a minor thrill to see Marion, Leigh Brackett, Tommy Doyle, Lindsey Wallace and other minor characters related to the original film, like Lonnie.

After the first film, I clicked into this one with a sense of confidence that this would be an enjoyable and quality entry in the series. Unfortunately, despite all faith in the film at the beginning, my optimism quickly wore off and I found myself watching it with a sinking feeling as it plodded on. Simply put, I didn't enjoy it all that much and I really didn't think it was a good film.

If the 2018 film captures something of the spirit of the 1978 original, Halloween Kills feels very much like a spiritual successor to the 1980s sequels. Unfortunately, it captures everything that's awful about those sequels. For instance...

Laurie incapacitated in Haddonfield Memorial Hospital setting is, of course, very blatantly like Halloween II. Here, as there, there's a gloomy nighttime setting, with its "same night" direct continuation from its predecessor serving to stretch the original story too thin in the process.

In common with the 1980s sequels, the violence leans more into "show, don't tell" with tacky-looking prosthetics for deaths and graphic medical procedures standing in for genuine suspense or psychological horror. There's an emphasis on "creative" kills, with Michael basically pulling people's heads apart or using atypical weapons to graphically slaughter them (usually leaving us to watch the endless gurgling of their death breaths). It's nasty, but there's nothing that really gets into one's head.

Michael is much more visible, with other characters aware of him and even speaking to him at times. He's also increasingly super-human, surviving situations that simply defy credulity. All of which dilutes the character and diminishes his impact.

The whole "torch-wielding townsfolk" vigilante thing was done in Halloween 4 (and perhaps 5. I forget), and it was a mistake there, as well.

The writers of this film really don't get that "less is more". The death count is so high that, past the first few, they simply mean nothing. There's nothing personal, and it simply stops mattering. The way it's filmed, one feels that the film's final death is meant to be a big shocker of a moment. But numerous characters I was happy to see were killed off earlier in the film with barely an acknowledgement, so it's hard to feel anything for what by this point was just another perfunctory killing of a character I never liked anyway.

I'm also really unhappy that they killed off pretty much all the familiar faces from the 1978 film. They brought them back only to get rid of them in the most undignified ways (undignified as Marion's throat-slashing death in H20 was, at least it was memorable, meant something and became a turning point. In Kills there was so much carnage happening, that I'm not even certain all of them are dead. And that is the problem: these revered characters were treated like disposable extras and their deaths (or incapacitations) lacked any impact or meaning. It's beyond insulting.

Frankly, I just felt glad when it ended.

There is a part of me that will say the final trilogy could have been told in one movie if they were to remove a lot of the deadwood that plays out throughout the trilogy.

I would view the whole of Halloween Kills as the dead wood. The most unforgivable thing about it is that it feels like filler and doesn't really progress the story at all beyond one or two moments which could have been added to the films either side of it. In the latter part of the film there was no sense of event: it felt like watching a daytime soap with all the unnecessary rehashing of things we already know or have already seen. It's essentially a cynical money-making exercise, stretching out the story for easy box office returns. It felt incredibly lazy, and it's annoyed me.

I always wanted to know how they would eventually end Myers and I was even happier by how that played out.

I really, really wanted to be hyped beyond belief about watching Halloween Ends, but with Kills I'm starting to feel that the brilliance of the 2018 film was just a fluke. At this point it feels that they've pissed all over the history of the series and don't deserve to see it out. But I'm determined to finally watch the end of the series this week, and your comment has given me some hope that Halloween Ends might be a return to form that helps me get past my disappointment in the middle film.

 

[ClassyCo]

I gave up slasher movies several years ago because of the content, but there was a point in time where the HALLOWEEN franchise was my favorite. I watched the movies every year on AMC, and I had several of them on DVD for a while -- y'know, till I trashed them all.

But I'll talk about the movies anyway, and I'll do it in order.

The original HALLOWEEN is simple, but effective. The masked killer stalking babysitters formula wasn't necessarily innovative, but it played well under John Carpenter's direction. It inspired -- for better or for worse -- an entire subgenre of horror. It's iconic and deservedly so.

HALLOWEEN II is a direct follow-up to the original, and plays pretty well when you combine the two as one big movie. Michael Myers is a little too stiff, and this sequel is more brutal. Jamie Lee Curtis looks phoned in some spots, but it's an alright follow-up.

HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH was really a good way for the producers to try and make the franchise into an anthology, and this movie is really an underrated classic. If it weren't connected to this franchise, it would be better regarded, that's for sure.

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS is the one I'm most familiar with because I seemed to watched it a dozen times each Halloween. Rachel and Jamie are solid takeovers for Laurie Strode, and it's nice to have Dr. Loomis back. This one probably does the best job of matching the "spirit" of the original.

HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS is another one I watched a lot as a kid, but it is crappy for rewriting a lot of the good "Part 4" did right. It's easily one of the worst in the franchise.

HALLOWEEN: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS has good atmosphere and a killer Myers, but the movie is choppy and incomplete. There isn't much of a flowing story, and the whole "Cult of Thorn" angle was dumb. This is the swan song for the OG Dr. Loomis.

HALLOWEEN H20: 20 YEARS LATER is a nice follow-up to the first two films, and we get Laurie Strode back. The mask for Myers is awful, but the "final showdown" between Michael and Laurie is worth the whole movie. It's a pretty good movie, though, but it gives off serious SCREAM vibes.

HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION is similar to "Part 5" -- it craps on everything that came before it. They unceremoniously kill off Laurie Strode, and then Busta Rhymes karate kicks Myers. I had this movie on an old VHS tape, and I watched it a lot because it was there. It's really a generic slasher film and Myers appears to be fitted into a story already written.

The Rob Zombie films are horrid, and the new trilogy -- while semi-appealing -- I have declined to watch due to the morals I've placed upon my viewing habits.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The original HALLOWEEN is simple, but effective.

Yes, and its simplicity is what really makes it work. The sequels which try to add layers or complexity or new story elements just don't work. In an ideal world it would have been a one-off deal, but I've long since made some kind of peace with the fact that as long as there's cinema there'll probably be some kind of reboot to the series every few years.

The masked killer stalking babysitters formula wasn't necessarily innovative, but it played well under John Carpenter's direction.

The combination of Carpenter's direction and Dean Cundey's cinematography means that the film looks incredibly good, especially considering the meagre budget and rapid shooting time.

In many ways it's not as pioneering as many suggest (let's not forget that we had the excellent slasher Black Christmas four years before Halloween), but I also think that it's more innovative than is sometimes said. Many of the slasher cliches have become so because of the numerous imitations that followed in Halloween's wake.

HALLOWEEN II is a direct follow-up to the original

and this sequel is more brutal.

Yes. It was a mistake to go the Friday The 13th route with the explicit on-screen gore. The original film kept Michael in the shadows and left much to the imagination in terms of his killings, which was a reason it was so very effective. Tacky inserts of needles in eyes and the like are no replacement for genuine suspense.

This is another where I feel Dean Cundey makes a huge difference for the better. It's nowhere near as good looking as the first film, but Cundey's cinematography elevates some of the less imaginative direction and brings a sense of cohesion between this and the original.

HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH

this movie is really an underrated classic.

I've only watched this once or twice, and even that was well over 20 years ago. All I remember is a nasty visual of someone in a wheelchair on fire rolling down a hill... and that repetitive electronic jingle.

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS

it's nice to have Dr. Loomis back

This one probably does the best job of matching the "spirit" of the original.

It's no coincidence that the Halloween sequels which are work best are the ones which essentially re-tell the original story. I'd liken it to sharing urban legends round a camp fire: even though the story and characters change a little, there's something almost comforting and cosy about its familiarity.

The return of both Michael and Loomis (especially the latter) is quite a jump the shark moment for the series since Halloween II's ending felt pretty definitive. Laurie's off-screen death also takes quite a liberty with the series' history. Yet, from what I've read online this film seems to get a lot less flak for its retcons than H20 does. I put this down to fans simply wanting the saga to continue so badly they were willing to overlook its shortcomings.

I suppose to a degree I'm in that class. I certainly enjoyed 4 in particular, even though I don't feel as attached as many do since I didn't view 4-6 until after I'd watched H20.

HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS

it is crappy for rewriting a lot of the good "Part 4" did right. It's easily one of the worst in the franchise.

Agreed. This is one of those films that got worse with each revisit until I simply couldn't face it again.

HALLOWEEN: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS has good atmosphere and a killer Myers, but the movie is choppy and incomplete. There isn't much of a flowing story, and the whole "Cult of Thorn" angle was dumb.

Yes. The story is ridiculously poor and convoluted, and it seems there were a lot of disagreements regarding writing and editing which badly affected the end product. It's a shame because the moments of atmosphere show great promise.

HALLOWEEN H20: 20 YEARS LATER is a nice follow-up to the first two films, and we get Laurie Strode back.

The mask for Myers is awful

but the "final showdown" between Michael and Laurie is worth the whole movie.

Agreed on all points. I think there were four different masks used in all (including the infamous CGI mask used in one shot). It boggles my mind that the early suggestion of re-using the mask from Curse was rejected, since that mask was the one thing that film got right.

I say this whenever the film is mentioned, so I'm repeating myself, but it's a great shame that John Ottman's score was also the victim of interference. Editing in Marco Beltrami's music from the first two Scream films (and Mimic) made it feel even more like a Scream imitator.

I'm extremely fond of H20. It's most definitely a flawed gem, but Laurie's arc is so satisfying that along with the first two films makes for a very watchable trilogy.

HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION is similar to "Part 5" -- it craps on everything that came before it.

Since finding out that the "it wasn't Michael" retcon was actually planned in when H20 was shot, I've gone a bit easier on Resurrection on that level.

Unfortunately, this isn't saying much, since the rest of the film is so godawful that it would still be the worst in the franchise even if they hadn't killed Laurie off after telling us she killed an innocent man.

The Rob Zombie films are horrid

Never say never, but to date I've chosen to avoid them, and everything I've read tells me I've done the right thing.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Well, last night I belatedly reached the end* of the Halloween saga with Halloween Ends.

After the noisy, busy violence of Halloween Kills I was left feeling quite cynical. But as yesterday went on and the time got closer for me to settle down and watch I felt hopeful once again that the film would deliver a solid ending that would hopefully take things back to basics.

Watching the credits I felt a sense of assurance from seeing John Carpenter's name as an Executive Producer (Jamie Lee was also credited, so this would have been quite the payday).

The opening sequence had me really on edge.I found my eyes scanning shadows and I was picking up on every little sound. It was surprising that Michael didn't loom from those shadows, but this won me over even more since the focus was on suspense and anticipation. In fact, I really appreciated just how long it took for Michael to arrive on screen. A 40+ minute wait has to be a franchise record.

As for what we got in those 40 minutes. My feelings are mixed.

I'm all for slow burning tension. For me this is hugely preferable to the shallow chaos we got in Halloween Kills. This final film is rich with shadows, silence and space, and that's all good. What's more, there's a lot of breathing room that offers potential for character to take precedence over event. Again, no bad thing at all.

But... overall I found the story quite problematic.

Let's start with Corey. The initial scenes of him accidentally killing his charge whist babysitting were gripping. I was also drawn in a little by his initial bonding with Laurie. Slashers rarely allow us to spend time with potential targets so this was appreciated. I also was fine with the idea that he was kind of a distorted version of Laurie (both babysitters who experience horrors).

But two things a Halloween film does not need are:

• Another serial killer at large
• Michael developing a rapport with another character

For these reasons, the "twist" with Corey becoming Michael's accomplice/partner was completely unacceptable to me.

Corey's series of killings completely diluted Michael's story. Much of the arc with his increasing sociopathy and dysfunctional home life and felt like it was ripped off from American Psycho and Bates Motel. As the film progressed it dawned on me that, rather than writing a Halloween film, the writers were actually writing their own, unrelated story and using the platform of the Halloween branding to give that story the widest possible audience. It's very much like what I read so often on this very site when it comes to Dallas fans' issue with Cynthia Cidre's vision for that franchise.

As for Corey "breaking" Michael in and then using him to target his own enemies like a trained pit bull. It's offensive. Audience reaction to Michael being a lackey for Thorn in The Curse Of Michael Myers should have put a nail in that coffin. A bad idea is one thing, but re-using a theme that has previously been so detrimental to the series is unforgivable.

And while I said I was starting with Corey, there's very little left to say beyond that since he was essentially the anti-hero.

The stuff with Laurie writing her book was... fine, I suppose. It did feel indulgent at times, and - like Halloween Kills - there was a sense that the storyline was dragged out so that the box office could be stretched out over three films which gave it a fatiguing, repetitive daytime soap quality at times.

On the plus side, haunted Laurie coming to terms with her past is never going to be unwatchable. I particularly enjoyed the scene where she left the supermarket on a high, with a big grin on her face after a flirtation with Frank Hawkins. I was really with her in that moment, and appreciated that she was allowed to have a moment of happiness. It gave the end of the scene even more impact when Laurie came face to face with wheelchair-bound Sondra (the victim of the most unnecessarily graphic attack in Kills when Michael jabbed a broken tube light into her neck). It perfectly captured how difficult it is for Laurie to step out from the shadow of Michael.

As for the attempt to end things once and for all. I won't go into spoilers, but I'll say that it was satisfying enough, though it lacked the efficient simplicity of H20's take on this.

Summing up the new trilogy: Halloween 2018 was a damned good film that left me wanting more. The latter two films mostly failed to deliver. Frankly, it feels like we got a lot of filler that should really have been nothing more than bonus deleted scenes on the Blu-ray. Once again, I fully agree with @PhantOme of the Forums that the last three films could probably have been condensed into one film if Halloween 2018 had run for an extra 20 minutes. Either that, or keep the 2018 film just as it was (I liked it that much) and condense Kills/Ends into one slicker film: ideally running around an hour and twenty minutes, instead of the three and a half hours we got.











* The end at time of writing. But I'm sure there'll be another reboot, remake, reimagining or requel along soon. After all, the 50th anniversary is less than 5 years away.