My Halloween (2018) Review

[tomsches 17,399]

So let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of classic/vintage horror movies of the 60s, 70s and 80s. So naturally, the original Halloween is one of my all time favourites and it is undeniable that almost the entirety of the movie has achieved iconic status in pop culture. The only sequel that I enjoyed was H20, which was nice for reintroducing Laurie Strode.

That being said, I was extremely excited when I heard that the OG scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis was going to reprise her iconic role and that John Carpenter was the executive producer. My expectations were very high and the way they teased the movie seemed quite intriguing since I thought they were going to focus more on the relationship between Michael and Laurie as well as overcoming traumatic experiences.

This is what I think about the movie:

First of all, it's not bad, but I expected much more. It started out great with the journalist team trying to investigate Michael and with Laurie still being completely overwhelmed by what happened to her 40 years ago. 

I think my biggest problem with the film was that they introduced a niece for the sake of appealing to young audiences. I expected a movie that paid homage to the original without being a cliché teenie slasher. The whole teenage-gang was annoying and didn't contribute anything to the story except for gory scenes. Ironically, the original Halloween kind of coined the character tropes of the final girl, the blond dumb friend, the boyfriend that wants to have sex etc. but the problem was that these tropes have now been done to death and this movie didn't manage to make them interesting again the same way Scream did in 1996. The whole plot of her boyfriend cheating on her and the party in general were abandoned halfway through the movie which left me wondering, why did we even need those characters in the first place? 

Another point I was sceptic about was the Psychologist. Michael has always been portrayed as this evil, invincible entity. And the scene in which they ran him over felt a bit weird to me, because if its that easy to knock him out, why didn't they do it like that 40 years ago. And the psychologist's motive to set Michael free was interesting but, again, it was an idea that was relevant for like 5 minutes in the movie and then he was killed and the plot was forgotten again. 

I thought that they would explain why Michael is so keen on killing Laurie, since it was revealed that they're not siblings. And I thought that the final showdown between the two could have been more exciting.

What I really liked about it were all the references to the original movie. Every time they quoted the first film, I got very excited. 

So in general, I thought it was a nice teenie slasher movie, but it didn't blow me away at all. I loved how Jamie was back to play her iconic role, but imo the final product didn't live up to its potential.

6/10

 

[Doot 2]

5 minutes ago, tomsches said:

So let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of classic/vintage horror movies of the 60s, 70s and 80s. So naturally, the original Halloween is one of my all time favourites and it is undeniable that almost the entirety of the movie has achieved iconic status in pop culture. The only sequel that I enjoyed was H20, which was nice for reintroducing Laurie Strode.

That being said, I was extremely excited when I heard that the OG scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis was going to reprise her iconic role and that John Carpenter was the executive producer. My expectations were very high and the way they teased the movie seemed quite intriguing since I thought they were going to focus more on the relationship between Michael and Laurie as well as overcoming traumatic experiences.

This is what I think about the movie:

First of all, it's not bad, but I expected much more. It started out great with the journalist team trying to investigate Michael and with Laurie still being completely overwhelmed by what happened to her 40 years ago. 

I think my biggest problem with the film was that they introduced a niece for the sake of appealing to young audiences. I expected a movie that paid homage to the original without being a cliché teenie slasher. The whole teenage-gang was annoying and didn't contribute anything to the story except for gory scenes. Ironically, the original Halloween kind of coined the character tropes of the final girl, the blond dumb friend, the boyfriend that wants to have sex etc. but the problem was that these tropes have now been done to death and this movie didn't manage to make them interesting again the same way Scream did in 1996. The whole plot of her boyfriend cheating on her and the party in general were abandoned halfway through the movie which left me wondering, why did we even need those characters in the first place? 

Another point I was sceptic about was the Psychologist. Michael has always been portrayed as this evil, invincible entity. And the scene in which they ran him over felt a bit weird to me, because if its that easy to knock him out, why didn't they do it like that 40 years ago. And the psychologist's motive to set Michael free was interesting but, again, it was an idea that was relevant for like 5 minutes in the movie and then he was killed and the plot was forgotten again. 

I thought that they would explain why Michael is so keen on killing Laurie, since it was revealed that they're not siblings. And I thought that the final showdown between the two could have been more exciting.

What I really liked about it were all the references to the original movie. Every time they quoted the first film, I got very excited. 

So in general, I thought it was a nice teenie slasher movie, but it didn't blow me away at all. I loved how Jamie was back to play her iconic role, but imo the final product didn't live up to its potential.

6/10

 

I’d agree and I’d disagree. 

 

I do think the Dr Sartain subplot was unnecessary, simply because it wasn’t developed enough. I understand the motivation behind the character, and it was also clearly put there to explain how the bus crashed and why of all days, he was transferred on October 30th. But it was introduced and removed within a single scene. 

 

However, I wouldn’t say that the teenagers in the film were unnecessary. Michael wasn’t after Laurie until the last act of the film. He simply wanted to return to the town, and kill without reason, which was exactly what he did in the original. And honestly, I wouldn’t call their deaths gory. All the teenagers in the film were technically killed off screen. You simply see the aftermath. 

 

The boyfriend and the dance scene could have been removed though. The director recently said that he wasn’t killed because they had plans for him in the sequel. 

[lifeasgeorge 9,427]

I thought the movie was really good! I agree with some of your points but overall I thought the movie was very well done, I saw this movie as less of a sequel and more as an introduction for a younger generation who isn't familiar with the first movie. The plot had a good stand-alone storyline where you don't need to know the first movie to enjoy this movie, which is why I think the movie emulated the classic horror tropes the first movie coined and also included Laurie's niece (a new face for this generation).

I also think the psychologist's obsession with understanding Michael and getting him to talk paralleled the obsession that Michael and Laurie have about each other. Laurie was the only person who escaped him before so it makes sense that he came to finish what he started and vice versa.

As for the boyfriend, during the movie I completely forgot about him and it wasn't until the next day that I realized that he didn't die and wasn't even shown after the dance! I'm pretty sure there is a reason for this, maybe a sequel? 

 

[mariomania1234 11,368]

This was fun if not slightly mediocre. The first 20 minutes or so were really rough. I was cringing at some of the dialogue and acting. Some of the humor really worked while some of it really defused any semblance of tension whatsoever. I wish they had toned it down a bit. I feel like they tried to do too much and the film ultimately leaned to much into it's weaknesses more so than it's strengths. The last third act was pretty terrific all round and far and away the best part of the film.

Overall I had fun with it and it was a pretty solid entry into the franchise. Although I can't help but feel there was a better film in here somewhere. I'm not sure where I'd rank this yet as I feel I will appreciate this more on repeat viewings. It seems to be one of the more watchable films in the franchise.

[RAMROD 109,620]

SPOILER TALK:

 

 

Jamie Lee's character is a let down for me. I felt misled. The movie does not deliver what it promised with her character. 

Other than that the film is pretty okay. The violence scenes involving kids might be the most over the line part which fit with genre like this. 

[gagaisitalian 3,573]

I feel very similar about the film.

I'm a huge fan of Michael, Jason and Freddy and their franchises and quite often I do enjoy the sequels - even if they're tacky. I was extremely excited about Halloween (2018) and thought it was smart to sort of ignore all of the sequels and to bring the series back to life in a classy way.

The movie was alright. There were funny moments, intense moments and dramatic moments (no real scary moments imo but when you've seen as many horror movies as me, nothings cares you). However, you are so right in your opinion that they seem to introduce plot points only to ditch them soon after.

1. I hated that they tried having a 2018-Loomis in this film. In all honesty, I always hated Loomis. He was pretentious and boring to me (I know a lot of O.G. Halloween fans will heavily disagree with me, but that's just my opinion). So as soon as I realized they had a copycat of him in this film my heart sunk a little, lol. Then they introduce that moment where it seems Loomis was behind setting Michael free just to see him in his "natural habitat" and we think they're going somewhere else with this point (perhaps bringing the curse back and this is the new man in black?) but then Michael literally kills him seconds later. Really unnecessary.

2. The high school party scene. Talk about a completely melodramatic unnecessary scene. Like, what was even the drama there? The boyfriends cheating but she seemingly gets most mad that he throws her phone in some pudding. She doesn't even grab the phone. Then, Michael kills the friend and not the boyfriend (which I get because sexual harassment)...but why the **** should the audience care about this high school romance if literally nothing comes from it except for the fact that it's why she doesn't have her phone when her mom is trying to contact her.

Anyway, those were my biggest qualms with the film, just like how you mentioned these moments as empty plot holes. You would just think that the masters of horror wouldn't make silly mistakes like this.

[tomsches 17,399]

Oh, one more thing:

I felt like I had seen half of the movie before because the trailer gave so much away.