HALLOWEEN (2018)

HALLOWEEN (2018) : C+

The pros and cons of this psychological horror battled every bit fiercely as did Michael and Laurie. Throughout the film's entirety, likes and dislikes fought tooth and nail. If this film is looking for praise, it earned it. If this film is looking for criticism, it earned it.

The cinematography, lighting and costume design were top notch. Emily Gunshor ought to receive an academy award for costume design on Michael Myers alone. He looked incredible. The mask, the hair, the suit, she put together the total package. The scenes were well shot, camera angles well used and the dimming and brightening of the lights were used to enhance moods. This film was well shot and it was well scored. Music is an unsung hero in a horror film, and if used correctly, as it was here, it can add great effect to a number of scenes.

Nick Castle played Michael every bit as good as he did in the first film, although I felt he had a slightly faster pace. From a story perspective I missed the methodical and mysteriously clever Myers from the first film. The movie made it abundant that it omitted all other sequels and was only a sequel to the first film, but even in Michael's mannerisms and reactions he seemed much different to his 1978 counterpart. The film confused me on whether it wanted to present a human being or a monster. He had the unreal strength and recovery time of a monster, yet he reacted to being shot and stabbed with winces of pain.

When first introduced to Dr. Sartain, the film gave a false impression that the beloved Doctor, Sam Loomis who was fixated on protecting the world from Michael might have been replaced by someone destined to the same fate. Then out of left field, we're given instead a man as possessed and dangerous as Michael. It was an incredibly stupid scene, insulting to the audience and to the character. Here's a guy that supposedly spent time with Michael and Dr. Loomis, hand picked as Loomis's predecessor and we're supposed to by that he's bottled up an obsession to see what it feels like to kill the way Michael has for the past 23 years? (While the film does not acknowledge the previous sequels, it does acknowledge that Dr. Loomis had passed away. Per about any source you look at, Loomis would have passed away between 1995 and 1997.) Bullshit.

It begs the question, why have such a nonsensical and ridiculous scene in an otherwise fairly straight film? It's simple. This film is a shrine to Jamie Lee Curtis. In the same manner as was HALLOWEEN: H20 it is all about making it loud and making it clear that she's the star of this film and that Laurie Strode is the sole heroine. She a smidgen of the spotlight with someone else? Never. And that's why the sheriff was killed off early without much character development and why Dr. Sartain was made out to be a blabbering buffoon before having his skull crushed in.

With that said, JLC was amazing. She's an incredible actress. There is no taking that away from her. I did feel that Laurie seemed a bit more apprehensive and startled than what forty years of preparation would result. She also seemed to make mistakes and put herself in vulnerable positions far more than forty years of preparation would have one believe.

The rest of the characters in the film were just sort of there. Filler. No real purpose other than to have someone for Michael the killer to kill and for Laurie, the heroine to save. I enjoyed Karen and Allyson, but aside from the ending, damsels in distress indeed they were.

Michael seemed to have no other motivation or reason other than the obsession to kill. Which is fine, until the question arises of why it is so important for him to go after Laurie. He goes into Haddonfield, killing people at random. What makes Laurie special? She's no longer his sister. That idea was scrapped, so why prioritize her? Why stop as you go stalk and killing about, to suddenly focus on Laurie? One could conclude that it was unfinished business from forty years ago. Perhaps Michael could since that Laurie was his greatest threat? Hopefully the film's intention was to leave the why of Michael's pursuit of Laurie a complete mystery, because it sure as Hell didn't do a damn thing to answer that question.

The investigative journalists in the beginning were completely useless. Nothing more than cheap plot devices to move to the story to a point to where the bus could crash and Michael could escape. They might have been used more and certainly better, but again in doing so, a bit of the focus could potentially be taken off of JLC and Heaven forbid that.

It needs to be said that the Myers house needed to be in this film.

Lastly I'll say that the ending (which leaves itself wide open for a sequel) was refreshingly satisfying. A marvelous reversal that surfaces just as you think things are about to sink.