OldBoy

**SPOILERS WITHIN**

Please continue pre-release discussion here.

Movie:
"Halloween" (Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, James Jude Courtney, Nick Castle, Will Patton)

Release Date:
10/19/18

Rating:
R (for horror violence and bloody images, language, brief drug use and nudity throughout.)

Running Time:
106m. (1h. 46m.)

Budget:
$10 million (estimated)

IMDb Synopsis:


IMDb Info and Rating:
8.0 (1,913 votes as of 10/14/18)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:56 Rotten:9 (86% as of 10/14/18)

Metacritic:
67 metascore ('Generally favorable reviews' as of 10/14/18)

Trailer:


Poster Art:

Mike86

Stuckmann seemed pretty disappointed in this. Only gave it a C rating. I’m still curious to see it and would be curious to watch a more in depth review after I watch it.

DJariya

Seeing it tomorrow night.

Looking forward to it. This time I bought my ticket as Regal because it's the last movie ticket I needed to fulfill the free Universal digital codes promotion from the summer.

I should be getting a free digital copy of this movie when it's released on digital along with 3 others.

Mondo Kane

Same. The entire Collider crew all said it's solid. Can't wait!

dsa_shea

We are going to see this tomorrow night. Hoping it kicks ass.

OldBoy

Starting up the original in prep for this. Hope to see this Monday. Looking forward to tonight’s original. Hope to check out some extras too...

Brian T

Re-posting my TIFF thoughts from the other thread here, with spoiler tag still in place, for now. I'll remove that tomorrow, I suppose, and expand my comments about the "two shots" at the climax, and some other bits I hinted at . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It was better than I thought it would be, for sure.

Rambling here, but no outright spoilers (except one, duly labeled). The usual false-set-up-then-the-real-scare routine was overused but the kills were realistic and well-designed, and often very squishy. The ‘three generations’ of heroines was a nice touch played out in a logical manner with all three having differing views on the situation at hand and varying levels of trauma due to the events in the original, with Judy Greer surprisingly getting the film’s most rousing highlight (which hopefully they don’t give away in future trailers).

The comparison of Curtis’s character with Linda Hamilton’s in T2 are not inapt. After years of struggling with mental health issues, failed marriages and strained family relationships, her secluded house is an armory full of weapons and trap doors just primed for a big showdown (which thankfully unfolds in an organic, no-superhuman-feats fashion), and she’s drawn and performed as something more complicated than just a kick-ass granny (although I’m sure some producer somewhere has a ”Bad Grandmas” script in development that would pair them up if Hamilton’s turn in the upcoming Terminator movie is a winner ).

I didn’t really like the pretentious investigator/podcaster couple that get the ball rolling (they’re in the trailer meeting Michael in the asylum) and started to get the cringey feeling that they were being set up as major characters but it quickly becomes apparent that the writers don’t like their kind either — especially in an amusing scene where they start recording portentous monologues at Judith Meyers’ grave — making them this film’s “timely” variation on those reality-show idiots in Halloween 17 or whichever it was. And, with Danny McBride co-writing you just know it won’t be long before the weed jokes arrive, but they’re in an amusing sequence with a babysitter and one of her charges (a young black actor named Jibrail Nantambu who actually gets a few of the film’s best lines).

I thought the reveal of a second villain in Michael's doctor was a misstep, so points off for that, although it was at least unexpected and an argument can (and will) be made that it makes sense.

The wrap-up really seemed like they were aiming for some sort of finality, until — of course — they insert one shot of the basement inferno WITHOUT Michael, and another of the ladies in the back of the pickup truck and Laurie's granddaughter looking distraught and clutching the big knife, to stir up inevitable debates. Personally, I’d be happy leaving it here. Forty years, people; go out on a reasonably high note!

Of all the films, I’d rank this second to the original even though it doesn’t come close, nor will any further attempts frankly. It’s just nice to see such a solid effort after decades of misguided, disappointing and divisive sequels and spinoffs and reimaginings. In that sense, with all that detritus to learn from, it couldn’t have been too difficult to come up with something that satisfies, and they did that here.

And with the soundtrack you’ve wanted since 1978.

Mike86

Another channel I watch, Screen Junkies seemed to be in line with Chris Stuckmann’s thoughts. Dan Murrell and Roth Cornet both have it a more mixed to slightly negative review.

I’m sensing that my initial thoughts on this might be how I end up feeling. Ultimately I think it’ll probably be okay but not worth wiping out the other films for to say this is the real direct sequel to the first. Still planning to see it sometime this weekend for sure.

Brian T

Someone in another thread here illustrated the various "timelines" one could make with all the films, and of those I still think the HALLOWEEN 78 --> HALLOWEEN 18 timeline is the most satisfying overall experience, requiring the least amount of mental gymnastics. None of the issues I had with the new one -- and there were a few -- were as bothersome as the issues I've had with all of the others, including the original Part II. I liked not having to "make it make sense in my head" anymore once I chose this new "timeline" as my preferred one. Mind you, I'd have no problem re-watching (and possibly speeding through) any of the older ones, too, and have the big Shout! box for just such occasions.

Mike86

No doubt that there’s a lot of timelines but going through the films again recently I was surprised at how many I enjoyed a lot actually. The timelines in my opinion aren’t all as confusing as people make them out to be unless you have no comprehension of the films at all. Basically 1-6 go pretty well together other than the third which is obviously it’s own thing. H20 is kind of what messes things up which was essentially the first pseudo attempt at what this film is doing. The two Zombie films are clearly their own thing just like any other remake.

I guess my thing from the start with this movie has been if they’re going to claim it as a sequel to only the first film then it better be damn good, and I’m getting the sense that it might not be that way for me. I like a lot of the existing films and didn’t necessarily need them retconned. Also guess what, just because this movie thinks it’s tying things up in a neat little bow doesn’t mean that things won’t get screwed up down the line with the sequels it’s likely to get. I think on some level I’ll wind up liking this, but like most modern horror films that receive high praise I probably won’t love it.

Brian T

If anyone -- or any critic you've read -- has suggested this film ties things up in a neat little bow, they obviously weren't paying close attention. In my TIFF sorta-review I said I'd be happy if they stopped with this one, but I hinted about where they left the door open for unnecessary (but undoubtedly inevitable) sequels, either involving Michael or at least one of the heroines in this one, who's literally left holding a big knife at the end and looking a bit traumatized, if I recall correctly. I'm sure it's Horror Screenwriting 101 or something: the character (among the three leading ladies) most likely to cave under pressure doesn't, and the one who blows the whole thing off, then seems to come around, ends up (possibly) scarred enough to come back in a sequel no one needs to see.

Also, if you were able to find mild-to-negative reviews more in line with how you think you'll feel about it, then obviously it's not getting "high praise" across the board. Even some of the more positive ones have called out some flaws.

The timelines I mentioned weren't timelines after all, they were "realities" that someone posted to suggest ways a viewer could approach the extant films if they wanted to. I don't think they were trying to reconcile any confusion (which no fan of the series should have) so much stating the obvious:

I must admit, though, despite your clear passion for the franchise, you do seem a bit primed to dislike this entry based on other people's reviews. I suppose the weekend will tell the tale!

Mike86

None of the reviews I’ve watched have said that, but I’ve felt since the beginning that the new film wiping everything else out essentially is the filmmakers thinking that their film is better than the rest and infallible to becoming as convoluted or silly as the existing sequels. Basically to me if this film didn’t have Carpenter or Curtis involved I don’t think as big of a deal would be being made about it.

Also I never said it was getting high praise across the board, just that it’s been getting high praise which is fairly accurate.

Brian T

I see your point, but what I can't see is how any filmmakers could've jump-started this franchise any other way while still hoping to make substantial money at the box-office, which absolutely should be a goal in this era. And so far, it appears the predictions may prove them right. Acknowledging all of the other films (except III and the Zombies) would be beyond ridiculous and confounding at this point. Trying to do so would create a movie that absolutely wouldn't be as big of a deal as this one is shaping up to be, with or without Curtis and Carpenter, and it certainly wouldn't attract new audiences to the franchise which, again, should be a goal in 2018. At the end of the day, the box-office matters, obviously, as does attracting new eyeballs to a time-worn property — a task that has tripped up many a filmmaker who thought all they had to do was blow off the mothballs of some famous horror brand — and to do that really does mean ignoring everything that happened after the 1978 film. There's an entire generation out there now that has very little attachment to, let alone knowledge of, the franchise, and those viewers — by that I mean, more or less, the under-30 crowd that will probably make up a sizeable portion of the audience for this installment — shouldn't be burdened with that baggage. And frankly neither should the long-time fans. Hell, I'm very familiar with all of the earlier films, for better AND for worse, and found it refreshing that the new one ignored them outside of the occasional nod. In my opinion, this film IS better than the rest, and I honestly don't think the filmmakers were being hubristic so much as pragmatic, but as I mentioned in my original ramble, they had a couple of decades of compromised, continuity-flouting, cash-in sequels to improve upon. No hard task, in my opinion. You even note that the sequels became convoluted or silly, as indeed might any sequels to this one. There are no classics but the original. And this new one is no classic either. And yet, fans of the sequels needn't fret that their beloved entries are being "wiped out" because those films are all still out there, too. We can all pick our "realities" now.

Mike86

I’ll just say that a lot of my issue stems from thinking the premise of this sounds and looks a bit silly. Laurie Strode has basically turned into Sarah Connor and is being chased down by sixty some year old Michael forty years later, and not for a logical reason necessarily. Say what you will about them being siblings but that made sense. I know this film explains how they meet up but still. I think the reason why it bothers me is that the premise doesn’t come off any less silly than some of the other sequels, but it’s like the filmmakers want us to think that it is because they’re claiming the others don’t exist.

I liked my fan idea about just doing a sequel set in like the 80s or so with Michael just doing his thing to randoms. You could have tied it in somewhere or just keep it vague and had it fit in anywhere along the original timeline.

stingermck

Just saw it and had a good time with it. My only complaint was the heel turn. It was only done to get Micheal to Strodes house.

I still prefer them to be brother and sister, because otherwise why would he care. So I'm just going to pretend I didn't hear that line.

Glad they worked in Loomis.

Of course it was left open ended with no body being seen.

Audience seemed to enjoy it.

clappj

Just got back, and I thought it was very good! Better than the majority of horror sequels for certain.

stvn1974

I was bored silly. I won't even compare it to the classic original but I still prefer the two Zombie films to this. If it wasn't for Resurrection this film would be at the bottom.

candyrocket786

I'm going to pretend that she was just lying to her friends.

Overall.... I fucking loved it!

MysterioMan007

Best sequel. Not as good as the original, but still very good.

It was almost like a mashup of all the Halloween films rolled into one. There were references to all of the others in there somewhere, with Lonnie Elamb's son dating Laurie's granddaughter, the H4 gas station scene mixed with the H20 bathroom scene, H2 Mrs. Elrod butcher knife scene, the H3 masks, some clown cops with their "Did that sound weird to you?" line, the evil doctor clearly referencing H6, and the ending was a little reminiscent of Resurrection, all while displaying the brutality of Rob Zombie's films.

Michael was relentless in this and that little black kid with the babysitter deserves his own movie. I liked the Halloween atmosphere and Michael was genuinely frightening in this.

Still, there were some issues I didn't like. I wish they had left Michael vanishing into the night in 1978 open and having never been caught. It would have been more haunting than him being locked up in a mental institution for 40 years. The characters, even Laurie, seemed a little underdeveloped and, at times, just seemed to jump from kill to kill without any buildup.

Still, a welcome entry into the Halloween lore after the abortion that was Zombie's films. Hell, a creative writer could find a way to weave this into the original continuity with some creative liberties. Loved it. But it seemed to be the final ride, so I'm glad it went out on a high note.

Toddarino

I thought it was good not great. I'm bummed they couldn't name it something else and that it ignores part 2 and H20.
I loved the score and Castle really proved he knows how to make Michael move. Kinda like Hodder and the f13 series.
What I didn't like was the kills that made no point. Why the woman in the window, the babysitter and boyfriend. All the others were basically out of necessity, which made sense for the character.

I have more thoughts. Maybe I'm not drunk enough yet.

MysterioMan007

The woman in the window was a cool kill and drew a good reaction in the theater, but I agree, it didn't really impact the movie other than to add to the body count. What was missing here was Michael doing any type of stalking like he did in the original. He just escaped and immediately started killing anyone he came into contact with...

Obey The D

Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the film it isn’t Castle. They hyped his return but he’s in it for a few seconds IIRC.

Obey The D

😂

Trolls gonna troll.

Toddarino

Well I'll be. That's what I get for avoiding all information about this beforehand.

I guess whoever it was as Michael really nailed it. Especially that scene bumping into the kids then going to the garage etc...

Why So Blu?

I just got back from this and having watched Halloween II earlier today - this one is basically a remake of that one. They did plenty of homage shots from the first two films - I liked the Laurie Srode standing outside of the school looking at her granddaughter and those type of scenes. The music score was also great, as well.

I didn't really care for scenes that ended in smash cuts. The opening had a smash cut that leads into the opening credits, which was weird in terms of placement. I didn't care for the flow there.

As far as the kills "for no reason" as Michael is stalking the neighborhood, well, that's all Halloween II "homaging." Kind of how in Halloween II Michael kills the random girl that heard the old lady screaming who was making her husband a ham sandwich. That kill was totally unnecessary (in Halloween II) but was added by John Carpenter to add to the body count/gore factor. At least here, that whole sequence was one giant take, which was cool on a technical level.

As far as resolution goes? Well, there is closure for the women, but as far as Michael goes, he was either in the house or made it out. Again, this H40 was more of a remake/re-imagining of Halloween II.

If I had to rank them now, since I may see this again at theater, I'll say my order of sequence is:

John Carpenter's Halloween
Halloween II
H20
H40