MovieChat Forums > Halloween (2018) Discussion > This movie does not "capture the essence...

This movie does not "capture the essence" of the original Halloween


There are moments in this movie that are just as pointless as in any of the thousands of Halloween ripoffs made in the 1980s. Just MM walking around killing people without thinking about it. The movie has little suspense and almost none of the character development the first movie had. Amazingly, it hardly captures the atmosphere of a Midwest Halloween the way the first one did (in Pasadena, of all places!). It's fine if you enjoyed this movie, but it's not much better than any of the previous sequels.

reply

Guess everybody agrees!

reply

Oh I totally agree. I thought that was the reason they made this, to continue the vibe of the original. Nope.

It was okay, I'll watch it again, but what a let down.

reply

And a bit of a mess -- is it about the journalists? (We learn that answer rather quickly) Is it about Laurie Strode? Her daughter? Her granddaughter? Why bother with the babysitter? Is Michael on a revenge mission? Are the few teenagers he kills along the way just him passing time?

reply

This. What is his motive? Is he just a killing machine?

If he's no relation to Laurie, what's the point? Why would he stalk her in the original then come back for her in this one? He killed a lot of allisons friends but how did he know she was lauries granddaughter? If it's by chance, that's a pretty big coincidence.

reply

My problem with it is that it does not have much of a notion of how to create suspense, which is what made the original so great. Another is that Michael in this movie is too similar to the Michael in the Zombie movies - he's a super-size badass motherfucker killer with a big motherfucking knife -he'll walk right up to you and fucking end your shit in the messiest way possible. It's not the same as part one, where he's just a regular-size guy who walks and behaves oh so strangely, hovering just at the edge of the frame, waiting with the patience of a panther for his prey - that's infinitely creepier. Along the same lines, the classic themes of the franchise are not deployed in a coherent or intelligent fashion. Playing THE theme as Michael walks into a police SUV is less than thrilling, even faintly ridiculous.

But it's a solid movie. Just not scary, in my humble opinion.

reply

I agree with all those points. It's a popcorn flick, so it's absurd to ask for much more. The claim that it's a return to the original, however, is just plain false.

reply

I have not seen this new film yet, but do you think this film lacks the subtlety of the original? Just guessing already. And also is it bloodless like the original?

I have feeling like a lot of films like this think blood is necessary so it would be realistic, not realizing that realism comes from the choice of focus and grounded point of view, the human eye does not see everything either, even in war zones soldiers try to look away. So much impact can be lost when violence becomes grotesque. The old saying comes to mind that what we don't see gives more to imagination than what is exposed. I'm just curious about this new film if it's daring to change these trends.

reply

The outrageous violence is definitely one of the huge differences between this and the original. There's one scene that rivals anything in the Hatchet movies, if that lets you know how violent the movie is.

reply

It is NOT bloodless. It does not have the subtlety of the original. I like the kills. They are solid, one in particular, is great.

reply

I might see this film one day, the fact the critics themselves like it so much pulls me away from this already, first Halloween did not have exactly good critics initially, it was breaking a new ground, and critics were not ready for it at that time, it did something new. What this new one seems to do from what I hear is to repeat what has already been done, nothing new, no breaking of trends, hence why critics usually have no problem with it. If it's something innovative and new, and critics love it, their response is a little bit different, they sort of start saying something like it's a new Psycho, oh well that was actually what some of them even said later on back in 78.

reply


Yet, Hitchcock seemed to get a free pass for slashing Janet Leigh in the shower and Arbogast on the stairs, and it was very bloody for 1960's audiences, which would equate to how later-generations audiences are (or were) shocked by gore. He could have also had the violence committed off-camera, but wanted to shock us like all the later slasher-film directors wanted to. So, was Hitch being exploitative also? Seems like a fine-line going on.

reply

No not at all, Psycho was something new, it was bound to shock the audience, it had the kind of shock quite unimaginable for many people today, todays'blood and gore is not shocking, it is usually the exact opposite. What was shocking about Halloween in 1978 was the lack of blood, its whole approach was about hiding as much in the shadows, the whole film was like a virus sneaking underneath your skin pretending it is a vitamin D, completely disturbing, and without any blood, its shocks were from the story, shocking was seeing dead Annie on the bed with the tombstone above her head for instance. That kind of a film makes you distrust the flow of the film, leaving you unsettled because you never know what it is capable of doing to you, in a way the film even felt like it was more of a thriller than a horror anyway. Psycho actually was shocking exactly because of this approach too, its violence was shocking because it was unexpected in a film that felt like a mild drama or thriller for most of the film. Many new films today are too loud, explicit, showing too much, and leaving little to an imagination. Gore itself is not an issue, it has just become a reflection of how directors want to scare you, graphic violence is not shocking if there's too much of it anyway, it makes you numb.

reply

Very well put!

My mother took me along with her and a teen cousin, to see "Psycho" when it first played in theatres in1960, oh so long ago. It scarred me, and I never take a shower when I am home alone!
I wasn't until 1978, that I remember that terrifying feeling, truly deep down, when I went to see "Halloween" in the theatre. Trembling to my core.

reply

Starman
I agree with you, as do the critics with 1978's Halloween implying the violence, and relying on suspense and a visceral-quality, without the buckets of blood that followed in later films. What I trying to convey (but not well, I suppose) about Psycho was it's own version of gore shocking audiences, but also being Oscar-nominated and generally well-received in 1960, though it's critical reputation grew more decades later. I think we are talking about both elements--but neither-- at the same time.

However, Halloween was also relatively gory to mainstream audiences who may not have been familiar with Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left that predated Halloween-- or the early 1960's Hershall Gordon Lewis gore-fests that must have been released in obscure theaters since they would have been banned. And even a film like 1979's Dawn of the Dead considered a masterpiece by some, is a cross between the two: a well-directed excellent film combined with excessive gore. That's where I was going with a film being exploitative (and the fine-line), and still critically-appraised.

I don't know if you've read Roger Ebert's long review (also in in his 1998 edition) where he cites the same things as you on what made Halloween such an excellent film.

reply

No I've not read any review of that film from Ebert. That's just my own impression of the film, I never saw it as a horror film, at least for an hour into the film. I see your point. I think gore, just like CGI or anything that can numb senses quickly is rarely used by directors sparingly in order to make an impact.

reply

I agree, the original and even the sequels felt like Halloween. This one seemed "off". Just where were they? those trees in the beginning when the granddaughter and friends were walking!? WTF were they?

reply

Yeah, the key to the original was 'subtle' -- everything was subtle. This movie is loud and unreasonably violent.

reply

Also, the original came out during a perfect era, the 70's. Life was just....different. You could never recreate that feel in this modern day. Same with Jaws. Those movies benefited in part by a perfect storm of era, location, and overall zeitgeist. And times were simpler. No cell phones or internet. Could you imagine trying to capture the simple magic Halloween or Jaws had in a movie made today? It would be near impossible. In today's day and age, if a Michael Meyers-esque killing spree happened....CNN and TMZ would be there flooding the town within hours. If Brody, Hooper and Quint were stuck on a sinking boat and the CB was busted, they'd just pull out their cell phones.

You can't recreate the magic of the originals. Not even close. For starters....MM has been played out. It was great when he was a mystery. When he truly was, to us, the Boogeyman. Now....well, he's on lunchboxes and t-shirts....FB memes and action figures.

In the original, which took place in the 70's......high school girls weren't sending nude selfies.....they giggled about kissing a boy, or going to the dance. On the radio in the background of a day....you had Blue Oyster Cult (Don't Fear the Reaper). Perfect. Nowadays.....you'd have Bruno Mars. Man, things have just changed.

The first mistake the writers and directors made with this latest attempt is.....the same mistake Zombie made--which is to assume scary requires lots of blood and guts. The original had almost no blood whatsoever. It relied on the spookiness of what lurked in the shadows.

I admire the attempt. And it was still a pretty good movie. In fact, some of the scenes and cinematography were beautifully shot. But as a whole....not many people understand how to produce the magic Carpenter and Hill created in 1978.

reply

Excellent post!
The 70s were the best

reply

Good points.

reply

replicant4
And even if we did recreate the magic of the original, audiences would complain ,due to being numbed by violence, that is was not bloody and gory enough. So, how do we recreate something new to scare, unless audiences can literally forget what has transpired in slasher films since the 70's in order to be scared? I suppose we would need to quit using spooky men with hatchets, and use another form of fright. In other words, if the original Halloween was released today, I wonder what the reaction would be.
Isn't that new film Hereditary with Toni Collette known for being very scary, and how do they create fright in that film?

reply

I noticed that you impatiently bumped your own comment after only a few hours to get a reply.

I agree that you deserve a nuanced response.

Here:

*faaaaaaaaaaaart*

reply

Go to detective school. NOW.

reply

Two huge insurmountable problems:

1) This was 100% an action movie.

2) It clearly isn’t fall.

reply