Halloween (2018)

Basq

cliggg wrote: »

Cinemas are generally good at knowing in advance what are likely to be the more and less popular movies in any given week so that's how they decide how many screenings a day and what size screen to show them in.

You're right.. cinemas would be correct to think a movie called Halloween would do poorly this time of year.

Cinemas have a inkling, or a general estimation, of what will do well, and no more than that.. can't help but recall a near empty screen of Paul Feig's Ghostbusters in my local on it's opening night.

This may not be the #1 movie next week (A Star Is Born is doing incredible!) but it'll far from bomb.

You went to a horror movie in an afternoon showing that was barely a third full? No sh*t.. it's an afternoon weekend showing of a horror - everyone else was bringing their kids to matinees.

Autecher

Basq wrote: »

You're right.. cinemas would be correct to think a movie called Halloween would do poorly this time of year.

Cinemas have a inkling, or a general estimation, of what will do well, and no more than that.. can't help but recall a near empty screen of Paul Feig's Ghostbusters in my local on it's opening night.

This may not be the #1 movie next week (A Star Is Born is doing incredible!) but it'll far from bomb.

You went to a horror movie in an afternoon showing that was barely a third full? No sh*t.. it's an afternoon weekend showing of a horror - everyone else was bringing their kids to matinees.

I don't think you read the part you quoted as you just backed up my point then put words in my mouth that I never said. You should relax a bit Basq, no need to be sarcastic and start making things up just because some guy you don't know expressed an opinion you don't agree with. It's just a movie.

The Golden Miller

cliggg wrote: »

I don't think you read the part you quoted as you just backed up my point then put words in my mouth that I never said. You should relax a bit Basq, no need to be sarcastic and start making things up just because some guy you don't know expressed an opinion you don't agree with. It's just a movie.

No, it's not just a movie, it's a Michael Myers movie!

titan18

My local Omniplex is showing it in their Maxx screen though and it was completely full for both showings tonight and at the one I was at, I heard people being told tickets were sold out.

I thought it was very good anyway. Not scary tbh, didn't even have that many jump scares but it was still good. I also really liked the music and thought it suited. In particular the opening after the two journalist ones visit Myers in prison.

northgirl

titan18 wrote: »

My local Omniplex is showing it in their Maxx screen though and it was completely full for both showings tonight and at the one I was at, I heard people being told tickets were sold out.

I thought it was very good anyway. Not scary tbh, didn't even have that many jump scares but it was still good. I also really liked the music and thought it suited. In particular the opening after the two journalist ones visit Myers in prison.

Great music and no faffing about. Action started pretty much immediately. Enjoyed it for what it was.

razorblunt

I enjoyed it, nice throwbacks to the original but some points I like how

the douche boyfriend doesn't get his comeuppance

but

Michael Myer's doctor was completely unnecessary, they could have had him steer the car of course instead

.

It was very uneven though, strange comedy, strange decisions by characters in time and a few instances of bad writing but pretty decent none the less.

weadick

sirmanga wrote: »

Very disappointed in this film. Had no atmosphere and the little subplot with Michael's doctor was rubbish.

There was a certain snobbery from everyone involved in this movie. A sense of "Oh look at all those stupid sequels. Forget them. This is the real sequel. The good one."
And in the end this movie is just as ridiculous as most of the other sequels.
The version of Laurie Strode in H20 was much more believable than the Sarah Connor wannabe we got in this one.
Not a good movie!

Have to agree here. Was looking forward to this for ages but it's just garbage, every bit as daft as the other sequels.

gmisk

Basq wrote: »

You're right.. cinemas would be correct to think a movie called Halloween would do poorly this time of year.

Cinemas have a inkling, or a general estimation, of what will do well, and no more than that.. can't help but recall a near empty screen of Paul Feig's Ghostbusters in my local on it's opening night.

This may not be the #1 movie next week (A Star Is Born is doing incredible!) but it'll far from bomb.

You went to a horror movie in an afternoon showing that was barely a third full? No sh*t.. it's an afternoon weekend showing of a horror - everyone else was bringing their kids to matinees.

Defo not a bomb 77.5 million opening in US by looks of it.

I enjoyed it, its not a patch on the original, tbh I probably even prefer Halloween 2.
But it was fun, Jamie Lee Curtis was terrific and lots of nice call backs to the original some good scenes

I especially liked the scene with the motion sensor lights

I could have done without some of the humour it didn't add to it.
Less said about the doctor character the better...silly.
I thought the actress playing the grandchild was good and haven't seen her in anything before. Oh and the music was terrific as expected.
Solid 7/10 for me.

sirmanga

At two points in this film I felt like it had an opening to become a better film.

The first was when the two journalists asked Laurie to go see Michael in prison.
After that didn't happen I thought "it would be great to see that movie instead of this been there/done that movie I'm watching."

And the second path the film could have taken would be to have Laurie be responsible for Michael escaping. She could have ambushed the prison van to murder Michael but in the melee he escapes. So now she is responsible for whatever he does and gives her more reason to hunt him down. As the Sheriff says to Loomis in the original "damn you for letting him go."
But that would have required the filmmakers to give Laurie a shade of grey, instead of the one dimensional robot we got. The new doctor character only existed to get Michael from point A to B. He served no other purpose.

This whole film was a missed opportunity.

biggebruv

sirmanga wrote: »

At two points in this film I felt like it had an opening to become a better film.

The first was when the two journalists asked Laurie to go see Michael in prison.
After that didn't happen I thought "it would be great to see that movie instead of this been there/done that movie I'm watching."

And the second path the film could have taken would be to have Laurie be responsible for Michael escaping. She could have ambushed the prison van to murder Michael but in the melee he escapes. So now she is responsible for whatever he does and gives her more reason to hunt him down. As the Sheriff says to Loomis in the original "damn you for letting him go."
But that would have required the filmmakers to give Laurie a shade of grey, instead of the one dimensional robot we got. The new doctor character only existed to get Michael from point A to B. He served no other purpose.

This whole film was a missed opportunity.

Didn’t the doctor plan the escape of Myers aswell he probably organized the transfer to fall on Halloween and make the escape possible on the bus by undoing the chains or whatever like he said nobody cared about him anymore since it had been 40years but the doctor wanted to see him in action doing his thing

Without the doc the movie wouldn’t have happened I’m aware it’s a silly slasher film aswell btw lol

sirmanga

biggebruv wrote: »

Didn’t the doctor plan the escape of Myers aswell he probably organized the transfer to fall on Halloween and make the escape possible on the bus by undoing the chains or whatever like he said nobody cared about him anymore since it had been 40years but the doctor wanted to see him in action doing his thing

Without the doc the movie wouldn’t have happened I’m aware it’s a silly slasher film aswell btw lol

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The doctor only existed in this film in order to explain how Michael escaped from the van, and then to explain how Michael gets to Laurie's house near the end. The evidence for this is that the doctor is killed almost right away after the reveal, because he is no longer needed as a character. Really, really bad writing.

gmisk

sirmanga wrote: »

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The doctor only existed in this film in order to explain how Michael escaped from the van, and then to explain how Michael gets to Laurie's house near the end. The evidence for this is that the doctor is killed almost right away after the reveal, because he is no longer needed as a character. Really, really bad writing.

That was the biggest weakness in whole film for me.

it was fairly obvious he was a bad un, plus they had a weird close up of the pen back near start of the film....clunky

sirmanga

gmisk wrote: »

That was the biggest weakness in whole film for me.

it was fairly obvious he was a bad un, plus they had a weird close up of the pen back near start of the film....clunky

Yes, you could see it a mile off. I was hoping it wasn't going to be the case.

As I said in a previous post, having Laurie go visit Michael and/or having her ambush the prison van and be responsible for Michael escaping would have been such a great direction to go in. And those aren't my ideas. These are two directions the movie touched upon, by having the journalists ask Laurie to go with them to the prison, and then later Laurie is seen sitting in her car on the road, watching the van leave the prison.
Also, how did Laurie intend on trapping Michael in her basement, as was her master plan, if she was simply hiding in her house all the time? How did she expect Michael to find his way to her house? Did she just hope that Michael's doctor would turn out to be an oddball and drive Michael there?
If Laurie had been responsible for letting Michael escape, she would have to go out of her way to get him and lure him to her house of horrors at the end. Why build this trap for Michael and then hide from him?

It's as if the filmmakers stumbled upon these fresh, interesting directions and then deliberately went the well trodden, stupid slasher sequel path.

What a shame.

artvanderlay

It's a slasher movie, so they had to get Michael out of the hospital some way, back in Haddonfield, and back slashing. However they did it, some people would complain about it: you can't please everybody. The doctor was there to just get Michael moving, and they could have done it better but so what? It worked for me. I didn't see that twist coming when the doc stabs Will Patton's cop character...if anything it showed that Michael is not some indestructible killer: Will Patton saw him stupidly walking the streets in the open, hit him with his car and was going to put a bullet in his head until the doc intervened. That would have been the end of Michael Myers there and then.


We needed the doctor character for exposition on what Michael has been doing in confinement for the past 40 years. I would have preferred if the doc was trying to help catch him later because I liked his character; maybe they should have had the male podcaster be a bit unhinged and slip Michael a weapon or something to get free, because he wants to see Michael in action, and get more attention for his podcast.

sirmanga

artvanderlay wrote: »

It's a slasher movie, so they had to get Michael out of the hospital some way, back in Haddonfield, and back slashing. However they did it, some people would complain about it: you can't please everybody. The doctor was there to just get Michael moving, and they could have done it better but so what? It worked for me. I didn't see that twist coming when the doc stabs Will Patton's cop character...if anything it showed that Michael is not some indestructible killer: Will Patton saw him stupidly walking the streets in the open, hit him with his car and was going to put a bullet in his head until the doc intervened. That would have been the end of Michael Myers there and then.


We needed the doctor character for exposition on what Michael has been doing in confinement for the past 40 years. I would have preferred if the doc was trying to help catch him later because I liked his character; maybe they should have had the male podcaster be a bit unhinged and slip Michael a weapon or something to get free, because he wants to see Michael in action, and get more attention for his podcast.

That's the thing, though, we didn't need the doctor character whatsoever. In fact, if you removed him from the film it wouldn't change a thing about the plot.

The podcasters provided the exposition of Michael being captured after the events of the original.
As the van escape happened off screen, the audience would have assumed Michael just overpowered the guards or something.
And the last reason the scriptwriters thought the doctor was needed was to get Michael to Laurie's fun house. That could have been done a dozen other ways. Michael could have followed the cop and granddaughter there. Or better yet, Laurie could have lured Michael there.

I got the impression that the filmmakers tried to be too smart by explaining everything. And so the doctor character was created as a blanket explanation for what they thought were plot holes.
I mean, the evil doctor being behind it all is one of the reasons people look back at Halloween 6 and laugh. I thought this new movie was supposed to be a back to basics, natural successor to the original?

It was a deeply frustrating and disapponting film.

biggebruv

sirmanga wrote: »

That's the thing, though, we didn't need the doctor character whatsoever. In fact, if you removed him from the film it wouldn't change a thing about the plot.

The podcasters provided the exposition of Michael being captured after the events of the original.
As the van escape happened off screen, the audience would have assumed Michael just overpowered the guards or something.
And the last reason the scriptwriters thought the doctor was needed was to get Michael to Laurie's fun house. That could have been done a dozen other ways. Michael could have followed the cop and granddaughter there. Or better yet, Laurie could have lured Michael there.

I got the impression that the filmmakers tried to be too smart by explaining everything. And so the doctor character was created as a blanket explanation for what they thought were plot holes.
I mean, the evil doctor being behind it all is one of the reasons people look back at Halloween 6 and laugh. I thought this new movie was supposed to be a back to basics, natural successor to the original?

It was a deeply frustrating and disapponting film.

Yes the doctor character was verging into Halloween 6 territory hopefully there’s not more to that in the sequel like he had a crew or partner that worked with him.

Also the guy with the hat was goofy and then there was that police scene about the lunch I was wtf they should have cut this cause it’s not funny

Goodshape

File this one under "fine, I suppose".

Not much tension or suspense. Felt too much like it was going through the motions and doing what it's expected to do, with a lot too many callbacks and nods to the much better original film.

I was kind of expecting a little bit of a twist or a change in the formula and at a couple of points it looked like that was about to happen, but didn't.


A decent outing for Jamie Lee Curtis anyway – I liked pretty much everything about her character and performance – but even that was a little underused. Like they brought things right up to the edge of interesting, then backed off and just went with the formula instead.


So yeah, it's fine. Just not sure when or why I'd ever choose to watch it again. It's not as good a slasher/horror movie as the original and not as much fun or as some of the sequels.

artvanderlay

That's the thing as well: I don't think Michael gives a **** about Laurie, he just kills whoever is in his way. He only got to Laurie because the doc drove him there. It would have made more sense to have one of the podcasters be unhinged, and to set up Michael to go after Laurie again, to fit their agenda. We did need a doctor character though; who else would be treating Michael in hospital for all that time?



Anyways, I loved the movie. Thought it was great :pac:

biggebruv

They should have made more out of the babysitter closet part abit of a chase maybe
The boyfriend should have been dead downstairs first and the front doors are locked so when she runs down she ends up back upstairs soemthing chasey around the house lol
Instead of she’s stabbed and that’s it
I love a good chase sequence in horror movies but they don’t seem to bother with them anymore

The one from I know what you did last summer with Sarah Buffy Gellar was awesome

Also I thought the movie was great too these are just little things I thought about when it was over I will be getting this on 4K when it hits

Tony EH

So, was it really worth wiping out all of the sequels for this film?

I'm thinking "no", even though I only rate the first sequel myself.

joe40

I really enjoyed the movie, thought it was great. I rewatched the original the night before and there some great wee nods to the it.
The granddaughter in the exact same classroom looking out the window but sees the grandmother instead of myers. Things like that which I would've missed otherwise.
Also less sex by the teenagers, changing time.

sirmanga

joe40 wrote: »

I really enjoyed the movie, thought it was great. I rewatched the original the night before and there some great wee nods to the it.
The granddaughter in the exact same classroom looking out the window but sees the grandmother instead of myers. Things like that which I would've missed otherwise.
Also less sex by the teenagers, changing time.

The nods to the original actually took away from the film, for me. It reminded me how great the first one was.
And it wasn't even original. H20 did the nods to the original twenty years ago. Including the classroom scene with the teacher talking about fate and whatever.
Cheap fan service instead of a decent plot.

jpm4

Thought it was really good - had a viciousness to it that none of the other films ever had. It was well acted and scripted and the humour surprisingly worked.

Am glad it didn't just completely p*ss on the original (Netflix the haunting of hill house - am looking at you!)

biggebruv

Tony EH wrote: »

So, was it really worth wiping out all of the sequels for this film?

I'm thinking "no", even though I only rate the first sequel myself.

The sequels didn’t have much to go forward with anyways it was all a mess
The H20-resurrection time line was screwed from resurrections dreadful story of Laurie dying and ruining H20s awesome ending and then micheal was burnt to a crisp with his mask. It had bustha rymes doing Kung fu on Myers no movie deserves to have to follow up that awful mess lol

4-6 was already erased from H20
So imo ditching everything except 1 was probably the most refreshing thing this movie did it gives future sequels a chance now that he’s no longer tied to the family thing

biggebruv

sirmanga wrote: »

The nods to the original actually took away from the film, for me. It reminded me how great the first one was.
And it wasn't even original. H20 did the nods to the original twenty years ago. Including the classroom scene with the teacher talking about fate and whatever.
Cheap fan service instead of a decent plot.

I didn’t mind that scene it’s not as if it was just put in there for no reason Laurie was actually waiting at the school to speak with her granddaughter so it made sense.

fin12

Saw it tonight, thought it was very good.

artvanderlay

biggebruv wrote: »

They should have made more out of the babysitter closet part abit of a chase maybe
The boyfriend should have been dead downstairs first and the front doors are locked so when she runs down she ends up back upstairs soemthing chasey around the house lol
Instead of she’s stabbed and that’s it
I love a good chase sequence in horror movies but they don’t seem to bother with them anymore

The one from I know what you did last summer with Sarah Buffy Gellar was awesome

Also I thought the movie was great too these are just little things I thought about when it was over I will be getting this on 4K when it hits

I was convinced that the closet scene, which was shown in the trailer, would just be somebody joking around in fancy dress pretending to be Michael!


My big criticism of the whole thing is that they gave away far too much in the trailer: I knew who was going to get killed and when, so there few shocks for me watching it. Now, I did watch the trailer multiple times, so that probably didn't help!

nix

They really dont play the Halloween theme? Like at all?

weadick

Funnily enough I remember when H20 was released there was a lot of newspaper talk about how the film was somehow representative of woman's rights, with an axe wielding Jamie Lee the poster girl for 21st century women. All the same 'me too' tripe they are spinning now with this.

Myers only killed three people on screen in the original and there was almost no blood. The gratuitous gore and violent killing in the latest movie left a sour taste in my mouth, especially killing children. The last time I ever look forward to a new Halloween movie!

biggebruv

nix wrote: »

They really dont play the Halloween theme? Like at all?

Yes it’s blaring on the opening credits and there’s a sweet remix about 40mins into the movie

fin12

weadick wrote: »

Funnily enough I remember when H20 was released there was a lot of newspaper talk about how the film was somehow representative of woman's rights, with an axe wielding Jamie Lee the poster girl for 21st century women. All the same 'me too' tripe they are spinning now with this.

Myers only killed three people on screen in the original and there was almost no blood. The gratuitous gore and violent killing in the latest movie left a sour taste in my mouth, especially killing children. The last time I ever look forward to a new Halloween movie!

Ya I always thought Michael doesn’t kill children, he normally shows no interest in them.

he let the baby live but why did he kill that kid, was it because he had a gun where’s all the kids he encounters don’t have weapons

artvanderlay

weadick wrote: »

Myers only killed three people on screen in the original and there was almost no blood. The gratuitous gore and violent killing in the latest movie left a sour taste in my mouth, especially killing children.

I guess 40 years chained up in captivity has turned Michael into a real jerk! (© Norm MacDonald!)

Basq

Christ, that was distinctly average..

.. came out with probably the same reaction after seeing H2O.

Disappointing!

brianregan09

Was looking forward to this for ages, felt really let down by it being honest , Very predicatable and poor writing especially for one character in particular, I did like some of the kills were very vicious

Did anyone else feel the threat of Myers was massivley undermined by showing him as a withered old man

razorblunt

brianregan09 wrote: »

Was looking forward to this for ages, felt really let down by it being honest , Very predicatable and poor writing especially for one character in particular, I did like some of the kills were very vicious

Did anyone else feel the threat of Myers was massivley undermined by showing him as a withered old man

Nah man, as soon as that mask goes on he gets his mojo back!
I did like

give a insight into him as a killing machine it was almost disappointing that he was carted off to the hideout, it was quite eerie watching him stroll around casually looking for kills

Goodshape

Thought it was strange that they erased the

Laurie is Michael's sister

bit of the canon. Then they teased that their might be some other motivation but didn't go anywhere with it. So we're just left with... happenstance? Felt a bit hollow.

Basq

Goodshape wrote: »

Thought it was strange that they erased the

Laurie is Michael's sister

bit of the canon. Then they teased that their might be some other motivation but didn't go anywhere with it. So we're just left with... happenstance? Felt a bit hollow.

Was wondering about this too.. but technically, Laurie was only

revealed as Michael's sister in Halloween 2

and since this is a direct sequel to the first movie, I suppose little more than a nod via "small town rumour's" was enough.

Auroras_encore

If you didn't like this you didn't actually like the original in the first place

Basq

Auroras_encore wrote: »

If you didn't like this you didn't actually like the original in the first place

Eh? I watched the original the other night and still think it holds up well.

This was a turd however... a turd wrapped in nods to the original, but a turd nonetheless.

Goodshape

Auroras_encore wrote: »

If you didn't like this you didn't actually like the original in the first place

That's.. not how this works at all.

sirmanga

Auroras_encore wrote: »

If you didn't like this you didn't actually like the original in the first place

On the contrary. This film left a bad taste in my mouth because of my love for the original.

At first I was disappointed with this new film, but now, almost a week after seeing it, I've actually come to the conclusion that I hate the film.
This was supposed to be a back to basics successor to the original, but they made it so convoluted, and with a tone so all over the place, that it beggars belief.

It should have been so simple, but what we got was shambles. I've heard people say it's the closest movie to the first one. Sorry, what? The two films couldn't be anymore different.
For example, one is a masterpiece, the other... isn't.

artvanderlay

I think it's inevitable that there will be a sequel to this now, given how well it's doing at the box office. Hopefully McBride/Green will be back to cap it off. I definitely think Michael is still alive; not sure how he would have escaped from the safe room in the basement but I suspect he did. Maybe the fire ruptured the structure of the house and he got out some way. Any sequel surely has to pick up on the same night; it's still Halloween! Can't imagine Michael turning up a year from now out of nowhere after hiding away for that long, that would be ridiculous! I do think there is a lot to be said for reimagining movies rather than churning out endless sequels; let McBride/Green do two movies, and wrap up their vision. Michael is a fairly one-note character, a manifestation of pure psychopathic evil, there's really no layers to explore, so they should leave it at 2 movies, otherwise it'll just get stupid.


Carpenter's original idea of doing an anthology series of Halloween movies is a good idea too. Release one every year. Let the first 2 be centered around Michael Myers, but then new stories, new characters, maybe all set in a similar area, and there could even be references to Myers and events in Haddonfield. Maybe keep the stories rooted in reality though, rather than going the Silver Shamrock route of Halloween 3! I'd look forward to a new Halloween movie every year, even without Michael Myers.



I also still think this Halloween movie would have worked great as a tv show; the whole series could have been set during the events of Halloween day, and we spend more time with each character, before, during and after Michael's rampage. I love the setting, and the look of the movie, and there were lots of good characters I'd like to have spent more time with. The movie was short; I wanted a lot more!

sirmanga

artvanderlay wrote: »

The movie was short; I wanted a lot more!

For me, this film was about 105 minutes too long.

artvanderlay

Aw, poor you :P So what would you have liked to have seen in this movie to make it engaging to you? I went in with low expectations because it's a Halloween/slasher movie. They all tend to be very samey, so I was happy to see something different in this.

sirmanga

artvanderlay wrote: »

Aw, poor you :P So what would you have liked to have seen in this movie to make it engaging to you?

A good movie.

biggebruv

Jamie lee says she will come back if David Gordon green directs I just cannot see him returning to direct maybe he and Danny McBride will write it but not direct I just can’t see it happening.

For the story I think it should be set in a snowy place Alaska or something lol visually different for this franchise.

As for the Jamie lee story if that hopefully does continue I think it will pick up a year later and Laurie will be happy and actually living with her family and then Myers shows up again on Halloween night no excuse or reason for where he was or how he still has the mask he is the boogeyman after all lol

Jude13

I loved the original and was very excited to go to see this. Went with the OH and a pal. I was so disappointed.

There were scenes that just went no where. Some of the dialogue was laughable, characters that had no reason being in the film however I could go all Peter Casey and say it was 'urbanized'. Jesus it was terrible.

take everything

Saw this this evening.
Not that impressed.
Seemed very formulaic. The kills didn't have that much atmosphere. No real interesting psychological exploration. Seemed just same old, same old...
Jamie Lee Curtis was decent.
Also, the callbacks to the original jarred after a while (the sheets on the line, the wardrobes and hangers, the kids bumping into Michael on the street, the the falling off the roof etc. It seemed to be a pastiche at times).

take everything

Actually one scene that I thought was great was the psych hospital where the inpatients were getting more and more agitated (clearly due to Michael's silent agitation). Bit of a head****.

Went downhill from there imo.

mrmorgan

Just saw it.

An average movie, the original halloween two was far superior