Halloween (2018)

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 5:43am

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

gmisk · 18-10-2018 8:40am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

Never heard of that site tbh.
But it still has 83% on rottentomatoes and 69% on metacritic so the reviews in general are good.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 9:14am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

https://www.worldofreel.com/2018/10/halloween-is-dumbing-down-of-genre-it.html?m=1

Can't say I'm surprised.

It has a 89 on rotten tomatoes so the majority of reviews are pretty decent
1 bad review vs lots of good reviews means I take it that it’s a very well made horror film of course not everyone is gonna like it

gmisk · 18-10-2018 9:17am

biggebruv wrote: »

It has a 89 on rotten tomatoes so the majority of reviews are pretty decent
1 bad review vs lots of good reviews means I take it that it’s a very well made horror film of course not everyone is gonna like it

Nope 83% at the minute, but still reviews seem positive I am looking forward to it.

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 10:25am

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

gmisk · 18-10-2018 10:31am

Business Cat wrote: »

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

That is true but can be a good indicator, I go by a few reviews mainly (mark kermode, variety, the hollywood reporter) i wouldnt really place much faith in a review site I have never heard of.

SnakePlissken · 18-10-2018 10:41am

Business Cat wrote: »

Pretty damning review (very minor spoilers included)

A cursory look at this "critic's" other reviews displays similar damnation toward Deadpool 2, First Man, and A Star is Born, so you'll have to forgive me for not putting much stock in their opinion.

correction · 18-10-2018 12:39pm

Business Cat wrote: »

I put zero stock in RT or MC. They tend to be quite base when it comes to horror movies.

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 1:10pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

Fysh · 18-10-2018 1:38pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

So...

Halloween in particular has a base of fans who will passionately defend most of the franchise, so if I in particular think that e.g. only Carpenter's original was worth a damn and the rest were somewhere between derivative retreads and actual cinematic garbage... an aggregator is no use.

More broadly, though, aggregators are useless unless you know for a fact that your taste in film always aligns with the masses. A review worth a damn will either tell you "If you like X or Y, you'll like/dislike this" or give you the information to make that comparison yourself. An aggregator just says "this many people thought the film wasn't bad enough to walk out of". Whether those people share your taste in any way (or appreciate all the things you hate in films) is outside that scope.

JP Liz V1 · 18-10-2018 1:40pm

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

Liam McPoyle · 18-10-2018 1:49pm

correction wrote: »

How can you put zero stock in them? They're just aggregators. You'd put stock into one persons review but none into the general consensus?

On RT.

Deadpool has a score of 84%, I thought it was utter, utter dogshyt.

Guardians of the Galaxy has a score of 91%, I attempted to watch it twice and failed both times, what I saw was imo utter dogshyt.

Nightbreed has a score of 39%. While not without its flaws I really enjoyed it personally.

I could go on but you get the picture.

I will say though that I am biased as Halloween is my favourite movie of all time and imo the greatest horror movie ever made so I am more likely to find fault with any iteration of the franchise than maybe the average popcorn scoffer. Im sure this will do well anyway and we will see a raft of sequels over the coming years.

correction · 18-10-2018 1:57pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

But all the reviews are there. You can read one/all/none of them. I find Rotten Tomatoes is what you make of it, it can be a quick check to see if a film is watchable and it can be for more in depth reviews of the finer points.

With that said I agree completely that nothing can be better than an actual well written review from someone you generally trust. But I think to completely write Rotten Tomatoes off is going overboard big time.

Fysh wrote: »

So...

Halloween in particular has a base of fans who will passionately defend most of the franchise, so if I in particular think that e.g. only Carpenter's original was worth a damn and the rest were somewhere between derivative retreads and actual cinematic garbage... an aggregator is no use.

More broadly, though, aggregators are useless unless you know for a fact that your taste in film always aligns with the masses. A review worth a damn will either tell you "If you like X or Y, you'll like/dislike this" or give you the information to make that comparison yourself. An aggregator just says "this many people thought the film wasn't bad enough to walk out of". Whether those people share your taste in any way (or appreciate all the things you hate in films) is outside that scope.

I mostly agree with everything said but I do think that someone can learn to use Rotten Tomatoes to their advantage. You can pick up some of the reviewers by name and check out what they say about it.

I want to clarify that I'm not championing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacrtic as the go to for reviews, I think anyone who really cares about movies will already have some reviewers they know to check out, but I do think to completely dismiss it is overly harsh.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 3:27pm

83% is damm fine for a horror slasher movie which the slasher genre having been almost dead over the past decade I’m happy with what Iv seen if this it looks amazing can’t wait till tomorrow

I’m just so happy that the rob zombie crap is long gone and forgotten now this feels like a proper halloween movie

pixelburp · 18-10-2018 3:46pm

It always needs reminding: those User Reviews on aggregator sites are just as prone to sock-puppet / troll accounts as any other community platform these days. In fact probably more so, given the combination of low-stakes vs the deep pockets of those who might benefit from a slew of fake, good reviews propping up a critical panning (of all things, the Honest Trailers video on Gotti found a bunch of obviously fake User Reviews by way of example). The opposite can also cause an unfair or false score, through spurned fans dog-piling on a franchise out of petty spite *cough*lastjedi*cough*.

Obviously this doesn't necessarily apply when it comes to Halloween as it's not out yet & so there are no User scores yet, but I'll trust a critical consensus sooner than I would that of the 'public' - the obvious exception being genres I know wouldn't be my cup of tea...

gmisk · 18-10-2018 4:08pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

He is an executive producer.

johnny_ultimate · 18-10-2018 4:10pm

Having seen the film, a ‘generally positive’ critical response seems wholly reasonable - it’s a good, solid 3-4 star film if ever there was one. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable albeit hardly revolutionary film. I’m sure some will dislike it for perfectly legitimate reasons - from its sometimes goofy Danny McBride streak to the general familiarity of the material - but I’d definitely suggest there’s enough wit, enthusiasm and cleverly staged scenes to appeal to most viewers. The final act is a particularly pleasing slice of classic slasher finale directing from David Gordon Green.

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 5:50pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's the problem though. They're just aggregates. There's no context.

If everyone gave the film a 6/10, it would result in a 100% positive tomato. But, it would still just be an average film.

Nothing takes the place of reading an actual review, or series of reviews.

correction wrote: »

But all the reviews are there. You can read one/all/none of them. I find Rotten Tomatoes is what you make of it, it can be a quick check to see if a film is watchable and it can be for more in depth reviews of the finer points.

You've missed the point.

All a given film has to do is get an average score across the board to get a high RT percentage, even if that film is nothing to write home about.

If you, me and ten other people think that film A is an unremarkable, ok flick that isn't absolutely terrible, but has numerous bad flaws and mark it just 6/10 across the board. Rotten Tomatoes will class that as a 100% fresh film. Thereby giving the false impression that the film is 100% good, despite any criticism that we've levelled at it.

Similarly, if we all gave it 5/10 - still an average - the film will get a splat, thereby looking like everybody hated it.

Simply quoting the RT score is something that everyone should take with a pinch of salt.

Tony EH · 18-10-2018 6:00pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

David Gordon Green directs and co wrote with Danny McBride :eek: is John Carpenter anyway involved?

gmisk wrote: »

He is an executive producer.

As said, he's an exec producer. Carpenter can't get any money for his own movies these days and studios won't touch him. His last film, 'The Ward' was largely trashed and he hasn't had a hit in a long, long time. So, he basically whores out his old repertoire and, as he's said himself, watches the checks come in.

He has no real input into these things, despite his name being attached in some manner. Nor does he really care either.

Fysh · 18-10-2018 8:12pm

Tony EH wrote: »

As said, he's an exec producer. Carpenter can't get any money for his own movies these days and studios won't touch him. His last film, 'The Ward' was largely trashed and he hasn't had a hit in a long, long time. So, he basically whores out his old repertoire and, as he's said himself, watches the checks come in.

He has no real input into these things, despite his name being attached in some manner. Nor does he really care either.

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

biggebruv · 18-10-2018 9:47pm

Fysh wrote: »

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

That may be true for the fog but here he is talking with David Gordon Green in interviews and much more involved with this movie and imo I think he does have genuine respect for these guys aswell from all the interviews I’ve seen online.

I’ve listened to the new soundtrack on YouTube just now aswell and it’s excellent

Btw that fog remake is like 13years old now not a few years ago &#55357;&#56860;

correction · 19-10-2018 8:15am

Tony EH wrote: »

You've missed the point.

All a given film has to do is get an average score across the board to get a high RT percentage, even if that film is nothing to write home about.

If you, me and ten other people think that film A is an unremarkable, ok flick that isn't absolutely terrible, but has numerous bad flaws and mark it just 6/10 across the board. Rotten Tomatoes will class that as a 100% fresh film. Thereby giving the false impression that the film is 100% good, despite any criticism that we've levelled at it.

Similarly, if we all gave it 5/10 - still an average - the film will get a splat, thereby looking like everybody hated it.

Simply quoting the RT score is something that everyone should take with a pinch of salt.

Only if you don't know how it works. The RT score should be taken as exactly what it is, the percentage of critics who gave the film a positive review. If people assume that a film with a 95% is a 9.5/10 that is their own fault. If you don't value knowing the percentage of positive reviews then the actual reviews are their to read and see how highly the critics actually rated the film.

Tony EH · 19-10-2018 8:30am

Fysh wrote: »

Aye, every time I see that "Oooh, Carpenter is exec producing it, must be good line" I feel like reminding people he also exec produced the remake of The Fog from a few years ago. Not only that but he openly said that he treated his job on that as being "turn up, say hello to everyone, go home".

I have a lot of time for a bunch of his films, but these days his attachment to a film means squat, really. I suspect he's more interested in touring with the band and playing gigs at this point.

Sure.

John Carpenter is 70 now. He knows that, bar a miracle, his directing days are over. Which is something I take no joy in saying, as even a duff Carpenter film is worth a look. So, much of his income is from him selling name rights to his old movies. He's probably made more off of recent 'Halloween' films, than he did with the original.

What I love about him is his honesty about it, though. It's very refreshing, especially in a world where there's so much bullshit from people in that business.

Micheal Clark · 19-10-2018 5:30pm

HandsomeBob;107243720

Fox Hound wrote: »

I have only watched the Halloween films, house of a 1000 corpse and the devils rejects,

Its something very rare that we get a writer/director that likes to do his own thing, I think that needs to be championed these days,,, he is not the greatest but I like his style of horror and as for the casting, Id say he finds it hard to get actors for his movies because he likes to work on low budget things (outside the Halloween franchises) plus he probably just trusts these actors, lots of Directors do this, i.e Tim Burton, Chris Nolan etc...anyway getting a bit side tracked, but this Halloween sale 2018 does look cool, and plus Myers is an awesome bad guy, so lets bring him back and watch him F**k things up!
https://www.ivacy.com/blog/halloween-sale-and-clearance/

It's not necessarily an issue with the actors as he does have a very decent core that do perform for him. Just seems every film revolves around hicks and a lot of exploitation in the arse end of America. That's what he brought to Halloween which was interesting in itself, but showed his limitations when viewed in the wider context of his general work.
Bought the ticket for Halloween 2018. First day first show.

HandsomeBob · 19-10-2018 6:52pm

Odeon Coolock not showing any screenings before 1pm which is strange given I was able to see the Nun at 11am and I'm sure that the Deadpool films had opening showings in the morning also, so can't be a case of rating.

Usually up early and fresh so I like to go to the cinema as soon as possible if something I fancy is on.

Basq · 19-10-2018 7:19pm

I don't understand why my local Omniplex is rotating between 'Johnny English Strikes Again' and 'A Star Is Born' in MAXX and this is relegated to a smaller screen! :mad:

sirmanga · 19-10-2018 9:27pm

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!

Bowlardo · 20-10-2018 12:21am

This was poor . 5/10 movie. No atmosphere, no tension, no real menace.
Jamie was good in it. Ending was very well done then but was surprised how poor the music was.

Assault on precinct 13 on film four now that will have to do me

esposito · 20-10-2018 8:54am

Overall it was a decent movie. The start and ending were very good.

Have to agree with the music - disappointing that the original score wasn’t used tbh ( it would have added to the tension)

The scene with Michaels doctor going mad was pointless.

Jamie Lee Curtis was excellent in it though.

7/10 for me.

Autecher · 20-10-2018 9:08pm

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Odeon Coolock not showing any screenings before 1pm which is strange given I was able to see the Nun at 11am and I'm sure that the Deadpool films had opening showings in the morning also, so can't be a case of rating.

Usually up early and fresh so I like to go to the cinema as soon as possible if something I fancy is on.

Basq wrote: »

I don't understand why my local Omniplex is rotating between 'Johnny English Strikes Again' and 'A Star Is Born' in MAXX and this is relegated to a smaller screen!

It's nothing to do with ratings it's just that it's not expected to do that well. 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. I saw this today at 3:45 in Odeon Naas, it was the first screening of the day in their smallest screen one day after the movie was released and it was barely one third full. The screening was slightly ruined by 2 very very rude people who eventually left as people kept shushing them but I think without those 2 I still would have disliked this cliche ridden boring movie. I will not be going to see Halloween 12.

Halloween (2018)

Comments