Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/24/2018
What I’m watching: the new sequel/remake of “Halloween.”
In Theaters: Halloween
I think a little history lesson is in order before I start writing about this new horror movie in time for the 40th anniversary of the acclaimed horror franchise.
The original “Halloween,” released in 1978, was the second film for director and co-writer John Carpenter and was the one that firmly launched his long career.
The film was a huge hit and became one of the most successful independent movies ever made. It helped spawn a new genre in horror film “the slasher film,” in which teenagers in particular were the object of an often silent and seemingly unstoppable killer.
The first film was criticized for its violence being tied to sexual activities, as often the villain Michael Myers would strike at teens involved in some sort of sex.
Carpenter crafted a movie that was far less dependent on gore than on suspense. He established that Myers, escaped from a psychiatric prison, was something more than a mentally ill person. He was an entity that transcended humanity.
The original film created a franchise of seven films including a remake in 2007 and a sequel to that remake. I will readily admit that I haven’t seen any of these films with the exception of the second Halloween film, which did not feature Michael Myers, but instead told a very separate story.
I enjoyed the first “Halloween” film (and the second non-sequel), although slasher films are not my idea of a horror film. Generally the genre uses gore effects as its appeal with non-creative entries simply mining the idea of depictions of sex followed by violence.
This new film, directed by David Gordon Green, presses the restart button once again for the series. It ignores all of the films and simply is a continuation of the events of the first film, now played 40 years later.
It’s an interesting move and I had a lot of hope rolling into the film.
We are still in the small Illinois town of Haddonfield, and Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is still living there. Laurie has spend the last 40 years perfecting her shotgun skills and built a fortress home because she is sure Myers – held in prison for the past 40 years – will eventually be coming for her and her family.
Her daughter, though, is estranged from Laurie and believes her mother is mentally ill. Laurie’s daughter, is sympathetic, though, and is unaware of the family’s connection with the killer.
To be frank, the film almost lost me in the first 20 minutes. We are introduced to two British journalists who are trying to investigate the incident of 40 years ago. One of them is snooty and stupid and there is an amazingly dumb scene in which he tries to get Myers to talk.
We know they are going to die. The filmmakers telegraph it because the two characters are as dumb as rocks and despite supposedly investigating the case they seem to know nothing about Myers and his potential for murderous mayham.
The film doesn’t get interesting until Myers escapes and Laurie is determined to protect her family and end Myers for good.
There are a couple of good twists and as usual, there are several graphic and creative deaths. There is also one death sequence that is completely ludicrous and is simply raw meat for the gorehounds in the audience.
What this director lacks is something Carpenter understood: this film must work as a suspense film as much as it does a gore film. Because Myers does not speak, because he is simply a faceless murderous prop, we need something else to involve the audience. In this film, the suspense Carpenter used to heighten our interest in the characters is missing.
Thankfully Curtis delivers an understated but strong performance as the tortured Laurie whose adult life has been twisted by her fear that Myers will be coming back for her. Of course, she is right to assume that he would try once more to kill her.
The appeal of this production is that it unites the audience with the 1978 film and that it would finish the story that film started. This is where, for me, the film ultimately fails. It does not have the spine – ah, the appeal of potential sequels – to show us what most of us want to see. We want to know definitely what happens to Myers. Do we want to see his face? Do we want to have him say something?
I’m trying to avoid a spoiler here; it’s difficult but I think you’ll understand what I’m getting at.
Without these elements that would complete the story, this “Halloween” comes across as a part of the series that is a cut above the rest, but the not the film it should be.
My advice is to watch the original this spooky season.