I viewed the newest addition to the Halloween franchise this past weekend. It's a very frustrating thing when you see a movie and you aren't sure how you feel about it. I really felt like taking a few days to let it sink in before writing anything. Unfortunately, I'm still not entirely sure I know how I feel. Even so, it has been some time since I posted anything on this blog and it is the spooky season after all. Perhaps writing this will help me clarify my thoughts for myself and my readers. Life continues to be busy, so some things may require more time and thought.
I wouldn't say that the Halloween franchise is my favorite series of horror or "slasher" films. However, John Carpenter is one of my favorite directors and the original Halloween is easily his most popular and influential film, though not necessarily his best. I watched the movie again to prepare me for viewing this newest one, and once again I was reminded of how good it truly is. It holds up well. It essentially popularized and defined many of the beats of "slasher" films to come. What I think makes the film work so well is how much is does with such a basic premise. The story is simple, but the characters are likeable. The budget is limited but balanced by excellent editing, cinematography and sound design. Even though I think the franchise has mostly lost steam over the years, the first movie is a true classic for a reason. It's kind of the standard that everyone else has tried to meet since.
Now, I won't say I'm an expert on the franchise, as there are many films I've missed. I'm also not the biggest enthusiast of "slasher" movies, though I do appreciate and enjoy them. However, I do feel like I know the first film well enough to get a sense of the narrative and themes. After all, this one does away with all other sequels and alternative versions. I think that's one reason it's drawn a strong response. If you're a fan of the first movie but haven't seen any others, it doesn't matter! Just jump back in. So I guess I'm an appropriate audience for it?
Anyway, I guess I should discuss this movie. That's probably why you're still reading this (congratulations on getting this far).
Let's start with my favorite thing. That would be the opening. We've go this pair of journalists investigating old murders and arriving at a prison holding Michael Myers. In this version, those events of the first film occurred as we viewed them, but he's been locked away since then. It's been forty years and Michael doesn't really say anything. The journalists first plan to interview Michael and then interview Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to examine the nature of the event.
We are then brought to Michael Myers, in an open courtyard of the asylum. He's chained in his own section among dozens of other mental patients, facing way from the journalists and the audience. The male journalist approaches Michael and begins questioning him with no real responses. Then, in a last ditch effort, he slowly reveals the famed William Shatner mask. He raises it to the sky and continuing to raise his voice as well. The other patients become more nervous and the guard dog begins to bark. The tension continues to rise as the journalist becomes more frustrated and almost enraged. Then we cut to the classic opening titles and opening score. Describing it doesn't really do it justice. It was an awesome opening. The problem is...I feel like this is kind of where the movie peaks.
It's very possible I need to watch this again. It's definitely worthy of further examination. When people asked me what I thought of it, I've just kept saying, "It was interesting." That's because that's how it was for me. I didn't love it or hate it. I'm just kind of oddly intrigued by it.
This may be another example of a movie that is trying to be two different things. I may be the minority in this point of view, as the online metrics seem to suggest the majority of people liked this movie. I don't think it does anything particularly bad, I just don't feel like it's revolutionizing anything with the genre or these particular films. Then again, is it supposed to? I guess it's not marketed as doing so, but the film is kind of trying something a little different.
On one hand, the film is definitely trying to be a direct sequel to the first movie. There are visual callbacks to the original for sure. The editing, cinematography and music are very similar. Some of the time, I felt like I was enraptured in the atmosphere of the first film (this makes sense with Carpenter's involvement in this one). So it's kind of not only a direct sequel but also trying to capture the spirit of that film...some of the time. Most of the movie seems to be something else.
The rest of the piece feels like it's trying to take the legendary character of Michael Myers and bring him into the real world. The film is asking what Myers would be like if he actually existed in the present. What if those events did happen? What if he was locked away for forty years and then escaped today? How would such an event affect those around him? I know this sounds like something any "slasher" film with a similar premise could do narratively, but this movie seems to be conveying a very realistic concept....most of the time.
Despite the ramifications of the murders on Laurie's personal life and the people of Haddonfield, it's something we only kind of dance around. Curtis does a great job demonstrating the trauma a person would realistically suffer in such a situation. She's lived her life in fear and that fear had a negative impact on her family. However, I don't know if this is really delved into enough. Perhaps we don't need that, but I thought it was a really fascinating idea to explore further. It also kind of seems to be at the core of the story. I think this comes back to a slight lack of focus.
The film wants to be a more realistic take on Michael Myers as a serial killer, but also dances around the almost supernatural vibe he gives off through the tone and style of the feature. It really seems to want to be both an homage to the first film as well as a more believable take on the story. I guess this movie falls victim to the conventions of its own genre? At the end of the day, Michael is still going around killing teenagers (and just about everyone else) on Halloween night...in some of the most violent ways possible. I guess that's what a good "slasher" film should do and this one delivers while touching on a few more thought provoking ideas. I guess the Rob Zombie films dived into that enough? Those were a different version as well, after all.
It's always tricky talking about the identity of a piece, especially when building upon a solid foundation. How true should you stay to your roots without betraying them? How many risks are you allowed to take before becoming something else?
Alright, this blog review has helped me figure out how I feel about this new version of Halloween. I thought it was pretty good. It entertained me and I thought it was smarter and creepier than many other films in this genre I've seen. Whether you like it or not upon the first viewing, I would definitely encourage you to watch it again. I certainly would. At the end of the day, that's a pretty great compliment for any movie, Halloween related or not.
Thanks for reading everyone. Have a Happy Halloween!
