Halloween (2018)

Halloween (2018) is an exciting thrill ride that will make you laugh in the theaters but lock your doors at night. Written and directed by David Gordon Green, an unknown filmmaker to me, this film seamlessly re-crafted John Carpenter’s style in both camera work, music, and suspense, but also added modern approaches of film making to bring the slasher genre back into the light. This addition to the Halloween series took a very bold direction by abandoning anything set up in the sequels after the 1978 original, and it excels as a direct-sequel because of this choice.

The characters were a blast. The first scene begins as a tense, ominous re-introduction to the power of Michael Myers, where the other mental patients physically recoil and shout when the Halloween mask is unveiled. Other characters, like Julian and the hunter’s son—who just wants to do dance lessons instead of hunting—give a more humorous side of the film. The babysitters and teenagers are not too generic, and none of them go too far into the stereotypical “put the kids to bed so we can have sex.” Several of them have realistic desires for a teenager, and develop with a fun atmosphere, separating itself so far from the seriousness of the main conflict that when these two elements combined I did not want some of the teenagers to die—a vast difference from the original.

I highly recommend you watch the 1978 Halloween before this film. Many fans of the original are criticizing this new entry into the franchise as a pointless addition that focuses more on comedy and random murders to appeal to teenagers. Yes, this is all true, but was the original any different? Tell me the scene where Michael Myers tricks a naked girl into thinking he is her boyfriend by dressing up as a ghost with his nerdy glasses is not hilarious. In fact, I think this film is better in this aspect: the humor is smarter, and the women are not dum, slutty targets on a killing list. Michael Myers seems to butcher half the town in this new film, but only a few seem completely random. That is my only complaint about this film, it praises this serial killers mind, claiming him to have a specific hunger, yet ignore this concept when he is finally roaming the streets.

Jamie Lee Curtis comes back as an old, scarred Laurie Strode and gives a fantastic performance that interestingly parallels several scenes of Michael Myers from the first film. It creates a subconscious theme that Laurie’s preparation for Michael’s return has slowly turned her into an insane, cold-blooded stalker, as if the prey has adopted the mannerisms of the hunter. Her relationship with her granddaughter is strong, and the hints of the strict upbringing of her daughter builds up to a satisfying shift in the climax against Michael’s hunger for vulnerable women.

Speaking of Michael, he may be 68-years-old, but he is more powerful than ever on the big screen. The kill count more than doubles the crimes of the first film, and most of the victims are shown when Michael has already moved on—what is left of them makes the audience paint their own picture of “The Boogeyman’s” strength. He moves in the background of the frame like a phantom, either butchering gas station mechanics or comically staring at drunk teenagers. His presence is palpable, the gore is visceral, and the slight humor and fun he tears into his victims is somehow horrifying and comedic at the same time.

Overall, this film is not only filled with intense and thrilling moments of slasher-horror, but also humor and solid reality in its characters. The narrative knows how to manipulate the audience’s perceptions to physically pull them to the edge of their seats, and it avoids the common tropes of the slasher genre set by its predecessor. I had a blast seeing this film with my friends, not only because of the thrill of the gore and style of Michael’s pleasure in murder, but because there was a surprising knowledge towards the interaction between its teen and child characters.

Storying Rating: 8/10

Character Rating: 8/10