Skip to main content

Halloween - A Return to Haddonfield

Halloween. Easily one of my favourite horror franchises. I've been a fan through all the twists and turns Michael Myers' backstory has taken throughout the decades. I love the Shape. I always have. I remember the first time I saw the original Halloween. The terror I felt, the almost awe I was in due to the soundtrack. The Shape truly scared me, especially when he broke through the closet door, proving that he'll do anything to get his victim.

This new edition to the series is set 40 years after the first movie, basically saying the others don't exist. And, I'm ok with that. None of the movies after the first captured the magic of the original. They all have their strengths, but they also all have more weaknesses. From explaining Michael's family lineage to the cult of the Thorn, all the way to those dastardly remakes, I stayed true and kept watching. With the 2018 release basically retconning all the sequels and Blum House Productions being involved, I had high hopes for this one.

Let's get started. The Shape is definitely back. He moved like Michael does, acts and reacts the same. This time the Shape was back in true form. His menacing walk made me almost fall back into the original movie. Even the way he occasionally turned his head slightly to admire his "work" was very close to the original. Myers this time around was that close to the original in almost every way possible. Having said that, that's about where the old feelings from the original end. Yes, there are similar shots, parallels in framing and of course, the score is still the same as the original, well, close at least. The acting from all the characters new and old is bang on with what you would expect from these people if these events were truly happening. I applaud the cast for really nailing the emotional tolls that would be felt from the original events.

There are unfortunately very glaring, in your face problems with the movie. In many, many places. So many inconsistencies within its own movie let alone apparently taking place 40 years after the original. Michael is super strong, as he is in all the movies, but he can't seem to move a cabinet? He somehow becomes an electrician for one of his kills, but can't figure out a one-button remote? The kills are good... Well, at least the ones that you see are. There were a lot of kills that you know happen, but don't see. I'm going to sound like a serial killer, but when I go to a slasher flick, I expect to see a bunch of people get hacked to pieces. It's just a given, and when it doesn't happen, it kinda' lets you down.

I was a little surprised to learn that the film had an "R" rating because there really isn't anything super gory in the movie. Yeah, a younger kid swears but I didn't think that was enough for an "R". I felt a bit let down in general from the lack of action and lack of kills. It seemed at many times like the movie was actually attempting to get a "PG-13" rating, was too violent for that, but then left it instead of going all out for the "R".

I'm actually not saying it's a bad movie; far from it actually. It's easily one of the best Halloween movies in the series. Straight to the point was a nice approach. Although, the point eluded me at times. In the first two films, they elaborate to say that Laurie Strode is Michael's sister, and he kills his family. This one (as seen in the trailers) says that was just a story. But, if it was just a story, what's the link between Michael and Laurie? The one that got away? They don't really explain it in the movie. They kinda' try to a little bit, but it's very vague and never entirely makes sense.

Between the Shape being nearly perfect in performance, but killings being done off screen and a weird, un-needed twist, I can't rate the movie as highly as I'd like to. It's actually fairly difficult to rate in a standard 10-star system. Again, the acting was great, and the Shape was phenomenal, but the story was very weak and there were a lot of terrible issues throughout the movie. It's like for every good thing, there's an equal poor thing.

Overall score: 6.5 out of 10 stars

Pros:
- The Shape was almost perfect
- Kills that we're seen were great
- The soundtrack is equally as good as the original
- Overall acting was very well done, especially for a horror movie

Cons:
- Some kills that could have been great, were done off screen
- Slow moving at many parts
- Glaring inconsistencies
- Predictable ending (that also doesn't really make a lot of sense)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Bagman (2024): A Surprising Slow Burn That Defies Expectations

Going into The Bagman , I was fully prepared to sit through a low-budget gorefest, packed with cheap jump scares and predictable plotlines. But to my surprise, what I got was something much more refined—a slow-burn suspense thriller that outshines many bigger-budget projects. The film uses its time wisely, building tension and setting up a compelling atmosphere, while steering clear of the typical pitfalls that drag many horror flicks down. Image by IMDb Slow and Steady Wins the Race This movie doesn’t rush. It takes its time to develop the story, but does so in a way that keeps you mildly hooked. It’s one of those rare films where the slower pacing actually benefits the narrative, allowing each element to breathe and come into focus. You won’t find rapid-fire scares here, but rather a creeping sense of unease that makes you wonder what’s lurking in the shadows. The way The Bagman sets up its "rules"—through a twisted fairy tale—was pure brilliance. By tapping into something...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Monkey (2025): Don't March to This Drum

I had no idea what I was getting into with The Monkey. I went in more or less blind, but given that it was based on a Stephen King story, I had some hope. With the success of It and even the more mediocre Pet Sematary remake, I figured this could be another solid King adaptation. Man, was I ever misguided. Image by IMDb Aesthetic Confusion: What Year Is It? Right away, something felt off. The film starts in 1999—or at least that’s what it claims—but absolutely nothing in the children’s room or the general set design reflects that era. No Blockbuster VHS tapes, no Nirvana posters, no era-appropriate TV shows, not even the right music. Instead, it all feels straight out of the 80s. Then we meet the boys’ Aunt and Uncle, and we’re suddenly in That 70’s Show . The uncle even has the classic 70’s sideburns. The entire aesthetic is a bizarre mishmash of decades, making it feel like the filmmakers didn’t actually care about immersing the audience in the supposed time period. Image by Th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fantastic Four: First Steps – A Cautious Beginning That Barely Walks

Going into Fantastic Four: First Steps , I’ll be honest—I was hesitantly optimistic. Marvel's recent track record hasn’t exactly been confidence-inspiring, and I didn’t know whether this film would add to the pile of forgettables or manage to pull something worthwhile from the rubble. The short version? It’s better than what came before it... but that’s a low bar to clear. Image by Disney Better... But That’s Not Saying Much Yes, this is the best Fantastic Four film so far—but let’s not throw a parade just yet. That’s like saying a sprained ankle is better than a broken leg. It’s still not a good time. This isn’t Infinity War or No Way Home . It’s more like a cautiously made, safe middle-ground that never dares to do anything bold or game-changing. Image by Consequence.net Retro Aesthetic Done Right On the positive side, I liked the unexpected characters that popped in here and there, and I thought the alternative 60s timeline worked surprisingly well. The aesthetic was actually ...
Post a Comment
Read more