21 Jump Street said it best when the officer orchestrating the program said, "You see the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit from the past and expect us all not to notice." This perfectly illustrates what is now the--what--10th installment in the Halloween franchise? (You know it's bad as to how little I care when I don't even take the necessary five seconds to Google it.) Yet, somehow, we still see the 2018 remake-sequel that didn't even have the fortitude to use a different title. Now, why we needed a 40-year "anniversary" movie, I can't say; however, I can say that--while they are justified--reservations about seeing it can be minimized--for the most part. Indeed, Halloween (2018) incorporates several positive elements of John Carpenter's O.G., but is dragged down by common modern-cinema hokum.
Thanks to John Carpenter's executive producing, Halloween (2018) is surprisingly well-directed, and incorporates good cinematography and editing. Acting, in many ways, as an homage to the 1987 film, there are several encompassing long takes that are both engaging and impressive. The stage direction is also quite good, and draws attention to elements in the foreground and background of the scene. Indeed, the entire screen has importance, which greatly aids the viewing experience. Additionally, several call-outs to the 1978 film are present; which not only pay tribute to John Carpenter's masterpiece from 1978, but add substance to the film itself, and are much more than fan service.
Also due to John Carpenter, the iconic 1978 score is utilized to many capacities. The use of sound editing and music is definitely good, but not necessarily great. Bluntly, it works best when it duplicates the 1978 film, which means it doesn't bring anything new to the table. However, it aided in the film's suspense, which became far more focal than any true "horror" per se. On a side note, the movie as a whole is more violent than its predecessor, and who wouldn't love that?
Not to negate my previous point, but there are several "tributes" to the O.G. film that are lazily executed. Several worked well, but many didn't. More than one iconic scene is mimicked, but negates the aspects of the scene that made it so iconic in the first place. It's at this point where the inclusion becomes fan service; when it does nothing more than say, "Hey, look, that happened in the first one!" Yes, we get it.
Speaking of ruining aspects of the first film, I did not like what they did with Laurie's (Jamie Lee Curtis) character. I realize what they were trying to accomplish with her, but she transformed from a relate-able, likable protagonist to an unrealistic, irritating cliche. It's not the concept of her dramatically altered character that I have an issue with, it's the overkill of her demonstrable alteration. I dislike her character not because it's a stark contrast with her former self, but because she was written objectively poorly. The writers just tried too hard. It's difficult to root for a protagonist when you can no longer put yourself in their shoes.
She isn't the only useless character, either. This movie is plagued with useless side characters and threads of character "development" that accomplish nothing. The writing in Halloween (1978) is linear, concise, and flows very naturally. The main reason for this is because there are two simple story threads that are intertwined very cleanly. Michael stalks Laurie and her friends, Loomis tries to find Michael, and that's it. Clean, simple, short, and excellent stories develop, come together, and then the movie ends.
Halloween (2018), on the other hand, has numerous characters showing up and leaving at random times, and they accomplish nothing for anyone. Time spent with Michael and Laurie is traded for time with other random characters that the movie itself doesn't even care about. Furthermore, the story became far too convoluted and ridiculous, eliminating any remaining horrific elements that are relate-able.
This wasn't aided by the deeply mediocre acting. Jamie Lee Curtis was fine, but my distaste for her character's writing soured her performance. However, I thought Michael Myers had excellent physical acting methods, even though everything that was intriguing and scary about him in the 1978 film was down-played in the 2018 sequel. Maybe it's because his character is so familiar (and overplayed), but insights to his personality and character through his actions were nonexistent. Lastly, every side character was just...around. No standout performances; no notably bad ones; just run-of-the-mill performances, many of which fell far below average.
Consistent with its haphazard characters, Halloween (2018)'s narrative is incredibly dicey. Not only are numerous events pointless and boring, but pivotal and pertinent ones are executed through lazy plot conveniences. Michael begins the movie being transported from an asylum (how many times have we seen that before?), and several minutes later, different characters find the transport bus post-crash. Nobody knows how, why, or when it crashed; it just did. Excellent storytelling, guys. Secondly, numerous random events happen to characters that conveniently place them in the wrong situation at the wrong time so the audience can have a sense of urgency. Notice that I said things "happen to" the characters, not "the characters do things." This renders them as simple plot devices rather than people, and it bogs down the narrative in an exhausting manner.
Halloween (2018) started out strong--it really did. There were moments where I genuinely thought I was going love it, and there were scenes that were suspenseful and scary (even if, by the end, the suspense was strung out way too thin). Indeed, early several scenes were executed very well, and the stage was set very nicely. If the movie had been consistent with its first act, I would have been on-board. Unfortunately, however, the inconsistency of its quality proved to be its greatest source of contention. If this were simply a stand-alone horror flick, I might have liked it better. The problem is, when you make an homage-sequel to one of the best-made horror films of all-time, you lend yourself to being compared to it, which is undermining from the beginning.
Even though Halloween (2018) isn't my favorite horror movie, it was far better than any of the other ungodly sequels of the franchise. A franchise of which, by the way, has long, long overstayed its welcome. It's over, guys. Finished. Done. Complete. If I have to deal with another Halloween-related serial killer flick, I just might implode.
By the way, its quality is numerically about 69%; which, for many reasons, could be considered either theater-worthy or Netflix-worthy. So...
Theatrix-worthy...?
Comments
Post a Comment