All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I figured if ever there was a day to see the new, much praised Halloween, why not on Halloween, right?
79% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. $132 Million NABO in less than 2 weeks on a $10 Million budget. And, two #1 Weekends in a row. Wow...this thing has got to be amazing, right?
Sadly, no...it's not amazing. It's not even good, IMO, and actually teeders on being pretty bad.
The opening 10 minutes or so are extremely dull..and dumb, actually. Things do pick up, and there are some good scenes, but all in all, this is an example of really poor writing, IMO. The story itself is rather dumb. The characters are not likeable...or memorable...at all. They do really dumb things...and I'm not just talking horror cliche dumb.
Michael's "escape" is truly just weak. It sets a bad tone. No one seems to take the threat very seriously, even though the dead bodies are piling up. Very odd.
But, maybe the strangest thing for me involved the character of "Sheriff Barker", played by Omar J. Dorsey, who isn't even listed in the credits on IMDB. This guy has several scenes, but does absolutely nothing and then we never see nor hear from him again.
Actually, there are several characters that just seem to disappear. I read on IMDB that the original cut of the film was about 30 minutes longer than the theatrical release version, and my bet is that many, many scenes were cut, yet earlier scenes with these characters remained...when they most likely should have been re-shot, without the forgotten characters.
I just wasn't impressed at all, and it's the weak and unbelievable story to blame. This will be quickly forgotten.
Grade - C-
To ski or not to ski...that's not even a question.
Are you sure you're not talking about Resurrection or the two Rob Zombie films? I give Halloween 2018 a perfect A+. Second best in the franchise.
Shocking! But, I read numerous A+ reviews on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, and I felt like either they had watched a different movie, or had written their review before seeing the movie.
What were your thoughts on Sheriff Barker?
How did you like how the police officers decided it was the smartest decision to bring everyone to Laurie's house in the remote woods, as it's obviously safer than the police station or just putting them in a plane or van and getting them the Hell out of Dodge?
How do you think Laurie "built" all those special things into her house? Where did the money come from? All those guns? Did she ever work? We know she lost custody of her daughter and got divorced twice...do you think she ever was able to work a normal job?
My fear is that we have an awful lot of lambs out there, just following along, liking what's supposed to be liked or cool.
I don't follow...
To ski or not to ski...that's not even a question.
I enjoyed this for the most part. It was tense/brutal, closer to the spirit of the original in ways that the previous films have not been in a long, long time, and there were some interesting themes and role reversals between Laurie/Michael that most of the sequels were to braindead to entertain. That said, it was definitely clunky and overwrought at times and ultimately didn't justify its existence. So many elements, such as bringing back Curtis/Carpenter and hiring David Gordon Green, suggest an attempt to make a more "respectable" sequel that deserves to be proper canon in ways that the shittier ones don't, but it's still just another Halloween sequel. Maybe the best one, certainly miles above the majority, but after so many is it really worth it? So I'm split; one of the better films of 2018 that probably didn't need to be made.
If we are talking about the franchise, I'd say this is somewhere between 2-3. But, I'd still wouldn't give it that great of a grade on its own. I hate it when they replicate parts from previous movies, which is a huge trend. It's a new movie, make something new, I don't want to see scenes redone from the past. I find this very annoying and it comes off like the filmmakers are sucking up to the audience.
I enjoyed the movie. It was basically another "blank slate" attempt to rekindle the series, similar to H20. For what it was, I thought it was OK.
I didn't like that they retconned even Halloween II. Especially since this movie ironically makes the same mistakes as that original sequel made (namely, that they added tons and tons of one-scene fluff characters to pad the body count, something the original film didn't need; hell even H20 didn't stoop to that too much).
Also... SPOILERS!!!!! WARNING!!!!
I thought that the new characters were interesting, but they also felt like they were wasted in many ways. The podcasters felt like they would have a bigger role before getting killed. Same with Loomis's successor; he turns evil and becomes a half-hearted villain that is immediately curb-stomped by Myers. WTF? Loomis would've been ashamed of that asshole. I also felt the way they shot his death felt like it was from a completely different movie; it was far too exaggerated and gratuitous, in stark contrast to most of the film's better kills.
I also felt that the movie had a little less meat on it now that Laurie isn't related to Michael. The familial relationship wasn't necessary in the original at all, but I felt that the 80's sequel and H20 definitely benefited from that revelation.
All in all, though, it's far from the worst Halloween movie, and Jamie Lee Curtis was awesome in it.