This new timeline disregards every previous Halloween film save the original 1978 slasher masterpiece. As the eleventh film in the series, I can understand why the filmmakers would choose to restart with a clean slate, using John Carpenter's original as the starting point. There are some films in the series I'm glad to see ignored and others I wish would be acknowledged, their plotlines continued in a new film, but giving audiences an easy entry point makes sense.
One of the major reasons for ignoring all but the original film was to erase the brother/sister relationship between Michael Myers and Laurie Strode. The siblings element was introduced in the second film and has come to define the narrative in every Halloween film (save for the third movie). The point of removing the connection is that it renders Michael Myers far more mysterious in terms of motivation. And he becomes scarier in that he has no reason for what he does. He simply kills. All of this is theory of course. Whether he's more mysterious or scarier as a result is debatable.
I'll admit, having followed this franchise for more than twenty years, I have grown quite attached to the previous mythology. But I see how removing his reason and not knowing the "why" of it all is scarier (in real life). Yet, the nature of sequels is to reveal more of the story that was set up in the previous film. Making more Halloween films without explaining the "why's" behind Michael Myers won't necessarily make them scarier, but it will assuredly frustrate audiences.
They also said another reason was to get away from Michael's "supernatural" persona and make him human again. To that I say, "If he were human he'd have been dead after the first film." Stabbed in the neck with a knitting needle, eye gouged by a clothes hanger, stabbed in the gut with a butcher knife, shot six times at point blank range, and plummeting off of a second story balcony only to get up and leave moments later. So, if you were trying to make Michael more human, well, the first film blew that possibility out of the water. Among the first several lines of dialog that begin Halloween II (1981) are, "This man is not human!" Even John Carpenter himself (as writer for Halloween II) acknowledged that the original's ending places Michael as something more than human.
That being said, the filmmakers made it known early on to the public about these major changes to the story, and I had prepared myself for this narrative shift. I wasn't blindsided by it. My only worry was that Michael would get his ass kicked. The trailers showed Laurie Strode as a "Sarah Conner" type, adept at weapons and firearms, preparing for the last forty years to kill Michael while Michael sat in an institution where his muscles should've atrophied after forty years of catatonia (if he were human, which the filmmakers have stated he is). Everything seemed to point to this film being the one where Michael Myers goes down hard.
Michael Myers is the reason I go to see the Halloween movies. The Shape is the source of fear and tension in these movies. He's the source of the audiences' thrills. You don't go on a roller coaster hoping it sucks. You want it to be as exciting as possible. I want Michael to be as scary as possible. The idea of Laurie mopping the floor with him didn't sound too appealing to me, but the critics were loving it. All I hoped to get out of it was seeing Michael treated well. When it comes to franchise films like these you weigh it on how many sins the movie commits against the lore and the fans. 93% of the lore was thrown out the window already so I didn't really have to worry about continuity. It really came down to how Michael was portrayed.
I had prepared myself to be disappointed, but even so, I was still quite excited.
THE PLOT
Forty years since the infamous Babysitter Murders of 1978, Laurie Strode has been dealing with the trauma she suffered as a result of that night. Michael Myers has been locked up in Smith's Grove Warren County Sanitarium ever since. During a patient transfer to a high security prison, Michael escapes. Laurie has prepared herself, her family, and her home for this day. If Laurie can lead Michael to her home then she's won. But with her family spread out over Haddonfield it becomes a race to find her loved ones and safely move them all to her home before Michael finds them.
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
Going into this movie all I wanted was one thing: Michael Myers treated right. And I feel like the filmmakers delivered good on that. James Jude Courtney delivers a menacing performance. When he first steps foot onto the street filled with trick r' treaters you can almost see the smile on his face under the mask, feasting his eyes on so many targets ripe for the slaying. Michael moves from one house to another killing whom ever, striking at random. Michael is brutal and remorseless, as he should be. And inhumanly strong (a trait of his supernatural rendition).
And even though the film ignores all the prior sequels, I was happily surprised to see homages to the previous films. It felt like a "Greatest Hits" compilation. There were nods to Halloweens II-VI and Rob Zombie's Halloween as well that I noticed, and probably all the others as well. And of course there were numerous parallels and recreations of moments from the original. I particularly enjoyed the Halloween 5 homage of the two goofy cops. Of all the aspects of H5 to homage I never would've picked that one, but I was grinning ear to ear seeing it here. Call it pandering to the fans, I call it the filmmakers knowing their audience. What is a franchise film if not a film for the fans? These references helped to endear the movie to me as opposed to upsetting me.
One of the major aspects of this film is the theme of role reversals. The major instance of this is with Laurie and Michael. Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely amazing in this film as a "real life" survivor of brutal trauma. The depth of damage to Laurie Strode on display is stunning and Oscar worthy. But from the moment we meet Laurie she is shown as someone very different from the seventeen year old babysitter from 1978. During the final act we see Laurie take on the role of the predator and Michael becoming the prey. Moments from the original film are paralleled except with Laurie in Michael's place and Michael in Laurie's.
Another example of role reversals in this film comes in the character of Dr. (Samhain?) Sartain. Laurie speaks for the audience when she meets him saying, "You're the new Loomis." At first Dr. Sartain does appear to be a blatant place holder for Donald Pleasence. In a twist that seems to have upset most viewers, Sartain transforms into a homicidal maniac in the third act and meets his end at Michael's hands (boot heel technically). Where Dr. Loomis stared into the eyes of evil and it compelled him stop Michael at all costs, Dr. Sartain stared into the eyes of evil and became seduced by it. Throughout the beginning of the film Sartain makes some odd choices, coaxing the podcasters on to dangerous places, conveniently unharmed in the bus escape, urging the police not to harm Michael, and so on. All these moments come together when Sartain reveals his hand. He represented the flipside to Dr. Loomis and that old Nietzsche quote, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." And "If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
I get audiences negative reaction to Dr. Sartain though. His turn is necessary to get Michael to Laurie and therefore a significant plot device. But the more I thought about his turn and the evidence given for it earlier in the film, however subtle, it made sense to me. It also symbolized that Laurie and her girls were truly on their own in this film with no "Dr. Loomis" there to save them this time. It makes me think that Laurie will become the new Loomis in the next film, the Van Helsing to Myers' Dracula.
What didn't make sense to me was what the hell Michael was doing just strolling down the street when the police chief rammed him with the SUV. Earlier in the film Michael is walking around the streets rather nonchalant. I'm fine with that as that was well before the police were hot on his trail. After being shot by Laurie and the cops literally one house away, I would've thought Michael would exercise more caution and stealth, sticking to backyards and alleys, as per his character from the previous films. Sure, he casually stalks the streets in other films but those are almost always during the first or seconds acts. Once the heat is on him he almost always goes into full stealth mode. I know this is just some hyper analytical BS on my part and it didn't take me out of the film or ruin the movie by any means (it's actually a nice homage to Halloween 4) but when thinking about it later I found it out of character for Myers. The Shape is smart, not dumb.
John Carpenter's score! Sorry for the lack of flow into this but I almost forgot one of the best aspects of the movie! John Carpenter, his son Cody Carpenter, and Daniel Davies turn in a taut and suspenseful soundtrack. It has the character of John Carpenter's other film scores while still utilizing the classic Halloween score (an essential element to these films), and yet has a modern sound to it. I've listened to it over and over at home. There's a powerful tone that sounds several times when Michael appears and it lends his character all the more power and fear. It is a worthy addition to the Halloween soundtracks stack.
NITPICKS
Direction Less. Getting rid of the brother/sister connection between Michael Myers and Laurie Strode takes away Michael's focus and eliminates the need for Laurie altogether in a way. It even eliminates the reason for locating the story in Haddonfield. Michael Myers is the driving force behind the series. He's a storm of death and destruction that we follow from film to film. It was the familial connection that brought him back to Haddonfield and kept the Strodes and their descendants in the story. Without that tie why does he return to his home town when there are surely other towns in the 150 miles between Smith's Grove and Haddonfield? Now, if Laurie had been the mastermind behind the escape and herself guiding Myers back to Haddonfield then sure, but that isn't the case.
What's also strange about this is how all the trouble taken to remove the familial connection, in essence Michael's focus, is undone in the film. After the initial few Halloween night killings of Michael's he coincidentally kills two friends of Laurie's granddaughter, Allyson, and then another friend of Allyson's. Is Haddonfield really that small? And then when Dr. Sartain is driving Michael to Laurie's house he poses the theory that Michael's drive and will to endure and continue is his fixation with Laurie. The filmmakers have basically given the same reason behind the familial connection just in a more flowery psychoanalytical way. If they had merely kept the familial connection it would've tied the narrative together a bit more tightly.
From a sequel standpoint, especially to the narrative told in the first film, if the filmmakers are wanting to keep all the same characters together, the familial link was a stroke of brilliance (thank you again, John Carpenter for coming up with that). For the story being told here it feels like the filmmakers are scrambling for ideas to keep the characters connected. Ultimately these ideas are merely substitutions for the same old thing. Maybe in the next film they can have Michael on the run and Laurie hunting him. That would serve better to keep them together versus what was in this film.
Danielle Harris should've played Laurie's daughter, Karen. Danielle Harris needs to be in the next Halloween, finally side by side with Jamie Lee Curtis. While Judy Greer was great in the movie Danielle Harris would've gone a long ways towards a complete franchise solidarity.
Malek Akkad, please bring Danielle Harris into the next one! She can play an adult Lindsey Wallace, a fellow trauma victim and survivor. Make it so!
THE VERDICT
For a sequel to one of my most beloved film franchises, I came out of the movie theater quite pleased. I wasn't blown away but I was nowhere near upset. This film didn't commit any major sins against the greater franchise and didn't have any problems I couldn't get over. Laurie and Michael's confrontation at the end was epic and well worth the price of admission. From start to finish I enjoyed the film and look forward to seeing it again soon!
Overall Ranking: 7 out of 10
Nude-O-Meter: 2 out of 10
(surprisingly its nudity from stock footage of the first film)
For more of my thoughts on the Halloween franchise check out the posts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment