Cast:
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Andi Matichak (Allyson Nelson), James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle (Michael Myers / The Shape), Will Patton (Deputy Frank Hawkins), Rohan Campbell (Corey Cunningham), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Jesse C. Boyd (Officer Mulaney), Joanne Baron (Joan Cunningham), Rick Moose (Ronald), with Michael Barbieri (Terry), Destiny Mone (Stacy), Joey Harris (Margo), Marteen (Billy), and Michael O'Leary (Dr. Mathis) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018) and #1752 - Halloween Kills)
Review:
Part 1: The Shape of BS
It took about a week to write this review, albeit mostly on purpose. I had a vacation coming in October because, well, it is baseball season, but I figured that a month of horror would need at least one 2022 film (as it turned out, this is the third from this year). Besides, there is plenty to talk about when refreshed and having covered thirteen films already, so let us get going. As much as I wanted to rush out a review that covered this film in quick detail in order to cover a new horror movie for the season, I think that the best way to give the film justice is in excruciating detail. No, this won't be a bit-by-bit picking of the film, but it will try to satisfy all of the angles that I'm sure will make this one of the most divisive horror movies in quite a while. If one wants to be pedantic, there have been premises suggested for Halloween films that never came to pass that I'm sure would be familiar to those who watch this film, since one of the ideas presented in the gap between Halloween films (2010-2017) involved a mockumentary where people would get slashed while a "Halloween" movie was being filmed. You could argue that the movie is meant to be bold with the way it wants to finally, finally, close the Halloween series (at least until Malek Akkad decides to make a deal with a producer besides Blumhouse to do it all over again). We have seen twelve follow-up films now, with varying "timelines". Halloween (2018), the first reboot to ignore continuity since the last film to ignore continuity in Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), was pretty fine when I saw it back in 2018, but my opinion did diminish slightly when I heard that there would not only be a sequel but then another sequel. You know why? Yes, I am still stubborn in the belief that the 2018 Halloween would have been better off as just one thing, with no attempts at baiting more. Sure, Gordon Green and Danny McBride thought about doing back-to-back movies, but you can't seriously tell me that this trilogy of films (2018, 2021, 2022) deserved to be a trilogy. How the hell does one have so little confidence in themselves to go through with this? No disrespect, but people still would've gone nuts for a back-to-back row of Halloween films. At any rate, Kills was a flat-out filler movie filled with a silly idea about townspeople going nutty that went hand in hand with silly dialogue, albeit being better as a pure slasher film. As with before, Gordon Green and McBride wrote the film, this time in collaboration with Chris Bernier and Paul Brad Logan; the ending apparently was re-shot to be more modest. The film was released both in theaters and on Peacock (yuck), and I imagine it will make slightly less than the other two in audience curiosity, but who knows.
Part II
It is amusing to think about how the new trilogy has cribbed elements of the films they ignored with II, 4, 5, 6, except the whole Myers sibling thing. For example:
Laurie enters the hospital and stays there for most of it (Halloween II / Kills)
A town mob goes after Michael (The Return of Michael Myers / Kills)
Michael gets injured and rests underground (The Revenge of Michael Myers / Ends)
A radio shock jock talks about Michael, needles the town, then gets killed (The Curse of Michael Myers / Ends)A weirdo Tommy Doyle (Halloween 6 / Kills)
Michael returns to his old house to kill people who happened to live there (Halloween 6 / Kills)
A person possibly follows in the footsteps of Michael (4 / Ends).
Of course, you could argue that Ends tries to play the trick of being like the first one in not having much of Michael Myers or perhaps serve as a new example of being the divisive "third film" such as Halloween III; Season of the Witch (1982). Halloween (1978) was a great movie, let us get this out of the way. The classic took a premise as simple as murder of babysitters in a small town and made it a great horror classic that looked and sounded great, complete with a menacing terror in "The Shape". So...how is it? You know what was a better horror sequel that tried to do a different take on the original? Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Watch that film instead. All right, you want more? Well...
Part III: Season of the Review
Halloween Ends is probably the most poorly executed of all the sequels that have come out in 40 years. I will say that it is average in terms of presentation and general filmmaking but a failure in the parts that matter most. Forget trying to call this the modern Halloween III in trying to push the boundaries of what can be done in this series, because this is just a lousy piece of dreck that makes the other one look less like hokey dreck. You thought killer masks with microchips from Stonehenge was bad? You thought Michael being a tool of a Thorn cult was bad? You thought trying to explain the psychology of Michael was bad? No, it is the idea of trying to make a movie where someone follows some of the footsteps of evil like Michael Myers that ends up being one of the most confounding misfires in this series. I think the only movie that managed to convey the terror of being killed by a shape of evil in a small town was, well, the original film. Every sequel since has either serve as a demystification of the killer or tried to amp up the gore, proving that one really can't capture lightning in a bottle twice. To be honest, the end result differed from what I really thought could have happened in this series: kill both Laurie and Michael as a full-fledged way to balance out good and evil. Granted, it would be pretty bleak, but isn't the point of doing a new "trilogy" to aim for something different? You could argue that Halloween: Resurrection (2002) and Halloween 4 came up with the death idea first, but hey, if you can do a better version of H20, then doing a better follow-up of H20 than what you got is not a hard tangent to leap to. But no, you have got to keep Curtis present and ready for another matchup of aging characters once again (box office dollars being the cynical reason). Maybe they wanted people to do think pieces about how the Rob Zombie features were better by comparison (uh, no).
Part 4: The Return of the Point
The 2018 version at least made a quality setup of an aged Laurie and Michael having their paths cross again, but it seems insulting to make a movie that tries to play with that for the last 25 minutes for a less inspiring result. The film isn't even better on a horror level than Kills, a mediocre hack of the fourth film. The slasher scenes are handled in a moderate level that falls by the wayside with bland social commentary that is not particularly clever. Who the hell thought seeing townspeople spew conspiracy theories about a killer was a particularly interesting idea? The Shape isn't exactly a hard presence to break down: he kills people without saying much of anything, he lurks in a way that may or may not be supernatural. John Carpenter aimed for "true crass exploitation", and every sequel has managed to only be just exploitation in different names. You could argue that Carpenter being involved as executive producer and music composer makes this sting less, but I imagine as long as the work and check clears, he doesn't really care (this isn't to knock Carpenter, because he obviously can do whatever the hell he wants - give him another shot at a film, you cowards!).
Part 5: The Revenge of the Actors
Oh, right, there are actors in this movie. It relies mostly on the shoulders of Campbell, known for a handful of TV and film roles. In his attempts at trying to portray the descent of someone into madness in a love story manages to result in a bland performance. If you want to make chemistry between him and Matichak make sense, one would've actually had these two paired together earlier - as opposed to the third film of a trilogy! There is just too much of a hill for him to climb out of when it comes to trying to elevate a "new idea" that won't make you simply just watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). In short, he is only effective in bland brooding scenes that would've made him an ideal one marked for death in a crappy slasher movie. Matichak comes off as listless, seemingly stuck in autopilot mode for nothing to do besides act opposite the "bad boy" stuff, as if the dynamic between her and Curtis had been played out in the last two films (uh, no?). I do appreciate Curtis getting her last portrayal of a character without reaching 65 (as opposed to Donald Pleasance, who was past that age for three sequels while still probably being the best part of those films). There hasn't been a bad portrayal in these seven films, but I can't say that she goes out as a complete winner, because the movie fundamentally fails her when it comes to presenting her trauma and guilt (oh look, the character is depicted writing a book...kind of like how Rob Zombie's Halloween sequels (2007, 2009) had one of the leads write a book). The voiceovers used from time to time are cliche and uninspiring, and there is nothing to grab on when it comes to the inevitability of a final confrontation that is more of a wet fart of a swansong rather than something interesting. The rest of the characters are just there, mildly interesting but only reminding me that this probably could've worked as a miniseries or a mega-cut. Here are the run-times of the films: 106, 105, and 111 minutes. Yeah, I think you can take 300 minutes from these films combined and cobble it into two films, and maybe somehow make this look like a real narrative as opposed to whatever bullshit this is, which seems to think the audience is stupid. The last film thought they could play the audience like a fiddle for filler, so obviously they think they can get away with it again. Imagine having the highlight of your film being a character getting put through the grinder (unless you count the opening scene as, uh, effective).
Part 6: The Curse of the Conclusion
In total, I assumed when I took time to process the film that it would sound better in my mind. Some have made the argument that it is a mixed bag, one that really tries to do something different with the series besides just being a slasher film. Well, that may be true, but a pile of crap with salt in the middle still taste likes crap no matter how you try to present things. I won't go as far as others who (seriously or not) put up a petition to re-do the film, but I will say that the best way to view the film is to look at it as a parody, one that sees what happens when someone has gone so far up their own...you know where that they have lost sight of what Halloween was about. It was a haunted house movie built around a holiday dedicated to getting one good scare that Carpenter and company turned into something chilling. Gordon Green's 2018 film and the original Halloween II are probably the only interesting follow-ups since the original, but when it comes to wanting one pure good time, the original movie wins every-time, proving that the past can lurk from beyond in more ways than one.
Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment