It was good and I enjoyed it. I had fun taking my 15 yo daughter to see Michael on the big screen.
This one didn’t blow me away but I liked it. I really liked the opening credits. We finally get ‘Halloween Movie’ opening credits not seen in any of the sequels since Halloween(1978) and Halloween 2(1981). However it wasn’t the perfect homage to the original that it was said to be. The ending was so-so and the new doctor ‘Loomis’ was badly executed. That one scene(I won’t mention any details not to give away any spoilers) with the doctor was real bad. Jamie Lee Curtis gave her usual wonderful performance which never disappointed but this movie felt like it rushed some kills and tried too hard with all the ‘easter eggs’. The length should have been kept to no longer than 90 minutes. I remember reading in Fangoria back in 1998 in the H20 issue, director Steve Minor felt that a horror movie worked better when no longer than 90 minutes in keeping the audience in suspense and I tend to agree with this.
James Jude Courtney did a fantastic job as the shape and the mask was the best since the original. There also wasn’t much blood at all which was a great thing for a Halloween movie.
The new doctor felt like the ‘Sigmund Freud’ type seen in the old movies. He just never felt right to me and seemed too silly at times.
The 2 reporters seemed like they were just thrown in to give Michael the mask back. They were there and then they weren’t. I didn’t feel they added anything to the story. The doctor could have been the one who had the mask and it might have worked better.
I understand they felt they needed to modernize it but there seemed to be too many kills. This one could have benefitted with a more streamlined approach. A few less characters/kills, lose the 2 reporters, a change in the doctor character…
I see where they were going by ignoring Halloween 2 and trying to get back the feel of the original. However 40 years later and having Laurie Strode be Michael’s sister might have made his return have more purpose than turning him into a random killer that’s out to get a town.
I know no sequel will ever feel exactly like the original but this one lacked a bit of the soul the original had. H1 is my all time favorite followed by H2, H20 and H (2018). I have to admit I like H20 more than this new movie. The pacing just felt tighter on that one and the ending had more of an emotional pull on me than this one did.
All in all, despite all this, this new movie was a fun Halloween and I can’t wait to see it again. Perhaps having already seen it I’ll be able to appreciate it much more seeing it again.
I liked that at one point in the movie Laurie actually refers to Michael as The Shape
Seems like to much of an inside reference to me, like if someone was playing the main theme on the piano in the movie or William Shatner appearing for a cameo.
Easily the best film in the franchise next to the first one and it’s not even close, IMO.
Agree with that. The tension in that final twenty was great, and then they rushed the ending. I think my one slight niggle apart from that is that in 78 I felt that all the kills had a purpose; they were done to get farther in his mission, they got in the way of his mission, or were there as part of the lure for Laurie. Every kill was calculated. In this there were a couple or three that were just there to up the body count, and one I’m really surprised they went with at all.
All that said, I thought it was excellent. Definitely a quantum leap above all except 78 and H2.
I was quite shocked when Michael actually killed a child in this movie. Shocked in a good way, which makes me sound bad but it really helped put across how evil he really is
Yes, that’s the one I was surprised at too Dean.
Can someone help me figure out who the fifth victim was? Laurie said five victims from 78, but I only count 4. The three teens and the mechanic.
I think she meant 5 victims altogether if I recall the dialogue correctly, so that would include Judith.
She was referring to his sister. I don’t remember her saying “from '78”, only that “Michael killed 5 people”.
I liked the movie but it does NOT make me forget Halloween II or Halloween 4 by any means as I still say they are better. I was pleasantly surprised that Jamie Lee ended up not “over doing it” as I expected she would. I think the ending would have been different if they had not realized this movie was going to be a hit (warranting a part two) and I suspect part of the reason the ending was changed had to do with that MUCH more than what was blamed on the screener audience’s reactions.
Overall a good movie. I’d put it ahead of everything that followed Halloween 4, so not bad to land at number five out of eleven Halloween movies.
As a whole I thought the movie was great. Only things that kinda threw me off a little was the doctor “turning bad” scenario, the backyard motion light kill sequence, and the jokes with the funny black kid going a little too far when they were trying to make him funny while Michael was attacking them. Also it was surprising to have him kill the boy in the truck.
I think the doctor was an H5 nod and to show that whatever they were looking for within Myers doesn’t exist. Just evil. The backyard scene was a bit awkward but after sleeping on it it doesn’t bother me too much. And I think that the child’s sense of humor was added to make it relatable modern day. A little overdone but his toenail comments were quite funny to me 
the theater was cracking up
The doctor is a point of contention, and the same goes for the man in Black in part 5. So there’s my answer to it, the doctor is the homage to the protector of Michael, the man in Black if you will. An evil being in his own right. And everyone said that was stupid back then too, so the thought on that hasn’t changed when we talk about how this doctor is in the new one.
It seemed pretty obvious the doctor was off from the beginning, letting the reporters in and letting them taunt Michael with the mask, wanting to save Michael throughout the whole film. I’m pretty sure they were implying he’s the reason the bus crashed and Michael could escape in the first place - the doctor wanted his reunion with Laurie.
Judith, the mechanic, Annie, Bob, Lynda.
I just revised my theory on the doctor up in my other post. I think it makes the most sense as to what he represents.
I look at him killing the kid as one the most important things.
All this “Michael is the embodiment of evil” crap for movie after movie. I think the embodiment of evil would kill children. I think it was the perfect stamp to cement Michael as that very evil. Needed to happen, IMO.
To add to this, having the doctor implied to be the one who orchestrated the escape, it really brings in the randomness of his killings into focus. We expect as an audience that Michael will be out searching for Laurie but he’s out killing a bunch of totally random people and doesnt seem particularly interested in any one. Michael wasn’t waiting to escape one day to kill Laurie, he just existed until he had another chance to kill.