Ha! 
I think the outpouring of anger has to do with the fact that the movie was completely misleading in its marketing. It was presented as some epic final battle between Laurie and Michael when in reality we only got like 2 minutes of an okay fight scene in a tiny kitchen. Even the damn poster mislead viewers.
Agreed. I think there is a percentage of viewers that feel tricked, cheated, misled, or douped. There was so little of Corey in any of the publicity. As much as I disliked the direction the film took, I think I would have loved it if this would have been the film that followed Ends. A Myersless & Strodeless sequel. A totally new thing, etc. But because they were handcuffed to finish the MM LS story, it really made if difficult for me to get invested in the Corey story, especially after the build up of the previous 2 films.
She was born in the late 90âs or early 00âs by and interview .with her. Sheâs definitely not in her 40s. Lol.
I didnât even really mind the idea of Michael working with a copycat killer, but there shouldâve been more of a balance between the two. As it stands, itâs 95% Cory and 5% MIchael. I feel bad for James Jude Courtney considering how great he was as Myers in this new trilogy. Such a waste of talent.
Allllllll of this right here.
Opinions are one thing. Some people suggesting things like H6 is a better movie than HEnds is QUITE another. If you try to think rationally and apply logic, a lot of the complaints about this movie simply make no sense.
There is simply nothing funnier to me than people holding this movie to some line of âlogicâ in a franchise about a superhuman killer and try to dictate what they think evil would or wouldnât do. âMichael wouldnât have an accomplice!â Pure evil LOVES accomplices.
âOpinions are one thing. Some people suggesting things like H6 is a better movie than HEnds is QUITE another.â
Actually, no, itâs not. It is still an opinion regardless of your pretense.
Thereâs a phrase for that, actually. False justification. Your stance is completely negated in your first two sentences. Everything that follows has no ground upon which to stand.
An opinion is an opinion regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
Edit: Iâd like to add, Joe, that I value your opinions. Itâs nice to hear someone thinking against the grain, and offering a counter position. With some friendly discourse and tact, we might even glean something from what you have to say.
I happen to agree with some of your views, but the delivery of those views is important when communicating them. Know what I mean?
I think people dislike the film because Michael isnât the âstarâ of the movie. Michael is synonymous with Halloween films. Fans expect to see Michael throughout the film. I mean he doesnât even make an appearance until what, half way in? Then has about 10-15 minutes of screen time. Itâs perceived as a Halloween film about Corey, not Michael.
Are you telling me Friday the 13th, NOES, Texas Chainsaw, etc⌠fans would not be pissed if their favorite villain wasnât the main character in a film using any of those titles? I mean could you really imagine any of these titles giving their famed villain 10-15 minutes worth of screen time?
I actually think a Freddyless movie could work - like, not all the way through, but a film in which Freddy is kept faaaar in the background.
Fair point.
However, I think the issue isnât necessarily the amount of screen time Michael is given, but more so how that screen time was distributed throughout the film. There are a couple of famous instances where the most iconic characters in a film are only on screen for a short time (when compared to the filmâs total run time). Consider this: Hannibal Lecter was only given 24 minutes of screen time in a film that ran 1 hour 58 minutes. Thatâs crazy, right? I thought for sure he was in the movie a lot more than he actually was. The director of The Silence of the Lambs did a great job of keeping that characterâs presence at the forefront of the audienceâs mind. Lecter loomed just outside of the frame if that makes sense.
I think DGG could have done better to sprinkle Michael in a bit more here and there, particularly in the beginning, to give his short screen time a larger presence. AND, I think the scenes that do feature Michael could have been given a bit more punch. In my opinion, DGG didnât quite stick the landing in this regard.
edit: Hereâs a link to a cool article that gives a few examples of instances where directors really made good use of an actorâs limited time on screen. I was surprised by the Robin Williams one.
https://collider.com/best-lead-performances-had-minimal-screentime/
Some folks here are missing a significant point thatâs no longer socially acceptable but true nevertheless: there are objective qualities by which art can be judged. Is HE a well-made film based on some of these grounds? Yes.
However, the objective qualities specific to the Halloween franchise/universe and horror films must also be used. Is HE a successful Halloween/Michael Myers film? No.
It is, however, a successful deconstruction of a Halloween/Michael Myers film. Deconstruction has been Hollywoodâs standard approach for about a decade now, if not longer. Had this not been a Michael Myers film, it could be judged differently. Had the previous two films been overt deconstructions instead of more or less Michael Myers films, this film could be judged differently.
The bottom-line: taste is subjective, but art can be weighed objectively. If said art is part of a decades-old franchise, it must be weighed accordingly, whether it skips previous films in the series or not.
It is therefore not as simple as âlike what you like and Iâll like what I like, and everything is good.â This is far from the truth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a die hard Halloween fan, but a horror fan firstâŚyes itâs a decent horror movie. It is far from a decent Halloween movie. The second time I watched it, I thought Iâd appreciate it more. Not the case. The mystique was gone and I noticed everything else that was lacking in the movie. I donât think people lost sight, I think people are dissatisfied with the third movie after waiting over 6 years since 2018 was announced. It just wasnât good and didnât fit in with the first two. It made Kills look like Rosemarys baby in terms of cinematic perfectionâŚand that says a lot lol
Well⌠Friday the 13th A New Beginning had even less ârealâ Jason, so yeah I could imagine it lol.
First of all, Iâm one of the guys out on that hill that actually likes this movie. But I also completely understand why it is hated by fans. When they established this timeline in 2018, they honestly should have started it right out of the gate with this movie/story.
By pushing this trilogy as Michael Myers focused movies, you have to see why fans would come out of this one completely perplexed. In the grand scheme of things it makes no sense to do this 180 in the 3rd movie of a trilogy. They even heavily marketed this movie as the final showdown with Laurie and Michael. Letâs face it, the actual showdown was more of a wimper. Barely any time was spent on it, and quite frankly is the weakest part of the movie.
Itâs not hard to see why itâs hated when you look at the overall picture here. I actually like this movie but I also am very aware itâs not a Michael Myers movie. I actually wish they would of just left Myers out of it, because I was more interested in the main plot point of Corey. By including Myers in this afterthought kind of way, it diminished the character of Myers that they pushed in 2018 and Kills. Had this trilogy started out with this particular story, it wouldnât be as much of a shock to the system.
So my point is yeah I may of liked the movie, but I completely understand why itâs hated by fans. Am I coming on here to tell them why they are wrong? No, because they have just as much of a right to hate it, as I do to like it. I understand their points and respect their opinions. Itâs not hard to do.
Freddy was in the first NoES for a handful of minutes tops, and despite the shift of focus in Freddyâs Revenge to Jesse, actually appears more in that movie than the original. Jason wasnât in the first F13 at all except for a few quick flashes of him drowning. Leatherface doesnât appear in TCM until almost halfway into the movie.
Sometimes, less is more.
I enjoyed Ends more than the other two, however itâs funny to me, because the 2018 and Kills praisers, got invested into a cash grab trilogy, only to be disappointed, and thatâs ironic really. I was never keen on this trilogy, especially spending so much time on a storyline that could have completely crapped the bed in the second or third entry, itâs a risk. 2018 should have wrapped it up. Some people are saying they are choosing to end the story at 2018, which is also dumb because it basically ends the same as the original H2, minus one single detail about Laurie being his sister. Rinse and repeat, is all people want.
Iâd be interested to hear what H3 fans think of Ends.
Reading today that director David Gordon Green has responded to the negative backlash over Halloween Ends. The film has been a minor cause of controversy among the horror community for spending most of its runtime focusing on a new character, Corey Cuningham, before Michael Myers enters the fray in the third act. As a result, the supposed last-ever installment
Director David Gordon Green has responded to the negative backlash over Halloween Ends. The film has been a minor cause of controversy among the horror community for spending most of its runtime focusing on a new character, Corey Cuningham, before Michael Myers enters the fray in the third act.
âItâs funny, when someone says, âBuild your dream house on this real estate using this title and these characters,â everybody is going to find a different little thing thatâs meaningful for them and theyâll make it their own,â Green told Movie Maker. âThatâs what I did. For every bite of backlash, you also get people that are thanking you for taking it to a new place and keeping it alive and full of love.â
Green also went on to say that, despite the film being the last in the long-standing Halloween franchise, he had ânever once considered making a Laurie and Michael movie.â âThe concept that it should be a final showdown-type brawl never even crossed our minds,â he continued. âI wanted to see where it would go. I wanted one to win, one to die. But we were always more ambitious with that. So how did we want to go out? By doing what no one except us would do: make a love story.â
For me the main problem is just ripping of Christine. Letâs be honest here, Corey Cunningham is Arnie Cunningham, and it took 4 people to come up with this idea and write the screenplay. That for me lacks any creativity or anything original.
They had no idea what to do, so just took Arnie, threw in a bit of Friday the 13th part 5, and bingo, we have Halloween Ends.