Thoughts from a writer on the DGG trilogy.

Michael-Myers.net General Discussion
1

DGG’s trilogy has moments of brilliance, but ultimately the experience feels bloated and murky. It reminds me of reading essays from students that had one or two good ideas and then sat down and stretched those into 30 pages to meet the assignment’s length criteria. Like those essays, DGG’s trilogy feels meandering and not fully conceptualized. He tries to touch on too many themes along the way and never really explores any of them in detail. Ironically, his vision became, perhaps, too grandiose as he tried to stretch a couple of good ideas into three feature-length films.

He came up with a half-dozen or more avenues to explore, but just barely touches on them before moving on to the next one. It makes the whole experience feel like a haphazard attempt at higher-brow horror. In reality, the entire trilogy was built around a couple of good ideas by a couple of guys who didn’t have the wherewithal to explore those ideas with any meaningful depth. A great storyteller could have constructed an entire film around a single theme presented in DGG’s trilogy. Instead, we get three or more themes per film, each of which is explored at the depth of a puddle.

The films ask us to contemplate some heavy themes but doesn’t provide the structure for the conversation. The biggest issue here is DGG’s desire to get his audience to process these themes and really think about them, but this is met with his complete inability to provide the catalyst for that discussion. It’s like he says, “Mob mentality. Ok, audience, discuss.” “PTSD and the effects of tragedy on the individual and community. Ok, audience, discuss.” “Evil permeates. Ok, audience, discuss.”

It’s clear to me that DGG is not a good storyteller.

To further my point, I was taught one of the most important jobs of a writer (when writing fiction) is the ability to suspend the audience’s disbelief. The moment an audience member is pulled out of the fictional world you’ve built because they feel something in the story is unrealistic, you’ve failed as a storyteller.

The number of times I was pulled from the fictional world of Haddonfield because I thought to myself, “that wouldn’t happen” or, “that doesn’t make any sense” or, “that’s really stupid” was so high that I never felt lost in the world DGG tried to create. I didn’t feel like I was in Haddonfield for more than glimmering moments at a time. That is the single largest contributing factor to this trilogy’s failure as a whole.

When I think back on John Carptenter’s HalloweeN, I am NEVER, NOT ONCE, pulled out of the story because of poor storytelling.

I could list all of the things from each DGG film that he whiffed on, or list all of the things he did that were terrific, but I don’t have that kind of time today. If anyone is interested in my take on these things let me know and I’ll set aside some time to explore them.

Overall, the trilogy stands as another failed attempt at recapturing the lighting in a bottle that John, Debrah, Dean, Tommy and the rest of the cast and crew were able to capture.

2018 - 8/10
Kills - 4/10
Ends - 6/10

Overall - 6/10

2

You know, as someone who loves the original Halloween, as well as Halloween II, you guys put those films on way too high of a pedestal.

3

Great analysis. I’ve always felt that DGG acted like he truly understood the character of Michael Myers, but it has become increasingly clear to me with each of these 3 films that he simply does not. One reason why films such as H1 and H2 were so great and effective is because of their simplicity. This trilogy seems to be needlessly overly stuffed, and as you suggested, meandering. To be fair though, many other films in this franchise have the same problem. Overall, I am not a fan of this trilogy, at all.

4

You’re not wrong. We absolutely place H1 (and H2, to an extent) on a pedestal that is probably higher than they deserve. However, I’ll remind you, you are reading posts on a website dedicated to a character created 44 years ago. I think the fanatasicm, biases, and deluded opinions are a given. :wink:

That doesn’t mean H1 isn’t a genius piece of cinematic history, though. That just means the bar is set pretty high around here.

5

your analysis is apt until your rating. I too am a writer with degrees in the subject and related subjects. I am not sure how you rate film. Though, even as a standalone movie that doesn’t involve Myers Ends it is at best a subpar, straight to video slasher that contains a hodgepodge plot with awful dialogue and aimless direction. It nearly mirrors Kills terrible structure and sequencing, yet goes a step lower with a conclusion that felt soulless and likewise rushed, devoid of any satisfaction or restitution.

6

I thought this movie was the best of the three. I was prepared for something different like I was NOT when I saw Halloween 3. H2 was not a good movie from a storytelling or movie making standpoint but I do love it for sentimental reasons since it was the first HalloweeN I saw in the early 80s as a kid. Halloween 78 has its flaws like most horror. It received horrible reviews until Roger Ebert gave it a glowing review. Ends is not in any way shape
Or form a Myers movie but honestly I don’t consider any of them to be after 78. John’s story ended then. I thought it was great that DGG and company grew some balls and did something different and I was shocked that I actually enjoyed watching this one from beginning to end. I could have fallen asleep in the first two. We finally saw some deeper flaws, other than a knife, in the heroines. Beautifully shot film and lighting, better jokes and less bad cheese. I have it as number 4 after H1, 2 and 3 in that order. I see them all good in THEIR OWN RIGHT. I know it’s unpopular…….but it is what it is

7

My rating of 6/10 is fair.

Score, cast, cinematography, choreography, FX, etc., all play a role in rating film. This movie warrants a rating slightly above .500.

I don’t think you’re giving the film enough credit for its improved dialogue and coherent plot. I didn’t care for the film myself, but the dialogue was much improved over Turds, and the plot, although not to my taste, was as straightforward and predictable as any slasher I’ve seen recently. There wasn’t anything hodgepodge about the storyline. To say the film is a “straight to video slasher” isn’t necessarily fair to what the film actually is – a production that was swinging well above its $20,000,000 budget.

I like very little in regard to the film, but credit must be given where credit is due. The acting was fine. The dialogue was fine. The cinematography was good. The FX was exceptional. The storyline, although boring, repetitious, predictable, and clearly not to my taste, wasn’t a snoozer. It kept my attention (and irritation) throughout the film. That’s better than 50% of the films in the horror genre at the moment, in my opinion. Hence, slightly higher than .500.

8

“I like very little in regard to the film”


6/10

9

I was a little more generous at 8/10 because it held my interest unlike anything after H2 did. Best movie of the last three by far.