And now reading into the subtext and the scenes they used to advertise the film - it's even more glaring in hindsight:

"He's waited for me, I've waited for him." That is a great bit in terms of baddassery but the reality is: he was not waiting for you. You were the only one waiting for him due to your PTSD.

It definitely makes the Laurie Strode character even more tragic.

I mean yes and no. I think while maybe the film sets up that he’s not necessarily after Laurie or her family as his target there’s a lot of clunky happenstance that brings them together.

He just happens to come across the babysitter, who of all the teenagers in Haddonfield happens to be a friend of Allyson’s who she was going to hang out with later. From there he coincidentally just runs into Allyson and and kills her friend. The sheriff and Dr. Sartain pick her up and they luckily spot Michael and go after him. From that point we get to the twist which leads us to Laurie’s place. Basically a lot of things had to line up for Sartain’s plan to go right that couldn’t have all necessarily been pre-planned.

While some of the end is orchestrated a bit by the Sartain character a lot of the other parts getting us there had to line up pretty perfectly for Michael to run across the granddaughter and eventually get to Laurie.

So it’s like the film wants us to think that Michael is just a force of evil with no real motivation unless given one, but at the same time things just kind of work out where they feel like more than coincidence.

The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Michael can be a force for evil without a motive, but fate beyond mere circumstance can also exist.

I understand but even so that kind of undermines it being that he just kills randomly. The film wants us to think its being clever when really it basically is beating around the bush to get us back to where we were just in a different way.

Feels like I stepped into the DC Presents Rian Johnson's Halloween thread.

Michael kills randomly.

Other forces bring Michael and Laurie together.

I don't see how the second sentence undermines the first.

The film wants us to think he kills randomly, but its only as random as they make it. You want random, then Laurie shouldn't have been in this at all.

I don't hate this film. I just don't think its as clever as some in here want to believe. Overall its a pretty run of the mill slasher. It does things well but it doesn't do anything super crazy with the genre or the franchise. It basically is another one only its disconnected so some think its better because it drops the baggage of the previous sequels. I simply don't agree.

I'm with you. The original is one of my all time favorites. I prefer how Laurie was portrayed in H20 than this. But it isn't something I'm going to dwell on and drive myself crazy over, especially if I didn't like it. You drove yourself crazy before this one even came out too. New movies are out every week. Moving on.

I think the new film is technically better in a lot of waysI much prefer what was done with Laurie in H20 as opposed to the new one. It makes a lot more sense that she would have faked her death, changed her name, and moved across the country if she feared Michael that much rather than just sitting around in the same town as the original events happened waiting until the day he escapes.

Michael stalked Laurie in the first one. Yes, he wanted her to be his victim, but I doubt he sat in prison steaming over it for 40 years. He is a spree killer and not a serial killer.

Laurie is in this movie because the theme of the movie is about how trauma impacts survivors and their loved ones.

Because the point is that the events of Halloween defined her life and she can't move past it. She literally says in the movie that she wants him to escape so she can kill him.

I think it was you who had the idea in the main thread for the film about Laurie just having delusions in her mind about Michael. I feel like that would have been more interesting if they wanted to explore that. Of course then this wouldn’t exactly be a film that could generate sequels as easily, but that would have made for a more interesting character study of Laurie and the trauma from that night.

Instead with this film like I said there’s a lot of happenstance and round about ways to essentially get them back to how they were. The only difference now is they aren’t related. You already know there will be sequels and maybe Laurie will be offed at some point, but it’s pretty much guaranteed either the daughter or granddaughter or both will be around a while. So essentially it’s just hitting the reset button on a new timeline of sequels.

I suppose, but I still find it a little out there. She’s living in this small town that’s basically got nothing going for it and just stewing for forty years on the what if’s of if Michael escapes. I suppose you could say the events of the original film scarred her, but realistically I think she’d remove herself from the situation or someone else would have encouraged her to.

It’s almost as if by trying to make her into a strong character they made her into a mentally weak one or at least not very bright one.

I think this film found a very intriguing way to bring slashers to modern times without relying on a meta crutch like the slashers of the 90s. What Halloween (78) did so brilliantly was bring horror right to your backyard. Horror films of that era were mostly coming from a Hammer influence, gothic castles in Europe that were visually stunning, but not very relatable. In the 70s a neighborhood like the one in Halloween was the safe space for white, middle class America and Halloween brought evil into it. I like to describe it as the violation of Suburbia.

But America in 2018 is very different from the more innocent times of 1978. How do you make a slasher in post-9/11 America that doesn't feel satirical or tame? In a film that brings back Michael Myers to wreck shit, a lot of the horror in this film is psychological. In a world filled with school shootings and terror attacks, a guy with a mask and a knife doesn't feel particularly relevant. But the one element that they share is the trauma that lives with the survivors after it's over.

Almost every character, and Haddonfield as a whole, is shaped by the events of Halloween (78). Laurie is losing her grip due to PTSD. Karen alienates her own mother out of resentment because of this. Dr. Sartain has become obsessed with Michael's motivation. Officer Hawkins was the first responder that night, it clearly had an impact on him, and he seems gripped with fear when the killing start up again. There a lot of little references sprinkled throughout the film including the fact that Cameron, Allison's boyfriend, is Lonny's(get your ass away from there!) son. 9/11 changed America significantly and on a smaller scale, Michael changed Haddonfield.

I think Michael Myers is symbolic of these types of life-changing attacks. The original Halloween portrays Michael as the Boogeyman, a sort of dated concept but if you think about what 'the boogeyman' is in 2018, it's that constant nagging fear at the back of your mind that you could end up as a random victim of some senseless attack. I think most of us agree that you can't live your life in fear, but this film is exploring how a survivor can struggle to cope and live a healthy life after something
as unpredictable as Michael Myers impacts your life.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe a big part of this film is how people attempt to attach meaning to otherwise random acts of violence. The prologue of the film features journalists(of course) attempting to get Michael to say something. After a school shooting the news cycle is dominated by analyses of the killer, who he was, what shaped his life, what drove him to kill. Dr Sartain wants to get into the mind of the killer. The exercise is so futile that he can't comprehend it unless he kills himself.

Two really important parts of what made Halloween so scary is the random nature of Michael targeting Laurie. She did nothing wrong, there was no reason for a person to try to kill her, she was simply in his path. And the film builds on this with the classroom scene where the teacher and Laurie are discussing fate. In the larger theme of the film the viewer has to ask if fate brought Laurie and Michael together or if it was just coincidence. Unfortunately Halloween II, as much as I enjoy it as a slasher, ruins both of those elements. The concept of fate vs. circumstance is ruined by humanizing Michael and giving him a motivation for hunting Laurie. Not only does the sibling connection add nothing to the characters, it undermines the themes of the first film. It's simply a plot device designed to churn out sequels.

The decision to focus on Laurie's trauma is why it was so important to return Michael to The Shape and remove any connection to Laurie. The obsession is strictly a one-way street and it all stems from Laurie. A central moment in the film is when he decides not to kill an infant. The first on screen death in the movie is when Michael kills a ten-year-old boy. It felt like crossing a line. My friend leaned over and said 'well Michael kills kids then' after that moment. When Michael approaches the infant, and the film makes it deliberate that Michael hears him, you could feel the audience tense up. But he just walks on by. This scene at its core is forcing the audience to think. Why did he kill a child earlier but spare this one? What are Michael's motivations? How does he choose who to kill? At this moment the audience is experiencing a taste of the obsessions that have shaped characters like Laurie and Sartain.

The early speculation of Laurie as a badass grandma after the first trailer was totally misguided. This film took a much more nuanced approach at exploring how the trauma of Halloween has shaped her life. I don't think the film is fully cheering on her obsession with Michael. It obviously alienated her family and drove her to a life of isolation and loneliness. During the family dinner scene she chugs a glass of wine and Karen says 'I though lt you quit drinking' hinting at a struggle with alcoholism in Laurie's past attempts to cope. There are numerous parallels of Laurie and Michael that at first feel like fun homages but now I'm not so sure. Laurie is starting at Allison while she's in class, she falls off a balcony and disappears when Michael checks, both visual references to the first film. A scene where Karen comes home to see the back door open builds suspense and then it's just her husband. But then BAM it's Laurie with a gun. Slashers use this trope all the time, build up to a false jump scare and as the audience releases their tension hit them with another scare when they're off guard. Except that second gotcha is almost always the killer. It's very interesting that they use Laurie here in this way.

I loved the family dinner scene for a couple of reasons. The scene starts with a very shallow depth of field. Everything looks flat and in focus. But when Laurie is talking directly to Allison the backgrounds are completely out of focus, like they are the only two people in the world at that moment. I think Allison is actually the protagonist of this movie and she's caught between Laurie and Karen's opposing worldviews. At one point in the movie Karen has this line about the world is a happy place full of love and blah blah blah. At the time it felt so hokey but I think it's an important contrast to Laurie's cynical, obsession with Michael that at times feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Allison's reaction to the trauma of this film would be the obvious thing to explore in a sequel. I think Laurie and Karen represent two kind of extreme mentalities about coping. When Laurie offers Karen and her husband a gun for safety, they refuse to take it, which the audience knows is damn foolish. On the other side Laurie feels like the shell of a functioning adult, and when she's not doing target practice with her gun she's breaking down and crying at dinner. I think the practical reality is somewhere in the middle. Which is why it was important to have humor in this film. Otherwise it feels too grim and nihilistic. But the reality is that life is full of terror and violence, but it's also full of laughter and fun.

H20 was taking from the first two templates - and they were brother and sister still, which is why it works out as a complete trilogy. I, II, and H20.

Either way though I think it makes a lot more sense for the Laurie character to have not stayed and lived out her life in Haddonfield more than having her staying. That’s probably a more realistic approach to what would happen in my opinion.

I didn't think it was stupid at all.


Great post along with all your others. Your insight is perfect and spot on and how I took the film. I finally saw it yesterday and thought it was great. 4 out of 5 for me. I really liked how the filmmakers respected the first film. Great tension it all clicked for me.

I have to admit I am shocked at all the negativity here for the film. We enjoyed it. Great to see the good Box Office for it as well. It should end up at about $165 mill + that is amazing whether it was front loaded or not.

I wouldn’t say I’m being negative. I’m just not praising it like a masterpiece or something. It’s fine, but is it really that great? In my opinion no. I still liked it mostly but do have some issues with it. Everyone takes things so black and white. You can’t critique aspects of a film without someone telling you that you’re being negative or a hater or whatever.

This film has DOUBLE the box office of Freddy vs Jason. Who's the most famous teen-killing movie maniac again?

I hated the film. If it was any worse it would be The Last Jedi. I didn't find it scary at all and there wasn't even any gore or tits to make up for it being non-scary.

Weird...I didn't know Nolan had anything to do with this movie.

There was plenty of gore.

Overrated and certainly overhyped, this was an okay "sequel" to the original. I did like Jamie Lee Curtis return as Laurie Strode and has some of the feel of a Halloween movie but there are so many dumb elements and wasn't in the least bit scary or even thrilling. Still on the fence, but I may not consider this "timeline" of the series as, albeit it was more of a slasher than horror, I did like Halloween: H20. 2.75/5

Just watched this last night. One thing that really distracted me was the age of the teenagers. The actors are all in their mid-20's, and they all looked like it. None of them looked like high school students. Is it that hard to cast 15-18 year old actors? Or at least an 18-20 year old that looks 16?

Caught this over the weekend finally. Halloween is in my top 3 all time so I had high hopes going in (as I've had with all the sequels I've seen when new). Plenty of good things about the film but some glaring issues as well.

-IMO this is the best horror film in a while. I've never been a fan of spiritual or pure torture porn horror films. This reminds me of the slasher films of old.

-Some pretty big plot issues though. I agree with the stoner kid from the beginning; if you remove all the other sequels, there's no reason for this to be something that scarred Laurie that much. Traumatized for sure but being a recluse, treating your kid as if they're in danger to the point where they're taken away...etc. That's all a major stretch if we're to assume it was a random incident. Why would she think Michael was obsessed with her if they have no relation? Why would he come back for her?

-Along with the above, if she was that messed up over it, why not move to the other side of the country as soon as it all ended after the first movie?

-Why in the fuck did they decide to move Michael to another facility on Halloween Day?

-Kill scenes were mostly good but Michael didn't really feel like Michael. He was too quick and active. Not as stalking and slow, which I feel was more suspenseful. I feel they channeled a bit too much of the Michael from the Zombie films.

-The new Loomis plot was stupid. I read someone mention it was just a device to get Michael to the house. I agree there.

I thought the acting was good overall. Considering the garbage we've been getting since H20, I was very happy with how this turned out. One thing I wish they had done was keep 2 and H20 cannon and made this a continuation of that story. Probably would have been hard since Hartnett doesn't really act anymore. But that would have filled in some of the story gaps. Either way, I'll be watching this again soon. 3.5/5

Couple things: Why did Laurie have a room with mannequins? And did Michael actually set them up in a way to hide and surprise attack her?