It’s been a very long time since
I’ve encountered a horror movie as polarizing as Halloween Kills. I'd have to go back more than a decade
to, ironically, Rob Zombie’s Halloween,
or the Platinum Dunes remake of Friday
the 13th. Far be it from me to think I can cover anything that’s not yet been covered in reviews across the internet, from
mainstream critics to genre-friendly websites to legions of social media
posters. I have seen ten/tens, zero/tens, and everything in between. One
commenter stated that the 1978 original and Halloween Kills are the only Halloween
films they’ve ever liked, and they’d much sooner watch this newest sequel than
the original. Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Halloween Kills has been hugely
maligned for a whole host of reasons, most of them fair—depending on what
“fair” means to you. Because of this disparity, reviewing Halloween Kills feels like screaming into the void alongside
everyone else, like sitting in a room and arguing among friends about which
local greasy spoon makes the best pizza—because everyone has an idea of what
they want, and that idea can be radically different from person to person.
The problem with the Halloween series, or really any ongoing
series that had a legitimately good first entry and later devolved into broadly
distilled, sensationalized versions of the same concept, is that audiences become split
as to what they want. The first movie creates the mold and the rules, but every
sequel, by design, has to do
something new, and through their very nature, they become sillier and sillier
parodies of their own idea. So, who decides what a new entry in an established franchise should be like? Should every new entry try to be "good," or should it merely carry the torch and keep the franchise alive, just like all its lower-reaching sequels? The first Halloween is
a critically lavished film that even Roger Ebert once referred to as a classic, so each time a sequel is made, a portion of the
audience hopes to see something that lives up to that legacy—something classy with an emphasis on suspense over gore. Most of the Halloween sequels aren’t good movies, though they are fun in their own way (I'll always defend Halloween 4 as being a good one, though maybe I’m alone in that), so when you've got two halves of the audience vying for polar opposite experiences, what happens as a result? Well, those schools of thought collide in a violent crash, and because we're living in 2021
AR (After Reason), a time during which everyone
is angry about everything all the time, even something as innocuous as a
movie can cause blood-raging fights.
Once you see Halloween Kills—or any movie, really—you henceforth belong to “the
audience.” We all become one mass, just one more community we now share, even
though we’re all looking to the movie to satisfy our own personal desires with
little regard to what the person in the next seat may want. Those
desires can be polar opposites, but they can also, and often, be granular, as everyone has already established their own barometer for satisfaction. What’s
that mean? At the end of the day, there’s only one version of a movie (well,
for the most part—Halloween: The Curse
of Michael Myers is somewhere saying, “Hold my four different cuts”), which
means it’s only going to entertain a certain fraction of the
audience—especially one as bloodthirsty as Halloween
fanfolks. In an effort to entertain both schools of thought, I’m approaching
this too-long review in a different way. The first half will be written by
someone who wanted Halloween Kills
to be legitimately good in the same way as the original and the 2018 reboot. The second half will be written by the part of me that
acknowledges Halloween Kills is the eleventh movie to feature Michael Myers
wandering around Haddonfield and killing townspeople in all kinds of ways, and as such, didn’t expect much beyond some senseless violence and a
reasonably engaging story. Depending on what you want from Halloween
Kills, pick your poison and read on. (Spoilers everywhere.)
Take 1: “I Wanted A Good Movie”
Prior to its arrival in theaters
to both huge box office and critical acclaim, 2018’s Halloween seemed like a real longshot. In the years preceding, Rob
Zombie had killed the series dead with his experimental nonsense, and this was
after 2002’s dismal Halloween:
Resurrection had already killed
the series along with its leading final lady. (If next year’s Halloween Ends kills off Laurie Strode,
that will be the third time her character
has died in this goofy series—pretty impressive.) There was understandable
excitement when it was announced that John Carpenter would be serving as
spiritual consiglieri to the reboot after having spent the last 35 years away
from the series, as the closest he’d come in that time was quitting Halloween: H20 in the earliest days of pre-production. Then came the announcement of Jamie Lee Curtis’s return as the
embattled Laurie Strode and the mood went from “oh?” to “oh!” Enthusiasm for
the project was palpable. Then came the announcement that the guys who had done
Your Highness, David Gordon
Green and Danny McBride, would be handling the project, and the Internet had no
idea what to think. I sure didn’t. These guys
were going to resurrect a series that hadn’t been worth a damn
since 1998? (Midnight Mass’s
Mike Flanagan also pitched his own version for a reboot, most of which was repurposed
for Hush, his Netflix Original home
invasion flick. I'd still love to see what Flanagan's Halloween would've been like. Maybe someday...during franchise retcon # 3.)
Despite everyone’s usual
cynicism, Gordon Green and McBride (and poor Jeff Fradley, the film's third co-writer who is seldom mentioned), under the watchful eye of John Carpenter, managed
to deliver one of the best sequels in the series, with Carpenter going on
record as saying it was better than his original. With the dream team having fairly earned the accolades for their approach, there was no reason to believe Halloween Kills wouldn’t be at least comparably good, or at the very
least wouldn’t squander the goodwill
established by their first go-round.
The curse of the sequel strikes
again.
The “good” news is Halloween Kills isn’t the worst sequel
in the series, regardless of the timeline you’re sticking with—I don’t think
we could ever plumb those kinds of depths ever again—but based on the pedigree
involved, the poor execution of good ideas, and the good execution of a less intellectual and more visceral experience, that leaves Halloween Kills in a kind of cinematic
no man’s land where it’s hard to choose one side or the other, and that’s
worse. Halloween: Resurrection, for
instance, is a piece of shit I’ll never watch again; though unfortunate, there’s
no conflict there and I’m at peace with its place in the Halloween hierarchy. Halloween
Kills has a lot to offer, and parts of it are terrific, but its best parts don’t push the narrative
forward in any meaningful way, which is its biggest detriment. If your movie
doesn’t have a point, then fuck—what are we doing here? Though Halloween Kills definitely tries, and it has ideas either brand new
or fleshed out from previous sequels (the vigilante aspect from Halloween 4, for example), what
we’re left with feels unfinished, overwrought, and aimless; really, it feels more like an
extended opening act for Halloween Ends.
It’s the holding pattern of horror sequels—the palate cleanser in between
courses—and that sucks.
Though Halloween Kills continues exploring the concept of trauma as established during its predecessor, this time the series expands beyond Laurie Strode and her family and looks at how the other citizens of Haddonfield are still emotionally reeling from the night he came home and how that trauma manifests…which is with revenge. Right out of the gate, this newborn series seems to be transitioning from philosophical and intimate nuance to primal, in-the-streets chaos. Halloween Kills is a malfunctioning carnival ride wrenching loose from its hydraulics and shooting off a nonstop torrent of sparks in the form of very wet and crunchy violence with a plot inspired by the third act of 1931’s Frankenstein (only Michael Myers deserves it). In the conceptual sense, it doesn't stray too far from what Gordon Green et al. established in 2018, but it does choose to do something that feels quite wrong for a Curtis-having Halloween movie: completely remove her from the equation, making this latest sequel
feel perfunctory and incomplete. Halloween
Kills is the sixth Halloween
film to feature Curtis' Laurie Strode, but the first in which she never shares a single
scene with her masked nemesis. Of course, this was by design, as the filmmakers wanted this entry to be about the rest of Haddonfield ("One of their numbers was butchered and this is the wake," Loomis says in Halloween 2 while Haddonfield townspeople are vandalizing the abandoned Myers house), but also because the filmmakers would really be straining credibility
in having Laurie walk away unscathed after so many encounters, especially with a
gaping wound in her belly. While all of that is perfectly reasonable, at the same time, it makes the experience of Halloween Kills feel incidental—like it's not actually a Halloween sequel, but more like some random external adventure happening in a Halloween shared universe. If
it’s Halloween, Laurie and
Michael have to do battle—that’s,
like, a rule. If you’re playing in the canon sandbox established in 1978, then you’ve broken that rule—just one
among many. That’s like having James Bond call the police on the main supervillain instead of taking the guy out himself.
My biggest gripe with Halloween Kills is its poor treatment
of the legacy actors and characters being glimpsed for the first time in forty-three years. Featured most prominently is Tommy Doyle, the young boy Laurie was babysitting
Halloween night of 1978, this time played by Anthony Michael Hall. (Conversations
were had about having Paul Rudd come back to play the part after having done so
in the now de-canonized Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers,
and at first it was disappointing it didn’t work out, but seeing what the movie
had turned Tommy into, not even my perpetual love for the Ruddster is enough to convince
me he could’ve played the part as required.) Alongside Tommy are Lindsey
Wallace (a surprisingly terrific Kyle Richards), Marion Chambers (Nancy Stephens), and Lonnie Elam (the wonderful Robert Longstreet of The Haunting of Hill House) while retired sheriff Leigh Brackett (Charles Cyphers) is
working a security shift at Haddonfield Memorial. As a
lifelong series fan, of course it was
incredible to see those characters and/or actors return to the series...but also a damn shame to see how wasted most of them are. How do you have Laurie Strode and Leigh Brackett
under the same hospital roof and not allow them to share a single scene
together, perhaps one in which they collectively mourn over the slain Annie, her friend and his daughter? (Nancy Loomis appears in archive footage from Halloween and, oddly, Halloween 2, which technically doesn't exist in this new timeline, but which is still used in an appropriate and unobtrusive way.) Though the yearly Halloween-night binge drink
was a clever way to group all those 1978 massacre survivors together, why not
give them each just a single moment
to come off like human beings with a shared history? Though I value their
inclusion, their presence smacks of vapid “look, see?” fan service in hopes
we’ll get lost in dreamy nostalgia and not notice how superficial their appearances are—not to mention that killing four out of the five characters seems a little
sadistic, with three out of the four being killed in dismissive ways, as if their place in the series never meant anything. Brackett ranks a blink-and-miss-it face slash; Marion, who dies for the second time in this series, has the honor of going out looking like a fumbling idiot; and poor Lonnie doesn’t even get an on-screen death. Tommy is the only legacy character
to get a ceremonial end, and even that
felt wrong.
And all during this, bit players from Halloween '18 who were never even given names return in expanded roles, only so Halloween Kills can snuff out even more recognizable people, and with great violence. (I cringed at that "oops!" self-inflicted gunshot wound. Is this Halloween Kills or Abbott & Costello Meet The Shape?) While it makes sense to reuse characters you've already created instead of introducing new ones, it seems really strange that these characters, who haven't had their own face-to-face encounter with Michael Myers and who only learned about him for the first time Halloween night of 2018, would so immediately want to throw hands alongside these legacy characters who've lost loved ones, or nearly died at Myers' hands, or spent the last forty years navigating their own traumas. I'm tempted to think it's meant to be some kind of commentary on tribalism and the deadly consequences of in-the-bubble information loops, but I might be giving something called Halloween Kills too much credit.
Though Halloween Kills jumps from location to location and timeline to timeline, with something heavy going on almost all the time, it never feels like anything is happening; it’s desperate to do so many things that it eventually collapses under its own heavy load. It wants to be “about” something but executes that
aboutness with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It wants to pretend the reveal about The Shape being supernatural in nature is some kind of gigantic, world-stopping revelation...until your most basic fan remembers that Dr. Loomis shot him in the chest six times in 1978 and "he just got up and walked away," the discovery of which didn't surprise Loomis in the least. It wants to establish the origin story of Frank Hawkins (Will Patton) by trying to convince the audience that his past with The Shape is just as intertwined and significant as Laurie's own, but it simply can't stand up to the forty-year head start she has, nor with Curtis's consistent presence in the series, even if most of her sequels have been retconned out of this current continuity—along with the carelessly established motivation for Hawkins' character hinging on his forty-year regret for not shooting The Shape in the brain when he had the chance...even though it's been solidly established that probably wouldn't have killed him anyway. Even Andi Matichak’s presence as Allyson is wasted on the vigilante
angle, which not only feels wrong for her character but feels more like the
movie is babysitting her for the time being in lieu of offering her something
more substantial to do. More than anything, and maybe years down the line he'll confirm this, Halloween Kills feels like the kind of senseless, garish sequel Carpenter would've hated, had it been attached to the franchise's first timeline that, after a while, he had nothing to do with.
Take 2: “I Wanted A Fun Movie”
Halloween Kills is a fucking blast. With a body count of fortyish people, there’s a violent and brutal death something like every three minutes. Though Gordon Green returns as director, and still channeling Carpenter
by recreating a few shots from the original, this time he's embracing
his inner Argento. The gallons of blood used during production must be
somewhere in the thousands. Holy smokes, is this thing Italian? Between the bloodletting and the corny dialogue, it must be.
Halloween Kills also presents Michael Myers
at his most brutal, vicious, mean-spirited, and utterly unremorseful. His
fire-scorched mask gives him the Jaws 2
treatment, which is appropriate because Halloween Kills has turned him into an unstoppable killer shark. (Yep,
I just quoted Busta Rhymes from Halloween:
Resurrection. Haw haw.) James Jude Courtney, with a little assistance from Airon Armstrong for the '78 sequence, returns for another round of Haddonfield mayhem and strikes an even more imposing figure than his last appearance. The Shape of 2018 was methodical but physically capable; here, he's embraced his full-on Kane-Hodder-as-Jason-Voorhees, dispatching his victims in ways we've yet to see in this series. Sure, he does his playful cat-and-mouse thing by hiding in dark corners and behind closet doors, but really, who gives a shit? Why bother? The Shape of Halloween Kills is going for quantity over quality. He could've knocked on the door dressed as the pizza dude or popped out of a sugar bowl to lop off someone's head and the audience would've barely reacted. And that's because, as Halloween Kills ably communicates, the death of any character we see on screen is inevitable. There's no hope for anyone—not even Stewie from Mad TV ("Look what I can do!"). And boy, the movie wastes no time in getting to those deaths: the opening massacre of the first responders to Laurie's farmhouse inferno is awe-inspiring—and the closest we've gotten to seeing The Shape kill someone with a chainsaw.
Before the first
retcon in 1998 with Halloween: H20,
the Halloween series had been that
random horror property Jamie Lee Curtis appeared in for just a couple
movies before saying farewell and moving onto bigger studio fare, in the same
way lots of actors had done their one random appearance in famous slasher series:
Kevin Bacon in Friday the 13th,
Johnny Depp in A Nightmare on Elm Street,
even Jennifer Aniston in Leprechaun.
Though their involvement in said projects waver from pride to embarrassment, none of them really talk about them unless prompted, and they certainly never went back to that
well for another go-round. (Sure, most of them died in their respective movies, but since when has that ever stopped Hollywood?) When Jamie Lee Curtis returned to the series for the first time in 1998,
it felt like an event because it was an
event, and though her presence in a Halloween
film doesn’t guarantee it’s going to be good, it still feels right. And seeing her stick with this
series forty years after the original movie is special. At this point, Halloween belongs to her and John
Carpenter (and the every-day-missed Debra Hill), and here they are, all these years later, playing make-believe together like a bunch of kids once
again—this time with filmmakers who grew up on the very movies they're now putting their own stamp on. Output aside, what a nice thing.
Speaking of, Carpenter, son Cody,
and Daniel Davies return to score, offering another sinister,
kick-ass musical landscape. Themes from both Halloween eras are present and accounted for, along with a whole
host of new material to properly shadow this new take on Halloween lore. Their score even acknowledges the angry mob angle,
for the first time ever adding a chorus of voices to the legendary Halloween
theme, which plays over the opening
credits that feature not just one illuminated jack-o-lantern, but a
dozen—each one growing more intense with flames as they flow past.
What does it all mean?
Haddonfield
citizens are mad as hell and they’re not gonna take it anymore.
The 1978 timeline stuff, which sees Michael's detainment by Haddonfield police, including young Frank Hawkins (Thomas
Mann) and his partner, Pete McCabe (the always enjoyable Jim Cummings,
actor/director of The Wolf of Snow Hollow), works damn well, and is probably the best material in the whole movie. The loyal recreation of the Myers house is
terrific, as is the mask, which is the closest this
series has gotten to faithfully depicting those two holy totems. Evidently some fans have been blasting the “all CGI Loomis”
that was inserted into this sequence, somehow not recognizing him to be a real,
living, non-CGI human being (Tom Jones Jr.). Has CGI really gotten that good? I guess I haven’t noticed. Though
the actor’s appearance is uncannily spot on, and overdubbed by the previous
movie’s convincing Loomis soundalike, this new
version of Loomis would've been better left in a blurry background, similar to how Michael’s maskless
face had been obscured throughout the first two movies of this new
trilogy. Still, seeing his trench-coated form standing at the Myers house
threshold as the camera cranes back across the front yard, revealing
a motionless Michael flanked by police—in a shot that mimics the
original's opening scene where six-year-old Michael has his clown mask ripped off by his father—well, it’s the stuff of legitimate chills, and Carpenter and co’s
revisitation of the same theme used for that scene but now gussied up with
disconcerting overlays is probably the movie's greatest moment. (But where are the six bullets Michael had just taken to the chest?)
The fake ending, in which the
Haddonfield mob finally appears to get the best of their boogeyman with a
bad-ass beatdown, only for Michael to gain the unsurprising upper hand and give
them all a little what-for, is terrific, exciting, and that offers the audience some manipulative catharsis—but in a
strange way, also offers the audience a little hope. “He’s turned us all into
monsters,” Brackett says following the hospital mob’s near-lynching of an
innocent man, which may be the moral of Halloween
Kills: no matter how vicious Haddonfield’s people become—and really,
they're us; we’re that mob—we can
never be as evil, black, and unfeeling as The Shape. In this scary day and age,
I’ll take it.
Halloween Kills chooses to end with a shocker of a moment—the death
of Karen (Judy Greer), which doesn’t just play out in Judith Myers’s old bedroom
in the fabulously restored Myers house, but is even executed in the same way as
Judith’s death in 1963: thrashing hands, obscured points of view—no glimpses of actual
violent penetration, but still uncomfortable to witness. I’m surprised they
didn’t pop in the ol’ eye-hole stencil to give us a look through Michael’s
mask. A move like this is pretty ballsy, and is frankly the only important thing that happens in the entire movie, because it now means Laurie Strode,
technically, has failed—that the years and years she spent training her
daughter to survive against the evil in the world, which did
permanent damage to their relationship and shaped them both into broken people,
didn’t mean a damn thing in the end. And with the recent revelation that Halloween Ends is going to be set four
years after the events of Halloween '18 and Halloween Kills, that’s
plenty of time for Laurie to grow even crazier. And for the series to grow
crazier, too.
If I had to break down this
entire manifesto into one sentence, it would be this: Halloween Kills is a good slasher movie, but a bad movie in
general…and yet I still kinda liked it. In spite of its hideous dialogue ("Evil dies tonight!") and aimless plot, I've actually been thinking about it off-and-on since having watched it, which is more than I can say about some other "better" flicks I've caught recently. No matter on what side of the fence you
land, you can’t deny Halloween Kills
offers a new flavor to the unkillable series, made with a certain operatic and violent flamboyance that’s difficult to shake. I don’t know why, but I have this odd feeling,
in years to come, it’s going to enjoy a ground-up reevaluation—either by the first-round
audiences left underwhelmed during its preliminary release, or by the next
generation of viewers who find it, similar to how the wonky Halloween III: Season of the Witch has been recently embraced after
so many years of dismissal. Love it or hate it, Halloween Kills may very well have staying power, and I’ll be morbidly
interested to see how it holds up in five, ten, or forty years from now.