Jump to content
Eric Riley

Halloween Kills | October 15, 2021 | Uni/Blumhouse | Releases day-and-date in theaters and Peacock | 35% on RT

Recommended Posts

I was kind of hoping this entry would do similar business to the 2018 Halloween but I can totally understand why it wouldn't. Call it wishful thinking I guess. Plus, don't second entries in a trilogy usually make the least anyway? You have your big first entry, the middle entry where the excitement and novelty wears off a bit, and then you have your big finale and the gross goes up again!

 

Still, $40 million plus is Conjuring territory, which is to say it's top tier horror at the box office so I can't complain about that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

RT score is down to 46%

Call me naively optimistic, but slasher fans and critics rarely see eye to eye, so I’m still not concerned. Critics not liking it when it’s apparently off the scale gory isn’t that much of a surprise. I’m not expecting the greatest story from this, but a rage fuelled Michael Myers massacring everything in sight has the potential to be, at the very least, crowd pleasing.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SnokesLegs said:

Call me naively optimistic, but slasher fans and critics rarely see eye to eye, so I’m still not concerned. Critics not liking it when it’s apparently off the scale gory isn’t that much of a surprise. I’m not expecting the greatest story from this, but a rage fuelled Michael Myers massacring everything in sight has the potential to be, at the very least, crowd pleasing.

I agree. I don't use Rotten Tomatoes at all but I'm guessing for this kind of film not many people are using it. A critic's job is always to look for something more in each movie they watch but not all movies need something more. Halloween Kills doesn't need to be much more than what it already is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Stanley once said, "People listen with their eyes" when describing a period when the band found their sound again, but no one gave them a chance because they no longer liked their image. When the image became popular again, those records found new acclaim amongst fans. The Halloween franchise seems to run on that philosophy from its own fanbase. 


These movies run on the esthetics and less about story. And this movie will likely be divided right down those lines because the diehards will love the treatment with the mask and lighting, while the casual fans will be more about the story, or lack thereof. 


If you look at the history of this franchise, the movies that reboot (usually during an anniversary year) like H20 and H40 revisit the same framework of the original. The only difference is their starting point to pick up the narrative. What makes this particular movie such an eye brow raising moment is director David Gordon Green and his team of writers went back to the '78 original and supposedly eliminated everything after that, with the reasoning that they wanted to "ground" the character of Michael as he was in the first film and return him to just a human being. So much for truth in advertising...

While Halloween 2018 might have garnered interest from the general public when Green suggested he would forge his own path, he's actually been more like JJ Abrams. He's just taking all the plot points from the other films in the franchise and calling them his own. Hell KILLS even takes a scene from H2 in a flashback! Hows that for hypocrisy? 

But the one thing that just sounds the alarm bell in KILLS is that everything this creative team promised not to do like the others, they ARE doing... IN SPADES. Michael is EXACTLY as he was in H4, H5, and H6. He actually kills more people than all those films combined and displays the same immunity to gun shot blasts (at point blank range) and all the other bodily damage that would kill a "normal" person. So much for grounding the character. 

Even some of the esthetics fail, such as the flashback scenes. Myers house CLEARLY reads like a set piece (very much in the same vein as Resurrection). But of course they got his mask right, especially in the flashback scenes. So I imagine this will ultimately be what allot of fans grade this film on to forgive the rest. But from the directors chair, this reads like a fan made film with a Hollywood budget. Self aware, unoriginal, and full of winks to other entries to cover up the fact it can't move the needle on the story. This is a trilogy made as a cash grab, not because there were three films worth of story to tell. If the third film moves the needle at all, you can just skip right over this one and watch the last entry. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eastwood47 said:

Paul Stanley once said, "People listen with their eyes" when describing a period when the band found their sound again, but no one gave them a chance because they no longer liked their image. When the image became popular again, those records found new acclaim amongst fans. The Halloween franchise seems to run on that philosophy from its own fanbase. 


These movies run on the esthetics and less about story. And this movie will likely be divided right down those lines because the diehards will love the treatment with the mask and lighting, while the casual fans will be more about the story, or lack thereof. 


If you look at the history of this franchise, the movies that reboot (usually during an anniversary year) like H20 and H40 revisit the same framework of the original. The only difference is their starting point to pick up the narrative. What makes this particular movie such an eye brow raising moment is director David Gordon Green and his team of writers went back to the '78 original and supposedly eliminated everything after that, with the reasoning that they wanted to "ground" the character of Michael as he was in the first film and return him to just a human being. So much for truth in advertising...

While Halloween 2018 might have garnered interest from the general public when Green suggested he would forge his own path, he's actually been more like JJ Abrams. He's just taking all the plot points from the other films in the franchise and calling them his own. Hell KILLS even takes a scene from H2 in a flashback! Hows that for hypocrisy? 

But the one thing that just sounds the alarm bell in KILLS is that everything this creative team promised not to do like the others, they ARE doing... IN SPADES. Michael is EXACTLY as he was in H4, H5, and H6. He actually kills more people than all those films combined and displays the same immunity to gun shot blasts (at point blank range) and all the other bodily damage that would kill a "normal" person. So much for grounding the character. 

Even some of the esthetics fail, such as the flashback scenes. Myers house CLEARLY reads like a set piece (very much in the same vein as Resurrection). But of course they got his mask right, especially in the flashback scenes. So I imagine this will ultimately be what allot of fans grade this film on to forgive the rest. But from the directors chair, this reads like a fan made film with a Hollywood budget. Self aware, unoriginal, and full of winks to other entries to cover up the fact it can't move the needle on the story. This is a trilogy made as a cash grab, not because there were three films worth of story to tell. If the third film moves the needle at all, you can just skip right over this one and watch the last entry. 

 

This is sad to read but one always appreciate the truth nonetheless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SnokesLegs said:

Call me naively optimistic, but slasher fans and critics rarely see eye to eye, so I’m still not concerned. Critics not liking it when it’s apparently off the scale gory isn’t that much of a surprise. I’m not expecting the greatest story from this, but a rage fuelled Michael Myers massacring everything in sight has the potential to be, at the very least, crowd pleasing.

People I follow and love gory films just saw the film and outside of the gore, the movie has literally nothing going on. Kinda hard to give a shit when the deaths are of random characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eastwood47 said:

Paul Stanley once said, "People listen with their eyes" when describing a period when the band found their sound again, but no one gave them a chance because they no longer liked their image. When the image became popular again, those records found new acclaim amongst fans. The Halloween franchise seems to run on that philosophy from its own fanbase. 


These movies run on the esthetics and less about story. And this movie will likely be divided right down those lines because the diehards will love the treatment with the mask and lighting, while the casual fans will be more about the story, or lack thereof. 


If you look at the history of this franchise, the movies that reboot (usually during an anniversary year) like H20 and H40 revisit the same framework of the original. The only difference is their starting point to pick up the narrative. What makes this particular movie such an eye brow raising moment is director David Gordon Green and his team of writers went back to the '78 original and supposedly eliminated everything after that, with the reasoning that they wanted to "ground" the character of Michael as he was in the first film and return him to just a human being. So much for truth in advertising...

While Halloween 2018 might have garnered interest from the general public when Green suggested he would forge his own path, he's actually been more like JJ Abrams. He's just taking all the plot points from the other films in the franchise and calling them his own. Hell KILLS even takes a scene from H2 in a flashback! Hows that for hypocrisy? 

But the one thing that just sounds the alarm bell in KILLS is that everything this creative team promised not to do like the others, they ARE doing... IN SPADES. Michael is EXACTLY as he was in H4, H5, and H6. He actually kills more people than all those films combined and displays the same immunity to gun shot blasts (at point blank range) and all the other bodily damage that would kill a "normal" person. So much for grounding the character. 

Even some of the esthetics fail, such as the flashback scenes. Myers house CLEARLY reads like a set piece (very much in the same vein as Resurrection). But of course they got his mask right, especially in the flashback scenes. So I imagine this will ultimately be what allot of fans grade this film on to forgive the rest. But from the directors chair, this reads like a fan made film with a Hollywood budget. Self aware, unoriginal, and full of winks to other entries to cover up the fact it can't move the needle on the story. This is a trilogy made as a cash grab, not because there were three films worth of story to tell. If the third film moves the needle at all, you can just skip right over this one and watch the last entry. 

 

You said it as it is. These are exactly the problems with both filma. Let’s not forget the dialogues in this one, especially that “Evil dies tonight” moment. And correct me if I’m wrong, but was Green actually trying to give this film a deeper meaning, yet again, by comparing the situation in the film with the way Trump’s presidency was presented through the US media? (not just the mob mentality, but the overall unrest) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.