CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Halloween (1978)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Halloween (1978)

post #1 of 158
9/10/08 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
Watched this the other day because I'm already seeing Halloween decorations and such up. Got me in the mood. Sorry if there's already a thread on this, but I searched.

I probably watched this on TV more than any other movie when I was a kid, and it scared the piss out of me back then. The build is very slow, but not boring. Even with many previous viewings, I was surprised at how engaged I was by the film's climax.

I also love Carpenter's use of themes (even though, by his own admission, many of them related to sexual promiscuity and teenage misbehavior are unintentional). I'm more than willing to accept that Michael Myers is a normal, happy kid who just turns evil, giving the idea that evil and death can strike at any time. It's much scarier than thinking Myers was a white trash kid whose abusive parents and pre-teen angst drove him to murder.

Things that don't hold up well:
* The girl dialogue. "Totally." Is this just how they talked in the 1970's?
* I really don't see why Loomis is blamed for Michael's escape by the town sheriff. Unneeded.
* You never get a really good look at P.J. Soles' rockin' tits.

Things that hold up very well:
* Michael Myers' look and presence. Simple, but scary. It's amazing to me that in 7 sequels and one remake (all with bigger budgets), they couldn't recreate a guy wearing ratty coveralls and a William Shatner mask.
* The music. God bless Carpenter. There is some synth that gets a little repetitive (the opening scene), but that piano still creates a very eerie atmosphere.
* Pleasance as Loomis. Without him, this movie would be half of what it was. It gets campy at times, but Loomis' dialogue of Michael's evil work still work.
* The ending. Done to death now, but still cool. Pleasance makes it work.

Agree/Disagree?
Reply
post #2 of 158
9/10/08 at 6:04pm
My favourite film of all time. Simple as that.

I love that Sheriff Brackett unleashes on Loomis in the sequel ("You LET HIM OUUUUUUT!!") then vanishes from the picture altogether.

Even "Totally" works for me.

Agree that Myers as a normal kid is better and much scarier than what Zombie turned him into.

I can't find anything bad to say about it, other than nighttime instantly appears when Annie drives around a corner. I still find enjoyment in that though.
Reply
post #3 of 158
9/10/08 at 7:56pm
What impresses me is how unsettling even the daylight scenes are. Myers just staring up at Laurie from her backyard is so fucking creepy and ominous. Carpenter really worked the slow build, and it sure pays off.

Pleasance's overacting actually works for the film. His constantly being on the verge of hysteria really keeps you on edge.
Reply
post #4 of 158
9/10/08 at 8:11pm
I don't think Carpenter suggested that Michael was a normal, happy kid who "turned" evil. Granted, he leaves it open in the literal sense, but throughout the film Loomis is infusing the story with the idea that he is purely and simply evil, i.e., was born that way.

Maybe that's what you guys were gettng at, but it didn't seem that way. I don't think he was ever meant to be considered normal himself. That's more a comment about his environment than anything else.
Reply
post #5 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:26pm
I agree with Banks. Loomis spends most of his time running around trying to convince people this is one evil motherfucker. No redemption, no conscience. Just a killer.

I can't comment on Zombie's take because I've sworn never to watch it but from what I do know he seemed to want to whack the audience over the head with Myer's "evilness" and give us reasons why. Carpenter's works much better because he just "is". It's far scarier to imagine someone just being broken from an otherwise normal world than drowning us with pyscho babble, horrible enviroment bullshit.
Reply
post #6 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:31pm
The rewatch value in this film for me is the charm of the idea that with enough style and the right lenses, you can craft a perfect little horror film for damn near no money. I love how simple (but not simplistic) the execution is.

And hell yes on the effective daytime scenes. I'll sit through Halloween 2 and The Fog on account of Cundey.
Reply
post #7 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:32pm
Yeah, the reason Zombie's version is less scary is because he has reasons for being evil, Carpenter's version just is.
Reply
post #8 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:36pm
Yeah the idea was Michael Myers is "Random, Anonymous Evil" That's a a theme in almost every Carpenter film.

I didn't bother with the remake, but just reading about it on CHUD I knew they missed the point by saying in effect "it's his environment!"

It's also amazing to realize just how many films riffed off of or stole from Halloween.

Finally, this is also the film that unleashed Jamie Lee Curtis on the world, and we've never been the same. After Halloween, Trading Places became inevitable!
Reply
post #9 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:36pm
I agree on the daylight scenes being just as frightening as the nighttime ones. This is a damn great movie, and Carpenter's master of 2.35:1 makes the movie look like it was shot for 10 million dollars.
Reply
post #10 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) View Post
I agree on the daylight scenes being just as frightening as the nighttime ones. This is a damn great movie, and Carpenter's master of 2.35:1 makes the movie look like it was shot for 10 million dollars.
He did something similiar on The Fog. Carpenter says it takes away the "cheapness" of the film by shooting it like that.
Reply
post #11 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
I agree with Banks. Loomis spends most of his time running around trying to convince people this is one evil motherfucker. No redemption, no conscience. Just a killer.
.
Yes! And that is actually a standard 70's horror trope: the Authority Figure who fails or is corrupt. Loomis's profession posits that he can cure people or at least mitagate their mental illness; with Myers he 1) admits defeat because he recognizes true evil 2) fails his patient, depending on your point of view.

See also the Mayor in Jaws and the Priest in Salem's Lot )book and movie versions) for two otbher examples
Reply
post #12 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
He did something similiar on The Fog. Carpenter says it takes away the "cheapness" of the film by shooting it like that.
I remember seeing that on the documentary on my dvd of The Fog. It really does work too.
Reply
post #13 of 158
9/10/08 at 11:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
Yes! And that is actually a standard 70's horror trope: the Authority Figure who fails or is corrupt. Loomis's profession posits that he can cure people or at least mitagate their mental illness; with Myers he 1) admits defeat because he recognizes true evil 2) fails his patient, depending on your point of view.

See also the Mayor in Jaws and the Priest in Salem's Lot )book and movie versions) for two otbher examples
I disagree. I've always seen Loomis as a Cassandra type. He's warning everybody about Myers and nobody listens. Loomis didn't fail in my eyes. Everybody failed Loomis for not heeding his warnings. How many Docs you know that walk around with a loaded handgun ready to drop a patient? Loomis is the only one who sees the solution: Kill Myers because you can't cure him, you can't hope to contain him forever because things like his escape can happen and endanger a whole lot of people.
Reply
post #14 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
I disagree. I've always seen Loomis as a Cassandra type. He's warning everybody about Myers and nobody listens. Loomis didn't fail in my eyes. Everybody failed Loomis for not heeding his warnings. How many Docs you know that walk around with a loaded handgun ready to drop a patient? Loomis is the only one who sees the solution: Kill Myers because you can't cure him, you can't hope to contain him forever because things like his escape can happen and endanger a whole lot of people.
That's interesting, but it does not negate my take. As someone noted above, Loomis is in a state of near hysteria the whole movie...not exactly the way to convince someone you are being "fair and balanced" to coin a phrase. And I think he is hysterical because he thought he could just keep Myers locked away forever..or that Myers would remain inactive.
Reply
post #15 of 158
9/11/08 at 1:07am
Zombie's version, at least the first half, is like a cross between an Afterschool Special and the most violent episode of Hee Haw ever filmed.

Back to Carpenter. What he does better than anyone is projecting such menace through stillness. Half of Myers scenes in Halloween are just him standing still just staring at someone. See also: the shadowy ghosts on board the boat at the beginning of The Fog and the dead physicist standing alone in the church commons ("I have a message, and you're not going to like it!") or the "thing" in the archway from the future in Prince of Darkness.
Reply
post #16 of 158
9/11/08 at 1:16am
I've long been of the opinion that consciously or unconsciously Carpenter tried to engender a sort of Lovecraftian milieu (if not specifically tapping into the mythology) with Myers nondescript or "nameless" type of evil, hence referring to him as "The Shape" when he's masked. Seeing as how Carpenter is a professed Lovecraft fan, I don't know if that's caught on anywhere else or not.

Also, and I think I'll give myself credit for this, I dare anyone to watch Charles Heston's second film, Dark City (1950), and not see some very specific parallels w/ Carpenter's film. Heston is one of a group of card sharks in Vegas who drain some sucker at a poker game. Ruined, the man kills himself, inspiring his murderous and nearly inhuman older brother to track down Heston and his friends and kill them one by one. It's film noir, but it's also an early example of a slasher film. The killer is never named, he never speaks, he mostly kills with his bare hands, and his face is never shown until the end of the film, and only for a split second, where he is...wait for it...shot of a window. You have to see how everything is framed and how scenes are composed to get the full impact of what I'm talking about, but I found the similarities to be rather striking.
Reply
post #17 of 158
9/11/08 at 1:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero View Post
I don't think Carpenter suggested that Michael was a normal, happy kid who "turned" evil. Granted, he leaves it open in the literal sense, but throughout the film Loomis is infusing the story with the idea that he is purely and simply evil, i.e., was born that way.
There was no "turn" with Michael, but it's definitely suggested he was a normal kid before his sister's murder who just instantly became evil. Nothing really made him evil, and that's what makes the film so scary. Evil just exists. I feel like this idea goes with Loomis' preaching.
Reply
post #18 of 158
9/11/08 at 1:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
That's interesting, but it does not negate my take. As someone noted above, Loomis is in a state of near hysteria the whole movie...not exactly the way to convince someone you are being "fair and balanced" to coin a phrase. And I think he is hysterical because he thought he could just keep Myers locked away forever..or that Myers would remain inactive.
The only reason Loomis is in "near hyseria" is because he's scared shitless. Everybody else is dismissive of him..the other doctors, Nurse Chambers, Sherriff Brackett in the beginning. Everybody's like "oh that whacky Loomis. Myers is just a nutjob who's been in a near vegatative state for how many years? It can't possibly be that bad..."

I don't know where you get the idea of Loomis thinking Myers would "remain inactive". Loomis' fear of his escape, his reaction to the actual escape and what he thinks Myers is speaks to the exact opposite.
Reply
post #19 of 158
9/11/08 at 1:45am
Still one of the best movies ever made.

P.J. Soles and "Totally" grate ever so slightly but not enough for me to really take off points for it.

I'm more into Rob Zombie's take once it becomes a slasher movie at the end. At least then it's goofy fun. The first half is positively retarded but when he kills the kid with the tree branch I still find myself impressed for about half a second.
Reply
post #20 of 158
9/11/08 at 10:02am
I pull out the Halloween DVD at least two or three times a year, and every time I'm still blown away. This movie should be required viewing for anyone wanting to make a horror film. Scratch that...anyone wanting to make a film period. Carpenter nailed pretty much everything in this film (cinematography, score, casting, structure).
Reply
post #21 of 158
9/11/08 at 10:25am
I guess I'm only reiterating a few points here, but:

Hands down, the scene in which Laurie notices Michael staring up at her from the neighboring yard remains, in my mind, one of the scariest moments in film history. It's unnatural to have horror play out in daylight and Carpenter does it so effectively here. Just brilliantly done.

Giving Michael a backstory was probably Rob Zombie's greatest failing. Michael's the Boogeyman. The Boogeyman doesn't need a psychological explanation for why he is the way he is. He's just total, insensate evil... a force of nature. To try to build some abusive back story essentially neuters the character. If Zombie is half the horror fan he claims to be, it's amazing he couldn't figure this out for himself (or, perhaps more amazing, that he chose to ignore it). As a side note, I cannot believe how many people have tried to argue with me about why Zombie's depiction is awesome "cuz it totally gets you in his head and makes you understand why he's doing that stuff..."

Also, this thread (which has been done a million times, but never gets tiresome) reminded me of this: Halloween (1978) - The Rob Zombie Version.
Reply
post #22 of 158
9/11/08 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
As a side note, I cannot believe how many people have tried to argue with me about why Zombie's depiction is awesome "cuz it totally gets you in his head and makes you understand why he's doing that stuff..."
I've yet to meet someone who liked Zombie's remake that didn't love his previous movies. Also, those same fans can't seem to tell the quality difference between House of 1,000 Corpses and the Devil's Rejects(which is HUGE in my opinion). I think Rob Zombie has his own little group of (far less annoying)juggalos, or Browncoats, if you prefer, who love everything he does no matter what.

I say this being a fan of the Devil's Rejects and some of his music, particularly White Zombie stuff. As well as a fan of Firefly.

Sorry for the derail.
Halloween('78) is a movie I've never truly loved, I think due to me not being a big fan of the slasher subgenre. I also got around to watching it after I had been spoiled by lots of other Carpenter greatness, especially the Thing. I appreciate it more every time I see it though. For the great stuff done on a low budget, the broad daylight scenes that still manage to be chilling, an almost total lack of gore(polar opposite to the Thing on that one), and the wonderful score.
Micheal unmasked in that one bit, even though it's just a normal guy, scares the shit out of me for some reason.

Gotta love the slow "head tilt" too.
Reply
post #23 of 158
9/11/08 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ritter View Post
There was no "turn" with Michael, but it's definitely suggested he was a normal kid before his sister's murder who just instantly became evil. Nothing really made him evil, and that's what makes the film so scary. Evil just exists.
The second part of your post doesn't seem to agree with the first. If nothing made him evil and evil just exists, how could he be a normal kid who just instantly became evil? But more to the point, where in the movie is it "definitely" suggested that was a normal kid who instantly became evil? There's nothing in the film to suggest how he got to the point of killing his sister except for Loomis's ravings about the boy being simply evil, which again, implies that he was evil incarnate and born that way. Everything about how he is portrayed goes along with that.
Reply
post #24 of 158
9/11/08 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakespeare View Post

P.J. Soles and "Totally" grate ever so slightly but not enough for me to really take off points for it.
I find Nancy Loomis much more annoying. As Rifftrax puts it, "My friend, Annie: the bitter, hateful hag."
Reply
post #25 of 158
9/11/08 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I find Nancy Loomis much more annoying. As Rifftrax puts it, "My friend, Annie: the bitter, hateful hag."
Awesome. And true.
Reply
post #26 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I find Nancy Loomis much more annoying. As Rifftrax puts it, "My friend, Annie: the bitter, hateful hag."
Seriously, why does Paul put up with that shit?
Reply
post #27 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:21pm
Probably because having those knee-socked legs wrapped around you would momentarily make you forget her personality.
Reply
post #28 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:32pm
What do you think Ben Tramer was like? Good enough for Lori? Strong, silent type?

I can't believe there's even any argument about Mike Myers, and when he 'turned' evil. As Banks has pointed out, he just is. Carpenter never gives you anything else to suggest otherwise, and to think otherwise misses the point of the movie, I think.
Reply
post #29 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Fordyce View Post
What do you think Ben Tramer was like? Good enough for Lori? Strong, silent type?
I like that, in Halloween 2, we find out that 2 dudes who are into Laurie are walking around Haddonfield in the same stupid mask.

Also, Tommy Doyle is a bitch. Even when Paul Rudd played him in part 6.
Reply
post #30 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankytheHack
Probably because having those knee-socked legs wrapped around you would momentarily make you forget her personality.
Granted, Paul's a horny teenager, but she can't be the only girl he's got available to him, and already she's a nag, calling him out on his hysterical egg-flinging antics. And just think of that voice yelling at you to do it right, faster, harder, why the fuck can't you go faster, no don't stop, what the fuck, that's all? She's not even that attractive.

That said, Paul's gotta be pretty fucked up after that night, right? She was strangled in a car while trying to go fuck him. You think he ever recovered from that? Every time he gets close to having sex, he just breaks down crying. Then, when he gets over the crying phase, he demands autoasphyxiation. Before crying some more.
Reply
post #31 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Also, Tommy Doyle is a bitch.
Yeah, but his pimp hand was strong while wearing that Evil Knievel/Astronaut outfit. Just check out the way Lindsey Wallace was all about that action.
Reply
post #32 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:53pm
Whatever. Lindsey Wallace was a hag-in-training.
Reply
post #33 of 158
9/11/08 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero View Post
Whatever. Lindsey Wallace was a hag-in-training.
As are all women. Amiright, fellas? Fellas?
Reply
post #34 of 158
9/11/08 at 10:10pm
Thread Starter 
Even so, I don't think the characters of Lynda and Annie are unlikable. We care about them because they're Laurie's friends (though they do poke fun at her, it's never malicious). One of the most horrifying parts of the movie comes when Laurie finds their bodies in the bedroom. She's not screaming because she saw a dead body. She's screaming because they're her friends. For me, that scene (along with the scene where she unsuccessfully screams for help from the neighbors) is Curtis' shining moment in the movie.
Reply
post #35 of 158
9/12/08 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
Halloween('78) is a movie I've never truly loved, I think due to me not being a big fan of the slasher subgenre. I also got around to watching it after I had been spoiled by lots of other Carpenter greatness, especially the Thing. I appreciate it more every time I see it though. For the great stuff done on a low budget, the broad daylight scenes that still manage to be chilling, an almost total lack of gore(polar opposite to the Thing on that one), and the wonderful score.
Micheal unmasked in that one bit, even though it's just a normal guy, scares the shit out of me for some reason.

Gotta love the slow "head tilt" too.
I'm there too. I didn't catch this till college. I'm more of a monster/spook guy than a slasher guy, even if I've seen a bevy of post-Halloween slasher films (part of the problem there). I'll take a SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or SE7EN before a "guy with a knife after some teen girls" movie... maybe it's the detective work that adds something more for me. Unlike PSYCHO (which is also an influence on the genre and has permeated culture so much), HALLOWEEN just never gripped me. I probably prefer most of Carpenter's catalog (especially the Kurt Russel flicks) to HALLOWEEN.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. Maybe I need to revisit it. I'm a different film-geek now (and an amateur film-maker myself), so even if I don't love it, I can still appreciate the craft on display and the effect it had on the genre.
Reply
post #36 of 158
9/12/08 at 11:58am
See, I've always been a fan of horror and the supernatural. As a little kid, it didn't take long for me to make the jump from the Wicked Witch of the West to Jason and Freddy (no matter how badly they terrified me, I kept coming back for more). Curiously, I think I saw all of the Halloween films, with the exception of the original, by the time I was 13 or so. I didn't see the original until I was 19 or 20, however. And the thing is: I remember being profoundly disappointed when I did see it. That was it? Where was the terror? Where was the gore? What the hell? Looking back, I think my disappointment was (obviously) a function of my prior familiarity with the films that had built themselves on the shoulders of John Carpenter and Halloween. Now, however, I find myself appreciating the film more and more. It's not just a good horror film, it's a good film. As mentioned in previous posts, Carpenter somehow manages to bring terror through the simplicity of a still image or the broad daylight of an autumn afternoon. And in such simplicity, he manages to extract more scares than any Saw or "J-Horror" film ever could. So, clowns who view the film looking for a kick-ass slasher are bound to be disappointed. People who view the film looking for a quality horror film are more likely to walk away satisfied.
Reply
post #37 of 158
9/12/08 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Sorry to be a wet blanket. Maybe I need to revisit it. I'm a different film-geek now (and an amateur film-maker myself), so even if I don't love it, I can still appreciate the craft on display and the effect it had on the genre.
I certainly can't tell you you'll be freaked out if you see it again at this point, but I do think you should give it another chance to appreciate the craft alone. The opening sequence is still a fucking masterwork no matter how jaded to slasher pics you might be. What strikes me about the film every time I see it is Carpenter's use of empty space. This has to do both with shot construction as well as sound design. I just love the stillness of the film. It doesn't work to unsettle me the way it used to, but it sure as hell works to engage the film geek in me.
Reply
post #38 of 158
9/12/08 at 12:10pm
This is my favorite film of all time. No matter how many times I watch it, it never loses its potency. The shot of Myers sitting up and turning his head to look at Laurie is pure perfection, and pretty much responsible for creating the "unstoppable slasher killer" sub-genre.
Reply
post #39 of 158
9/12/08 at 7:22pm
I think where Rob Zombie fucked up is in attaching a thirty minute cut of the orginal. He should have just commited, kept his Meyer's backstory going until the 90 minute mark, and then simply cut to black mid scene as he's breaking out of the hospital. No summation, no attempt to reproduce the original. It would leave you as dumbfounded as the movie he did make, and making as much sense that it even exists.
Reply
post #40 of 158
9/12/08 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Dnim View Post
I think where Rob Zombie fucked up is in attaching a thirty minute cut of the orginal. He should have just commited, kept his Meyer's backstory going until the 90 minute mark, and then simply cut to black mid scene as he's breaking out of the hospital. No summation, no attempt to reproduce the original. It would leave you as dumbfounded as the movie he did make, and making as much sense that it even exists.
However, that would have eliminated the only worthwhile aspects of the whole film: Lynda and Annie nudity!
Reply
post #41 of 158
9/12/08 at 11:52pm
Thread Starter 
Giving Michael any kind of backstory is a terrible idea and only makes him less scary. He is evil and death that can't be stopped. That's all you need to know about him.

Carpenter has admitted that writing Laurie to be Michael's sister in H2 was a big flub on his part. It turns Michael from this "force of nature" to someone just trying to finish the job of killing his family. Damn sequels fucking everything up. The only sequel that comes anywhere close to touching the greatness of the original is part 4.
Reply
post #42 of 158
9/12/08 at 11:59pm
I don't get this movie. I mean on a personal level. I can enjoy it on a technical level and see why people would say that this is a great horror movie, but for me, I'm not remotely scared by this movie.
Reply
post #43 of 158
9/14/08 at 1:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
I don't get this movie. I mean on a personal level. I can enjoy it on a technical level and see why people would say that this is a great horror movie, but for me, I'm not remotely scared by this movie.
What scares you? Halloween (like very Carpenter movie) is about creating an atmosphere. In The Thing it's about the claustrophbia and the encroaching sense of paranoia it brings. In the Mouth of Madness is about the loss of the rational and the plunging of the normal, sane world into a hellish nightmare of insanity.

Halloween is about the ever present spectre of death that Myers represents. He can be anywhere at anytime. You're not safe, you'll never be safe because he's always there..waiting. The final shots of the movie speak to this in my mind.
Reply
post #44 of 158
9/14/08 at 1:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
What scares you? Halloween (like very Carpenter movie) is about creating an atmosphere. In The Thing it's about the claustrophbia and the encroaching sense of paranoia it brings. In the Mouth of Madness is about the loss of the rational and the plunging of the normal, sane world into a hellish nightmare of insanity.
I've only been remotely freaked out by three movies. Gremlins 2 when I was like eight. The Ring and 1408. Nothing else.
Reply
post #45 of 158
9/14/08 at 3:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
I've only been remotely freaked out by three movies. Gremlins 2 when I was like eight. The Ring and 1408. Nothing else.
1408??? Did you have a lifelong fear of a mini-Samuel Jackson?
Reply
post #46 of 158
9/14/08 at 3:35am
I have no idea why that movie freaked me out. It wasn't much, but it was one of the few that stuck with me any time after watching it. Don't you judge me.
Reply
post #47 of 158
9/14/08 at 7:02am
Halloween is on my list of the 40 greatest films of all time. What's impressive about that to me is that I really don't like slasher films. At all. I think they're a lazy, brainless, rail-shooter of a movie genre, and I'd be very happy to never see another one released. Almost every one of them sucks. Halloween, and of course, Psycho, rise above the genre (which they can both lay claim to having partially invented...fuck Friday the 13th) through plain and simple great filmmaking technique.

That moment when "The Shape" melts out of the shadow in the hall behind Laurie just about makes me piss my pants, even though I know exactly when it happens. The final moment when they look out the window, and he isn't there, is an amazing moment of dread. Both of these moments are fairly obvious in a storytelling sense, but they work through sheer artistry. The bastard children that this movie spawned never learned that lesson. It was all about escalation of the body count, more explicit gore, and more creative ways of killing people.

Halloween has never been topped. I doubt that it ever will be. Its spawn have so polluted the genre that their excesses have become the baseline that anyone working in it is expected to follow.
Reply
post #48 of 158
9/14/08 at 1:26pm
I love the story on the DVD where Pleasance suggests the two different ways to play his reaction shot upon discovering Michael has escaped at the end. Either "Oh my God! I can't believe this happened!" or (the version they went with) "I knew this was going to happen." That's why Loomis' character really helps build the level of fear in the film. He knew he was the Boogeyman from frame one.
Reply
post #49 of 158
9/14/08 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I love the story on the DVD where Pleasance suggests the two different ways to play his reaction shot upon discovering Michael has escaped at the end. Either "Oh my God! I can't believe this happened!" or (the version they went with) "I knew this was going to happen." That's why Loomis' character really helps build the level of fear in the film. He knew he was the Boogeyman from frame one.
I hate that at the beginning of HALLOWEEN 2 it's the "Oh my God! I can't believe this happened!" reaction. Along with Michael falling from the front of the house now. What a fuck-up.
Reply
post #50 of 158
9/14/08 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 
If we're going to talk about sequels:

H2 - Very mediocre. Rick Rosenthal badly rips off Carpenter's direction. Jamie Lee looks pretty bored. Pleasance, again, has some good moments. Leo Rossi rocks as Bud. My hero.

H3 - Only watched parts of it on TV.

H4 - Gets it pretty right. Ellie Cornell is a decent Laurie-type character, and Danielle Harris is wonderful. The ending was great.

H5 - Danielle Harris proves she's probably one of the best child actors in film, which is about the only thing that gets me through this movie.

H6 - The good: Paul Rudd/Pleasance. The bad: Everything else.

H20 - Not bad, but not good. Pleasance is sorely missed. Jamie Lee does look pretty energetic, however.

H8 - The worst of all of these movies. Even worse than...

RZH - I didn't pay much attention while watching it, as I was completely uninterested. I suppose that was for the best.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Halloween (1978)