Comment
Comment
star3.5
I'll admit I've fallen prey to the predator that is classic horror nastalgia, even though my history with this series is quite a bumpy one at best, so there's no doubt about it - I noticed the nods to the original film, right down to copying camera angles. There is a part of me that wants to think that's so cool! However, there's also a part of me that has to admit when they go a bit too far with it. Halloween (2018) heavily relies on classic nostalgia to prove its point - that it is indeed a Halloween movie. The problem with that is that these shout outs limit the film's ability to be truly unique and original. Another issue I had with the film was its inability to provide the fans with a satisfying rendition of Laurie Strode. What we want was a strong, confident woman that somewhat resembled the likes of Sarah Conner or Carol in The Walking Dead - Somebody that would basically be Michael Myers's equal, his match, which would quite honestly be epic. Then again, I get it. They wanted horror, not an action film, so what we get is someone petrified, just another damsel in distress. She may be a little more prepared, but she is still a scared old woman in the end, which is a little dissatisfying. But there was good use of cinematography, lighting, and violence that made this movie look and feel incredibly well-done. I find it scarier than the original...but that's not so hard to find. I found the first film much more laughable than iconic. That is until I noticed all of the iconic imagery reused in this film. Water under the bridge, though. Right now, you must decide if it's worth the watch, and my personal opinion is it IS, but don't expect something mind-blowing or epic. It's just interesting.
00