DVD Review: Halloween
Published October 06, 2005
They get more effective by the second film, where some of the murders are worth waiting for, just to see 'how this creep dies' or 'that slut gets her commuppance'. Yup, also in the tradition of teenage horror flicks, Halloween follows the morality line, with each victim doing something unlikable to justify, however remotely, Myers gutting them.
Even the Undying Beast, so familiar from countless horror franchises now, seems original and fresh in the first sequel. The fact that they don't try to explain why with corny pseudo-scientific rationale just makes you respect the makers all the more. Like a force of nature, he just goes on, and it's only in the later sequels that that repeated 'fall and rise' of Michael Myers starts to get wearisome.
Which is why, unless you want to spend the whole night experiencing the diminishing returns principle, I'd advise you to go straight from Halloween I and II to Halloween H2O. It's set 20 years later, in the year Y2K. Jamie Lee Curtis returns, and so does Michael and the doc. And if you haven't watched the movies in between, it works almost as well as the first pair. In some ways, it's a pretty damn good third entry. If only so many other ripoffs hadn't played all the cards that are there to be played in this particular game of slash poker.
In the end, if you really want a night of quiet terror this Halloween season, then I can't recommend anything better than the film that took its name from the season. And lives up to it.
- DVD Review: Halloween
- Published: October 06, 2005
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Horror
- Writer: Ashok K. Banker
- Ashok K. Banker's BC Writer page
- Ashok K. Banker's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Nightmare not as violent as Halloween? :~) Sorry, but I just saw Nightmare last night again for the, oh, fiftieth time or so (another family member is a major Freddy Kruger fan) and it's got very strong sexuality and the violence is way over the top compared to Halloween. In fact, the Nightmare on Elm Street movies out-grossed (pun intended) other Eighties horror movies in the aspect of finding new and creative ways to 'off' their casts.
Thanks for the reco. Will definitely check out American Horror. Sounds like something I would write! :~)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/37503)
I agree that Halloween 1978 was and is an amazing horror film in many aspects. It launched a completely new sub-genre (slashers) and inspired a decade or more of horror films that brought a new vitality into the genre of horror. It came at a perfect time when adults had lost credibility in the eyes of the youth - as their parents had been hippies, drug users, and irresponsible...how could they tell us know. Additionally, the sexual revolution of the 70s was dying down - so a new look at morality caused for heroin's like Jamie Lee Curtis (who was a virgin, and thus was the only one able to actually see Mike Myers and know of his danger).
I do disagree with your criticims of its followers. First, Halloween has more nudity than FT13th by far, with 3 separate scenes involving breasts, one with full sex. Nightmare really had none and wasn't as violent as Halloween. Halloween set the pace for these, but they were creative in their own right and added to the movement of the slasher film. Movies like April Fools is where everything started to fall apart.
Good review though - have you read American Horror? Check it out - very textbookish, but intelligent.