I personally thought it was worth it, and it is not pure hype, but to each their own, really. I rarely go to the theaters, so for me this was special and I don't regret it. But, others do.
I would recommend it, and not just for the movie, but also to support this film so others like it get made!
All hype. Severely underwhelming
shareSomewhere in between.
shareVery satisfied.
I like what James Rolfe (AVGN) said in his review. "For a Halloween sequel, it was about as good as it can be."
I get the feeling that some people wouldn't like it no matter what they did.
There are a lot of reviews that start out with "It doesn't live up to the original", and I have to stop reading them right there. Really? It doesn't live up to one of the most important and game-changing horror/independent films of all time? No shit!
I mean, I'm not sure what some people wanted. Michael Myers kills people on Halloween night... That's the show.
It's pure hype and anti-male. No exaggeration.
https://twitter.com/HuffPost/status/1053703983234273280
https://twitter.com/LGB92_/status/1053559091698774016
If I could turn back the clock, I would've saved my money and just waited for the Michael Myers scenes to hit YouTube.
It is insanely feminist! And hypermodernist. Pretty nihilist attitude towards men.
By the very end, all the women are alone and single! They don't need any man at all!
1) Laurie is divorced twice.
2) Laurie's daughter's husband is killed by Michael!
3) Allyson (granddaughter) ditched two guys.
This is a result of the events of the 20th century. Men are pretty disposable.
Yeah, the final act couldn't be more obvious. Gone are the days when cinema was pure escapism, modern day society has to rear its ugly head into everything.
shareYou're right man. If a girl isn't on screen to sleep with someone it's feminist garbage.
shareNot true, the men in this film were weak. I'm guessing this is because of toxic masculinity.
shareNo, I'm not against feminism. I'm just pointing out what I see in films. Myths, films, stories, etc. always show some subtle messages from the author's subconscious. Even the films of John Hughes are pretty dark, despite them being comedies.
shareDid anyone else receive a random vitriolic message from a user called deliciousffeet?
shareSo you guys equate your masculinity with the murderous, cold-blooded antics of a psychopathic killer who stalks babysitters and feel personally attacked when a movie takes a hardline stance against such a thing?
"ditched two guys". Are you kidding me? One was an unfaithful boyfriend who ruined her expensive phone and the other was a comically unsuccessful rapist.
"comically unsuccessful rapist" - you clearly have an axe to grind here, pure hyperbole and I don't recall such thing in the movie.
It's a horror film, why of all places would you want to insert messages about gender equality here? I'm not some reactionary, feminists picked up on it themselves and Jamie Lee Curtis more or less confirmed the message of empowerment in a press junket. Michael Myers is clearly, evidently defined as pure evil and has been since '78 and is fictitious, that's the premise but I don't idolise him. There were no positively portrayed men in this film, all the somewhat good ones were weak but not vise versa. That is inequality and if I were female you'd support my contention.
The fat guy put his disgusting lips on an unwilling female but was thankfully shut down quickly. It's at the very least sexual assault, and if a gay man did this to you, you'd probably support my contention.
shareRight, but because he was unattractive it was sexual assault? Yikes, he was an immature young man with raging hormones and he kissed her, it wasn't even sexual. It was an unwanted advance at most. Man, if anybody tried to kiss me and it was unsolicited I'd want them to leave me alone but I wouldn't cry rape for a kiss regardless of who they were. I'm introverted, that sort of thing doesn't fly with me.
shareIt's not just that he was unattractive, it's that she had to put up a fight to make him stop. Sorry, but....no. That character is simply not meant to be sympathetic.
shareAnd that ties together my point that every male character in this film is portrayed negatively.
shareThat's incorrect. The young gay boy and his dad, and the sheriff, and kid that's being babysat...not negatively portrayed. Even the boyfriend who gets pinned to the wall is only mildly annoying at best. And look - the douchebag boyfriend isn't even killed.
shareFair point but most of those characters were weak or slow. Now that you mention it, what was with the kid character? I had to look at the cast list as I was unsure of the gender. It shows Hollywood clearly has a problem with masculinity, I don't know exactly why or where this stems from but here it is.
https://www.ft.com/content/1b665952-af3f-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130
But we no longer have voice of reason male characters like Dr. Loomis or Obi-Wan anymore and that's sad.
In the first Halloween Loomis spent most of his time creeping in bushes. 😅
shareI honestly don't remember her "putting up a fight" to get him off her. I remember her saying a vehement "no" but not fighting him off. He was drunk / high, yes, but he was trying to make a move and failed. Not assault. Damn, so many women want the men to make the first move, but if the wrong guy does, it is assault! Thank god I'm past the dating phase and happily married! I would be single for life if I had to deal with the current dating mood! I'm shy enough as it is without all that!
shareYes, I did yesterday.
shareYes, I did.
shareIt's funny for you to complain about too many women in a Halloween film. Halloween is one of the first films with a "final girl," a female survivor and this film continues the trend. Triggered much?
shareIt is insanely feminist! And hypermodernist. Pretty nihilist attitude towards men.
By the very end, all the women are alone and single! They don't need any man at all!
--You can't be serious... how is this movie at all feminist.. the script requires everyone to be stupid at the right parts.. and at the end the 3 women together didn't put down the man; Michael, anyway. Should we read into this that not even 3 women with guns can't stop a man?
Completely satisfied. This was everything I wanted in a Halloween movie.
shareSatisfied for the most part. I only took issue with some of the pacing being a bit too fast, the unnecessary flashback scenes and the Doctor twist (which I didn't think was all that bad but just really weird and kind of pointless).
I suppose the ending is a bit disappointing too because it leaves it open just enough for another sequel but that was to be expected. Hopefully one more movie comes out and thats it but I highly doubt it.
Agree with you on the pacing and doctor twist.
Also the two sandwich eating cops scene was pointless
Not a perfect movie but close enough !
I LOVED IT. And I hardly ever say that
share
I'm not wasting my time and money, so obviously, I cannot comment on the film's merits one way or the other.
My issue is the ridiculous notion that we're supposed to buy that NO OTHER sequel was made (and there were too
many anyway, turning a classic indie into the fast food of movies). I get ignoring some of the sillier ones, but how
are we supposed to believe that the 1981 incidents DIDN'T happen, as well as the 1998 film? It's the same thing when
J.R.'s brother left "Dallas" "dead" for an entire season, then when he comes back, the previous season is supposed to
be a DREAM.
How could anyone sit through ANY of the sequels when there's NO cohesive value involved?
Just the studios looking for more money from these tired characters, and Jamie Lee Curtis clinging to her ONLY
memorable movie character. Ridiculous.