In the 1970s, John Carpenter brought us a remarkable, atmospheric horror film called Halloween. Like all good films that are remotely successful, the moneymen of Hollywood just had to drag this one down into the mud of sequeldom. Twenty years later is a good subtitle for this film, as during a period of twenty years after the innovative original was released, the cinematic abortions that have had the name Halloween attached to them have sunk lower and lower.
One reason audiences cared so much for Laurie Strode in the original is that an inordinate amount of time was invested in building up her character. John Carpenter wisely invested a great deal of time in giving her a third dimension, and it paid off in spades. Her struggle with the massive shape hunting her hit a note with audiences because they were able to imagine themselves in a similar position. That, combined with another masterful score from Carpenter, proved just how much more important atmosphere is compared to gore in horror.
In case you haven't guessed by now, I've spelled out everything that is missing from Halloween H20, or Halloween Lite as it should be called. Nothing is known about most of the characters. Those who do have a background, Laurie and Michael, only achieve this relative feat due to the previous films. Laurie's son, his girlfriend, their schoolmates, they all might as well be cardboard for all the weight they add to the story.
People complain that there is a lack of blood or gore in this Halloween, but that isn't a fair comment. This film is no more or less bloody than the original Halloween, yet it has less than a tenth of the impact. The reason for this is as simple as it is obvious. Halloween spent a good portion of its running time setting a mood, be it through storytelling, immaculate photography, or one of the best scores ever composed by human hands. Halloween understood that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, and gave as much as detail as it could. In spite of running only six less minutes, Halloween Lite gives the appearance of containing profoundly less.
One day, Hollywood is going to realize how tired the public is of films that try to be hip. The more you have to tell your audience that you're the in thing, and are so cool you can't be ignored, the more you aren't. It's like a natural law. A variation on the law that states the more you tell people how hardcore you are, the more hardcore you aren't, but one that applies all the same. Still, more excruciating examples of what happens when you forget this principle exist within the Halloween franchise. Just look at the next godawful sequel.
I gave Halloween Lite a one out of ten. If you've seen the original Halloween, there is no good reason to see this installment. Nostalgia, hype, or even flat-out lies couldn't save this sequel. It's enough to make one wish Hollywood would stop bringing out so many films every week and instead concentrated on finding some new ideas.
One reason audiences cared so much for Laurie Strode in the original is that an inordinate amount of time was invested in building up her character. John Carpenter wisely invested a great deal of time in giving her a third dimension, and it paid off in spades. Her struggle with the massive shape hunting her hit a note with audiences because they were able to imagine themselves in a similar position. That, combined with another masterful score from Carpenter, proved just how much more important atmosphere is compared to gore in horror.
In case you haven't guessed by now, I've spelled out everything that is missing from Halloween H20, or Halloween Lite as it should be called. Nothing is known about most of the characters. Those who do have a background, Laurie and Michael, only achieve this relative feat due to the previous films. Laurie's son, his girlfriend, their schoolmates, they all might as well be cardboard for all the weight they add to the story.
People complain that there is a lack of blood or gore in this Halloween, but that isn't a fair comment. This film is no more or less bloody than the original Halloween, yet it has less than a tenth of the impact. The reason for this is as simple as it is obvious. Halloween spent a good portion of its running time setting a mood, be it through storytelling, immaculate photography, or one of the best scores ever composed by human hands. Halloween understood that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, and gave as much as detail as it could. In spite of running only six less minutes, Halloween Lite gives the appearance of containing profoundly less.
One day, Hollywood is going to realize how tired the public is of films that try to be hip. The more you have to tell your audience that you're the in thing, and are so cool you can't be ignored, the more you aren't. It's like a natural law. A variation on the law that states the more you tell people how hardcore you are, the more hardcore you aren't, but one that applies all the same. Still, more excruciating examples of what happens when you forget this principle exist within the Halloween franchise. Just look at the next godawful sequel.
I gave Halloween Lite a one out of ten. If you've seen the original Halloween, there is no good reason to see this installment. Nostalgia, hype, or even flat-out lies couldn't save this sequel. It's enough to make one wish Hollywood would stop bringing out so many films every week and instead concentrated on finding some new ideas.