I thought that I could keep my thoughts to myself, but I cannot. Y'all are getting my analysis on H.alloween K.ills; I am so sorry. SPOILER WARNING FOR H.ALLOWEEN K.ILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a very long post so thank you if you take the time to read it. If you do read it please feel free to share your thoughts!
We know that Halloween 2018 pretty much wiped everything from the film's canon save for the first film — but everything else that occurred in all the other films was taken away contextually from the film's canon and essentially made this series reborn. This, for me, takes away from the weight of Laurie's actions. For example, her experiences in ALL the films could easily be used to explain the ruined relationship between her and her daughter. This understanding falls short by erasing all of that (the previous films save for the first one) in the canon of Halloween 2018. But we are not here to discuss that; we are here to discuss Halloween Kills.
Like in Halloween II, Laurie and her presence are pretty removed from the film since she is in the hospital. As such, there is a MAJOR focus on the town and how Michael has become this demonic figure within Haddonfield. On a side note, we also get a nod to Season of the Witch with the Halloween masks in the park, and personally, I found Season of the Witch to be one of the worst ones within the franchise, but I digress. While the film does a great job at demonstrating mob mentality and how mobs can (and often do) become blind with rage, the film still falls very short for me. This leads to the death of an innocent man who the mob believed was Michael, and their proof for this is "we've never seen his face." This point, to me, makes little sense considering the fact that Michael has always been portrayed on the taller side. You expect me to believe that this escaped inmate who is for sure shorter than Michael and is asking for help is Michael? We, the viewers (and Laurie and her family), know this is not him. But you also expect me to believe that THE Laurie is telling you this man isn't Michael, and you are still going to be like, "evil dies tonight!"? While this could be a just a me thing, I find it pretty hard to believe. The only justification for this lies within the psychology behind mob mentality, but again, I digress. But this man wasn't even in the iconic boiler suit and mask, so again, you REALLY expect me to believe that everyone is okay to believe that this unmasked man is Michael?
Furthermore, Michael had to have HAD a trial. During this trial, there was no way that he was allowed to wear that mask, which means his face was publicized. So you truly expect this plot point of "nobody knows what Michael looks like" to be that believable? He spent four years in a mental institution for the criminally insane. For him to get sentenced to a mental institution for the criminally insane, there had to be a trial. Not to mention Dr. Loomis would have been able to provide a very detailed description of what he looked like to authorities when he escaped the first time. For these reasons, I find it extremely hard to believe that NOBODY knew what he looked like for such a notorious person within the town. But for the sake of the boogeyman character and the idea of a faceless man stalking a town, you could say this is just a plot device, albeit a very nonsensical one.
The film ends with a setup for Halloween Ends, which is totally fine films do that all the time. Perhaps this will end with the notion that for Michael to die, so too must Laurie or the notion that Laurie is the only one who can kill him. But this post is not about speculation for that film; rather, I will get back to discussing my thoughts on the film. This film brought this side-plot of vigilantism (which I would argue nobody really asked for) and focuses highly on the citizens of Haddonfield who create a mob to hunt down and kill Michael — something that nobody has been able to do. This film portrays heavily the theme of what fear can do to a community, which on the surface level can truly be a good plot device and concept for a film. But within the context of the Halloween franchise, I think that this theme and plot device fell short, especially since Halloween 2018 set up the notion that Laurie was a recluse shut-in waiting for the day that Michael by chance finds her and comes for her.
In the film, we have this line "Michael Myers has haunted this town for 40 years". This established that Michael is a pretty well-known figure in Haddonfield. He is the boogeyman etched into the town's history. With this long history, you would think that people would try and scare their kids (or younger siblings) with the idea that "you better be careful or Michael will get you." However, in the film, some trick or treaters are asked "do you know who [he] is?" they reply "no." Either the boogeyman (Michael Myers) is a well-known figure or he isn't. You cannot have it both ways. Either Michael has been haunting the town for forty years, and everyone would arguably know his story or some iteration of it, or not. This demonstrates a lack of continuity within the film and significant contradictions that take away from the plot.
Within the context of this film Halloween II onward has not happened, it is Halloween, Halloween 2018, and now Halloween Kills. This means that the plot of Laurie being Michael's sister who was given up for adoption is no longer true. These iterations also helped to establish the notion that Michael is some kind of supernatural-esque being who cannot die. Without them, within the context of this film's canon, we are led to believe that the boogeyman has been stalking the town for forty years and that he was supposed to die when the Strode family trapped him and set the house ablaze. However, this is not the first time the franchise has chosen to ignore aspects that the other films have set up within the timeline (case in point Halloween: H20 ignoring the Jamie Llyod material and picking up at the conclusion of Halloween II. It should also be mentioned that Rob Zombie's Halloween & Halloween II iterations can be considered stand-alone and retellings of the originals rather than something that is part of the main timeline). This new film completely (and rather blatantly, might I add) ignores how intertwined Michael and Laurie truly are. This film detracts from Laurie's character by criticizing her choices for wanting to end the horror that is Michael, which in all the other films she has set out to do.
Characters within the film make comments about how Michael "is turning them into monsters" and "anger divides us" feels really out of place for a slasher film. While these concepts could be utilized well in another genre, they do not feel relevant to a slasher. Additionally, Laurie makes a comment about how "the more he kills, the more he transcends." This, to me, detracts from the concept of a slasher film and makes it more about an eternal killer who ages but is also there stalking the night. To me, this film completely loses the cat-and-mouse game of the first film that made it really terrifying. This film seemed to pay more attention to the overkill of Michael's victims than anything else, and he certainly racked up a high kill count — Michael's horror and his roots do not lay within a numbers game. In the first film, he only killed five people, and yet it set the stage for a genuinely horrifying slasher! The film tries hard to have the audience mourn some of the onscreen deaths while also, in a way, scolding them for not mourning others. What I mean here is that some deaths are treated more seriously than others.
The film tries to tackle the concept of humanity through this vengeful mob, and within the context of the film (the original being the basis for this claim), it fails to be constructive commentary. Halloween never originally set out to have a profound message on moral complexities, but this film seems to go out of its way to try and do just that via the mob. Additionally, I think this iterations portrayal of Michael is exceptionally sloppy, to put it politely. At the start of the series, Michael is more humanized while still holding onto this otherworldly notion that he cannot die. However, this iteration portrays Michael as this being that is wrought with the tension between humanity and the monster beneath. If done well, this can be an extremely intriguing concept for a character. However, I feel that the tension is lost within this film. In this film, Michael seems far more playful than in the past when he is shown as being methodical.
In short, this film is inconsistent at best and sprinkles humor throughout (which within horror films, when done well, can add to the film, such as in Scream). By making the citizens of Haddonfield the monsters as well (in my opinion) undermines Michael Myers and lost a lot of its potential when it decided to turn the town folk into monsters as well in an attempt to comment about moral ambiguity.
1 note
·
View note
@morbidmourning asked: i really like how you give casey more than what we got. it warms my heart,truly. you really treasure her and made a whole life for her which is what she deserved tbh. you might as well own her.:) i love that about muses,you can add a lot to them and make them your own and you're very talented at doing just that.
☆ ━━ Count I am first going to say how much I love your OC and I am so happy we found each other via my Star blog!! Honestly, I adore Casey so much even though we only got to see her for the opening sequence, I am more than happy to take Casey from Wes Craven and give her a happy life!! Thank you so much, this honestly means so much to me and I truly do appreciate it!! You are such a wonderful person, thank you for taking the time to write such nice things!!
1 note
·
View note
@knifewields asked: i absolutely love your interpretation of casey. you manage to keep the sweet demeanor, and aspects of what the film gives of if casey, but also completely give life and body to an otherwise pretty one dimensional character. i love seeing you on the dash — you’re absolutely killing it.
☆ ━━ Em!!! This honestly means the world to me coming from you because you are one of the blogs I absolutely admire the most. Your Stu is top tier!! Thank you so much, words cannot even begin to express how I feel reading such kindness. You truly are one of the most amazing persons within the RPC okay?! I love seeing you on my dash as well (you are absolutely doing amazing with everyone you write!). I was so worried that what I was giving Casey would not adjust well to the aspects of her character that are canon within the film, so I am so happy that it has been working!! This honestly made me week! You are literally the best ♡
1 note
·
View note
GET TO KNOW THE MUN!
ONE ( ALIAS / NAME ): Morgen but you may call me morgs if you wish
TWO ( BIRTHDAY ): Aug 31st
THREE ( ZODIAC SIGN ): Virgo
FOUR ( HEIGHT ): 4′9 (i am but a smol 23 year old)
FIVE ( HOBBIES ): Hmm, I would say reading though I haven’t done a whole lot since I graduated uni and started working 40+ hrs. I guess you could say here as well since I spend my free time on here. Oh and getting tattoos! I am currently up to 7, my 7th one I just got a few weeks ago and it is very children of the corn-esque. I was considering posting a picture of that one but wasn’t sure if that would be weird rip.
SEVEN ( FAVOURITE BOOKS ): This is rude, how can I choose?? Umm, the Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky & the list goes on & on & on
EIGHT ( LAST SONG LISTENED TO ): Würst Vacation by Ice Nine Kills
NINE ( LAST SHOW WATCHED ): Peaky Blinders (I know I am late to the game)
TEN ( INSPIRATION FOR MUSE ): Well, I think that there is a lot that can be done for her character in terms of building upon it. I also tend to pick muses that are not as “popular” to write because they need love and representation!
ELEVEN ( MEANING BEHIND YOUR URL ): Well Casey was the first on screen death, making her the first one slashed in the context of the film’s canon (Maureen occurred arguably pre-canon and Steve was a very brief moment).
𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐆𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘: stole it from @inbelieve
𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆: YOU, say I tagged ya!!
1 note
·
View note